IWA Calls For Action On 'Continuous Moorers'

[mayalld]

There is a fourth category which of course is the boater that doesn't want to move and doesn't want to pay,

 

Quite so, although I don't actually think that there are that many in this category.

 

Perhaps I should have said that there are three categories of boater whose preferred use of the canal can and should be accomodated.

[mayalld]

I would suggest that no way forward exists until an agreed understanding exists on the 1995 Act.

 

BW/CART have had 17 years to bring an amendment to the 1995 Act before parliament in order to clarify it. The reason they have not done so is that probable outcome would be to change -

 

 

The reason is simple.

 

Despite the importance that WE place on this issue, there is a limited amount of parliamentary time available, and this isn't deemed important enough.

 

I understand that CRT have been told in no uncertain terms that they just get BW's legislative framework with their name inserted, and that no parliamentary time would be found to revise the framework.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

The reason is simple.

 

Despite the importance that WE place on this issue, there is a limited amount of parliamentary time available, and this isn't deemed important enough.

 

I understand that CRT have been told in no uncertain terms that they just get BW's legislative framework with their name inserted, and that no parliamentary time would be found to revise the framework.

 

You understand it wrong Dave. Many changes (other than replacing BW with CART) were made to acts or parliament.

 

To give a very simple example, a change was made to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (which was not a simple name change) to specifically limit the applicability of the act to CART.

[Ange]

I have two differing cruising patterns. Out of the stoppage season we range far and wide. In the stoppage season we usually stay in a particular area due to stoppages, getting iced in and needing to be near facilities. I'm sure I'm not alone with this pattern of ccing.

 

That pretty well sums up our cruising pattern too.

[Tam & Di]

Try to be a little more open to the fact that there may be ways forward that should be explored.

 

Yes, we can carry on with some (me included) bemoaning the fact that some boaters claim to be CCers yet are perpetually moored in the same place, and others asserting forcefully that they are complying with the Act, and that the CCing guidance isn't the law, but that way does not lie harmony!

 

Let us step back from that, and re-evaluate the situation, and let us start from two points that I think that all sides can probably agree upon;

• The 1995 Act is a dog's breakfast, too open to varying interpretations.
• There is little prospect of parliamentary time to fix it.

Now, we can group boaters in various ways (and I know that there are those who feel such groupings are unhelpful, but in this case they do help);

 

 

• Boaters who want somewhere that they can moor the boat that they can call their own.
• Boaters don't want to be tied to a mooring spot, but want to remain in a particular area.
• Boaters who want to wander far and wide.

The first and last are already catered for. The second are not, and the only way round it for them is to claim to be CCers and hope that they can do just enough to keep of the enforcement Radar.

 

I think that the important part of what you say is "believe (or claim)". Those who don't want to live on a mooring, and who aren't in a position to CC, have a vested interest in claiming that their 10 miles back and forth along the same canal is within the law. To abandon that claim at present would be akin for turkeys voting for Christmas.

 

I do not believe this 2nd category really exists. I doubt very strongly that there are people who actually wish to move a couple of miles every 14 days - they only do this because they are getting away with pretending they are complying with the CC licence requirements. What they really want is a free mooring. Some of them may well like to go for a cruise once in a while for pleasure, but that is not the same thing. Their behaviour has additionally put constraints on the "genuine" CCers for whom the amendment to the 1995 Bill was written, as they too have to move regularly, whereas they might wish to stay in one region for rather longer as part of their genuine roaming lifestyle.

 

I can only repeat what I said in another post - this could be a stop-gap solution, but in the absence of very strict policing it won't prevent the new newbies coming along and starting the whole ball rolling again. If there were strict policing in force the present problem would not have arisen, and could be dealt with. Strict policing would be very costly and involve a lot of Court time before the message got through, and there is just not the will for this.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Tam & Di

[Higgs]

I don't think either side of the discussion will get 100% satisfaction. It's going to be a compromise, within the prevailing conditions. Without wardens, can't see it working. To be honest.

[mayalld]

You understand it wrong Dave. Many changes (other than replacing BW with CART) were made to acts or parliament.

 

To give a very simple example, a change was made to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (which was not a simple name change) to specifically limit the applicability of the act to CART.

 

Yes, many changes were made that were necessary to vest the waterways in CRT instead of BW and to transfer the relevant powers.

 

That was, however, the extent of the change that was accomodated.

 

The British Waterways Board Transfer of Functions Order 2012 was an order made under the Public Bodies Act 2011. This provided for many different public boduies and allowed all the necessary administrative amendments to the relevant Acts to be made. It did not permit wholesale amendment of the Acts, which would have required the passage of a new Act just for BW, and Parliamentary time would not have been (and will not be) found for that.

[carlt]

I do not believe this 2nd category really exists.

It may have been a category of one but I fitted into it nicely when I was working in Rugby whilst ccing.

