Legality of visitor moorings

[Chris Pink]

I have recently asked BW what laws they base the provision of visitor moorings on and the charging of people overstaying and received the following reply;

 

BW’s powers to manage the waterways arise from primary legislation (eg 1962 &1968 Transport Acts and various subsequent Waterways Acts) and from general property rights that we acquired from the original canal company owners of the canals.  Other powers derive from simple contract law (e.g. boat licensing terms and conditions, mooring permit contracts). 

“1.        Under what law are you entitled to arbitrarily designate areas as visitor moorings.”

Transport Act 1962 S10(1) “It shall be the duty of the British Waterways Board in the exercise of their powers under this Act to provide to such extent as they may think expedient – (a) services and facilities on the inland waterways owned or managed by them “ …

“2.        Under what portion of that law are you allowed to charge for overstaying on such moorings. “

Under Section 43 of the Transport Act 1962 the Board has power “to demand take waive and recover such charges for its services and facilities and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions as the Board shall think fit.”

 

I would be interested in anyone's opinion as to whether a visitor mooring is a 'service' or 'facility' or whether it is a restriction.

 

It is also unclear to me whether BW have successfully recovered any charges for overstaying other than by intimidation. What is your experience of this?

[Grasshopper]

Hark! Do i perchance hear the sound of an axe being ground??...........

 

I've no idea whether they are legal or not but from observation BW are pretty ineffective at restricting their use to their designated purpose. Which is a bit of a pain really for those of us who like to move around visiting places. But obviously useful to others.

[magnetman]

When I become a shareholder of a privatised canal company that company will, by owning the canal in question, be able to charge for ALL on line moorings. No exceptions and enforcement will take place because shareholders will demand profit, which is there to be made.

[Sir Nibble]

If it could be shown that BW's rules on overstaying were unenforcable, I think most members of this forum would support legislation to rectify that.

[magpie patrick]

I'd second that Snibble

 

I also think you'll find that, except for the few odd bits of water that have a statutory right of navigation, the entire BW system is a service and/or a facility

[carlt]

If it could be shown that BW's rules on overstaying were unenforcable, I think most members of this forum would support legislation to rectify that.

Absolutely!

 

If you want to stay on a designated visitor's mooring and challenge BW's right to move you on, or charge you for overstaying, go ahead. You'll almost certainly lose (if BW get round to enforcing the law) and you'll make yourself very unpopular with the boating fraternity who would like to use those moorings legitimately.

[stuart]

When I become a shareholder of a privatised canal company that company will, by owning the canal in question, be able to charge for ALL on line moorings. No exceptions and enforcement will take place because shareholders will demand profit, which is there to be made.

 

 

And when you move between "magnetman canal co ltd" waterways and "stuarts canal co ltd" I shall charge you a fee - think I'll call it a "toll".

[magnetman]

And I will happily make the choice of whether to use your waterway and admire your nicely rebuilt and cared for stop lock while paying the toll.

[David Schweizer]

I have recently asked BW what laws they base the provision of visitor moorings on and the charging of people overstaying and received the following reply;

 

BW’s powers to manage the waterways arise from primary legislation (eg 1962 &1968 Transport Acts and various subsequent Waterways Acts) and from general property rights that we acquired from the original canal company owners of the canals. Other powers derive from simple contract law (e.g. boat licensing terms and conditions, mooring permit contracts).

“1. Under what law are you entitled to arbitrarily designate areas as visitor moorings.”

Transport Act 1962 S10(1) “It shall be the duty of the British Waterways Board in the exercise of their powers under this Act to provide to such extent as they may think expedient – (a) services and facilities on the inland waterways owned or managed by them “ …

“2. Under what portion of that law are you allowed to charge for overstaying on such moorings. “

Under Section 43 of the Transport Act 1962 the Board has power “to demand take waive and recover such charges for its services and facilities and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions as the Board shall think fit.”

 

I would be interested in anyone's opinion as to whether a visitor mooring is a 'service' or 'facility' or whether it is a restriction.

 

It is also unclear to me whether BW have successfully recovered any charges for overstaying other than by intimidation. What is your experience of this?

