Letter from BW I am in trouble

[Alan Saunders]

I have totally lost track of this arguement. On the one hand there is the reasonable attitude: "I do not inconvenience other canal users but occasionally the 'rules' are inconvenient to me" and at the other extreme "I know my rights and I will stay for as long as I wish, wherever I wish; they cannot enforce their rules without 28 days notice, and even then they will not initiate court proceedings particularly if I have children living on my boat".

 

The purpose of laws and rules is, I believe, to benefit the majority. Unfortunately any law or rule has to be enforceable e.g. it is illegal to hold a mobile 'phone whilst drivimg a motor-vehicle - unreasonable, but any lesser requirement could not be proven.

 

I assure you that East of Wooton Rivers on the K&A you will get 'moved on'. In the middle of winter last year the BW maintenance boat could not punch through Newbury Town Bridge - I could have pushed them through but why should I? West of Newbury the canal was frozen, 4" of ice. I tried to break through the ice but there was a fibreglasss boat moored and I did not want to damage it. A boat that had been moored near me in Newbury was forced to 'move on'; mooring, single handed, on the fast flowing river was impossible as was progress into the frozen canal.

 

Well formulated laws allow intelligent enforcers some leeway. I would prefer that a BW Enforcement Officer remind me that I have stayed in one place for 14 days rather than their current ploy which is (on the Eastern K&A) to send an official letter saying that you have been in a certain area for three months and they will be taking Court Action, revoking your licence etc. even when you have complied with the spirit of the rule and further progress is impossible or hazardous. Surely, in these circumstances BW should maintain the navigation, clear the passage with their icebreaker or admit a closure?

 

The letter of the law, BW rules etc. may be poorly formulated but it is not unreasonable. The average Police Constable would be able to apply these laws/rules equitably but BW 'jobsworths' have no understanding of canals, boats etc. I am reliably informed that very few people with boating experience have obtained jobs with BW. Unfortunately the man on the number nine Peckham Bus also knows nothing about boats or canals. My mum (98) does, she says 'I should move on to the land'!

 

@OP: When I was similarly accused I had overstayed by 15 hours on the 48hr mooring at Great Bedwyn - but the notice claimed that I had overstayed at Wooton Rivers - a nice piece of evidence in my cruising log . The notice for the boat with a mooring said 'return to your mooring or continue your journey' the other boat's notice said 'continue your journey'. these notices are common on the K&A - just advice, don't worry!

 

Alan S

[Doorman]

I've been in there many times. I guess it's still the same landlord? My daughter was playing with their daughter when I was there a while back.

I've come up Hack Green today so not too far away now..

Casp'

 

Apparently so, but you'll have to get a crow bar to lever him from off the pool table, if you step in there today!

A truly 'dog friendly' pub which suits us fine

 

Also, the landlord has no problem with continuous drinking, in fact, he actively encourages it

Edited October 30, 2010 by Doorman

[Natalie Graham]

There has been a contention that BW has no right to restrict moorings further, because the 14 days is laid down by parliament.

 

In order to determine whether BW do or do not have that power, it is necessary to determine whence they derive the power to restrict moorings to 14 days.

 

The only place that there is an explicit mention of a 14 day limit in any of the acts that relate to BW is in s17©(3), which says;

either—

 

(i) 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; or

 

(ii) the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

(i) clearly relates to boats with a home mooring, or which are trailable. (ii) is clearly related to continuous cruisers. Indeed the arguments between continuous moorers and BW always centre on whether BW's CC-ing guideines go beyond what 17©(3)(ii) describes.

 

So, the only statute that defines a 14 day limit clearly doesn't apply that limit to boaters with a home mooring, and as such, the question remains "where do BW derive the power to limit moorings to 14 days for ALL boaters".

 

The answer is that they derive the power by virtue of a general power to set terms and conditions unser s43 of the Transport Act 1962. Consequently, they can set limits of 48hours, 24 hours, 1 hour as they see fit.

 

However, the sponsor of the British Waterways Act 1995, Mr Robert Jones MP did not seem to share this view. In Parliament on May 17, 1993 he gave this assurance:

 

I emphasise that nothing in the Bill alters the general rule that boats are free to moor against a towpath in any one place for up to 14 days except where that would cause a navigational hazard. Restrictions are necessary in the interests of securing safety and preventing congestion. They will apply only at permanent mooring sites, at water points and at certain popular sites which have special conditions, such as time limits to be fair to all users. Those will be clearly signposted.

If BW already had powers to set mooring limits as they see fit, why would Parliament be debating whether new legislation introduced such powers?

