Visitor mooring signs

[alan_fincher]

Just now, Keeping Up said:

I think this is an area where CRT can't win. I remember when they put up signs saying "48 hours" instead and were challenged that they demonstrably couldn't enforce them unless they inspected the moorings every hour, and therefore the signs had no validity.

When I was working with CRT as part of my involvement with the South East Partnership Boater's Subgroup, Matthew Symonds assured us that moving forward all new signage would talk of 2 days, not 48 hours.

However I have seen a lot of new signage since that has reverted to using hours.  Unfortunately CRT often promise a new policy will be adhered to, but often can't stick to it for very long!

It should say "nights"anyway, but we lost that one!

[CompairHolman]

6 hours ago, Paul C said:

Its been discussed before in (probably many) threads, its worth doing a search.

 

But basically, its not true to describe it as "voluntary", its in the T&Cs which you probably agreed to when you obtained a boat licence. (About 2 people have obtained a boat licence without agreeing to the T&Cs, claiming that the only 3 things which are required are mooring/agree CC, BSS and insurance). If you're not one of those two people, you'd need to launch a judicial review arguing that 1) there is no mechanism that CRT can impose T&Cs (CRT say there is.....I can't remember the bit but its in the 1962 Transport Act); and if you didn't convince the judge on that, then 2) that particular T&C is unreasonable.

 

Since nobody has launched such legal action yet, there is no applicable/relevant case law, so CRT are sticking to their legal basis and others are sticking to their different interpretations. I don't know if NABO have actually made any progress, or even if they could. Remember a while ago, Nick Brown launched a judicial review against CRT based on the guidance to CCers? And it didn't progress in court, because it was a theoretical argument, not one which actually applied to another boater or himself, so the judge said he can't rule on it? Given that, NABO would probably need to have an actual boater launch a judicial review against CRT to progress anything meaningful - and even then, I am not sure NABO could support them - do they have sufficient funding (because that's what it would boil down to).

This works both ways though, just because CRT claim they can impose their own licence terms and conditions it doesn't mean its a fact.  Just because you signed it doesn't make it a lawful contract. 

 

So its a grey area, no one has the money to legally challenge CRT, and CRT won't enforce their own invented licence terms and conditions in case someone does challenge them.  

 

[Momac]

1 hour ago, Keeping Up said:

I think this is an area where CRT can't win. I remember when they put up signs saying "48 hours" instead and were challenged that they demonstrably couldn't enforce them unless they inspected the moorings every hour, and therefore the signs had no validity.

It doesn't matter how long the permitted stay is.  It requires some means of proving the time of arrival and departure if any overstaying is to be punished.

 

Just because the limit is stated in hours it ertainly doesn't mean an hourly inspection is required to validate the rule.

 

[john6767]

5 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Indeed. 

 

I think the signs get seen by passing boaters and translated as "Fnck off you are not welcome here". 

 

So they do. 

 

 

I did think that after I had posted, so I guess the signs will be considered to be working then.

[DHutch]

So who do you pay, and how?

 

Has anyone actually ever paid the money the sign suggests you pay, having stayed for the extra day?

 

Has anyone stayed the extra day without paying, being asked for payment, or being fined for non payment?

 

 

Daniel

[BWM]

20 hours ago, Goliath said:

You’re probably right. 

 

So what has Stoke Bruerne to offer? Worth £25 a day 

 

a very good museum

an excellent Indian restaurant (allegedly)

a run of the mill pub 

 

 

 

Did the village in past years ever have a permanent cluster or community of boats that wouldn’t move on? Prompting 2 days and move on or pay. 

 

 

I've always found the pub to be pleasant, as long as you stay in the old part and they always have homemade bread pudding available on the bar.

[CompairHolman]

5 minutes ago, DHutch said:

So who do you pay, and how?

 

Has anyone actually ever paid the money the sign suggests you pay, having stayed for the extra day?

 

Has anyone stayed the extra day without paying, being asked for payment, or being fined for non payment?

 

 

Daniel

My understanding is that some people have paid but have been misled that there would be further action if they don't pay, while those that haven't paid have never been pursued for the money. 

 

There was a FOI about this a couple of years ago.

[Paul C]

45 minutes ago, CompairHolman said:

 some people have paid but have been misled that there would be further action if they don't pay

How can that, in itself, be misleading? If they paid, there is no further action, so you can't assume what would have happened (or not) if they didn't pay. Neither can you compare them to other cases if the circumstances aren't the same. Plenty of enforcement bodies (eg, parking) have the option to not pursue a penalty if it, for example, falls below a threshold. For example, if the ticket is out of time by (say) 10 mins; where those out of time by hours would be pursued.