Get out of bed the wrong side this morning then Chris? Joined the forum today and made four posts grumbling about BW and ridiculing a long standing member of this forum.

 

Time for more of those "anti Grumpy Pills"

[Cris P]

“2.        Under what portion of that law are you allowed to charge for overstaying on such moorings. “

Under Section 43 of the Transport Act 1962 the Board has power “to demand take waive and recover such charges for its services and facilities and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions as the Board shall think fit.”[/i]

 

Hi Chris,

 

Cris P here, what are the chances of that, eh ?

 

I think the question in this section is whether one interprets the phrase "terms & conditions as the Board shall think fit" as giving a right to impose charges. I would think this is doubtful.

 

Cheerio,

Cris

[carlt]

Get out of bed the wrong side this morning then Chris? Joined the forum today and made four posts grumbling about BW and ridiculing a long standing member of this forum.

 

Time for more of those "anti Grumpy Pills"

I'm not sure 'ridiculing' John is a fair comment.

 

John makes comments and judgements ridiculing the Wcbs, on a regular basis. Are people not allowed to register on the forum to defend them? IIRC I registered in order to join in a row about Saturn. I was happy to lurk as a guest until my particular cage was rattled.

[Chris Pink]

made four posts grumbling about BW and ridiculing a long standing member of this forum.

 

Well i certainly rattled your cage.

 

I take issue with ridiculed, i think it fair to ask someone who has made fairly harsh criticism whether they could come up with a solution, I would be interested to know whether John feels 'ridiculed', somehow i doubt it.

 

A touch off-post for this thread which is only a grumble in your eyes, it was simply a question to BW (should i not ask questions, sir?) and an answer pertaining to an issue on which i was, am, interested in the wider opinion.

 

And number 4, well spotted there, our David, is a less a grumble about British Waterways than a statement of my rights and expectations about a system of which i own 1/56,000,000th (ish) of.

 

I will try and find something nice to say about you though when i've read some of your 1,822 posts.

 

I think the question in this section is whether one interprets the phrase "terms & conditions as the Board shall think fit" as giving a right to impose charges.

 

I think this follows if the visitor mooring is seen as a 'service' or 'facility'. That is the first thing to establish.

[faithhealer]

When i used to drive a truck down to oxford monday to saturday i always noticed a

narrowboat moored up just before a lock on the canal near J9 it was there for well

over 3 months it was occupied because there was always smoke coming from the chimney.

It didnt look like they were planning on moving at anytime.

[Big John]

When i used to drive a truck down to oxford monday to saturday i always noticed a

narrowboat moored up just before a lock on the canal near J9 it was there for well

over 3 months it was occupied because there was always smoke coming from the chimney.

It didnt look like they were planning on moving at anytime.

Haven't you heard of solar-powered smoke generators?

[David Schweizer]

Well i certainly rattled your cage.

 

I take issue with ridiculed, i think it fair to ask someone who has made fairly harsh criticism whether they could come up with a solution, I would be interested to know whether John feels 'ridiculed', somehow i doubt it.

 

A touch off-post for this thread which is only a grumble in your eyes, it was simply a question to BW (should i not ask questions, sir?) and an answer pertaining to an issue on which i was, am, interested in the wider opinion.

 

And number 4, well spotted there, our David, is a less a grumble about British Waterways than a statement of my rights and expectations about a system of which i own 1/56,000,000th (ish) of.

 

I will try and find something nice to say about you though when i've read some of your 1,822 posts.

I think this follows if the visitor mooring is seen as a 'service' or 'facility'. That is the first thing to establish.

You have either missed the point I was trying to make, or have deliberately avoided it. I just wondered why someone should join this Forum and immediately launch into an attack on BW without apparently having very much knowledge of either the Parliamentary Acts which cover the management of the Inland Waterways, or any real understanding of the provisions that enable BW to implement that legislation. BW do not need to have an "opinion" to run the Waterways, they have a Stutory Framework. We can have an opinion as to whether they operate within that framework, and where we believe they do not, there are proceedures which allow us to challenge them.

