Moorings question - please help update my knowledge...

[Tacet]

16 hours ago, LadyG said:

From your thoughts on cc 'rules' it tells us that its actually complex business, and there is likely no rule which will suit everyone.

I am cc, I just don't want to live in a marina. 

In summer Im fine with moving when it suits me, which will likely be about three or four times a fortnight. When  I find a nice mooring or i have a shore based reason to stay,  im not really willing to leave the next day, after all I've only just arrived!

Its not the journey that patricularly appeals, its the countryside locations.

This last twelve months I moved 26 times, hmmmm, but three months were on a marina mooring plus Ive had other reasons requiring sets of fourteen days in one location, and one (agreed) overstay during the heatwave, These things happen. I dont want to feel I am being harassed by some committee decision, or have to request regular overstays.

The rules currently in force caused me to move on to the cut, I dont think people like me have created any problems. 

I never move very far, and if " chased" it would likely mean covering further, but I can't see how that would benefit anyone. As it is I can usually avoid stoppages, plan bookings, arrange lockings, at my discretion. 

The 14 day rule requires a spotter to walk the towpath regularly, a two day rule would cost more, and fail to benefit anyone.

Oh, who exactly suggested this?

Its nowhere near enough to pay for maintenence and upgrade, but neither can a few thousand boats fork out the  £30 million required....

Pricing boats out of existence is not a profitable strategy.

I dont want a Residential Mooring, but there could be forthcoming changes in Planning and Council Tax, and  CRT rules, which meant that a home moorer could claim from the Govt Benefits system. Making everything more complex and more expensive, a lot of pain, no gain.

I am afraid too much of your post relates to what suits you, what you want, what you're willing to do, your discretion, where you want to be and so on.

 

There is no which to obstruct your wishes as such, but we have a finite canal system and we all need to share nicely.  Hence we can't all do as we please as it impacts on others to do as they please.  

[Arthur Marshall]

27 minutes ago, Tacet said:

I am afraid too much of your post relates to what suits you, what you want, what you're willing to do, your discretion, where you want to be and so on.

 

There is no which to obstruct your wishes as such, but we have a finite canal system and we all need to share nicely.  Hence we can't all do as we please as it impacts on others to do as they please.  

Exactly the kind of answer the CRT are looking for in their consultation, then. 

I think the point LadyG is making is that a legitimate cruise doesn't have to have an end point, in can be just to find another pleasant place to moor for a few days before moving on. It's the overall continuous progression of the travel that makes it a cruise, not the specific distance or area.

[Lady M]

In my view, bona fide navigation is cruising for the joy of cruising whereas non bona fide is moving the boat to avoid being censured.

[ditchcrawler]

4 hours ago, Lady M said:

In my view, bona fide navigation is cruising for the joy of cruising whereas non bona fide is moving the boat to avoid being censured.

And minimum distance required 

[Arthur Marshall]

54 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

And minimum distance required 

Minimum distance of travel direction perhaps, so twenty miles backwards and forwards over a year only counts as twenty, no matter how often you do it. That's basically what a leisure boater with a mooring might do. But a few miles a week in one direction, stopping in nice places along the way for a few days and a fortnight once or twice, would get you a long way from where you started and justify you not having a mooring, which, after all, is what you're trying to do.

[LadyG]

6 hours ago, Tacet said:

I am afraid too much of your post relates to what suits you, what you want, what you're willing to do, your discretion, where you want to be and so on.

 

There is no which to obstruct your wishes as such, but we have a finite canal system and we all need to share nicely.  Hence we can't all do as we please as it impacts on others to do as they please.  

Oh, in which way have I impacted on you?

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Oh, in which way have I impacted on you?

 

I might have wanted to moor where YOU are moored, but you were hogging that spot for TWO WEEKS! 

 

 

 

 

[LadyG]

18 hours ago, Bod said:

Bw Act 1995,part III section 18 (3)

Obstruction by vessels

(1)No person shall moor or otherwise leave a vessel on an inland waterway so as to cause obstruction or hindrance to navigation or to the free passage of persons or vehicles over and along the towing path beside the inland waterway.

(2)Any person who without reasonable excuse contravenes subsection (1) above in such a way as to cause, or give rise to the risk of, injury to any person or damage to property shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(3)Any vessel moored or allowed to remoor in contravention of subsection (1) above shall be deemed to be a relevant craft for the purpose of section 8 (Removal of vessels) of the Act of 1983 or, 

 

In effect an overstaying boat on a mooring  could be deemed an "obstacle" then if the boat doesn't move  then a Section 8 Removal can be done.

50 hours on a 48hour mooring, and you've lost your boat, mate.  The power is there.

 

A boat moored is rarely obstructing navigation, though some boaters apear to go out of their way to make life awkward for others.

I very much doubt if any boat could or would be removed after two hours overstay, I think it took eleven years in a recent incident 

19 hours ago, MtB said:

 

In fact annoying the CMing section of the customer base in order to drive them off the cut would be the whole point of such an approach.

