Live-aboard but no residential moorings.

[Lady Muck]

TICR ?

 

Please translate - clearly not "Training in Clinical Research" which is the most common answer Google seems to want to give!

 

 

Not what BW think on Boaters Guides on Waterscape, by the way....

 

Visitor moorings

River Lee

Ware: Maximum 14d.

Hertford Town: Maximum 14d.

Stanstead Abbotts: Maximum 48h.

Feilde's Weir: Maximum 14d.

Carthagena Lock: Maximum 14d.

Broxbourne: Maximum 24 hours.

Cheshunt: Maximum 14d.

Rammey Marsh Lock: Maximum 14d.

Enfield Lock: Maximum 48h.

 

Those 3 short stay moorings you highlighted - they're not popular spots for liveaboards, at all. I wouldn't hang around at Enfield for more than an hour and there are nicer spots than the other too as well. Hmm, I think we're gonna end up with more 48 hour moorings.

[mayalld]

...which is covered by the licence fee. If you think it is ok for BW to charge twice, for the same service then I would suggest you are closer to Pavlov's dogs than I previously thought.

 

They aren't charging twice for the same service.

 

They are charging once for the basic service, with an additional charge for a premium add-on.

 

Just as I can park outside my house free (having bought my car tax), but I have to put money in a parking meter if I want to park in Manchester

[Cinimod]

I think that the Basingstoke it 72 hour on the entire length, but also seems to indicate that you need to buy a separate licence to go on there in the first place...

Oh - as well as calling ahead to get them to unlock the locks!

[carlt]

They aren't charging twice for the same service.

 

They are charging once for the basic service, with an additional charge for a premium add-on.

 

Just as I can park outside my house free (having bought my car tax), but I have to put money in a parking meter if I want to park in Manchester

So you'd agree that (using your analogy),

 

1) if they put meters outside your house you should get a free residents permit and..

2) Putting yellow lines and parking meters (with a time restriction) in places where there is no demand for parking, is unfair?

[Naughty Cal]

So you'd agree that (using your analogy),

 

1) if they put meters outside your house you should get a free residents permit and..

2) Putting yellow lines and parking meters (with a time restriction) in places where there is no demand for parking, is unfair?

 

They did that in some areas of Sheffield and the residents permits are not free

[mayalld]

So you'd agree that (using your analogy),

 

1) if they put meters outside your house you should get a free residents permit and..

 

No, I don't

 

2) Putting yellow lines and parking meters (with a time restriction) in places where there is no demand for parking, is unfair?

 

Yes, but is this actually being proposed?

 

In any case, if BW charge for moorings where nobody wants to moor, surely, nobody will have to pay.

[carlt]

Yes, but is this actually being proposed?

 

In any case, if BW charge for moorings where nobody wants to moor, surely, nobody will have to pay.

I don't know what's being proposed. I thought we were discussing living aboard but no residential moorings.

 

If the OP has a long term mooring, in, for example, Braunston, the 14 day rule would not apply, if he moors in or near Oxford, on the tow path, away from any formal mooring spots, with no services or facilities...

[Cinimod]

I don't know what's being proposed. I thought we were discussing living aboard but no residential moorings.

 

If the OP has a long term mooring, in, for example, Braunston, the 14 day rule would not apply, if he moors in or near Oxford, on the tow path, away from any formal mooring spots, with no services or facilities...

 

Does this then bring us to the question of where are the lowest cost moorings?

 

Theoretically people could say they have a mooring and stay as long as you want on what is usually considered a 14 day section?

 

That seems like bending the rules about as far as they can go - surely?

 

We thought that even if you had a permanent mooring somewhere - you can not stay anywhere for more than 14 days without exceptional reasons.

[mayalld]

I don't know what's being proposed. I thought we were discussing living aboard but no residential moorings.

 

The discussion has widened rather since the opening post.

 

If the OP has a long term mooring, in, for example, Braunston, the 14 day rule would not apply, if he moors in or near Oxford, on the tow path, away from any formal mooring spots, with no services or facilities...

 

I would agree that the 14 day rule from s17 of the 1995 Act would not apply.

 

However, s43 of the 1962 act gives BW a right to regulate the use of the waterways by boats, and they are at liberty to impose a 14 day limit under that Act, which they have done.

 

Trying to claim that the lack of any services or facilities at the site means that the 1962 act doesn't apply is plain wrong. The 1962 Act is explicit that merely using the canal is a "facility or service" for the purposes of the Act.

[Naughty Cal]

We thought that even if you had a permanent mooring somewhere - you can not stay anywhere for more than 14 days without exceptional reasons.

 

I too thought that was the case.

 

Maybe not

 

Editted: because Dave gave me the answer i was looking for

Edited January 26, 2010 by Phylis

[mayalld]

Does this then bring us to the question of where are the lowest cost moorings?

 

Theoretically people could say they have a mooring and stay as long as you want on what is usually considered a 14 day section?

