Canal & River Trust seeks boaters' views on licence T&Cs

[Jerra]

56 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

I am not aware that this has ever been the case and would greatly appreciate proof.

 

Keith

One of the laws passed in the latter part of the 20th century removed the requirement for boaters to have a home mooring.   This was after lobbying by continuous cruisers.   I am afraid I can't be bothered to search for the exact law.   I have wasted enough time looking back to see what I said almost a month ago.

 

Try the forum search engine.

[matty40s]

2 hours ago, Steilsteven said:

I am not aware that this has ever been the case and would greatly appreciate proof.

 

Keith

1995 to be precise.

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, matty40s said:

1995 to be precise.

Thank you!   I thought it was 1995 but wasn't confident enough to say from memory.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

One of the laws passed in the latter part of the 20th century removed the requirement for boaters to have a home mooring.   This was after lobbying by continuous cruisers.   I am afraid I can't be bothered to search for the exact law.   I have wasted enough time looking back to see what I said almost a month ago.

 

Try the forum search engine.

That is incorrect. One of the purposes of the bill which became the British Waterways Act 1995 was to make home moorings mandatory.

Prior to 1995 there was no requirement for a home mooring. The bill that eventually became the British Waterways 1995 Act proposed the requirement that all boats should have a home mooring in Section 13. Lobbying against this was IWA amongst others and BW failed to convince MP's of the need.

 

 

Here is the relevant part of the bill.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

And the final published version of the same section :

 

 

 

(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.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Thanks Alan. Your post neatly highlights the misconception held by many that the 1995 Act watered down an existing requirement to have a home mooring.

 

Not true!

 

[GRLMK38]

The survey closes this weekend so it is the last chance to respond.

 

https://wh.snapsurveys.com/s.asp?k=159843204588

 

My main concern, and the basis of my response, is the proposed clause that allows changes to the published dimensions at any time.  I appreciate the amendment is to underpin their initiative of enforcement relating to boats navigating waterways that they are not suitable for e.g. widebeams on narrow canals, but the way it is written could also pave the way for reduced dredging and maintenance.  Maybe I am being cynical but as an owner of a deeper drafted boat I am concerned.

 

The latest dimensions were published last month.  It now clearly defines which waterways are narrow.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/original/32433-waterway-dimensions.pdf

[wandering snail]

1 hour ago, GRLMK38 said:

The survey closes this weekend so it is the last chance to respond.

 

https://wh.snapsurveys.com/s.asp?k=159843204588

 

My main concern, and the basis of my response, is the proposed clause that allows changes to the published dimensions at any time.  I appreciate the amendment is to underpin their initiative of enforcement relating to boats navigating waterways that they are not suitable for e.g. widebeams on narrow canals, but the way it is written could also pave the way for reduced dredging and maintenance.  Maybe I am being cynical but as an owner of a deeper drafted boat I am concerned.

 

The latest dimensions were published last month.  It now clearly defines which waterways are narrow.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/original/32433-waterway-dimensions.pdf

Here's the link to NABO's considered responses, including just the concern that you have identified. https://nabo.org.uk/files/NABOCommentsonT&Cconsultation.pdf

[GRLMK38]

47 minutes ago, wandering snail said:

Here's the link to NABO's considered responses, including just the concern that you have identified. https://nabo.org.uk/files/NABOCommentsonT&Cconsultation.pdf

Thanks, I had seen this and found it useful.  In recognition of their work I have joined up today.  

 

HNBC has also identified a potential issue regarding dredging and are actively engaged with C&RT. (I'm still waiting to hear from their membership team...)

[ditchcrawler]

3 hours ago, GRLMK38 said:

The survey closes this weekend so it is the last chance to respond.

 

https://wh.snapsurveys.com/s.asp?k=159843204588

 

My main concern, and the basis of my response, is the proposed clause that allows changes to the published dimensions at any time.  I appreciate the amendment is to underpin their initiative of enforcement relating to boats navigating waterways that they are not suitable for e.g. widebeams on narrow canals, but the way it is written could also pave the way for reduced dredging and maintenance.  Maybe I am being cynical but as an owner of a deeper drafted boat I am concerned.

 

The latest dimensions were published last month.  It now clearly defines which waterways are narrow.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/original/32433-waterway-dimensions.pdf

Just responded

[Allan(nb Albert)]

On 29/09/2020 at 13:05, Richard Fairhurst said:

Not going to get into the whole CCing thing here, but the dimensions proposals are seriously problematic.

