Help with legal rights?

[Tam & Di]

We used to lease Adelaide Dock just along from Maypole Dock. The Grand Junction Canal Act gave owners whose land the canal ran through Rights "to construct places for boats to moor or lie", and Maypole Dock will almost certainly have been dug under those terms. We had to pay the canal company £1.00 a year 'in perpetuity' for the access and maintain the bridge that carried the towpath over the entrance, and I would expect the Maypole Dock to have similar terms. I've no idea if whoever the current owner is has allowed any such agreement to lapse. Dredging would be the responsibility of the owner of the arm, as would maintenance of its watertight integrity.

 

I'd guess that it was used for coal brought in by narrowboats, as at the Jam 'ole a couple of miles away at the Bulls Bridge end of the Paddington Arm.

 

Tam

Edited April 22, 2023 by Tam & Di
to make it more sensible ;-)

[Emonaboat]

8 minutes ago, Tam & Di said:

We used to lease Adelaide Dock just along from Maypole Dock. The Grand Junction Canal Act gave owners whose land the canal ran through Rights "to construct places for boats to moor or lie", and Maypole Dock will almost certainly have been dug under those terms. We had to pay the canal company £1.00 a year 'in perpetuity' for the access and maintain the bridge that carried the towpath over the entrance, and I would expect the Maypole Dock to have similar terms. I've no idea if whoever the current owner is has allowed any such agreement to lapse. Dredging would be the responsibility of the owner of the arm, as would maintenance of its watertight integrity.

 

I'd guess that it was used for coal brought in by narrowboats, as at the Jam 'ole a couple of miles away at the Bulls Bridge end of the Paddington Arm.

 

Tam

Wow, that's all very interesting and helpful thanks.

[Tam & Di]

If, as you imply, you have some form of mooring agreement then any problems about access would have to be dealt with by whoever you signed with - it shouldn't be between you and a fellow moorer, and certainly nothing to do with C&RT.

 

Tam

[Emonaboat]

1 hour ago, Tam & Di said:

If, as you imply, you have some form of mooring agreement then any problems about access would have to be dealt with by whoever you signed with - it shouldn't be between you and a fellow moorer, and certainly nothing to do with C&RT.

 

Tam

Yes, that's true. The owners and managing agent are next to useless, but I know I will have to try to get them to intervene. I was just hoping to find out what the legal situation actually is.

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Emonaboat said:

Yes, that's true. The owners and managing agent are next to useless, but I know I will have to try to get them to intervene. I was just hoping to find out what the legal situation actually is.

 

I'd say your legal situation specifically (i.e. your rights which you can demand be met) will be set out in your tenancy agreement or contract. 

What does it say (if anything) about your right of access by water to the main canal?

 

 

[magnetman]

Interesting one..

 

If there is no contractual right to access the canal itself then perhaps the owner would be at liberty to close off the entrance and have a captive audience for increasing mooring rates. 

 

If it were me I would look into this very carefully and consider leaving if it seems too dodgy.

 

Hopefully its just an annoying boat owner but it could be more sinister.

 

 

 

[Tam & Di]

20 hours ago, Emonaboat said:

... 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.

 

You use the phrase "his mooring within the marina" - do you all have specified mooring places, or is it that you do just generally always return to the same space? If you do have specific allocated lengths then you have quite a strong argument, but not otherwise. I'd be very surprised if there is anything to say about access to the canal though - I've not heard of any such clause in mooring agreements used by marinas that I know of.

 

Are you the only person who does occasionally cruise, or are other moorers equally inconvenienced? I wonder too, why does this guy moor so others can't get in or out? Is it easier or better for him in some way, or is he being deliberately awkward?

 

These thoughts are interesting, but probably do little to help you resolve the issue. The answers may prompt different forms of advice though.

 

Tam

Edited April 22, 2023 by Tam & Di

[Emonaboat]

I'm not too worried about anything more sinister going on with the dock owners.  Catalyst only bought the dock in order to build a new bridge over it and connect two of their developments together.  They don't really want to own us and have no idea how to manage a dock (hence situations like this being able to arise).  However, there is a mention of access to the marina not being blocked in the contract, so I should be fine there.  I don't think there are any ulterior motives going on here, just mismanagement, disinterest and incompetence.  Which will of course make trying to get them to act in any way more challenging.

 

As for the mooring places, yes they are specified mooring spots.  And he has a designated spot within the marina, he just chooses not to use it.  I can't say why.  I have asked, but he doesn't feel like letting anyone know. And the majority of the dock is definitely comprised of floaters, rather than boaters, but there are a few of us who like to go out. 

[Tam & Di]

That makes your case pretty strong, but obviously to have such discontent within a small enclosed community is never going to be easy. From the website of the owners they are supposed to be positively disposed to people such as the boat owners there - quote their own philosophy at them and pressure them to sort it.

 

Best luck, and keep us informed if anything happens.

 

Tam

[Arthur Marshall]

The logical solution is to go for a regular cruise, leaving and  returning very late or very early.  And park with the nose of your boat against his, and knock him up to shift. That's assuming he lives on it. Me, I like starting off at 6am...

If he doesn't, but is happy to move it himself when asked, why not just confirm with him that if he aint there, he's happy for you to shift it out of the way.

[blackrose]

4 hours ago, Tam & Di said:

If, as you imply, you have some form of mooring agreement then any problems about access would have to be dealt with by whoever you signed with - it shouldn't be between you and a fellow moorer, and certainly nothing to do with C&RT.

