Declaring a home mooring

[doratheexplorer]

 

Here's a 5 mile range centred on Oldbury (2.5 mile radius).  I'm fairly sure there's 20 miles or more of canal in the circle. Old line, new line, Netherton Branch, Gower Branch, bits of Dudley number 2, bits of Walsall, Titford Branch. The CRT website says that's not enough.

 

Now you may say I'm cherry picking, but since I work in Oldbury, it's kinda relevant to me.

Edited June 5, 2020 by doratheexplorer

[doratheexplorer]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If there was proper enforcement at popular visitor moorings the problems would largely go away. I now always assume that I won't be able to moor overnight at Stone, Nantwich aquaduct, Wheelock or Marple, for instance. Saves a lot of aggravation. Last time I did squeeze in at Stone the guy next to me cheerfully said he'd been there a week and wasn't planning on moving for another few days.

Against that, I don't really want heavy handedness on the cut, there's enough elsewhere. And it's just the result of a system creaking at the seams, doing what it was never designed for, and, of course, like most of the rest of the grumblers, I'm mostly out there in the summer.

When was the last time anyone was fined or threatened with losing their licence because of overstaying on visitor moorings?  Has it ever happened apart from where the navigation authority have contracted out the enforcement and mooring charges have been introduced?

[Iain_S]

18 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

I don't think you're right and I'm not aware of CRT defining range in the way you have.  This is what they currently say:

 

Pay particular attention to the last paragraph.  It talks about a five mile area.  In theory there could be 20 linear miles of canal in that 5 mile area.  But they still say it wouldn't meet their requirements.

 

If elsewhere they have said different, then this is confusing at best.

 

I think that's just badly written. My car may have a range of 500 miles per tank of fuel, but I won't get from Glasgow to London without refuelling. Also, miles are linear and area isn't. A "five mile area" could also be read as an area of five square miles.

[TheBiscuits]

5 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

 

Here's a 5 mile range centred on Oldbury (2.5 mile radius).  I'm fairly sure there's 20 miles or more of canal in the circle. Old line, new line, Netherton Branch, Gower Branch, bits of Dudley number 2, bits of Walsall, Titford Branch. The CRT website says that's not enough.

 

Now you may say I'm cherry picking, but since I work in Oldbury, it's kinda relevant to me.

 

I read it entirely the other way.  Doing about 5 miles (well, 6!) repeatedly up and down the old mainline from say Engine Arm to the BCLM at Dudley followed by an annual cruise round the Curley Wyrley isn't enough to "satisfy the board", and they clearly state this.

 

I'm not sure there is quite 20 linear miles in your circle, but it's not far off.  I bet if you moved on to a different "functional location" (which isn't a defined place but is what the loggers tablets record) every 2 weeks you would not be on the radar for enforcement at all.  

 

Of course this involves staying in Titford Pools for a month, but at least it's handy for Aldi ...

 

If you have the patience to count it up, here's the reference map:

 

https://canalrivertrust.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapTools/index.html?appid=b46e3e0bda4a44a0be267df7674139a5

[Alan de Enfield]

46 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

I don't think you're right and I'm not aware of CRT defining range in the way you have.  This is what they currently say:

 

Pay particular attention to the last paragraph.  It talks about a five mile area.  In theory there could be 20 linear miles of canal in that 5 mile area.  But they still say it wouldn't meet their requirements.

 

If elsewhere they have said different, then this is confusing at best.

 

Unless you have children, in which case you can cruise in a 5km radius for about 9 months of the year to allow for schooling.

 

Nursery, Infant, Primary, Secondary, College / University you could spend the best part of 25 years moving no more than 5km.

[Dave123]

3 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

You make some interesting points, but it's a 100 miles range not 300 miles.

My mistake - perhaps you could clarify where the 300 miles came in to it, was that the suggested total miles covered but going over a 100 mile range? Either way my point about the K&A still stands. And so I suppose exactly what the IWA actually suggested is slightly irrelevant as it was deliberately unworkable and I suspect solely intended to grab canal-media headlines and satisfy elements of their membership.

I do love how the forum can skip over the main point to get buried in ancillary details?

 

But out of curiosity does anyone know the potential legal situation regarding requiring boats to leave a navigation authorities waters in order to meet the requirements of the licence? I wonder if it occurs in some coastal harbours or unconnected tidal rivers?

