Charges or fines ?

[IanD]

17 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

Ah, sharing moorings nicely with each other, now you're talking!

 

As a CC'er liveaboard  (if there is such a label) I think the idea of 48h moorings in prime honeypot sites is reasonable to encourage fair sharing.

 

However, I have noticed over the years where 48h notices have been placed outside honeypot sites (or extended too far from the honeypot site) that they rarely get filled by boats. A good example is Stoke Bruerne where I understand local pubs have suffered. Maybe the fear of a £25 fine/charge is enough to scare off a hire boater.

The point is that 48h moorings are a good solution in the right places -- where there is a high demand for moorings and limited space -- but only if they are enforced. Outside these areas 7 or 14 day time limits are fine. In fact on stretches of canal with few boats and plenty of space it's debatable whether boats should really have to move at all, from the point of view of keeping the canal accessible to visiting boaters -- but then we get back into the CC/CM debate all over again...

 

Maybe what's really needed is a way to allow boats to moor for as long as they want on uncrowded parts of the system, but without needing a home mooring, and finding a way to get some revenue to CART to make up for the fact that they're not paying CART for an online/offline/EoG mooring or a marina mooring which I believe CART get a slice of?

 

There would then have to be a distinction between "uncrowded" and "crowded" parts of the system, with different rules applying. This could help to free up space for visitors in popular spots while not penalising people who want to moor for longer periods in out-of-the-way places where they cause no inconvenience to anybody else.

 

And before Alan chips in to say why this isn't legally possible -- wouldn't it be better to try and find solutions to the problem instead of complaining about how terrible the canals are while simultaneously explaining why CART can't do anything about it? 😉

Edited April 11, 2022 by IanD

[Thomas C King]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

The point is that 48h moorings are a good solution in the right places -- where there is a high demand for moorings and limited space -- but only if they are enforced.

 

Some boaters on the K&A share the schedules of the CaRT enforcement officers. I get that CaRT probably doesn't have resources to do daily inspections. However, perhaps a random schedule would work, depending.

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

And before Alan chips in to say why this isn't legally possible

 

Something similar to your proposal was going to be introduced, it was called the Roving Mooring Permit, the difference being it was chargeable, it was declared illegal as you were simply "paying monies under menace". (Protection Money as it was so eloquently put)

 

"Pay the money and we won't enforce the mooring regulations and you can overstay, don't pay and if you overstay we start enforcement proceedings against you, with loss of licence and possibly siezure of the boat"

[IanD]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Something similar to your proposal was going to be introduced, it was called the Roving Mooring Permit, the difference being it was chargeable, it was declared illegal as you were simply "paying monies under menace". (Protection Money as it was so eloquently put)

 

"Pay the money and we won't enforce the mooring regulations and you can overstay, don't pay and if you overstay we start enforcement proceedings against you, with loss of licence and possibly siezure of the boat"

The problem is that unless *something* is done the mooring/overstaying problem is just going to carry on getting worse.

 

I'm sure if the combined intellect of everyone concerned was focused on finding a way to solve this problem instead of pointing out why it can't be solved, a solution could be found.

 

But unfortunately it's always easier to find problems with something than to come up with a solution that works... 😞

[Rambling Boater]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Something similar to your proposal was going to be introduced, it was called the Roving Mooring Permit, the difference being it was chargeable, it was declared illegal as you were simply "paying monies under menace". (Protection Money as it was so eloquently put)

 

"Pay the money and we won't enforce the mooring regulations and you can overstay, don't pay and if you overstay we start enforcement proceedings against you, with loss of licence and possibly siezure of the boat"

C&RT already accept funds for winter moorings where the '14 day law' should apply, so I'm not so sure about that.

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

C&RT already accept funds for winter moorings where the '14 day law' should apply, so I'm not so sure about that.

 

That IS what happened though. The scheme was scrapped because in a "dog-in-the-manger" way, NBTA lawyers claimed it was illegal so CRT just cancelled the whole thing IIRC.

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, MtB said:

Actually I'm falling into the same trap BW fell into - being overly reasonable. 

 

Seven miles a day would also be reasonable for anyone genuinely using their vessel "bona fide for navigation", don't you think?

 

 

Everyone complying with the law as it is written.

 

I only managed 4 today but it did include 13 locks

[Alan de Enfield]

The problem can be solved by primary legislation, but, the 'will' is not there and C&RT have apparently been told that time will not be found to discuss it.

 

In the greater scheme of things a couple of boats overstaying their allotted mooring time is pretty insignificant in the events happening around the world.

 

If C&RT started enforcing the rules they already have then they could solve a lot of the current problems.

 

In fact Nigel Moore (RIP) outlined in several posts the methods C&RT could use to improve the situation.

 

One for discussion ..............

 

A boat overstaying can be claimed to be 'obstructing' the waterway, then the full force of the law can be applied.

