Declaring a home mooring

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

That is of course the minimum requirements.   If that is all you are aiming to do I doubt it would class as bona fide.   To me the point is historic.

How would it not? Because according to the CRT, that would satisfy them. I'm struggling to see how you and Alan disagree with what the CRT have laid out in their requirements as being classed as bona fide. You may personally disagree that it is in fact bona fide navigation, but why would the CRT go after people if they're cruising to their requirements? I quoted their words, not mine.

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

 

IIRC at one time everybody had to have a home mooring and those who were genuinely cruising the length and breadth of the country campaigned to be allowed to do so without having to have a home mooring.   This was granted.   That is why IMO the words bone fide were used i.e. if you were genuinely cruising all over the place as opposed to having ties to one area and requiring to stay within a few miles of that area.

 

No doubt somebody will tell me my memory is faulty.

Cruising the length and breadth of the country is something that is possible for people who have either the time or the financial capacity to do so - hobby/pleasure boaters. I'm quite sure that we'd all love to be able to do this. Those who make up the boating community now are a mixture of people from all demographics and walks of life and some have made it their home. Some of those are not in a financial position to take on a mooring. Like @doratheexplorer, I fail to see how someone cruising the minimum requirements set out by the CRT bothers you. What harm are they doing?

[Jerra]

Just now, NB Caelmiri said:

How would it not? Because according to the CRT, that would satisfy them. I'm struggling to see how you and Alan disagree with what the CRT have laid out in their requirements as being classed as bona fide. You may personally disagree that it is in fact bona fide navigation, but why would the CRT go after people if they're cruising to their requirements? I quoted their words, not mine.

Cruising the length and breadth of the country is something that is possible for people who have either the time or the financial capacity to do so - hobby/pleasure boaters. I'm quite sure that we'd all love to be able to do this. Those who make up the boating community now are a mixture of people from all demographics and walks of life and some have made it their home. Some of those are not in a financial position to take on a mooring. Like @doratheexplorer, I fail to see how someone cruising the minimum requirements set out by the CRT bothers you. What harm are they doing?

Do not put words into my mouth!    Where exactly have I said it bothers me?   I haven't you have assumed that because what I posted does not agree with your view I must be bothered.   Wrong!

 

What I have pointed out just in case you were too concerned about me being bothered that you missed it, was an historic point.   The point i am trying to put, it in a way you may understand:

 

 is that originally the words bona fide were put in because, those who wrote the regulations wanted to make it clear that they were changing it for those who were genuinely (or to put it another way bona fide) cruising a larger area than could be managed from a home mooring.

 

Again where have I said it bothers me?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Do not put words into my mouth!    Where exactly have I said it bothers me?   I haven't you have assumed that because what I posted does not agree with your view I must be bothered.   Wrong!

 

What I have pointed out just in case you were too concerned about me being bothered that you missed it, was an historic point.   The point i am trying to put, it in a way you may understand:

 

 is that originally the words bona fide were put in because, those who wrote the regulations wanted to make it clear that they were changing it for those who were genuinely (or to put it another way bona fide) cruising a larger area than could be managed from a home mooring.

 

Again where have I said it bothers me?

Apologies, I was wrong to assume it bothered you. I appreciate the point you're making but I wonder if when they were making the new rules who they thought might make use of the continuous cruiser/boats without a home mooring licence. If they didn't anticipate that people would use this licence as a way of living aboard without taking on a mooring? The way it is written, I'm not entirely sure who they were targeting with this law/regulation.

[Alan de Enfield]

16 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

The CRT would seemingly disagree with you. This is what they have defined as the minimum requirements for bona fide navigation.

 

2 minutes ago, Jerra said:

That is of course the minimum requirements.   If that is all you are aiming to do I doubt it would class as bona fide.   To me the point is historic.

 

 

My point exactly.

