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

[Jerra]

10 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Well. As you are so 'certain'.

 

How far between 5 or 10 miles and 200 miles do you think it would be before you come on their radar?

You say that as if you haven't heard of the concept of ghost moorings.    You would IMO (other opinions are available) come on the radar when, like a CCer who is extracting the urine, you have spent several months in a tiny area.  Then making no effort to comply with the CCing "rules" because they have a home mooring, perhaps even moving less than a mile or so.

[Higgs]

 

I think a ghost mooring must be very similar to CRT's treatment of their ghost existence in a marina. A means to an end, not entirely justifiable. ., or at all. ? 

 

One acquires a mooring under false pretences, the other acquires a status under false pretences.  

 

 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Higgs

[Alan de Enfield]

14 minutes ago, Jerra said:

You say that as if you haven't heard of the concept of ghost moorings.    You would IMO (other opinions are available) come on the radar when, like a CCer who is extracting the urine, you have spent several months in a tiny area.  Then making no effort to comply with the CCing "rules" because they have a home mooring, perhaps even moving less than a mile or so.

 

But (I repeat) that is within the law as it stands and HHJ Halbert agreed, saying :

 

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.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Jerra said:

You say that as if you haven't heard of the concept of ghost moorings.    You would IMO (other opinions are available) come on the radar when, like a CCer who is extracting the urine, you have spent several months in a tiny area.  Then making no effort to comply with the CCing "rules" because they have a home mooring, perhaps even moving less than a mile or so.

I have indeed heard of them. My concern is for boaters who arent abusing the system in that manner who may get caught up in the potential to be accused of doing so.

 

Edit and reading posts above it appears they couldnt legally enforce it any way. That is of course not to say they won't try.

Edited September 29, 2020 by The Happy Nomad

[Jerra]

28 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But (I repeat) that is within the law as it stands and HHJ Halbert agreed, saying :

 

As far as I am concerned there is a growing problem of the canals being littered by boats which rarely if ever move.   Long term this is going to become a problem for those of us who want to actually move.

 

The chances of a new act are IMO vanishingly small, so how do you propose to address the problems?

 

Personally I am quite happy for a use of T & Cs to address management problems which weren't on the horizon when the last acts were written.    After all it is like all other T&Cs you don't have to accept them, there are other navigation authorities.

 

I get the feeling (I know I will be told I am wrong so don't bother telling me) that most who wail about things like T&Cs and bending of the law are looking at the fact they won't be able to continue bending the law to their advantage.

[doratheexplorer]

15 hours ago, Rob-M said:

Having looked through the published dimensions most old working boats will not be allowed on narrow waterways because of the boats width generally being over 7'.

 

 

They may adjust the maximum dimensions by an inch or so to accomodate this, bu there's a trip boat operating out of Sherborne Wharf which is nearly 8' beam.  I can't see them officially advertising the BCN as accepting 8' wide boats?

[Jerra]

32 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

I have indeed heard of them. My concern is for boaters who arent abusing the system in that manner who may get caught up in the potential to be accused of doing so.

If as I suspect it is purely to deal with what CRT as a problem the ordinary boat with a home mooring won't have a problem.  They don't have the resources to deal with every supposed transgression.   They aren't going to say "Oh look this boat has been at that mooring every weekend (do checkers work at weekends) for the last 20 weeks so it is there all the time" when they can see it is 10 miles from its home mooring.

 

It is more likely to be "that boat is always in that town, never more than 5 miles away, let's have a look at where the mooring is.  200 miles away!   They are extracting the urine".

 

What sort of behaviour do you think is likely to get a boater who isn't abusing the system in to trouble?

[doratheexplorer]

10 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If you have a home mooring, why would you want to spend a couple of months sitting under a tree somewhere else? Generally, you leave your home point and wander around for a while, maybe a weekend, maybe six months, and then go home, rest up, and do it again. That's called cruising. Most home moorers are leisure boaters, so it won't bother them, because we go on our boats to move, not plonk ourselves down. And the same goes for liveaboards, surely. Their home mooring is because it's convenient for work or school or whatever, so you'd only leave it to cruise. I really can't see the problem.

