Licences revoked on K&A

[Tim Doran]

Hi

 

Recently BW have been issuing notices between Bath & Hilperton to the effect that boats have been in one area for a long time and are not complying with the licence conditions. They are threatening to revoke licences within 14days if sufficient evidence is not provided.

 

I don’t want a debate about whether the boats are licensed correctly or if people are moving far enough etc. Please no trolling.

 

What I am interested in is whether anyone has replied with evidence to BW and if they have replied. If you do not want to post in public then send me a PM

 

Tim

[Chris Pink]

Word is;

 

A recent addition to the enforcement team fell foul of one of the existing members, possibly because, it is rumoured, she was demoted for gross misconduct that may or may not have included lying in court. The result of which is that when he started, he was goaded into 'sorting out the mess' along the Kennet and Avon. To this end he issued around 100 patrol notices, including some on boats that had just arrived on a mooring - one i know of had just completed a 200 mile trip.

 

The amount of complaints that ensued has staggered him and presumably his boss, John Ward, to the point where he has been apologising to some of the boaters caught up in this attempted purge.

[GUMPY]

Word is;

 

A recent addition to the enforcement team fell foul of one of the existing members, possibly because, it is rumoured, she was demoted for gross misconduct that may or may not have included lying in court. The result of which is that when he started, he was goaded into 'sorting out the mess' along the Kennet and Avon. To this end he issued around 100 patrol notices, including some on boats that had just arrived on a mooring - one i know of had just completed a 200 mile trip.

 

All those notices and a sex change must have been busy

[Tim Doran]

Thanks Chris for your input. I was thinking that there might be some news/information/gossip (gasp - surely not gossip on this site) but there was not so I have started a thread about it.

 

I have not had a notice but I think that it will be just a matter of time. My sister is staying with me and saw some BW workers and spoke to them. Whilst they were not rude they were curt in their tone. They said that the notices were about staying in one area not about the 14 day movement. I wish that she had got their names for future reference however I suspect that it is Martin Skinner she spoke to.

 

Tim

 

Word is;

 

A recent addition to the enforcement team fell foul of one of the existing members, possibly because, it is rumoured, she was demoted for gross misconduct that may or may not have included lying in court. The result of which is that when he started, he was goaded into 'sorting out the mess' along the Kennet and Avon. To this end he issued around 100 patrol notices, including some on boats that had just arrived on a mooring - one i know of had just completed a 200 mile trip.

 

The amount of complaints that ensued has staggered him and presumably his boss, John Ward, to the point where he has been apologising to some of the boaters caught up in this attempted purge.

 

 

I think that Chris is alluding to the recent employment of a Mr Martin Skinner who seems to have replaced another member of the enforcement staff hence the implied sex change

 

Tim

 

edit for Fat Fingers Error 197654

Edited August 14, 2009 by Tim Doran

[Chris Pink]

All those notices and a sex change must have been busy

 

you're being a bit blonde there Julian, try again with your fingers under the words.

 

I have not had a notice but I think that it will be just a matter of time. My sister is staying with me and saw some BW workers and spoke to them. Whilst they were not rude they were curt in their tone. They said that the notices were about staying in one area not about the 14 day movement. I wish that she had got their names for future reference however I suspect that it is Martin Skinner she spoke to.

 

There's a NABO call out for information relating to rudeness (verbal and by letter).

 

I have never met Mr Skinner (Skinner, my name's Skinner, Martin Skinner doesn't quite work without the Sweeney accent) but I hear he is much more polite to his customers since those customers have told exactly how they expect to be addressed.

 

My understanding was that he was attempting (yet another) interpretation of the 14 day rule by cutting and pasting various bit of law, license conditions and the Oxford dictionary.

 

Although his spraying of patrol notices included a fair number with home moorings.

[the grinch]

they tried this a few years ago on the southern oxford withn similar disasterous results.

 

i used to weekend boat (between railway stations) and continuosly cruised throughout the summer, returning to my winter mooring in late october. never stayed more than 14days in a year in any parish.

