SimonRNABO

Have you checked you insurance policy? Many policies include a legal advice element so you might be able to get some professional lehelp that way?

Been on this system for nearly two years - no problems. Just make sure you are clear about the procedure and account codes to reconnect as that has baffled a couple of people at our site. We got a good handout and a demonstation from the installers so no problems personally.

Alan and Nigel's posts and David's comment... ... got me thinking and checking! After a bit of digging, the 1971 Waterways Act, appears to put any hiring into the 'Hire boat Pleasure' boat division: "Hire Pleasure Boat means any pleasure boat that is let, lent, hired or engaged, for gift, pay, hire or reward or promise of payment, or carries or conveys passengers for a charge or payment," See Part 1 Section 3 (1) in the BW Act 1971. I think that means that anyone renting a boat out privately is NOT a commercial craft (as I suggesed earlier) but is a hire craft so therefore should pay the same licence rate etc as a 'traditional' hire boat? Can't find any subsequent legislation that amends that so far...

I'm sort of with CRT on this one and its very simple to my way of thinking, applying the same logic as some of the previous posters have said above: As soon as you rent out your boat whether in AirBnB or whatever, that is a commercial activity and should be subject to a trading licence. Many of us have pointed this out for many many years and been ignored on the point. To that extent its just CRT actually attempting to enforce something that has been in the existing licence structure for a very long time but never fully observed before. And I don't think they are particularly targeting boats with moorings; rather this is the start of attempts to enforce the renting out of boats without home moorings. The difficulty CRT will have is in proving it is going on. Even if they do catch someone at it, that person throws out there tenant moves back on in the 28 days and we are not a lot further forward?

Please please please go and get (further) professional legal advice, especially if as implied in the OP, someone may be facing homelessness. Individual circumstances, on a variety of points, can turn it either way and talking about it out of context is really unhelpful and potentially very misleading! For example 'Partner' is ambiguous: (not asking you to declare anyone's circumstances here) but for example: In most instances you have significant rights over the 'estate' of the person who has passed if you and they were married or in a civil partnership; but in the absence of that you are too often no more than a lodger/or guest in the eyes of the law. The point in this hypothetical example being you could get all the way to getting establishing the boat is a 'dwelling' but then realise that there are no rights in favour of the unmarried partner and under the estate the boat passes to a blood relative...

I think Mike is probably right that it does not change the letter of the law. It does however make that 'law' rather difficult to enforce? (Is the correct legal term 'estoppel'?) I would also like to see the fireworks were CRT to suddenly turn round and decide to try and apply it again! How many thousand people threatened with homelessness would that be? It would not just be boaters chucking whizz-bangs but many local Councils too, in anticipation of the queues forming outside Housing departments?

Re the 'CRT is not a Housing Authority' arguement - my personal point of view is that they irrevocably opened that Pandora's box a couple of decades ago... http://liveaboard-forum.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/is-canal-and-river-trust-housing.html

Just wanted to say that I am not and do not claim to be an expert witness on Houseboat Certificates in any formal sense, as Alan (inadvertently) implied. What I have is 20 plus years of correspondence, complaints and a couple of Ombudsman cases with/against BW/CRT plus a reasonable archive of their different policies, procedures and statements in that area over that time. All this exists largely as a matter of self preservation, as one of the few people who still has a Houseboat Certificate on my boat. It just means that from time to time I can refute some of BW/CRT's attempts to re-write history with the benefit of documentary evidence.

NABO Council may hate me for starting this one but I would like to offer some thoughts as a former NABO Council member. For the avoidance of doubt nothing I say here should be taken as representing NABO's present thinking which I am not in general a party to other than as a regular member these days. Also others who were party to what I am about to say at the time may take a slightly different view. It is for them to decide whether it is constructive to say anything in a public forum. I will meanwhile take the chance... In the discussion of CRT/Wingfield a few comments came up about giving legal advice and NABO etc. http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=78861 As Mark (Tuscan) indicated NABO has never claimed to be or tried to be anything like a CAB or Law Centre for boaters' individual cases. We are a volunteer organsation with limited funds and I believe do not have all the professional skills to do that sort of work properly. The concensus on doing that sort of individual case work when I was on Council was very much we are not qualified to help to that degree and might do more harm than good if we went there. I have personally at times helped groups of boaters to hopefully better organise themselves where there were common problems but that is I suggest very different from giving formal legal advice. At the times when we sought Legal Counsel when I was on NABO Council it was primarily about getting professional advice for the benefit of NABO Council, to test/check the lay opinions and views we had formed internally about the dubiousness as we saw it of how BW and subsequently CRT was interpretting the legislation in order to impose new 'rules' on boaters. As has been discussed elsewhere BW and CRT can at times be litigously agressive towards critics and we wanted to be confident we were on firm ground with our criticisms when we dealt with them. In effect I, and I believe others involved, saw taking Counsel's Opinion as due diligence stuff on NABO Council's part, before we laid into BW/CRT. The point I am trying to express is that the purpose for which we sought such opinions was for the corporate benefit of NABO and the comfort of Council as the association Directors, when trying to argue for revisions and moderation with the corporate BW/CRT and not directly to defend individual cases or actions by BW/CRT against any given boater. We were during my time very clear on this difference and trying to apply Counsel's opinion intended for one purpose to another seemed to us risky and inappropriate. What we were doing would perhaps also signpost members and others to potential flaws in BW/CRT's case should BW/CRT take action against them personally. Decisions at the time about withholding the advice from the public domain were therefore in part about not wanting the advice we had sought to be mis-applied, but also tactical in terms of conducting our discussions with BW/CRT to as we saw it greatest effect, about not showing all our hand too early. These were carefully considered subjective judgements which I personally stand by, which were certainly attempted in good faith after detailed collective deliberation in NABO Council (at times prolonged over several meetings). The other thing I believe is that we were rigourous about discussing these intentions and tactics internally with our members. We spent many hours in NABO Council trying to make sure we fed back to members. In NABO News and over several AGMs and by other means we purposely put these matters on the agenda with the intention of doing all we could to ensure that members had every opportunity to question and if they wanted challenge the approach we took. We also (again after considerable internal discussion) took the view that those who were not paying members should not be allowed to influence our thinking unduly. I hope this sheds some constructive light on past thinking in NABO. We may not have got everything right and might have made different choices but I believe everything we did was in good faith with our members. If we were 'guilty' of anything I believe it was only that we were (some might say, unduly) cautious about knowing our limitations and acting in the best interests of our paying members. I hope some of you at least will agree that this is not a bad position for a membership organisation to take.

