Marina mooring and CC’ing - are the miles enough?

[Tacet]

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Exactly - A HOME MOORING FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST 6 MONTHS IS REQUIRED.

 

You may need to prove you have this, in which case a copy of your agreement is one way that you COULD prove you have one. If there is any doubt that you have "invented" your mooring (home made word document ?) we MAY ask you to provide evidence of actual payment - a copy of your Bank Statement COULD be one way to prove this.

 

It is a very similar principle with the RCD / RCR (which you seem to get hung-up on).

 

This is the requirement : XYZ.

One way you can achieve this is to build to this specification : ISO 12345.

If you don't build to this specification we may require proof that you have built to an equivalent standard.

Where do we find the last bit, please?  That is, to meet the RCR you must build to an equivalent standard to the ISO.  It seems a lot more logical that the XYZ requirements are the err.. requirements. I.e.the Essential Requirements found in the RCR.

 

To use one of your favourite examples, the ISO may require an inspection hatch in the fuel tank.  Are you still saying that whilst the Essential Requirements of the RCR do not include a hatch,  it is nevertheless an RCR requirement imported via the ISO?

 

If so, can we please have chapter and verse as to the link. If you can't find it, then perhaps it would be better to drop this and similar claims until you can.

[Alan de Enfield]

36 minutes ago, Tacet said:

Where do we find the last bit, please?  That is, to meet the RCR you must build to an equivalent standard to the ISO.  It seems a lot more logical that the XYZ requirements are the err.. requirements. I.e.the Essential Requirements found in the RCR.

 

To use one of your favourite examples, the ISO may require an inspection hatch in the fuel tank.  Are you still saying that whilst the Essential Requirements of the RCR do not include a hatch,  it is nevertheless an RCR requirement imported via the ISO?

 

If so, can we please have chapter and verse as to the link. If you can't find it, then perhaps it would be better to drop this and similar claims until you can.

 

 

No problem, it exists - I just need to find it again amongst the 100s (1000s) of pages of RCD documentaion.

 

It is basically written that way so that as long as the essential requirmenst are met it doesn't matter how they are met - for example a US manufacturer may well achieve exactly the sae result by doing it a different way to that specified in the ISO standards. It is the result that counts (compliance or non-compliance, not the route taken)

 

The list of essential requirements is non-negotiable and suggested ways of meeting them are given in the ISO standards. 

Taking a ficticious example - the boat must self right within 1 minute.

The ISO standard says there should be sufficient foam sandwhiched in the hull to turn it the right way up within 1 minute.

Bayliner in the USA have an air bags installed under the seats which give suffcient buoyancy to turn the boat the right way up within 1 minute.

The Esssential requirement has been met RCD compliance achieved.

 

I will hunt for the exact wording but it is somewhere in the 'Presumption of Conformity', where if the relevant ISO spec has been used then you do not need to provide evidence of complaince, if you have achieved complaince in other ways then you may need to prove that you have achieved compliance with the Esseential requirements.

 

3. CONFORMITY OF THE PRODUCT

Article 14: Presumption of conformity

Products which are in conformity with harmonised standards or parts thereof the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union shall be presumed to be in conformity with the requirements covered by those standards or parts thereof, set out in Article 4(1) and Annex I.

 

It may take me some time but I'll find the relevant text.

[Momac]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

You do seem to have a strange view of the law.

 I understand contracts .

 

There is nothing illegal about a contract that asks people to waive their rights under the law. 

 

Whether those terms to which you refer may be disputed at a later date is a matter for lawyers to decide.

 

[Tacet]

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

No problem, it exists - I just need to find it again amongst the 100s (1000s) of pages of RCD documentaion.

 

It is basically written that way so that as long as the essential requirmenst are met it doesn't matter how they are met - for example a US manufacturer may well achieve exactly the sae result by doing it a different way to that specified in the ISO standards. It is the result that counts (compliance or non-compliance, not the route taken)

 

The list of essential requirements is non-negotiable and suggested ways of meeting them are given in the ISO standards. 

Taking a ficticious example - the boat must self right within 1 minute.

The ISO standard says there should be sufficient foam sandwhiched in the hull to turn it the right way up within 1 minute.

Bayliner in the USA have an air bags installed under the seats which give suffcient buoyancy to turn the boat the right way up within 1 minute.

The Esssential requirement has been met RCD compliance achieved.

 

I will hunt for the exact wording but it is somewhere in the 'Presumption of Conformity', where if the relevant ISO spec has been used then you do not need to provide evidence of complaince, if you have achieved complaince in other ways then you may need to prove that you have achieved compliance with the Esseential requirements.