 

 

If the convicted boater proved evasive and in breach of a court order, then a warrant for their arrest could be issued, and once caught they could be sent to prison for contempt of court. There is nothing “derisory” about such implications as attached to the prosecution process. If this judge was correct, then the EA could be considered “powerless to enforce the obligations of those who use” - their – waterways” – and clearly, that is very far from the truth.

 

We all know that the EA readily enforce their By-Laws

[Thomas C King]

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Something similar to your proposal was going to be introduced, it was called the Roving Mooring Permit, the difference being it was chargeable, it was declared illegal as you were simply "paying monies under menace". (Protection Money as it was so eloquently put)

 

Which is why the solution must be political, without CaRT's involvement.

 

To paraphrase a jurist, the law is not there to optimize society. Rather the law's purpose is to provide a predictable system within which members of society can optimize their behavior. Hence, precedent matters. 

 

If you want to make the legal system more predictable, test the law; but, change the law to get guide society in the direction you want.

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

That IS what happened though. The scheme was scrapped because in a "dog-in-the-manger" way, NBTA lawyers claimed it was illegal so CRT just cancelled the whole thing IIRC.

Maybe it's time for another go. The NBTA (and their lawyers) are part of the problem... 😞

[Thomas C King]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The problem can be solved by primary legislation, but, the 'will' is not there and C&RT have apparently been told that time will not be found to discuss it.

 

Agreed the will isn't there. But that's what grassroots campaigning is for.

[Richard Fairhurst]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

They're quite simply taking the p*ss, and CART have turned a blind eye and let them get away with it to the point where there are now so many of them doing this that it's difficult to clamp down on -- at least, without noisy "think of the children!" protests from the likes of the NBTA... 😞

 

I wouldn't say CRT have turned a blind eye. BW/CRT have been trying to do something about "continuous cruising" being interpreted as "permanent mooring" since at least the early '00s: I remember writing news stories about it when I was at Canal Boat. But ultimately everything they do founders on the rocks of protest and of the ambiguity in the 1995 Waterways Act.

 

The only way it's going to get resolved is with legislation to clarify the Act. The Government is unlikely to want to do that because legislation is expensive; rehousing people is expensive; and dealing with headlines about "ethnic cleansing" is not what they want to be doing. If a new Waterways Act ever gets drafted for some other reason then I could possibly see this being tagged onto it, but until then, CRT is limited to chipping away at the edges through tougher enforcement and little things like the £25/day mooring charge.

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Thomas C King said:

 

Which is why the solution must be political, without CaRT's involvement.

 

To paraphrase a jurist, the law is not there to optimize society. Rather the law's purpose is to provide a predictable system within which members of society can optimize their behavior. Hence, precedent matters. 

 

If you want to make the legal system more predictable, test the law; but, change the law to get guide society in the direction you want.

 

But it won't be. There is no will in parliament to give it time for discussion. We have been told to work within the legislation we already have. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

C&RT already accept funds for winter moorings where the '14 day law' should apply, so I'm not so sure about that.

 

Indeed - and some have determined that the Winter Moorings are illegal without change of use of the 'bank' from 'incidental mooring use' to residential mooring use'.

 

However - following the stupidity of the Baton Twirlers fiasco with the Roving Permit, boaters see that it is to their benefit to 'keep stchum' about making protection-payments to allow them to overstay for several months. It could easily be recinded to the detriment of those who do not desire to move about in bad weather - pay C&RT or pay for a marina.

 

Be carefull what you wish for.

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Richard Fairhurst said:

 

I wouldn't say CRT have turned a blind eye. BW/CRT have been trying to do something about "continuous cruising" being interpreted as "permanent mooring" since at least the early '00s: I remember writing news stories about it when I was at Canal Boat. But ultimately everything they do founders on the rocks of protest and of the ambiguity in the 1995 Waterways Act.

 

The only way it's going to get resolved is with legislation to clarify the Act. The Government is unlikely to want to do that because legislation is expensive; rehousing people is expensive; and dealing with headlines about "ethnic cleansing" is not what they want to be doing. If a new Waterways Act ever gets drafted for some other reason then I could possibly see this being tagged onto it, but until then, CRT is limited to chipping away at the edges through tougher enforcement and little things like the £25/day mooring charge.

 

I still don't believe that primary legislation is *necessary* to fix this, though it would certainly help.

 

Given that CART can charge for providing anything -- including moorings, or facilities -- it seems unlikely that they can't find a way within existing legislation to sort this out. But this will undoubtedly mean taking on the NBTA and their lawyers head-on, and right now they make much more noise than the "silent majority" of law-abiding boaters who are fed up with their antics and the resulting congestion in "honeypot" areas.

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Indeed - and some have determined that the Winter Moorings are illegal without change of use of the 'bank' from 'incidental mooring use' to residential mooring use'.

