London boaters fight for moorings

[waterworks]

33 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But maybe the point is that under the Waterways Act C&RT can charge for 'additional services' of which the provison of mooring rings could be so classed.

 

There are already precedents, around the system for charges for temporay moorings (London, Llangollen etc)

1962 Transport act. 

 

Bear in mind the section CRT uses has never been tested in court, it is their interpretation only and their legal dept have a long history of blatantly lying, these are the people who appointed their own bent ombudsman in secret .

Edited June 22, 2022 by waterworks

[magnetman]

 

It would make sense overall for a canal network to be provided with mooring places and places where you can not moor without anything to tie up to should be mooring prohibited. 

 

Obviously it won't happen but it would be a very logical way to run a network. 

 

If there happened to be too much demand then charging for services is not an unknown approach. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, waterworks said:

Bear in mind the section CRT uses has never been tested in court, it is their interpretation only and their legal dept have a long history of blatantly lying, these are the people who appointed their own bent ombudsman in secret .

 

 

Maybe some of those 1000's of boaters paying short term mooring fees in London and Llangollen should try to refuse to pay and see what happems.

[Arthur Marshall]

33 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Maybe some of those 1000's of boaters paying short term mooring fees in London and Llangollen should try to refuse to pay and see what happems.

At Llangollen probably not much, they don't seem that bothered. As far as I was aware no-one came round to check I'd got a scrawled ticket in my window. I object to it on principle (the towpath ones, not the marina), but it's just one of the many, many principles I don't care about very much.

Only an idiot fights battles they can't win.

[Quaffer]

CRT are applying this methodology in London and Southest region to cases of improper mooring

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/tackling-improper-mooring-and-make-waterways-safer

 

If no body is onboard a yellow notice is attached with a tick list of the following issues:

 

Mooring  ...in triplicate

too close/under a bridge

to railings

with a pin in the towpath

obstructing a safety ladder

on a lock landing

on a facilities landing

on a no mooring section

Other (see below)  [details are written in ]

 

I know this doesn't address overstaying,but that is a judgement made by the CRT Licence Support Officers (formerly Enforcement) after reviewing the boat movement pattern and the need to demonstrate "bona fide navigation"

 

CRT focus on the breach of the T & C's .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Quaffer

[Alan de Enfield]

The problem, these days, is that under those very nice tarmac towpaths there is a huge 'spaghetti' of Fibre optic cables, phone cables and VERY high voltage cables (typically 66,000 volts) and you wouldn't really want to knock a pin thru one of those.

 

C&RT make almost as much income from charging for allowing utilities to use the towpath as they get from all 30,000 boat licences.

[MtB]

42 minutes ago, Quaffer said:

CRT are applying this methodology in London and Southest region to cases of improper mooring

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/tackling-improper-mooring-and-make-waterways-safer

 

 

 

Thanks for the link, in which it says:

 

"If, after the first letter, there are further instances of poor mooring, then the Trust will send a formal reminder which clearly sets out how T&Cs and/or byelaws have been breached, and that this could result in the termination of their licence. Should there be no resolution or a repeat of the behaviour, a second reminder will be sent, detailing the circumstances, the action the boater needs to take, and issuing a final warning.  A final letter will be sent if the problem is not addressed, or if it is repeated, informing the boater of their licence being immediately suspended." (My emphasis.)

 

They seem to be saying a breach of the byelaws could result in termination of a licence. Surely the result of an alleged breach of the byelaws should be prosecution.

 

Is there a mechanism for licence termination instead?

 

[David Mack]

4 hours ago, waterworks said:

What bylaw does this breach?

 

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

BW general canal byelaw no.29. 

Or byelaw no. 48.

"Damage to property
48. No person shall wilfully, wantonly or maliciously deface or destroy any notice on or in any part of any canal or break, injure, deface, mark or otherwise damage or destroy any building, bridge, lock, gate, railing, fence, hedge or other property of the Board, on or in any canal."

 

I think deliberately banging mooring pins into concrete would constitute wilful damage to other property of the Board on or in any canal.

Edited June 22, 2022 by David Mack

[Arthur Marshall]

51 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Thanks for the link, in which it says:

 

"If, after the first letter, there are further instances of poor mooring, then the Trust will send a formal reminder which clearly sets out how T&Cs and/or byelaws have been breached, and that this could result in the termination of their licence. Should there be no resolution or a repeat of the behaviour, a second reminder will be sent, detailing the circumstances, the action the boater needs to take, and issuing a final warning.  A final letter will be sent if the problem is not addressed, or if it is repeated, informing the boater of their licence being immediately suspended." (My emphasis.)