 

3. CONFORMITY OF THE PRODUCT

Article 14: Presumption of conformity

Products which are in conformity with harmonised standards or parts thereof the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union shall be presumed to be in conformity with the requirements covered by those standards or parts thereof, set out in Article 4(1) and Annex I.

 

It may take me some time but I'll find the relevant text.

Yes.  It is common ground that the RCR Essential Requirements must be met and, of course,  you may need to demonstrate it.

 

And it is accepted that meeting certain ISOs is deemed to meet certain aspects of the RCR.  No doubt you may need to demonstrate that too

 

What is questioned is whether the RCR requires one to meet standards equivalent to the ISOs (if they are not met directly) insofar as they exceed the RCR Essential Requirements.  For example, I understand that the ISOs require a fuel tank acces hatch and prohibit earth returns to the horn.  Neither of these are direct RCR requirements - but you claim they are indirectly imported.

 

Can you back that up?

 

 

[Momac]

6 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

And does it not follow that at least part of the information CRT is currently publishing will become part of the Terms & Conditions?

 

 

Not a certainty. 

[Bristolfashion]

Um, this question of licences relates to something I've been pondering - and, I'm probably being really dense, but I'm not really clear yet.

 

We're planning a "do the whole system" cruise.

 

Obviously, the bulk will be on a continuous basis - with no problems with the distance/ frequency requirements.

 

Q1. If we break the journey for, say, a month & put the boat in a marina/on a mooring, can we / do we change our licence mid-term to a home mooring basis?

 

Q2. If we can't/don't change our licence basis, could we get "pinged" for not achieving the movement requirements, even though we're in a marina - and paying the higher "continuous" basis?

 

Thanks in advance.

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, Bristolfashion said:

Q1. If we break the journey for, say, a month & put the boat in a marina/on a mooring, can we / do we change our licence mid-term to a home mooring basis?

 

According to the C&RT Guidance - it only counts if it is a minimum of a 6 month agreement. A 1 month mooring aint enuff !

[___]

43 minutes ago, Bristolfashion said:

Um, this question of licences relates to something I've been pondering - and, I'm probably being really dense, but I'm not really clear yet.

 

We're planning a "do the whole system" cruise.

 

Obviously, the bulk will be on a continuous basis - with no problems with the distance/ frequency requirements.

 

Q1. If we break the journey for, say, a month & put the boat in a marina/on a mooring, can we / do we change our licence mid-term to a home mooring basis?

 

Q2. If we can't/don't change our licence basis, could we get "pinged" for not achieving the movement requirements, even though we're in a marina - and paying the higher "continuous" basis?

 

Thanks in advance.

Q1. As answered above, no.

 

Q2. You will not be subject to enforcement action while in a marina. CRTs logging system can distinguish a marina mooring from a towpath mooring. However as a boat without a home mooring you are still required to move in a manner “bona-fide for navigation” when not on a paid mooring. Which in simplistic terms means you need to cover a sufficient range. If you spend more time not on paid moorings than on paid moorings then I suspect you will judged by the same criteria as someone that’s been on the towpath for the whole licence period.  If however you use a series of paid moorings and spend up to say one month at a time travelling directly between them and moving from place to place at least every 14 days then that must surely be within the requirements of the law as far as I can see. It doesn’t though follow that if the range involved is small that CRTs enforcement system won’t pick you up and you’ll end up having to justify your actions. After all the onus is on you to “satisfy the board”.

 

Unfortunately there is no absolute answer because the law is necessarily vague. 

[Momac]

46 minutes ago, Bristolfashion said:

Um, this question of licences relates to something I've been pondering - and, I'm probably being really dense, but I'm not really clear yet.

 

We're planning a "do the whole system" cruise.

 

Obviously, the bulk will be on a continuous basis - with no problems with the distance/ frequency requirements.

 

Q1. If we break the journey for, say, a month & put the boat in a marina/on a mooring, can we / do we change our licence mid-term to a home mooring basis?

 

Q2. If we can't/don't change our licence basis, could we get "pinged" for not achieving the movement requirements, even though we're in a marina - and paying the higher "continuous" basis?

 

Thanks in advance.

I wonder how many thousands of enquiries like this will be received by C&RT.  Just imagine the cost in man hours.

But to answer I would say a month is not long enough to bother with any changes. 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

However as a boat without a home mooring you are still required to move in a manner “bona-fide for navigation” when not on a paid mooring.

 

That is not actually correct. 

A boat with a home mooring is required to move every 14 days but is NOT required to be bona-fide for navigation. It is quite acceptable for a boat with a home mooring to go A to B to C to B to A over short distances.

[___]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

That is not actually correct. 

