Licences revoked on K&A

[deletedaccount]

Actually, they could.

 

However, I suggested that to make their life easier, they might delay until the next renewal.

 

I've just checked and you're right as far as I can tell as long as the terms are not too onerous, which is debatable. For one thing It has a financial impact.

[Smelly]

For one thing It has a financial impact.

 

Doesn't all boating hold a financial impact? Cest la vie. It's been said many times "if you can't afford it" and although it's probably not a view I would wholly espouse there is the fact there that if you don't pay your dues, or don't "satisfy the board" that you otherwise need to, then you need to be capable of ducking and diving otherwise things will get hard.

 

Evidently down on the K&A there's not been much ducking or diving for a while, so people can't be too surprised when the powers that be start to come down on them.

 

We've spent a lot of time looking at how we could challenge the decision to revoke/impound, however might there be an art 8 ECHR challenge be mountable against the decision not to pay Housing Benefit for licence fees I wondeｒ？

 

Ｄｕｅ　ｔｏ　ｔｈｅ　ｉｌｌｅｇｉｂｌｅ　ｃｏｎｔｅｎｔ　Ｉ　ｗｉｌｌ　ｏｐｉｎｅ　ｎｏ　ｆｕｒｔｈｅｒ　：）

[magpie patrick]

We've spent a lot of time looking at how we could challenge the decision to revoke/impound, however might there be an art 8 ECHR challenge be mountable against the decision not to pay Housing Benefit for licence fees I wondeｒ？

 

I had thought the same...

 

Live in rented flat, no job, income support, housing fees paid in part at least

 

Government has given some security to those who catch a cold with the mortgage when losing their jobs

 

So why not boating costs if it's your home?

 

Anecdotal evidence, I know, but on the Macc when we were moored there there was a boater who had his license, mooring and insurance paid by the local social services, they reckoned it was cheaper than rehousing him

[Smelly]

I had thought the same...

 

Live in rented flat, no job, income support, housing fees paid in part at least

 

Government has given some security to those who catch a cold with the mortgage when losing their jobs

 

So why not boating costs if it's your home?

 

Anecdotal evidence, I know, but on the Macc when we were moored there there was a boater who had his license, mooring and insurance paid by the local social services, they reckoned it was cheaper than rehousing him

 

I've still never a good reason for their not paying HB for licence fees. I've heard it said by poeple in the know that they're counted as ineligible service charges and in fact it could be found they were if it weren't for the situation where legally they're not. You're paying for consent to use the water. the fact that that money is used for maintenance is subsidiary.

 

So I will let go what's been at the back of my mind for a while...

 

There was a discussion where the law around Travellers and Gypsies was drawn into account. With the help of Carl (ta) I tracked down some caselaw; unfortunately it wasn't material but I swore I'd heard the following reaasoning, with Travellers as opposed to Roma in mind, that people had chosen that life and so couldn't fall within art 14 ECHR discriminsation...

 

But I was wrong in thinking it was traveller law! It was in fact RJM

a case about a rough sleeper who, it was held was unlikely to fall within art 14 discrimination as he had made a choice to sleep rough as opposed to have a characteristic that founded the basis upon which he was being discriminated against.

 

Where does that leave us I wonder? A boater who has fallen on hard times did not choose so to be and that characteristic might be argued to hold, however a tenant heading through the eviction process in similar circumstances would have recourse to temporary housing, much as a boater would have... where's sufficient distinction to argue that it's about more than simply living on a boat? Does it need to be more? The lad in RJM could easily have dug himself out of the hole, and the potential discrimination was held, at appellate Court to be sufficiently justified and proportional to a policy of discouraging poeple to choose to sleep rough. I doubt there is any policy intent in scaring boaters off the water...

 

 

Ah... I've remembered, a tenant being evicted would still have access to subsistence benefits, i.e HB whereas the boater in the same position would not, therein lies a discrimination that could lend weight to an argument regarding the art 14 stuff, it almost circular; the denial of HB goes to strengthen the disparity between boater and landlubber, thus removing some element of choice. There's also a potential article 1 protocol one argument in the eventual denial of the boaters possesion, i.e. the boat.

