Dear oh dear...

[frahkn]

10 minutes ago, StevieN said:

And those who work from their boat who need to be in one location for wifi etc and obviously can't move every day and can only move on a weekend?

Well they get a mooring, in a marina or on line, obviously!

 

They have no choice as they cannot honestly say they are continuously cruising, can they?

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, frahkn said:

They have no choice as they cannot honestly say they are continuously cruising, can they?

 

Then there is of course the legal view that a Livebaord cannot be a CCer as their intent is to live aboard, & they move simply to comply with the requirements.

 

Nigel Moore (rip) ......................................

 

 

Legally, a liveaboard cannot be a CCer.

 

I actually take issue with the applicability of “intent”; I believe the judge in Davies got bamboozled by Mr Stoner QC's (as he since became) clever rhetoric on the point. As one online commentator noted at the time, if the letter of the law is being followed, it really does not matter why. To say that Mr Davies' movement pattern was unexceptional in itself (the 'continuous journey' argument of BW was rejected - “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 - was ludicrous. 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.

 

On that argument, it could never have made any difference no matter what his movement pattern was. Every permanent live-aboard embarked on a progressive journey around the system in their retirement would be unlawful, simply because they had made the boat their sole and permanent home. Not that CaRT would take exception to them of course; but the principle applies.

[StevieN]

18 minutes ago, matty40s said:

What do you mean cant move?

I used to work in Central London and come home, move the boat, ..in Winter sometimes. 

Next you will be asking what about those who need to walk their dogs twice a day, maybe they shouldnt move until then dog dies?

You rely on a solid Internet connection and if you work online from your boat obviously you can't move every day, you move at the weekend.

17 minutes ago, frahkn said:

Well they get a mooring, in a marina or on line, obviously!

 

They have no choice as they cannot honestly say they are continuously cruising, can they?

And tell me how the hundreds who already do this find a marina mooring? Many are already full as are linear moorings.

If you comply with the mooring signs and only stay for the alloted time, why is that an issue for some people?

16 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Then there is of course the legal view that a Livebaord cannot be a CCer as their intent is to live aboard, & they move simply to comply with the requirements.

 

Nigel Moore (rip) ......................................

 

 

Legally, a liveaboard cannot be a CCer.

 

I actually take issue with the applicability of “intent”; I believe the judge in Davies got bamboozled by Mr Stoner QC's (as he since became) clever rhetoric on the point. As one online commentator noted at the time, if the letter of the law is being followed, it really does not matter why. To say that Mr Davies' movement pattern was unexceptional in itself (the 'continuous journey' argument of BW was rejected - “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 - was ludicrous. 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.

 

On that argument, it could never have made any difference no matter what his movement pattern was. Every permanent live-aboard embarked on a progressive journey around the system in their retirement would be unlawful, simply because they had made the boat their sole and permanent home. Not that CaRT would take exception to them of course; but the principle applies.

If CRT implemented that, they would need to cope with a significant number of people who would instantly become homeless. 

You can legitimately work on your boat and continually cruise.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

24 minutes ago, StevieN said:

If CRT implemented that, they would need to cope with a significant number of people who would instantly become homeless. 

You can legitimately work on your boat and continually cruise.

 

But can you ?

A Judge has certainly indicated that you cannot, because your reason for having the boat is to live aboard and not to 'bona fide' cruise.

 

It is certainly theoretically correct but C&RT and BW before them have placed their own intepretation on the requirements for making a no-home mooring decalaration, but intepretation is all that it is.

I'm pretty sure that no 'ccer' will take C&RT to court demanding that they must not be allowed to 'moor for 14 days and then move 1km', repeat, repeat, repeat.

 

You can certainly live aboard and even work on board if you have made the 'home mooring declaration'.

Edited February 1 by Alan de Enfield

[StevieN]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But can you ?

A Judge has certainly indicated that you cannot, because your reason for having the boat is to live aboard and not to 'bona fide' cruise.

 

You can certainly live aboard and even work on board if you have made the 'home mooring declaration'.

ot

It is certainly theoretically correct but C&RT and BW before them have placed their own intepretation on the requirements for making a no-home mooring decalaration, but intepretation is all that it is.

I'm pretty sure that no 'ccer' will take C&RT to court demanding that they must not be allowed to 'moor for 14 days and then move 1km', repeat, repeat, repeat.

Yes. There are literally hundreds who already do this.

They live aboard and continually cruise - how could you not cruise continuously if you weren't on your boat full time?

You go from A-B-C and so on.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, StevieN said:

Yes. There are literally hundreds who already do this.

 

 

Indeed there are, no question, but there are 1,000s who every day break the speed limit in their car - it does not make it 'legal' It has been said that living on board cannot (legally) be done if you are a CCer.

 

10 minutes ago, StevieN said:

how could you not cruise continuously if you weren't on your boat full time?

You go from A-B-C and so on.

 

There are 100s that successfully do this.

They moor up for a couple of day (say at the weekend) go to work for 5 days and back to their boat, move their boat, repeat, repeat repeat.