[roland elsdon]

9 hours ago, Goliath said:

 

 

Trading from winter and visitor moorings

Following a meeting with the Roving Canal Traders Association (RCTA), trading on winter and visitor moorings was discussed. The following has been agreed.

Visitor moorings

Following a meeting with the Roving Canal Traders Association (RCTA), trading on visitor moorings on weekends and on Bank Holiday weekends was discussed. The RCTA raised that they were concerned that if adhering the 48 hour/2 day visitor mooring rule it would mean that authorised trading craft would not be able to trade fully on weekends/Bank Holidays. With this in mind we have agreed that on weekends/Bank Holiday only authorised traders on a visitor mooring will be allowed to :-

At weekends

Friday - Arrive at Visitor Mooring

Saturday - Trade

Sunday - Trade

Monday am - Leave the Visitor Mooring

At Bank Holiday weekends

Friday - Arrive at Visitor Mooring

Saturday - Trade

Sunday - Trade

Monday - Trade

Tuesday am - Leave the Visitor Mooring

On the Easter Bank Holiday weekend trade boats may arrive on Thursday and leave on Tuesday.

The Trust will ensure that our enforcement team and boating coordinators are aware of this agreement to ensure that trade boats do not receive extended stay charges on bank holidays.

 

 

from CRT website 

 

 

[roland elsdon]

Just now, roland elsdon said:

 

So the’ closed’ towpath trading boats i saw sitting on a honeyspot 48 mooring last week on the monday and again on the friday  coming back were simply overstayers. 

Interesting 

mind you i dont think the local inhabiters were interested in buying their wares somehow.

[CompairHolman]

6 hours ago, Paul C said:

How can that, in itself, be misleading? If they paid, there is no further action, so you can't assume what would have happened (or not) if they didn't pay. Neither can you compare them to other cases if the circumstances aren't the same. Plenty of enforcement bodies (eg, parking) have the option to not pursue a penalty if it, for example, falls below a threshold. For example, if the ticket is out of time by (say) 10 mins; where those out of time by hours would be pursued.

Misleading in the way that there is actually no further action planned despite what CRT have implied or led the boat owner to believe. Telling the boat owner the charge is not mandatory from the start would be the opposite of misleading.  After all no one would pay a punitive charge that was voluntary. 

 

 

[TheBiscuits]

16 hours ago, Goliath said:

Trading from winter and visitor moorings

Following a meeting with the Roving Canal Traders Association (RCTA), trading on winter and visitor moorings was discussed. The following has been agreed.

Visitor moorings

Following a meeting with the Roving Canal Traders Association (RCTA), trading on visitor moorings on weekends and on Bank Holiday weekends was discussed. The RCTA raised that they were concerned that if adhering the 48 hour/2 day visitor mooring rule it would mean that authorised trading craft would not be able to trade fully on weekends/Bank Holidays. With this in mind we have agreed that on weekends/Bank Holiday only authorised traders on a visitor mooring will be allowed to :-

[snip]

Interesting ... very interesting.

 

You are quoting from https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/business-and-trade/boating-business/starting-or-expanding-a-boating-business/roving-traders/trading-from-winter-and-visitor-moorings , Last date edited: 1 September 2015

 

I am quoting from my business licence approval, dated March 2019:

 

The Canal and River Trust does not reserve mooring for roving traders, it is often difficult to find mooring in urban areas, this may well restrict the number of days you are able to trade. ‘In addition many of our popular moorings sites have restricted duration periods such as 24 hrs, 48hrs and you must adhere to these timescales in the same manner as private pleasure boats’

 

Also from: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/business-and-trade/boating-business/starting-or-expanding-a-boating-business/roving-traders, Last date edited: 29 April 2019 :

 

 

Key considerations

Some roving traders have a home mooring, but most do not. You will need to comply with the Guidance for boaters without a home mooring and published time limits at Visitor Moorings at all times. We cannot give any special dispensation from time limits because you are trading.

A number of boaters have asked for clarification of the legal requirement to cruise throughout the period of their licence and, in particular, what is the minimum distance that should be covered in order to comply with the Trust’s Guidance for Boaters without a Home Mooring. For further details please refer to this page

The Canal and River Trust does not reserve mooring for roving traders, it is often difficult to find mooring in urban areas, this may well restrict the number of days you are able to trade. You should consider this within your business plans.  

 

I'm not saying you are wrong,  but I am saying you are out of date with your guidance.