 

I'd love to see this written down, but in this lies the denial of article 8 rights "private life" etc that could lend yet more strength... The denial of part of one's housing costs goes to strengthen an article 8 argument in this light.

 

On the offside, the A1P1 only really takes hold where, HB for instance is already in payment so the possession would need to be the boat, although Judges have said to me that de facto it is the denial at stake and not something akin to the eventual impounding of the boat.

 

Time to email NABO again methinks... I'd love to hear ideas here, I've just been thinking out loud really so it could be drivel, but I can see at least half a decent argument forming. I wonder whether NABO or RBOA fancy coughing up counsel's fees when it gets to ECHR?? I can't afford it

 

I'll edit the "choice" bit of this but am being sent to the offy...

 

Duly edited I am still unsure and would need to discuss further, but at least it's out there now.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Smelly

[David Schweizer]

I had thought the same...

 

Live in rented flat, no job, income support, housing fees paid in part at least

 

Government has given some security to those who catch a cold with the mortgage when losing their jobs

 

So why not boating costs if it's your home?

 

Anecdotal evidence, I know, but on the Macc when we were moored there there was a boater who had his license, mooring and insurance paid by the local social services, they reckoned it was cheaper than rehousing him

It may no longer be the case but a few years ago, there were several boaters on the K&A in the Bath/Bradford on Avon Area having their licence or mooring fees met, or assisted by Social Services, but in the few cases I know of, there were also young children involved.

 

I am not sure whether the system would extend to single fit young childless males.

[Chris Pink]

I am not sure whether the system would extend to single fit young childless males.

 

Where do you get the idea this is about 'single fit young childless males'?

 

I think you'll find that whereas they might be in fact the majority grouping this is by no means a description of the group of people you are discussing.

[Smelly]

I am not sure whether the system would extend to single fit young childless males.

 

HB doesn't make the discrimination, it's simply about income.

[Tootles]

What utter twadle!

 

The 14 day rule for CCers derives from the British Waterways Act 1995, and has supplanted any previous rules that may (or may not) hacve gone before.

 

Talking pseudo-legalistic bull-excrement about ancient and long-gone legislation may well be amusing when talking about shooting Welshmen, but it is only of use here to allow those who have chosen not to play by the rules to waste the time of the courts (and our tax money) in trying to get a free ride.

 

I take it you were suffering from acute verbal constipation when you jotted that down? If you really want to see people who are getting a free ride, pop down to Dukinfield Magistrates Court any day of the week, you only live around the corner.

The object of what I said was pure debate, nothing more or less. Pure conjecture, to be discussed by like minded people in a friendly manner.

[mayalld]

I take it you were suffering from acute verbal constipation when you jotted that down? If you really want to see people who are getting a free ride, pop down to Dukinfield Magistrates Court any day of the week, you only live around the corner.

 

I suspect that I will see little.

 

Dukinfield Magistrates Court closed some years ago.

[Tootles]

I suspect that I will see little.

 

Dukinfield Magistrates Court closed some years ago.

 

:lol: :lol: Well, crime dosent pay then.

[David Schweizer]

Quote "Where do you get the idea this is about 'single fit young childless males'? " Quote

 

From Local Authority Housing policy, who's points system prioritises disabled people and couples/lone parents with children. Perhaps I made a mistake referring to Social Services, it may be the Housing Department, although I have always understood that they are supposed to work in co-operation with each other on re-housing practice.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Quote "HB doesn't make the discrimination, it's simply about income." Quote

 

I was referring to assistance being given by the Local Authority, which does discriminate on a range of "Social Need" criteria. AFAIK Housing Benefit comes from National Social Security which is means tested, although my reading does suggest there are criteria other than income which are taken into account

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Any way this diversion is getting away from the main point, that some people do get assistance with their accomodation costs living on a boat from public funds, either National or Local.

 

This is not a judgement on my part, merely a statement of facts as I understand them.

Edited August 18, 2009 by David Schweizer

[benjamino]

Hum this is a bit worrying. I was intending to CC on the K&A between Bath and Devizes - and was hoping that would be a large enough distance to satisfy them. I appreciate it is larger than the Bath-Hilperton area in question but seems like I could probably get painted with the same brush.

