CCing and BW's interpretation of the law

[Smelly]

N

.

 

One thing we can be sure of with this new Coalition Government is that they will not give much credence to ¡mass lobbying from those who oppose clarification (as was the case with the 1995 Act) if it stands in the way of what they want to achieve , and they will almost undoubtably pursue the arguement put forward by BW.

 

Interesting times are ahead of us.

 

That comment interests me... Although I.was busy inspiring the 94 CJA.when the action against the BW bill occurred, my understanding was that the lobbying was intended to prevent criminalisation of residential boating and to.prevent a requirement that every craft have a moorings or be in jeopardy of destruction.

 

That's a tad more than " clarification"...

[mayalld]

I have been reading this website,

 

http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/

 

articles on it are suggesting that Britih Waterways guidance on CCing is not in line with the 1995 British Waterways Act.

 

Can I ask what peoples view of this is are?

 

Well, it is hardly surprising to find that an organisation which is pitched at boaters who have no permanent mooring, but travel backwards and forwards along a fairly limited section of canal would suggest that!

 

To fail to do so would be to admit that their entire membership is breaking the rules.

 

The 1995 Act requires a boater to "satisfy the board" that he will be engaged if "bona fide navigation".

 

So, it is for the Board IN THE FIRST INSTANCE to set out what it requires to be "satisfied" that somebody will be engaged in "bona fide navigation", and that is what the board has done in publishing the guidance.

 

Now, clearly, parliament in giving the board the authority to determine what was required to satisy them did not intend to give the board carte blanche to set out any rule they wanted, so for example, a requirement that CCers adopt "traditional" boatmans costumes would be going beyond the powers that they have been given.

 

So, if BW introduced such a rule as a requirement to be met in order to satisfy them, and refused a licence on the grounds that the boater didn't like moleskin trousers, the boater could go to court and ask the court to rule that BW was acting ultra vires.

 

The key point is that the rules BW have made stand, and they can refuse or withdraw a licence on the basis that they won't be or have not been followed, unless and until a court says that they have exceeded the powers that are available to them.

 

People can bleat about the guidelines being invalid all they like, but until one of the bleaters takes BW to court to force them to issue a licence, the rules stand.

[Chris Pink]

Well, it is hardly surprising to find that an organisation which is pitched at boaters who have no permanent mooring, but travel backwards and forwards along a fairly limited section of canal would suggest that!

 

To fail to do so would be to admit that their entire membership is breaking the rules.

 

The 1995 Act requires a boater to "satisfy the board" that he will be engaged if "bona fide navigation".

 

So, it is for the Board IN THE FIRST INSTANCE to set out what it requires to be "satisfied" that somebody will be engaged in "bona fide navigation", and that is what the board has done in publishing the guidance.

 

Now, clearly, parliament in giving the board the authority to determine what was required to satisy them did not intend to give the board carte blanche to set out any rule they wanted, so for example, a requirement that CCers adopt "traditional" boatmans costumes would be going beyond the powers that they have been given.

 

So, if BW introduced such a rule as a requirement to be met in order to satisfy them, and refused a licence on the grounds that the boater didn't like moleskin trousers, the boater could go to court and ask the court to rule that BW was acting ultra vires.

 

The key point is that the rules BW have made stand, and they can refuse or withdraw a licence on the basis that they won't be or have not been followed, unless and until a court says that they have exceeded the powers that are available to them.

 

People can bleat about the guidelines being invalid all they like, but until one of the bleaters takes BW to court to force them to issue a licence, the rules stand.

 

 

I have to admire your verbal gymastics at avoiding the 'lime green boat' pratfall, although in pragmatic terms your thesis, whilst it can be logically argued, ignores what really happens.

 

BW think a (liveaboard) boat isn't complying, they refuse a licence,the boater says 'o well', BW issue a Section 8 for 'unauthorised mooring' which BW then have to take to court to enforce

 

BW have yet to do this in a court that sets precedent so it has to happen again anf again on individual circumstances. It doesn't take much thought to drive a bus through this process and continue to live on a boat.

 

Your assumption that that boatingcommunity website is purely for those boaters who have an itinerant lifestyle is wrong, it is my understanding that it is pitched at anyone who uses the canal.

[mayalld]

I have to admire your verbal gymastics at avoiding the 'lime green boat' pratfall, although in pragmatic terms your thesis, whilst it can be logically argued, ignores what really happens.

 

BW think a (liveaboard) boat isn't complying, they refuse a licence,the boater says 'o well', BW issue a Section 8 for 'unauthorised mooring' which BW then have to take to court to enforce

 

BW have yet to do this in a court that sets precedent so it has to happen again anf again on individual circumstances. It doesn't take much thought to drive a bus through this process and continue to live on a boat.

