48hr mooring

[Iain_S]

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

1) Not sure on your interpretation of the wording there.

 

2) Use of the canal or use of extra services? 

 

1) TBH, neither am I, but I believe that my interpretation follows the intent of the original, in protecting against charges for previously free services, while allowing BW (or CaRT) to charge foe additional services which they see fit to provide.

 

2) Just the canal. If there is nothing which prevents charging for services, then CaRT are free to charge or set conditions. The "service" may be the provision of mooring rings, which would allow the setting of a condition limiting a stay to 48 hours or less.

[waterworks]

2 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

And so you refused to sign? Do tell . . .

Like I said signing an unlawful contract doesn't bind you to it, so whether you sign or not makes no differnce. 

 

The practical option is to sign and forget about it because you cannot stop them doing it without a very expensive court case.

 

 

1 hour ago, enigmatic said:

 

Yep.

Or to put it another way, when the 1995 Act introduced a licence requirement and charge which you were obliged to pay regardless of how much or how little you used their facilities, I don't think the intention was to abolish all other rules and charges so licence-holders could self-operate the Anderton Boat lift free of charge, stay for free on CRT-owned permanent mooring sites or indeed stay for free on a mooring the CRT has designated as costing £25 a night for stays beyond the first 48 hours.

 

I'm more inclined to believe the other argument attributed to Nigel which Alan posted on the previous page: that the 14 day stays (or longer than break-your-journey-overnight stays) tolerated on towpaths elsewhere aren't any sort of legal right, just an established custom which CRT have decided to permit licence holders to follow...

 

The boat lift is a complex and expenive to maintain service, no argument,  a visitor mooring usually has no services other than mooring rings or bollards , some dont even have that, so calling that a service is an interpretation that can indeed be argued. 

[Paul C]

12 minutes ago, waterworks said:

Like I said signing an unlawful contract doesn't bind you to it, so whether you sign or not makes no differnce. 

 

The practical option is to sign and forget about it because you cannot stop them doing it without a very expensive court case.

 

 

The boat lift is a complex and expenive to maintain service, no argument,  a visitor mooring usually has no services other than mooring rings or bollards , some dont even have that, so calling that a service is an interpretation that can indeed be argued. 

 

I agree, I don't think they can charge for, or restrict staying time, at a mooring unless it has rings, bank improvement or something else distinct from the canal in the surrounding area.

 

[enigmatic]

8 minutes ago, waterworks said:

The boat lift is a complex and expenive to maintain service, no argument,  a visitor mooring usually has no services other than mooring rings or bollards , some dont even have that, so calling that a service is an interpretation that can indeed be argued. 

 

It can indeed be argued, but you have no reason to believe that your argument will succeed.

 

There is no legal reason to believe that CRT's right to set charges and conditions for the use of their facilities is bound to how much they pay to maintain them.

 

I'm glad you have now accepted that your claim that the 1995 Act abolished the right to set any conditions on waterways use or charge for services was incorrect though.

[waterworks]

4 hours ago, enigmatic said:

 

It can indeed be argued, but you have no reason to believe that your argument will succeed.

 

There is no legal reason to believe that CRT's right to set charges and conditions for the use of their facilities is bound to how much they pay to maintain them.

 

I'm glad you have now accepted that your claim that the 1995 Act abolished the right to set any conditions on waterways use or charge for services was incorrect though.

 They can charge for use of their facilities , I never claimed otherwise, however what is and is not a facility is not defined, I have made no claim to know what is or is not a facility in this context, neither you or I know,  does putting a sign up stating the area from A to B is now a facility make it a facility ?

 

I never claimed that quote  "the 1995 Act abolished the right to set any conditions on waterways use or charge for services"  I said the 95 act set out statutory licence conditions and the interpretation 62 act cannot now overide that. 

 

And use of the waterways is governed by bylaws , ( breach of which carries a lawful penalty,) not CRTs arbitrary decesions on what you can and cannot do, breach of a rule CRT has invented like for instance the 8 am to 8 pm noise rule cannot lead to any lawful sanction, as i posted earlier BWs own legal Council confirmed such " rules"  are advisory.  

[Paul C]

39 minutes ago, waterworks said:

 They can charge for use of their facilities , I never claimed otherwise, however what is and is not a facility is not defined, I have made no claim to know what is or is not a facility in this context, neither you or I know,  does putting a sign up stating the area from A to B is now a facility make it a facility ?

 

 

 

Its not defined in law because doing so would be too cumbersome for the future. They deliberately didn't define things, leaving it as "the Boards shall have power to demand, take and recover such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit."