 

Anyway - wondering how having a marina mooring would effect this. If you have a marina mooring (non-residential) can you just tell that to BW and they'll stay off your back if you stay in the same 'area'? How long do you need to stay in the mooring to get away with staying roughly in the same area (bath-devizes) when you leave the mooring? Obviously I'd still be honoring the 14 day rule, but would perhaps spend 3 months in the winter on the mooring and then cruise up a down a few times (over several months) returning the mooring to drop off the radar for a while. The question is how long do you have to drop off the radar in the mooring to avoid this 'staying in the same area' attack?

[Smelly]

Quote "HB doesn't make the discrimination, it's simply about income." Quote

 

I was referring to assistance being given by the Local Authority, which does discriminate on a range of "Social Need" criteria. AFAIK Housing Benefit comes from National Social Security which is means tested, although my reading does suggest there are criteria other than income which are taken into account

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Any way this diversion is getting away from the main point, that some people do get assistance with their accomodation costs living on a boat from public funds, either National or Local.

 

1) I was agreeing with you David. HB is solely an "Income Related benefit" to borrow the statutory term. How much of that income is taken into account depends on your social circumstances, but if you've a wife and kids that would make sense. income is at the centre of it though.

 

2) There are two principal avenues, first via HB where your single fit... etc person will get something toward their moorings but not licence as the law stands, and second Social Services who have a very broad discretion based on individual team/authorities' priorities and budgets. The latter is to whom you were, so I believe referring earlier and I think you were spot on.

 

Hum this is a bit worrying. I was intending to CC on the K&A between Bath and Devizes - and was hoping that would be a large enough distance to satisfy them. I appreciate it is larger than the Bath-Hilperton area in question but seems like I could probably get painted with the same brush.

 

Anyway - wondering how having a marina mooring would effect this. If you have a marina mooring (non-residential) can you just tell that to BW and they'll stay off your back if you stay in the same 'area'? How long do you need to stay in the mooring to get away with staying roughly in the same area (bath-devizes) when you leave the mooring? Obviously I'd still be honoring the 14 day rule, but would perhaps spend 3 months in the winter on the mooring and then cruise up a down a few times (over several months) returning the mooring to drop off the radar for a while. The question is how long do you have to drop off the radar in the mooring to avoid this 'staying in the same area' attack?

 

An irony of the whole scheme is there seems to be no requirement that you actually stay on a mooring, just that you've got one upon which to keep the boat. I'd imagine that loophole is how so many paper moorings came about. On a strict reading of the law if you've a mooring there is no fetter on how long you stop somewhere else unless there is a sign telling you how long you can stay.

 

Government has given some security to those who catch a cold with the mortgage when losing their jobs

 

So why not boating costs if it's your home?

 

i was so busy staring at my own belly button yesterday i missed this. If you read it askance, the whole rent/mortgage assistance scheme is about "Housing Costs" which arguably a licence is. From this point of view an argument that people "chose" to buy their own homes would counter the "choosing" the living on a boat. Hmmm.

 

My question elsewhere about whether EA boats are liable for council tax takes even more relevance as the licence is more akin to Council tax than mortgage interest to my mind...

Edited August 18, 2009 by Smelly

[mayalld]

Hum this is a bit worrying. I was intending to CC on the K&A between Bath and Devizes - and was hoping that would be a large enough distance to satisfy them. I appreciate it is larger than the Bath-Hilperton area in question but seems like I could probably get painted with the same brush.

 

Anyway - wondering how having a marina mooring would effect this. If you have a marina mooring (non-residential) can you just tell that to BW and they'll stay off your back if you stay in the same 'area'? How long do you need to stay in the mooring to get away with staying roughly in the same area (bath-devizes) when you leave the mooring? Obviously I'd still be honoring the 14 day rule, but would perhaps spend 3 months in the winter on the mooring and then cruise up a down a few times (over several months) returning the mooring to drop off the radar for a while. The question is how long do you have to drop off the radar in the mooring to avoid this 'staying in the same area' attack?

 

It is clear that BW regard cruising the whole length of the K&A as being borderline at best, and despite knowing that, you are seeking not to make a good faith attempt to comply, but to find ways of keeping off their radar, which doesn't sit well with me.