 

In the high court - a very short extract  :

 

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, NB Caelmiri said:

Apologies, I was wrong to assume it bothered you. I appreciate the point you're making but I wonder if when they were making the new rules who they thought might make use of the continuous cruiser/boats without a home mooring licence. If they didn't anticipate that people would use this licence as a way of living aboard without taking on a mooring? The way it is written, I'm not entirely sure who they were targeting with this law/regulation.

There are two ways of looking at the regulation IMO.

 

1.  It was written at the behest of those who were taking long continuous journeys and they didn't expect any change in that.

 

2.  They wrote it is an unclear way so that the navigation authority had leeway to interpret it as the felt was required.

 

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

[Guest]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

My point exactly.

 

In the high court - a very short extract  :

 

I can't imagine who would end up in court if you were complying with the CRTs requirements.

 

Why would anyone who is doing their 20 mile range, not going backwards and forwards in a 5 mile area and moving every 14 days possibly be targeted by the CRT? They've written down their expectations - if you abide by that then surely you're golden?

[Alan de Enfield]

15 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

How would it not? Because according to the CRT, that would satisfy them. I'm struggling to see how you and Alan disagree with what the CRT have laid out in their requirements as being classed as bona fide.

You are not reading what C&RT have 'written' - they HAVE NOT said that the 20 miles etc etc is acceptable (they cannot say that because the law does not say that).

What they have said is that 'the boater' is responsible for 'satisfying the board' and it is extremely unlikely that less than 20 miles etc etc etc is unlikely to satisfy them.

 

There is a big difference in saying something is unacceptable, and something is acceptable.

[Arthur Marshall]

10 minutes ago, haggis said:

 Whats so different about buying a boat that makes folk think they can "get round" the rules which most boaters abide by? 

 

Mostly because for years, you could, and some did with no problems.  Because there were fewer people doing it twenty odd years ago,  licences were cheap,  so was diesel, and nobody minded very much, including BW blokes on the stretch.  Since the housing crisis, it's a bit different, people are driven on to cheap and crappy boats by poverty (when I lived on, almost everyone else on my mooring was there because of broken marriages and so house loss) and clog up useful mooring sites near to facilities.  The fallback from that spreads out to those who take a CC boat out on a Saturday, dump it on Sunday and leave it there for a couple of weeks or more till they can get out and drive it another few miles down the canal.   And that's fine, and in the letter of the law if not its spirit, until there are so many of them, and the canal edges so silted up that mooring is very restricted, that every time you try to moor up there's a neglected boat sitting in the way.

And what CCers forget, is that there are a lot more leisure boaters than CCers, and certainly a lot more than CCing liveaboards, and CRT gets most of its licence fees from leisure boaters who go out for a couple of weeks a year and want to enjoy it, and from hire boaters who want the same and complain noisily if they don't.  So the liveaboard CCers are in a minority, but get stuck with most of the enforcement, as well as most of the problems that arise from shutdowns and lack of maintenance.  And if you get picked on enough, you start to kick against the rules that are there that seem unfairly biassed against you, which really make very little difference to us leisure chaps.

The folk that really seem to want to get round the rules, though, the live-ons who don't want to move at all because of work or family, are those with fewer options as to where else to go or what else to do.  They may not WANT to bend the rules, but they just don't fit them (bit like your non-travelling land based travellers, who would probably like to travel but got fed up with being kicked off everywhere every week, including their own land).  It really isn't as straightforward as it looks, the solutions would be political if the problem was big enough for anyone to be bothered about them, which they aren't.  I suspect the ultimate result will be that the canal system collapses as a viable navigation and does, in fact, become a combined linear housing park and rubbish dump again.

[doratheexplorer]

34 minutes ago, haggis said:

I often wonder when reading one of the many threads on here about how to get round the "rules" why folk don't research the rules BEFORE they buy a boat to use on a canal. If they don't like the rules or don't think they can comply, why buy a boat?  You wouldn't buy a car without checking the "rules" and if you wanted for example to drive a car on the right side of the road you would realise that having a car is not for you and you wouldn't buy one to use  in the UK. If you want to buy a house you will realise that there are conditions attached  and you won't buy one if you can't meet the conditions. Whats so different about buying a boat that makes folk think they can "get round" the rules which most boaters abide by? 

