More residential moorings

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Yes but which is more likely if the government take a close look at S17:

 

1. They see that it's unenforceable in its current state and so scrap it.

 

2. They see that it's unenforceable in its current state and toughen it up to fit more closely with the original intent (and BW's interpretation).

 

Serious question; which do you think more likely?

 

Tony

 

Serious answer. I agree with Chris Pink. You have made the supposition that the law (i.e. the will of parliament) and BW's interpretation are one and the same.

 

I would go for do nothing. Indeed, it might not be within the remit of government to change anyway.

[Proud Salopian]

But the issue isn't Parliament changing S 17 but, in the new bill, giving the NWC the powers to enact subordinate legislation, which at the very least could empower the NWC to make CCing either very expensive and/or very difficult..?

[carlt]

But the issue isn't Parliament changing S 17 but, in the new bill, giving the NWC the powers to enact subordinate legislation, which at the very least could empower the NWC to make CCing either very expensive and/or very difficult..?

But that would be contrary to both the spirit and letter of the BWA 1995.

 

On the 17 May 1993, Mr. Robert B. Jones, MP, promoter of the BWA 1995 said:

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.

[Proud Salopian]

But that would be contrary to both the spirit and letter of the BWA 1995.

 

Unfortunately the actual statutory wording of BWA 1995 re: CCing isn't exactly crystal clear, on matters such as what exactly constitutes CCing!

 

BW/NWC may therefore use subordinate legislation (which it would have the power to make) to "clarify" the statute, "filling in the gaps".

 

It's all very disturbing. Could change my plans to start CCing in the future!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

BW/NWC may therefore use subordinate legislation (which it would have the power to make) to "clarify" the statute, "filling in the gaps".

 

 

I think this is exactly what they intend to do. BW's bylaws have been around since 1965. Search around and you will find a draft rewrite!

[carlt]

Search around and you will find a draft rewrite!

 

Give us a link, please, Allan.

 

You're giving me the Collywobbles.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Give us a link, please, Allan.

 

You're giving me the Collywobbles.

 

Here are links to the existing byelaws and revised.

 

Existing Byelaws

 

Draft Byelaws

Edited September 12, 2011 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Proud Salopian]

Here are links to the existing byelaws and revised.

 

Existing Byelaws

 

Draft Byelaws

 

Can't find anything relevant to CCing? Or am I not looking hard enough?

 

Byelaws are one thing - being able to create SIs (statutory instruments) is another - that's another step up in law-making powers.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Proud Salopian

[WotEver]

This is a serious question so I'm not arguing for the sake of it; I've long been confused by the above stance.

 

My understanding was that parliament decreed that every boat on BW's water had to pay for a licence, and also had to have a home mooring. The argument was put to them "But not everyone wants a home mooring; some of us like to continuously cruise" and hence they added S17 so as not to force the home mooring requirement on those who had no need for one.

 

Where is my understanding incorrect?

 

Tony

Anyone?

[carlt]

Anyone?

BW tried to slip the "No boats without home moorings" clause in but common sense prevailed.

 

I thought Allan had answered adequately so didn't follow up.

 

My Hansard quote makes it clear, however, that it was never the government's intention to restrict the right to moor on the towpath (a service paid for in the licence fee) but restrict the right to moor in the same place for an extended period of time.

[WotEver]

BW tried to slip the "No boats without home moorings" clause in but common sense prevailed.

 

I thought Allan had answered adequately so didn't follow up.

 

My Hansard quote makes it clear, however, that it was never the government's intention to restrict the right to moor on the towpath (a service paid for in the licence fee) but restrict the right to moor in the same place for an extended period of time.

Ahhh... thanks for the clarification.

 

Tony

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Can't find anything relevant to CCing? Or am I not looking hard enough?

 

Byelaws are one thing - being able to create SIs (statutory instruments) is another - that's another step up in law-making powers.

 

I suggest you look at byelaw 51. It would be a criminal offence (with a fine of up £1000) to ignore a BW employee, agent or volunteer regarding where and how to moor your boat.

 

Also look at 52. It is now a criminal offense to disobey a mooring time limit sign or a no mooring sign.

 

These may be construed to be new enforcement powers to circumvent the 1995 Act.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Allan(nb Albert)

[nina]

Until now BW was under the governing law of the government so the government could direct it's will without argument. Now, the former BW is a charity free of the government (isn't it?). This means it can do whatever it likes and as it needs to make money, this is where their focus will be.

 

You can argue on the basis of Human Rights but it's a lengthy and costly process. Meanwhile the new BW charity will simply state what BW has already stated, they are not a housing authority until such time that new laws are passed.

 

Isn't this what the government, BW and local authorities are now addressing?

[carlt]

Until now BW was under the governing law of the government so the government could direct it's will without argument. Now, the former BW is a charity free of the government (isn't it?). This means it can do whatever it likes and as it needs to make money, this is where their focus will be.

 

 

I didn't realise that Charities were not required to abide by the law and "could do whatever it likes".

 

Swmbo works for a charity so I've rung her and told her to rob a bank, on the way home...sorted!

[WotEver]

I suggest you look at byelaw 51.

That's very interesting, and the notes to that byelaw, which includes the category

moving vessels that have overstayed visitor moorings

do indeed appear to indicate the direction BW is taking:

Whilst provisions of this nature may not have been considered necessary in the 1960’s (when the GCB were introduced) the very significant growth in use of the network since then and the difficulties with congestion that can now occur at certain locations in busy periods gives rise to the need for such a byelaw.

 

I can see where you considered it potentially disturbing news.

 

Tony

[nina]

I didn't realise that Charities were not required to abide by the law and "could do whatever it likes".

