Jump to content

Featured Posts

16 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

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.

As Nigel said many times, sign them they are not enforceable if they try to overide / overule / subsitute for statute.

And :

 

It should be clarified that much of the T&C's are a repeat of, or reference to, byelaw provisions, and enforceable in law by the method prescribed (not by unlawfully making them a contractual condition for issue of the licence). Those cannot be said to be foisted upon us via the T&C's, justly or unjustly.

 

Others are sensible guidelines without the force of law, which boaters would do well to adhere to. But yes, certain other morally and legally objectionable ones do purport to dispense with statutory protections – and consent to share one's personal information where that would conflict with the current law would be amongst them, as would the grant of permission to board boats regardless of the statutory constraints of the 1983 Act, as would also be the case with agreeing to pay the costs of CaRT moving your boat off from where it was obstructing (BW fought and lost at least one case in which they alleged such a right to charge for doing so).

Nigel Moore 2/3/19

 

 

As the House of Lords said (one sentence from a very large document) :

 

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

 

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 1) 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 :

(snip)

 

 

 2) 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 :

(snip)

 

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

 

 

 3) 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

1)  ot at all ; I'm suggesting that when away from its home mooring, a boat has the same status as a boat without a home mooring.

 

2) There is nothing to stop such movement, provided that the boat returns to its home mooring between such short hops. It is illogical that one boat must move to a different place after 14 days, while another merely has to untie and retie its ropes because it has a mooring , which may be a hundred miles away. This contradiction is resolved by applying the logic of 1) above.

 

3) Agreed ! :D:cheers:

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

1)  ot at all ; I'm suggesting that when away from its home mooring, a boat has the same status as a boat without a home mooring.

 

Does that mean thaT C&RT will amend the mooring law so that both have equal rights, so that boats with a home mooring don't just have permissive rights ?

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

 

Does that mean thaT C&RT will amend the mooring law so that both have equal rights, so that boats with a home mooring don't just have permissive rights ?

 

Why would they need to?

 

If they choose to add a condition to a permissive right, there is no need to alter the legislation.   Imposing additional conditions to statutory rights is a very different topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours 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.

That's not how I interpreted A1, I read it as I could leave my home mooring and cruise to a location every weekend as long as I returned to my home mooring. So our regular cruising pattern of arrived at boat in marina, cruise for 6 hours to the pub, stay overnight and cruise back to our home mooring the next day then leave the boat for a week and repeat the next weekend is in line with A1.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

That's not how I interpreted A1, I read it as I could leave my home mooring and cruise to a location every weekend as long as I returned to my home mooring. So our regular cruising pattern of arrived at boat in marina, cruise for 6 hours to the pub, stay overnight and cruise back to our home mooring the next day then leave the boat for a week and repeat the next weekend is in line with A1.

If while away from your "home mooring" you have to follow the CC "rules" surely you could if you want cruise to the pub one week stay there and cruise back making an overall trip of 14 days.

 

The CC regulations must surely start again once to have been back to your home mooring even if it is just over night.

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

If while away from your "home mooring" you have to follow the CC "rules" surely you could if you want cruise to the pub one week stay there and cruise back making an overall trip of 14 days.

 

The CC regulations must surely start again once to have been back to your home mooring even if it is just over night.

Yes I agree that I wouldn't have to return after one night away so when I'm out on a fortnight's holiday I could choose to stay on one 14 day visitor mooring and then return to my home mooring.

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jerra said:

The CC regulations must surely start again once to have been back to your home mooring even if it is just over night.

Condition A1 says that that will not be counted as returning to your mooring as 'nominal use' will be disregarded.

You cannot go to the pub for a week, return for one night and then go back to the pub for a week.

 

When reading documents such as this it is important to look at the intent and what they COULD mean, (worse case) rather than what it appears to say at first glance & read each sentence as an 'independent statement'. (I know, I used to write such contract documents).

In reality every term and condition should be read as 'worse case' as that is its true intent, it is just written by a wordsmith to appear less intimidating than it is.

 

It could be, for example, that anything less than 50% of the time would be classed as 'minimal' and for every night 'away' from your mooring you must have one night on your mooring.

What is minimal 'usage' ? 

Undefined, so will result in lots of arguments and 1000's of posts on the forum, similar to 'how far must I travel'.

 

 

 

 

 

Screenshot (55).png

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Condition A1 says that that will not be counted as returning to your mooring as 'nominal use' will be disregarded.

You cannot go to the pub for a week, return for one night and then go back to the pub for a week.

 

When reading documents such as this it is important to look at the intent and what they COULD mean, (worse case) rather than what it appears to say at first glance & read each sentence as an 'independent statement'. (I know, I used to write such contract documents).

In reality every term and condition should be read as 'worse case' as that is its true intent, it is just written by a wordsmith to appear less intimidating than it is.

 

It could be, for example, that anything less than 50% of the time would be classed as 'minimal' and for every night 'away' from your mooring you must have one night on your mooring.

What is minimal 'usage' ? 

Undefined, so will result in lots of arguments and 1000's of posts on the forum, similar to 'how far must I travel'.

 

 

 

 

 

Screenshot (55).png

But it could also be that minimal use is 24hrs, you are speculating and doing your best to slate CRT as you always do and enjoy repeatedly telling us you are glad you left CRT waters so I'm not sure why you even concern yourself with their T&C's.

