Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

Featured Posts

Or, there is a choice - you can just accept that you have no control over what C&RT do, irrespective of which 'club' you join, or, leave the waters that they control.

 

There is a steady stream doing the latter. Boat licence numbers reduced again last year (income rose but simply because the increased cost of the licence)

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

To be honest joining clubs isnt at all what I want, be it NABO or any other. In my 31 years living aboard be it BW or CART I find provided you are willing to take some crap in the fact that the system is well over 200 years old then its a good system. I will be cruising again next year and probably will find much of the system is open and useable.

I would give the Pennines a wide berth 😅

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Midnight said:

I would give the Pennines a wide berth 😅

I have faith that figure of three will be reopened next year.

 

I certainly hope so as I'm planning to go that way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Midnight said:

I would give the Pennines a wide berth 😅

I arnt chopping half the boat off to go up there!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Midnight said:

Some of the CaRT ground staff are brilliant, some volunteers are friendly and helpful, some admin and regional mangers try their best to sort out issues so I'm not totally anti-CaRT it's just the general direction of flow is disadvantaging navigation. Anyone in this area who cannot fit the gauge for the Standedge tunnel has been trapped in West Yorkshire since August 28 and the maintenance of the Rochdale, Huddersfield & Calder Navigation is poor to say the least. Mr Parry said it's too expensive to retain bank staff but how much does it cost (not just in terms of money) to employ inexperienced contractors and hire tools when needed.  So who is calling CaRT to task over those matters?

A really good post, this sums up the situation very well. “it's just the general direction of flow is disadvantaging navigation.” This sums up NABO’s recent conversations to CRT over the proposed changes to the terms and conditions where for example they propose that your license just entitled you to put your boat in the water but not to navigate. The management and control of contractors has been an issue raised over the last few years and to be fair to CRT they themselves recognise this. This is what the decentralising of engineering works to the new regional directors  is meant to tackle.

 

I would imagine and hope all the boating organisations are trying to pursuade CRT to give boating and navigation a higher priority. It’s a challenge where your help is needed especially as CRT are shortly to try and persuade government to renew the grant using the well-being of all not just a minority with boats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

I have faith that figure of three will be reopened next year.

 

I certainly hope so as I'm planning to go that way!

The Club have been assured by a CaRT manager - one of the better ones albeit newer ones (gulp!)- that work is progressing and the navigation will be open next Easter. I imagine the North West brigade will still be negotiating with someone to re-open Punchbowl Bridge on the Rochdale so keep your fingers crossed. If you plan to do the Hudderfield and Standedge Tunnel allow plenty of time, expect issues like empty pounds, enter and exit lock top gates very carefully where water is low - the bottom gates will be leaking -  but it's worth it in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

I arnt chopping half the boat off to go up there!!

If you managed Thorne in a 70ft boat I imagine you could figure out how to get same through Salterhebble top lock - when you do let me know I'll do a vlog - sharing the subs of course. :P:giggles:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Midnight said:

If you managed Thorne in a 70ft boat I imagine you could figure out how to get same through Salterhebble top lock - when you do let me know I'll do a vlog - sharing the subs of course. :P:giggles:

Ive done said lock numerous times but certainly no way Jose in 68 feet. Thorne was a doddle in 70 we had best part of a quarter of an inch to play with 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tuscan said:

A really good post, this sums up the situation very well. “it's just the general direction of flow is disadvantaging navigation.” This sums up NABO’s recent conversations to CRT over the proposed changes to the terms and conditions where for example they propose that your license just entitled you to put your boat in the water but not to navigate. The management and control of contractors has been an issue raised over the last few years and to be fair to CRT they themselves recognise this. This is what the decentralising of engineering works to the new regional directors  is meant to tackle.

 

I would imagine and hope all the boating organisations are trying to pursuade CRT to give boating and navigation a higher priority. It’s a challenge where your help is needed especially as CRT are shortly to try and persuade government to renew the grant using the well-being of all not just a minority with boats. 

