Help with legal rights?

[Emonaboat]

Hi everyone,

 

I have a strange legal situation going on at the marina where I moor my boat that I could use some help with.  My neighbour has decided to moor his boat across the only entrance to the marina, completely blocking access in and out.  He says he will move his boat out of the way whenever is needed, but doesn't always.  Myself and my neighbours have politely asked him to move his boat onto his mooring within the marina, but he won't.  The marina is private waters, not regulated by CRT.  The marina entrance is underneath a road bridge and is no man's land- neither owned by the marina or regulated by CRT and the highway authority claim it isn't theirs either.

 

As direct appeals haven't worked, I'm now unfortunately looking at other options and have two questions I can't quite figure out in relation to this.

1.  Does the British Waterways Act of 1995 (specifically section 18.1 and 18.3 where it talks about not obstructing the navigation and the ability to remove a boat which does) apply to private waters?  While it defines "inland waterways" as those operated by BW, surely private waters aren't simply lawless areas??

2.  Am I legally allowed to move his boat out of the way to get mine in and out?  Here, I'm thinking about the fact that my marina and the main canal must share an "easement of necessity" which he is therefore blocking.  But am I allowed to just move his boat out onto the main canal and remoor it there?

 

Thanks for any help on this.  Trying to wade through legalese is confusing!

[Alan de Enfield]

I suggest you get a 'proper legal' advisor rather that the 'barrack room' lawyers that inhabit this website.

 

But some questions you will need to answer include - 

Who owns the marina ?

Is this marina actually owned, or is just a bit of canal that has been claimed by squatters ?

Is the marina owner paying 9% of his mooring income to C&RT to allow access to C&RTs waters ?
Does the marina pre-date the NAA (Access agreements)

 

The waterways acts are only to the benefit of BW / C&RT. Any private waters not under their control are 'open to all and sundry' - bandits included.

 

[Bee]

Who do you pay for the mooring? This is their battle not yours. If some wally blocks the entrance then the owner should be the one jumping up and down. I don't think CRT will want to get involved unless it is their moorings and anything to do with legal shenanigans is to be avoided at all costs. I have moved boats before now and never thought twice about it and other people have moved mine, unless it starts a feud or is done with malice and everything is left secure it should not be a problem

[magnetman]

It would be an interesting question if asked by someone considering mooring across the entrance to a disused canal arm not owned by the CRT. 

[matty40s]

Wait for a windy night and untie his lines.

Repeat as necessary until he gets the message.

Saves on legal fees.

[magnetman]

There is a funny little arm in Southall just above Norwood top locks where this could happen.

 

 

 

[Emonaboat]

Catalyst Housing own the marina.  It's an actual marina- a spur off the Grand Union.  I don't know if they pay CRT anything.  They are generally incompetent as landlords and while they know about the problem, have yet to act.  I hadn't heard about the NAA Access Agreement before.  I will look into that, thanks.  I would imagine it predates it though.  I believe the marina has been residential since the 90s.

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

There is a funny little arm in Southall just above Norwood top locks where this could happen.

 

 

 

That's the one.

[magnetman]

Maypole dock. 

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, Emonaboat said:

I believe the marina has been residential since the 90s.

 

 

NETWORK ACCESS AGREEMENT FOR MARINAS AND OFF LINE MOORINGS SUMMARY OF MAIN TERMS

• Is granted under the provisions of Section 43 Transport Act 1962.

• The purpose of the NAA is to authorise connection to our waterway network and to charge marina operators for CRT services facilities including the impoundment, supply and re-supply of water to enable navigation between the marina and the waterway and within the marina.

• It deals with other issues such as entry upon and access across CRT land and other statutory rights and powers.

[magnetman]

I seem to recall the bloke opposite with the workboats put his purple and grey push tug under the bridge there. 

 

Not been that way for a number of yars now. Also a narrow boat belonging to a bloke called Alan from Barnes ?

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

NETWORK ACCESS AGREEMENT FOR MARINAS AND OFF LINE MOORINGS SUMMARY OF MAIN TERMS

• Is granted under the provisions of Section 43 Transport Act 1962.

• The purpose of the NAA is to authorise connection to our waterway network and to charge marina operators for CRT services facilities including the impoundment, supply and re-supply of water to enable navigation between the marina and the waterway and within the marina.

• It deals with other issues such as entry upon and access across CRT land and other statutory rights and powers.

This is a pre-existing branch off the Grand Union canal. There were loads of them. Most have been filled in now.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

I seem to recall the bloke opposite with the workboats put his purple and grey push tug under the bridge there. 