 

Your assumption that that boatingcommunity website is purely for those boaters who have an itinerant lifestyle is wrong, it is my understanding that it is pitched at anyone who uses the canal.

 

Your love of finding ways to allow selfish people to do whatever they want, and bugger the rights of anybody else to enjoy the canals are well known.

 

My assumptions about the boating community website seem to be sensible ones, given the tone which is adopted towards leisure users of the K&A on that site.

 

Your assertion that it is for anybody who uses the canal is about as believable as the BNP's claims that asian members are welcome to join.

[n.b.Goldie]

Sorry but why bring me into it?

 

There are good and bad travellers and I have no more or less sympathy with them than any other sector of society.

 

I can point you to more than one parish, near to me, though, that have positively welcomed travellers, in the past and their contribution to the local economy.

 

I have a letter from a Parish Council Chairman that applauds their local traveller community saying that they are genuinely helpful, around the village, and their contributions led to record takings, at the village fete and the local shop had never been busier.

 

Also, if you moor at Barby, and take a walk to the village, down Elkington Lane, you will pass a bench, paid for jointly, by the travellers and villagers, dedicated to a traveller who tragically died, when his trailer caught fire.

 

Not everybody is unwelcoming.

The above is why I 'brought you into it', as an example of a fellow who displays few if any prejudices, is thoughtful and puts forward reasoned arguments, unlike some of our protesters. I meant no offence.

[churchward]

Perhaps they could fund some offline CCer only marinas with suitable facilities.

Ditchdabbler

Um yer 'aving a larf! Marinas for CCers? isn't that akin to an Oxy Moron?

[Tiny]

Seeing CC I thought this thread was about CCTV cameras and wondered if BW were going to spend a fortune on them to improve Health and safety on the towpath by prosecuting cyclists who transgress the BW code. Then I remembered that they might have to do themselves for illegally mixing cyclists and walkers on too narrow towpaths (according to the Sustrans mixed use rules) so forget the whole thing. (O that H&S did take BW to court on this one.)

 

But, dream on, this is yet another Continuous Cruiser thread - the sort of boater 'divide and we conquer' subject that Robbin Robin and his mates - paid more than the heads of MI5 or MI6 just love for us to get our teeth into rather than discussing their failings.

[n.b.Goldie]

Um yer 'aving a larf! Marinas for CCers? isn't that akin to an Oxy Moron?

Well, possibly. I wonder how much travelling the land based 'travellers' do. Probably less than our CCers. I was only seeking to point out that our CCers are discriminated against compared to land based 'travellers'.

 

Anyway, the CCers could CC from marina to marina.

[carlt]

The above is why I 'brought you into it', as an example of a fellow who displays few if any prejudices, is thoughtful and puts forward reasoned arguments, unlike some of our protesters. I meant no offence.

I understand that no offence was meant but I promised myself I wouldn't post in this thread and you drew me out of my bunker.

[KeithL]

With a six foot drop from bankside to water, (iron pilings, concrete, barely any ladders and raw sewage to boot), if you fall in there, it is nigh on impossible to get out.

 

Sounds like a lovely spot to moor up

[Lady Muck]

Sounds like a lovely spot to moor up

 

I don't get it either. I know that some boaters 'hide' because they think the patrol officers won't see them in certain places, (they will, TBH), but this is possibly the worst place to moor in London. Last time I was down there there was a dead kitten floating around on a 'mat' made of raw sewage and duck weed. Niiiiice!

[ymu]

There is a big local debate going on in our neck of the woods over a new 'Travellers' site being proposed at Simpson. Understandably the locals are upset about it, most of them are not as understanding as our good friend Carlt might be.

 

Our council is telling us that they have a statutory duty to provide sites for travellers and the local population must put up with it for the good of the community as a whole. So, the thought occurs to me that not all travellers are on the road, some are on the water and surely the same law must apply to them. This being the case the local authority is surely bound to provide facilities for CCers. Perhaps they could fund some offline CCer only marinas with suitable facilities. After all in Milton Keynes the 'land travellers' sites provide individual shower/toilet blocks with an individual kitchen in a brick-built 'hut' complete with washing machine.

 

Water based travellers are being discriminated against - shall we start a campaign on their behalf??

 

Ditchdabbler

Well, that's the thing. The new Thatcherites government are, once again, stepping up the persecution of gypsies, whilst some moorers have apparently persuaded BW to consider charging CCers more because, somehow, the fact that they have decided to pay to hog one of the better mooring spots on the system, whilst taking up a second whenever they moor away from their home mooring, means that it's not fair that CCers get to moor for free ... The logic is unfathomable, but that is often the case for those with such an over-developed sense of entitlement.

[carlt]

Well, it is hardly surprising to find that an organisation which is pitched at boaters who have no permanent mooring, but travel backwards and forwards along a fairly limited section of canal would suggest that!