 

So basically, the above gives a pretty overarching ability for CRT to charge/set T&Cs for things. That's the law.

 

Your example of simply putting up a sign, I don't think would qualify as a "facility". As posted previously, I believe some kind of identifiable improvement, be it mooring rings, banking improvement, occasional dredging etc would suffice to make it a facility as distinct from the rest of the canal. I believe this would fall under an interpretation which could be argued in court, if one chose to go down that route.

 

 

47 minutes ago, waterworks said:

 

And use of the waterways is governed by bylaws , ( breach of which carries a lawful penalty,) not CRTs arbitrary decesions on what you can and cannot do, breach of a rule CRT has invented like for instance the 8 am to 8 pm noise rule cannot lead to any lawful sanction, as i posted earlier BWs own legal Council confirmed such " rules"  are advisory.  

 

Use of waterways is governed by laws in addition to byelaws. See above for an explanation of "arbitrary decision = as they think fit". Maybe not arbitary, but certainly CRT can unilaterally make the decision then it is up to judicial review or contesting a charge in court, as relevant.

[enigmatic]

There are obviously well established legal principles that moorings are facilities that can be restricted and charged for; indeed that's implicit in the 1995 Act as well as the thousands of boaters paying mooring fees to moor on a particular spot, some of them towpath-side online moorings managed by CRT. If the Act was intended to have the effect of making the towpath to be a free-for-all for license payers, references to places boats may be lawfully kept or cruising patterns would be superfluous. 

 

The fact that statutory conditions to grant licences exist (both framed in ways which gives the Board substantial freedom to not be satisfied that the boat is making a continuous journey or availing itself of a place where the boat may be lawfully kept if they persistently moor where signs indicate they should not be moored...) doesn't mean that the CRT has no power to levy other charges or restrictions on the use of its facilities.

 

Nor can it be argued (successfully) that the "the 95 act in regards of licensing makes the 62 act superceded"  (which sounds suspiciously like arguing that it abolished the quoted bit granting them the right to set conditions or charges to me...) as the Act is quite specific about which parts of which Acts it did supersede, and updating the 1971 licensing conditions did not in any way affect their ability to restrict or charge for other services, including mooring.

 

 

 

 

[waterworks]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

 

Its not defined in law because doing so would be too cumbersome for the future. They deliberately didn't define things, leaving it as "the Boards shall have power to demand, take and recover such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit."

 

So basically, the above gives a pretty overarching ability for CRT to charge/set T&Cs for things. That's the law.

 

Your example of simply putting up a sign, I don't think would qualify as a "facility". As posted previously, I believe some kind of identifiable improvement, be it mooring rings, banking improvement, occasional dredging etc would suffice to make it a facility as distinct from the rest of the canal. I believe this would fall under an interpretation which could be argued in court, if one chose to go down that route.

 

 

 

Use of waterways is governed by laws in addition to byelaws. See above for an explanation of "arbitrary decision = as they think fit". Maybe not arbitary, but certainly CRT can unilaterally make the decision then it is up to judicial review or contesting a charge in court, as relevant.

If they had this unilateral and overarching power why did they seek something like 10 more acts of parliament post 1962.  And the 1995 act to set out the specific terms and conditions for licences , if they could have made licencing at their discretion under the 62 act they could now have a civil licence contract with all their own rules, issued at their own discretion and instant revocation with no legal redress, something they would love to have no doubt ?

 

 

  If BW has this power since 1962 the 1995 bill THEY put forward would have been not only unnessary but against their own interests , don't they now complain about the cost and effort to prosecute and remove unlicenced boats and other issues due to the restrictive legislation ?

 

The minutes to the 1995 bill don't bear any evidence that BW ever had this power and no one involved suggested they had, if that had been brought up then the whole bill would have been irrelevant and it should have been cancelled. 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, waterworks said:

If they had this unilateral and overarching power why did they seek something like 10 more acts of parliament post 1962.

 

 

Megalomania would be the usual explanation.

 

 

 

[waterworks]

1 hour ago, enigmatic said:

There are obviously well established legal principles that moorings are facilities that can be restricted and charged for; indeed that's implicit in the 1995 Act as well as the thousands of boaters paying mooring fees to moor on a particular spot, some of them towpath-side online moorings managed by CRT. If the Act was intended to have the effect of making the towpath to be a free-for-all for license payers, references to places boats may be lawfully kept or cruising patterns would be superfluous. 

 

The fact that statutory conditions to grant licences exist (both framed in ways which gives the Board substantial freedom to not be satisfied that the boat is making a continuous journey or availing itself of a place where the boat may be lawfully kept if they persistently moor where signs indicate they should not be moored...) doesn't mean that the CRT has no power to levy other charges or restrictions on the use of its facilities.

