IWA Calls For Action On 'Continuous Moorers'

[matola]

What is confusing me is why you did not just wait until they take you to court for non payment. They know they are on as you say "shaky ground" and for that reason they will not try to recover and will therefor not pursue you so you will not get your day in court. I was not having a go at you just disappointed that you have given them the chance to walk away on the basis that they had already agreed not to charge you and will put it down to clerical error.

No offence taken

 

They do indeed still currently have the option to void the "fine" and write it off as a clerical error. Although they have not yet confirmed this is the direction they will take. If they decide to try to uphold the "fine" then I will wait for the recovery action to commence proceedings. Although, I see your point about not giving this option.

[nicknorman]

Being able to pick and choose which laws to break, based on personal preferences is a far worse outcome than someone knowing their rights.

 

There are laws in place which deal with overstaying and procedures available to enforce those laws.

 

Just because that enforcement procedure doesn't suit their time frame doesn't mean that they are entitled to make up new ones with no authority to do so.

 

But surely the aim of the excercise is to get people to respect the time limits for VMs. Unfortunately whilst many want to be considerate etc, a few are just self self self but if they think there is a punishment it might deter. If they know the punishment is unworkable, why bother to comply with the signage?

 

I do take your point, but you are being perfectionist whilst I am being pragmatic!

[carlt]

But surely the aim of the excercise is to get people to respect the time limits for VMs.

No the aim of the exercise is to get people to comply with the law and that means the enforcing body as well as the customer.

 

I am not being a "perfectionist" I am being a realist.

 

If an enforcing body exceeds its authority and is shown to be doing so it loses the respect and the authority it legitimately had.

[cotswoldsman]

No the aim of the exercise is to get people to comply with the law and that means the enforcing body as well as the customer.

 

I am not being a "perfectionist" I am being a realist.

 

If an enforcing body exceeds its authority and is shown to be doing so it loses the respect and the authority it legitimately had.

And this is the problem with a lot of what CRT are doing now. They are very busy at present issuing Section 13 love to see that tested in court.

[matty40s]

I have passed through Hawkesbury today - the £25 "extended stay" notices are up on the 7 day moorings on the Coventry canal side, however, there are none on the 7 day signage on the North Oxford side for some inexplicable reason.

The moorings were virtually empty (3 boats )anyway.

However, from the end of the 7 day section towards Bedworth is 1/4 mile of boats, quite a few which have been there for a long time.

There wasn't a single boat on the VM at Hartshill.

There wasn't a single boat on the VM by the Anchor.

There wasn't a single boat on the 48 hour VM at Newbold (one of CaRTs "problem" sites).

 

 

 

They would be far better spending money on the 22 light fittings that currently are not working in Newbold tunnel to restore it to it's funky best.

[alan_fincher]

Has anyone done an independent analysis of the consultation returns?

As Allan Richards has said, so far they have not published the redacted responses as they said they would.

 

Nor have they published any of what was agreed at the workshops in respect of the 8 pilot sites.

 

Neither seem (to me) a huge amount of work to put together, so I am disappointed that neither has so far happened.

 

That said, I personally have not chased either, but I know others have.

[Doorman]

Item 4 pubs, no need for any more, those that exist are going out of business so fast proves that no more are required.

Not necessarily true.

 

The requirement still exists, but at an affordable price. Wetherspoons have proven this with their concept and pricing structure. The Pubco's are ruining the traditionally popular pubs with their mercenary approach to ripping off not only their tenants, but their customers too!

[nicknorman]

No the aim of the exercise is to get people to comply with the law and that means the enforcing body as well as the customer.

 

I am not being a "perfectionist" I am being a realist.

 

 

Well that may be the aim of your exercise, but its not mine. Mine is to get people to act reasonably and comply with mooring time limits that exist for the good of everyone. If no-one picks up a £25 overstay charge then its irrelevant whether they are legally enforceable or not. Canals should be about having a nice time and being considerate of others, not considering how the next court case might go. Unless you are a perfectionist of course!

[DeanS]

I have a marina mooring.

It's spring, and I am cruising.

My kid attends college.

I cruise just around my marina.

I wont be back in my marina for months.

I therefore ask myself...what is the difference between me and a CC-er who doesnt have a marina mooring and has a kid in college and cruises in the same area.

 

You would say, I have a right to be in the area, but they dont.

Yet we are both boaters enjoying the same canal.

Why should I be forced to pay for a marina mooring when I'm not using it?

And if I didnt have the marina mooring, why should that suddenly mean I have to leave town?

 

It just makes no sense.

 

Boating is about cruising. Even if that is up and down the stretch of canal outside your marina. I just cant bring myself to go tie my boat back up to a pontoon while the sunny months are here.....and honestly...why should I?

[nicknorman]

 

...why should I?

Because you could plug into shore power and never have to worry about what an amphour was again?

[DeanS]

Because you could plug into shore power and never have to worry about what an amphour was again?

 

so tempting...

 

 

[cotswoldsman]

Well that may be the aim of your exercise, but its not mine. Mine is to get people to act reasonably and comply with mooring time limits that exist for the good of everyone. If no-one picks up a £25 overstay charge then its irrelevant whether they are legally enforceable or not. Canals should be about having a nice time and being considerate of others, not considering how the next court case might go. Unless you are a perfectionist of course!

