Continuous Cruising Guidelines

[alan_fincher]

I'm glad I asked for a refresher on what BW actually say in the guidelines.

 

I am genuinely surprised that, (in my view only), their interpretation of the relevant bit of the law seems to go a great deal further than what the wording of the law actually says (to me).

 

I now appreciate far better why BW's interpretation doesn't seem to get tested in court very often!

 

I think I've just revised my view of what the law does, and does not, allow.

 

Interesting!

 

Alan

[Big John]

I suppose they could introduce a GPS based tracking and monitoring system with automatically generated fines for infringements?

This was mentioned by a supplier of ours so might of actually being put to BW at some point.

The technology exists and is fairly cheap to implement.

In the report on the K&A license evasion consultation report document (not on-line AFAIK) BW said it would be too expensive and too intrusive, so has been discarded.

[carlt]

BW said it would be too expensive and too intrusive, so has been discarded.

Seems strange. Expensive and intrusive seem to be the reasons the govt adopts schemes, not discards them.

[cotswoldsman]

The local enforcement officer showed me his 'pooter with inbuilt GPS, which he assured was being used to build up a log of movements and he implied that BW would be using the data come licence renewal. Maybe the desire to enforce the guidelines does exist? Although when 'push comes to shove' I wonder if anything will actually happen?

 

Edited to add:

Carl, is that the case? Can BW not just say " we don't believe you're CCing, we're not renewing your licence. Show us that you are (CCing)"?

 

While at the bottom of Napton on Monday the mooring officer came along with his hand held computer and entered my licence number as I was watering up. When I asked him what that was all about he told me that BW were now keeping a log of boat movements. I asked to have a look and he entered my licence number again and was able to give me all the details of my boat. He was under the empression that this information would be used when I come to renew my licence. As a CC'er this does not bother me. He also said that any boat moored in one place for more than 14 days would automaticly be charged £25 a day when the time came to renew licence, he was not sure if this had started yet but certainly was imminent, when I asked him if it was the same for 48 hour moorings he said no it only applied to 14 day mooring at present.

[NB Alnwick]

In the report on the K&A license evasion consultation report document (not on-line AFAIK) BW said it would be too expensive and too intrusive, so has been discarded.

 

Nevertheless, BW appear to have listened to our concerns and modified their proposals accordingly which proves the value of responding to consultation documents.

 

Edited to add that Cropredy is still giggling about "he's fallen in the water" . . .

Edited September 3, 2008 by NB Alnwick

[carlt]

Edited to add:

Carl, is that the case? Can BW not just say " we don't believe you're CCing, we're not renewing your licence. Show us that you are (CCing)"?

They are well within their rights to say this but, enforcing it, in court, is another matter.

 

There are legal nuances that are far too subtle for BW to understand but a judge can.

 

If you think BW are attempting to exceed their authority...START WRITING LETTERS!

 

As long as you are maintaining a dialogue with them then you may well find someone, within the organisation, that is sympathetic to your case. This is why Lucy is now safe and it looks like Usk may be too.

 

 

If you fail to get past the more narrow minded jobsworths, and end up in court, presenting evidence of all the effort you have made, to resolve the issue, and proof of BW's determination to be obstructive, will probably win a judge's sympathetic ear. This is how I walked out of a court clutching a cheque for £950, a few years ago, when BW thought they could, wrongly, assert their, imagined, authority on the little man.

 

I still chuckle when I recall the patrol officer's last words, on the matter: "My paperwork's in order! You'll never win!"

[mayalld]

They can't revoke a licence unless it has already been issued and, once issued, they can do no more than ask for it back, or take you to court.

Of course they can revoke a licence.

 

The fact that you still have the discs doesn't alter the fact that the boat is now unlicenced, and liable to s8 proceedings.

[carlt]

Of course they can revoke a licence.

 

The fact that you still have the discs doesn't alter the fact that the boat is now unlicenced, and liable to s8 proceedings.

Sorry but you are wrong, Dave.

 

They attempted to revoke my licence, many years ago, and failed.

 

They took me to court, and failed.

 

They told me they wouldn't be renewing my licence, and failed.

 

Section 8 is merely the start of a procedure that gives you 28 days to respond to. This is the point you may begin the dialogue, but I'd recommend starting much earlier.

 

Boats you see being craned out, under a section 8 notice, are either ones that BW have been unable to trace the owners of or ones which belong to people who won't talk to BW.

[mayalld]

Sorry but you are wrong, Dave.