 

All perfectly acceptable under C&RTS interpretation of CCing.

 

(They are generally called 'dumpers', they use the boat for a couple of days and move, say 10 miles, dump the boat for the next week ..........)

Edited February 1 by Alan de Enfield

[StevieN]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

There are 100s that successfully do this.

They moor up for a couple of day (say at the weekend) go to work for 5 days and back to their boat, move their boat, repeat, repeat repeat.

 

All perfectly acceptable under C&RTS interpretation of CCing.

 

(They are generally called 'dumpers', they use the boat for a couple of days and move, say 10 miles, dump the boat for the next week ..........)

If you read my post you'll see I'm referring to those who work from their boat - not traders - those who have a WFH role, work in IT, media, customer service who live and work on their boat, they don't 'dump it.'

 

As for it being illegal, explain how CRT have not fined those who you claim are doing so illegally?

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, StevieN said:

If you read my post you'll see I'm referring to those who work from their boat - not traders - those who have a WFH role, work in IT, media, customer service who live and work on their boat, they don't 'dump it.'

 

Read what I wrote - you asked how non-liveaboards can CC - I explained it.

 

1 minute ago, StevieN said:

As for it being illegal, explain how CRT have not fined those who you claim are doing so illegally?

 

I don't claim it is illegal a Judge did, and read my previous replies - I have already explained why C&TRT have taken no action.

 

Are you a Troll, or just someone who does not read the answers to their questions ?

[StevieN]

19 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

(They are generally called 'dumpers', they use the boat for a couple of days and move, say 10 miles, dump the boat for the next week ..........)

Am I missing something?

You called them 'dumpers' and clearly that isn't what I have been referring to!

 

It's not illegal just because a single judge made that interpretation otherwise hundreds of boaters would have been removed or had their licence changed.

 

And no, I'm no troll, just someone who will be buying a boat this year to liveaboard and WFH.

Friendly boaters I've spoken to over the 20+ years we've hired and owned a share haven't said any of this is illegal.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Youve made up your mind, you are going to buy a boat and work from home (which many do, quite happily) just remember that the goal-posts could easily be moved.

Already CCers are going to be charged (something like) 2x the licence fee that a boat with a home mooring pays, other charges will be introduced i the future.

 

[Adam]

Legal or illegal - it doesn't matter as it's not enforced. It could perhaps lay in the same category of law as a Scotsman being allowed to be beheaded within the walls of York or whatever the old law is.

 

Don't worry, CRT haven't enforced a bye law for circa 20 years.

[Alan de Enfield]

14 minutes ago, Adam said:

Legal or illegal - it doesn't matter as it's not enforced. It could perhaps lay in the same category of law as a Scotsman being allowed to be beheaded within the walls of York or whatever the old law is.

 

Don't worry, CRT haven't enforced a bye law for circa 20 years.

 

 

 

 

I'm not worried in the slightest, after 40+ years - I've now moved off BW / C&RTs mismanaged waterways and now pay no licence fee & no BSS.

 

(Ps : It is not a bye-Law it is an Act of Parliament)

[dmr]

22 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Youve made up your mind, you are going to buy a boat and work from home (which many do, quite happily) just remember that the goal-posts could easily be moved.

Already CCers are going to be charged (something like) 2x the licence fee that a boat with a home mooring pays, other charges will be introduced i the future.

 

The new CC surcharge is much less 2x, even when its fully phased in, and a CC'er will still be living much cheaper than a high use marina resident.

I think the real threats are lack of canal maintenance and an ever increasing number of "cheap housing" people compromising our wonderful way of life.

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Then there is of course the legal view that a Livebaord cannot be a CCer as their intent is to live aboard, & they move simply to comply with the requirements.

 

Nigel Moore (rip) ......................................

 

.

Which just goes to show that the law has not yet stopped being an ass.

[Momac]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

.. It has been said that living on board cannot (legally) be done if you are a CCer.

 

Something a judge says is not the law.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Something a judge says is not the law.

 

Correct, but what a Judge says is his 'plain English' explanation of what complies, or doesn't, with the law (in this case the 1995 Act)

[jam]

On 01/02/2024 at 16:54, Adam said:

Legal or illegal - it doesn't matter as it's not enforced. It could perhaps lay in the same category of law as a Scotsman being allowed to be beheaded within the walls of York or whatever the old law is.

 

Very similar to Chester where a welshman found within the walls after midnight can be shot with a bow and arrow

[TheBiscuits]

On 01/02/2024 at 15:53, Alan de Enfield said:

C&RT and BW before them have placed their own intepretation on the requirements for making a no-home mooring decalaration, but intepretation is all that it is.

 

And are they ("the Board") satisfied?  Which is the actual legal test ...

[Adam]

2 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

And are they ("the Board") satisfied?  Which is the actual legal test ...