 

Not been that way for a number of yars now. Also a narrow boat belonging to a bloke called Alan from Barnes ?

This is a pre-existing branch off the Grand Union canal. There were loads of them. Most have been filled in now.

 

 

 

Which is why I asked the OP - he replied 'since the 90's' and, at that time we did not know where it actually was.

[magnetman]

Maybe it isn't an old canal branch. The bridge isn't old. It is a curious one. 

 

The older map has nothing there. 

 

[Emonaboat]

It is an old canal branch, but quite a recent one.  It was built around 1910 to service to the Maypole Margarine Factory.  So it has existed since then, but was converted into residential moorings I think in the 90s.  Would this then mean that the marina would necessarily be a part of this NAA and be paying CRT for access?

[magnetman]

I think not. 

 

If it was already connected to the main line of the canal it seems unlikely that a NAA would be needed. 

 

These were presumably to do with new holes being dug followed by connection to the canal. 

 

 

The bridge situation is an interesting oversight if nobody is claiming it. 

 

The structure itself must surely be owned by highways as it has a road going over it and the section carrying the towpath is presumably a CRT asset. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

I think not. 

 

If it was already connected to the main line of the canal it seems unlikely that a NAA would be needed. 

 

These were presumably to do with new holes being dug followed by connection to the canal. 

 

 

 

This is why the OP needs to take legal advice from those qualified to give advice and who can access the necessary paperwork.

[David Mack]

The NAA was introduced in the early 2000s, and anybody connecting a new marina after that date has to sign up to its terms. It won't apply to older branches like this one. 

The canal channel under the road bridge may well belong to the marina owner - it was their predecessors that built it - even if the bridge and road above belong to the highway authority. In any event they probably have a legal right of way for boats, which the offending boat owner is obstructing. But its their legal battle to fight, not yours. So all you can really do is put pressure on them.

[magnetman]

 

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

This is why the OP needs to take legal advice from those qualified to give advice and who can access the necessary paperwork.

 

Would it actually make a difference if there was a NAA in terms of the obstruction to the entrance ? 

 

It seems more likely this is a job for thr land owner as the boat is not obstructing part of a CRT waterway. 

 

Interesting problem perhaps best resolved by resident association. 

[David Mack]

Does your mooring agreement actually state that you have a right of access to the main canal line?

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, David Mack said:

Does your mooring agreement actually state that you have a right of access to the main canal line?

 

Do the boaters actually have a mooring agreement ?

[magnetman]

I was like "Maybe the land owner don't want the boats as it doesn't fit with the housing scheme". 

Optimising the open market value eh? 

 

https://selbornechambers.co.uk/high-court-injunction-restraining-an-expert-determination-maypole-dock-v-catalyst-housing-2021-ewhc-1742-tcc/

[Emonaboat]

Thank you everyone. I agree that it's definitely time for the owner to figure this out. I will focus on putting pressure on them to do what they need 

 

 

 

42 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Does your mooring agreement actually state that you have a right of access to the main canal line?

I'll have to have a read through and check exactly what the wording is. Good thought.

[Mike Tee]

How many boats are blocked in? Get everyone together and approach the person or organisation you pay your rent to. Hold back the rent until they clear the entrance - or is the 'blocker' connected to the landowner?

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Mike Tee said:

How many boats are blocked in? Get everyone together and approach the person or organisation you pay your rent to. Hold back the rent until they clear the entrance - or is the 'blocker' connected to the landowner?

 

I was wondering that too.

 

Piss off the moorers to the extent they all leave. Then fill it in and sell it for £25m to a tower block developer. Pay some dick of a boater peanuts to keep blocking the entrance.

 

Sounds like a good plan to me....

 

 

 

 

[Mike Tee]

Just looked on Google Earth - there are quite a few boats in there, it is larger than it looks from the main line.

[magnetman]

I was like "maybe the landowner don't want the boats there". 

 

It doesn't look like the sort of place one would come and go from all that often. I wonder what sort of boats the marge barges were. Bit awkward to get round after exiting. 

 

It is Southall so there will be pressure on allocation of land use. 

 

I don't really see how stopping people leaving would work as a strategy to get rid of the boats. 

 

Unless the idea is that you can somehow prove it is never used as a navigation in which case the CRT may have no obligation to maintain the depth under the bridge over the towpath. 

 

 

 

 

I suppose one would need to know how private canal branches came into being in the first place and what covenants or easements or whateverments they are bound by. 

Basically it is peabody. Construction company.

 

https://uk.linkedin.com/company/catalyst-housing-limited