 

However, if you genuinely have a real marina mooring (as opposed to a "paper" mooring that you actually share with 30 other boats), and spend some time there, you will not be licenced as a CCer, and you will be within the rules

[benjamino]

It is clear that BW regard cruising the whole length of the K&A as being borderline at best, and despite knowing that, you are seeking not to make a good faith attempt to comply, but to find ways of keeping off their radar, which doesn't sit well with me.

Well the truth of the matter is I am realising that the way I would like to use the canals isn't going to be classified as continuous cruising, so I can't attempt to comply without moving the boat to other areas of the network - which I'm not in a position to do. Therefore I'm seeking to find a legitimate situation that isn't breaking any rules and still allows me to use the canal how I'd like. I.e I'm looking at ways of working with the system, not against it.

 

However, if you genuinely have a real marina mooring (as opposed to a "paper" mooring that you actually share with 30 other boats), and spend some time there, you will not be licenced as a CCer, and you will be within the rules

 

I have the mooring right now, its a real birth in a real marina and I'd even be happy to spend a fair portion of the year moored up there if it would help me not be classified as spending too long in the same area. Please don't mistake my question for how to evade the system, I just want to get along with BW and stay out of their way, I have no intention of breaking any rules.

 

I'm very pleased to hear that having a mooring is what is necessary to not be forced to cruise the whole network as if that wasn't the case I'd have to find a residential mooring or throw in the towel for the whole waterways lifestyle which I'm so longing for!

[Chris Pink]

Well the truth of the matter is I am realising that the way I would like to use the canals isn't going to be classified as continuous cruising, so I can't attempt to comply without moving the boat to other areas of the network - which I'm not in a position to do. Therefore I'm seeking to find a legitimate situation that isn't breaking any rules and still allows me to use the canal how I'd like. I.e I'm looking at ways of working with the system, not against it.

 

That's the whole issue in a nutshell, you are allowed to use the canals how you want to unless you break the law.

 

No matter what Dave 'I'm a broken record' Mayall or British Waterways "guidance for continuous moorers" tells you, what you have to do is stay within the law and satisfy BW that you stay within the law.

 

And then, yes, you can use the canals exactly as you want to.

 

as an aside (but relevant)

 

a friend, who is having problems 'satisfying the board', has been offered a mooring about 60 miles from where he lives and navigates (no tender btw, offered). When he complained that he does not have a life in that area, that his children and work are somewhere else he was told that he didn't have to use the mooring (at all), just pay for it and further that housing benefit would pay fo ri t.

 

That, to my mind, is not playing within in the rules, it is extortion. It is also back door sanction by BW of the so-called 'paper moorings'.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Chris Pink

[mayalld]

That's the whole issue in a nutshell, you are allowed to use the canals how you want to unless you break the law.

 

No matter what Dave 'I'm a broken record' Mayall or British Waterways "guidance for continuous moorers" tells you, what you have to do is stay within the law and satisfy BW that you stay within the law.

 

And then, yes, you can use the canals exactly as you want to.

 

What I say 3 times is true??

 

British Waterways produce no document entitled "guidance for continuous moorers"

[Chris Pink]

British Waterways produce no document entitled "guidance for continuous moorers"

 

Just teasing you, Mr Mayall.

[tomandsophie]

Hum this is a bit worrying. I was intending to CC on the K&A between Bath and Devizes - and was hoping that would be a large enough distance to satisfy them. I appreciate it is larger than the Bath-Hilperton area in question but seems like I could probably get painted with the same brush.

 

Anyway - wondering how having a marina mooring would effect this. If you have a marina mooring (non-residential) can you just tell that to BW and they'll stay off your back if you stay in the same 'area'? How long do you need to stay in the mooring to get away with staying roughly in the same area (bath-devizes) when you leave the mooring? Obviously I'd still be honoring the 14 day rule, but would perhaps spend 3 months in the winter on the mooring and then cruise up a down a few times (over several months) returning the mooring to drop off the radar for a while. The question is how long do you have to drop off the radar in the mooring to avoid this 'staying in the same area' attack?

