CCing With School Age Children.

[The Welsh Cruiser]

I wonder if this suggested acceptable pattern of movement would be acceptable to CRT if the boater in question didn't have kids? 

[Sir Nibble]

But kids are perhaps a bit of a distraction, "will nobody think of the children"? What does the suggested pattern of movement for staying within reach of work look like?

[Jerra]

33 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

But kids are perhaps a bit of a distraction, "will nobody think of the children"? What does the suggested pattern of movement for staying within reach of work look like?

Having looked at the two "slides" I suspect a similar pattern would be acceptable but much more difficult.  The pattern is roughly within the 10 K (6m approx) for 6 weeks then within the 32 K (20 m approx) (assuming the 32 K is a diameter not a radius) for a couple of weeks.  Then every so often e.g. half terms holidays and most of the summer holidays they say cruising to be extended outside the usual cruising area.

 

So it may be possible for a working person but would require some careful planning and quite a bit of commuting IMO.

[mrsmelly]

56 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

I wonder if this suggested acceptable pattern of movement would be acceptable to CRT if the boater in question didn't have kids? 

? Of course it would be OK!! remember we are all precisely the same nowadays, we are all the same sex, we all have babies etc etc

[Alan de Enfield]

Letter from Richard Parry to Michelle Donelan (MP) who had asked him about CCing with Children.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 23, 2019 by Alan de Enfield

[Paul C]

"We know some are doing this already"

 

So, some families seem to be able to cope (happily) with the CCing requirements, and others went to their MP and want CRT to spoon-feed them.

 

Looks similar to the traditional "almost all boaters" vs "a minority of piss-takers" differentiation, rather than anything special or unusual about school-age kids.

[IanD]

On 23/08/2019 at 13:47, Tumshie said:

You can visit and sail through with out having a home mooring but you can only stay for a prearranged time but if you are keeping your boat on the canal you must have a home mooring you can then sail /boat back and forth as much as you like but it you have a home mooring at a cheaper less popular mooring and you keep hogging the more expensive and more popular ones SC get a bit shirty with you. If you have a residential mooring they are only available in certain areas and obviously you can boat about but again you can't pick a cheap mooring at one end of the canal and then set up home at the other. 

 

I don't know how strict they are between Edinburgh and Glasgow but we have a lot of tourist boating on the Caley so that might make a difference to how strict they are up here though I find them really nice and pleasant to deal with in the SC office. 

 

https://www.scottishcanals.co.uk

 

https://www.scottishcanals.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-Long-Term-Licence-and-Mooring-TCs.pdf

 

https://www.scottishcanals.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Short-Term-Licence-booklet-2019.pdf

 

Lots of locals keep a mooring in tidal waters and just scoot back and forth on a visitors pass it doesn't take long to get from one end of the Caley to the other if you don't stop to do the tourist thing. 

 

ETA I suppose the short answer is yes (kinda)

 

From last time this came up, I understood the position was that if you had a (paid-for) home mooring anywhere on the CART canals you were not obliged to use it, and because you had one did not have to meet the "bona-fide cruising" range requirements -- so long as you didn't overstay anywhere you could shuttle backward and forwards over a small range not near your home mooring. Having a home mooring exempts you from the "bona-fide" requirement. This is shown in Richard Parry's letter.

 

CART might not be happy about this but last time they tried to prosecute somebody on these grounds (not using their home mooring, not cruising over a big range) they lost.

Edited August 25, 2019 by IanD

[Tumshie]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

From last time this came up, I understood the position was that if you had a (paid-for) home mooring anywhere on the canals you were not obliged to use it, and because you had one did not have to meet the "bona-fide cruising" range requirements -- so long as you didn't overstay anywhere you could shuttle backward and forwards over a small range not near your home mooring. Having a home mooring exmpts you from the "bona-fide" requirement.

 

CART might not be happy about this but last time they tried to prosecute somebody on these grounds they lost.

Is that CRT or Scottish Canals? Because what I posed there was a slightly off topic reply to MrSmelly about how you are required to have a home mooring if on a Scottish canal. 

 

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Tumshie said:

Is that CRT or Scottish Canals? Because what I posed there was a slightly off topic reply to MrSmelly about how you are required to have a home mooring if on a Scottish canal. 

 

CART. Don't know about the Scottish canals. But the "bona-fide rule-benders" are all in England, as far as I'm aware, and Southern England at that.

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

Having a home mooring exempts you from the "bona-fide" requirement.

Indeed it does - in fact it is covered within the 1995 Act.

 

 

Home mooring = No need to 'bona fide' navigate.

No Home mooring = must 'bona fide' navigate. 

 

(3)Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless—

(a)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;

(b)an insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence that it exists and is in force, has been produced to the Board; and

(c)either—

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

[Tumshie]

Just now, IanD said:

CART. Don't know about the Scottish canals. But the "bona-fide rule-benders" are all in England, as far as I'm aware, and Southern England at that.

Sorry about the mix up - I was talking about Scottish Canals requirements in answer to someone's question so what I said is a different ball game because we don't have CCing up here. Sorry I probably should have made that more clear. 

 

But I agree with what you say as I understand it regards to CRT. 

 

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Indeed it does - in fact it is covered within the 1995 Act.

 

 

Home mooring = No need to 'bona fide' navigate.

No Home mooring = must 'bona fide' navigate. 

 

(3)Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless—

(a)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;

(b)an insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence that it exists and is in force, has been produced to the Board; and

(c)either—

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

All correct -- but the other point I referred to is that if you have a home mooring there's no legal requirement that you ever use it. Not only that, you can shuttle backwards and forwards between two "different places" forever (A-B-A-B-A-B...) so long as you move every 14 days and don't overstay in any one place, no need for the "A-B-C-D-E-D-C-B-A" shenanigans...