 

To fail to do so would be to admit that their entire membership is breaking the rules.

 

The 1995 Act requires a boater to "satisfy the board" that he will be engaged if "bona fide navigation".

 

So, it is for the Board IN THE FIRST INSTANCE to set out what it requires to be "satisfied" that somebody will be engaged in "bona fide navigation", and that is what the board has done in publishing the guidance.

One wonders, considering that the vast majority of boaters, who have permanent moorings, rarely venture far from their home port, except maybe once or twice a year, what a court would decide "bona fide navigation" actually is.

 

If going backwards and forwards, over a short distance, for most of the year, with the occasional foray, to more exotic parts, once or twice a season, is what most boaters do, why are the requirements so different, for ccers?

[spacecactus]

BW think a (liveaboard) boat isn't complying, they refuse a licence,the boater says 'o well', BW issue a Section 8 for 'unauthorised mooring' which BW then have to take to court to enforce

 

BW have yet to do this in a court that sets precedent so it has to happen again anf again on individual circumstances. It doesn't take much thought to drive a bus through this process and continue to live on a boat.

 

 

So if BW think you are not complying with the regulations they refuse you a licence, and then issue you with a 'secion 8'...

 

Which im assuming is some kind of formal notice stating they are going to remove you from the canal???

 

But thrn British Water ways never follow this through???

 

I dont understand, or maybe im getting the wrong end of the stick...

 

 

As from what I see in the legislation, legally british water ways cant do much about where your mooring if its less than 14 days. So I think a ruling would probally lead to a precedent being set that is far more liberal than the current circumstances could tolerate, I subsequently dont think it would be positive for this matter to go to court because it would probally lead to faster and more draconian legislation to counter act such a precdent.

 

I was simpy asking the question if this had been challendged in court, not suggesting I would like to do it. Im very suprise it hasent gone to court if there is so many CCer about. However thats probally BW ensuring it dont go that far coz they are scared of the consequences??

[carlt]

I was simpy asking the question if this had been challendged in court, not suggesting I would like to do it. Im very suprise it hasent gone to court if there is so many CCer about. However thats probally BW ensuring it dont go that far coz they are scared of the consequences??

The reason BW won't go to court is because they don't think they have to and they know they would probably lose.

 

They pick on soft targets that, they believe, will not (or cannot) retaliate.

 

If they think they are on dodgy ground they attempt to persuade the boat owner to sign the boat over to BW, for disposal, because they are well aware that they have no right to destroy a boat, if they know who owns it.

 

I was involved in one case where BW refused somebody a licence (for mooring "violations") and took the guy to court, where it was thrown out because he had been into the local office every week, offering to pay, and getting the receptionist to record his visit. The judge didn't order BW to give him a licence but he suggested it would be prudent to.

 

The funniest thing about that case was that it was held at Bicester Courts and BW's team attended at Banbury.

 

I know someone else who was a refused a licence but BW forgot to inform him. He went and paid for his licence at a local office, who took his money and issued a receipt.

 

Watford then wrote to him saying he was refused a licence so, enclosed, was a refund cheque. The bloke wrote back, returning the cheque, saying he had no bank account so they'd have to give him cash.

 

Because they had no mechanism, for cash refunds, it all became too complicated so they sent him his licence.

[Smelly]

It has been to court many times; BW have been quite keen to wave their court order around. However the 83 BWA delegates such actions to the County Court that has a limited jurisdiction and cannot consider the validity of the legislation under which it acts.

 

The County Court's decisions carry no precedent and are not publicized, hence it's rarely heard of.

 

This makes a nice back door to proper judicial scrutiny of a particular course of action and seriously undermines an argument as to the propiety of any action under said legislation.

 

As I suspect OP is well aware I have significant concerns as to the lawfulness of such action however I do know people will soon find themselves in a better position than I to test my thinking.

 

That said, it is irrefutable that there is a problem in certain areas; whether that problem arises from people's prejudice rather than too many boats in one particular area is, depending where you are, moot.

[Natalie Graham]

articles on it are suggesting that Britih Waterways guidance on CCing is not in line with the 1995 British Waterways Act.

 

They aren't. As the guidance says they do not have force of law but are guidance on the interpretation of the law. In essence they are BW's attempt to stretch that interpretation to suit their own ends as far as they think they can while still leaving enough doubt in the minds of anyone who disagrees to risk the expense of a legal challenge.

 

As an example, where in the 1995 act does it say that boats must be "cruising"? BW introduce that concept themselves by using the term Continuous Cruisers and then having done so cite the definition of cruising as a key term in determining what is necessary to comply with the legislation. Basically the law, as was originally drawn up in the 1968 act on which the wording of the 1995 act is based, clearly intended that normally boats would be in use but recognised that some people would not be able to do this and must have a "place", e.g. a mooring, where the boat could lawfully be left it was not to be used for a period exceeding 14 days. BW has since stretched the notion of a "place" to cover whole areas and require that you cannot return within 14 days. There is equally nothing in the legislation to require anyone to be on a "progressive journey over the whole system".

