A broad view of canal boat licence fees (The other side)

[Slim]

6 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Are you?

 

 

I am

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

It would be useful for us both (all) to agree on what we're discussing. "CMing" is a colloquial term, not a fixed/defined thing. So I'd like you to say what YOU mean by it, before I offer any opinion on it. 

 

You must be the only member of the forum to be ignorant of what CMing means. You can do it - write it out in long hand.

 

 

[Paul C]

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

You must be the only member of the forum to be ignorant of what CMing means. You can do it - write it out in long hand.

 

 

So, that's the level of debate you're engaging in - playing the man not the ball. I asked of you a fairly simple question, but you chose to attack me rather than respond properly. Why?

[Higgs]

Just now, Paul C said:

So, that's the level of debate you're engaging in - playing the man not the ball. I asked of you a fairly simple question, but you chose to attack me rather than respond properly. Why?

 

Do you honestly not know what CMing stands for?

 

 

[Paul C]

11 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Do you honestly not know what CMing stands for?

 

 

Continuous mooring.

[David Mack]

3 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

You seem to be saying: Home moorers have to behave as CCers. They can't stay moored for longer than 14 days. They can slip back into the marina, and possibly get the count to start again. They are also required to leave VMs, as the time states.

 

Would you, by any chance, be trying to find rules that home moorers can follow, that CCers are not permitted to follow? Like, CMing, for instance?

Read what I wrote!!

Under the 95 Act CCers have to move every 14 days. Under that same Act HMers can moor anywhere they like for as long as they like.

However under CRT's Ts and Cs, which may or may not be legally enforceable depending on who you listen to, HMers are also subject to maximum 14 day stays, or such shorter periods as indicated on signs at visitor moorings and the like. However the key difference is that the HMer's clock resets every time they return to their home mooring. So a HMer can leave their home mooring every weekend and tie up at the same spot for a couple of nights before returning to the HM. A CCer has to visit a number (undefined) of other 'places' (also undefined) before returning to the initial location.

[Mike Todd]

8 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

The rule that was created that didn't require a CCer to have a home mooring, or anyone, for that matter.

 

When home moorers are out and about on the canal, the rules are the same for them as CCers. When I went on holiday and was away from the boat for a month, I put the boat in a marina, and took a home mooring to do it. It allowed me a permanent mooring for more than a fortnight. As it does for all home moorers.

 

 

One difference is being on a bona fide navigation 

[MtB]

7 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

One difference is being on a bona fide navigation 

 

At last, someone else points this out too. I'm tired of pointing it out in these debates!

 

The boat has to be being "used bona fide for navigation" for the 14 day stops to be legal. And throughout the period of the licence. Not for 30 minutes every two weeks. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

23 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

One difference is being on a bona fide navigation 

👍agreed,

 

which leads me to ask perhaps  CRT should/could be more discerning who they give a licence to?

are CRT just taking easy money with a license fee without making some assurance the boater is able (or willing) to comply with the 14 day  rule?

 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

👍agreed,

 

which leads me to ask perhaps  CRT should/could be more discerning who they give a licence to?

are CRT just taking easy money with a license fee without making some assurance the boater is able (or willing) to comply with the 14 day  rule?

 

 

A very sensible suggestion. 

 

I'd go a little further and require CC applicants to sit an exam (at their own expense) on the meaning of the various provisions in the British Waterways Act 1995, focussing on 17(c) in particular.

And pass it, obviously! 

 

 

[cuthound]

6 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

👍agreed,

 

which leads me to ask perhaps  CRT should/could be more discerning who they give a licence to?

are CRT just taking easy money with a license fee without making some assurance the boater is able (or willing) to comply with the 14 day  rule?

 

 

My understanding is that CRT can't refuse a licence if the boat is insured and has a current BSS certificate, however I do like @MtB's suggestion.

[David Mack]

1 minute ago, cuthound said:

 

My understanding is that CRT can't refuse a licence if the boat is insured and has a current BSS certificate, however I do like @MtB's suggestion.

The applicant for a licence for a boat without a home mooring has to 'satisfy the Board'...  It seems to me to be perfectly in order for CRT to apply some test to determine that the applicant is aware of the conditions of that licence, before it is 'satisfied' etc. etc. And it follows that if CRT is not so satisfied it is entitled to refuse to issue the licence (or to require that the applicant obtains a home mooring).

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

10 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

My understanding is that CRT can't refuse a licence if the boat is insured and has a current BSS certificate, 

yes, mine too,

but with CRT making current changes, as in the new surcharges, perhaps CRT could increase their creativity and come up with some idea how to keep a check on things rather than just take the money. 

🤷‍♀️

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

15 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

My understanding is that CRT can't refuse a licence if the boat is insured and has a current BSS certificate, however I do like @MtB's suggestion.