 

Luckily the amount of waterways that were within 1 hour's commute of Rugby meant that I was fulfilling BW's interpretation of ccing requirements anyway but, if I had been working elsewhere, a roving licence would have suited me perfectly as I had no desire to stay in one place.

 

When I was working in Banbury I had a mooring in Cropredy which I never actually visited, except when there was a party on.

 

Susie, the patrol officer back then, visited me one day and said I wasn't ccing properly even though I was moving every 14 days.

 

I pointed out to her that I wasn't a ccer as I had a long term mooring and she returned a couple of days later to confirm that I was free to wander about the South Oxford without having to comply with the ccing requirements.

 

By having a mooring or somewhere to put your boat you are effectively given a roving permit.

[Alan de Enfield]

Hope this is'nt tempting fate.

 

12 pages and 230 replies - strong feelings on both sides.

 

The thread has retained a sense of perspective, has not drifted (too far) off topic and no personal insults or threats.

 

Is'nt this how a discussion should be ?

[Lady Muck]

Yes, excellent well done all of us!

[sueb]

I believe most of us feel the subject is too serious to go off course. I am worried about the future but my logic tells me nothing will happen. Any enforcement needs people, which Cart haven't got.

[Tuscan]

I believe most of us feel the subject is too serious to go off course. I am worried about the future but my logic tells me nothing will happen. Any enforcement needs people, which Cart haven't got.

 

 

 

 

Yes I suspect the most likely outcome is a fudge with some extra mooring available in urban areas , but nowhere near enough, a continued increase in the problem, lots of noise and edicts from CRT but very limited actual action either in provision or enforcement as the funds will not be available and I suspect they will have higher priorities for the canal that will probably not be boating related. Such a cynic I've become.

[Higgs]

By having a mooring or somewhere to put your boat you are effectively given a roving permit.

 

A fair assesment. A mooring, plus mooring fee.

 

HB would be difficult, if the cruising area extended beyond boundaries. Not impossible, but really hard to maintain continuity. 13 weeks beyond boundary, return to area within that period. Some attachment needed, to a spot, for residential purposes. A roving licence just might contain that distinction.

[carlt]

A fair assesment. A mooring, plus mooring fee.

Except that the mooring does not have to be on CRT waters and the place where it may be kept doesn't even have to be wet.

 

For example I have a workshop and yard where I could reasonably store a 50' x 9' boat which means that any boat I place in the water, within those dimensions, would be exempt from the ccing rules without me paying for a mooring (or buying a hypothetical roving permit).

[Higgs]

It just occured to me. We are talking about moorings for residential purposes and not convenient moorings for weekend boat users. Aren't we?

Edited September 3, 2012 by Higgs

[carlt]

It just occured to me. We are talking about moorings for residential purposes and not for convenient weekend boat users. Aren't we?

I'm not.

 

Why do you need a residential mooring if you are not planning to live on it?

[Alan de Enfield]

It just occured to me. We are talking about moorings for residential purposes and not for convenient weekend boat users. Aren't we?

 

Could be but the subject is Cmers not necessarily residential CMers

 

But - how about those folk ( not saying there are any ) that leave a boat permanently moored up and just visit it at weekends (like a 2nd home / weekend cottage)

They would still be continous moorers.

 

edit :Spooling correctun

Edited September 3, 2012 by Alan de Enfield

[Higgs]

Could be but the subject is Cmers not necessarily residential CMers

 

But - how about those folk ( not saying there are any ) that leave a boat permanently moored up and just visit it at weekends (like a 2nd home / weekend cottage)

They would still be continous moorers.

 

edit :Spooling correctun

 

 

I think the largest request for a solution is coming from liveaboards. On the stuffed-for-moorings side of the discussion. And a chance to live in an area without CM'ing.

 

What's more; IMO, any compromise should be geared to liveaboards and the hard up. Why waste the solution on boaters that want only to have a cheap and convenient mooring - for pleasure purposes only.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Higgs

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Yes, many changes were made that were necessary to vest the waterways in CRT instead of BW and to transfer the relevant powers.

 

That was, however, the extent of the change that was accomodated.

 

The British Waterways Board Transfer of Functions Order 2012 was an order made under the Public Bodies Act 2011. This provided for many different public boduies and allowed all the necessary administrative amendments to the relevant Acts to be made. It did not permit wholesale amendment of the Acts, which would have required the passage of a new Act just for BW, and Parliamentary time would not have been (and will not be) found for that.

 

Well thanks for agreeing with me!

 

I hardly think replacing one word by two constitutes a wholesale amendment.

 

Perhaps you would like to agree that too.

[Alan de Enfield]

I think the largest request for a solution is coming from liveaboards. On the stuffed-for-moorings side of the discussion. And a chance to live in an area without CM'ing.