To propose that your licence only allows you to put your boat in CRT waters but not confer a right to navigate is scary.

If navigating the cut becomes at the discretion of CRT and trips need to be pre booked (as something similar to the Bridgewater ) although they say it is to help plan maintainance,then I think it is the beginning of the end.

CRT seem to want to maintain the canals as countryside water features for the general public,and if boating is discouraged or made really troublesome, then that will cut their maintainence costs considerably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

To propose that your licence only allows you to put your boat in CRT waters but not confer a right to navigate is scary.

Have a look at Section D of the consultation 

The opening sentence has been changed to avoid responsibility to provide waterways capable of navigation. We do not to buy a license to moor in a pond.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

Have a look at Section D of the consultation 

The opening sentence has been changed to avoid responsibility to provide waterways capable of navigation. We do not to buy a license to moor in a pond.

 

For clarity (seeing as Pdf's cannot be posted on the forum) Section D1 is the key, but the subsequent ones are also 'interesting'

D8 says there is no refund on your licence is the waterway is closed (unless you remove your boat from C&RT waterways) :

 

 

 

Screenshot (54).png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Condition A1 is in direct contravention to the 1995 Act, but yet again C&RT can seemingly overturn Acts of Parliament if it suits them.

 

Boaters with a Hme Mooring must continuously cruise and cannot 'make use of a short length of waterway' without returnig to their home mooring in between.

 

I am really glad I'm out of it all now. There is no freedom left on the C&RT inland waterways.

 

Remember the Judge who said :

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Screenshot (55).png

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

Condition A1 is in direct contravention to the 1995 Act, but yet again C&RT can seemingly overturn Acts of Parliament if it suits them.

 

Boaters with a Hme Mooring must continuously cruise and cannot 'make use of a short length of waterway' without returnig to their home mooring in between.

 

 

As you rightly say Alan, CRT do not have the right to contravene an Act of Parliament.

 

I have asked my MP to find out why they think they can.

 

If enough people get their MPs to question it CRT may be made to comply with the Act.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NABO has recently written to the All Party Parliamentary Working Group for Waterways raising exactly this point . The CRT is seeking powers exceeding those granted to it in the 95 Act and giving boaters no choice but to sign up to them. CRT made a similar attempt in the 2015 changes - anyone remember the ban on shuffling? 

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

NABO has recently written to the All Party Parliamentary Working Group for Waterways raising exactly this point . The CRT is seeking powers exceeding those granted to it in the 95 Act and giving boaters no choice but to sign up to them. CRT made a similar attempt in the 2015 changes - anyone remember the ban on shuffling? 

 

As has been pointed out in the past (many times by Nigel Moore)

 

A company can only do what the law says it can do.

 

 The case law most specifically addressing the issue that I cited back then was:

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; ...' [my emphasis]

This was cited with approval by the same House in the 1991 judgment in McCarthy & Stone v Richmond LBC, with all 5 Law Lords in unanimous agreement on the point.

 

This is the absolute opposite to a 'natural person' who can do anything that is not actually specified prohibited (against the law).

 

C&RT are trying to be both a Corporation and a 'natural person' and cherry-picking which ever suits them best.

 

We should also remember in the middle of a court case :

 

 

It was a Mr Green (of BW) as a 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?

 

Change of name, same management !!!

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Midnight said:

If you plan to do the Hudderfield and Standedge Tunnel allow plenty of time, expect issues like empty pounds, enter and exit lock top gates very carefully where water is low - the bottom gates will be leaking -  but it's worth it in the end.

 

So they must have improved the Hudd quite a bit in the last couple of years ...

 

:D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

So they must have improved the Hudd quite a bit in the last couple of years ...

 

:D

 

As lock 1E is padlocked ,you now have to book passage through.So yes, a great "improvement"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

As lock 1E is padlocked ,you now have to book passage through.So yes, a great "improvement"

 

CROPPERS.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

Condition A1 is in direct contravention to the 1995 Act, but yet again C&RT can seemingly overturn Acts of Parliament if it suits them.