[Alan de Enfield]

41 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

My mistake - perhaps you could clarify where the 300 miles came in to it, was that the suggested total miles covered but going over a 100 mile range?

There is a difference between range and miles covered.

 

You could have a range of (say) 50 miles, and a requirement to cover 250 miles per annum.

One way to achieve it would be to do your 50 miles out and back 3 times.

 

Giving you a range of 50 miles (so you could stay near work etc) but will have travelled 300 miles in the year.

 

Many boaters (particularly in the South) seem to have a range of 10 miles and a total distance covered of 40 miles in a year.

 

C&RT have (as said above) introduced a new 'range' requirement for boaters with school age children, in that they must travel a range of 3 miles (5 kms) during term time.

 

So, New year to Easter, Easter to End July, September to Christmas they can tootle up and down a short stretch of canal near to the Childs School. In the School holidays they are expected to go further,

 

This concession has not been well received by folks saying they cannot move far because of work, illness (hospital appointments) or ailing relatives., but, C&RT have insisted they must move.

 

C&RT are seizing and removing an average of two boats per week for non-compliances.

 

From C&RT (March 2020)

 

“Our Boat Licence Customer Support team is out every day helping boaters who might be struggling with their licence requirements.  We always urge boaters to talk to us, as in the vast majority of cases we’re able to find a way to keep people on the water. 

 

“However on occasion we do have to take robust action to remove boats.  In 2019/20, 105 boats were removed from our canals and rivers as they were unlicensed or in breach of our terms and conditions despite the best efforts of our Boat Licence Customer Support team.”

Edited June 5, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[Richard10002]

From what I have read there is a very long process of communication before CRT even get close to removing a boat.

 

It would seem that, if your boat is removed, you will have known that the day is coming for a long time, and you will know that you have been in breach for all of that time, or perhaps a little bit less.

[Alan de Enfield]

36 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

From what I have read there is a very long process of communication before CRT even get close to removing a boat.

 

It would seem that, if your boat is removed, you will have known that the day is coming for a long time, and you will know that you have been in breach for all of that time, or perhaps a little bit less.

I posted this in post #141. It shows the time scales for each step of the Section 8 Process

 

Where the boat is the boaters 'main residence', whilst they don't legally need to, C&RT will go to court to get a Judge to authorise the seizure of the boat. This does delay the process 'a bit'.

 

Edited June 5, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[Dave123]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

There is a difference between range and miles covered.

 

 

Thanks again Alan - although I think the misunderstanding was over precisely what numbers IWA had proposed, not the meaning of range. 

 

I have looked it up as it was a while ago. They were suggesting a 100 mile range, per year with minimum distance of 300 miles with at least 60 miles each quarter!

 

That last point alone shows how out of touch they are with the realities winter cruising and stoppages. The amount of weather and stoppage related exemptions needed for boats would make it pointless.

 

The idea of tracking devices on boats is also mentioned?. I gave up reading at that point!

 

"a significant distance per annum (eg 300 miles), a minimum range ‘start to maximum distance from start’ during the period of the licence (eg 100 miles), a minimum distance travelled per quarter (eg 60 miles)"

 

https://www.waterways.org.uk/news_campaigns/campaigns/consultation_responses/pdfs/crt_licence_structure

[Mike Adams]

I don't know why we are all in such a mess about this. Cruising to me is a leisure activity (ie you are not doing it in the course of a business) so continuously cruising implies a leisure activity on a continuous basis and you wouldn't expect to want to do this on the same section of canal. I would expect someone cruising to move a reasonable distance say at least  10miles on maybe 4 days each week bearing in mind most cruising folk would normally do a lot more and you are unlikely to be able to do this if you are working or have children at school. If your intent is primarily to live on board at or near one location without a permanent mooring then buying a cc licence is doing a great injustice to true continuous cruisers. If that is the case you should find a fixed mooring for your boat. I have no objection to people living on boats but I fear that unless some action is taken by CaRT to only issue cc licences to genuine ccers we will all find draconian measures being introduced with the result that we will lose the freedom of the canals we have enjoyed for many years. We have seen this on the Thames already on some public moorings with threatening signs and penalties. All this stuff about working out range is only being done because people aren't doing what they should be as ccers.