 

 

Let's be practical, we dont know how many are what we call  cmers, and how many are cc, other than they could both be termed boaters with a licence but no home mooring. 

Currently the CRT are attempting to tweak the system, but if they run in to a brick wall, viz a challenge by an infamous group of non navigators, v the CRT,  both represented by expensive barristers, I dont think anyone could be sure of the outcome. It would be an expensive exercise and I doubt it would change behaviours.

" An English man's Home is his Castle" etc etc 

Edited August 1 by LadyG

[Tony Brooks]

19 minutes ago, LadyG said:

A boat moored is rarely obstructing navigation..

 

But it is if another boat that is obeying the rules needs to use that mooring. If the boat has overstayed then they are in breach of their agreement and are preventing other boats using that water space which they are legally entitled to do. Try parking on double yellow lines or red routes and see what happens to your car. That is the same as boaters braking their agreement. 

[LadyG]

16 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

But it is if another boat that is obeying the rules needs to use that mooring. If the boat has overstayed then they are in breach of their agreement and are preventing other boats using that water space which they are legally entitled to do. Try parking on double yellow lines or red routes and see what happens to your car. That is the same as boaters braking their agreement. 

Yes, Im sure that is the case, in fact there is a boat ahead of me, abandoned, on the lock landing, with a CRT ticket, but its not been moved, so nothing has happened! Arguably he is restricting navigation. I will be able to transit through, provided no one else moors up behind him! Therefore he is not obstructing navigation

I went down town today to find a car parked mostly on the pavement,  he was still there an hour later, so nothing has happened to him, it may not be a parking offence, I dont know,  but pavements are for pedestrians, and  streets are for cars, that's the general rule.

Edited August 2 by LadyG

[Peanut]

The definition of obstruction would have to be tested in the courts, and no doubt would be. A real obstruction, rather than an entirely theoretical one, where no one has been, or is likely to be obstructed.

Failing to comply with the terms of the licence, by not moving in a timely manner, is a different breach, which CART does follow up, at least occasionally. There are a number of excuses made for not doing so, and CART reduces licences to six months, to give the offender time to mend their ways.

This is likely to be more effective for most, rather than taking every case to court, which would incur expense, and have no sure outcome.

[LadyG]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

I might have wanted to moor where YOU are moored, but you were hogging that spot for TWO WEEKS! 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, about that, life's tough.

I only have one boat, not a fleet, like some on here ..

23 minutes ago, Peanut said:

 

Failing to comply with the terms of the licence, by not moving in a timely manner, is a different breach, which CART does follow up, at least occasionally. There are a number of excuses made for not doing so, and CART reduces licences to six months, to give the offender time to mend their ways.

 

I spent three months having repairs done, no overstay notice, yet the CRT decided to restrict my licence due to insufficient movement, in spite of the fact I was not on their mooring! 

 

I doubt that would stand up in court! 

 

I'd dont see it as an excuse I see it as a reason,

PS and im not an offender, ive broken no law.

Edited August 1 by LadyG

[Peanut]

35 minutes ago, LadyG said:

 

I spent three months having repairs done, no overstay notice, yet the CRT decided to restrict my licence due to insufficient movement, in spite of the fact I was not on their mooring!

I am sorry LadyG, I have no knowledge of your case, and can only hope you managed to sort it out with the mooring owner, that you were entitled to stay on their mooring for the time you were there, and that CART were appraised of that at the time.

 

Quite rightly, CART give leave to overstay given reasonable cause when asked.

[LadyG]

9 minutes ago, Peanut said:

I am sorry LadyG, I have no knowledge of your case, and can only hope you managed to sort it out with the mooring owner, that you were entitled to stay on their mooring for the time you were there, and that CART were appraised of that at the time.

 

Quite rightly, CART give leave to overstay given reasonable cause when asked.

The point was that I was not on a CRT mooring.

The marina argued that I was entitled  to stay on their mooring with their permission.

There was no overstay notice. 

In fact I could not ask for an overstay on a mooring which does not belong to CRT!

There were dozens of other boats in the marina, in fact they are there twelve months of the year!

Edited August 1 by LadyG

[Bod]

51 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Sorry, about that, life's tough.

I only have one boat, not a fleet, like some on here ..

I spent three months having repairs done, no overstay notice, yet the CRT decided to restrict my licence due to insufficient movement, in spite of the fact I was not on their mooring! 

 

I doubt that would stand up in court! 

 

I'd dont see it as an excuse I see it as a reason,

PS and im not an offender, ive broken no law.

You in effect took a "home mooring" for the 3 months, being in a marina and didn't inform C&RT of the change of licence type, hence the restriction.

 

Bod.

[ditchcrawler]

54 minutes ago, LadyG said:

  no overstay notice, yet the CRT decided to restrict my licence due to insufficient movement, in spite of the fact I was not on their mooring! 