 

Boaters with a Hme Mooring must continuously cruise and cannot 'make use of a short length of waterway' without returnig to their home mooring in between.

 

I am really glad I'm out of it all now. There is no freedom left on the C&RT inland waterways.

 

Remember the Judge who said :

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Screenshot (55).png

To  be honest, A1 isn't too onerous, and I don't see it as contravening the 1995 Act.

 

It can certainly be argued that if a boat cannot get to its home mooring , then that mooring has become unavailable, which would include being unable to get to it by reason of time constraints, i.e. if more than a day's travel from the mooring. Also, as pointed out by Nigel Moore, a boat with a home mooring, unlike one without a home mooring,  has no statutory right to moor. Mooring is permissive in these circumstances, so may be subjected to conditions.

A1 does not preclude the pattern of a weekly cruise to the pub, moor for the weekend, and return to the home mooring afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

....that mooring has become unavailable, which would include being unable to get to it by reason of time constraints, i.e. if more than a day's travel from the mooring.

You appear to be suggesting that a boater with a home mooring cannot travel more than 1 day away from his home mooring ?

 

Indeed, Nigel did say that 14 days for a HMer is simply permissive :

Quote.

Over the latter part of the 20th century, longer temporary use of the towpath for mooring became tolerated on a pragmatic basis, with 14 days fixed upon as a rough guideline for reasons lost in obscurity (for all that BW came up with postulated origins during the Select Committee hearings on the 1990 Bill).

 

Obstruction remains on the statute books as an offence, updated even in the 1995 Act, and overstaying stated times on selected sections has been used with County Court approval to qualify the boat – being thereby regarded as an obstruction - for being moved under s.8(5) of the 1983 Act. Anything longer than an overnight stay, as I see it, is simply permissive – with the exception of boats without home moorings, for whom only, the right to 14 days (or more if circumstances dictate) is enshrined in law.

 

For boats with home moorings when cruising away from those, the 14 day limit would apply only as a permissive one based on a fair-play comparison with the ‘continuous cruisers’

 

However, C&RT are now planning to implement a new rule for HMers that they must be on a "genuine cruise" (Bona Fide) and not allowed to make short trips or repetitive movements ala CCer.

There is no requirement in law to do that, and was pointed out by HHJ Halbert in his summary :

 

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.

 

C&RT are cherry picking requirements from one part of the legislation and trying to apply it to other parts.

 

 

21 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

To  be honest, A1 isn't too onerous, and I don't see it as contravening the 1995 Act.

Then we will have to disagree, I'd strongly suggest that it does, and is the another step up the 'wedge' following them overiding the law in several other areas eg The law demands that they give 28 days notice* before boarding a boat - C&RT have re-written this so that in their T&Cs they now claim the right to 'just turn up an board the boat'.

 

* Except in an emergency

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Midnight said:

mismanagement - the process of managing something badly or wrongly.

Toddbrook, logos, signage, cycling, covid, maintenance, tools, pubs, Punchbowl bridge,

As I understand it, Punchbowl is not owned by CaRT. How then is it mismanagement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

To  be honest, A1 isn't too onerous, and I don't see it as contravening the 1995 Act.

 

 

A1 does not preclude the pattern of a weekly cruise to the pub, moor for the weekend, and return to the home mooring afterwards.

A1 COULD preclude that weekly cruise to the pub for the weekend if CRT want it to.

It COULD stop us heading off out just to get away from our mooring on a Friday evening and mooring in the same middle of nowhere that we always moor if CRT want it to.

....and that is why it should not be brought in.

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You appear to be suggesting that a boater with a home mooring cannot travel more than 1 day away from his home mooring ?

 

Indeed, Nigel did say that 14 days for a HMer is simply permissive :

Quote.

