continue cruising

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

10km is about three hours cruising, discounting locks. Can you really be considered to be continuously cruising if you do less than that in a fortnight? Twelve days travelling a year?

No.

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

10km is about three hours cruising, discounting locks. Can you really be considered to be continuously cruising if you do less than that in a fortnight? Twelve days travelling a year?

 

Simon Cadek (C&RT Enforcement Manager) sent this email to a boater who asked a similar question, maybe this will clarify.

 

Note the term "range" and not "distance"

 

 

“When we are looking at boat movements we are looking for characteristics of bona fide navigation, these fall roughly into four categories:


· Range: by range we mean the furthest points a boat has travelled on the network, not merely the total distance travelled. While the BW act does not stipulate what that distance is the Trust has previously said that anyone travelling a range of less than say 20 miles (32km) would struggle to satisfy the Trust that they are engaged in bona fide navigation and that normally we would expect a greater range.


. For the avoidance of doubt, a small number of long journeys over a short period of time, followed or preceded by cruising in a small are of the network would not generally satisfy the Trust that you are engaged in bona fide navigation.


· Overstaying: we look to see how often boats overstay, either the 14 day limit on the main length of the canal, or shorter periods where local signage dictates, for example short stay visitor moorings.


While we are flexible with the occasional overstay from most boaters due to breakdown, illness or other emergencies, we will look at the overall pattern balanced with range and movement pattern in order to form a view.


Overstay reminders are issued when a boat is seen in the same area for more than 14 days. While we are unable to say how far you need to travel each time you move, we would advise that you normally travel further than a few km each time.


This will prevent you from getting reminders and depending on the length of other trips you make and how many times you turn back on yourself, should increase your overall range over the course of your licence.


· Movement: Continuous Cruiser Licences are intended for bona fide (genuine) navigation around the network, rather than for a boat to remain in one mooring spot, place neighbourhood or area.


We would expect boats on these licences to move around the network such that they don’t gravitate back to favoured areas too often i.e. in a way that it’s clear to us that they’re living in a small area of the waterway.


The basic principle of this is that these licences are not intended for living in an area and if it looks like a boat is habitually returning to a particular part of the waterway then this would not generally satisfy the Trust.


Within an acceptable range we’d expect a genuine movement, so for example it would not satisfy the Trust if a boat went on a 60 mile trip during the course of say two weeks, then returned to cruise in an area of say 5 miles the remainder of the time (figures are examples only).


Generally speaking, the smaller the range the less we’d expect to see boats back at the same locations. Of course people need to turn around and they’re perfectly free to re-visit places they have been to before, it’s living in a small area on this kind of licence that would cause a problem.

[LadyG]

4 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

10km is about three hours cruising, discounting locks. Can you really be considered to be continuously cruising if you do less than that in a fortnight? Twelve days travelling a year?

If OP is working and can only move the boat every second Saturday, that's just nor going to work. 

There are other problems

Fuel, you have to get fuel, do you intend to carry cans of diesel every week

Water, you need water

Toilet, cassette or pump out? Are you OK with getting down and dirty? 

Batteries, will the boat start? Do you understand boat electrics? 

Weather, you can't move when it's blowing a hoolie. 

Winter: you cant move if iced in or other problems.

Mooring up, there may not be a vacant mooring space where you need to be, what do you do then? 

 

Edited November 15, 2021 by LadyG

[doratheexplorer]

17 hours ago, LadyG said:

If OP is working and can only move the boat every second Saturday, that's just nor going to work. Loads of continuous cruisers do this.  So it does work.

There are other problems

Fuel, you have to get fuel, do you intend to carry cans of diesel every week Why would they need to get diesel every week.  For many, a full tank will last a year.

Water, you need water Frugal users can easily get a month or more out of a water tank.  I get more than two weeks and I'm pretty wasteful and will have done 3 or more washing machine loads in that time. 

Toilet, cassette or pump out? Are you OK with getting down and dirty? 

Batteries, will the boat start? Do you understand boat electrics? 

Weather, you can't move when it's blowing a hoolie. It's actually pretty rare that the weather is so bad that all movement stops.

Winter: you cant move if iced in or other problems. CRT acknowledge as a valid reason for overstaying.

Mooring up, there may not be a vacant mooring space where you need to be, what do you do then? Go on a bit further maybe?

 

I'm sorry but all your points are pretty much nonsense.  Hundreds (maybe thousands) of cc'ers move their boat every second weekend, and have no problem with that.

[matty40s]

17 hours ago, LadyG said:

If OP is working and can only move the boat every second Saturday, that's just nor going to work. 