Only if it has a home mooring. If it doesn't, it has to satisfy the condition of being on a genuine cruise, rather than, as MtB says above , a 30 minute hop every two weeks, apart from during stoppages, breakdown, illness, ice, etc etc.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Would it be simple enough to begin with requiring  some sort of helm certificate as a starter?

 

(something I’ve been against but times they are a changing)

 

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

Would it be simple enough to begin with requiring  some sort of helm certificate as a starter?

 

(something I’ve been against but times they are a changing)

 

2 posts ago you didn't realise the applicant needs to satisfy the board at all (on the 'cruising' required). Might be worth reviewing the actual wording of the legislation at this stage.....

 

"the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances."

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

4 minutes ago, Paul C said:

2 posts ago you didn't realise the applicant needs to satisfy the board at all (on the 'cruising' required). Might be worth reviewing the actual wording of the legislation at this stage.....

 

"the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances."

 

 

??

[Paul C]

2 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

??

 

Driving competency is an interesting idea but it misses the mark because the requirement to satisfy the board ONLY relates to CCers, not home moorers. CRT can't impose a driving test on home moorers, so why should one be imposed on CCers? I suspect such a test would be deemed unreasonable.

 

Something more appropriate to the anticipated cruising would be more reasonable.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

Driving competency is an interesting idea but it misses the mark because the requirement to satisfy the board ONLY relates to CCers, not home moorers. CRT can't impose a driving test on home moorers, so why should one be imposed on CCers? I suspect such a test would be deemed unreasonable.

 

Something more appropriate to the anticipated cruising would be more reasonable.

ok, fair enough,

it was only a suggestion,

and you’ve pissed on it,

and of course it’s unreasonable

apologises for trying to take the same old same old conversation out of its loop,

if your happy in the loop,

stay in it,

 

why are you hiding behind rules when CRT are readily changing them?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Paul C]

2 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

 

 

why are you hiding behind rules when CRT are readily changing them?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CRT aren't changing legislation.

 

I am not "hiding behind rules". What do you actually mean when you say that anyway????

 

ETA: Its not a terrible suggestion - in fact its a rather good suggestion - just that it perhaps ought to be applied to ALL boaters, not just CCers!!?!?

Edited April 27 by Paul C

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Ok, let’s put it another way,

why shouldn't  ALL boat owners have  some sort of helms certificate?

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

Ok, let’s put it another way,

why shouldn't  ALL boat owners have  some sort of helms certificate?

See edit above - good suggestion!!

[David Mack]

33 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

Would it be simple enough to begin with requiring  some sort of helm certificate as a starter?

Rather misses the point! The ability to handle a boat is not the issue. What matters is that someone applying for a boat licence without a home mooring needs to demonstrate to CRT that they intend to use the boat bona fide for navigation, and not merely shuffle around a limited area with almost all stays being of 14 days duration.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 minute ago, David Mack said:

Rather misses the point! The ability to handle a boat is not the issue. What matters is that someone applying for a boat licence without a home mooring needs to demonstrate to CRT that they intend to use the boat bona fide for navigation, and not merely shuffle around a limited area with almost all stays being of 14 days duration.

True,

I threw it in as a devil’s argument, kind of,

perhaps having to obtain some sort of helm certificate would put off plenty of fly by night boat owners,

 

so how can one demonstrate they will use the boat bona fide?

[Alan de Enfield]

52 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

so how can one demonstrate they will use the boat bona fide?

 

C&RT have already tried as they ADVISE that ,,,,,,

 

If you need to work in a fixed location

If you have children who need schooling in a fixed location

If you have medical requirements that mean you need to be in a fixed location for long periods

Then you probably would be unable to meet the rules for claiming a licenc based on having no home mooring.

 

C&RT in 'in a bad place' with very few options. The cannot invent requirements, they cannot make new laws, or, amend old laws.

 

Attorney-General v. Great Eastern Railway Co. (1880) 5 App.Cas. 473, Lord Blackburn said, at p. 481: 'where there is an Act of Parliament creating a corporation for a particular purpose, and giving it powers for that particular purpose, what it does not expressly or impliedly authorise is to be taken to be prohibited; ...' [my emphasis]

This was cited with approval by the same House in the 1991 judgment in McCarthy & Stone v Richmond LBC, with all 5 Law Lords in unanimous agreement on the point.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1989/4.html

 

 

 

The Stourbridge case needs to be read in full, to understand the context. The canal company wanted to rely on the common law right of a landowner to charge for the use of their property, although their enabling Acts only gave powers to charge tolls for passage through locks on the original section, whereas an upper section had no locks at all. Not even commercial boats had to pay tolls on their cargoes if they stayed on the lock-free sections, and some carriers did just that. For awhile they paid demanded tolls anyway, but when the prices were arbitrarily increased inordinately [in their opinion], they baulked, and refused to pay anything at all anymore. The court agreed that they did not need to. The full judgment is online –

http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1831/276.pdf

Edited April 27 by Alan de Enfield