Forgot to say it last night: big thanks to the team who perservered to crowd fund to get sight of the transcript. (If there's any shortfall in the cost Nigel please e-mail me cos I'd be happy to make a contribution if it's still needed.)

This thread has only just come to my attention. I have only skim read through the 300 posts so sorry if I missed these points being raised before: But back at the point about whether a Houseboat can move: Please see http://liveaboard-forum.blogspot.co.uk/p/why-houseboats-can-move.html My (successful) complaint based on this argument has evolved to the definition that Higgs referred to in post #46 and at https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/boating/licensing/choosing-and-buying-your-licence and at https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/6465.pdf (this being the document that Higgs cited). As Nigel has said #49, this is a couple of steps at least away from whether CRT apply s8 or s13 in enforcement cases. On the question of assignment of HB Certs, see https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/1132.pdf and ss 2.29 ff therein. If you have not yet lost the will to live (!) you will see that CRT have in effect created (attempted to?) two classes of HB Certificate, one with historical rights of full assignment retained and another for anyone who applies for a HB Cert after 31 July 2010, with limited assignment. Not going to go into the rights and wrongs of that here you will be relieved to know! Nigel's post #55 is substantively where I am at on the differences between Houseboat and Pleasure Boat when it comes to the discussion in hand. A HB Cert is something you have to positively seek and acquire and s13 is only relevent once you have one! As Nigel points out with his usual skill there are all sorts of other legal subtleties in all this which CRT and BW before them will use to bamboozle and bully if not challenged! Judge Pugsley in my view speaks with great wisdom and perception when (as reported by Nigel #105) he observes: "... human situations can vary so much and I do not want to set a precedent... ". As one who was there at the time, this seem a pretty good summation of what the House of Lord concluded on these issues in the run up to the 1995 Act. (Edits only for typos cos I can't types ver well!)

Some thoughts based on the conversations I and others had with HMRC on NABO's behalf in the past: sure, some of this may have been said before but.... The base cost of diesel is based on the commercial price your outlet sells for. That depends on on all the usual things, how much they buy, how often, what deals they have with their supplier, how much mark up they chose to add on..... Red diesel is a different product technically to road derv/'heavy oil' so there is a variation in price there anyway. Further variations can occur where some marinas/yards buy a variant without a biofuel content, (in my experince the base price is higher). The fuel duty is then added: when used for transportation/road use is 57.95p /litre. For non road use it drops to 10.70 p /litre: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/fuel-duty Include VAT and you get to the approx 50p per litre difference cited by previous posters. The self declaration was a compromise agreed by HMRC but one not obligatory on suppliers. EU are tetchy about it but the amount we leisure boaters use is so small compared to industrial and other commercial usages that it is thought that it is unlikely to be deemed worthy of close scrutiny. 60/40 split was indeed what HMRC felt was a good/fair average for typical use based on data and submissions from the boating groups at the time. It was in effect agreed that if sales returns where coming back showing that sort of split in the duty overall it would not be questioned unless there was exceptional cause to do so. In effect if dealers returns are showing significant variations from that average they are more likely to be questioned and their records checked etc.... That is where the self declaration stuff comes in - it gives a the dealer and in turn HMRC a paper trail to justify if their fuel duty returns are at variance from the 60/40. Some yards simply save paperwork and sell all at 60/40. Others collect returns case by case; arguably this is the correct way to do it! Others take a conservative view and will as per examples above allow less percentage for domestic use, to be on the safe side. Compare to parts of Europe where you have to have a seperate tank in your boat for non propulsion use if you want to buy at all with reduced duty. Wot Dave Mack said above: If we take the pixx with our declarations it is more likely that EU will get more twitchy.

... something like this happened early on (at Brentford) and of course the then BW changed the rules. And Thank You Alan for your other post: I truly hadn't spotted the 'reserves at 90% of the current 'list' price' "scam" before now so thanks pointing that one out! More evidence that it's fixed to ensure that overall prices can only go up, no matter what the market says.

In response to the question if not auctions, what else, some past suggestions can be seen in the responses under '2008 BW long term moorings: allocating vacancies and setting prices' at http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/consultation. Athy - the question/point is not about whether the highest bid wins (of course it does) but about to to what extent that one individual sale should be applied to justify increases for others. I don't think it's fair to say that if I bought a car at auction for £300 last week and then you pay £400 for a similar car next week, then I have to go back and give the auctioneer another £100? Hope that clarifies that one a bit....

You are quite right on that. However I hope most boaters with home moorings agree that the 14 day 'general' rule is one they are happy to observe so that there is parity in access to vistor/towpath moorings?