 

However - following the stupidity of the Baton Twirlers fiasco with the Roving Permit, boaters see that it is to their benefit to 'keep stchum' about making protection-payments to allow them to overstay for several months. It could easily be recinded to the detriment of those who do not desire to move about in bad weather - pay C&RT or pay for a marina.

 

Be carefull what you wish for.

 

But there's nothing that says that such a scheme has to be applied equally across the entire system. CART can define honeypot areas where it applies, and areas outside this where there is no problem can be exempted.

[Arthur Marshall]

6 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

 

Which is why the solution must be political, without CaRT's involvement.

 

To paraphrase a jurist, the law is not there to optimize society. Rather the law's purpose is to provide a predictable system within which members of society can optimize their behavior. Hence, precedent matters. 

 

If you want to make the legal system more predictable, test the law; but, change the law to get guide society in the direction you want.

The solution is a political one, but it involves a bit of joined up thinking, which is why it won't happen.

The problem of overstaying, unlicensed liveaboards etc etc is largely all part of the housing/poverty crisis. That was caused by political judgements (both parties, though maybe one more than another) and you aren't going to stop people crashing on boats (the licences for which they can't afford) if their alternative is a shop doorway, or overstaying if the alternative is losing their job, family, medical treatment or benefits. And they can't move if they can't afford both food and diesel.

So whinge as much as we like, we're stuck with it. The "law" is irrelevant.

[Rambling Boater]

20 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Indeed - and some have determined that the Winter Moorings are illegal without change of use of the 'bank' from 'incidental mooring use' to residential mooring use'.

 

However - following the stupidity of the Baton Twirlers fiasco with the Roving Permit, boaters see that it is to their benefit to 'keep stchum' about making protection-payments to allow them to overstay for several months. It could easily be recinded to the detriment of those who do not desire to move about in bad weather - pay C&RT or pay for a marina.

 

Be carefull what you wish for.

I don't personally 'wish' either way as I enjoy moving about all year around within the current rules.

 

However, perhaps in the future when I become less mobile I may have to consider moving back on land. For me, living on a boat in a marina or other fixed canalside location doesn't seem that appealing at the moment.

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by Rambling Boater

[Bod]

2 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

Nope. I'm just reading what the law says.

 

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/section/17/enacted

 

The answer to this CC/CM argument lies in 17. 3.c.(ii)

If the Board/C&RT were to publish clearly what it would take to "Satisfy the Board" then all argument would be over.

Then there are the Byelaws, which if properly used, cover most situations.

 

Bod

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Bod said:

If the Board/C&RT were to publish clearly what it would take to "Satisfy the Board" then all argument would be over.

 

Only once a well off or crowd-funded boater challenged it in the high court and failed, surely?

 

 

[Tacet]

5 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

One of the problems is that a liveaboard cannot be a CCer as it contradicts the 1995 Act.

 

The boater is on the boat as it his his/her/its primary residence therefore they are only complying with the CC rules in order to comply .......................

 

I'll leave it to the late Nigel Moore to explain :

 

 

Legally, a liveaboard cannot be a CCer.

 

I actually take issue with the applicability of “intent”; I believe the judge in Davies got bamboozled by Mr Stoner QC's (as he since became) clever rhetoric on the point. As one online commentator noted at the time, if the letter of the law is being followed, it really does not matter why. To say that Mr Davies' movement pattern was unexceptional in itself (the 'continuous journey' argument of BW was rejected - “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 - was ludicrous. 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.

 

On that argument, it could never have made any difference no matter what his movement pattern was. 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. Not that CaRT would take exception to them of course; but the principle applies.

 

My reading of the extract is that the writer (Nigel Moore) was disagreeing with the proposition that living aboard and continuously cruising are mutually exclusive.

 

Makes sense to me; when I wanted to cruise widely, I lived aboard as the most practical way of achieving it.  The boat became my primary place of abode - but I navigated because I wanted to - not principally to satisfy the board.

 

Each to their own, of course, but I don't see the joy in a boat that does not move much. I enjoy both the process of moving and visiting different places. 

 

 

[Bod]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

Only once a well off or crowd-funded boater challenged it in the high court and failed, surely?

 

 

Don't remember anything like that happening, any idea when?

 

Bod

[ditchcrawler]

But how could this notice stand up in court when the dates listed are incorrect 

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, Bod said:

Don't remember anything like that happening, any idea when?

 

Bod

 

It hasn't, which is the whole point. CRT don't clearly state what would "satisfy the board" in case it gets challenged and said apocryphal well off boater wins. 

[Bod]

1 minute ago, ditchcrawler said:

But how could this notice stand up in court when the dates listed are incorrect 

How do you spell the name of the 9th month of the year?

 

Bod

[ditchcrawler]

7 minutes ago, Bod said:

How do you spell the name of the 9th month of the year?

 

Bod

 

7 minutes ago, Bod said:

How do you spell the name of the 9th month of the year?

 

Bod

BBBBBBBuggered if I know