Nick I think we would all like it if people coming out of marinas would obey the time limits, but this does not give CRT the right to bring in a fine that they have no power to introduce or enforce.

[nicknorman]

Nick I think we would all like it if people coming out of marinas would obey the time limits, but this does not give CRT the right to bring in a fine that they have no power to introduce or enforce.

That's true but I think more is achieved by getting people to obey time limits than by demonising CRT's attempts to get people to comply even though they may be misguided. As I said, if everyone complied it wouldn't matter. Better also to concentrate on things that affect compliant boaters such as unreasonably restrictive mooring time limits being introduced and patrol notices given to compliant boaters - which I am surprised to find seems to be happening. Just my opinion of course!

[Higgs]

I therefore ask myself...what is the difference between me and a CC-er who doesnt have a marina mooring and has a kid in college and cruises in the same area.

 

You would say, I have a right to be in the area, but they dont.

 

I think, if you want to push it you can. But, alot of these discussions mention the spirit, or allude to a spirit. The two classifications of licence were meant to be different. The right to CC was campaigned for. Unless boaters want more and more regulation, I'd say, apply the spirit.

[cotswoldsman]

That's true but I think more is achieved by getting people to obey time limits than by demonising CRT's attempts to get people to comply even though they may be misguided. As I said, if everyone complied it wouldn't matter. Better also to concentrate on things that affect compliant boaters such as unreasonably restrictive mooring time limits being introduced and patrol notices given to compliant boaters - which I am surprised to find seems to be happening. Just my opinion of course!

i find myself agreeing with you on a number of points (bit worrying) I feel that The Trust seem determined to take the pleasure out of owning a boat. They seem to be changing things on a whim with no reasoning. The problem I have by allowing them to do something like impose a fine that I do not think is enforceable we are condoning them to do whatever they like such as changing moorings to 48 hour. IMO The Trust need to be held to account for all their actions. As you might know I do support The Trust but this does not mean I will not do my best to ensure boaters are protected from unreasonable actions.

I have a big problem with the amount of Section 13 and Section 8 being issued together though I do not in principle support boaters that do not move at any time.

[matty40s]

section 13 john, can you expand on this please.

 

It does need veryfying in Court Nck, CaRT are changing all these regs /notices and time limits as though they are playing a game.

In most cases there is no need for change (and there certainly isn't the data to back it up).

In the SE there was a "consultation", I believe that CaRT knew exactly what concessions they were going to give the protesters that shouted loud at the workshops.

For the rest of the country it will come in by stealth - as it is in the Midlands and also over NaughtyCal territory already.

[nicknorman]

section 13 john, can you expand on this please.

 

It does need veryfying in Court Nck, CaRT are changing all these regs /notices and time limits as though they are playing a game.

In most cases there is no need for change (and there certainly isn't the data to back it up).

In the SE there was a "consultation", I believe that CaRT knew exactly what concessions they were going to give the protesters that shouted loud at the workshops.

For the rest of the country it will come in by stealth - as it is in the Midlands and also over NaughtyCal territory already.

Section 13 is about houseboats - the 1971 act http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/2060.pdf

Yes I know about the consultation, I was at the meeting if you remember! But I see no connection in challenging their ability to fine, which I agree is questionable, vs their ability to set mooring limits on a whim, which i believe they are entitled to do.

 

My point is that its better to concentrate on the latter, ensuring they are using their powers reasonably and with logic, since this affects everyone, rather than expending energy and generating friction and "seperation" with CRT on the former. Is it really in boaters interests to prove that CRT can't easily enforce mooring restrictions that are in place for the good of all boaters?

Edited April 24, 2013 by nicknorman

[carlt]

Well that may be the aim of your exercise, but its not mine. Mine is to get people to act reasonably...

As a £25 penalty is both unlawful and unreasonable I don't understand how your aim can be achieved if you include all people in your ambitions and not just the ones that annoy you.

[nicknorman]

As a £25 penalty is both unlawful and unreasonable I don't understand how your aim can be achieved if you include all people in your ambitions and not just the ones that annoy you.

Then I guess you will never understand.

[carlt]

Then I guess you will never understand.

No you are right.

 

I will never understand an individual who welcomes an organisation breaking the law in order to stop an individual from exercising their rights.

[nicknorman]

No you are right.

 

I will never understand an individual who welcomes an organisation breaking the law in order to stop an individual from exercising their rights.

Which law are they breaking? Which rights? Edited April 24, 2013 by nicknorman

[carlt]

Which law are they breaking?

They have no legal authority to issue PCNs.

[nicknorman]

They have no legal authority to issue PCNs.

But by doing so they are not breaking any laws

[Jerra]

I know I am being thick and I will get a certain amount of flack for this but can somebody explain this to me.

 

The National Trust owns property they make rules e.g. where you can park for how long and any charges that apply.

 

Why is the CRT any different? Don't they have the right to decide who can park (moor) where for how long and at what charge?

 

Yes I agree when they want to deo things which seem detrimental to a majority try to change their minds but, why is it considered illegal for them to decide who should be charged for what services.

[carlt]

But by doing so they are not breaking any laws

As they have no lawful authority to issue PCNs I would suggest that they are in contravention of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations Act 1999.