There are other problems

 

 

I never viewed these as problems in my 9years of CCing...

 

 

 

All part of the fun, planning well, overcoming challenges, boating.

[Alan de Enfield]

17 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

I'm sorry but all your points are pretty much nonsense.  Hundreds (maybe thousands) of cc'ers move their boat every second weekend, and have no problem with that.

 

You obviously didn't get the memo.

Lady G posts are inviolate and should not be questioned irrespective of any falsehoods they may contain

[wandering snail]

On 15/11/2021 at 11:55, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Simon Cadek (C&RT Enforcement Manager) sent this email to a boater who asked a similar question, maybe this will clarify.

 

Note the term "range" and not "distance"

 

 

“When we are looking at boat movements we are looking for characteristics of bona fide navigation, these fall roughly into four categories:
 Range: by range we mean the furthest points a boat has travelled on the network, not merely the total distance travelled. While the BW act does not stipulate what that distance is the Trust has previously said that anyone travelling a range of less than say 20 miles (32km) would struggle to satisfy the Trust that they are engaged in bona fide navigation and that normally we would expect a greater range.
. For the avoidance of doubt, a small number of long journeys over a short period of time, followed or preceded by cruising in a small are of the network would not generally satisfy the Trust that you are engaged in bona fide navigation.
· Overstaying: we look to see how often boats overstay, either the 14 day limit on the main length of the canal, or shorter periods where local signage dictates, for example short stay visitor moorings.
While we are flexible with the occasional overstay from most boaters due to breakdown, illness or other emergencies, we will look at the overall pattern balanced with range and movement pattern in order to form a view.
Overstay reminders are issued when a boat is seen in the same area for more than 14 days. While we are unable to say how far you need to travel each time you move, we would advise that you normally travel further than a few km each time.
This will prevent you from getting reminders and depending on the length of other trips you make and how many times you turn back on yourself, should increase your overall range over the course of your licence.
· Movement: Continuous Cruiser Licences are intended for bona fide (genuine) navigation around the network, rather than for a boat to remain in one mooring spot, place neighbourhood or area.

We would expect boats on these licences to move around the network such that they don’t gravitate back to favoured areas too often i.e. in a way that it’s clear to us that they’re living in a small area of the waterway.

The basic principle of this is that these licences are not intended for living in an area and if it looks like a boat is habitually returning to a particular part of the waterway then this would not generally satisfy the Trust.
Within an acceptable range we’d expect a genuine movement, so for example it would not satisfy the Trust if a boat went on a 60 mile trip during the course of say two weeks, then returned to cruise in an area of say 5 miles the remainder of the time (figures are examples only).Generally speaking, the smaller the range the less we’d expect to see boats back at the same locations. Of course people need to turn around and they’re perfectly free to re-visit places they have been to before, it’s living in a small area on this kind of licence that would cause a problem.

I can only see 3 categories here.

There is no such thing as a 'continuous cruising' licence, just one boat licence although I suppose if CRT keep saying this enough times, it might be accepted as legit. by some.

At least this does confirm from the 'horse's mouth'that CRT cannot stipulate how far 'bona fide' travel is, even though they do stipulate!

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, wandering snail said:

There is no such thing as a 'continuous cruising' licence, just one boat licence

 

But, there is review going on looking at introducing new licence arrangements, including a 'Continuous Cruising' licence.

It has been discussed at some length previously.

[wandering snail]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But, there is review going on looking at introducing new licence arrangements, including a 'Continuous Cruising' licence.

It has been discussed at some length previously.

Yes I know but this would be illegal under the 1995 Act. Sadly boater apathy will let CRT continue to do whatever they like, even when it will have a potentially negative affect.

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, wandering snail said:

Yes I know but this would be illegal under the 1995 Act. Sadly boater apathy will let CRT continue to do whatever they like, even when it will have a potentially negative affect.

 

No it wouldn't be illegal, it is specifically allowed for in the 1983 Act and has not been repealed or superceded. - be afraid, very afraid. As C&RT need more and more money wait and see what they will come up with. As I already mentioned there is a  review of licence categories.

 

C&RT can set the basic licence cost at whatever  they wish, and, based on whatever they wish (width or length or both, engine size, fuel type, or any other criteria

The various acts then allow then to offer discounts from the 'base rate' (the Rivers only - 60% discount - registration being the prime one)

 

Just as a talking point : 

The 'base licence' could set at £5000 for a 72' x 12'6" CC, diesel powered boat.