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

But it could also be that minimal use is 24hrs, you are speculating and doing your best to slate CRT as you always do and enjoy repeatedly telling us you are glad you left CRT waters so I'm not sure why you even concern yourself with their T&C's.

 

There are many people on the forum who are not even in this country, and more who do not even have a boat, are they not entitled to an opinion either ?

 

Time will tell, have a nice day.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Condition A1 says that that will not be counted as returning to your mooring as 'nominal use' will be disregarded.

You cannot go to the pub for a week, return for one night and then go back to the pub for a week.

 

When reading documents such as this it is important to look at the intent and what they COULD mean, (worse case) rather than what it appears to say at first glance & read each sentence as an 'independent statement'. (I know, I used to write such contract documents).

In reality every term and condition should be read as 'worse case' as that is its true intent, it is just written by a wordsmith to appear less intimidating than it is.

 

It could be, for example, that anything less than 50% of the time would be classed as 'minimal' and for every night 'away' from your mooring you must have one night on your mooring.

What is minimal 'usage' ? 

Undefined, so will result in lots of arguments and 1000's of posts on the forum, similar to 'how far must I travel'.

 

Being a glass half full sort of person while you seem to be a glass half empty, (well at least as far as CRT is concerned) I don't see it that way.

 

It would destroy hire companies at a stroke as often the boat doesn't even spend overnight at its home moorings for long periods, similarly share boats.

 

I see it as a simple way for CRT to manage situations where a problem arises with a boat moored semi permanently alongway for its home mooring rarely if ever moving.  The regulation would not be used in the normal run of things however when they found such a boat 3 months in the same place then they could/would invoke that clause.

 

No need to be paranoid about it IMO other opinions are available.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jerra said:

It would destroy hire companies at a stroke as often the boat doesn't even spend overnight at its home moorings for long periods, similarly share boats.

 

Hire boats are already treated very differently (exempted) on, for example 'no-return moorings'.

It is expected that a hire boat will be seen (probably) half-a-day away from the base 2x per week, every week, on the same mooring and will not incur any enforcement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

Hire boats are already treated very differently (exempted) on, for example 'no-return moorings'.

It is expected that a hire boat will be seen (probably) half-a-day away from the base 2x per week, every week, on the same mooring and will not incur any enforcement.

Share boats?

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

I guess it would be difficult to monitor as there would be no indication as to if it was a different owner to the one 'moored there last week'.

Which is yet another reason why I don't see the clause in as black a way as you do.   Of course almost any regulation can be twisted to be as hard in application as possible but they aren't.   Policing something like that would be almost impossible you would need masses more checking than there is now.   That won't happen so clearly the clause is to be used as and when it is seen as being able to solve a problem rather than introducing an overarching situation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I see it as a simple way for CRT to manage situations where a problem arises with a boat moored semi permanently alongway for its home mooring rarely if ever moving.  The regulation would not be used in the normal run of things however when they found such a boat 3 months in the same place then they could/would invoke that clause.

 

No need to be paranoid about it IMO other opinions are available.

I tend to agree with this and wonder if NABO are fighting the wrong fight. The bigger concern for me is will there be a system where you can cruise a small or big area and have confidence you can get back to your home moorings.

 

In regard of the T&Cs, although I admit to not being very 'legal aware', Alan mentioned previously you have to look at the 'intent' which as far as I can see is to prevent boats with 'ghost' home moorings hogging the visitor mooring in a small area. To my mind CaRT can't manage the current CCer's use of visitor moorings in a small area so how will they do same for boat with a 'home' mooring. We have a very distinctive boat in our area which regularly overstays, sometimes for months, on visitor moorings in a very small area yet two club members with home moorings received CaRT overstay emails when in fact they were logged in the same 'place' on both the outward and return cruise to Rochdale summit.

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, howardang said:

The greatest proportion of shared boats have a base at a marina and therefore an annual mooring. 

 

Howard

Exactly I never suggested they didn't.   If as Alan is suggesting CRT will "jump on" people who cover the same route week on week share boats will have a problem particularly if as he suggests overnight isn't an acceptable break in the cruising pattern.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, David Mack said:

 

There hasn't been a right to navigate most of the BW/CRT network since the 1968 Transport Act.

I have had a look at the licence T's and C's and I fear you are probably right.

They do say however,that CRT will do their best to keep the navigation open except for repair/stoppages.That is far from saying a licence holder has the "right"to navigate,but the spirit seems to be that CRT won't prevent navigation if the canal is open and your paperwork and boat are in order.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

But is that true of Punchbowl bridge?

 

(My understanding is that it is owned by a third party and was damaged by a vehicle attempting to cross it and the third party is dragging its feet)

You need to read the thread and see the photo's of the 'damage' - could be a amphibious vehicle strike I suppose.

 I have had two reports from colleagues that suggest there's very little wrong especially compared with the state of some canal bridges boats pass under. And why close off the summit at lock 36 just before the winding hole?  I don't understand who is responsible for what but I believe CaRT are responsible making a mountain out of a molehill. 
'Mismanagement - the process of managing something badly or wrongly'

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, wandering snail said:

Section 105, Maintenance of the Board's Waterways in that Act does rather say the opposite.

I would suggest that the (boaters) continuing right to navigate is reinforced in other acts. What Section 105 does is place a statutory duty on the navigation authority to maintain some (but not all) of its waterways suitable for navigation by craft of certain dimensions.

 

The following information request might be of interest -

 

Statutory duties under the Transport Act 1968
 

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
  • Horror 1
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.