 

Swmbo works for a charity so I've rung her and told her to rob a bank, on the way home...sorted!

 

Charities are regulated by the Charity Commission and can create their own policies. Obviously these would have to be within the law.

[carlt]

Charities are regulated by the Charity Commission and can create their own policies. Obviously these would have to be within the law.

Precisely.

 

Swmbo's employer, a national charity, has over the years, wandered away from the original ethos of its constitution.

 

The Charity Commission recently told them to get back in line or lose their charitable status.

 

This has meant a fundamental reorganisation, to avoid this penalty.

 

Hardly "doing whatever it likes".

 

BW will have to have a constitution which it will have to abide by.

Edited September 12, 2011 by carlt

[WotEver]

Charities are regulated by the Charity Commission and can create their own policies.

Hence Post #95.

 

Tony

[mayalld]

BW tried to slip the "No boats without home moorings" clause in but common sense prevailed.

 

I thought Allan had answered adequately so didn't follow up.

 

My Hansard quote makes it clear, however, that it was never the government's intention to restrict the right to moor on the towpath (a service paid for in the licence fee) but restrict the right to moor in the same place for an extended period of time.

 

 

Indeed so, and to the best of my knowledge, BW has never attempted to use BWA 1995 to restrict the right to moor on the towpath.

 

It has continued to use the same s43 powers that it used before the 1995 Act.

[Proud Salopian]

I've just gone through the Lords Hansard and Amendment 99A (which will give BW/the NWC additional law-making powers as well as powers to seize boats etc) was passed by the House of Lords without debate!! (Or was it debated in committee?) Shocking frankly. Got through on the nod.

 

Ah I see it was debated in committee, but still the House passed it 'on the nod'.

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/3245-bw-wants-to-make-laws

 

The committee thought the amendment was wrong. Still got passed. How was this allowed to happen??

[carlt]

Indeed so, and to the best of my knowledge, BW has never attempted to use BWA 1995 to restrict the right to moor on the towpath.

 

It has continued to use the same s43 powers that it used before the 1995 Act.

So you claim, though each time you do so makes the "Lime Green Boat" scenario valid.

 

However, in doing so, it has acted contrary to the spirit of a subsequent law.

[mayalld]

I suggest you look at byelaw 51. It would be a criminal offence (with a fine of up £1000) to ignore a BW employee, agent or volunteer regarding where and how to moor your boat.

 

Also look at 52. It is now a criminal offense to disobey a mooring time limit sign or a no mooring sign.

 

These may be construed to be new enforcement powers to circumvent the 1995 Act.

 

The 1995 Act doesn't deal with individual mooring time limits, simply the "14 days in one place" for CCers.

 

These new bye-laws would actually replace provisions made under s43 Transport Act 1962.

 

Bye-Law 51 would indeed create a criminal offence in respect of failing to obey instructions issued for specific reasons, so it would give some teeth to a mooring warden telling people to move up to make room.

 

Yes, disobeying mooring restrictions could land you in court, but do we honestly imagine that anything other than repeat offenders are going to end up in court.

 

There are bits of the proposals that I feel need refining a little, and I would like to see some sort of Fixed Penalty scheme for minor transgressions, but by and large this is a reasonably cogent and cohesive proposal.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Indeed so, and to the best of my knowledge, BW has never attempted to use BWA 1995 to restrict the right to moor on the towpath.

 

It has continued to use the same s43 powers that it used before the 1995 Act.

 

Are you saying that the guidance BW gives CC'ers is based on its s43 powers rather than its interpretation of the 1995 Act?

 

If that is the case, I wonder why they are changing guidance as a result of the Davies case.

 

If it is not the case, was BW's guidance a simple misinterpretation of the 1995 Act or a deliberate attempt to restrict the right to moor on the towpath by insisting that a progressive journey was taken round a substantial part of the network (even in cases where a boater only had a licence for a small part of it).

[carlt]

 

Bye-Law 51 would indeed create a criminal offence in respect of failing to obey instructions issued for specific reasons, so it would give some teeth to a mooring warden telling people to move up to make room.

 

So you think some volunteer jobsworth should be able to instruct you to breast up, to make room for late arrivals?

 

I'm starting to get an irony rush.

[mayalld]

So you claim, though each time you do so makes the "Lime Green Boat" scenario valid.

 

However, in doing so, it has acted contrary to the spirit of a subsequent law.

 

You accept that a 14 day limit exists.

 

Now, you either have to accept that this limit exists by virtue of s43 powers, or you have to produce some other powers that it exists under.

 

So far as I can see, what was said in the debate on the 1995 Act was that the general 14 day limit was not going to be altered by the Act, and that there would remain certain cases where a lower limit was applied.

 

They said that the existing s43 powers would continiue, and that is what happened.

 

So you think some volunteer jobsworth should be able to instruct you to breast up, to make room for late arrivals?

 

I'm starting to get an irony rush.

 

I have previously stated that, whilst I dislike breasting up, I accept that BW should be permitted to mandate it at particular locations, and that in such cases, provided appropriate signage is displayed, I have an option to moor there and accept the rules or to moor somewhere else.

 

If the new bye-laws were to come into force, I would regard issuing instructions to breast up without having previously displayed signs to the effect that it might be required as failing the test of being "reasonable".

 

If I were instructed to permit another boat to breast up or to move to an outside mooring at a location that had no signage, I would;

1. Tell the person issuing the instruction that I felt it to be an unreasonable request, and ask whether it was an instruction under the bye-laws.
2. If he indicated that it was such an instruction, I would comply, and make a formal complaint after the event.