Edited October 30, 2010 by Natalie Graham

[Natalie Graham]

My "guess" at the likely definition of "continuous cruiser" was lifted, almost directly, from Section 17[c][3] British Watwerways Act 1995. Including the term "continuous cruiser" in the Act and then defining it in those terms would make absolutely no difference to the current situation. As for using short descriptions ,,. define "home mooring", define "cruising", define "liveaboard". Short, apparently simple, descriptions are wide open to interpretation.

 

I don't have a legal qualification but I spent 42 years of my working life interpreting legislation - applying the law to established facts. I know only too well the problems created by ill-defined and contentious terms. Section 17[c](3) is one of the clearest pieces of legislation I have seen and I see no need to wonder what its effect should be.

 

 

While your likely definition of continuous cruiser was lifted from the Act, BW's wasn't. Their one involves such things as being engaged in a continuous progressive journey around all, or a significant part of, the system and not returning to the same area within a period of time. Concepts which do not appear in any legislation. I agree with you that the legislation appears quite clear. If you aren't using your boat for a period of more than 14 days you must have a mooring for it. Very straightforward. That is until BW start adding restrictions over and above what the legislation sets out. That is the issue, that BW have coined the term continuous cruiser and defined what constitutes continuous cruising and then maintain that is what the Act requires. There is no doubt that if you follow BW's continuous cruising guidelines you would be complying with the legislation. To borrow the infamous lime green boat rule analogy, it is like the law saying you must have an area on the side of four feet by two feet painted lime green and BW issuing guidelines saying that you should paint your entire boat lime green. Clearly doing that would comply with the legislation, but painting your entire boat is not what the legislation requires. The issue is that you could also be complying with the legislation but not complying with BW's guidelines. BW are saying "this is what we say you must do to comply with the legislation" when in fact theirs is but one view of how to comply with the legislation.

 

For example, someone with a boat in say, Braunston was to set off for London, sets off every morning at 9am, travels until 5pm and moors for the night, then upon reaching London, stops for a couple for days before he turns around and heads back for Braunston, and then continues to repeat this trip. I would contend that he is within what is required by the legislation, namely that he is using his boat bona fide for navigation without stopping for more than 14 days in any one place. However he would not meet BW's requirements for continuous cruisers. On the other hand, someone who moors up to the towpath for a fortnight, before firing up his engine, travelling for a day, and mooring up again for another two weeks, but who moves on in the same direction without retracing his route would constitute a continuous cruiser. Yet it could easily be argued that someone who only travels the bare minimum to satisfy BW's guidelines is less involved, "bona fide", in navigation than the person in the first example.

[alan_fincher]

The post by Natalie is in my view absolutely spot-on, and in my view expresses without any ambiguity at all what the actual problem is.

 

I entirely agree with the examples she gives.

 

I don't see any problem whatsoever with someone who repeatedly makes the Braunston to London round trip, with only short stopovers, and it seems to me to be entirely within what the original law required, but still fail BW's "continuous cruiser" guidelines.

 

To link to another thread, someone who did this, and always chose to spend one night (only) at a mooring on (say) Tring summit when passing each way would quickly "infringe" local notices saying they can only spend a total of 14 nights there in a year. In my view that is totally bonkers - certainly not the original intention of the law.

 

They would no doubt also quickly clock up their "annual entitlement" at many Southern mooring lcations, such as maybe Little Venice or Paddington.

 

Fortunately wardens on the ground usually apply far more sense than the BW CC guidelines. I can't imagine anyone repeatedly making that Braunston to London return journey actually encountering problems at all. Or it would have to be some real "jobsworth" if they did!

[RLWP]

Thank you Natalie for your posting, as Alan says it does make your argument very clear. It also expands on the CWDF perennial of the Lime Green Boat, and I missed the origins of that point, now I understand it.

 

You know, BW have been fairly sensible and pragmatic with these bye-laws so far. However, if they begin to insist on enforcing their interpretation and upsetting boaters, I think the day in court cannot be far away

 

Richard

[matty40s]

One of the letters sent to me regarding the winter moorings available at Paddington Basin/Little Venice states

a) Our boat checker has observed your boat at the mooring and believes the information may be of interest to you.

Our regular boat sightings indicate that over recent weeks the boat appears to have spent longer at the location tthan the maximum permitted time.

 

 

I left Paddington basin 4 hours inside the 7 day deadline stated on the notices. I do keep a log, both pictorial and noted in my Nicholsons of where I have been and transit times etc. So how did it "appear" that I had overstayed??

 

Little Venice, I did overstay by 24 hours, but this was because a wide beam had breasted up to me and tied to me, not the bank, and the owners didn't return until the next day. I single-hand and wasn't going to attempt to maneouver out and re-tie their boat.

