Jump to content

London boaters fight for moorings


Boaty Jo

Featured Posts

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It'd be intyeresting to see that in writing from C&RT.

What C&RT have repeatedly stated is "what  is NOT acceptable" to them, sometimes phrased as 'unlikely to be acceptable'

 

I'm sure you are well aware of this email sent by the Head of Enforcement to a boater ....................... This has been interpreted by many boaters to mean that 20 miles is acceptable but all it means is that those boaters have a poor understanding of the English language.

 

 

London Enforcement Manager Simon Cadek sent an email to a boater who was warned that they were on course for failing their six month restricted licence, telling them what they would need to do to pass.




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.

 

 

 

It sounds quite reasonable, the problem is that the word of one patrol officer cannot be taken as CRT's official position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

 

Why is it a rabbit hole? Its only complicated and debatable if you're basically stupid, I'd have thought the advice of:

 

"Do not attempt to hammer into concrete or other hard surfaces"

 

was pretty clear. Or in other words, what we all know as "normal" use of mooring pins by hammering them into grass is perfectly reasonable and acceptable, yes it doesn't leave the area forensically identical but the hole closes up or is otherwise a non-issue in grass/soil because it is able to heal naturally.

 

Previous non-enforcement of byelaws is not a reliable indication that they are safe to ignore, superfluous, or won't be enforced in the future. If I were stopped for speeding at 90mph on the motorway, and I pointed out "Why officer, you didn't stop me doing 94mph last Tuesday 14th June, or 87mph on Wednesday, or 104mph on Friday. Can you pretend they are irrelevant and let me off? Thanks" I imagine I would be in more bother, not less.

 

 

I would suggest a theory that CRT do not want to get involved with any bylaws because they are attempting to deceive people into accepting the pleasure boat licence is a civil contract that they can cancel at any time if you misbehave ? 

 

I don't find it likely that a big organisation like CRT with 2000 miles of infrastructure has never had anyone breach it's bylaws, one boat owner set fire to a 100 metres of hedge a few years ago by building a pallet bonfire, he was not prosecuted, no one has been. 

  • Unimpressed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, waterworks said:

I would suggest a theory that CRT do not want to get involved with any bylaws because they are attempting to deceive people into accepting the pleasure boat licence is a civil contract that they can cancel at any time if you misbehave ? 

 

I don't find it likely that a big organisation like CRT with 2000 miles of infrastructure has never had anyone breach it's bylaws, one boat owner set fire to a 100 metres of hedge a few years ago by building a pallet bonfire, he was not prosecuted, no one has been. 

CRT is not a person, and therefore can't deceive anyone.

Do you therefore believe that what you term "misbehaviour" should be perfectly acceptable to CRT and, indeed, the rest of us who try to work within both the letter and the spirit of the law and guidelines?

That first paragraph rather defines your agenda, doesn't it?

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

CRT is not a person, and therefore can't deceive anyone

Not sure about that. 

You’ll have to explain that one to me. 
 

I think for instance CRT’s ever growing use of 48hr mooring signs is deceptive  because we are by right able to moor for 14 days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Goliath said:

we are by right able to moor for 14 days. 

 

Are you allowed to moor for 14 days anywhere? Or just that 14 days is mentioned in the bit where it says you can be on a bona fide navigation and during that, the max non-moving bit is 14 days long?

 

I would suggest that whilst its not a criminal offence to moor for 14 days on a signed mooring, its certainly against the T&Cs (and thus a civil offence), the penalty of which is undefined since the mentioned penalty (of cancelling the licence) is voided by the fact that you are entitled to a licence (subject to the 4 conditions previously mentioned).

 

Unless of course, you managed to obtain the licence without signing the T&Cs (I believe a few people have done).

1 hour ago, waterworks said:

It sounds quite reasonable, the problem is that the word of one patrol officer cannot be taken as CRT's official position. 

 

So what? 

 

Why does there need to be a lengthy explanation of the legal position, there is one that you can look up for yourself in the regulations - I am sure you know how to use the internet to do this. The wording is pretty clear and understandable.

Edited by Paul C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, waterworks said:

It sounds quite reasonable, the problem is that the word of one patrol officer cannot be taken as CRT's official position. 

 

 

How about (if you read it properly) it was the "ENFORCEMENT MANAGER", not  "Patrol Officer", would you then think he maybe explaining C&RTS official position ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

Unless of course, you managed to obtain the licence without signing the T&Cs (I believe a few people have done).


I’m not exactly sure when I’ve ever signed any terms and conditions. 
🤷‍♀️

Phone up, pay my money, and get a license. 
Then terms and conditions are sent with license 

🤷‍♀️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Goliath said:


I’m not exactly sure when I’ve ever signed any terms and conditions. 
🤷‍♀️

Phone up, pay my money, and get a license. 
Then terms and conditions are sent with license 

🤷‍♀️

 

I say "signed", a contract doesn't actually need to be physically signed to be agreed upon, there's other ways to obtain the agreement necessary to enforce it. I am sure you knew that though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

CRT is not a person, and therefore can't deceive anyone.