 

The issue you raise has been debated both on this forum and in other arenas for several years, and despite numerous protestations from "Barrack Room Lawyers", BW has manged to maintain it claimed right to impose charges on those boaters who overstay on visitor mooringd where overstay notices have been posted. As it happens, I agree with you that there are serious flaws in the wording of some of the notices. insofar as BW do not have any stutory rights to impose fines for breaches of regulations, and as far as I know all signs referring to fines have either been removed or replaced with signs indicating levels of charging. The legislation does not define the length of time that a mooring fee covers and therefore it is my interpretation of the legislation that the imposition of daily overstay charges, although somewhat draconian, are legal within the same provisions that enabel BW to charge people to moor either permanently or for fixed periods alongside the towpath.

 

Irrespective of whether BW do, or do not have a legal right to make overstay charges, they do have a stautory right to prosecute the owner of any boat that breaches the legislation, and have done so in many cases with success. At the end of the day the person breaching the regulations would have two choices, either pay the levied charge and walk away, or face a potentially expensive court case with a heavy fine, and possibly a criminal record..

 

One thing that has, however, been established is that BW cannot enforce their original threat to link the non paymnent of overstay charges with refusal to renew a boats cruising licence until the charge has been paid. You have some of us to thank for that when, through NABO., BW's attention was drawn to a clause in the Unfair ContractLlegislation making it illegal to ammend conditions (in the case Licencing Conditions) without the written agreement of the third party. This legislation was introduced by the UK Government to protect Public Utilty customers from unfair contract ammendment after Privatization, but as the list of Public Bodies within that legislation is not exclusive, the legislation also appears to cover Public Bodies that are not privatized, and is now also covered by similar EEC legislation.

 

As for John Orentas, perhaps my use of ridiculed was a bit OTT but when you have been on this forum a bit longer you will allow his colourful outbursts to flow over you, He and iIdisagree all the time, but we have met ( in a Real Pub) and he is OK.

 

Apologies for the lenfgth of this response and for any spelling mistakes, this post is too long to check and edit.

[Chris Pink]

You have either missed the point I was trying to make, or have deliberately avoided it. I just wondered why someone should join this Forum and immediately launch into an attack on BW without apparently having very much knowledge of either the Parliamentary Acts which cover the management of the Inland Waterways, or any real understanding of the provisions that enable BW to implement that legislation. BW do not need to have an "opinion" to run the Waterways, they have a Stutory Framework. We can have an opinion as to whether they operate within that framework, and where we believe they do not, there are proceedures which allow us to challenge them.

 

Gosh, David, not only rattled but positively foaming now.

 

Do i understand you right? That my short membership of this forum does not entitle me to an opinion, strong or otherwise. I have not attacked BW within this topic, simply canvassed opinion, and your assumption of my lack of familiarity with the various Waterways Acts is amusing. There is life outside this forum you know.

 

I completely agree BW should not have an 'opinion' or a personality but you of all people should know that if this particular quango is left to its own devices then the very nice 50-odd feet of water you bob about on would probably be a car park by now if not for you and me and others like us putting pressure on them to manage the canals how we want them managed.

 

I raised this topic because a search through the forum revealed no recent threads and I feel the issue to be relevant and current and whether or not i raise it is, quite frankly, up to me.

 

I am grateful for all opinions expressed so far, including yours, and very interested to see broadly how people feel.

 

As to the substance of your post, i find it interesting and would ask you for more detail, you say 'breaching the legislation', to what legislation do you refer? 'Many cases'? can you provide me with some more information on this please, i would like to speak to people with experience of this? Criminal prosecution? What precisely do you mean by this.

 

And can you point me to written reports of the NABO correspondence with BW (why do you assume i not a member of NABO?)

 

I would be interested to talk to anyone who has direct experience of BW prosecutions for this or any other mooring related matter.

 

For the record, and apparently yet again contrary to your assumptions, i am personally in favour of visitor moorings. What i do find dubious is the arbitrary designation of such places without consultation. I have asked BW what consultations they have made regarding the designation of these and more permanent moorings in my area, they have yet to have reply but I shall publish it once received.

 

There is one particular spot that i have been in the habit of mooring in for many years recently subject to 24 hour restriction for reasons that, i believe, show ignorance of the patterns of use at that location. Hence my questions to BW.