Edited August 9, 2010 by Natalie Graham

[cotswoldsman]

I have been without a signal for 3 days so have only glanced through the thread and as much as I now try to stay clear of threads that involve CCers I just can't leave it alone. As a CCer with a CCing licence I don't think BW have a need to interpretate the law as a genuine CCer does keep moving be it in my case at times very slowly. BW now have the technology to monitor the position of boats and have the information stored on a data base. In my opinion the only people who require an interpretation of the law are those people who want to pretend to be CCers.

[luctor et emergo]

I refuse to get drawn in on the original post.

 

And I'm normally quite relaxed on this topic.

 

However in my view the 4 or so boats that had been left permanently moored on the only available lock landings for the Tottenham locks should be taken unconditionally to a crusher, and scrapped with great publicity, as a warning to others that it really is taking the piss one step too far.

 

Fine if you want to live on a boat, and hardly ever move, but don't make it bloody dangerous for those of us who actually want to go boating.

 

Selfish bastards - I don't care what your excuse is. There are literally hundreds of other places to moor nearby. Maybe not quite as convenient to your "couldn't give a toss about anybody else" needs, but what you are doing really is extracting the urine.

 

 

Last week or so, there was a boat moored on the lock landings (forgot which lock, somewhere around between Newbury and Hungerford) to have a leisurely picknic lunch...

As it was, I was traveling up with another boat, and could move straight into the lock. But If I would have had to moor to set/open the lock, I would have made sure to cock-up my mooring rather spectacularly...

 

"sorry, she normally slows down much quicker"

"sorry, I'm new to this, and hit 'fast forward' instead of 'reverse'.."

"I'm so sorry, I hope I haven't knock anything over..."

 

I have moored a few times on lock landings, after 20.00 when I tie up for the night, and will be with the boat, to move/assist a boat who is traveling even later than me. I will be gone from those moorings by 06.30 next day.

 

If I find a boat moored on the landing, without somebody there, the boat will be used as a landing stage. I don't have fenders, and wear hobnail boots...

 

[Big John]

Last week or so, there was a boat moored on the lock landings (forgot which lock, somewhere around between Newbury and Hungerford) to have a leisurely picknic lunch...

So how do you define a lock landing? When is it OK to moor on the far end of a stretch of bollards/rings that are adjacent to a lock? In the Richlow Guide to the Chesterfield Canal (p.12) it says, "Good moorings above Shaw Lock". The only possible place this may refer to is the end of the lock landing. There is room for 2 60' narrowboats on that landing/mooring and as there are very few boats on the move on the Chesterfield Canal, it seems reasonable to moor one on the end. But I guess it's open to interpretation?

[luctor et emergo]

So how do you define a lock landing?

When is it OK to moor on the far end of a stretch of bollards/rings that are adjacent to a lock? In the Richlow Guide to the Chesterfield Canal (p.12) it says, "Good moorings above Shaw Lock". The only possible place this may refer to is the end of the lock landing. There is room for 2 60' narrowboats on that landing/mooring and as there are very few boats on the move on the Chesterfield Canal, it seems reasonable to moor one on the end. But I guess it's open to interpretation?

 

An 80' length of properly banked mooring, directly adjacent to the lock (in this instance, there are plenty of lock moorings away from the lock, due to the layout of the watercourse/bridge/ other obstructions), with small white bollards. Like all the other lock moorings.

 

It has to be blatantly obvious to even the most dimwitted person, that you can not moor in the middle of the day, next to the lock, when there is no other available space to moor. Indeed, the last point is no doubt why they choose that particular spot...

[spacecactus]

In my opinion the only people who require an interpretation of the law are those people who want to pretend to be CCers.

 

 

Some people, especially on this forum just love pointing the finger... I’m on about 5 other forums and ive never seen anything like it other than on canal world.

Some people need to chill, or stop polishing their brass knobs and peering through the net curtains. Aint this suppose to be a community not waring factions.

 

I work in the criminal justice system and have a strong interest in the way legislation is applied.

 

Poorly written laws can lead to the arbitrary implementation by those in authority; from what I have read this seems to be the case with CCing and BW.

 

An unclear situation in my view only gives those who want to take the piss, the ammunition to do so. It further does not provide those that want to stick to the rules the protection and clarity they deserve.

[carlt]

Aint this suppose to be a community

No it isn't.

[Pretty Funked Up]

Some people need to chill, or stop polishing their brass knobs and peering through the net curtains.

 

 

brilliantly put! also would add...

 

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzz

[spacecactus]

No it isn't.

 

 

Well thats always encouraging...