RAND COMMITTEE DEBATE ON 25th JUNE: DRAFT BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS) ORDER 2012.

[David Schweizer]

Having read the original post several times, together with Leo1979's responses to subsequent posts, I have to admit that I am minded accept his suggestion, and to write to several Members of the House of Lords urging them to vote in support of the Order!

Edited June 19, 2012 by David Schweizer

[David Mack]

Having read the original post several times, together with Leo1979's responses to subsequent posts, I have to admit that I am minded accept his suggestion, and to write to several Members of the House of Lords urging them to vote in support of the Order!

 

I have to say that was exactly my reaction on reading Leo's polemic!

[cl@rkey]

Taken from the National Bargee Travellers Association:

 

Problems to Address

 

Boats with no home mooring are required, under section 17.3.c.ii of the 1995 BW Act, to navigate in good faith without remaining in one place for 14 days or longer if reasonable. The requirement to bona fide navigate is sometimes referred to as the 14 day rule. BW interpret the 14 day rule as a maximum mooring period – or less where signage sets a 24 or 48 hour mooring restriction. It should be suggested that 14 days is the minimum period where reasonable and not the maximum.

Hmm. I'm not convinced they're entering into the spirit of things here.

Edited June 19, 2012 by cl@rkey

[Alan de Enfield]

 

BW's internal Licensing and Enforcement management reports between June 2011 and March 2012 show that BW has set a target for "all boats not moving at least 30km during their contract period to be within enforcement process ". The reports were obtained by a Freedom of Information request.

 

......................

 

 

So - are we saying that a boat will comply if it moves 30km in a 12 month period ?

 

82 metres per day !!!!

 

Lets say we moor in the centre of our desired area - we could move 7.5kms in one direction at 82 metres per day, then 7.5 kms back to where we started from, 7.5kms in the other direction and then 7.5 kms back to where we started from.

 

Or - could we move 82 metres forward one day, then 82 metres back the next day and continue this for 365 days ?

 

Both options mean the boat has 'moved' 30 km in the contract period.

 

Someone is having a laff!!!

[sueb]

So - are we saying that a boat will comply if it moves 30km in a 12 month period ?

 

82 metres per day !!!!

 

Lets say we moor in the centre of our desired area - we could move 7.5kms in one direction at 82 metres per day, then 7.5 kms back to where we started from, 7.5kms in the other direction and then 7.5 kms back to where we started from.

 

Or - could we move 82 metres forward one day, then 82 metres back the next day and continue this for 365 days ?

 

Both options mean the boat has 'moved' 30 km in the contract period.

 

Someone is having a laff!!!

It is what some boats do now anyway

[Alan de Enfield]

 

BW's internal Licensing and Enforcement management reports between June 2011 and March 2012 show that BW has set a target for "all boats not moving at least 30km during their contract period to be within enforcement process ". The reports were obtained by a Freedom of Information request.

 

......................

 

 

So - are we saying that a boat will comply if it moves 30km in a 12 month period ?

 

82 metres per day !!!!

 

Lets say we moor in the centre of our desired area - we could move 7.5kms in one direction at 82 metres per day, then 7.5 kms back to where we started from, 7.5kms in the other direction and then 7.5 kms back to where we started from.

 

Or - could we move 82 metres forward one day, then 82 metres back the next day and continue this for 365 days ?

 

Both options mean the boat has 'moved' 30 km in the contract period.

 

Someone is having a laff!!!

[David Mack]

Or - could we move 82 metres forward one day, then 82 metres back the next day and continue this for 365 days ?

 

Some boats move less than one metre forwards and back...

 

... but only when another boat comes past, as their mooring ropes are slack and they haven't used springs.

[Leo1973]

I think that we can all be agreed that there are examples of boaters who flagrantly flout the continuous cruising rules and are due appropriate measures being raised against them. My only concern is that these rules are applied with a suitable level of pragmatism (eg. enforcing a boater to move when there are several inches of ice on the canal).

How many people are breaking B W rules for living on leisure mooring? Next B W will be charging people with mooring £20K! His could be a good argument for continues cruisers when they all need moorings.

[RLWP]

[David Schweizer]

I think that we can all be agreed that there are examples of boaters who flagrantly flout the continuous cruising rules and are due appropriate measures being raised against them. My only concern is that these rules are applied with a suitable level of pragmatism (eg. enforcing a boater to move when there are several inches of ice on the canal).

How many people are breaking B W rules for living on leisure mooring? Next B W will be charging people with mooring £20K! His could be a good argument for continues cruisers when they all need moorings.