 

What's more; IMO, any compromise should be geared to liveaboards and the hard up. Why waste the solution on boaters that want only to have a cheap and convenient mooring - for pleasure purposes only.

 

We agree.

Those that can afford a "second home" can (probably) afford a mooring and should be persued with all vigour.

 

Those residential 'limited income' / 'health problem' Cmers are the ones that need the help, but I come back to one of the original points (where I think you agreed) - they can get help with HB etc so they could take a paid for mooring and not just take the P.

The mooring may not be convenient for work / school etc but thats the reality.

 

The Roving Mooring Licence is certainly a middle-of-the-road option but would those currently not abiding by the rules, who wont / refuse / cannot afford to get a mooring abide by any of the new rules ?

How would the 'new' roving rules be enforced ?

How would the enforcement be funded ?

 

As I see it there is no simple answer, It will take someone a lot wiser than I.

If I could find the answer then I wouldnt be sat here twiddling my thumbs I'd be some highly paid business consultant with all the answers.

[Djuwenda]

It may have been a category of one but I fitted into it nicely when I was working in Rugby whilst ccing.

 

Luckily the amount of waterways that were within 1 hour's commute of Rugby meant that I was fulfilling BW's interpretation of ccing requirements anyway but, if I had been working elsewhere, a roving licence would have suited me perfectly as I had no desire to stay in one place..

 

I used to be in exactly the same situation, and know of many others who do

 

 

I pointed out to her that I wasn't a ccer as I had a long term mooring and she returned a couple of days later to confirm that I was free to wander about the South Oxford without having to comply with the ccing requirements.

 

By having a mooring or somewhere to put your boat you are effectively given a roving permit.

edgzactly. I dont understand why so many people have a problem figuring this out!

[sueb]

Does any of this stop people getting boats and moving them to overcrowded areas, which is a big problem. Lady Muck says the Lea and Stort is very quiet has it become a no go area?

[mayalld]

I do not believe this 2nd category really exists. I doubt very strongly that there are people who actually wish to move a couple of miles every 14 days - they only do this because they are getting away with pretending they are complying with the CC licence requirements. What they really want is a free mooring. Some of them may well like to go for a cruise once in a while for pleasure, but that is not the same thing. Their behaviour has additionally put constraints on the "genuine" CCers for whom the amendment to the 1995 Bill was written, as they too have to move regularly, whereas they might wish to stay in one region for rather longer as part of their genuine roaming lifestyle.

 

I can only repeat what I said in another post - this could be a stop-gap solution, but in the absence of very strict policing it won't prevent the new newbies coming along and starting the whole ball rolling again. If there were strict policing in force the present problem would not have arisen, and could be dealt with. Strict policing would be very costly and involve a lot of Court time before the message got through, and there is just not the will for this.

 

Good grief, I seem to have joined the wish washy liberals for the day, whilst others assume my mantle as the Norman Tebbitt of the canals.

 

I actually believe that this second category does exist, although I would accept that the enthusiasm for members in their membership of the category may well vary.

 

Let us say that there is a category of boaters for whom a fixed mooring, either for lifestyle or financial motivations, is not a desirable option, and for whom strict compliance with the CCing guidelines is onerous.

 

Such boaters may well currently move the absolute minimum once a fortnight (or less often if they can get away with it) so as to nod to compliance with the rules and to keep CRT off thir backs. However, they do so in a spirit not of complying but of trying to make it difficult to prove non-compliance. He knows that CRT believes him to be taking the P, but equally knows that they are unliklely to do anything about it.

 

This presents such boaters with a way forward. It presents them with an opportunity to pay a sum of money that is significantly less than the cost of a mooring to render a pattern previously at the edge of the rules legitimate, but in return it removes ambiguity about those rules. No longer is he subject to an ambiguous set of rules that can be argued about forever, and as such, there is much more chance of compliance.

 

As the scheme develops, the number of permits available in the scheme will fluctuate, and if compliance is good, then more RMPs would become available, so there would be a community pressure to comply.

 

Of course there will always be those whose sole wish its to take what they can, and they will doubtless try it on. However, the mere fact that there is an option to legitimise permanent casual mooring in a patch would mean that CRT would have little difficulty in enforcing against them.

[carlt]

Good grief, I seem to have joined the wish washy liberals for the day, whilst others assume my mantle as the Norman Tebbitt of the canals.

Welcome to the "moral high ground"...You can see my house from here.

[mayalld]

Well thanks for agreeing with me!

 

I hardly think replacing one word by two constitutes a wholesale amendment.

 

Perhaps you would like to agree that too.

 

No, I wouldn't agree with that.

 

It isn't the number of words that are replaced that makes a difference, but whether the changes actually change the meaning of that section.

 

The change that you are proposing would change the meaning (clearly so, because its new meaning would be different to the meaning that the Judge in the Davies case put on it), and it would be wrong to do that as an administrative change.

 

BTW, does Tom know that you are off message?