A boat with a home mooring is required to move every 14 days but is NOT required to be bona-fide for navigation. It is quite acceptable for a boat with a home mooring to go A to B to C to B to A over short distances.

You perhaps need to re-read my post a little more carefully. Particularly the bit you quoted.

[Momac]

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

That is not actually correct. 

A boat with a home mooring is required to move every 14 days but is NOT required to be bona-fide for navigation. It is quite acceptable for a boat with a home mooring to go A to B to C to B to A over short distances.

It can be less than 14 days (regardless of whether the boat has a home mooring or not)  if the mooring is restricted. It's usual to see 2 day restrictions locally to me.

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, MartynG said:

It can be less than 14 days (regardless of whether the boat has a home mooring or not)  if the mooring is restricted. It's usual to see 2 day restrictions locally to me.

 

Indeed, but I didn't think that needed explaining, but I suppose we should also say it can be more than 14 days if the circumstances justify it.

 

Alternatively we could just say "read the 1995 Act yourself"

[Momac]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Indeed, but I didn't think that needed explaining, but I suppose we should also say it can be more than 14 days if the circumstances justify it.

 

Alternatively we could just say "read the 1995 Act yourself"

 I think it does need explaining  as I am sure some people think they can stay 14 days regardless of any signage to the contrary .

 

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

You perhaps need to re-read my post a little more carefully. Particularly the bit you quoted.

 

OK I've re-read it, maybe you could explain to me why "However as a boat without a home mooring you are still required to move in a manner “bona-fide for navigation” when not on a paid mooring" doesn't mean "that a boat with a home mooring must move in a manner bona fide for navigation when away from its mooring"

 

There is no legal requirement for a boat with a home mooring to be navigating 'bona-fide' (in good faith)  when away from its moorings.

[___]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

OK I've re-read it, maybe you could explain to me why "However as a boat without a home mooring you are still required to move in a manner “bona-fide for navigation” when not on a paid mooring" doesn't mean "that a boat with a home mooring must move in a manner bona fide for navigation when away from its mooring"

 

There is no legal requirement for a boat with a home mooring to be navigating 'bona-fide' (in good faith)  when away from its moorings.

This whole thread is about what happens when a “boat without a home mooring” takes a “paid mooring”.

 

Absolutely nothing I have written refers to “boats with a home mooring” or the “home mooring” itself.

 

I’m very puzzled as to how you draw the above conclusion from my words. Your question seems utterly non-sensical to me so perhaps putting those quotations around those particular phrases will make it clearer.

 

(Edited to remove reference to new licensing regime as that isn’t specific to this thread).

Edited December 11, 2023 by Captain Pegg

[David Mack]

On 10/12/2023 at 00:24, Captain Pegg said:

Prices start from £8.00 per night at selected canal society moorings

Prices start from £0.00 per night at Aylesbury Canal Society moorings. Visiting craft are offered up to 14 days free mooring.

 

On 10/12/2023 at 16:26, Tacet said:

 

Can you back that up?

No he can't. He will probably quote the BMF guidance which says that complying with the relevant ISO standards is required to comply with the RCR. But that guidance was issued for BMF members, and is just guidance, it has no legal force.

The RCR Essential Requirements are brief and expressed in very general terms, and with no stipulations on how to comply with them. Using ISO standards is one way of doing it, and if compliance is ever questioned it gives you a straightforward defence.

Using your own interpretation of the ERs is permitted, but then the onus is on you to demonstrate that your solution meets the ERs (if ever questioned).

There is no stated requirement that any alternative solution has to be of equivalent standard to the ISO, but you can be pretty sure that any enforcing authority is going to take that line, simply because they don't have the skills and resources to make their own assessment of the adequacy of an alternative solution - particularly if compliance is being questioned following a serious incident.

Edited December 12, 2023 by David Mack

[___]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

Prices start from £0.00 per night at Aylesbury Canal Society moorings. Visiting craft are offered up to 14 days free mooring.

Coombeswood Canal Trust also offer a week of free mooring before their next level of £4.00 a night kicks in followed by £8.00 a night. Saltisford is £8.00 per night. It was simpler to quote the full rate.

 

Circus Field doesn’t seem that easily accessible for a visitor. I’ve been there a couple of times to collect boats.

[David Mack]

4 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

Circus Field doesn’t seem that easily accessible for a visitor.

The purpose of offering free visitor moorings is to encourage boaters to do the Aylesbury Arm. It's a pleasant half day run from the GU main line at Marsworth with moorings available both at Circus Field on the edge of town and in the Town Basin, within easy walking distance of the town centre.

Edited December 12, 2023 by David Mack