 

haggis

Threads like you mention are very rare.  What is more common is that someone asks about the application of the rules and then gets accused of trying to get round the rules.

Edited June 4, 2020 by doratheexplorer

[ditchcrawler]

26 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

How would it not? Because according to the CRT, that would satisfy them. I'm struggling to see how you and Alan disagree with what the CRT have laid out in their requirements as being classed as bona fide. You may personally disagree that it is in fact bona fide navigation, but why would the CRT go after people if they're cruising to their requirements?  

Maybe we don't all agree with CRT on this point

[doratheexplorer]

1 minute ago, ditchcrawler said:

Maybe we don't all agree with CRT on this point

Why though?  What's the problem with someone having a 20 mile cruising range? (Slightly rhetorical question, as I can think of reasons myself).

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ditchcrawler said:

Maybe we don't all agree with CRT on this point

Depending on how vehemently you disagree with them, I suppose it leaves you with a few options. Continue to disagree but deal with it or try and get the law changed. Your prerogative.

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, doratheexplorer said:

Threads like you mention are very rare.  What is more common is that someone asks about the application of the rules and then gets accused of trying to get round the rules.

I think the problem created when people ask what the rules are is because many feel  "if you need to know what the distances etc are then you aren't bona fide cruising but trying to find the minimum you can get away with.

 

It may not be a very likeable trait but it is understandable.   I find it interesting that so many boaters are desperate to keep the canal heritage and yet don't find application of the laws acceptable.   They would find modernisation of much of the infra-structure beyond the pale but are happy to "modernise" the rules.

 

Before anyone makes assumptions it doesn't bother me but it does seem an anomaly.

[doratheexplorer]

3 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I think the problem created when people ask what the rules are is because many feel  "if you need to know what the distances etc are then you aren't bona fide cruising but trying to find the minimum you can get away with.

 

It may not be a very likeable trait but it is understandable.   I find it interesting that so many boaters are desperate to keep the canal heritage and yet don't find application of the laws acceptable.   They would find modernisation of much of the infra-structure beyond the pale but are happy to "modernise" the rules.

 

Before anyone makes assumptions it doesn't bother me but it does seem an anomaly.

Which era's rules would you like to return to?

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I think the problem created when people ask what the rules are is because many feel  "if you need to know what the distances etc are then you aren't bona fide cruising but trying to find the minimum you can get away with.

I think that is people who want to enjoy the waterways but aren't in a position - for financial, work or any number of other reasons - to go away for weeks/months at a time exploring the canal network. Should we deny people access to the waterways because they're unable to cruise 300 miles a year with a range of 100 miles? Surely not. If they're not having a negative effect on other users of the canal then if Joe Bloggs is only cruising 50 miles a year then so be it.

Edited June 4, 2020 by NB Caelmiri

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

Depending on how vehemently you disagree with them, I suppose it leaves you with a few options. Continue to disagree but deal with it or try and get the law changed. Your prerogative.

 

C&RT seem to find enough 'non-compliers' to frighten enough others to follow the rules :

 

The 'problem areas' always seem to be around cities where housing is expensive - there is a suggestion that people are buying boats as 'cheap housing' with no intention of actually being boaters.

 

 

A C&RT report from a couple of years ago :

 

New ‘continuous cruisers’

In November, we reached the first anniversary of our programme to actively advise new licence holders of the requirements of their licence. We have now begun to send out letters to those new continuous cruisers coming to the end of the first year who have failed to meet the requirements over the past year (despite regular reminders of their obligations as boaters without a home mooring), informing them that we’ll not be renewing their licence.

Since January, 792 new continuous cruisers have received welcome letters, and we have been providing them with regular feedback if we have been concerned about their movement patterns. 63 are now in the enforcement process with a further 83 contacted to say we are concerned. Of these, we’ve contacted 23 with regard to refusing to renew their licences.