[Paul Evans]

This debate really does go round and round in circles (with the odd diversion of course - this is CWDF). As I see it, there are two separate questions:

 

1. What law governs the issue of licences to "continuous cruisers"?

 

2. What law governs the imposition of time-limits on moorings?

 

We need to keep those questions separate because the law governing them is different.

 

Section 17(3)[c) British Waterways Act 1993 tells us on what terms a licence will be issued to a "continuous cruiser". Some of the terms in that piece of legislation require interpretation and BW have said how they interpret it as a whole. Anything that needs interpretation is open to more than one. The only way to resolve the matter is to ask a Court capable of setting a precedent to do just that. If BW were to refuse to issue, or attempt to revoke, a licence to somebody claiming to meet the terms of Section 17(3)[c], it is open to the applicant/licence holder to seek judicial review of BW's decision in the High Court (and, possibly, the Appeal Court and Supreme Court). Unless somebody is prepared to do that, risking substantial costs, the interpretation placed on the legislation by BW stands. It is no good whining about it - it's a case of put-up or shut-up.

 

An alternative might be to campaign for a change in the law to insert an interpretation of Section 17(3)[c] that meets your needs. That would mean obtaining support from a sufficient number of MPs to persuade the Government to allow time for legislation to be debated and enacted. You can make your own judgement about how likely that is. I would also throw in the thought that the needs of particular individuals in this situation are unlikely to match the needs of others. We have all seen many suggestions of the way the legislation should be interpreted - often mutually exclusive. Are we sure that any interpretation other than BW's would meet with universal approval?

 

As to the second question, Section 43(3) Transport Act 1962 allows BW "to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit." That gives them open season on mooring time limits for all licence holders. Essentially, BW may say that the mooring facility in a particular place is subject to a particular time limit, to a no return with X days limit, to a charge of £X for periods in excess of the stated time and so on. If a particular licence holder believes that the imposition of time limit or charge is outside of the legislation it is open to the licence holder to challenge BW's decision in the Courts. Again, it's a case of put-up or shut-up. Or campaign for a change in the law - but how likely is it that the Government will give any priority to this and how likely is it that we will be able to agree on the limits to BW's powers in this area.

Edited October 30, 2010 by Paul Evans

[Chris Pink]

For example, someone with a boat in say, Braunston was to set off for London, sets off every morning at 9am, travels until 5pm and moors for the night, then upon reaching London, stops for a couple for days before he turns around and heads back for Braunston, and then continues to repeat this trip. I would contend that he is within what is required by the legislation, namely that he is using his boat bona fide for navigation without stopping for more than 14 days in any one place. However he would not meet BW's requirements for continuous cruisers. On the other hand, someone who moors up to the towpath for a fortnight, before firing up his engine, travelling for a day, and mooring up again for another two weeks, but who moves on in the same direction without retracing his route would constitute a continuous cruiser. Yet it could easily be argued that someone who only travels the bare minimum to satisfy BW's guidelines is less involved, "bona fide", in navigation than the person in the first example.

 

The interesting aspect of this, which is becoming the perceived wisdom according to counsel's opinion and confirmed by BW's legal director, is that there is a contradiction between BW's 'progressive journey' definition of compliance with Section 17 and the instance of a boat, moored in a marina, coming out every weekend stopping overnight somewhere and returning to the same marina is, to the man on the Clapham Omnibus, bona fide for navigation so, logically and legally, a boat without a mooring who has the same cruising pattern, must also be using their boat bona fide for navigation.

 

 

An alternative might be to campaign for a change in the law to insert an interpretation of Section 17(3)[c] that meets your needs. That would mean obtaining support from a sufficient number of MPs to persuade the Government to allow time for legislation to be debated and enacted. You can make your own judgement about how likely that is. I would also throw in the thought that the needs of particular individuals in this situation are unlikely to match the needs of others. We have all seen many suggestions of the way the legislation should be interpreted - often mutually exclusive. Are we sure that any interpretation other than BW's would meet with universal approval?

 

 

There is also the question of what has changed since 1995 when this issue was debated for the best part of 8 years arriving at the definition in the 1995 Act. and whether parliamentary timne is best spent debating the same issue, with the same arguments, over again. The 1995 Act is a best fit for all users of the canal. It might not be the best fit for Dave Mayall but BW's de facto acceptance illustrates that really the distance between the Act and their desired outcomes is not as far as the more extremist opinions voiced on this forum.

[Ange]

One of the letters sent to me regarding the winter moorings available at Paddington Basin/Little Venice states

a) Our boat checker has observed your boat at the mooring and believes the information may be of interest to you.

