Dear oh dear...

[Alan de Enfield]

36 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

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

 

And of course a Judge said if you had a home mooring you did not need to use it, and you could just shuffle from A to B to A, unlike a boat with no home mooring who must move A to B toC to D etc

 

 

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

 

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

And of course a Judge said if you had a home mooring you did not need to use it, and you could just shuffle from A to B to A, unlike a boat with no home mooring who must move A to B toC to D etc

 

 

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

 

 

 

Which of course CRT guidance is now not adhering to saying they expect boaters when they leave their home mooring to behave like boaters with no home mooring

[Adam]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

And of course a Judge said if you had a home mooring you did not need to use it, and you could just shuffle from A to B to A, unlike a boat with no home mooring who must move A to B toC to D etc

 

 

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

 

 

 

Do you have a link for the case outcome Alan?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above confirms the legality of "ghost" Moorings though doesn't it. I.e a farmer charging a couple of hundred quid a year (with invoice) to moor to his riverside riparian land (CRT have no say , as long as if moored there it wouldn't impede navigation.

 

There would need to be infrastructure either... Mooring pins and a plank is still a mooring.

 

 

Meanwhile the "moorer" enjoys themselves between two London boroughs.

 

 

Hopefully however it it was to be abused, CRT would seek to close the loophole 

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, ditchcrawler said:

Which of course CRT guidance is now not adhering to saying they expect boaters when they leave their home mooring to behave like boaters with no home mooring

 

Indeed they do and one that (I seem to remember) that, during the consultation on the new T&Cs, was one (of several) point that NABO picked up on and told C&RT that it was not legally enforcable (another was that C&RT can board your boat without notice - which is specifically covered in an Act of Parliament).

3 minutes ago, Adam said:

Do you have a link for the case outcome Alan?

 

I think all of the court papers are on 'what do they know'

 

Case was : "CaRT v Mayers"

[peterboat]

On 29/01/2024 at 20:45, LadyG said:

I think the CRT should bring back the requirement to display the licence.

There is huge thing near me, that obviously has not moved recently, there is no notice evident, it has a number, no other signs of recent activity. 

I know a boat that display no number or license just a false name it transpires

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Indeed they do and one that (I seem to remember) that, during the consultation on the new T&Cs, was one (of several) point that NABO picked up on and told C&RT that it was not legally enforcable (another was that C&RT can board your boat without notice - which is specifically covered in an Act of Parliament).

 

And was introduced IIRC, as a direct result of Dunkley's stupid obstinacy.

 

Another thing to add to the mix. When I was moored on the Thames and first bought a Gold licence, BW wrote to me demanding I tell them where my home mooring was. I thought it none of their business so refused to tell them. They got quite shirty about it so I eventually told them it where it was (i.e. on the Thames). They then contacted the marina asking them for confirmation,  and the marina contacted me asking if it was ok to tell them!

 

I'm still not sure what all that was about as back then I only ever ventured off the Thames for the occasional day trip onto the K&A or a holiday around the Thames/Oxford/GU loop.

[peterboat]

13 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

Supreme court is the precedent I am afraid, its why we have ULEZs appearing everywhere 

6 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

And was introduced IIRC, as a direct result of Dunkley's stupid obstinacy.

 

Another thing to add to the mix. When I was moored on the Thames and first bought a Gold licence, BW wrote to me demanding I tell them where my home mooring was. I thought it none of their business so refused to tell them. They got quite shirty about it so I eventually told them it where it was (i.e. on the Thames). They then contacted the marina asking them for confirmation,  and the marina contacted me asking if it was ok to tell them!

 

I'm still not sure what all that was about as back then I only ever ventured off the Thames for the occasional day trip onto the K&A or a holiday around the Thames/Oxford/GU loop.

Interesting Mike 

[Paul C]

13 minutes ago, Adam said:

 

The above confirms the legality of "ghost" Moorings though doesn't it. I.e a farmer charging a couple of hundred quid a year (with invoice) to moor to his riverside riparian land (CRT have no say , as long as if moored there it wouldn't impede navigation.

 

 

It depends how you define the colloquial term of "ghost mooring". The above scenario could be two different things - with the distinction being critical.

 

It could be an "unused" mooring but that exists, ie the farmer has space for 10 boats, has 10 moorers but one of them is never seen at that mooring. Or it could be what I'd call a "ghost mooring" in that the farmer still takes the money - perhaps a lower amount (or even none at all) - but that customer which never visits is the 11th (or 20th, or 200th).

 

Of course, this would show up as a pattern in CRT's checks, since they check moored boats at online moorings and most marinas. It would show that 10 are predominantly occupying their mooring with occasional trips out, and the 11th is never there. So the claim of having a mooring there would be brought into question. The farmer may well say the boater moors there (in return for the money), and might even do it innocently, in some kind of multi-occupancy scheme where he maximises his business income.

 

At the end of the day the law is written such that the boater needs to satisfy CRT, not the other way round. And never using a mooring is going to be something of a hurdle to cross if CRT have the sightings.