 

They attempted to revoke my licence, many years ago, and failed.

 

They took me to court, and failed.

 

They told me they wouldn't be renewing my licence, and failed.

 

Section 8 is merely the start of a procedure that gives you 28 days to respond to. This is the point you may begin the dialogue, but I'd recommend starting much earlier.

 

Boats you see being craned out, under a section 8 notice, are either ones that BW have been unable to trace the owners of or ones which belong to people who won't talk to BW.

 

Was this under the 1995 act, and was it for failing to continuously cruise?

[carlt]

Was this under the 1995 act, and was it for failing to continuously cruise?

One occasion was for, allegedly, failing to continually cruise. The little hitler, who came to see me, said "If you don't shift this 'effing' boat, off my 'effing' patch, by friday, I'll crane it out on Monday!".

Fortunately the "Board" were satisfied with my commitment to continuously cruise and I remained on that mooring for a further month.

 

You claim no ambiguity in the statement "Must satisfy the board" but the very ambiguity of this statement is it's downfall.

 

Just because some jobsworth whitecap is not satisfied that you are meeting the requirements of any part of waterways related legislation does not mean that the "board" isn't satisfied. The person who puts the sticker on your boat is not the person who makes the decision to remove your boat.

 

There is a whole network of people that are, or can be, involved in any particular case, which begins with someone making an assumption about a boat.

 

Merely talking to as many of these people as possible enables you to find someone, who represents "the Board" who doesn't agree with the instigator of the process.

[mayalld]

One occasion was for, allegedly, failing to continually cruise. The little hitler, who came to see me, said "If you don't shift this 'effing' boat, off my 'effing' patch, by friday, I'll crane it out on Monday!".

Fortunately the "Board" were satisfied with my commitment to continuously cruise and I remained on that mooring for a further month.

 

You claim no ambiguity in the statement "Must satisfy the board" but the very ambiguity of this statement is it's downfall.

 

Just because some jobsworth whitecap is not satisfied that you are meeting the requirements of any part of waterways related legislation does not mean that the "board" isn't satisfied. The person who puts the sticker on your boat is not the person who makes the decision to remove your boat.

 

There is a whole network of people that are, or can be, involved in any particular case, which begins with someone making an assumption about a boat.

 

Merely talking to as many of these people as possible enables you to find someone, who represents "the Board" who doesn't agree with the instigator of the process.

 

Which means that we are not in disagreement at all.

 

I have never claimed that you have to satisfy the patrol officer. I do claim that you must satisfy BW.

 

The patrol officer merely records facts, and passes them up the line to the people who make the decisions.

 

The fact remains that the decision as to whether you keep your licence or not rests with the BW board.

[sueb]

They are well within their rights to say this but, enforcing it, in court, is another matter.

 

There are legal nuances that are far too subtle for BW to understand but a judge can.

 

If you think BW are attempting to exceed their authority...START WRITING LETTERS!

 

As long as you are maintaining a dialogue with them then you may well find someone, within the organisation, that is sympathetic to your case. This is why Lucy is now safe and it looks like Usk may be too.

 

 

If you fail to get past the more narrow minded jobsworths, and end up in court, presenting evidence of all the effort you have made, to resolve the issue, and proof of BW's determination to be obstructive, will probably win a judge's sympathetic ear. This is how I walked out of a court clutching a cheque for £950, a few years ago, when BW thought they could, wrongly, assert their, imagined, authority on the little man.

 

I still chuckle when I recall the patrol officer's last words, on the matter: "My paperwork's in order! You'll never win!"

You certainly did better than the man on the G & S who lost.

Sue

[carlt]

The fact remains that the decision as to whether you keep your licence or not rests with the BW board.

On the contrary.

 

I advised somebody who was being refused a licence, by BW, despite him repeatedly offering to pay.

 

It ended up in court and the judge said that it was ridiculous that it should ever have reached a courtroom and BW should issue one immediately. Costs in favour of the defendant and his licence arrived soon after.

 

 

You certainly did better than the man on the G & S who lost.

Sue

Was he talking to enough people.

 

Always in writing, always copied widely, always polite (but ever so slightly condescending),never by email (except in the first instance, when you could get a quick, positive response).

 

Oh, and most important of all. Always make sure the BW person who is writing to you.......is still alive!

 

 

I can heartily recommend the book: "Bureaucrats. How to annoy them." by R.T.Fishall

 

Actually written by Patrick Moore, it is truly a great reference work in how to communicate with Civil Servants, and other lower lifeforms.