And as Nigel pointed out on many an occasion , if you've got a home mooring you have no legal right to stop anywhere else except by the grace of CRT. The 14 day rule only applies to CCers.

1.  Because their home mooring is a leisure mooring, but they live aboard.

2.  Because they work in an area where moorings are expensive and elusive, but their home mooring is cheap.

[alias]

15 hours ago, StephenA said:

Where is condition B1? The page seems to start at B2

Me too, I included noting the absence of B1 in my response.

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, Jerra said:

The chances of a new act are IMO vanishingly small, so how do you propose to address the problems?

I agree there is a 'small' problem

I agree it needs resolving

I agree there is unlikely to be a new or revised Act to resolve it.

 

However, neither C&RT or any other body have the right or authority to produce T&Cs that over ride the law.

 

You can accept C&RTs T&Cs knowing that any conditions that are not within the law cannot be implemented.

 

If C&RT was to say in their T&Cs that all boats must have a home mooring, would you accept that they have the authority to do that, when the  law clearly states a boat does not need a home mooring ?

 

Remember that :

 

 

HOUSE OF LORDS

  Lord Slynn of Hadley   Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle   Lord Hoffmann
  Lord Hope of Craighead   Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough

OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE

BRUTON (A.P.)
(APPELLANT)

v.

 

LONDON AND QUADRANT HOUSING TRUST
(RESPONDENTS)

ON 24 JUNE 1999

 

 

 

Extract :

 

 

LORD HOFFMANN

My Lords,

    The question in this appeal is........................................

 

  ....................... Mr. Bruton's agreement is irrelevant because one cannot contract out of the statute.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[doratheexplorer]

52 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But (I repeat) that is within the law as it stands and HHJ Halbert agreed, saying :

 

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.

What I'm confused about is that, 4 or 5 years ago, CRT updated the T&Cs specifically to deal with this (making boats go on a genuine cruise etc).  Since then, I'm not aware of any boaters with a ghost mooring suffering enforcement.  And now they are changing the T&Cs again as if it is needed?  Either the issue is so rare that it's irrelevant, or CRT are reluctant to deny a new licence because they know it wouldn't stand up in court.  In which case, it seems to me that CRT are strengthening their T&Cs simply to scare boaters into a certain behaviour, nothing more.

[alias]

11 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

I'm reminded of a Mr. Scales, my old head teacher years ago who wacked the back of the hands of a whole class because he couldnt identify who was resonsible for the misdemeanour on the school bus.

Did this overreaction result in no further instances of the misdemeanour?

[Rob-M]

17 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

They may adjust the maximum dimensions by an inch or so to accomodate this, bu there's a trip boat operating out of Sherborne Wharf which is nearly 8' beam.  I can't see them officially advertising the BCN as accepting 8' wide boats?

The marketing boat for the Icknield Port loop development is also wider than 8'.

[doratheexplorer]

18 minutes ago, Jerra said:

As far as I am concerned there is a growing problem of the canals being littered by boats which rarely if ever move.   Long term this is going to become a problem for those of us who want to actually move.

 

The chances of a new act are IMO vanishingly small, so how do you propose to address the problems?

 

 

I'd bet my right arm that most of the boats you refer to don't have a home mooring.  Therefore, CRT are more than adequately equipped to withhold a licence under the 1995 act and remove the vessel under the 1983 act.  I suspect that doing this to current offenders would keep them busy for the next ten years if they took action every single time.  In ten years time, they'd have a load more boats to enforce against.  So why start persecuting boaters who do have a home mooring?

 

As has been said regarding maximum dimensions - this is also a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Just now, Rob-M said:

The marketing boat for the Icknield Port loop development is also wider than 8'.

