Basis For 14 Day Mooring Limit For All Boaters

[Guest User]

.... Effectively we seem to be saying it matters not a jot what a particular act spells out, as BW can always do something different because of their "general powers".

 

Where am I wrong, please ?

Presumably BW's authority to set terms and conditions is subordinate the provisions of the act ? .... But otherwise it appears from what's been said, that yes purple boat owners had better keep an eye over their shoulder ! .... following in that vein, what mechanism is there to ensure that BW doesn't set unreasonable T&C's in the future ? ... and who decides what's reasonable or unreasonable ?

[gidh]

How about this....

 

If the fact that you have a 'recognised and legal mooring' means you can basically moor anywhere you like for as long as you like, it would appear to be a good investment to secure the repeatedly advertised mooring at IDR Reading ( which BW can't shift for love nor money) for a song, then go and moor somewhere lovely somewhere else on the K&A...........nice

[carlt]

What I don't understand is how anyone can dispute the fact that an Act of Parliament that gives a civil service department the right to make laws is flawed and, more importantly, undemocratic.

[Chris Pink]

Presumably BW's authority to set terms and conditions is subordinate the provisions of the act ?

 

This is my understanding.

 

Also it is not given by law that a boat owner has to agree to BW's terms and conditions as a condition for a license being granted although BW as understandably quite picky about this I hear.

[Natalie Graham]

British Waterways Act 1995 (ci) (c1) Part III: Regulation and Management of Inland Waterways

 

"Section 17: Conditions as to certificates and licences

 

(3) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below,

 

That part is a bit puzzling as there is no subsection (7). It goes from subsection (6) to subsection (8).

[mayalld]

No, it is only a legal opinion at the moment, the conflict between Section 43 and licensing powers in the various acts which as I say is used for all sorts from fines to the late payments and roving mooring permits has never been fully tested either in law or by the ombudsman.

 

There are examples of BW being reluctant to fully test this interpretation in court.

 

And the potential for misuse if this interpretation is valid means you could be paying lock and swing bridge tolls next year if BW decide to make up some of their shortfall this way.

 

Bye-law 4 of the General Canal Bye-laws 1965 already gives them a power to levy tolls.

 

The person in charge of a vessel shall on each voyage give (as

and when required) to the toll collector or other authorised officer

a full and true declaration in writing of the name and description

of the vessel, the name of the owner and of the master,

particulars of the cargo (if any) with the weight thereof, the

draught of the vessel, the place of loading and unloading, and of

all cargo he may have delivered at any place on any canal before

arriving at the toll collector’s office, and of the place or places at

which he intends to deliver the whole or any part of the cargo, so

as to enable the tolls and dues to be correctly charged and shall

pay the tolls and dues in such manner and at such places as the

Board may appoint.

 

That part is a bit puzzling as there is no subsection (7). It goes from subsection (6) to subsection (8).

 

That appears to be an error in the OPSI version of the act.

 

If you go to http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?...;filesize=10837

 

You will see that subsection 6 is the BSC section and that there should be a (7) before "In this subsection"

 

This is my understanding.

 

Also it is not given by law that a boat owner has to agree to BW's terms and conditions as a condition for a license being granted although BW as understandably quite picky about this I hear.

 

"Nothing in this section shall affect any power of the Board under any other enactment to refuse or withdraw a relevant consent."

 

If you were to argue that the whole raft of bits from multiple acts and bye-laws is a mess, I would agree with you.

 

If you were to argue that the whole lot needs to be swept away by a piece of consolidating legislation, I would agree with you.

 

I rather suspect that the current mess suits you, as it enables you to come up with spurious claims about what BW can and cannot do,

[carlt]

I rather suspect that the current mess suits you, as it enables you to come up with spurious claims about what BW can and cannot do,

That would seem to work both ways, though, Dave.

 

The "mess" seems to give BW powers that they really shouldn't have, in a democracy.

 

The "mess" also makes them afraid to use those powers.

[Chris Pink]

I rather suspect that the current mess suits you, as it enables you to come up with spurious claims about what BW can and cannot do,

 

This is a rather loaded statement. It is only a 'mess' if you personally disagree with it and none of my claims have been shown to be spurious in the only way I would accept, by the courts.

 

I remember the debate over the 1995 Act, a piece of legislation that took several years and much debate. I fail to see how you, or BW, can really claim that this legislation is misplaced or badly written when it had so much more time given to its formulation, amendment and debate than, for instance, a lot of the anti-terrorism legislation (which I would agree is a 'mess').

 

Whereas I would much prefer BW spend our money on maintaining the canals rather than clarifying legislation through the courts it is only because BW try to bend those laws to satisfy the powerful leisure industry lobby groups that it is necessary to argue these points. If you think that any of these guidelines were written at the behest of boaters like yourself then you delude yourself.

 

As I have stated before I live within the law on the canals and British Waterways would appear to agree in that they have made no attempt to 'withdraw their consent', but that isn't really the subject under discussion.

 

I note that you haven't addressed the issue of purple boats.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Chris Pink

[mayalld]

That would seem to work both ways, though, Dave.

 

The "mess" seems to give BW powers that they really shouldn't have, in a democracy.

 

The "mess" also makes them afraid to use those powers.

 

Very possibly to both.

 

The end result is the very British constitutional convention, where BW actually has quite far ranging powers, but constrains its use lest they be taken away.

 

In the end, the powers that they actually use are fairly consistent with the powers that they might get in a consolidation act.

 

This is a rather loaded statement. It is only a 'mess' if you personally disagree with it and none of my claims have been shown to be spurious in the only way I would accept, by the courts.

 

I remember the debate over the 1995 Act, a piece of legislation that took several years and much debate. I fail to see how you, or BW, can really claim that this legislation is misplaced or badly written when it had so much more time given to its formulation, amendment and debate than, for instance, a lot of the anti-terrorism legislation (which I would agree is a 'mess').

 

Whereas I would much prefer BW spend our money on maintaining the canals rather than clarifying legislation through the courts it is only because BW try to bend those laws to satisfy the powerful leisure industry lobby groups that it is necessary to argue these points. If you think that any of these guidelines were written at the behest of boaters like yourself then you delude yourself.

 

As I have stated before I live within the law on the canals and British Waterways would appear to agree in that they have made no attempt to 'withdraw their consent', but that isn't really the subject under discussion.

 

I note that you haven't addressed the issue of purple boats.

 

Whichever way you look at it, it is a legislative mess.

 

As to purple boats, I rather suspect that HRA would come into play here.

[the grinch]

just to add to the debate.

 

I had a permanent mooring on the River Lee and in the summer went boating from March to late September sometimes leaving the boat at a location for 16/17 days whilst away on holiday etc.

the licence for the boat was refused the following year on the grounds of not continuosly cruising /not having a mooring??

 

I got my licence when I argued it, but it really got up my nose that longterm overstayers got away scot free, but because I had a holiday abroad occasionally they treated me like dirt. on occasions I overstayed I wasn't on a popular mooring and was on the outskirts of a town.