I got a section 8 letter after 8 days at wolvercote. to which i got onto Simon Ainley who was the berk in charge at the time. he wouldn't listen to reason at all. i eventually gave up!

when my next licence renewal came up it was refused on the grounds of having no permanent mooring! to which i replied thats fine i will move the boat onto the middle level and you won't get a penny in licence money ever again.

suddenly they could renew my licence there and then! W........rs.

[GUMPY]

I think that Chris is alluding to the recent employment of a Mr Martin Skinner who seems to have replaced another member of the enforcement staff hence the implied sex change

 

Thanks for clearing that up it wasn't clear from the way it was written.

It strikes me that in any local area those that don't move are known by those on the cut in that area, how can BW get it so wrong and ticket the wrong people?

[the grinch]

It strikes me that in any local area those that don't move are known by those on the cut in that area, how can BW get it so wrong and ticket the wrong people?

 

simple - because most of them are W.....rs with bad attitude, they forget that it is us and the taxpayers who pay their wages.

[Chris Pink]

Thanks for clearing that up it wasn't clear from the way it was written.

It strikes me that in any local area those that don't move are known by those on the cut in that area, how can BW get it so wrong and ticket the wrong people?

 

Because it wasn't an attempt to target anyone breaking the law it was simply an attempt at intimidation of a large group of people.

[carlt]

simple - because most of them are W.....rs with bad attitude, they forget that it is us and the taxpayers who pay their wages.

I've only actually come against 2 that fitted that description.

 

After a bit of training they usually realise that it's not the same as being a police/prison officer (where many seem to be recruited).

 

One particular whitecap who I got off to a really bad start with, became one of the best I've met and another, who became a friend, returned to the police force because (I quote) "It's a lot clearer who the bad guys are!".

 

Can't say I've encountered any down the K&A, yet, though.

[Cris P]

Is Skinner the fatty ?

[Tootles]

BW have tried many times over the years to enforce their purges on boaters, and have always ended up where they started. They can scream, shout, send out their 'enforcement officers' (Martin Bormann allegedly trained a few), and post bits of paper on boats until they are blue in the face, but the fact stands that they are governed by the original Act's of Parliament that each individual canal was sanctioned by. Apart from regulating the price of "Ye tonne of coals to be carried", most said the same thing as far as the movement of boats were concerned, namely '14 days maximum in each Parish'. As has been discussed many times in these revered pages, the BW rules about moving so many lock miles blah blah, mean nothing, and are not legally enforceable, without a change to the act's of each canal that they wish to alter the rules for.

The last time BW went to Parliament, (General Powers Act), they turned up with more amendments than you could shake a stick at. Result? They very nearly ran out of Parliamentary time, because such waterways stalwarts as Simon Greer off the Macc took his boat down to London, and attended every sitting, registering objections to all the clauses. BW walked away with the right of access to three feet of the non-towpath side of all canals, and very little else!

So, if your sure of your rights, on the canal where you are, say 'nowt, and wait to see what happens. If they are daft enough to try something illegal, then go for the jugular. If they issue court proceedings, go, win, and claim your costs.

[Smelly]

BW have tried many times over the years to enforce their purges on boaters, and have always ended up where they started. They can scream, shout, send out their 'enforcement officers' (Martin Bormann allegedly trained a few), and post bits of paper on boats until they are blue in the face, but the fact stands that they are governed by the original Act's of Parliament that each individual canal was sanctioned by. Apart from regulating the price of "Ye tonne of coals to be carried", most said the same thing as far as the movement of boats were concerned, namely '14 days maximum in each Parish'. As has been discussed many times in these revered pages, the BW rules about moving so many lock miles blah blah, mean nothing, and are not legally enforceable, without a change to the act's of each canal that they wish to alter the rules for.

The last time BW went to Parliament, (General Powers Act), they turned up with more amendments than you could shake a stick at. Result? They very nearly ran out of Parliamentary time, because such waterways stalwarts as Simon Greer off the Macc took his boat down to London, and attended every sitting, registering objections to all the clauses. BW walked away with the right of access to three feet of the non-towpath side of all canals, and very little else!

So, if your sure of your rights, on the canal where you are, say 'nowt, and wait to see what happens. If they are daft enough to try something illegal, then go for the jugular. If they issue court proceedings, go, win, and claim your costs.