I did think of that one too.  It's supposedly only temporary though, so I presume it will be gone before any new T&Cs come into force?  I'm sure CRT don't want to make themselves look like utter hypocrites do they? ?

[Machpoint005]

Is it just me, or does F4 mean you have to use fenders at all time? There is always a risk of collision with another boat. Fenders in locks?

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, alias said:

Did this overreaction result in no further instances of the misdemeanour?

Not really no.

 

The actual perpetrators thought it was quite funny.

[Machpoint005]

24 minutes ago, alias said:

Me too, I included noting the absence of B1 in my response.

It's there to make sure you are paying attention. The only possible response is "no opinion".

 

 

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Jerra said:

What sort of behaviour do you think is likely to get a boater who isn't abusing the system in to trouble?

I couldn't say where the boundary lies, but the condition seems to hand all the cards to CRT (Evem though as has been pointed out by Alan) their ability to actually enforce it seems limited to impossible.

 

Why have a T&C that you know you cannot back up if it gets to a court??

 

As Dora suggests it's a T&C to scare people into 'compliance' as most won't be aware of previous ruling(s)

 

 

Edited September 29, 2020 by The Happy Nomad

[Chewbacka]

5 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

Is it just me, or does F4 mean you have to use fenders at all time? There is always a risk of collision with another boat. Fenders in locks?

 

5 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

Is it just me, or does F4 mean you have to use fenders at all time? There is always a risk of collision with another boat. Fenders in locks?

That is what it says, but probably not what they mean.  Just another example of them failing to proof read and correct before issue.

[Jerra]

28 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I agree there is a 'small' problem

I agree it needs resolving

I agree there is unlikely to be a new or revised Act to resolve it.

I did ask you how you would solve what CRT see as a problem.   You haven't, is that because you can't offer any method to do this?  If it isn't because you have no answer please put it forward I am sure CRT would love to hear it.

28 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

If C&RT was to say in their T&Cs that all boats must have a home mooring, would you accept that they have the authority to do that, when the  law clearly states a boat does not need a home mooring.

I would happily accept the condition.  It would after all only be reverting to what was the situation.   Hard luck on true CCers but again it would solve what CRt see as a problem.

 

Many boaters seem to want various things sorted out but then insist on tying CRT's hands behind their back when they try.

16 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

I couldn't say where the boundary lies, but the condition seems to hand all the cards to CRT (Evem though as has been pointed out by Alan) their ability to actually enforce it seems limited to impossible.

 

Why have a T&C that you know you cannot back up if it gets to a court??

 

As Dora suggests it's a T&C to scare people into 'compliance' as most won't be aware of previous ruling(s)

 

 

So if you were CRT and you saw a problem and hadn't a cat in hell's chance of another act how would you solve the problem?

[Jerra]

37 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

 So why start persecuting boaters who do have a home mooring?

Could you please explain how a navigation authority asking/expecting boaters to actually boat is persecution?

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I did ask you how you would solve what CRT see as a problem.   You haven't, is that because you can't offer any method to do this?  If it isn't because you have no answer please put it forward I am sure CRT would love to hear it.

I cannot see that there is any way that C&RT can resolve the (small) problem of boats with a home mooring not moving 'enough' (that is within C&RTs powers to apply & enforce).

 

Maybe if they would (despite being asked for many years) quantify the problem boaters may be able to come up with suggestions if it is considered to be of sufficient size to warrant action.

 

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

I get the feeling (I know I will be told I am wrong so don't bother telling me) that most who wail about things like T&Cs and bending of the law are looking at the fact they won't be able to continue bending the law to their advantage.

 

I have never been a Cmer or a bridge hopper, being a 'leisure boater' (allbeit for several months at a time) I plan to cruise and see things.

Now (having 'seen the future' of things to come) I am no longer on C&RT waters so 'have no dog in the fight'. I am simply pointing out that C&RT currently have no legal powers to do anything about boaters with a home mooring moving A to B to A to B to A .......... ad infinitum and never using their mooring.