 

They seem to be saying a breach of the byelaws could result in termination of a licence. Surely the result of an alleged breach of the byelaws should be prosecution.

 

Is there a mechanism for licence termination instead?

 

They refuse to issue one?

[Alan de Enfield]

56 minutes ago, MtB said:

Is there a mechanism for licence termination instead?

 

The licence T&Cs (which you have agreed to) state that you must comply with the Bye-laws, if you don't, then you have failed to do what you signed up to do, the remedy of which is termination of your licence.

 

 

10.7. You must comply with relevant legislation, byelaws, and the navigation rules identified in condition 11. You must follow Our lawful directions (spoken or written, including signs). This includes signs that prohibit mooring or limit the mooring time at specific locations. Most navigation signs that You will see as You travel are self-explanatory.

[MtB]

47 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

They refuse to issue one?

 

Bobbins.

 

You have a statutory right to a licence if you...

 

Have a BSS ticket

Have insurance

Declare your mooring status

Pay the fee

 

 

[Paul C]

7 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Bobbins.

 

You have a statutory right to a licence if you...

 

Have a BSS ticket

Have insurance

Declare your mooring status

Pay the fee

 

 

 

Its not enough to simply "declare your mooring status" - if you choose the no home mooring option, you need to satisfy the board.....they could be unsatisfied based on historical mooring habits...

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

 

Its not enough to simply "declare your mooring status" - if you choose the no home mooring option, you need to satisfy the board.....they could be unsatisfied based on historical mooring habits...

 

 

Ah yes, you are quite right. The applicant must 'satisfy the board', but the board may not withhold its 'satisfaction' unreasonably, ISTR. 

 

Or rather, if the applicant considers the board unreasonable in remaining unsatisfied, there is route for the applicant to challenge their decision. I have to say I'm hazy about how a challenge would be mounted though...

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, MtB said:

I have to say I'm hazy about how a challenge would be mounted though...

 

C&RTs own suggestion to that is that boaters should keep a log showing their movements (no - not those movements !) to disprove C&RTs own records, which we know can be somewhat 'in error'.

 

There have been a number of reports (on this forum) of incorrect C&RT sightings being overthrown by a boater providing evidence they had moved etc.

[MtB]

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

C&RTs own suggestion to that is that boaters should keep a log showing their movements (no - not those movements !) to disprove C&RTs own records, which we know can be somewhat 'in error'.

 

There have been a number of reports (on this forum) of incorrect C&RT sightings being overthrown by a boater providing evidence they had moved etc.

 

 

You're not really following this are you?

 

The discussion is about how to challenge the board not being 'satisfied' due to the boater's habit of mooring 'dangerously' or 'inappropriately'. 

 

Or I thought it was anyway! 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

Its not enough to simply "declare your mooring status" - if you choose the no home mooring option, you need to satisfy the board.....they could be unsatisfied based on historical mooring habits...

 

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

 

Ah yes, you are quite right. The applicant must 'satisfy the board', but the board may not withhold its 'satisfaction' unreasonably, ISTR. 

 

Or rather, if the applicant considers the board unreasonable in remaining unsatisfied, there is route for the applicant to challenge their decision. I have to say I'm hazy about how a challenge would be mounted though...

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

C&RTs own suggestion to that is that boaters should keep a log showing their movements (no - not those movements !) to disprove C&RTs own records, which we know can be somewhat 'in error'.

 

There have been a number of reports (on this forum) of incorrect C&RT sightings being overthrown by a boater providing evidence they had moved etc.

 

 

I was answering your post (above) which was in response to the one above that.

 

Subject : making a no home mooring declaration and 'not satifying the boatd'

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

 

You're not really following this are you?

 

The discussion is about how to challenge the board not being 'satisfied' due to the boater's habit of mooring 'dangerously' or 'inappropriately'. 

 

Or I thought it was anyway! 

 

 

You go to court. And lose your time, money and your boat.

 

Some people, even now, seem to think the law is about providing some sort of fair justice. It never has been, it's about protecting major property owners against minor ones, which is why CRT will always win in the end, because it doesn't matter a toss what's written down (usually badly phrased anyway), because the judges all know that, and it's their job to interpret it. And, anyway, you can't afford a lawyer, even if you can find one, and CRT can.

