Boat seized and owner left homeless and sleeping in a car.

[Tacet]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Would C&RT refuse to accept your 'back garden in Aberdeen' as being available and where a boat can be lawfully left ?

The requirement is for a place where the vessel can reasonably be kept.  It is insufficient that there is a place where it could be kept - if that place was not reasonable..

 

Whether a back garden in Aberdeen is a reasonable place or not will depend on a range of factors - such as the practicalities of moving the vessel to it.

[mark99]

In Athy's case I assume Athy rents a mooring on Oxford Canal and has a 2nd mooring at home in the badlands? 

Edited October 29, 2020 by mark99

[Arthur Marshall]

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

That is no always the case. Certainly a couple of years or so back the concern was that some moorings were being multi-let with enough to allow all the moorers to find room - on a statistical basis. A technique like this is used in many business models. Whether this fits within the law is, I suspect, still contentious were it ever to gain popularity.

 

So if I go away from my home mooring to a distance part of the network, taking 2 weeks plus to reach, is that legit?

Most of us leisure boaters do that, which is why CRT changed the t&cs to say when you were off your home mooring you had to cruise. What you shouldn't do is stay in the same place (definition undefined) for a long time. If you want to do that, you should either go back to your mooring or get one where you want to be. It does seem a logical position to take.

[Momac]

3 hours ago, Jim Riley said:

My first boat,  17.5 ft on a trailer, was "moored" in my garden on its trailer, in my back garden. They were happy with that.

That seems okay . A mooring is a thing that secures a boat and doesn't necessarily require the boat to be floating.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

45 minutes ago, Tacet said:

The requirement is for a place where the vessel can reasonably be kept.  It is insufficient that there is a place where it could be kept - if that place was not reasonable..

 

Whether a back garden in Aberdeen is a reasonable place or not will depend on a range of factors - such as the practicalities of moving the vessel to it.

 

Maybe you didn't read the 'specification' - I did say that it was a trailable boat, so the 'practicalities' are fine.

 

There are trailable narrowboats - on certain models it's one of the selling features, drop it in the water and the hull fills with water to act as ballast.

 

A 32 -35 GRP cruiser narrowboat is trailerable.

 

Images from Tony Tug Boat

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jerra]

29 minutes ago, MartynG said:

That seems okay . A mooring is a thing that secures a boat and doesn't necessarily require the boat to be floating.

 

Doesn't it?    My dictionary says:

 

Mooring (noun) a place where a boat or ship is moored.

 

So I looked up moored.

 

Moored (verb) make fast (a boat) by attaching it by cable or rope to the shore or to an anchor.

[Tam & Di]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Nigel ?

Nick.

 

Nick Grazebrook was a Solicitor with Shakespeares of Birmingham - he was Chairman of the Association of Pleasurecraft Operators and Di was Vice-Chairman in the late 80s and into the 90s, and he was very active in holding BW to task when they tried to go beyond what the various Acts allowed them to do. He was very supportive when we acted as petitioners in the Lords against the BW Bill which wished to repeal clauses of the original Canal Enabling Acts giving land owners certain Rights. To some extent Tony is still fighting that same battle.

 

Tam

 

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, Tam & Di said:

Nick.

 

Nick Grazebrook was a Solicitor with Shakespeares of Birmingham - he was Chairman of the Association of Pleasurecraft Operators and Di was Vice-Chairman in the late 80s and into the 90s, and he was very active in holding BW to task when they tried to go beyond what the various Acts allowed them to do. He was very supportive when we acted as petitioners in the Lords against the BW Bill which wished to repeal clauses of the original Canal Enabling Acts giving land owners certain Rights. To some extent Tony is still fighting that same battle.

 

Tam

 

 

Thankyou,I wondered if it was a reference to Nigel Moore.

[Momac]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

Doesn't it?    My dictionary says:

 

Mooring (noun) a place where a boat or ship is moored.

 

So I looked up moored.

 

Moored (verb) make fast (a boat) by attaching it by cable or rope to the shore or to an anchor.

 

A boat may be on a mooring in tidal waters where the mooring dries out when the tide goes out 

 

The cable or rope thing does come into it but the boat need not have water under it.

 

 

[TheBiscuits]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

Doesn't it?    My dictionary says:

 

Mooring (noun) a place where a boat or ship is moored.

 

So I looked up moored.

 

Moored (verb) make fast (a boat) by attaching it by cable or rope to the shore or to an anchor.

 

And did your dictionary have an entry for "other place"?

 

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;

[Athy]

11 hours ago, mark99 said:

In Athy's case I assume Athy rents a mooring on Oxford Canal and has a 2nd mooring at home in the badlands? 

That's quite correct, though I am not sure about the "badlands" bit.