 

Ever heard of Nationalisation? Having deleted the last diatribe I typed I will only say that the above is wholly inaccurate and has been since the enactment of the 68 Transport Act.

 

The "14 day" business is BWs line on when they will be saisfied of "Bone Fide navigation" courtesy of Section 17(3) of the 1995 British Waterways Act as has been discussed many times in these revered pages

 

Initial route of challenging an action under this is via the ombudsman until they issue a Section 8 notice at which point a challenge via referral to Magistrates would be appropriate.

[Hairy-Neil]

So, if your sure of your rights, on the canal where you are, say 'nowt, and wait to see what happens.

 

King Canute springs to mind......

[Tootles]

Ever heard of Nationalisation? Having deleted the last diatribe I typed I will only say that the above is wholly inaccurate and has been since the enactment of the 68 Transport Act.

 

The "14 day" business is BWs line on when they will be saisfied of "Bone Fide navigation" courtesy of Section 17(3) of the 1995 British Waterways Act as has been discussed many times in these revered pages

 

Initial route of challenging an action under this is via the ombudsman until they issue a Section 8 notice at which point a challenge via referral to Magistrates would be appropriate.

 

Yes, I have heard of Nationalisation, I was born about the same time it came in. And no, the above is not 'wholly inaccurate', otherwise I wouldn't have written it.

Initial challenging an action is by the telephone, (also something that was Nationalised), and then in court. The ombudsman route is just a 'put off' to stall the nitty gritty.

Here's an example of the power of the original canal acts. Boats moored in a certain marina on the Peak Forrest Canal by tradition had never required a licence when moored in the basin. BW decided to alter this, by stating that all boats on their water need to have a current licence. The boat owners took it further, and proved that the original owner of the basin paid no dues on his boats, on the understanding that he would build lime kilns at his own expense. This was enshrined in the act. Net result? The boat owners won, and still do not require a licence when moored in that basin.

[OptedOut]

Last year BW officers entered a private boatyard and affixed various dire threat notices to my boat.

Turns out it was instigated by another new "Enforcement Officer", she also told lies so it ended up with a written apology!

Where do they find these people?

[David Schweizer]

snipped ......There's a NABO call out for information relating to rudeness (verbal and by letter).....snipped

 

I have to say that despite having had a substanial numnber of communicatiions with BW over the years, some of them contentious, I have never been subjected to any rudeness by their staff, in fact quite the opposite has been true. I have always found the office and bankside staff to be friendly and polite.

 

My correspondence, on some occassions, has been ignored by senior Management, or replies have included statements which departed from the truth, but always done politely.

[OptedOut]

Must admit that they have always been polite but still incompetent.

[Smelly]

King Canute springs to mind......

 

Quite...

 

I'd hate to meet the costs arising from a District Judge or Magistrate giving themselves a hernia from laughing so hard at "the 18(whatever) Birmingham Canal Act says..."

 

Sorry Tootles but one exception does not contradict trite law so primarily to counter misinformation so as not to leave ill informed boaters doing something daft I will linky to the rules and the staute that effectively did away with the old rules

 

Once your licence has been revoked then section 8 of the '83 act takes hold and BW can impound your boat. As the '83 act is held as a PDF I won't link, you'll just have to take my word for it or google.

 

As to the ombudsman, a challenge to the ombudsman's decision would be via the County Court which, as that challenge would be on Judical Review grounds, can only be engaged once all avenues have been exhausted. You can otherwise challenge the consequent section 8 decision in the Magistrates court. The perversity of this is that the County & Mags Court have a very limited jurisdiction and are not courts of record. I'd reckon the strongest way, considering the subsequent enactment of the Human Rights Act would be to challenge the vires of section 33 of the '95 Act under section 6 HRA '98 however gambling with a costs award in 5 or 6 figures is not something to do lightly.

[Tootles]

Quite...

 

I'd hate to meet the costs arising from a District Judge or Magistrate giving themselves a hernia from laughing so hard at "the 18(whatever) Birmingham Canal Act says..."