[MtB]

36 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

It depends how you define the colloquial term of "ghost mooring". The above scenario could be two different things - with the distinction being critical.

 

It could be an "unused" mooring but that exists, ie the farmer has space for 10 boats, has 10 moorers but one of them is never seen at that mooring. Or it could be what I'd call a "ghost mooring" in that the farmer still takes the money - perhaps a lower amount (or even none at all) - but that customer which never visits is the 11th (or 20th, or 200th).

 

Of course, this would show up as a pattern in CRT's checks, since they check moored boats at online moorings and most marinas. It would show that 10 are predominantly occupying their mooring with occasional trips out, and the 11th is never there. So the claim of having a mooring there would be brought into question. The farmer may well say the boater moors there (in return for the money), and might even do it innocently, in some kind of multi-occupancy scheme where he maximises his business income.

 

At the end of the day the law is written such that the boater needs to satisfy CRT, not the other way round. And never using a mooring is going to be something of a hurdle to cross if CRT have the sightings.

 

 

The actual law says "the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere"

 

And carlt (IIRC) used to often say on here that he had an "other place" to keep his vessel. This "other place" was a bit of canalside hard standing he knew of with a crane available. 

 

I have my doubts about whether the board would be "satisfied" with this. 

[Tacet]

On 01/02/2024 at 15:19, 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.

BW v Davies did not decide that living aboard and CC are mutually exclusive.  See para 14 of the transcript:

 

https://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/bw-v-davies-sealed-judgement/.

 

"It seems to me that use of a boat as a home does not necessarily  exclude a coexistent use for navigation.  Indeed a person who continually cruises the waterways in the manner envisaged by the Board  might well be living on his boat and have no other home"

 

What was decided is that Davies was not bona fide continually cruising.  That raised the question as to what he was doing - the answer to which was living on his boat and navigating very little.

 

 

[magnetman]

I think the original idea with satisfying the bored was that 'If you need to work then you need a mooring' and 'If you don't need to work then you don't need. mooring'. This looks after comfortably orf people free of the encumbrance of what is rather an awkward situation while keeping the workers in their place. 

 

Its understandable. As someone who has never needed to work I am quite aggrieved by the increase in the number of people who clearly do need to work living on Boats without moorings. 

 

It is unacceptable for a number of different reasons not least the engine and generator noises. 

 

I blame Gordon Brown and the invention of the mass produced internet. Also mobile phones. 

 

Yars ago it was all great less so now. 

 

 

 

Don't mention the children! 

 

 

I remember (before getting embroiled with the Woman) getting comms from BW about how having a job or children was not compatible with cc ing. So we got a mooring. Then all of a sudden its fine to have children and no mooring just get on with it. 

 

Its shocking !!

[Alan de Enfield]

21 minutes ago, Tacet said:

What was decided is that Davies was not bona fide continually cruising.  That raised the question as to what he was doing - the answer to which was living on his boat and navigating very little.

 

 

Appently what was said was :

 

"..............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"

[Adam]

39 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Appently what was said was :

 

"..............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"

That statement applies to 90 percent of "constant cruisers" 

 

London is just the top of the iceberg, people not interested in boats living on boats as cheaply as possible - I side with them in a way, for a lot of people it is their only real option. It isn't CRTs fault but it's certainly their problem.

[MtB]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

I blame Gordon Brown and the invention of the mass produced internet. Also mobile phones.

 

 

I blame the ever-expanding population Vs. the near-zero building rate of new homes. In the news the other day the UK population was predicted to grow from 68 million now to 73.7 million by mid-2036, according to the Office for National Statistics. That isn't going to do much for the availability of accommodation is it? 

 

“Buy land — they’re not making any more”, was the advice of Mark Twain, even back then. And so far he has turned out to be bang on the money.

 

 

And to drag it back on topic, I predict all 5.7m extra inhabitants will be buying fatties and plonking them in the canal system, and never moving them. That should solve CRT's funding shortfall! 

 

 

[peterboat]

9 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

I blame the ever-expanding population Vs. the near-zero building rate of new homes. In the news the other day the UK population was predicted to grow from 68 million now to 73.7 million by mid-2036, according to the Office for National Statistics. That isn't going to do much for the availability of accommodation is it? 

 

“Buy land — they’re not making any more”, was the advice of Mark Twain, even back then. And so far he has turned out to be bang on the money.

 

 

And to drag it back on topic, I predict all 5.7m extra inhabitants will be buying fatties and plonking them in the canal system, and never moving them. That should solve CRT's funding shortfall! 

 

 

I was interested that without migration the population would stay static 

[DandV]

15 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I was interested that without migration the population would stay static 

Unfortunately the current horrendous costs in parenting children are  depressing the birthrate to below the replacement level.

The natural result of this is an aging population, with more and more people no longer in the workforce, and requiring more and more care, paired  up with fewer and fewer people to care for them, and a reducing tax base.