[mayalld]

On the contrary.

 

I advised somebody who was being refused a licence, by BW, despite him repeatedly offering to pay.

 

It ended up in court and the judge said that it was ridiculous that it should ever have reached a courtroom and BW should issue one immediately. Costs in favour of the defendant and his licence arrived soon after.

 

Was this also a CC case?

[carlt]

Was this also a CC case?

Yes it was. BW took the person to court for unpaid "mooring fees".

[Chris Pink]

As a CC'er this does not bother me. He also said that any boat moored in one place for more than 14 days would automaticly be charged £25 a day when the time came to renew licence, he was not sure if this had started yet but certainly was imminent, when I asked him if it was the same for 48 hour moorings he said no it only applied to 14 day mooring at present.

 

Be interesting to see what exercise in twisted bureaucratic justification British Waterways manage to come up for this charge.

 

Even Dave Da Rules Mayall couldn't read this one into the various acts.

 

Always assuming geezer wasn't just winding you up.

[mayalld]

Yes it was. BW took the person to court for unpaid "mooring fees".

 

They should have followed their own process, and refused a licence because they weren't satisfied that the applicant would engage in bona fide navigation

[carlt]

They should have followed their own process, and refused a licence because they weren't satisfied that the applicant would engage in bona fide navigation

They did...and they were found to be wrong.

 

They also tried to get money from him...and they were found to be wrong.

[mayalld]

They did...and they were found to be wrong.

 

They also tried to get money from him...and they were found to be wrong.

 

Very interesting.

 

I would love to see a transcript of the case

[carlt]

Very interesting.

 

I would love to see a transcript of the case

I'm sure it's out there somewhere.

[Chris Pink]

they weren't satisfied that the applicant would engage in bona fide navigation

 

I think we've already established that you're psychic but how would BW's clairvoyant powers be able to tell?

[mayalld]

I think we've already established that you're psychic but how would BW's clairvoyant powers be able to tell?

 

The Act requires BW to be satisfied that the boat WILL be used for bona fide navigation.

 

It would seem to me that the fact that a boater has previously failed to engage in bona fide navigation would be a compelling reason to not be satisfied that he will in future.

[carlt]

The Act requires BW to be satisfied that the boat WILL be used for bona fide navigation.

 

It would seem to me that the fact that a boater has previously failed to engage in bona fide navigation would be a compelling reason to not be satisfied that he will in future.

But they are not the judge or jury, merely the executioner.

 

They may be able to say they are not satisfied...blah blah etc. but they still have to prove it.

 

The system you suggest, without the usual checks and limits, provided by courts, would essentially give a govt department unlimited power to wreck people's lives.

 

The power to destroy someone's private property or render them homeless does not lie in the hands of a civil servant. When it does it will be time for revolution (or it may be too late, by then).

[Chris Pink]

The Act requires BW to be satisfied that the boat WILL be used for bona fide navigation.

 

It would seem to me that the fact that a boater has previously failed to engage in bona fide navigation would be a compelling reason to not be satisfied that he will in future.

 

We do seem to be back on very shaky legal grounds again.

 

We have already established what you think. It's what the courts think that counts.

 

The system you suggest, without the usual checks and limits, provided by courts, would essentially give a govt department unlimited power to wreck people's lives.

 

This is the nub; that BW is an appointed body, answerable to a government department but not even civil servants.

 

I am sure we would not have to go very far before finding an example of another NGO that we would not like to have 'interpretative powers' especially where they can lead to homelessness.

[mayalld]

But they are not the judge or jury, merely the executioner.

 

They may be able to say they are not satisfied...blah blah etc. but they still have to prove it.

 

The system you suggest, without the usual checks and limits, provided by courts, would essentially give a govt department unlimited power to wreck people's lives.

 

The power to destroy someone's private property or render them homeless does not lie in the hands of a civil servant. When it does it will be time for revolution (or it may be too late, by then).

 

It may surprise you to hear it, but I am actually very keen that there should be checks and balances provided by the courts.

 

The point that I am making is that when BW invokes s17 or s8, it does not need to go to court to make its actions valid. The default position is that its actions are valid, UNLESS the person on the receiving end takes it to court.

 

We do seem to be back on very shaky legal grounds again.

 

We have already established what you think. It's what the courts think that counts.

 

OK, in that case, can you cite a case where any court has said that BW doesn't have the power, of its own initiative, to take these actions.

 

I fully accept that a court can overrule BW. My point is that the default position is that BW can proceed unless the boater goes to court.