Visitor mooring signs

[dixi188]

As a slight aside, when it says 2 days, do they mean 2 nights or 48 hours or the day you arrive + the next day, so you can only stay one night?

A lot of signs used to say 48 hour or 72 hours.

[ditchcrawler]

Just moor where you like for as long as you like and sod the rest

[PaulJ]

6 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Just moor where you like for as long as you like and sod the rest

I have a feeling that SB is one place you wouldnt get away with it. I was once just starting to go down the top lock when I got grilled by an ancient resident as to my ability to be able to shut the bottom gates behind me as I was a single hander!

[alan_fincher]

54 minutes ago, dixi188 said:

As a slight aside, when it says 2 days, do they mean 2 nights or 48 hours or the day you arrive + the next day, so you can only stay one night?

A lot of signs used to say 48 hour or 72 hours.

It actually means 2 NIGHTS, and that's what the signs should have said.

You can arrive at any time of the day, and leave a any time of the day, but must not be seen there for a third night, or you risk them levying the charge.

 

Don't shoot the messenger, but I sat in countless meetings with CRT that discussed this topic, and I know that's how it works.

[alan_fincher]

1 hour ago, Slim said:

So I turn up and it's full with overstayers.

The one thing that Stoke Bruerne never really suffered from, even before all those over-kill notices got put up, was large numbers of overstaying live-aboard boats, (or even "dumped" non live aboard boats).

The locations on the Southern GU that attract that behaviour generally allow those there to park fairly easily, and to have reasonable access to public transport, shops, etc.

Parking in Stoke Bruerne is generally problematic, and there are not really nearby shops or railway stations.
 

When it does get fairly full it is usually "sheer weight of traffic", not really over-stayers.
(I could also add that often excessive numbers of "small trader" boats, (who are often allowed a longer stay, I think?), can eat into the most popular moorings.  I have certainly been in the "tunnel" pound when there are more small traders, than there are non trade boats!)

[MtB]

20 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

I have certainly been in the "tunnel" pound when there are more small traders, than there are non trade boats!)

 

Fallen in again eh?

 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

17 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

The one thing that Stoke Bruerne never really suffered from, even before all those over-kill notices got put up, was large numbers of overstaying live-aboard boats, (or even "dumped" non live aboard boats).

The locations on the Southern GU that attract that behaviour generally allow those there to park fairly easily, and to have reasonable access to public transport, shops, etc.

Parking in Stoke Bruerne is generally problematic, and there are not really nearby shops or railway stations.
 

When it does get fairly full it is usually "sheer weight of traffic", not really over-stayers.
(I could also add that often excessive numbers of "small trader" boats, (who are often allowed a longer stay, I think?), can eat into the most popular moorings.  I have certainly been in the "tunnel" pound when there are more small traders, than there are non trade boats!)

Traders license permits an extra night/day 

 

 

[TheBiscuits]

2 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Traders license permits an extra night/day 

 

 

I'd like to know who told you that, because it wasn't CRT!

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Just now, TheBiscuits said:

I'd like to know who told you that, because it wasn't CRT!

Who was it who told me?

and why wouldn’t it make sense?

[TheBiscuits]

Just now, Goliath said:

Who was it who told me?

and why wouldn’t it make sense?

I don't know who told you, that's why I would like to know.

 

I do know it wasn't CRT because the letter that accompanies your trading licence very specifically states that the licence issued does not give you any overstaying on moorings rights or any priority at locks over pleasure boats.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

I don't know who told you, that's why I would like to know.

 

I do know it wasn't CRT because the letter that accompanies your trading licence very specifically states that the licence issued does not give you any overstaying on moorings rights or any priority at locks over pleasure boats.

No priority over locks. 

I’m not a fly boat. 

 

 

[TheBiscuits]

5 minutes ago, Goliath said:

No priority over locks. 

I’m not a fly boat. 

And the overstaying thing?  You have it in writing from CRT that you can spend 72 hours on a 48 hour mooring?

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

And the overstaying thing?  You have it in writing from CRT that you can spend 72 hours on a 48 hour mooring?

 

Does it not say this on the sign in the OP? 

 

For the bargain price £25. 

[CompairHolman]

4 hours ago, Slim said:

Sorry but people are missing the message. " This is a popular mooring so you are welcome to stop for 2 days then move on to allow others to enjoy the amenities" . Whats difficult to understand?. To many barrackroom lawyers.

Probably the difficulty is that the sign doesn't say anything like that.

 

 

[CompairHolman]

I should have added to my original post that this has nothing to do with Stoke Bruerne but is just a picture of one of these signs . 

 

I was asking how it stands legally at the present time. As far as I can tell the "charge" ( if it is a charge ) is voluntary and cannot be enforced, and has never been ?

 

Anyone that goes puce when anyone asks about waterways laws and blurts out overwrought cliches like " barrack room lawyer" and " rules is rules" can always ignore this thread. 

 

 

[roland elsdon]

Most towpath traders clearly make such vast profits that a 25 a night overstay charge is a mere ( tax deductable) trifle.

[Paul C]

6 hours ago, CompairHolman said:

 

I was asking how it stands legally at the present time. As far as I can tell the "charge" ( if it is a charge ) is voluntary and cannot be enforced, and has never been ?

 

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).

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

9 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

I'd like to know who told you that, because it wasn't CRT!

 

 

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 

 

Edited August 11, 2019 by Goliath

[matty40s]

1 hour 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).

Do you mean NABO or NBTA?

[Paul C]

31 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Do you mean NABO or NBTA?

Reread the OP - NABO.

[john6767]

13 hours ago, Slim said:

Sorry but people are missing the message. " This is a popular mooring so you are welcome to stop for 2 days then move on to allow others to enjoy the amenities" . Whats difficult to understand?. To many barrackroom lawyers.

We were there earlier in the year, virtially no boats there, so I don't think it is generally busy at all. 

[MtB]

23 minutes ago, john6767 said:

We were there earlier in the year, virtially no boats there, so I don't think it is generally busy at all. 

 

Indeed. 

 

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

 

So they do. 

 

 

[Momac]

13 hours ago, dixi188 said:

As a slight aside, when it says 2 days, do they mean 2 nights or 48 hours or the day you arrive + the next day, so you can only stay one night?

 

Two days perhaps allows you a little more freedom.  For example arrive Monday morning and depart Wednesday afternoon. 

I agree two nights would be a better wording ..... especially when payment is involved.

Two days is a common restriction  in my area and works fine as it gives people a fair chance of finding a mooring. No one cares if you stay longer if the weather is foul.

 

[alan_fincher]

15 hours ago, Goliath said:

Traders license permits an extra night/day 

 

 

 

15 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

I'd like to know who told you that, because it wasn't CRT!

 

15 hours ago, Goliath said:

Who was it who told me?

and why wouldn’t it make sense?

 

15 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

I don't know who told you, that's why I would like to know.

 

I do know it wasn't CRT because the letter that accompanies your trading licence very specifically states that the licence issued does not give you any overstaying on moorings rights or any priority at locks over pleasure boats.

 

The CRT information notice about Stoke Bruerne specifically states....

 

Quote

Roving Traders displaying a valid business licence may stay in a two day zone for four days but must adhere to all other conditions.

So it seems neither of you is strictly correct!

[Keeping Up]

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.