 

Interestingly, I was told today by a well regarded roving trader that the 72-hour mooring I was on over the weekend counts both before and after the "reserved for the market" mooring - so they think you can turn up on the Tuesday for a Friday-Sunday event, then stay after it for 3 days ... so the following Wednesday - 8 days on a 3 day visitor mooring ...

 

I disagree quite strongly.  I am sure that nobody would object to a trade boat being on the mooring late Thursday night and leaving early Monday morning, as per your examples, but I think Tuesday through to the following Wednesday on a busy 72 hour mooring is taking the mickey.

 

For clarity, we turned up on the Friday morning, and left Sunday evening ...

 

[Paul C]

8 hours ago, CompairHolman said:

Misleading in the way that there is actually no further action planned despite what CRT have implied or led the boat owner to believe. Telling the boat owner the charge is not mandatory from the start would be the opposite of misleading.  After all no one would pay a punitive charge that was voluntary. 

 

 

But that's the whole point.....the signs act as a deterrent, If they did as you suggest, that would no longer hold true. An enforcement agency can set a charge to be high (but not unreasonably high) to act mainly as a deterrent than to provide a viable service, deter most from using it, then choose to not pursue those who do if the admin costs of doing so outweigh the monetary income (because its a low number). It would only be misleading if they couldn't legally take further action.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

16 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

Interesting ... very interesting.

 

You are quoting from https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/business-and-trade/boating-business/starting-or-expanding-a-boating-business/roving-traders/trading-from-winter-and-visitor-moorings , Last date edited: 1 September 2015

 

I am quoting from my business licence approval, dated March 2019:

 

The Canal and River Trust does not reserve mooring for roving traders, it is often difficult to find mooring in urban areas, this may well restrict the number of days you are able to trade. ‘In addition many of our popular moorings sites have restricted duration periods such as 24 hrs, 48hrs and you must adhere to these timescales in the same manner as private pleasure boats’

 

Also from: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/business-and-trade/boating-business/starting-or-expanding-a-boating-business/roving-traders, Last date edited: 29 April 2019 :

 

 

Key considerations

Some roving traders have a home mooring, but most do not. You will need to comply with the Guidance for boaters without a home mooring and published time limits at Visitor Moorings at all times. We cannot give any special dispensation from time limits because you are trading.

A number of boaters have asked for clarification of the legal requirement to cruise throughout the period of their licence and, in particular, what is the minimum distance that should be covered in order to comply with the Trust’s Guidance for Boaters without a Home Mooring. For further details please refer to this page

The Canal and River Trust does not reserve mooring for roving traders, it is often difficult to find mooring in urban areas, this may well restrict the number of days you are able to trade. You should consider this within your business plans.  

 

I'm not saying you are wrong,  but I am saying you are out of date with your guidance.

 

Interestingly, I was told today by a well regarded roving trader that the 72-hour mooring I was on over the weekend counts both before and after the "reserved for the market" mooring - so they think you can turn up on the Tuesday for a Friday-Sunday event, then stay after it for 3 days ... so the following Wednesday - 8 days on a 3 day visitor mooring ...

 

I disagree quite strongly.  I am sure that nobody would object to a trade boat being on the mooring late Thursday night and leaving early Monday morning, as per your examples, but I think Tuesday through to the following Wednesday on a busy 72 hour mooring is taking the mickey.

 

For clarity, we turned up on the Friday morning, and left Sunday evening ...

 

 

Might be worth getting in touch directly with the Roving Canal Traders Association to confirm what the rules are. They negotiated with CRT regarding this issue. 

 

 

[matty40s]

11 minutes ago, Goliath said:

 

Might be worth getting in touch directly with the Roving Canal Traders Association to confirm what the rules are. They negotiated with CRT regarding this issue. 

 

 

You will probably find that both those stated guidance are correct, depending on which CRT office you speak to.

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, matty40s said:

You will probably find that both those stated guidance are correct, depending on which CRT office you speak to.

Are you suggesting that C&RT are discombobulated ?

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

54 minutes ago, matty40s said:

You will probably find that both those stated guidance are correct, depending on which CRT office you speak to.

That’s why I’d suggest contacting the Roving Canal Traders Association. 

 

They ought to know?

 

[tree monkey]

55 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Are you suggesting that C&RT are discombobulated ?