And, the same as now there will be, various discounts for length, propulsion power type, historic, Rivers only etc etc. 

 

Other example of possible reduction : 50% discount could be introduced for boats with a home mooring, 

 

For example - It could even end up that a 57 foot boat with electric propulsion and a home mooring licence would  cost £1000

 

 

 

 

 

There was a long thread on the subject where NIgel Moore and I were knocking about ideas, which NIgel summarised as :

 

Nigels post :

 

The 1971 Act has already been ‘changed’ twice: first in 1974 and then in 1983. The charging schedules of the 1971 Act, which specified charges for categories according to length, were eventually abolished, so that charges for a PBC are now merely pegged at 60% of whatever fees [according to whatever category] CaRT choose to charge for a PBL for the same vessel.

I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations.

 

British Waterways Act 1983

.....Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1971 or the Act
of 1974 or in any other enactment relating to the Board or their
inland waterways, the Board may register pleasure boats and
houseboats under the Act of 1971 for such periods and on payment
of such charges as they may from time to time determine:
Provided that the charge payable for the registration of a
pleasure boat shall not at any time exceed 60 per centum of the
amount which would be payable to the Board for the licensing of
such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway
referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971 as that Schedule has
effect in accordance with any order made by the Secretary of
State under section 4 of that Act.

[Arthur Marshall]

3 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

I'm sorry but all your points are pretty much nonsense.  Hundreds (maybe thousands) of cc'ers move their boat every second weekend, and have no problem with that.

Thousands? Certainly some do, and plenty leave their boats unattended on the towpath in the same place for months on end. Whatever, I and many others really don't consider about twenty days cruising a year to be within the spirit of the law  and quite possibly not the letter either; and I wouldn't be at all surprised if CRT adopted the same attitude some time soon, and told them to either get a mooring or lose their boats.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the only people allowed the be continuous cruisers were those actually living on, or at least spending the majority of the year on their boats. Anything else has always struck me as nonsense, and nothing in thirty years of boating has convinced me otherwise.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the only people allowed the be continuous cruisers were those actually living on, or at least spending the majority of the year on their boats.

 

 

 

By the letter of the law (as per Nigel Moore RIP) a liveaboard cannot actually legally be a CCer.

 

The intention behind the use of the boat is what makes it a CC boat.

A CC boat must be bonafide navigating (ie the intention is purely for navigation). A liveaboard has shown that their prime intention for the use of the boat is to live aboard and not for navigation.

 

Nigels comments :

 

In the Davies case : Mr Davies' downfall, in the eyes of the judge, was that he was “clearly living on the boat”, hence that his purpose with the boat was therefore not for navigating.

 

and :

 

Every permanent live-aboard embarked on a progressive journey around the system in their retirement would be unlawful, simply because they had made the boat their sole and permanent home. 

 

 

[manxmike]

You know I'm feeling sorry for Illia, she started by asking a couple of questions which have opened an enormous can of worms. The thought that someone who has decided in their retirement to sell their house, buy a boat and cruise the canal system is breaking the law if they try to class themselves as continuous cruisers (even if that's what they are doing) is scary.

According to the post quoted by Alan de Enfield (is that a title Sir Alan?) an awful lot of CCers will have to buy a house on dry land. Maybe there's a business opportunity there to sell shares in a house, or a square foot of a house to give people a land address - where there's a law, there's a way around it.

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, manxmike said:

According to the post quoted by Alan de Enfield

 

It was actually simply an extract from a post by the late Nigel Moore.

 

Nigel had a pretty good grasp on the waterways laws having taken on C&RT in court and won.

[LadyG]

18 minutes ago, manxmike said:

You know I'm feeling sorry for Illia, she started by asking a couple of questions which have opened an enormous can of worms. The thought that someone who has decided in their retirement to sell their house, buy a boat and cruise the canal system is breaking the law if they try to class themselves as continuous cruisers (even if that's what they are doing) is scary.

According to the post quoted by Alan de Enfield (is that a title Sir Alan?) an awful lot of CCers will have to buy a house on dry land. Maybe there's a business opportunity there to sell shares in a house, or a square foot of a house to give people a land address - where there's a law, there's a way around it.

I didn't see the bit about retirement, sorry, I thought it was the usual London centric housing solution, but working abroad in addition, sorry. My comments can be ignored. 

Those who want a UK postal address and have no one to provide it, there are two or three mailbox type companies who will deal with that, I looked at it, price and services vary from £120 per year upwards. 

These mailbox companies are not the same a post restante, which is a letter box at certain Post Offices, you have to physically visit a post office, it is not your registered land address. 