 

Sorry Tootles but one exception does not contradict trite law so primarily to counter misinformation so as not to leave ill informed boaters doing something daft I will linky to the rules and the staute that effectively did away with the old rules

 

Once your licence has been revoked then section 8 of the '83 act takes hold and BW can impound your boat. As the '83 act is held as a PDF I won't link, you'll just have to take my word for it or google.

 

As to the ombudsman, a challenge to the ombudsman's decision would be via the County Court which, as that challenge would be on Judical Review grounds, can only be engaged once all avenues have been exhausted. You can otherwise challenge the consequent section 8 decision in the Magistrates court. The perversity of this is that the County & Mags Court have a very limited jurisdiction and are not courts of record. I'd reckon the strongest way, considering the subsequent enactment of the Human Rights Act would be to challenge the vires of section 33 of the '95 Act under section 6 HRA '98 however gambling with a costs award in 5 or 6 figures is not something to do lightly.

 

And how many boats have been so impounded, do you know of? Better still, how many boats have been impounded when people are living on them?

I don't remember reading about the Act of Settlement forbidding the monarch (and by extension his/her family) from marrying a Catholic making many people laugh, nor giving anybody a hernia, (unless you count The Pope). I think that out-dates the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal Act of 1784, if that's the one your referring to. Our whole legal system is based on these laws, and many people may be surprised just how many are still in force. Where do you think that BW got it's 14 day ruling from, The Beano? The 14.day 'In One Parish' rule is taken directly from the acts. Example 2: A certain gentleman had two boats, both on the Macclesfield canal, and both some years ago. Neither had a permanent place of mooring, so he played the rule, by moving them between the parishes of Congleton and Macclesfield. You will know one of the boats, it still hawks coal around the system. Never saw him once being served with a section 8 notice.

At the end of the day, the whole matter rests on the strength of enforcement. You can have as many rules as you like, but as we all know, BW couldn't enforce a no cycling ban on the K&A, never mind a full blown clamp down on boaters mooring. I even know of cases where liveaboards have received the protection of the DHSS when BW have targeted them, AND delivered gas to the boats on a weekly basis, using DHSS vans!

If you use your noggin, dont stay too long on visitor moorings, but keep out in the 'ooloo', you wont even see an enforcement officer, never mind get a ticket. They dont walk away from their cars very far.

[Smelly]

And how many boats have been so impounded, do you know of? Better still, how many boats have been impounded when people are living on them?

I don't remember reading about the Act of Settlement forbidding the monarch (and by extension his/her family) from marrying a Catholic making many people laugh, nor giving anybody a hernia, (unless you count The Pope). I think that out-dates the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal Act of 1784, if that's the one your referring to. Our whole legal system is based on these laws, and many people may be surprised just how many are still in force. Where do you think that BW got it's 14 day ruling from, The Beano? The 14.day 'In One Parish' rule is taken directly from the acts. Example 2: A certain gentleman had two boats, both on the Macclesfield canal, and both some years ago. Neither had a permanent place of mooring, so he played the rule, by moving them between the parishes of Congleton and Macclesfield. You will know one of the boats, it still hawks coal around the system. Never saw him once being served with a section 8 notice.

At the end of the day, the whole matter rests on the strength of enforcement. You can have as many rules as you like, but as we all know, BW couldn't enforce a no cycling ban on the K&A, never mind a full blown clamp down on boaters mooring. I even know of cases where liveaboards have received the protection of the DHSS when BW have targeted them, AND delivered gas to the boats on a weekly basis, using DHSS vans!

If you use your noggin, dont stay too long on visitor moorings, but keep out in the 'ooloo', you wont even see an enforcement officer, never mind get a ticket. They dont walk away from their cars very far.

 

On your latter point we are in agreement, but the fact of the matter is that the old law has been superseded. What does the Act of Settlement have to do with it? Assuming we're talking about the 1701 version.

 

There is primary legislation of direct relevance and effect which grants authority for the "Minister" to append or remove the old stuff and apart from in exceptional cases they have done. The 14 day "in one Parish" rule is long gone and is replaced with the 10 lock mile system held in the Ts & Cs of our licences.