 

I ask questions because that is the way to understanding.

[grunders]

Under what law are you entitled to arbitrarily designate areas as visitor moorings.”

Transport Act 1962 S10(1) “It shall be the duty of the British Waterways Board in the exercise of their powers under this Act to provide to such extent as they may think expedient – (a) services and facilities on the inland waterways owned or managed by them “ …

 

I would be interested in anyone's opinion as to whether a visitor mooring is a 'service' or 'facility' or whether it is a restriction.

 

 

Yes, I do think that the provision of visitor moorings is provision of a service or facility. I would be basing my opinion on the usual (without exception?) provision of bollards/mooring rings at the visitor moorings and their convenient location to places of interest. Also, the tidy and maintained bank edge and generally well dredged depth compared to a random towpath location.

[onthecut]

Hi Guys.

 

Not absolutely on topic, perhaps, but I am fascinated by the number of spots, seemingly in the middle of nowhere, which have sprouted 48 hour (or similar) restrictions over the last two or three years. Often, the only (tiny) logic I see is a distant house overlooking the cut --- is it to 'protect' their view from we wild boaties ? I have a simple proposal for virtually all these house v canal issues. If the house was there before the canal then fine, lets listen to the grievance. If it wasn't (and this applies particularly to the numerous rabbit hutch flats they stick on the water's edge, to jack up the price of said flat), then tough -- boaties first. If you don't like boats and the people and activity that comes with them --- don't buy the property !

 

Mike.

[carlt]

Yes, I do think that the provision of visitor moorings is provision of a service or facility. I would be basing my opinion on the usual (without exception?) provision of bollards/mooring rings at the visitor moorings and their convenient location to places of interest. Also, the tidy and maintained bank edge and generally well dredged depth compared to a random towpath location.

I see the whole of the waterways as a service, that is why it is managed by a civil service department. When this public property/service is sold to the highest bidder, however, it will become a luxury product, unavailable to the majority.

[onthecut]

I'm very much afraid if it were sold off, that would be the end of boating for pretty much everyone. Developers would want to build as much as possible on their piece; no interest in maintaining joined up navigability or working equipment --- bye bye boating.

 

Mike.

[magnetman]

I would say that boating would remain popular and be encouraged but cost more. Canalside development does rely on a thriving waterway to be popular and i'm sure developers are aware of this. I would be interested to see how many people stop boating or majorly reduce their boating hours when diesel goes up by 50%. I suspect that the vast majority of people will continue boating as they do now.So many boats on the system really not paying much, but they probably would pay more if forced to. = profit.

[bottle]

50%......50%......50%

 

more like 100%

[David Schweizer]

...your assumption of my lack of familiarity with the various Waterways Acts is amusing.

 

...and would ask you for more detail, you say 'breaching the legislation', to what legislation do you refer?

 

If you are familiar with the Waterways Acts, why do you need details of the legislation within them??

[pagan witch]

Personally I'd like to see BW do something to enforce licence evasion and visitor mooring overstays and so long as it is done fairly I don't care whether it is called an Act, a Facility or anything else. The law is far too often bogged down by petty arguments - you overstay a car park space you get a ticket. Why should not the same apply to moorings ? Surely a car park space is a 'facility'.

 

I can find you a dozen or more boats within a few miles of me that are not displaying a licence or one that is out of date (in some cases by over 1 year) and at least one that has a removal notice on it that is in itself over 1 year old.

 

There are places it is damed near impossible to visitor moor at due to over-stayers. We often 'there and back' cruise for 2 weeks at a time and notice many boats that are abusing visitor moorings.

 

That said . . . . Bosley locks visitor facilities . . . Brilliant, but ALL the moorings there are long term so you can't actually use the facilities. Stunning planning.

 

And all of that said . . . If someone wants to moor out of the way somewhere that's doing no harm then why not leave them there unless they make a mess ?

[magnetman]

It is written in the 1995 act that 14 days is the maximum stay unless signs indicate otherwise. If BW put up 24h signs at every possible mooring site that'd solve some problems? If the system continues to fill up as it is doing then selling off becomes more attractive, more potential profit. People refusing to follow the regulations would have their boats lifted out and be charged for the crane..