Over the latter part of the 20th century, longer temporary use of the towpath for mooring became tolerated on a pragmatic basis, with 14 days fixed upon as a rough guideline for reasons lost in obscurity (for all that BW came up with postulated origins during the Select Committee hearings on the 1990 Bill).

 

Obstruction remains on the statute books as an offence, updated even in the 1995 Act, and overstaying stated times on selected sections has been used with County Court approval to qualify the boat – being thereby regarded as an obstruction - for being moved under s.8(5) of the 1983 Act. Anything longer than an overnight stay, as I see it, is simply permissive – with the exception of boats without home moorings, for whom only, the right to 14 days (or more if circumstances dictate) is enshrined in law.

 

For boats with home moorings when cruising away from those, the 14 day limit would apply only as a permissive one based on a fair-play comparison with the ‘continuous cruisers’

 

However, C&RT are now planning to implement a new rule for HMers that they must be on a "genuine cruise" (Bona Fide) and not allowed to make short trips or repetitive movements ala CCer.

There is no requirement in law to do that, and was pointed out by HHJ Halbert in his summary :

 

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.

 

C&RT are cherry picking requirements from one part of the legislation and trying to apply it to other parts.

 

 

Then we will have to disagree, I'd strongly suggest that it does, and is the another step up the 'wedge' following them overiding the law in several other areas eg The law demands that they give 28 days notice* before boarding a boat - C&RT have re-written this so that in their T&Cs they now claim the right to 'just turn up an board the boat'.

 

* Except in an emergency

I think that 'overriding the law' is too strong: you are invited to sign the T&Cs at which point they are subject to contract law which permits reasonable conditions. To sustain your argument you have to show either that the condition is unreasonable in contract law terms or that refusing you a licence on the grounds that your refuse to sign the T&Cs is itself contrary to the law. Whilst the latter point has been aired before, I am unaware that anyone has successfully convinced a court that it is contrary to the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

'''However, C&RT are now planning to implement a new rule for HMers that they must be on a "genuine cruise" (Bona Fide) and not allowed to make short trips or repetitive movements ala CCer.

There is no requirement in law to do that, and was pointed out by HHJ Halbert in his summary :

 

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.

 

C&RT are cherry picking requirements from one part of the legislation and trying to apply it to other parts.

...

I agree that they may be trying to implement a rule that they are not entitled to do.  But my interpretation is that they are only doing so to gain an additional way of tackling the CMer issue.

 

And in view of:

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Indeed, Nigel did say that 14 days for a HMer is simply permissive :

Quote.

Over the latter part of the 20th century, longer temporary use of the towpath for mooring became tolerated on a pragmatic basis, with 14 days fixed upon as a rough guideline for reasons lost in obscurity (for all that BW came up with postulated origins during the Select Committee hearings on the 1990 Bill).

 

Obstruction remains on the statute books as an offence, updated even in the 1995 Act, and overstaying stated times on selected sections has been used with County Court approval to qualify the boat – being thereby regarded as an obstruction - for being moved under s.8(5) of the 1983 Act. Anything longer than an overnight stay, as I see it, is simply permissive – with the exception of boats without home moorings, for whom only, the right to 14 days (or more if circumstances dictate) is enshrined in law.

 

For boats with home moorings when cruising away from those, the 14 day limit would apply only as a permissive one based on a fair-play comparison with the ‘continuous cruisers’

I would rather have them implement such a rule via T&Cs than insist on HMs only ever stopping overnight - which they are legally entitled to do.

 

If we insist of them following some aspects of legislation, even where they think they are unhelpful, we can't then complain if they also follow others that we quite like them to conveniently ignore!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, matty40s said:

A1 COULD preclude that weekly cruise to the pub for the weekend if CRT want it to.

It COULD stop us heading off out just to get away from our mooring on a Friday evening and mooring in the same middle of nowhere that we always moor if CRT want it to.

....and that is why it should not be brought in.

Sod's law says "if something could happen,sooner or later it will"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.