[Jerra]

8 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

And did your dictionary have an entry for "other place"?

 

I wasn't looking for other place as I was fairly certain mooring required water.   I would have thought the boat that has been moored and then left by the tide was beached or dried out rather than moored.

9 hours ago, MartynG said:

 

A boat may be on a mooring in tidal waters where the mooring dries out when the tide goes out 

 

The cable or rope thing does come into it but the boat need not have water under it.

 

 

See #151

[Bee]

I think that if nothing else this illustrates the ill defined legal position of many of the rules and by laws that those of us who use the waterways exist under and perhaps allow those in power to act unfairly. Everything from definitions of moorings, the BSC, riparian rights, living on board, CC'ing, overstaying on a bit of bank, displaying licences and more. Over the years more and more rules have been tacked on to suit BWB and CRT until nothing is clear - the only thing that you can guarantee is that you are probably infringing something. I would suggest that maybe a root and branch overhaul of the whole house of cards would be helpful but a) it would cost us more and b)  boat owners would lose more than we night gain. Until then the only people who will question the rights of those in charge to interpret the rules will be the awkward squad so hats off to them. Remember, if it wasn't for people being awkward and testing the rights of the authorities half the canals that we have would have been lost 50 years ago or more.

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Bee said:

I think that if nothing else this illustrates the ill defined legal position of many of the rules and by laws that those of us who use the waterways exist under and perhaps allow those in power to act unfairly. Everything from definitions of moorings, the BSC, riparian rights, living on board, CC'ing, overstaying on a bit of bank, displaying licences and more. Over the years more and more rules have been tacked on to suit BWB and CRT until nothing is clear - the only thing that you can guarantee is that you are probably infringing something. I would suggest that maybe a root and branch overhaul of the whole house of cards would be helpful but a) it would cost us more and b)  boat owners would lose more than we night gain. Until then the only people who will question the rights of those in charge to interpret the rules will be the awkward squad so hats off to them. Remember, if it wasn't for people being awkward and testing the rights of the authorities half the canals that we have would have been lost 50 years ago or more.

 

Agreed , and to top it all, much of what is actually well defined in law are the things that C&RT seem desperate to amend or overide, and, the things they can control and enforce they seem reluctant to do so.

[Dave123]

16 hours ago, magnetman said:

I was reading all this and I was like "yeah yeah yeah just buy a gold license and bypass all the problems" innit. 

 

Me thinks there is no facility for CRT to do the whole 6 month thing and make you unlicensed if you have this combined CRT/EA thing.

 

 

 

I have wondered this too. It seems to be a bit of a loophole but not really relevant here as EA have nothing to do with the Trent

[Captain Pegg]

16 hours ago, magnetman said:

I was reading all this and I was like "yeah yeah yeah just buy a gold license and bypass all the problems" innit. 

 

Me thinks there is no facility for CRT to do the whole 6 month thing and make you unlicensed if you have this combined CRT/EA thing.

 

 

 

Why would they do that if you have a licensed boat?

 

Do CRT ever actually make anyone unlicensed within the validity of an issued licence anyway? I would assume they just refuse to agree to a renewal. Surely they can also do that for a Gold licence?

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Why would they do that if you have a licensed boat?

 

Do CRT ever actually make anyone unlicensed within the validity of an issued licence anyway? I would assume they just refuse to agree to a renewal. Surely they can also do that for a Gold licence?

 

C&RT have regularly removed a licence(s) from people who meet the three criteria for issuing a licence. (Insurance, BSSC, Mooring declaration)

The line they take is "a bit devious".

 

They cancel your licence because of some infringement of the T&Cs (overstaying and insufficient travel distance are the two common ones)

Once your licence has been revoked you are then on the waterways without a licence.

C&RT then take you to court or sieze your boat because you do not have a licence to be on their waters.

 

The court case and result, is a foregone conclusion, as you have no licence you cannot be on C&RT waters. You are guilty.

The reason you don't have a licence is not pertinent to the case. The charge is 'not having the relevant licence'. (not why you don't have a licence)

Edited October 30, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[Tony Brooks]

56 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

I have wondered this too. It seems to be a bit of a loophole but not really relevant here as EA have nothing to do with the Trent

I think they do, but nothing to do with navigation or craft licensing. On many rivers the navigation is under the navigation authority like NT for the Wey of the joint trusts for the Avon but the EA is charged with flood control.

[Captain Pegg]

25 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

C&RT have regularly removed a licence(s) from people who meet the three criteria for issuing a licence. (Insurance, BSSC, Mooring declaration)

The line they take is "a bit devious".

 

They cancel your licence because of some infringement of the T&Cs (overstaying and insufficient travel distance are the two common ones)

Once your licence has been revoked you are then on the waterways without a licence.