The problem that Japan is currently  experiencing. 

 

Perhaps this though could be overcome by providing more state support in child raising to at least incentivise bringing the birthrate back to replacement level. 

[Tacet]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Appently what was said was :

 

"..............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"

Said by who?  I can't find that quote in the judgement.

 

Davies was a County Court case  - which means it is a Civil matter and therefore difficult to see how it could result in a criminal conviction.

[Momac]

3 minutes ago, DandV said:

Perhaps this though could be overcome by providing more state support in child raising to at least incentivise bringing the birthrate back to replacement level. 

Not a  problem if immigration provides sufficient younger  people who are prepared to work 

 

 

 

[Rincewind]

Or look at it another way, .......

With an aging population and less children to replace them, ------- Housing problem solved!

[Tacet]

8 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

The actual law says "the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere"

 

And carlt (IIRC) used to often say on here that he had an "other place" to keep his vessel. This "other place" was a bit of canalside hard standing he knew of with a crane available. 

 

I have my doubts about whether the board would be "satisfied" with this. 

I think the first question would be whether the "other place" is one where the vessel can reasonably be kept.   We could all say that the vessel could be lifted out and carted away to almost anywhere - but how realistic (or reasonable) is my cousin's hill farm in this context?

[dmr]

8 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

Or look at it another way, .......

With an aging population and less children to replace them, ------- Housing problem solved!

 

Hope this is not too political but what we are doing with our population is a giant ponzi scheme but with humanity rather than money.

The problem facing our planel is too many people and too many people consuming too much of the planets resources, global warming is merely just the first and most obvious symptom of a bigger problem,

Expanding our population just to look after us in our old age is selfish short term thinking.

When you are too old to drive a boat or drink beer then its time to step aside 😀

[Arthur Marshall]

20 minutes ago, Tacet said:

I think the first question would be whether the "other place" is one where the vessel can reasonably be kept.   We could all say that the vessel could be lifted out and carted away to almost anywhere - but how realistic (or reasonable) is my cousin's hill farm in this context?

I have a feeling that relying on weird judgements involving people who wound up having their boats carted off (to coin a phrase) may not be entirely sensible. People keep quoting the Mayers case ruling as if it made sense, when it is very obviously doesn't. A very good example of a judge being an ass. And Mayers, a bit like Dunkley, was quite deliberately pushing the interpretation of the law into the far side of sanity. He'd just got a prime mooring by a pub and wasn't going to shift, however many people he inconvenienced.

The crucial point is that both these people, as well as a few others who took advice from TD, lost their boats.

And, if you are thinking of a ghost mooring somewhere for a couple of hundred quid, do remember that CRT will sting you for over a thousand for your crt EOG mooring fee. And that it has to be agreed with CRT in the first place. Occasionally, it's worth considering staying within the spirit of the law, and not bothering too much about the letter.

[Paul C]

33 minutes ago, Tacet said:

I think the first question would be whether the "other place" is one where the vessel can reasonably be kept.   We could all say that the vessel could be lifted out and carted away to almost anywhere - but how realistic (or reasonable) is my cousin's hill farm in this context?

 

Anyone trying to claim it for a boat over about 2.7 tons would face an uphill struggle, since the maximum gross weight of a trailer with overrun brakes, towed by any car, is 3.5 tons (allowing for the weight of the trailer itself). To tow over 3.5t, you'd need to have at least C1+E licence (with no 107 endorsement) then your GCW can be 12t - so "about" 6 tons max towing (MAM of trailer can't exceed MAM of truck). You could squeak a 7.5t without O licence for private use only. Anything more than 6t towing, you're into C+E licences and O licence required. 

[Adam]

18 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I have a feeling that relying on weird judgements involving people who wound up having their boats carted off (to coin a phrase) may not be entirely sensible. People keep quoting the Mayers case ruling as if it made sense, when it is very obviously doesn't. A very good example of a judge being an ass. And Mayers, a bit like Dunkley, was quite deliberately pushing the interpretation of the law into the far side of sanity. He'd just got a prime mooring by a pub and wasn't going to shift, however many people he inconvenienced.

The crucial point is that both these people, as well as a few others who took advice from TD, lost their boats.

And, if you are thinking of a ghost mooring somewhere for a couple of hundred quid, do remember that CRT will sting you for over a thousand for your crt EOG mooring fee. And that it has to be agreed with CRT in the first place. Occasionally, it's worth considering staying within the spirit of the law, and not bothering too much about the letter.

Weird judgements and pushing the interpretation of the law is exactly how the  BWB came to charge for end of garden moorings.

 

 

I was under the impression Tony won his Case his case in 2014 and the carting off of his boat is recent, presumably for a different matter?

[Jerra]

2 hours ago, MtB said:

I blame the ever-expanding population Vs. the near-zero building rate of new homes.

I would suggest not the near zero rate of building new homes but the near zero rate of building homes of the right type.

 

Everywhere I go Ii see masses of new houses being built, however, they are mainly large detached expensive homes.