 

There was a fair bit more ……………………..

 

But within a short space of time 'new CCers' were losing their licences for non compliance, that does not suggest that they ever intended to actually 'cruise'.

 

I'm sure you are familiar with the Enforcement process, with the last resort being the seizure of you boat and charging the owner for the removal & storage costs.

 

 

Edited June 4, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[Jerra]

11 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Which era's rules would you like to return to?

Yet again people are trying to put words into my mouth.   Where exactly have I said I would return anywhere.   Do please check what I say and understand before making wild assumptions.

[Jerra]

11 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

I think that is people who want to enjoy the waterways but aren't in a position - for financial, work or any number of other reasons - to go away for weeks/months at a time exploring the canal network. Should we deny people access to the waterways because they're unable to cruise 300 miles a year with a range of 100 miles? Surely not. If they're not having a negative effect on other users of the canal then if Joe Bloggs is only cruising 50 miles a year then so be it.

Your not quoting the whole of my post is making you put words in my mouth.    Please don't do that.   Where have I said anybody should be denied anything?

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Your not quoting the whole of my post is making you put words in my mouth.    Please don't do that.   Where have I said anybody should be denied anything?

No, I'm definitely not suggesting you said that. I'm asking the question.

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

No, I'm definitely not suggesting you said that. I'm asking the question.

However as you know it is an unanswerable question.   If you read the thread it is suggested many CC because they can't afford a mooring.   Many don't go on the canals because they can't afford a boat let alone a mooring.   Where do we draw the line in this search for letting everybody enjoy things.

 

A line will always be drawn by those who have power/control etc it will always please some and not others.   There are some who would want the IWA suggestion, others will be happy with current guidance and others will want to be allowed to tie up where they want for as long as they want.

 

As I said unanswerable.

[Alan de Enfield]

Back to the subject of the thread - "Having a home mooring"

 

The judgement in the case of CaRT v Mayers . HHJ Halbert presiding

 

 

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.

[WotEver]

1 hour ago, NB Caelmiri said:

Apologies, I was wrong to assume it bothered you. I appreciate the point you're making but I wonder if when they were making the new rules who they thought might make use of the continuous cruiser/boats without a home mooring licence. If they didn't anticipate that people would use this licence as a way of living aboard without taking on a mooring? The way it is written, I'm not entirely sure who they were targeting with this law/regulation.

Jerra has already explained this.  Originally the rules stated that everyone had to have a home mooring.  Those boaters who genuinely cruised the canal system objected to this - why would they need a mooring if they were constantly on the move?  So that is why that rule was written, and that is why the 'bona fide' phrase was used.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

15 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

How do you get 1 mile per day X 14 days to be 25 miles please?

 

 

I dunno ?‍♀️ 

I’m usually quite good at maths

I must have pulled it outta my arse ( to quote sir nibble (?) )

 

reminder to self: don’t do maths when drinking beer. 

[WotEver]

1 hour ago, NB Caelmiri said:

I think that is people who want to enjoy the waterways but aren't in a position - for financial, work or any number of other reasons - to go away for weeks/months at a time exploring the canal network. Should we deny people access to the waterways because they're unable to cruise 300 miles a year with a range of 100 miles? Surely not. If they're not having a negative effect on other users of the canal then if Joe Bloggs is only cruising 50 miles a year then so be it.

That describes my wife and I very well when we had WotEver.  Work commitments meant that we were never able to cover much of the system (even so, we did well over 20 miles a year), so we paid for a mooring in a marina.  Simple, and upsets no-one, including CRT.

[Arthur Marshall]

Re Halbert's ruling, though, wasn't he wrong? I seem to recall Nigel saying that only those without a home mooring had the right to stop for 14 days, and the rest of us have no rights at all, but are allowed to on a concessionary basis.

WotEver has summed up the original purpose of the law rather well, I think. What the solution to current problems is beats me*. Probably get sorted if there's a real house market crash.

*If it really is a problem except in a few spots. Isn't one to me.