 

The CRT dimensions document starts with "This is a rough guide only". I've seen probably a dozen iterations of that document in the last 20+ years and they have always been very approximate. (There was a decent one co-ordinated by Paul Wagstaffe circa 2000, I think, but it somehow got lost and replaced with a less useful one.)

 

You can't incorporate something that calls itself "a rough guide only" into T&Cs. You certainly can't do that and then give yourself the right to change it at a whim at any point in the year. And if you want to enshrine the South Stratford being unreservedly 7ft wide into a contractual document, well, good luck with that one.

From the grant agreement with Defra -

 

Quote

 

12.4 CRT is successor to statutory duties under the Transport Act 1968 to maintain certain of the waterways in its care (those classified as either commercial or cruising waterways under the provisions of that Act) to specified statutory dimensions. BW (as its predecessor in respect of those statutory duties)had been subject to a long standing ministerial direction that in its management of such waterways it should maintain to such dimensions as reflected their use and prospects of use. It was further understood between BW and Government that, in the event of enforcement of the statutory dimensions in circumstances that did not reflect use and prospects of use,Government would exercise its powers under the Transport Act 1968 to revise those dimensions so that they reflected actual use and prospects of use.

 

12.5 Defra confirms to CRT its intention that the maintenance of statutory dimensions of the classified waterways should continue to reflect actual use and prospects of use.

 

Changes to statutory dimensions require ministerial approval but CRT has been changing them itself. 

 

[Jerra]

11 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

 

Changes to statutory dimensions require ministerial approval but CRT has been changing them itself. 

 

Just out of interest how do we know there hasn't been a "nod" from behind the scenes to the effect of "get on with it folks it will save us some work".

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

Just out of interest how do we know there hasn't been a "nod" from behind the scenes to the effect of "get on with it folks it will save us some work".

If by "we" you mean boaters, I'm not sure that most are aware of what CRT's statutory obligations as a navigation authority actually are.

What I do know is that Defra categorically deny holding a copy of the statutory dimensions that underpin these statutory obligations.
 

Quote

Following a search of our paper and electronic records, we have established that the information that you have requested is not held by Defra. We can confirm that to the best of our knowledge the information is not held by another public authority.

 

[Jerra]

8 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

If by "we" you mean boaters, I'm not sure that most are aware of what CRT's statutory obligations as a navigation authority actually are.

What I do know is that Defra categorically deny holding a copy of the statutory dimensions that underpin these statutory obligations.
 

 

By we I mean anybody with an interest in complaining about whether this or that can be done with out governmental agreement.   It could have been done quietly and /or unofficially for all we know.

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

If by "we" you mean boaters, I'm not sure that most are aware of what CRT's statutory obligations as a navigation authority actually are.

What I do know is that Defra categorically deny holding a copy of the statutory dimensions that underpin these statutory obligations.
 

 

 

But we do know that several of us hold the information (and it is not that difficult to find on the internet).

 

If only this forum allowed Pdf's, I'd post it here for prosterity.

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But we do know that several of us hold the information (and it is not that difficult to find on the internet).

 

If only this forum allowed Pdf's, I'd post it here for prosterity.

Send a copy to Defra then they can't claim to not have it!!   

[Allan(nb Albert)]

11 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But we do know that several of us hold the information (and it is not that difficult to find on the internet).

 

If only this forum allowed Pdf's, I'd post it here for prosterity.

It's already posted for posterity -

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/695480/response/1689239/attach/2/Dimensions%20of%20Craft%20customarily%20using%20the%20Waterways%20during%201967%20BWB%20document.pdf?

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But we do know that several of us hold the information (and it is not that difficult to find on the internet).

 

If only this forum allowed Pdf's, I'd post it here for prosterity.

Is what you have information about what the dimensions are, or a pdf of a legal document showing "a copy of the statutory dimensions that underpin these statutory obligations"?

 

I'm not trying to be difficult, just asking -- there's a big difference between the two. It's like the difference between the government (or CaRT) saying that they strongly advise people not to [xxx] due to Covid-19, and passing a law which makes it a criminal offence with a legally enforceable penalty for infringement.

[IanD]

12 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

It's already posted for posterity -

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/695480/response/1689239/attach/2/Dimensions%20of%20Craft%20customarily%20using%20the%20Waterways%20during%201967%20BWB%20document.pdf?

Aha, already answered ?