[doratheexplorer]

13 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

You go to court. And lose your time, money and your boat.

 

 

No you don't.  You "sell" your boat to a friend and ask them to apply for the new licence.

[Arthur Marshall]

37 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

No you don't.  You "sell" your boat to a friend and ask them to apply for the new licence.

When you're in that position, it may be hard to find a "friend" you can trust!

[waterworks]

16 hours ago, Quaffer said:

CRT are applying this methodology in London and Southest region to cases of improper mooring

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/tackling-improper-mooring-and-make-waterways-safer

 

If no body is onboard a yellow notice is attached with a tick list of the following issues:

 

Mooring  ...in triplicate

too close/under a bridge

to railings

with a pin in the towpath

obstructing a safety ladder

on a lock landing

on a facilities landing

on a no mooring section

Other (see below)  [details are written in ]

 

I know this doesn't address overstaying,but that is a judgement made by the CRT Licence Support Officers (formerly Enforcement) after reviewing the boat movement pattern and the need to demonstrate "bona fide navigation"

 

CRT focus on the breach of the T & C's .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The standard licence is statutory and not a contract, CRT cannot add terms and conditions to it and even if you agreed and signed what they now falsely claim is a contract it is legally void and cannot be enforced. No contract can override statute. 

 

If you have breached a bylaw then they will have to present that to a court and the only penalty is the fine stated in that bylaw, your licence cannot be revoked for any offence. 

[GUMPY]

18 minutes ago, waterworks said:

The standard licence is statutory and not a contract, CRT cannot add terms and conditions to it and even if you agreed and signed what they now falsely claim is a contract it is legally void and cannot be enforced. No contract can override statute. 

 

If you have breached a bylaw then they will have to present that to a court and the only penalty is the fine stated in that bylaw, your licence cannot be revoked for any offence. 

Come on then show us how it's done!

Or have you been there before and got a result?

[Alan de Enfield]

21 minutes ago, waterworks said:

The standard licence is statutory and not a contract, CRT cannot add terms and conditions to it and even if you agreed and signed what they now falsely claim is a contract it is legally void and cannot be enforced. No contract can override statute. 

 

Tell that to the people who have not complied with 'satisfying the board' regarding their movement, have entered enforcement their licence has been revoked and they have gone to court &  then 'lost their boats' for being on C&RTs water unlicenced.

 

There is a list of all those it has happened to on 'what do they know'

Maybe you know better !

[magnetman]

It's a shame Tony Dunkley isn't on here. 

 

He's great at doing extensive ranting about how the boat he once owned was subjected to a S8 then sold by them to a new owner but is still technically his boat. 

 

It seems a valid argument but there are times when what actually happens in the real world takes precedence over what an individual may think is right or wrong. 

 

The London situation is interesting as there are a lot of people with plenty of money (those new widebeams are not free) so in theory a group funded court case against CRT could be done.

 

Problem being that nobody is really that interested in living on a boat unless it is super cheap so most do toe the line. There will always be alternatives for most people. 

 

Annoyingly it can be those who have no other options who get screwed by the CRT. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by magnetman

[mrsmelly]

39 minutes ago, waterworks said:

The standard licence is statutory and not a contract, CRT cannot add terms and conditions to it and even if you agreed and signed what they now falsely claim is a contract it is legally void and cannot be enforced. No contract can override statute. 

 

If you have breached a bylaw then they will have to present that to a court and the only penalty is the fine stated in that bylaw, your licence cannot be revoked for any offence. 

In your dreams.

[Chewbacka]

1 hour ago, waterworks said:

The standard licence is statutory and not a contract, CRT cannot add terms and conditions to it and even if you agreed and signed what they now falsely claim is a contract it is legally void and cannot be enforced. No contract can override statute. 

 

If you have breached a bylaw then they will have to present that to a court and the only penalty is the fine stated in that bylaw, your licence cannot be revoked for any offence. 

Which is why CRT who are in no hurry simply wait for the licence to expire, then say they are not ‘satisfied’ about something (usually cruising patterns) and refuse to issue a licence.  If you do not have a licence for any reason (including because they won’t sell you one), then they will apply to the courts for s8 and as many in this situation have found, you must either remove the boat from their (CRT) waters or they will remove it and you will be responsible for their costs.  If you fail to pay their costs the will sell your boat, returning any surplus to you.

Edited June 23, 2022 by Chewbacka