 

That seems like bending the rules about as far as they can go - surely?

 

We thought that even if you had a permanent mooring somewhere - you can not stay anywhere for more than 14 days without exceptional reasons.

 

That is the case.

 

Some, however, imagine loopholes in the law that simply don't exist.

[carlt]

However, s43 of the 1962 act gives BW a right to regulate the use of the waterways by boats, and they are at liberty to impose a 14 day limit under that Act, which they have done.

In a document that they concede does not have the weight of law....

 

However, s43 of the 1962 act gives BW a right to regulate the use of the waterways by boats, and they are at liberty to impose a 14 day limit under that Act, which they have done.

If they really think that s43 gives them the right, why do they waffle on about the common law of trespass, then?

 

Even the people you are conditioned to defend are not confident of their position.

 

Some, however, imagine loopholes in the law that simply don't exist.

Sorry Dave but it is BW that utilise loopholes in order to invent rules that don't exist.

 

Does this then bring us to the question of where are the lowest cost moorings?

 

Theoretically people could say they have a mooring and stay as long as you want on what is usually considered a 14 day section?

 

That seems like bending the rules about as far as they can go - surely?

No the laws are so unclear that BW attempts to impose reinterpretations.

 

I happen to believe that legislation should be introduced that is clear, concise and fair.

 

The law, as it stands, is so open to interpretation and "bending" by BW, as much as boaters, that it is worthless.

[mayalld]

In a document that they concede does not have the weight of law....

 

Sorry, but you have utterly lost me now.

 

The Document that BW concedes doesn't have the force of Law is the CCing guidelines. It is simply a statement of what they require to be "satisfied" for the purposes of s17, and could be overturned by a court if it could be shown to be unreasonable.

 

But we are talking here about the general regulation of casual mooring under s43 of the 1962 Act, which undoubtedly does have the force of law.

 

If they really think that s43 gives them the right, why do they waffle on about the common law of trespass, then?

 

Without seeing where they say this, I can't really say.

[Chris Pink]

But we are talking here about the general regulation of casual mooring under s43 of the 1962 Act, which undoubtedly does have the force of law.

 

 

Given everything you have said on this thread and banged on about at length in the past, answer me a question please Dave.

 

What is the point of Section 17 (3) and (4), given that you are happy to quote various other pieces of law which say they don't need the sanctions or conditions in this piece of law? And why did it take so long to go through Parliament given this superfluity?

 

BW don't, according to my reading of your assertions, need to have the either/or of Section 17(3) because, you assert, they can attach any condition to the holding of a licence, be that a requirement for a home mooring or a lime green paint job.

 

And that magic little word that you appear to have ignored completely - or - which separates the 2 clauses of this section. I don't really see what purpose this has. Please explain why this word is there given that BW (again according to your assertions) could easily make this and in their terms and conditions.

 

Also, while we are stretching your mind, I notice that you have failed to give any answer to Carl's point that if BW were so confident about the efficacy of the 1962 Act they would be sure to use it in court actions.

 

Or maybe, as so many times in the past, you will just slope off having completely failed to convince anyone, BW, NABO, this forum, with your arguments on these issues. Is this, as Tomsk once put it, one of your lime green moments.

[mayalld]

Given everything you have said on this thread and banged on about at length in the past, answer me a question please Dave.

 

What is the point of Section 17 (3) and (4), given that you are happy to quote various other pieces of law which say they don't need the sanctions or conditions in this piece of law? And why did it take so long to go through Parliament given this superfluity?

 

BW don't, according to my reading of your assertions, need to have the either/or of Section 17(3) because, you assert, they can attach any condition to the holding of a licence, be that a requirement for a home mooring or a lime green paint job.

 

And that magic little word that you appear to have ignored completely - or - which separates the 2 clauses of this section. I don't really see what purpose this has. Please explain why this word is there given that BW (again according to your assertions) could easily make this and in their terms and conditions.

 

Also, while we are stretching your mind, I notice that you have failed to give any answer to Carl's point that if BW were so confident about the efficacy of the 1962 Act they would be sure to use it in court actions.

 

Or maybe, as so many times in the past, you will just slope off having completely failed to convince anyone, BW, NABO, this forum, with your arguments on these issues. Is this, as Tomsk once put it, one of your lime green moments.

 

I wasn't aware that I'm trying to convince BW, and I'm realistic enough to accept that an organisation that has often been antagonistic to any rule restricting what boaters can do won't be convinced.

 

I'm dissapointed that you should invoke the name of the bully here. You and I may disagree, and disagree with considerable animation on both sides, but that disagreement doesn't descend to the way that he behaves.

 

As to why have the stuff in the 1995 Act;

 

The requirements laid down by the 1995 Act and the requirements that they lay down for all boaters are different.

 

For the boater who has no home mooring, their interpretation of the requirement (and unless overruled by a court, their interpretation holds sway) is that in 14 days town, you must be in a different town or village to the one where you are now.