 

This is exactly what we used to do. We had a mooring during the summer (on the river) and then spent the remaining 8 months or so cruising around between Bath and Bradford on Avon. Because we didn't have a CC licence we were never given any trouble. However, last year we didn't get a mooring on the river as we were saving money to go away travelling, so we had to get a CC licence. We did exactly what we used to do (i.e. moving every 14 days to the next parish and not returning for several months) and we got threatening notices from BW. I must say, when we started out living on the boat 4 years ago I felt ambivolent towards BW - I didn't dislike them nor did I particularly love them. These days we pay around £650 a year for our licence, get pretty much nothing for it (i.e. rubbish non-maintained services and non-dredged canal and non-maintained banks to moor to), and we get threats from the people we pay all the money too. The b*stards. Grr.

I didn't want to get involved in this conversation but I couldn't quite help myself! We stay perfectly within the law and yet BW feel that it is their right to threaten us. If I could still stay within the law and not pay my licence fee I would readily make a point of doing so. British Waterways should be serving their customers from whom they get their revenue, not shaking the iron fist at them. I think it might be time to find a non-BW waterway.

[mayalld]

Just teasing you, Mr Mayall.

 

No, you are indulging in your favourite hobby, of trying to make words mean what you say they mean, rather than what everybody else agrees they mean.

 

"Continuous moorer" is a term that you play fast and loose with on a regular basis

[alan_fincher]

These days we pay around £650 a year for our licence, get pretty much nothing for it (i.e. rubbish non-maintained services and non-dredged canal and non-maintained banks to moor to), and we get threats from the people we pay all the money too. The b*stards. Grr.

Well, you do actually get the potential use of a lot of canal to float your boat in, and, if you ever venture through locks, you really do use up a surprisingly large amount of water that BW have to keep replacing, as people move boats about.

 

However badly maintained the channel and locks, a boat license is a comparatively cheap thing compared to what it can entitle you to, (and yes I know some people choose to get far more out of boat license than others do.......).

 

It's moorings that are too bloody expensive, in my view, but that's just my view, I'll admit.

[Naughty Cal]

Well, you do actually get the potential use of a lot of canal to float your boat in, and, if you ever venture through locks, you really do use up a surprisingly large amount of water that BW have to keep replacing, as people move boats about.

 

However badly maintained the channel and locks, a boat license is a comparatively cheap thing compared to what it can entitle you to, (and yes I know some people choose to get far more out of boat license than others do.......).

 

It's moorings that are too bloody expensive, in my view, but that's just my view, I'll admit.

 

I dont think anyone can really complain about the cost of a license. Look at what you get if you make the most out of the waterways. Free moorings, showers, toilets, water, waste disposal, use of miles of canals and rivers, lock keeprs where needed on tidal sections. I think the trick is to make the most of your fees and travel the system, not resticting yourself to one small stretch of water. We paid £240 this year (not a lot i know) and we feel we have made good use of that money and have had good value for money.

[dor]

This is exactly what we used to do. We had a mooring during the summer (on the river) and then spent the remaining 8 months or so cruising around between Bath and Bradford on Avon. Because we didn't have a CC licence we were never given any trouble.

BW may well have this one in there sights. A few yers ago a boat had a cheap mooring near Nantwich, but spent its life shuffling around in Chester. BW refused to renew the mooring once they worked out what was going on.

Edited August 20, 2009 by dor

[Chris Pink]

BW may well have this one in there sights. A few yers ago a boat had a cheap mooring near Nantwich, but spent its life shuffling around in Chester. BW refused to renew the mooring once they worked out what was going on.

 

Well if you read Section 17 carefully you'll see that BW had no right to take that action.

 

the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably

be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland

waterway or elsewhere

 

of course I think the real reason is that the boat was the wrong colour. We have heard rumour coming from a reputable source in BW that red boats are being actively. targeted

Edited August 20, 2009 by Chris Pink

[dor]

Well if you read Section 17 carefully you'll see that BW had no right to take that action.

I thought BW could choose to not renew a mooring permit if they saw fit. None of us have a right to a BW mooring. Even if you have a mooring permit for a particular location, you are not guaranteed a particular spot within that location.