Do you therefore believe that what you term "misbehaviour" should be perfectly acceptable to CRT and, indeed, the rest of us who try to work within both the letter and the spirit of the law and guidelines?

That first paragraph rather defines your agenda, doesn't it?

 

Go troll for arguments somewhere else.

  • Unimpressed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

One of the problems of lay people reading legal documentation is that they tend to get rather wrapped up in their own comprehension of what the words literally mean whereas within legal circles the application will focus on context and purpose. For all his undoubted knowledge and well constructed arguments I sometimes felt that even Nigel Moore fell into this trap. There is a reason that legal professionals undertake years of training and gaining experience in order to practice.

 

The idea that buying a licence from CRT isn’t entering into a contract is utterly wrong. It clearly meets all the legal principles of forming a contract and if it were not a contract the buyer would have no legal protection.

 

The fact that CRT is a body that is both created by statute and limited in its powers by that statute doesn’t prevent them from freely entering into contracts, since that would prevent them from discharging their statutory duty.

 

A principle of any contract is that the party making an offer can apply conditions of their choosing providing they do not breach statute law and are reasonable. Those conditions don’t have to be enabled by any statute law.

 

You have to remember that the offer made by CRT has both a price and a set of conditions that apply in combination. If you don’t accept the conditions then you are making a counter offer and  CRT don’t have to sell you the licence at that price. If you have bought a licence for the price CRT offer then legally you have accepted the T&Cs, doesn’t matter if you think you’ve signed for them or not, they were part of the legally binding offer that you have accepted. Unless of course you can prove agreement to a revised set of terms.

 

The primary sanction for most if not all breaches is correctly a fine. Note that mooring restrictions now come with a threat of a fine for overstaying displayed on the signage. The fact that CRT have chosen to do this says to me that even if they have never executed a penalty in the past they are giving themselves the ability to do so in future.

 

However in the situation of sustained breaches of the Ts & Cs I think CRT could legally terminate a licence for deliberate breach of contract but whether they could refuse to issue a new licence is debatable. They certainly can offer a more restrictive licence and if you continue to breach Ts & Cs you may only get to test whether they are legally bound to continue to offer you a licence after they’ve Section 8’ed your boat. At that stage no matter the outcome - which is 99% certain to favour CRT - you’ve lost anyway.


 

"The fact that CRT is a body that is both created by statute and limited in its powers by that statute doesn’t prevent them from freely entering into contracts, since that would prevent them from discharging their statutory duty."

 

How would not entering into contracts, with their customers, prevent the discharge of statutory duties?

Surely the legistration gives sufficient power to do these duties.

Contracts for grass cutting, etc. are not part of this question.

 

Bod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bod said:

"The fact that CRT is a body that is both created by statute and limited in its powers by that statute doesn’t prevent them from freely entering into contracts, since that would prevent them from discharging their statutory duty."

 

How would not entering into contracts, with their customers, prevent the discharge of statutory duties?

Surely the legistration gives sufficient power to do these duties.

Contracts for grass cutting, etc. are not part of this question.

 

Bod


They wouldn’t be able to sell licences.


I guess they could offer free unrestricted use of the waterways instead…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you provide an analogy in another (public) body? For example when you fill in a form or go online to tax your car, you fill in a not-too-complicated form which merely asks for the legally required information and no more, then you sign that form to agree the info provided is true and accurate. You don't need to read through dozens of pages of T&Cs which are unilaterally drawn up by the DVLA and they don't freely vary them from time to time either.

 

It is my opinion that the T&Cs, as a whole, are an unnecessary piece of work that CRT has created for itself, which has no real value. Sure, they have an obligation to issue licences, and also a role to play in offering guides, information, handbooks etc but they are quite separate issues. The licensing function ought to be a simple (and cost efficient) role which meets their requirements in law and no more.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:


They wouldn’t be able to sell licences.


I guess they could offer free unrestricted use of the waterways instead…

Does not the 1971 Waterways Act give the right to sell licences?  Pleasure Boat Certificate's to give the proper name.

 

Bod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bod said:

Does not the 1971 Waterways Act give the right to sell licences?  Pleasure Boat Certificate's to give the proper name.

 

Bod

 

And for which they have to be able to enter into a contract with the purchaser. I was responding in general but referencing a poster who claimed the licence wasn’t a contract because issuing of licences is enshrined in statute. Those things aren’t mutually exclusive. I don’t think we’re disagreeing, it was just the way I phrased it.

Link to comment
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.