 

Weren't there 79 boats impounded last year in the East Mids? I've seen at least 6 first hand, two of which were residential... Certainly where I moor the enforcement team are sh*t hot and don't give much slack once you're in their sights although admittedly E&W Mids are the teams where they trial things, hence the big clamp down in E Mids last year. The fact that BW haven't been driving round in cranes, as was their intention after last year's success, is due to their correctly anticipating further gaps in funding.

 

OTH I don't do PMs, not for this kinda thing anyhoo!

 

Finally, that Social Services chose to help a beleagured boater I would suspect had little relevance to their mooring status.

[Tootles]

On your latter point we are in agreement, but the fact of the matter is that the old law has been superseded. What does the Act of Settlement have to do with it? Assuming we're talking about the 1701 version.

 

There is primary legislation of direct relevance and effect which grants authority for the "Minister" to append or remove the old stuff and apart from in exceptional cases they have done. The 14 day "in one Parish" rule is long gone and is replaced with the 10 lock mile system held in the Ts & Cs of our licences.

 

Weren't there 79 boats impounded last year in the East Mids? I've seen at least 6 first hand, two of which were residential... Certainly where I moor the enforcement team are sh*t hot and don't give much slack once you're in their sights although admittedly E&W Mids are the teams where they trial things, hence the big clamp down in E Mids last year. The fact that BW haven't been driving round in cranes, as was their intention after last year's success, is due to their correctly anticipating further gaps in funding.

 

OTH I don't do PMs, not for this kinda thing anyhoo!

 

Finally, that Social Services chose to help a beleagured boater I would suspect had little relevance to their mooring status.

 

Oh Dear. Sorry, I had you confused with something else.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Tootles

[Chris Pink]

There is primary legislation of direct relevance and effect which grants authority for the "Minister" to append or remove the old stuff and apart from in exceptional cases they have done. The 14 day "in one Parish" rule is long gone and is replaced with the 10 lock mile system held in the Ts & Cs of our licences.

 

If you are going to claim precision in quoting legislation then;

 

There never was a "14 days in one parish" in any legislation

 

There is no mention of lock miles in the latest t and cs I have (october 2008) there is mention of such things in the so-called continuous cruising guidelines which also states that those guidelines do not have the force of law.

 

Whereas the various Acts since nationalisation repeal and amend other Acts, they do not automatically sweep away all other waterways law. in particular there is much vagueness over the applications of statute to the different classes of waterway. 'river waterways', 'cruising waterways' etc.

 

and a question;

 

you mention 2 cases of impounded residential boats. Are these boats that were actively lived on at the time? Did BW enforce Section 8 without a court order?

 

What is your understanding of whether they can tow away an actively lived on boat?

[Tim Doran]

On your latter point we are in agreement, but the fact of the matter is that the old law has been superseded. What does the Act of Settlement have to do with it? Assuming we're talking about the 1701 version.

 

There is primary legislation of direct relevance and effect which grants authority for the "Minister" to append or remove the old stuff and apart from in exceptional cases they have done. The 14 day "in one Parish" rule is long gone and is replaced with the 10 lock mile system held in the Ts & Cs of our licences.

 

Weren't there 79 boats impounded last year in the East Mids? I've seen at least 6 first hand, two of which were residential... Certainly where I moor the enforcement team are sh*t hot and don't give much slack once you're in their sights although admittedly E&W Mids are the teams where they trial things, hence the big clamp down in E Mids last year. The fact that BW haven't been driving round in cranes, as was their intention after last year's success, is due to their correctly anticipating further gaps in funding.

 

OTH I don't do PMs, not for this kinda thing anyhoo!

 

Finally, that Social Services chose to help a beleagured boater I would suspect had little relevance to their mooring status.

 

 

I have read through the guidelines and other than definitions taken from various sources to suit the mood there is no mention of distances. There are so many different methods of measuring distances and places that it a complete joke. For example there are 7 (i think might be 8) unitary areas between Bath and Hilperton.

 

Tim

[sueb]

If you aren't complying BW can get you removed from their waterways, as happened to someone on the G&S a year or so ago.

Sue