Excellent word discombobulated

[Alan de Enfield]

47 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Excellent word discombobulated

Rolls off the tongue and "sounds like it means"

[CompairHolman]

13 hours ago, Paul C said:

But that's the whole point.....the signs act as a deterrent, If they did as you suggest, that would no longer hold true. An enforcement agency can set a charge to be high (but not unreasonably high) to act mainly as a deterrent than to provide a viable service, deter most from using it, then choose to not pursue those who do if the admin costs of doing so outweigh the monetary income (because its a low number). It would only be misleading if they couldn't legally take further action

 

 

As far as I know CRT has never attempted to take one of these charges to court , so its safe to assume by now that there is no intention to enforce these charges, a deterrent is worthless if you know it won't be used. So the only basis for their deterrent affect is that boat owners don't know that the charges are not mandatory i.e false. 

 

I don't want the waterways run on the basis of legally false rules even if they have positive effects. 

 

 

 

 

[Paul C]

6 minutes ago, CompairHolman said:

 

 

As far as I know CRT has never attempted to take one of these charges to court , so its safe to assume

 

No its not

6 minutes ago, CompairHolman said:

 

  by now that there is no intention to enforce these charges, a deterrent is worthless if you know it won't be used.

You don't know it won't be used. Boaters will probably take the piss more and more until its worth taking some action, probably to create a scapegoat

6 minutes ago, CompairHolman said:

So the only basis for their deterrent affect is that boat owners don't know that the charges are not mandatory i.e false.

One doesn't follow from the other. That the charges are not enforced, isn't the same as "not mandatory", and certainly doesn't make them "false charges". There are widespread examples of illegal things which are not enforced strictly, for example speeding say 33 in a 30 zone, being offered a speed awareness course instead of penalty points + fine, etc. Also there are widespead examples of police stopping motorists doing over the speed limit and simply giving a verbal warning rather than further action, etc. Or having a faulty lamp and them saying to get it fixed rather than prosecute you under Road Vehicle (Construction & Use) regulations, etc

 

6 minutes ago, CompairHolman said:

 

 

I don't want the waterways run on the basis of legally false rules

They're not "legally false". They haven't been determined as such. There is a valid argument that they are legal (1962 Transport Act Section 43 looks pretty ominous.....)

6 minutes ago, CompairHolman said:

even if they have positive effects. 

 

 

 

 

 

Basically, CRT as a navigation authority are free to choose to not enforce rules if they don't want to; or enforce them using a different tactic. Criminals don't get to choose how the police act towards them (so long as the police stay within the law).

[Alan de Enfield]

7 hours ago, Paul C said:

One doesn't follow from the other. That the charges are not enforced, isn't the same as "not mandatory", and certainly doesn't make them "false charges". There are widespread examples of illegal things which are not enforced strictly, for example speeding say 33 in a 30 zone, being offered a speed awareness course instead of penalty points + fine, etc. Also there are widespead examples of police stopping motorists doing over the speed limit and simply giving a verbal warning rather than further action, etc. Or having a faulty lamp and them saying to get it fixed rather than prosecute you under Road Vehicle (Construction & Use) regulations, etc

 

Or in boating terms :

 

C&RT saying you do not need to display your licence - but the Law states you must display your licence.

[alan_fincher]

8 hours ago, CompairHolman said:

As far as I know CRT has never attempted to take one of these charges to court , so its safe to assume by now that there is no intention to enforce these charges, a deterrent is worthless if you know it won't be used. So the only basis for their deterrent affect is that boat owners don't know that the charges are not mandatory i.e false. 

 

I don't want the waterways run on the basis of legally false rules even if they have positive effects.

The last I knew anything about this, the above was correct.

They were invoicing people for the charges, (albeit in small numbers), and if people paid up, (which was in much smaller numbers!), they were happy to collect the payment.

They were not pursuing those who didn't pay.

There was also at least one case, (probably more), where the charges were challenged, and CRT withdrew them.

[alan_fincher]

8 hours ago, Paul C said:

You don't know it won't be used. Boaters will probably take the piss more and more until its worth taking some action, probably to create a scapegoat

You are correct that we cannot be absolutely certain that CRT will never take action over non payment.

 

My assessment of the situation is that it is highly unlikely they ever will.

Whenever I have heard them challenged on the point in the past it has been fairly obvious they knew they were on fairly dodgy territory.

I don't think they did themselves any favours by putting up signs that imply that if you really want to spend £25 to stay an extra night that it is perfectly OK to do so, but don't give you any mechanism for actually paying it, or telling you how it may be invoiced retrospectively.  I can't see the courts thinking that's a very reasonable situation, frankly.

[Jerra]

Why is it that for so many boaters CRT can't do right for doing wrong?   There appears, right from its inception to have been a desire, on the part of many boaters to try to ensure it fails and to challenge everything it does.

 

When they succeed in making it fail what do you suppose will replace it?