You clearly have little understanding of ther Law if you think that BW has any say in whether anyone is permitted to live on permanently moored boat. That privilige is in the gift of the Local Planning Authority not BW, and it is the Planning Authority who can issue an enforcement notice if there is a breach of regulation not BW.

[carlt]

How many people are breaking B W rules for living on leisure mooring?

There are no BW rules prohibiting living on a boat, moored on a long term non-residential towpath mooring. This is entirely a matter for the local planning authority.

Next B W will be charging people with mooring £20K! His could be a good argument for continues cruisers when they all need moorings.

No they won't and your ridiculous scaremongering doesn't aid your argument.

[Leo1973]

Could you please post a link to the FOI request and the reply.

 

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ka_mooring_and_mooring_strategy

[RLWP]

Too late!!!

 

 

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ka_mooring_and_mooring_strategy

 

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/92175/response/277491/attach/html/3/Internal%20Review%20Response%20to%20Pamela%20Smith%2027.4.12.pdf.html

 

In summary, Ms Smith, you went on a fishing expedition and then couldn't work your request down to a reasonable piece of work that we could practically do, so sod off

 

Richard

Edited June 19, 2012 by RLWP

[Laurence Hogg]

National Bargee Traveller Association, have got people to put in request to B W under the Freedom of Information Act and that what they have found.

National load of freeloaders association more correct title!

 

This lot dont even know what boat people are called, we are boaters NOT bargees, if this was 50 years ago you be flat out on the towpath if you called a working boatman a "bargee".

For the obvious un educated minds there, the term "bargee" was deemed insulting to boat families. Also unless you boat is in excess of 12ft it is not suitable to be called a barge.

 

Frankly boat owners in the main would not want to be lumped in with "travellers" most of which are pure nuisance and not law abiding and certainly not true Gypsy people.

[cotswoldsman]

http://www.whatdothe...ooring_strategy

 

Can not see anything there that substantiates this claim

If you have a paid mooring (like me) it looking like you can stay over 14 days without any problems, but if you are a continuous cruiser you can not. Is this B W just want everyone to have a home mooring for extra cash? to pay the director big bonus?

[BruceinSanity]

At the root of this argument is a fundamental disagreement about living on board, isn't it? Some of us, a lot of us, do so because we are passionately committed to boating, to using the waterways for their original purpose of navigation, and the only way we can get enough of it is to live on board.

 

For such people, the CC guidelines are no problem at all; who on earth would want to stay in the same place for a week, never mind fourteen days? Sometimes, force majeure, ill health, ice or whatever, means that you have to stick around for a bit, but I've always found BW perfectly helpful in such circumstances.

 

Others see the cut as a linear trailer park offering the promise of cheapo accommodation. They are wrong because the only way you can keep costs below basic land based accommodation is to cheat and wriggle out of paying some of what you should.

 

But the two groups can never agree – like the two old biddies shouting at each other across the street, leaning out of their bedroom windows, they are arguing from different premises.

 

[RichardN]

Nice summary Bruce

[Rebotco]

At the root of this argument is a fundamental disagreement about living on board, isn't it? Some of us, a lot of us, do so because we are passionately committed to boating, to using the waterways for their original purpose of navigation, and the only way we can get enough of it is to live on board.

 

For such people, the CC guidelines are no problem at all; who on earth would want to stay in the same place for a week, never mind fourteen days? Sometimes, force majeure, ill health, ice or whatever, means that you have to stick around for a bit, but I've always found BW perfectly helpful in such circumstances.

 

Others see the cut as a linear trailer park offering the promise of cheapo accommodation. They are wrong because the only way you can keep costs below basic land based accommodation is to cheat and wriggle out of paying some of what you should.

 

But the two groups can never agree – like the two old biddies shouting at each other across the street, leaning out of their bedroom windows, they are arguing from different premises.

 

 

Yes, and some of the most knowledgeable and helpful posters on this forum, are genuine continuous cruisers. I would not wish to see their lifestyle prejudiced at all.

But the fake cruisers/moorers threaten them as well as all other canal users.

I very much hope that CART clamps down on them more effectively than BW could.

[PaulG]

So, the OP is asking for "specific statutory protection for boat dwellers from harassment and unlawful eviction".

Harassment is illegal under various Acts, including the Protection from Harassment Act, 1997.

"Unlawful eviction" is obviously just that. Unlawful.

Therefore the OP already has full legal protection he seeks - "equal to that enjoyed by the tenants of houses" - since the Protection from Harassment Act, 1997 makes no references to domicile.

So I guess it's OK for Their Lordships to vote in favour of the order, then....