[Arthur Marshall]

Thats why I couldn't see a problem with the change to the T&Cs, which now demand CC type rules for home moorers out and about.

The problem does lie in the lack of affordable moorings in the popular residential spots. CRT solved the grief for tourists at Llangollen by building a marina and charging sensibly for it. Maybe canal towns should seriously look at doing the same. It's the affordability which is the problem -if I'd had to keep my tub in a marina I wouldn't be boating now. But a town would gain from mooring fees and rates.

[Richard10002]

On 04/06/2020 at 11:55, 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.

I don't think I've seen you reply to this, so thought it worth repeating - I appreciate that it didn't have a question mark at the end but, given what has gone before, I would have thought it would have resulted in agreement, or otherwise:

 

You seem to agree that a boater with a CC licence should move at least every 14 days, or more often if the mooring is a shorter term one, that they should cruise with a range of at least 20 miles and, whilst you mention 50  miles in the above, you also seemed agreeable to a requirement to cruise 300 or so miles a year - I think you said "It's the range that is the problem", when I talked about a mile a day, (14 miles a fortnight).

 

•  

[Alan de Enfield]

24 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Thats why I couldn't see a problem with the change to the T&Cs, which now demand CC type rules for home moorers out and about.

The "problem" is that C&RT do not have the authority to unilaterally change the law to suit themselves.

 

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; ...

 

What this means is that a corporation can only do what it is allowed in the powers of its corporation, if it is not listed it cannot do it.

C&RT cannot re-write or amend an Act of Parliament (ie the 1995 British Waterways Act section 17(3)(c))

 

 

The law does not require boats with a home mooring to follow the same rules as those without a home mooring - and, as I quoted earlier in the thread, this is substantiated by a Judge.

 

A HMer does not have to move to a 'new place' every 14 days (place as in neighbourhood, Parish etc). A movement of a 'couple of hundred yards' is sufficient for a HMer.

A CCer cannot 'shuffle' a HMer can shuffle.

A HMer does not have to use the mooring.

 

The judgement in the case of CaRT v Mayers :

 

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.

 

Unfortunately for Boaters C&RT are of the opinion that they are above the law, and during one court case :

It was a Mr Green as witness for BW who, responding to a challenge from a barrister, justified his claim that an internal BW memo superceded an Act of Parliament, by reason of its later date.

It left the barrister nonplussed. All he could come out with once back on his chair, was – “Oh, so BW have declared UDI have they?”

[Arthur Marshall]

I meant a problem in that I don't think it should cause any problems to boaters with home moorings unless they're trying to pull a fast (or possibly, in our case, a slow) one . I personally don't care much about its legality. Generally, I try to ignore the legal legitimacy of stuff as irrelevant and just do what seems to me to be the right thing. I don't think the letter of the law matters very much, except to lawyers, who use it to get rich.

Edited June 5, 2020 by Arthur Marshall

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I try to ignore the legal legitimacy of stuff as irrelevant and just do what seems to me to be the right thing. I don't think the letter of the law matters very much, except to lawyers, who use it to get rich.

Its a good job that there are not many like you or we would have total anarchy.

 

I guess you must be one of those 'Freedom of the land' followers who claim that laws do not apply to them unless they consent to them.

[Arthur Marshall]

7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Its a good job that there are not many like you or we would have total anarchy.

 

I guess you must be one of those 'Freedom of the land' followers who claim that laws do not apply to them unless they consent to them.

No, because that would be silly.  Laws apply to everyone, but nobody obeys them if they think are irrelevant, the proof is on the M6 any time of day or night. I just admit it while most don't. Quoting old canal acts, written for different times, does no favours to anyone except lawyers and judges, most of whom don't know the law anyway, which is why they have appeal courts to sort out ridiculous judgements.

The fact that one barmpot in a wig said you could have a home mooring in Yorkshire but live permanently in Bath just shows that either the law is an ass or he is. We all know the laws should be updated and we all know they won't be, which is why tweaking the t&cs made sense.

[tehmarks]

8 hours ago, Mike Adams said:

Cruising to me is a leisure activity (ie you are not doing it in the course of a business) so continuously cruising implies a leisure activity on a continuous basis and you wouldn't expect to want to do this on the same section of canal. I would expect someone cruising to move a reasonable distance say at least  10miles on maybe 4 days each week bearing in mind most cruising folk would normally do a lot more and you are unlikely to be able to do this if you are working or have children at school.