 

You don't have to be on their moorings, you don't have to overstay, you just didn't travel far enough in the year to satisfy them 

[LadyG]

2 minutes ago, Bod said:

You in effect took a "home mooring" for the 3 months, being in a marina and didn't inform C&RT of the change of licence type, hence the restriction.

 

Bod.

That's not their argument.

I didn't have a mooring contract

 

[Bod]

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

A boat moored is rarely obstructing navigation, though some boaters apear to go out of their way to make life awkward for others.

I very much doubt if any boat could or would be removed after two hours overstay, I think it took eleven years in a recent incident 

Let's be practical, we dont know how many are what we call  cmers, and how many are cc, other than they could both be termed boaters with a licence but no home mooring. 

Currently the CRT are attempting to tweak the system, but if they run in to a brick wall, viz a challenge by an infamous group of non navigators, v the CRT,  both represented by expensive barristers, I dont think anyone could be sure of the outcome. It would be an expensive exercise and I doubt it would change behaviours.

" An English man's Home is his Castle" etc etc 

2 hours over stay could be enough to start the Section 8 removal process, which in it's self has a few checks and balances, but does not need to take more than 30 days to complete.

1 minute ago, LadyG said:

That's not their argument.

I didn't have a mooring contract

 

In that case you were still not moving in accordance with the licence type purchased.

Bod.

[Arthur Marshall]

27 minutes ago, Bod said:

.

In that case you were still not moving in accordance with the licence type purchased.

Bod.

I thought I remembered from another thread that there shouldn't be a problem if a CCer holed up in a marina for a few weeks or a month or two while away from the boat? It's all a bit tricky...

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I thought I remembered from another thread that there shouldn't be a problem if a CCer holed up in a marina for a few weeks or a month or two while away from the boat? It's all a bit tricky...

 

Hopefully the new rules will clarify this sort of thing. 

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

4 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I thought I remembered from another thread that there shouldn't be a problem if a CCer holed up in a marina for a few weeks or a month or two while away from the boat? It's all a bit tricky...

Had CCers stay in the Marina next door for a month and more, private Marina on CaRT water, there has never been any issues with CaRT serving them because their on a CCing license. Maybe they’ve contacted CaRT licensing and explained the situation to them, as CaRT seem more helpful and understanding when you ring and chat. Unlike popular belief.

 Reading @LadyG posts on here Maybe she’s flagged up with CaRT as an overstayer throughout the year?

Edited August 1 by BoatingLifeUpNorth2

[MtB]

31 minutes ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

Had CCers stay in the Marina next door for a month and more, private Marina on CaRT water, there has never been any issues with CaRT serving them because their on a CCing license. Maybe they’ve contacted CaRT licensing and explained the situation to them, as CaRT seem more helpful and understanding when you ring and chat. Unlike popular belief.

 Reading @LadyG posts on here Maybe she’s flagged up with CaRT as an overstayer throughout the year?

 

If LadyG's comms with CRT are anything like as wild as some of her posts on here, someone at CRT may well have labelled her account with a "caution" flag, I wouldn't be surprised. 

 

 

[Stroudwater1]

20 hours ago, Lady M said:

In my view, bona fide navigation is cruising for the joy of cruising whereas non bona fide is moving the boat to avoid being censured.

I agree, but it gets odder than that, there’s a number of boaters who don’t  have to move anyway much for what CRT appear to agree is bona fide reasons. Disability, having children at school ?nursery for example. How they can be classed as CC ers is strange.
 

The number of boats with yellow stickers / reasonable adjustments  is growing. If they are a carer for someone in a house nearby or if someone on the boat is disabled then the boater is eligible. 
 

Unlike blue badges it seems CRT don’t charge for administration. Perhaps it’s judged they can’t as it’s boaters necessity not a luxury of a car 


 

 

 

[LadyG]

12 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Hopefully the new rules will clarify this sort of thing. 

More likely it will create more confusion, the posters on here, tend to make their own interpretation,  see above

9 hours ago, MtB said:

 

If LadyG's comms with CRT are anything like as wild as some of her posts on here, someone at CRT may well have labelled her account with a "caution" flag, I wouldn't be surprised. 

 

 

I rarely communicate with CRT, I pay their premium licence, and comply with their rules, it's their interpretation which i disagre with, but they clearly state their decision is final, so no point in communicating. I am beginning to suspect they are making it up, lol.

Edited August 2 by LadyG

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

18 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I rarely communicate with CRT, I pay their premium licence, and comply with their rules, it's their interpretation which i disagre with, but they clearly state their decision is final!

 Maybe that’s the problem, those that communicate with CaRT seem to not have so many issues and a better relationship with CaRT to those that don’t. 
 You obviously don’t comply with their rules, as if you did, you wouldn’t be having license overstaying non compliance issues with CaRT licensing.

 

Edited August 2 by BoatingLifeUpNorth2