Our regular boat sightings indicate that over recent weeks the boat appears to have spent longer at the location tthan the maximum permitted time.

 

 

We got two of those letters, both dated 21st October - one for Hest Bank and the other for Lancaster, we hadn't overstayed either.

 

Options a & b are either / or, so I don't think they're accusing us of overstaying, just trying to flog their winter moorings to those of us that are still out and about.

[headjog]

Seems to me that somebody has their maths wrong.

 

4pm Saturday to 9 am Tuesday is 65 hours. I think.

 

Tim

Much as I have enjoyed reading the various arguments, to go back to the original post, I would read 72 hours as starting from the point of arrival, & would use Tim's post to reply politely with that in my defence. I would also point out that IF BW want to work on days, then it should be clearly stated on the signage 'arrival anytime from 00.00 hrs to 23.59 hrs will be counted as if for the full 24hrs'

The only reason for writing is that should it actually gat to court,you have replied to their complaint and stated your perspective of the situation. You can also add 'If I do not hear from you within x days of the above date, I will assume the matter closed'then with luck you can rest easy.

 

I think BW work on days so they take Saturday to Tuesday as being 4 days 96 hours but yes you are correct!!! cotswoldsman

If you only 'think', does anyone actually know?

 

Unless there is something written in the BW rules that specifies when 72 hours is calculated from & to, I suspect they would be on dodgy ground trying to enforce a fine here.

Edited October 31, 2010 by headjog

[mayalld]

Not at all, I was simply answering a specific point made by Paul Evans.

 

btw I would like to award you Most Pompous Post of the Year for your post #114, never in the field of human endeavour have I read such twaddle dressed up as opinion.

 

How about "boat without home mooring" - specific, accurate - or "cruising liveaboard" - i quite like that, non-insulting, unambiguous. Even one of your limited intelligence must realise that continuously cruising is impossible.

 

Unfortunately, both your terms fail, because they are inaccurate;

 

boat without home mooring - Fails, because trailable boats have o home mooring, but have licences issued on the same terms as a boat with a home mooring

cruising liveaboard - Fails, because it is perfectly possible to be a cc-er without being a liveaboard.

 

Now, do you have any further suggestions?

[jenlyn]

Unfortunately, both your terms fail, because they are inaccurate;

 

boat without home mooring - Fails, because trailable boats have o home mooring, but have licences issued on the same terms as a boat with a home mooring

cruising liveaboard - Fails, because it is perfectly possible to be a cc-er without being a liveaboard.

 

Now, do you have any further suggestions?

 

rubbish

[mayalld]

rubbish

 

Yes, so you say.

 

Now, perhaps you would like to say which bit of what I wrote is "rubbish".

 

Unless, of course, you are just following me round to spout random interjections at me.

 

If that is the case, then perhaps people would be more amused if you were to try "feck" or "arse" instead of a rather boring "rubbish"

[carlt]

Yes, so you say.

 

Now, perhaps you would like to say which bit of what I wrote is "rubbish".

 

Feck!

 

Arse!

[Nightwatch]

Replace 'Continuous cCruiser' with words like 'Not allowed to continuously moor in the same location for more than 14 days with no return within 14 days, first having moved/traveled at least 10 lock miles in either direction'

 

Flack jacket and and braced

Martyn

[Naughty Cal]

Yes, so you say.

 

Now, perhaps you would like to say which bit of what I wrote is "rubbish".

 

Unless, of course, you are just following me round to spout random interjections at me.

 

If that is the case, then perhaps people would be more amused if you were to try "feck" or "arse" instead of a rather boring "rubbish"

 

He will be bored. I have been away for a few days so he has to find a new target to stalk

[madcat]

wow its dead easy to end up being the filling in a squabble sandwich on here isnt it.

[carlt]

Feck!

 

Arse!

[RLWP]

Feck!

 

Arse!

 

Drink

 

DRINK!!!

[cotswoldsman]

Drink

 

DRINK!!!

 

Did not work!!!!!!!

 

 

Edited November 1, 2010 by cotswoldsman

[RLWP]

 

This: whatever it is in your signature is bloody irritating.

 

What is it, as I don't think it is adding to the quality of your postings

 

Richard

[cotswoldsman]

 

This: whatever it is in your signature is bloody irritating.

 

What is it, as I don't think it is adding to the quality of your postings

 

Richard

 

As my posts have no quality at the best of times I have removed it!!!!

[RLWP]

Yes, so I see....

 

Richard

[jenlyn]

He will be bored. I have been away for a few days so he has to find a new target to stalk

 

dont flatter yourself, i prefer a woman with intelligence and a little class. In my opinion, you have neither i do believe you and dave make a luvverly couple