 

Nor can it be argued (successfully) that the "the 95 act in regards of licensing makes the 62 act superceded"  (which sounds suspiciously like arguing that it abolished the quoted bit granting them the right to set conditions or charges to me...) as the Act is quite specific about which parts of which Acts it did supersede, and updating the 1971 licensing conditions did not in any way affect their ability to restrict or charge for other services, including mooring.

 

 

 

 

Long term moorers don't pay for the facilities as such, like you said many have none, they pay for not having to move, winter moorings are exactly that. 

[Paul C]

33 minutes ago, waterworks said:

If they had this unilateral and overarching power why did they seek something like 10 more acts of parliament post 1962.  And the 1995 act to set out the specific terms and conditions for licences , if they could have made licencing at their discretion under the 62 act they could now have a civil licence contract with all their own rules, issued at their own discretion and instant revocation with no legal redress, something they would love to have no doubt ?

 

 

  If BW has this power since 1962 the 1995 bill THEY put forward would have been not only unnessary but against their own interests , don't they now complain about the cost and effort to prosecute and remove unlicenced boats and other issues due to the restrictive legislation ?

 

The minutes to the 1995 bill don't bear any evidence that BW ever had this power and no one involved suggested they had, if that had been brought up then the whole bill would have been irrelevant and it should have been cancelled. 

They're different things on different areas of managing the canal network.

29 minutes ago, waterworks said:

Long term moorers don't pay for the facilities as such, like you said many have none, they pay for not having to move, winter moorings are exactly that. 

 

AFAIK All long term moorers (online) have some kind of facility, be it rings, dredged occasionally, armco, car park, access from the road, etc.

 

Winter moorings are a mooring that doesn't last the entire year, its only for........the winter. All (long term) moorings also satisfy the "not having to move" requirement of the licence. They are all coded.

[MtB]

9 minutes ago, Paul C said:

AFAIK All long term moorers (online) have some kind of facility, be it rings, dredged occasionally, armco, car park, access from the road, etc.

 

 

I have none of those. 

 

My mooring listing specifically pointed out that I had to moor on my own pins, it was shallow as they don't dredge, there is no parking and access is from the towpath. 

 

I admit there is very old and decrepit armco, but I think CRT have forgotten it is there. 

 

 

 

 

[enigmatic]

4 hours ago, waterworks said:

Long term moorers don't pay for the facilities as such, like you said many have none, they pay for not having to move, winter moorings are exactly that. 

 

Weird that all these people are paying for the right not to move, on a variable scale based on the attractiveness of the location of the mooring and any facilities it may be associated with and whether they're allowed to live there, when according to your own arguments they have the legal right nominate any place a boat may be lawfully kept they like and then spend the rest of the year living on their favourite 2 day visitor mooring or water point. 

 

Even weirder that they're paying this money for a space CRT apparently is powerless to stop me mooring at and preventing them from using!

 

The 1995 Act makes it quite clear that mooring in a particular location is definitely amongst the things BW/CRT may exercise control over and levy charges for and determine which boats may use. Nothing in the 1995 Act suggests that can't include visitor moorings in popular places on their waters (or unpopular places if it sees fit!)

 

4 hours ago, waterworks said:

If they had this unilateral and overarching power why did they seek something like 10 more acts of parliament post 1962.  And the 1995 act to set out the specific terms and conditions for licences , if they could have made licencing at their discretion under the 62 act they could now have a civil licence contract with all their own rules, issued at their own discretion and instant revocation with no legal redress, something they would love to have no doubt?

 

Why are you assuming the 1995 Act (and all post-1962 Acts) were passed purely for the "power" of British Waterways, which was a public benefit entity? 

 

The Act granted BW land access rights to banks it didn't own and oversight of mooring structures attached to land it didn't own which was a pretty big clarification in its favour, it tweaked the 1971 regulations granting pleasure boats the right to navigate somewhat in boaters' favour not least by permitting "continuous cruising", it classified the River Weaver.

But it did absolutely nothing to give boaters a statutory right to moor free of charge in any particular place, least of all a place with a sign indicating a time limit and a charge for exceeding that

Edited July 28, 2023 by enigmatic

[waterworks]

16 hours ago, enigmatic said:

 

Weird that all these people are paying for the right not to move, on a variable scale based on the attractiveness of the location of the mooring and any facilities it may be associated with and whether they're allowed to live there, when according to your own arguments they have the legal right nominate any place a boat may be lawfully kept they like and then spend the rest of the year living on their favourite 2 day visitor mooring or water point. 

