Jump to content

Court rules : A floating caravan is not a boat so you cannot be evicted.


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

6 minutes ago, Paul C said:

It can be challenged by judicial review.

 

That seems like a car inspecting itself for an MoT. Perhaps satisfying the board should be removed, as a basis for testing the law.

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

But hasn't been.

 

Debatably because after thinking about it properly, no-one is confident enough of winning to spend their own money on mounting a JR. 

 

Whose legal interpretation would prevail. It is an ambiguous situation. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's at the edges of what is obvious that the law becomes an ass, usually because it is trying to define the undefinable. Lickily, most of these opinions only affect a single case and the rest of us can get on with our lives without much bother. It's when politicians get involved you have to worry, because, being mostly not very bright, they can't write sensible laws. This is why lawyers get rich.

If in doubt as to who would win any legal case, just check who owns more property, then factor in who has most money, and there's your answer. Testing things in court is no way to decide what's right or wrong, true or false, and certainly not what is the best outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It wasn't just Nigel, the Davies court case revolved around this  (Judges statement) :

 

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.

 

 

From Nigel :

 

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.

 

 

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It is not "I" that think this, it is a Judge (and Nigel)

 

In principle I agree with you - but, there can only be one 'primary use'.

 

You need a car to travel 50 miles to work, (primary use) but you also use it to nip 1 mile to the Co-Op to do your shopping (secondary use)

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

I still find that highly irrational. 

 

 

 

There are liveaboards and liveaboards.

At one end of the scale could be one who has possibly overstayed in the past, but now moves once a fortnight for a mile or so, while at the other end is a liveaboard who moves a considerable distance most days, covering several hundred miles per year (as was envisaged by the 1995 Act S17(c)(ii). I would submit that in the second case, the primary reason for living on a boat is boating, or bona fide navigation, while in the first case the primary reason is a place to live. Most unusually, I am in agreement with Higgs! :cheers:

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

I wouldn't hang too closely onto Nigel's argument(s), whilst I appreciate he's not here to defend himself, he did have a spectacular defeat in court.

 

Something can be dual purpose.

If that's a reference to the Ravenscroft case, that did seem a perverse verdict, with the judge ignoring several well established legal principles. I suspect that with a different client, Nigel would have prevailed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It's at the edges of what is obvious that the law becomes an ass, usually because it is trying to define the undefinable. Lickily, most of these opinions only affect a single case and the rest of us can get on with our lives without much bother. It's when politicians get involved you have to worry, because, being mostly not very bright, they can't write sensible laws. This is why lawyers get rich.

If in doubt as to who would win any legal case, just check who owns more property, then factor in who has most money, and there's your answer. Testing things in court is no way to decide what's right or wrong, true or false, and certainly not what is the best outcome.

In my experience it is "at the edges" that the law becomes interesting and the courts most useful. Matters where the precise meaning of statute has never come before a judge are, by their nature, uncertain and only the courts can give that certainty.

 

Parliamentary draughtsmen attempt to convert politicians ideas into reasonable legislation but there are always unintended consequences, often because of efforts to avoid ambiguity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bod said:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/67073/response/174565/attach/3/BW v Davies Sealed Judgment

Is this the case being discussed?

If so then the case is about distance moved, rather than "liveaboard or not"

 

Bod

 

Yes, but it was the wider issues that eminated from 'not moving enough'. And the fact that he lived aboard, didn't move more than a mile (due to needing to moor 'close to work') and did not have a home mooring - he therefore was classed as CCing (a boat with no home mooring), but, his sole purpose of having the boat (as obvious by his movement pattern) was to live aboard and be close to work, not to 'move around the system'.

 

If you read thru those Pdfs you see where the Judge 'was coming from'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the problem revolves round the term Bona Fide.

 

UK practical law thompsons reuters says

 

In good faith, honestly, without fraud or deceit.

 

I would suggest that a boater knows whether they are "navigating" Bona Fide.  They will know if they are moving because they want to or to try to avoid CRT action.

 

I would suggest, many will not agree, if you only move to remain within the "rules" and/or stay as near one spot as possible the navigation is not in good faith.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, frahkn said:

In my experience it is "at the edges" that the law becomes interesting and the courts most useful. Matters where the precise meaning of statute has never come before a judge are, by their nature, uncertain and only the courts can give that certainty.

 

Parliamentary draughtsmen attempt to convert politicians ideas into reasonable legislation but there are always unintended consequences, often because of efforts to avoid ambiguity.

Agreed, but often the conclusions reached aren't logical in the real world, which is one of the ways plaintiffs come to grief. It's always wise to remember that the prime purpose of law is to protect property, not people, and has very little relation to any concept such as fairness or what the Clapham busrider might see as justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, frahkn said:

In my experience it is "at the edges" that the law becomes interesting and the courts most useful. Matters where the precise meaning of statute has never come before a judge are, by their nature, uncertain and only the courts can give that certainty.

 

Parliamentary draughtsmen attempt to convert politicians ideas into reasonable legislation but there are always unintended consequences, often because of efforts to avoid ambiguity.

I would guess that more frequently when the law makers (aka politicians) are obsessed and focussed on a specific objective that they fail to look for the possible adverse consequences or mis-applications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It wasn't just Nigel, the Davies court case revolved around this  (Judges statement) :

 

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.

 

 

From Nigel :

 

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.

 

The spectacular leap being made is the bona fides of navigation is always defeated by another purpose.

 

For what it's worth, I don't accept the face value of the judgement extract.  Bona fide as a concept has been tested in other cases and it is quite possible to have poor motive but still be bona fide.  The poor motive may raise questions over the bona fides, but is not fatal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/02/2023 at 12:09, Bod said:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/67073/response/174565/attach/3/BW v Davies Sealed Judgment

Is this the case being discussed?

If so then the case is about distance moved, rather than "liveaboard or not"

 

Bod

Yep. Literally the point of the case was that in the opinion of the CRT he wasn't continuously cruising.

The judge simply acknowledged there might be cases where a court could rule that someone was legitimately "navigating" even if the Board of the CRT disagreed, but since this was a bloke moving a mile every two weeks along a ten mile range for the sole purpose of living in an area whilst claiming to be moving, this wasn't one of them.

 

The judgement also contains the line "it seems to me that use of the boat as a home does not necessarily exclude a co-existent use for navigation. Indeed a person who continuously cruises the waterways in the manner envisaged by the Board might well be living full time on the boat with no other home"... so I don't think those of us who don't bridge hop have anything to worry about at all.

 

-

 

Don't think we need to rule too much into boats not being formally excluded from the definition of "caravan" either. Lots of existing law covering rights of boats and mooring owners (which is why Tingdene's case hinged on arguing that it was a "houseboat"). Don't think the same applied to railway carriages, and there are very obvious reasons why you'd want to not give them rights of tenure over a bit of railway line...

 

And the mobile home parked on a not-really-navigable pontoon (I don't think it would fit through Great Ouse locks) definitely satisfies the common sense definition of a caravan.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question I would now ask.

If the wheels had been removed, and the accommodation chassis welded to the floats, would the "caravan" definition still stand?

As has been seen on the waterways previously, car bodies welded to hulls, licence as a boat or a car?

 

Bod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bod said:

The question I would now ask.

If the wheels had been removed, and the accommodation chassis welded to the floats, would the "caravan" definition still stand?

As has been seen on the waterways previously, car bodies welded to hulls, licence as a boat or a car?

 

Bod

It would not then be a statutory caravan for the purposes of the Mobile Homes Act.

 

Whether it would be a caravan for other purposes depends on your definition

 

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.