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

All correct -- but the other point I referred to is that if you have a home mooring there's no legal requirement that you ever use it. Not only that, you can shuttle backwards and forwards between two "different places" forever (A-B-A-B-A-B...) so long as you move every 14 days and don't overstay in any one place, no need for the "A-B-C-D-E-D-C-B-A" shenanigans...

 

This one ?

 

 

The judgement in the case of CaRT v Mayers states that repeated journeys between the same two places would be 'bona fide navigation' if the boater had specific reason for making repeated journeys over the same stretch of canal. HHJ Halbert also stated that any requirement by CaRT to use a substantial part of the canal network was not justified by Section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 because the requirement to use the boat for bona fide navigation is 'temporal not geographical'.

 

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

[Paul C]

It needs to "exist" though. If a moorings provider had space for 5 boats, but 6 moorers "on the books", but one of them was never there.......

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

It needs to "exist" though. If a moorings provider had space for 5 boats, but 6 moorers "on the books", but one of them was never there.......

And there are some reasonable bits as well - I suspect you might not persuade The Board if your home mooring was on a narrow canal with short length locks and you had a full length fat boat. 

 

'lawfully left' probably also invoked BSS, insurance etc where relevant. (OK if on a farmer's field) but you might have to demonstrate that a suitable crane could have access to the bank side.

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

..................….The Board if your home mooring was on a narrow canal with short length locks and you had a full length fat boat. 

Considering some of the examples recently - C&RT may have a problem fighting that (particularly when they have licenced the boat)

[TheBiscuits]

11 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

a narrow canal with short length locks

Are there any?  I know some canals have short wide locks but I can't offhand think of a canal with short narrow locks.

[IanD]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

This one ?

 

 

The judgement in the case of CaRT v Mayers states that repeated journeys between the same two places would be 'bona fide navigation' if the boater had specific reason for making repeated journeys over the same stretch of canal. HHJ Halbert also stated that any requirement by CaRT to use a substantial part of the canal network was not justified by Section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 because the requirement to use the boat for bona fide navigation is 'temporal not geographical'.

 

 

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

 

Yes, that's the one. However none of this applies to the "rule-benders" because AFAIK none of them have a home mooring, they just want to freeload... ?

 

[cuthound]

3 hours ago, Paul C said:

It needs to "exist" though. If a moorings provider had space for 5 boats, but 6 moorers "on the books", but one of them was never there.......

 

Not nessarily. When we had share boats there was often one mooring shared between two or more boats, because they were rarely all back at their home mooring at the same time, and then only for a few hours.

[Tuscan]

It was the fear of abuse of ‘ghost’ moorings (although when challenged CRT were unable to quantify the scale of the problem) that was behind CRTs decision to alter their terms and conditions in an attempt to require boats with a home mooring to cruise as if they did not have one.

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

It was the fear of abuse of ‘ghost’ moorings (although when challenged CRT were unable to quantify the scale of the problem) that was behind CRTs decision to alter their terms and conditions in an attempt to require boats with a home mooring to cruise as if they did not have one.

However, putting it in their T&Cs does not make it enforceable.

[mrsmelly]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

However, putting it in their T&Cs does not make it enforceable.

People oft quote the act of 95. We were living aboard a few years before that and the 14 day rule re moving was in force then, I distinctly recall being told about it by the bloke we bought the boat off when we moved aboard in 89, question is to some of you long term liveaboards longer than us is, when did the 14 day rule come in??

[roland elsdon]

It was 14 days in each parish in 80 when we started i believe.our water tanks only lasted a week no solar panels and one leisure battery. We moved a lot.

Oh and you had to have a mooring. Ours was at cowroast, but we were at brunel university in uxbridge with no car. 

 

[MtB]

10 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

However, putting it in their T&Cs does not make it enforceable.

 

It does under contract law, arguably. There are only a handful of boaters who have succeeded in obtaining a licence without agreeing to the T&Cs.

 

Outside of my knowledge but I believe there is a provision in something like the unfair contracts act that deals with an 'imbalance of power' when striking a contract, meaning a contract term imposed by the larger/more powerful body with no mechanism for negotiation means a court *could* set aside the T&Cs. No-one has tried this tack on CRT yet. 

[Alan de Enfield]

29 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

It does under contract law, arguably. There are only a handful of boaters who have succeeded in obtaining a licence without agreeing to the T&Cs.

 

Outside of my knowledge but I believe there is a provision in something like the unfair contracts act that deals with an 'imbalance of power' when striking a contract, meaning a contract term imposed by the larger/more powerful body with no mechanism for negotiation means a court *could* set aside the T&Cs. No-one has tried this tack on CRT yet. 

However - Nigel commented some time ago (on one of the previous occasions this was discussed) :

 

Looking back, I see that we covered the same ground more than 2 years ago. The case law most specifically addressing the issue that I cited back then was:

Attorney-General v. Great Eastern Railway Co. (1880) 5 App.Cas. 473, Lord Blackburn said, at p. 481: 'where there is an Act of Parliament creating a corporation for a particular purpose, and giving it powers for that particular purpose, what it does not expressly or impliedly authorise is to be taken to be prohibited; ...' [my emphasis]

This was cited with approval by the same House in the 1991 judgment in McCarthy & Stone v Richmond LBC, with all 5 Law Lords in unanimous agreement on the point.

 

 

C&RT cannot 'amend' the law to suit themselves (the law does not require boats with a home mooring to bona fide navigate), nor can they take upon themselves powers which they were not granted when they were incorporated.

 

A 'private individual' has much more leeway - they can do anything that is not illegal, and do not require permission to do so.