The boaters mail service is a physical address eg for driving licence, or Bank, you never go there, they can send on your mail or scan it electronically. 

Edited November 16, 2021 by LadyG

[manxmike]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

It was actually simply an extract from a post by the late Nigel Moore.

Quite so, my apologies for sloppy use of the english language, I had not intended to infer origin of the section of the post to you, merely that you had used it in your post.

1 minute ago, LadyG said:

I didn't see the bit about retirement, sorry, but those who want a postal address and have no one to provide it, there are two or three mailbox type companies who will deal with that, I looked at it, price and services vary from £120 per year upwards

As far as I'm aware a post restante address does not class as a permanent address but is classed as "convenience". I suppose it depends on how the legal system regards the finer points of a "home address".

[doratheexplorer]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Thousands? Certainly some do, and plenty leave their boats unattended on the towpath in the same place for months on end. Whatever, I and many others really don't consider about twenty days cruising a year to be within the spirit of the law  and quite possibly not the letter either; and I wouldn't be at all surprised if CRT adopted the same attitude some time soon, and told them to either get a mooring or lose their boats.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the only people allowed the be continuous cruisers were those actually living on, or at least spending the majority of the year on their boats. Anything else has always struck me as nonsense, and nothing in thirty years of boating has convinced me otherwise.

I said 'maybe thousands'.  There's certainly hundreds.  I know of plenty myself.  Luckily the law isn't interested in what you and others think is within the spirit or letter of the law, or what you think is nonsense.  The only thing which matters at all here is what CRT and the courts think.  And I'll challenge you to find me one successful prosecution or licence refusal on any boat which has moved on 5k every fortnight and hasn't kept shuttling back and forth.  CRT can't change their attitude on this because the law doesn't allow it.  It's also not in the interest of CRT to kick this particular hornet's nest as they have enough on their plate enforcing against those who don't move at all, or barely move.

 

The bigger picture here, is boaters persecuting each other because they are intolerant of each other's cruising habits etc.  It's the standard divide and rule playbook and it's as old as time. 

[doratheexplorer]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

 

 

Every permanent live-aboard embarked on a progressive journey around the system in their retirement would be unlawful, simply because they had made the boat their sole and permanent home. 

 

 

Ah but we can't get angry about sweet old Doris and Alf who cruise around the Midlands on their nice shiny retirement boat can we?  It's those scruffy boats, with those ne'er-do-wells, you know?  Dreadlocks, spliff, staffy, and logs stacked on the roof.  They need to go.

 

I'm being sarcastic for anyone who wasn't sure.

 

There's an underlying prejudice at work when people take aim at continuous cruisers and we all know it.  The IWA themselves are one of the worst culprits.

[DerekB]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Thousands? Certainly some do, and plenty leave their boats unattended on the towpath in the same place for months on end. Whatever, I and many others really don't consider about twenty days cruising a year to be within the spirit of the law  and quite possibly not the letter either; and I wouldn't be at all surprised if CRT adopted the same attitude some time soon, and told them to either get a mooring or lose their boats.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the only people allowed the be continuous cruisers were those actually living on, or at least spending the majority of the year on their boats. Anything else has always struck me as nonsense, and nothing in thirty years of boating has convinced me otherwise.

The ironic thing is they have apparently done away with a lot of moorings. 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, DerekB said:

The ironic thing is they have apparently done away with a lot of moorings. 

 

But there is still 2000 miles of mooring available, so for those that move about there is always somewhere to moor.

[DerekB]

11 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But there is still 2000 miles of mooring available, so for those that move about there is always somewhere to moor.

yep, was more thinking of those who might want a mooring all of their own. Prices down here in london seem to be crazy.

[Tacet]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

By the letter of the law (as per Nigel Moore RIP) a liveaboard cannot actually legally be a CCer.

 

The intention behind the use of the boat is what makes it a CC boat.

A CC boat must be bonafide navigating (ie the intention is purely for navigation). A liveaboard has shown that their prime intention for the use of the boat is to live aboard and not for navigation.

 

Nigels comments :

 

In the Davies case : Mr Davies' downfall, in the eyes of the judge, was that he was “clearly living on the boat”, hence that his purpose with the boat was therefore not for navigating.

 

and :

 

Every permanent live-aboard embarked on a progressive journey around the system in their retirement would be unlawful, simply because they had made the boat their sole and permanent home. 

 

 

All respect to Nigel, but I am struggling with the logic here.  Bona-fide navigation and living aboard are not mutually exclusive; you might well decide to live aboard because you wish to navigate widely; I did - having no interest at all in staying put.