 

Even weirder that they're paying this money for a space CRT apparently is powerless to stop me mooring at and preventing them from using!

 

The 1995 Act makes it quite clear that mooring in a particular location is definitely amongst the things BW/CRT may exercise control over and levy charges for and determine which boats may use. Nothing in the 1995 Act suggests that can't include visitor moorings in popular places on their waters (or unpopular places if it sees fit!)

 

Why are you assuming the 1995 Act (and all post-1962 Acts) were passed purely for the "power" of British Waterways, which was a public benefit entity? 

 

The Act granted BW land access rights to banks it didn't own and oversight of mooring structures attached to land it didn't own which was a pretty big clarification in its favour, it tweaked the 1971 regulations granting pleasure boats the right to navigate somewhat in boaters' favour not least by permitting "continuous cruising", it classified the River Weaver.

But it did absolutely nothing to give boaters a statutory right to moor free of charge in any particular place, least of all a place with a sign indicating a time limit and a charge for exceeding that

I have never argued that boats without a home mooring can stay for a year on a 2 day visitor mooring or any where else, I said they can stay for 14 days not 2.

 

 

Edited July 29, 2023 by waterworks

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, waterworks said:

I have never argued that boats can stay for a year on a 2 day visitor mooring or any where else, I said they can stay for 14 days not 2.

 

But that only legally applies to CCers.

Boaters with no home mooring have no such legal right.

[waterworks]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But that only legally applies to CCers.

Boaters with no home mooring have no such legal right.

Yes I realised that was worded wrongly so I edited it.

 

 

As far as I know in the 1995 bill BW asked for the power to restrict moorings and issue fines but that was rejected .

 

If anyone has anymore info on that from the bill or minutes I would be interested, I haven't seen it personally. 

[Tacet]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But that only legally applies to CCers.

Boaters with no home mooring have no such legal right.

CRT allow ccers 14 days  - and there is a degree of implication in the 1995 Act that it is indeed approved.

But you'll be hard pushed to find unequivocal legal (i.e. statutory) authority.

[Alan de Enfield]

22 minutes ago, Tacet said:

CRT allow ccers 14 days  - and there is a degree of implication in the 1995 Act that it is indeed approved.

But you'll be hard pushed to find unequivocal legal (i.e. statutory) authority.

 

The 14 days for boats with a home mooring is simply 'permissive', and, in theory, could be withdrawn at any time.

 

From the very first enabling Acts, the towpath was not to be obstructed; it had to be available to all for the use it was designed for – accordingly, overnight stays would have been the only (perhaps) tolerated use for mooring. In one of the major canal company’s Acts, in fact, pleasure boats were even banned from ANY use of the towpath (and that clause has never, to my knowledge, been explicitly rescinded).

 

Over the latter part of the 20th century, longer temporary use of the towpath for mooring became tolerated on a pragmatic basis, with 14 days fixed upon as a rough guideline for reasons lost in obscurity (for all that BW came up with postulated origins during the Select Committee hearings on the 1990 Bill).

 

Obstruction remains on the statute books as an offence, updated even in the 1995 Act, and overstaying stated times on selected sections has been used with County Court approval to qualify the boat – being thereby regarded as an obstruction - for being moved under s.8(5) of the 1983 Act. Anything longer than an overnight stay, as I see it, is simply permissive – with the exception of boats without home moorings, for whom only, the right to 14 days (or more if circumstances dictate) is enshrined in law.

 

For boats with home moorings when cruising away from those, the 14 day limit would apply only as a permissive one based on a fair-play comparison with the ‘continuous cruisers’. It is simply, in other words, that CaRT would find difficulty in justifying the application of differing standards based only on the nature of the boat licence application.

 

(Nigel Moore RIP take on the subject.)

 

 

[Tacet]

56 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The 14 days for boats with a home mooring is simply 'permissive', and, in theory, could be withdrawn at any time.

 

From the very first enabling Acts, the towpath was not to be obstructed; it had to be available to all for the use it was designed for – accordingly, overnight stays would have been the only (perhaps) tolerated use for mooring. In one of the major canal company’s Acts, in fact, pleasure boats were even banned from ANY use of the towpath (and that clause has never, to my knowledge, been explicitly rescinded).

 

Over the latter part of the 20th century, longer temporary use of the towpath for mooring became tolerated on a pragmatic basis, with 14 days fixed upon as a rough guideline for reasons lost in obscurity (for all that BW came up with postulated origins during the Select Committee hearings on the 1990 Bill).