 

Tam

 

Exactly my thoughts too. I wouldn't have any dealings with the person blocking the entrance and certainly not get involved in any legal proceedings. I don't really understand why that would be the OP's initial line of questioning on this forum or course of action?

 

The OP should be talking to the marina operator - that's who their contract is with. Let the marina deal with the inconsiderate idiot. And contrary to what some others here are saying, I certainly wouldn't be taking any "direct action" against this person as ironically you might be the one then finding yourself on the wrong side of legal proceedings.

Edited April 22, 2023 by blackrose

[David Mack]

24 minutes ago, blackrose said:

And contrary to what some others here are saying, I certainly wouldn't be taking any "direct action" against this person as ironically you might be the one then finding yourself on the wrong side of legal proceedings.

Whilst legal proceedings against the OP might technically be possible, I would have thought that moving the offending boat aside to allow the OP's boat to leave or enter, then tieing it back up again in the same location, without causing any damage to the boat, would be seen by any court as a reasonable course of action in the circumstances.

[Tam & Di]

23 hours ago, Emonaboat said:

..  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.

I'm slightly puzzled by this. I would assume that Maypole Dock Ltd owned the whole of the dock including the access point to the canal, and Catalyst Housing Ltd who bought it from them does therefore now own the access. The fact that they were only interested in being able to build a bridge over the dock wouldn't mean that they don't own the whole entity.

 

I will try to send you a private message about it.

 

Tam

[David Mack]

My guess is that the highway authority own the road bridge over the entrance, so the land registry title plan for the dock may exclude that area, whereas, as I suggested earlier, the dock owners may nevertheless have legal title to a right of passage beneath the road to the main canal channel.

[Emonaboat]

I'm not necessarily going to try to personally take legal action against this person. I simply am trying to understand what laws apply so that I can be informed on how I can. Hence wondering of the British Waterways Act applied or not. And if it is actually legal to move his boat out of the way myself.

 

And it is quite puzzling about who exactly owns the piece of land in question. It would completely make sense for them to own it all, I'm still trying to find out for sure one way or another. 

 

 

 

[enigmatic]

I did look for the video of former narrowboat columnist Steve Haywood's approach to boats that were moored in places he wanted to moor, but apparently its been taken down

 

I think in this instance it would be justified...

[MtB]

2 hours ago, Emonaboat said:

I'm not necessarily going to try to personally take legal action against this person.

 

Correct. 

 

Unless there is something odd you are not telling us, you have no contractual relationship with this geezer so there is no scope for you to take legal action against him.

 

There is however, a parallel perhaps with the leases on flats. A flat with a 'long lease' will (or should) have a "mutual enforceability" clause. Your moorings lease might (or should) have one too. This is where your lease is the same as everyone else's and if one of your neighbours is breaching a clause in their lease to your detriment (as is the case here), you are granted the right to require the landlord to enforce the breached clause in both your and their lease. 

 

Lack of a mutual enforceability clause in a flat lease makes the flat pretty much un-mortgageable so they all generally have them. There is a possibility your lease has one too, so check, but if it doesn't I suspect you're stuffed (legal term). 

 

 

Edited April 22, 2023 by MtB
Finesse it a bit!

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, enigmatic said:

I did look for the video of former narrowboat columnist Steve Haywood's approach to boats that were moored in places he wanted to moor, but apparently its been taken down

 

I think in this instance it would be justified...

Where would that come into this thread?

 

[enigmatic]

Just now, ditchcrawler said:

Where would that come into this thread?

 

If there's anyone that deserves to be rammed into by a boat that couldn't stop, honest, it's a bloke that moors across an entrance to a marina when repeatedly asked not to, despite having a perfectly good mooring available to him that isn't in everyone's way.

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

 

If there's anyone that deserves to be rammed into by a boat that couldn't stop, honest, it's a bloke that moors across an entrance to a marina when repeatedly asked not to, despite having a perfectly good mooring available to him that isn't in everyone's way.

 

 

The bloke is obviously being paid in some way or other to make a total pain in the arse of himself to the other moorers. 

 

Presumably he is a fairly new resident.

 

 

 

 

[Emonaboat]

I honestly think he just likes the spot under the bridge.  And while the idea of ramming his boat is definitely appealing, I'd rather not become as disrespectful a person as he is.

[Mike Todd]

Dont forget that mooring agreements rarely have any security of tenure. If you become too much if a problem for the owner you could just find yourself looking for a new mooring. Best to tread gingerly.

[Tam & Di]

4 hours ago, David Mack said:

My guess is that the highway authority own the road bridge over the entrance, so the land registry title plan for the dock may exclude that area

 It would be fairly simple to check that one way or the other.

 

Tam

[Peanut]

9 hours ago, Tam & Di said:

 It would be fairly simple to check that one way or the other.

 

Tam

I doubt that they own the water, just the land and the bridge, but they will know if you ask them.  Westminster Council won't own the River Thames under London Bridge. Not that it helps, as you have to deal with the marina management.

 

[magnetman]

I think with privately constructed canal arms the landowner does own the lot including the water or at least the land in which the water is pooled. 

Rivers are slightly different as there is a public right of navigation but for example on the Thames above Staines riparian owner who has land beside the a River also owns the bed of the River to half way across for the length of their land ownership. 

 

I can't remember exactly how it works below Staines but riverbed ownership is something like corporation of London or Crown estate. 

 

I would think, without having checked, that in the case of the Maypole dock arm the owner does own everything but the area around the road bridge and the canal bridge could be a grey area. 

 

I expect the geyser mooring there may be testing the water as a just to see what happens exercise. 

 

It must be very dark there so presumably not a boat used residentially.