 

For the boater with a home mooring, the rule is simply that you must not remain on the same mooring for more than 14 days.

 

So, for example, as a boater who has a home mooring, I could moor on the 14 day moorings at one end of town for 14 days, then 48 hours on the moorings close to the centre, and finally 14 days at the other end of town. A boater who has no home mooring wouldn't be allowed to do that.

 

An finally, why have they never used it in court. Why would they have?

[carlt]

For the boater with a home mooring, the rule is simply that you must not remain on the same mooring for more than 14 days.

 

So, for example, as a boater who has a home mooring, I could moor on the 14 day moorings at one end of town for 14 days, then 48 hours on the moorings close to the centre, and finally 14 days at the other end of town. A boater who has no home mooring wouldn't be allowed to do that.

So the answer, for the OP, is to get a cheap mooring, anywhere in the country, a letter from their parents saying the boat can be stored on their drive or rent a bit of industrial estate hardstanding and "bridge hopping" is legal and acceptable?

 

Something I have said for a long time and illustrating, perfectly, why the law, as it stands, is ridiculous and needs amending.

 

 

 

An finally, why have they never used it in court. Why would they have?

Because of their eagerness to pacify the whingers who object to other peoples' lifestyles.

 

If BW had some means to solve the, perceived, bridge hopping problem, through a clear, legal process, they would have done it, rather than constantly trying to redefine bits of legislation that doesn't say what they want it to say.

[mikevye]

As bogged down as this topic has become in the whys and wherefores of legislation the basic fact of the OPs question remains, that being the total lack of regard by some members of the boating community to any legislation. There can't be a boating member on the forum that doesn't know of one boat that has been moored in the same spot seemingly forever sometimes with a licence but invariably without a mooring licence and the owner of the boat would appear not to give a monkeys about section ? sub section x paragraph 2. Until BW enforce their own legislation you can argue as much as you like about rules and regulations but it will be to no avail.

[Chris Pink]

The requirements laid down by the 1995 Act and the requirements that they lay down for all boaters are different.

 

For the boater who has no home mooring, their interpretation of the requirement (and unless overruled by a court, their interpretation holds sway) is that in 14 days town, you must be in a different town or village to the one where you are now.

 

For the boater with a home mooring, the rule is simply that you must not remain on the same mooring for more than 14 days.

 

So, for example, as a boater who has a home mooring, I could moor on the 14 day moorings at one end of town for 14 days, then 48 hours on the moorings close to the centre, and finally 14 days at the other end of town. A boater who has no home mooring wouldn't be allowed to do that.

 

What is rationale for BW behind this interpretation of the rules?

 

An absurd interpretation that BW even in its most despotic moments has yet to come up with?

 

As one who quotes rules so often you must realise that a rule has to firstly have a purpose and secondly be consistent and fair, two tests that your statement above fails completely.

 

There can't be a boating member on the forum that doesn't know of one boat that has been moored in the same spot seemingly forever sometimes with a licence but invariably without a mooring licence and the owner of the boat would appear not to give a monkeys about section ? sub section x paragraph 2. Until BW enforce their own legislation you can argue as much as you like about rules and regulations but it will be to no avail.

 

It's all right Mike, don't worry, when they deal with this boat, they'll still be something for you to moan about.

 

Get a life, do. Envy of someone who is pretty well down near the bottom of society's ladder does you no favours at all.

[Naughty Cal]

It's all right Mike, don't worry, when they deal with this boat, they'll still be something for you to moan about.

 

Get a life, do. Envy of someone who is pretty well down near the bottom of society's ladder does you no favours at all.

 

I dont see where Mike has said he is envious of these boaters.

 

It is more of an annoyance, when the vast majority of the boating community play by the rules, then the minority attempt to "play" the system and avoid paying their way.

[Chris Pink]

hen the minority attempt to "play" the system and avoid paying their way.

 

Moaning about somebody 'getting something for nothing' is envy in my book.

 

How can it be an 'annoyance'? - if geezer had the proper paperwork his behaviour would not affect you any differently.

[Naughty Cal]

Moaning about somebody 'getting something for nothing' is envy in my book.

 

How can it be an 'annoyance'? - if geezer had the proper paperwork his behaviour would not affect you any differently.

 

Come off it Chris

[deletedaccount]

Come off it Chris

 

It's a fair argument.

 

It doesn't affect you in the slightest.

[Naughty Cal]

It's a fair argument.

 

It doesn't affect you in the slightest.

 

It affects us all. Whilst BW is wasting time, money and effort to round up these non payers, they are spending our money.

[Chris Pink]

Come off it Chris

 

Spot the difference;

[Naughty Cal]

Spot the difference;

 

One has its licence removed?

 

Maybe we should all just not pay for our licence, turn into continuous moorers and refuse to move on request.

 

It seems to be acceptable practice