They tried not to be satisfied in one case, the judge told them to stop being so picky. High court I believe so precedent set

[Paul C]

10 hours ago, Adam said:

They tried not to be satisfied in one case, the judge told them to stop being so picky. High court I believe so precedent set

 

Which case was this?

On 01/02/2024 at 15:06, StevieN said:

And those who work from their boat who need to be in one location for wifi etc and obviously can't move every day and can only move on a weekend?

 

Your thought process seems to be entrenched in the (bizarre IMHO) mindset of having a boat but not boating.

 

Are you "bona fide" a boater? No need to answer, just something to think over before purchasing your boat.

[cheesegas]

Weird outlook sometimes on this forum.

 

I live on a boat because I like having a boat and being on the water, and can't afford both a boat and a house. I'm freelance so my work sites change daily, sometimes working from home so my cruising pattern is with this in mind - sometimes I'm in one spot for two weeks, sometimes a couple of days. In summer I spend a month or two on the Thames.

 

When I first bought the boat I got a spot in a marina as that was what everyone was bleating on about and hated it - it was like being double moored permanently, and lots of gossip around the place by people with not much else better to do with their lives. All the disadvantages and none of the advantages of living on a boat! Lasted three months there and now I CC, much better - change of scenery, I don't have boats on both sides, I can actually see the water and countryside...

 

There is definitely a problem with inconsiderate people hovering eternally around a popular spot which is not good as it doesn't give others a chance to moor there - and they can be people of any income level. People who live in a house and want to have a boat but don't want to pay for a mooring so they shuffle it around their area, big £200k widebeams who don't want to boat, they just want a cheap luxury flat in the middle of town, small 18' cruisers with on engine that's one step above homelessness.

[Adam]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

 

Which case was this?

 

CRT/bwb vs Anthony Dunkley circa 2014 as I recall. I have had a quick Google for the case outcome but can only find the defence. It is out there somewhere I read it recently.  

 

The salient points,(as I recall, somebody may be able to tell you more / find the judgement)

 

 

- he had a home mooring but didn't use it , a private river mooring

- he cruised up and down the trent, staying 14 days in each place

- they revoked his licence and refused to issue a new one, tried to section 8 his boat but the court decided they shouldn't of revoked the licence , and must reissue one

[ditchcrawler]

30 minutes ago, Adam said:

CRT/bwb vs Anthony Dunkley circa 2014 as I recall. I have had a quick Google for the case outcome but can only find the defence. It is out there somewhere I read it recently.  

 

The salient points,(as I recall, somebody may be able to tell you more / find the judgement)

 

 

- he had a home mooring but didn't use it , a private river mooring

- he cruised up and down the trent, staying 14 days in each place

- they revoked his licence and refused to issue a new one, tried to section 8 his boat but the court decided they shouldn't of revoked the licence , and must reissue one

There could be a point there that he had a mooring, so was not a boat with no home mooring.

[magnetman]

39 minutes ago, Adam said:

CRT/bwb vs Anthony Dunkley circa 2014 as I recall. I have had a quick Google for the case outcome but can only find the defence. It is out there somewhere I read it recently.  

 

The salient points,(as I recall, somebody may be able to tell you more / find the judgement)

 

 

- he had a home mooring but didn't use it , a private river mooring

- he cruised up and down the trent, staying 14 days in each place

- they revoked his licence and refused to issue a new one, tried to section 8 his boat but the court decided they shouldn't of revoked the licence , and must reissue one

I think you are getting confused between A.Dunkley and N.Moore.

 

The former had his Boats (a narrow Boat and a commercial barge) removed by section 8 and sold/scrapped on behalf of the CRT. The latter (@nigelmoore rip) won in court against BWB around an unusual riparian ownership circumstance on the river Brent. 

 

 

12 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

There could be a point there that he had a mooring, so was not a boat with no home mooring.

Tony Dunkley in fact lost the Boat in the end because he was taking the piss of the Boat Safety exemption too much. He might have had a point on other factors of the case but was too obstinate to understand that the BS exemption is not just a loophole allowing you to have no BS certificate. 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

37 minutes ago, Adam said:

CRT/bwb vs Anthony Dunkley circa 2014 as I recall. I have had a quick Google for the case outcome but can only find the defence. It is out there somewhere I read it recently.  

 

The salient points,(as I recall, somebody may be able to tell you more / find the judgement)

 

 

- he had a home mooring but didn't use it , a private river mooring

- he cruised up and down the trent, staying 14 days in each place

- they revoked his licence and refused to issue a new one, tried to section 8 his boat but the court decided they shouldn't of revoked the licence , and must reissue one

Tony lost both his case and his boat a year or so back. His case wasn't really applicable to canals as a lot of it was about the right to moor out of the main river channel and various arcane interpretations of the law. If I remember rightly, the 2014 case was brought when he'd broken a leg and was laid up. He'd had an ongoing war with both BW and CRT for years, generally on the losing side, which also would affect the outcome.

Tony has a vast knowledge of boats and the river but I suspect using anything from his brushes with the law or his past advice as to your rights will end up with your boat disappearing on a CRT lorry.