 

The Act does not require that navigating is one's only intention - or even that it is one's primary intention.  In life, it is usual to have multiple intentions.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Tacet said:

The Act does not require that navigating is one's only intention - or even that it is one's primary intention. 

 

I think that is not the interpretation by the courts or C&RT or others.

Bona Fide has been defined a huge number of times and is the "intent", so the Laws requirement for the boat to be 'used bona fide for navigation' has been accepted as the primary reason. If the primary reason is to live on the boat without paying for a mooring, then the bona fide reason is NOT navigation.

 

1995 Act clause 17 3(C) (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.

 

This is not just my interpretation.

 

The judge said :

 

“I think it is right to say however that my decision is not to be taken as fully endorsing the board's guidance. It is possible to envisage use of a vessel which fell short of the Board's concept of continuous cruising but which still qualified the vessel for a licence under section 17(3)( c )(ii).”), but that he was committing a criminal act because he only complied in order to comply – hence was not 'bona fide' in what he was doing

[Briss]

41 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

“I think it is right to say however that my decision is not to be taken as fully endorsing the board's guidance. It is possible to envisage use of a vessel which fell short of the Board's concept of continuous cruising but which still qualified the vessel for a licence under section 17(3)( c )(ii).”), but that he was committing a criminal act because he only complied in order to comply – hence was not 'bona fide' in what he was doing

I know I'm taking this out of the specific situation it's applied to, but that's a very scary thing to hear a judge say. "You committed a crime when you didn't steal that bike because you only didn't steal it because it's against the law to steal". Like I said... out of the applied context but.... really?

[Tacet]

It's an endless argument - but bona-fide means in good faith; there is no requirement for navigation to be primary reason for being afloat.  If you have a bona-fide intention to navigate, that should be enough.   You may well have other, more or less pressing intentions (e.g.  to visit friends or feed the ducks and even to reside on the boat) but these are not contrary to the intention to navigate.  What may well be contrary is an intention to remain in one place as long as possible and move as little as you can get away with.  Strictly speaking, this might be regardless of whether you reside on your boat or not - but if you do reside, it might be an indicator of an intention other than to bona-fide navigate.  Thus if your real intention is to avoid mooring fees, it begins to cast doubt on your bona-fides regarding navigation, particularly if you don't navigate very much.

 

Bona-fide intention is used elsewhere in legislation.  Where it gets tricky in law is motive.  If you intend (and possibly do) to navigate fully - but your motive is largely to comply with the rules, is it nevertheless bona-fide?  Or does your intention have to stand-alone from the legislative requirements?  Your extract from a judgement (in obiter) is that it should be a stand-alone intention.

 

My reasoning, from the other uses of the phrase in areas of law where I have experience,  is that the motive behind bona-fide is technically irrelevant so I depart from the judge at this point. 

 

For example see the beautifully named  Betty's Cafes Limited v Phillips Furnishings Stores Limited.  The landlord needed to show an intention to demolish or reconstruct a property, in order to obtain possession.; it pretty much freely admitted that its intention stemmed from a desire to obtain possession 

 

"The landlord's motives are irrelevant if he can show that he has the necessary intention. This is so even if the motive is simply a desire to get rid of the tenant. However, the landlord's primary purpose may be relevant in trying to decide whether the intention expressed is in fact genuine or merely colourable"

 

There has been a more recent decision in which the landlord blatantly admitted that its motive in knocking-about a building was merely a device to obtain possession.  Most money in the profession was on the landlord's position and indeed the principle in Betty's Cafe was upheld. However, the Court, rather cleverly, found for the tenant via motive.  It identified that if the landlord somehow (hypothetically) managed to obtain possession by other means, it would not bother with the pointless knocking-about - and thus it did not have a (bona-fide) intention at all.  If the landlord had demonstrated that it would do the pointless work come-what-may, it would have succeeded.  A lesson for next time - but there are penalties for misrepresentation to the Court, such that the landlord would need to be very careful if it did not complete the works.

 

Or Zoar Independent Trustees v Rochester Corporation (Court of Appeal, no less) where Zoar, as claimant in a compulsory purchase case,  needed to "satisfy" the Court that reinstatement (of a church) "in some other pace is bona-fide intended" in order to obtain a more favourable basis of compensation.  A very similar phrase, of course.  The problem facing Zoar was that its intention to reinstate was entirely dependent on receiving the more favourable compensation and did not stand-alone.  Nevertheless, Zoar succeeded.