I thin you're taking a very narrow view of the continuous cruiser demographic.

 

I'm a continuous cruiser because I'm very nomadic at heart, and appreciate the ability to change my view and my neighbours at will when I get bored. I like boats, I like boating and I like living on water - but boating isn't my sole passion or my only commitment. That doesn't mean I want to wake up in a new place ten miles away every other day - indeed, having a life and a job outside of boating, that would be impossible. I've managed to continuously cruise for two years in the past without troubling anyone, taking the mick or appearing on the radar of enforcement. I certainly haven't averaged 40 miles a week at any point in that period, and I doubt I would even if I didn't have any other commitments. Who wants to blaze through everywhere they visit without really stopping to appreciate the place, on a constant and never-ending warp speed journey? The great joy of continuously cruising for me is that I can explore and fully immerse myself, temporarily, in the diverse cultures and landscapes of our country. I want to actually get off the boat.

 

Why is that any less valid than those who like smashing out 40 miles a week every week, and who have the time to do so? Why does it need to be prevented?

Edited June 6, 2020 by tehmarks

[Mike Adams]

6 hours ago, tehmarks said:

Why is that any less valid than those who like smashing out 40 miles a week every week, and who have the time to do so? Why does it need to be prevented?

Edited 6 hours ago by tehmarks

I don't think continuous cruising should be prevented and unless you are shuffling back and forth over the same small area I don't see any problem. If the intent is to liveaboard in one place only moving as little as can be got away with then that is not in the spirit of the cc licence. Just look at the organized swapping of moorings that takes place in London every week just to comply with the regulations.

[Jim Riley]

10 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I meant a problem in that I don't think it should cause any problems to boaters with home moorings unless they're trying to pull a fast (or possibly, in our case, a slow) one . I personally don't care much about its legality. Generally, I try to ignore the legal legitimacy of stuff as irrelevant and just do what seems to me to be the right thing. I don't think the letter of the law matters very much, except to lawyers, who use it to get rich.

Objection, Your Honour! Pulling a fast one? By acting within the definition of movement as defined by an Act of Parliament? Get a grip lad! Your definition would only apply if we HMers were pushing beyond the boundaries of the law, as we allege CMers do.

[WotEver]

31 minutes ago, Mike Adams said:

If the intent is to liveaboard in one place only moving as little as can be got away with then that is not in the spirit of the cc licence.

Succinctly put

[Mike Todd]

10 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

No, because that would be silly.  Laws apply to everyone, but nobody obeys them if they think are irrelevant, the proof is on the M6 any time of day or night. I just admit it while most don't. Quoting old canal acts, written for different times, does no favours to anyone except lawyers and judges, most of whom don't know the law anyway, which is why they have appeal courts to sort out ridiculous judgements.

The fact that one barmpot in a wig said you could have a home mooring in Yorkshire but live permanently in Bath just shows that either the law is an ass or he is. We all know the laws should be updated and we all know they won't be, which is why tweaking the t&cs made sense.

I thought I recalled that there was also a counter case - but neither of them at a level that creates precedent. May be it was one where there were more boats claiming one place to be their home mooring than it could accommodate and so it failed the availability test. Also, I thought that it was determined that if the home mooring was somewhere that was not reasonably accessible from there the boat normally was then it also failed (eg if the home mooring was on a detached section or where there was part in between that was not passable by that boat - eg a wide beam mooring oop Nawth when the boat was darn saff.)

 

Much of the consideration about CC depends on a commonsense test based on the need to convince the Board that the boater is engaging in bona fide navigation. The only limits to what mighty persuade the Board are likely to arise from either the Board or the boater exercising, or not, their commonsense. There is no immediate prospect of anything more specific and perhaps that is quite a good thing as it at least avoids creating laws that become out of date.

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Also, I thought that it was determined that if the home mooring was somewhere that was not reasonably accessible from there the boat normally was then it also failed (eg if the home mooring was on a detached section or where there was part in between that was not passable by that boat - eg a wide beam mooring oop Nawth when the boat was darn saff.)

 

 

There have been a number of posts on here that say "it wouldn't stand up", or "it wouldn't be allowed" or the "whole idea is nonsense" etc etc but  I do not recall ever seeing any legal action or discussions about this.

