Allan(nb Albert)

I was told all I do is spreadsheet.

As I recall, respondents were asked to propose up to five "issues" and chose from generic solutions. It is not very clear from the report what proportion proposed each issue so I have made a quick and dirty spreadsheet -

The concept of "place" does not exist for a HM'er because the law is silent on the matter.

Nigel seems to be suggesting that those without a home mooring can stay in one place for 14 days or longer, if reasonable (1995 Act), whilst those with a home mooring are subject to the whim of the navigation authority in this regard.

Technically, the 14 day rule is not law. British Waterways tried but failed to get restriction powers into the 1995 Act. Boaters without a home mooring may remain in one place for 14 days or longer if reasonable under the circumstances. No such restriction applies to boats with a home mooring. Although CRT claims such powers in its Terms and Conditions, it is probable that they do not exist. In any case, they can not be enforced because the 1995 Act limits the circumstances under which licences can be refused or revoked. As I have said before, what is reasonable can only be decided in a court of law.

Regarding my earlier assertion that only about 10% of consultation respondents supporting legislative change and a slightly higher number non legislative change. I have gone back to check the figures in Section 3 of the report. The reason this is important is that the TOR expect the Commission to make recommendations regarding legislative reform and non legislative reform. Purpose of review (from TOR) Expected output (from TOR) Looking at section 3.1 of the report - 6417 Section 3.2 - favoured solutions gives Section 3.2 does not make it clear if the 24% and 27% (and other figures given) relate to the 2,253 (48%) who mentioned issues or the 4,678 (100%) who responded to the survey. However Section 3.3 does make it clear that is 24% and 27% of those mentioning issues (thus the calculations are 48% x 24% and 48% x 27%) The bottom line is - Please note that in revisiting the above to check my understanding and provide exact figures, I have discovered an error in the report that potentially renders many figure inaccurate. I have reported it to the Commission. ***** Update *****. The error in the report is that CT give the number of respondents as 4,678 whilst Appendix 2 suggests that the figure is much higher at 6,417. This is due to a badly worded question which has allowed respondents to declare up to two "primary relationships" with the Trust. What seems to have happened is that about 25% of boaters have also declared a "primary relationship" of "towpath users" bumping the figures up. As far as I can tell most calculations in the report are based number of respondents rather than "primary relationships".

It would perhaps be fairer to say that those that responded to the survey were generally supportive of the position of those without a home mooring. ... and the Mr Man appears to have been quite open about weighting. I'm sure that if the Commission thought it would have been helpful, then it would have been put in at the draft report stage

Are you George Muddie MP by any chance? From 1993 Select Committee papers -

The Commission set up to review a future framework for boat licensing has now published a report of its online survey - https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/document/m_xW4P-PKnQQD99OtEm6Ng/CbEVxw2MUitcbuX6nmQckywXGg4n78cCL2kmXL0dCoo/aHR0cHM6Ly9jcnRwcm9kY21zdWtzMDEuYmxvYi5jb3JlLndpbmRvd3MubmV0L2RvY3VtZW50Lw/0197e502-c09b-78ba-b50b-046aac63d3e5.pdf Much of the report deals with matters outside the strict scope of the Commissions terms of reference. What is left appears to be supportive of of boats without a home mooring.

Some years ago, at a lock open day on the Hatton flight, I commented on the poor state of one of the remaining bump boards and asked if it would be replaced. I was told that it would be removed as these boards were no longer needed. The reason given was that boats are now under 70 foot ...

I understand that CRT's head office is to be renamed "Cool Pilot" to make use of some signs found in the basement.

Where the term "satisfy the Board" is used in the British Waterways 1995 Act, it refers to the British Waterways Board and now its successor Canal & River Trust. It is not referring BW's Board of Directors or CRT's Board of Trustees. Whilst some legislation was changed from "British Waterways Board" to "Canal & River Trust" this was not done for the various BW Acts. Like it or not, parliament decided that British Waterways and its successors could not be trusted with the power of discretion in this matter. There is no law on CCing. It was an invention of BW. That aside, you may be very disappointed. CRT have already failed once in bringing about legislative change.

You may be well acquainted with the County Court system but perhaps not with the way it is currently used by CRT. CRT does not attempt to use the County Court to agree that a boat has not, in fact, been "used bona fide for navigation" thus giving the boater the opportunity to defend the action. Instead, it refuses to re-licence the boat on the basis that it is not satisfied that it will be "used bona fide for navigation". If the boat is not removed from its waterways and is used as a home it takes action using the Part 8 procedure (which assumes that the action will be undefended as the boat being unlicenced is a matter of fact). It asks the court for a declaration and injunction confirming that it has the power to remove the boat under Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983. Needless to say, the papers filed with the court do not say that CRT has refused to licence the boat and why ...

Unfortunately, on this forum it is difficult to have the debate as "As to whether the law or CRT’s application of it is fit for purpose". I have, on several occasions, made the point that British Waterways told a parliamentary committee that the test for using a boat "bona fide for navigation" (i.e. not using it as a house boat) would be the amount of time it remained in one place. I have also said that BW failed to agree a fixed amount of time leading to law which is unenforceable (how do you enforce "without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances"?). - Some examples - "How does CRT show that someone mooring "out in the sticks" for the solitude for a month before moving a short distance to another "out in the sticks" location is not compliant by law". "How does CRT show that someone who moors within walking distance of a school in term time is not compliant by law". "How does CRT show that someone who moves regularly within a small geographic area is not compliant by law"'. All of the above would appear to be compliant with law (but not compliant with CRT's T's & C's which say "14 days" rather than what is "reasonable under the circumstances" The fact is that CRT have given up trying to do this. Instead they prefer refuse to re-license in the hope that the boater does not have the understanding or financial resources to take them on. CRT claims that it has the power under section 43(3) of the Transport Act 1962 to make conditions regarding boat licencing. It would appear that this "power" extends to altering the law in regard to how long a boat may rmain in one place ...

Sorry Allan, I was wrong would have sufficed. I think you will find that both BW and CRT have been altering the stoppage system for a couple of decades now. I seem to recall that it was written as a bolt on to BW's SAP system running on IBM hardware. It printed out stoppages that were then stapled on notice boards, Sanitary Station doors and lock beams. The mapping bits are fairly new. Might be getting muddled in my old age but I have a recollection of a telephone system so you could get stoppage info for your region. Maybe Richard Fairhurst could confirm. Will not argue the toss over the bad old days. They were very good for me, allowing me to retire at 54. Central Government are not interested, neither are Defra Ministers.