 

So unless the Transport Act 1968 (thank you, Barbara Castle) has been amended, CaRT are legally required to dredge/maintain the canals to allow craft of these dimensions to pass?

 

Which to pick just one example, means they're currently breaking the law in Yorkshire now the gravel barges are running again?

Edited December 24, 2020 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

Is what you have information about what the dimensions are, or a pdf of a legal document showing "a copy of the statutory dimensions that underpin these statutory obligations"?

 

I'm not trying to be difficult, just asking -- there's a big difference between the two. It's like the difference between the government (or CaRT) saying that they strongly advise people not to [xxx] due to Covid-19, and passing a law which makes it a criminal offence with a legally enforceable penalty for infringement.

Well, the 1968 Act defines that the canals must be maintained such that any vessel of the same dimensions as was in use in 1967/8 must still be able to use them.

A report was then complied listing those diimensions for each canal (The Fraenknel report) which also details not only benma and length, but air-draft and dredging depths.

 

The screen shot shows the 'Stautaory Dimensions'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

So unless the Transport Act 1968 (thank you, Barbara Castle) has been amended, CaRT are legally required to dredge/maintain the canals to allow craft of these dimensions to pass?

Thats what I said. - Now you've got it !!

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

 

C&RTs proposed changes to the T&Cs would appear to be worded such that they no longer have a statutory obligation to maintain these dimensions, but that they will amend the dimensions to suit the 'actual' canal, (with current levels of maintenance), this could be amended (say) annually as the bottom gets ever nearer the top and the locks bulge inwards and get narrower.

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Well, the 1968 Act defines that the canals must be maintained such that any vessel of the same dimensions as was in use in 1967/8 must still be able to use them.

A report was then complied listing those diimensions for each canal (The Fraenknel report) which also details not only benma and length, but air-draft and dredging depths.

 

The screen shot shows the 'Stautaory Dimensions'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thats what I said. - Now you've got it !!

So the people running the gravel barges could in theory sue CaRT for damages due to CaRT's failure the maintain the required dredged depth?

 

I'm not in favour of the modern sue-about-everything culture, but it would seem that the law would be in their favour here, and it would be easier for them to show a direct loss to their business as opposed to "I can't take my boat up this cruising canal".

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

C&RTs proposed changes to the T&Cs would appear to be worded such that they no longer have a statutory obligation to maintain these dimensions, but that they will amend the dimensions to suit the 'actual' canal, (with current levels of maintenance), this could be amended (say) annually as the bottom gets ever nearer the top and the locks bulge inwards and get narrower.

But if something is statutory, a business can't just decide to change its T&Cs to evade its legal obligations -- this is exactly why small print buried in dodgy contracts can't be used to override fundamental legal consumer rights, no matter how much companies would like this to be the case.

 

The only way to change a statutory obligation is by statute i.e. passing a law to change the legal status.

 

If CaRT are trying to get away with this then we should support any organisation which tries to hold them to their legal obligation, even the much-derided NBTA...

Edited December 24, 2020 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

So the people running the gravel barges could in theory sue CaRT for damages due to CaRT's failure the maintain the required dredged depth?

 

I'm not in favour of the modern sue-about-everything culture, but it would seem that the law would be in their favour here, and it would be easier for them to show a direct loss to their business as opposed to "I can't take my boat up this cruising canal".

 

In theory - YES !

If they can evidence that the width and depth and not in accordance with the stautory dimensions.

 

Another example (of my own) is that the statutory dredging depth for the River Trent is 1.83 metres (6 feet)

My draft is 4' 6" - 5' (depending on fuel load) and I regularly grounded in the centre of the 'MNC' (main navigable Channel) between Newark & Cromwell.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

But if something is statutory, a business can't just decide to change its T&Cs to evade its legal obligations -- this is exactly why small print buried in dodgy contracts can't be used to override fundamental legal consumer rights, no matter how much companies would like this to be the case.

 

The only way to change a statutory obligation is by statute i.e. passing a law to change the legal status.

 

We know that, but try telling C&RT.

 

What chance have we when a C&RT employee stands up in court and tells the Judge that "an internal Memo supercedes the 1995 Act due to its later date" - The response was "So C&RT have declared UDI have they"

 

What chance - if we accept these changes as 'not important' what about when it is an 'important one', the stage has been set !

 

It no longer affects me but its a bit like :

 

 

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

 

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

 

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

 

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

 

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

 

If a stand is not taken, then one day that will do something that impacts those that are 'left'.