 

Simply writing new T&Cs that conflict with the law does not mean they can be applied - you will often note on any business's T&Cs a phrase (something like) "If any of these terms and conditions are found to be un-enforcable under English law only that particular clause will be affected. all other clause will remain valid"

 

 

Edit to add :

C&RTs clause saying much as above is 10:2 in their T&Cs

So they can 'demand' pretty much whatever they like in their T&Cs, but, 'if called out' just say "Ok ignore that one".

 

 

[Jerra]

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I cannot see that there is any way that C&RT can resolve the (small) problem of boats with a home mooring not moving 'enough' (that is within C&RTs powers to apply & enforce).

How do you know it is a small problem?  By your own admission they haven't told you how many they think there are.   The problem with small problems is that left alone they become big problems.

 

It is frequently said on here that Rt should deal with things before the get to be a problem, but strangely when this is applied to people the principle goes out of the window.

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Maybe if they would (despite being asked for many years) quantify the problem boaters may be able to come up with suggestions if it is considered to be of sufficient size to warrant action.

Why do CRt need to quantify the problem?   If you are so desperate for numbers try a Freedom of information request.

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I have never been a Cmer or a bridge hopper, being a 'leisure boater' (allbeit for several months at a time) I plan to cruise and see things.

Now (having 'seen the future' of things to come) I am no longer on C&RT waters so 'have no dog in the fight'. I am simply pointing out that C&RT currently have no legal powers to do anything about boaters with a home mooring moving A to B to A to B to A .......... ad infinitum and never using their mooring.

To take Mrsmelly's stance it has nothing to do with you then.   I don't agree with his stance but you seem to out a lot of effort into encouraging the attempts to thwart CRT at every turn.

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Simply writing new T&Cs that conflict with the law does not mean they can be applied - you will often note on any business's T&Cs a phrase (something like) "If any of these terms and conditions are found to be un-enforcable under English law only that particular clause will be affected. all other clause will remain valid"

See above.  You make a lot of a legal situation which doesn't influence you in any way.  You have after all done what I suggested for those who don't like the T&Cs.

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Edit to add :

C&RTs clause saying much as above is 10:2 in their T&Cs

So they can 'demand' pretty much whatever they like in their T&Cs, but, 'if called out' just say "Ok ignore that one".

Please explain why you are so desperate to prevent CRT managing its waterways as it sees fit when you aren't even on them.

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, Jerra said:

See above.  You make a lot of a legal situation which doesn't influence you in any way.  You have after all done what I suggested for those who don't like the T&Cs.

I have left their waters, not because of the T&C's (that they cannot enforce anyway) but because of the ever increasing 'dereliction' of the waterways and its infrastructure, failing infrastructure, the bottom getting nearer the top, increasing costs etc.

 

Some years ago KPMG were engaged to review the costs of keeping the infrastructure in a 'steady state' of repair, the conclusion was that it needed ~£100+m (Up to £170m) per annum to keep "as they were", and that was on an already declining level of maintenance.

The have underspent every year since and wonder why the infrastructure is collapsing - this year they are planning on spending ~£45m

 

C&RT used to publish the estimated cost of the backlog of maintenance needed, but stopped tis a couple of years ago, using the argument "we don't know how much the repairs will cost until we start the job".

 

C&RT are simply mis-managing the waterways.

 

Should you wish to see the KPMG report I'll gladly email it you on receipt of your email address.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I have left their waters, not because of the T&C's (that they cannot enforce anyway) but because of the ever increasing 'dereliction' of the waterways and its infrastructure, failing infrastructure, the bottom getting nearer the top, increasing costs etc.

If you look at what I said dispassionately you will see I have never said you left because of T&Cs.

 

What I have said, and you appear to have completely ignored, is why you put so much effort into trying at every opportunity to get boaters to resist CRTs attempts to manage the waterways as they see fit.

 

After all you have left CRt waters and are unlikely to ever return so what is your driving force in these attempts to undermine them?