C&RT then take you to court or sieze your boat because you do not have a licence to be on their waters.

 

The court case and result, is a foregone conclusion, as you have no licence you cannot be on C&RT waters. You are guilty.

The reason you don't have a licence is not pertinent to the case. The charge is 'not having the relevant licence'. (not why you don't have a licence)

I know how it works. But the first stage is to warn of potential breaches giving the licence holder the opportunity to correct whatever CRT deem to be problematic. So how often does all that play out such that licenses are revoked during their validity. I assume you have a report that tells us?

 

Just seemed a bit strange to tout buying an expensive licence as a means of making enforcement difficult. It seems at best it might put it off for six months.

[Heartland]

Yes.

 

Nick Grazebrook was a solicitor with Shakespeares, he sadly died, and that firm lost a very capable man

 

I have another question  relating to history. In Birmingham it was common to find boat lengths being advertised in the days of commercial operation. In view of the current discussion the right to moor a boat against private land seems to be with the waterway owner, rather than the land owner. Perhaps somebody can clarify this point. And the aspect of private basins where presumable the main waterway owner had no rights, could be better explained.

[Murflynn]

15 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Most of us leisure boaters do that, which is why CRT changed the t&cs to say when you were off your home mooring you had to cruise. What you shouldn't do is stay in the same place (definition undefined) for a long time. If you want to do that, you should either go back to your mooring or get one where you want to be. It does seem a logical position to take.

exactly.  

[Momac]

1 hour ago, Dave123 said:

...............EA have nothing to do with the Trent

.................as far as boat licensing is concerned 

[Jim Riley]

35 minutes ago, MartynG said:

.................as far as boat licensing is concerned 

Or boat certification, whichever is appropriate. 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

I know how it works. But the first stage is to warn of potential breaches giving the licence holder the opportunity to correct whatever CRT deem to be problematic. So how often does all that play out such that licenses are revoked during their validity. I assume you have a report that tells us?

 

Just seemed a bit strange to tout buying an expensive licence as a means of making enforcement difficult. It seems at best it might put it off for six months.

 

Liveaboards, knowing that C&RT will always seek a court order before taking action against them, and that it will take 'months' to go thru' the process will 'play the game', get an extra 'year' without moving, then move on the day before the boat is siezed.

 

You need to look at the Section 8 Process documents but I only have them as Pdf's so cannot post them on the forum.

 

If you do a search on the 'What do they know'  (The FOI information site) you'll see a lot of detail on how, when and why section 8's have been issued.

 

If you look at the K&A for example :

 

Over a 4 month period :

 

During this period 199 unique boats were identified that did not move between two or more sightings Boat owners have been contacted by text, email or letter to remind them to move, or to contact the trust if there is a reason that they cannot move.  

95 have been contacted once

40 have been contacted twice

16 have been contacted three times

18 have been contacted four or more times

 

The Trust is in contact with the owners of the remaining 30 boats for a number of different reasons. Allowances were made when ice on the canal made movement difficult or dangerous. All of the boats that received multiple 14 day reminders in this period were already in the enforcement process.

 

 

 

The final report shows that a number of boats had 'removed themselves' onto Non-C&RT waters, & others had taken up 'home moorings'.

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, Heartland said:

Yes.

 

Nick Grazebrook was a solicitor with Shakespeares, he sadly died, and that firm lost a very capable man

 

I have another question  relating to history. In Birmingham it was common to find boat lengths being advertised in the days of commercial operation. In view of the current discussion the right to moor a boat against private land seems to be with the waterway owner, rather than the land owner. Perhaps somebody can clarify this point. And the aspect of private basins where presumable the main waterway owner had no rights, could be better explained.

I thought it is both-and rather than either-or. That is, the main permission needed is from the landowner, to whose land you wish to attach your boat. However, your boat will still be floating on canal water and so need the canal owners permission as well (if only to deal with not moving sufficiently). Hence, at least indirectly, the authority for End-of-Garden mooring permits, even if some still argue against the logic.

 

As I understand it, the issue of private basins is linked with the debate about whether a boat in a marina does or does not need a licence. Older marinas established the right for such an exemption for their customers which I think is similar to the use of private basins. However, new marinas are different as they require the agreement (NAA) from CaRT to connect to the canal itself (older private basins will have established that right way back in time when the canal owners were all too keen for new business, especially those where someone else did the necessary investment) It is well known that for some years CaRT (and its predecessor) have made the NAA a condition of their permission and that the agreement includes a requirement that the marina ensure that their moorers all have a licence, regardless of whether they ever venture outside the marina.

 

Interestingly, there seem to be a few older moorings which are merely an open extension sideways of the canal itself, that is there is no entrance in a conventional sense, but the land underneath the mooring is owned separately from CaRT.