 

Obstruction remains on the statute books as an offence, updated even in the 1995 Act, and overstaying stated times on selected sections has been used with County Court approval to qualify the boat – being thereby regarded as an obstruction - for being moved under s.8(5) of the 1983 Act. Anything longer than an overnight stay, as I see it, is simply permissive – with the exception of boats without home moorings, for whom only, the right to 14 days (or more if circumstances dictate) is enshrined in law.

 

For boats with home moorings when cruising away from those, the 14 day limit would apply only as a permissive one based on a fair-play comparison with the ‘continuous cruisers’. It is simply, in other words, that CaRT would find difficulty in justifying the application of differing standards based only on the nature of the boat licence application.

 

(Nigel Moore RIP take on the subject.)

 

 

And which law enshrines the right to 14 days towpath mooring for boats without a home mooring?

 

For the pedantic at least, it's not s17 of the 1995 Act.  That is entirely concerned with licencing rather than dishing out rights.  And the place in which one could remain for 14 days is not necessarily the towpath, it could, for instance be an offline mooring.

 

Not terribly practical, I'll be the first to agree.  But there is no specific grant of 14 days mooring for Ccers any more than there is for those with a home mooring.

[enigmatic]

4 hours ago, Tacet said:

CRT allow ccers 14 days  - and there is a degree of implication in the 1995 Act that it is indeed approved.

But you'll be hard pushed to find unequivocal legal (i.e. statutory) authority.

yeah.

That's a limit to how long you can stay in a general area (CRT have had that interpretation upheld in court) whilst still considered to be cruising, so it doesn't even imply that CRT need to permit 14 day [free] moorings on any individual site, never mind every section of towpath. 

 

in practice, CRT allows 14 days free mooring for all boaters in most places and it really wouldn't be in their interests to change that, but as far as I can see that's completely permissive including for continuous cruisers; closest thing we've got to a legal basis for assuming the right to free 14 day towpath moorings is the "contract"...

[Mike Todd]

23 hours ago, waterworks said:

I have never argued that boats without a home mooring can stay for a year on a 2 day visitor mooring or any where else, I said they can stay for 14 days not 2.

 

 

I do not recall that the clause that allows CaRT to set lesser times excludes boats without a home mooring.

19 hours ago, Tacet said:

And which law enshrines the right to 14 days towpath mooring for boats without a home mooring?

 

For the pedantic at least, it's not s17 of the 1995 Act.  That is entirely concerned with licencing rather than dishing out rights.  And the place in which one could remain for 14 days is not necessarily the towpath, it could, for instance be an offline mooring.

 

Not terribly practical, I'll be the first to agree.  But there is no specific grant of 14 days mooring for Ccers any more than there is for those with a home mooring.

I think it says that they cannot stay for more that 14 days, but does not mean that they can stay for 14 days - if CaRT designates a place as having shorter stays. (Problem with the excluded middle?)

[waterworks]

36 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I do not recall that the clause that allows CaRT to set lesser times excludes boats without a home mooring.

I think it says that they cannot stay for more that 14 days, but does not mean that they can stay for 14 days - if CaRT designates a place as having shorter stays. (Problem with the excluded middle?)

It does IF they have no power to erect signs with restricted mooring time limits . Like I said , I read that power was removed from the 1995 bill. 

 

 

[Paul C]

33 minutes ago, waterworks said:

It does IF they have no power to erect signs with restricted mooring time limits . Like I said , I read that power was removed from the 1995 bill. 

 

 

 

They're the navigation authority, they have power to erect signs and impose terms "as they see fit". What do you mean, it was removed from the 1995 bill? Its either in it or not in it, the bill as finally passed it what's important here.

[Tacet]

2 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

I do not recall that the clause that allows CaRT to set lesser times excludes boats without a home mooring.

I think it says that they cannot stay for more that 14 days, but does not mean that they can stay for 14 days - if CaRT designates a place as having shorter stays. (Problem with the excluded middle?)

It's essentially a clause relating to who can have a licence - not one conferring rights or imposing restrictions to mooring against the towpath.

 

This said, it is possible to draw an inference and that inference lines up with longish standing practice and a degree of reasonableness in the leisure waterway age. But it remains, in my view, a step too far to say that a 14 day right to moor is enshrined in law.

[waterworks]

20 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

They're the navigation authority, they have power to erect signs and impose terms "as they see fit". What do you mean, it was removed from the 1995 bill? Its either in it or not in it, the bill as finally passed it what's important here.

It's not in it. 

 

Public bodies can't do "as they see fit" , they can only do what legislation specifically allows, as opposed to a person who can do anything they want except what legislation prohibits. 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 31, 2023 by waterworks