 

What you say would make sense but I'd suggest that the  way the law is written " …….

 

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

 

 

Does not say it must be able to 'get there under its own steam' just that it must be 'usable'. It could be argued that the Fat Boat had been lifted out and trucked to the South for a few months cruising, and that when they wanted to 'go home', it would be lifted out and trucked back to the North.

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

44 minutes ago, Jim Riley said:

Objection, Your Honour! Pulling a fast one? By acting within the definition of movement as defined by an Act of Parliament? Get a grip lad! Your definition would only apply if we HMers were pushing beyond the boundaries of the law, as we allege CMers do.

The law,as I said earlier, is generally an ass, and rarely a useful guideline as to how to live your life.  Half the arguments about this stem from conflicting interpretations of the definition in the Act, which is about as useless as the various judgements that have followed, and the ignorant or daft judges who have made them.. Luckily, as the vast majority of us don't take the piss, it doesn't matter. And the few that do, in my opinion, don't make enough of a problem for us to get worked up about. Irritated, sometimes, yes, but no more than that. 

As far as those who shuffle because of work or kids, everyone has to live somewhere, and if a relatively rich country can't be bothered to provide housing (or moorings) affordable on normal wages, it deserves to have problematical situations arising. Those of us who just do it for fun have no right to complain unless we do something about it, or at least try to.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

I don't think I've seen you reply to this, so thought it worth repeating - I appreciate that it didn't have a question mark at the end but, given what has gone before, I would have thought it would have resulted in agreement, or otherwise:

 

You seem to agree that a boater with a CC licence should move at least every 14 days, or more often if the mooring is a shorter term one, that they should cruise with a range of at least 20 miles and, whilst you mention 50  miles in the above, you also seemed agreeable to a requirement to cruise 300 or so miles a year - I think you said "It's the range that is the problem", when I talked about a mile a day, (14 miles a fortnight).

 

•  
•  

Sorry, I did start to reply and then got distracted. Cruising 14 miles a fortnight again isn’t a problem but for the IWA to suggest a range of 100 miles, that means, using London as an example, that boaters would have to go from there to beyond Northampton for their range, and spend time around there rather than closer to where they live. I think 300 miles distance over a year is possible but it’s still a meaningless, arbitrary distance the IWA have come up with no good basis. Why 300? Why not 200? Or why not 400 if you’re going to propose 100 mile range? The IWA guy who came to the London meeting a couple of years ago didn’t have an answer - it was a case of “well, we thought an average cruise that people go on would be X miles”, or words to that affect.

 

How some boaters are using the waterways, as homes essentially, it’s just not practical or, in many case, possible. Now while the CRT are, as they keep insisting, not a housing authority, they have to (and probably do) recognise that people are using the waterways as their home, and have friends/family/other networks as well as jobs in particular locations. Of course, that goes against the spirit of “bona fide navigation” and this is going to keep coming up until things change one way or the other. Or the CRT enforce their rules a bit more strongly or decides that if you’re going to be a liveaboard, you have to have a mooring.

 

Honestly, I don’t have an answer - I really don’t think the IWA’s proposal is the answer either because it does impact on those who are living on boats in a particular area who can’t afford a mooring (or don’t want one for whatever reason) and as currently stands the continuous cruiser licence does enable people to liveaboard and live in a particular area, and if the CRT was to take on the IWA’s proposals, you’re going to have a whole lot of homeless people or people who simply don’t/can’t comply with the licence conditions. Good luck to whoever at the the CRT has to deal with that aftermath.

 

I’m lucky at the moment I’ve access to a free mooring so I no longer need to concern myself with bridge hopping - which I never did, I enjoyed cruising and during my time in London would rarely go for a cruise less than 5 miles (whoopdie-do - 5 miles, I hear you say) - but I had a job and other hobbies and interests so it was all about balance. Now I’m in a position to cruise when I want, for however long or far I want. Other people aren’t in that lucky position. So again, don’t have an answer - I personally think the current rules/guidelines are probably fair, there’s always going to be people trying to find ways around it or not comply with the licence conditions but that’d be the case if the requirements were a 5, 50 or 500 mile range. That’s what people do and I can imagine even more so if the range was set to 100 miles. Again, good luck to the CRT for policing that.

Edited June 6, 2020 by NB Caelmiri