Canal & River Trust’s mooring guidance endorsed by the High Court

[jenlyn]

WTF is Dew on about?

Dunno, what silly sod gave him a psck of wine gums?

[NigelMoore]

Are they bullies or a bunch of parasitic thieves?

 

Does it really matter? Perhaps it does.

 

It was the desire to make criminals out of non-compliant boaters that Parliament balked at; the question of being able to levy financial penalties only, for the proposed offences, was never countenanced by BW. That would suggest the former rather than the latter – hence my observation.

 

The new sections on mooring controls proposed in the 1990 Bill contained not a hint of a fine instead of an ability to create a summary offence; rather, they demanded the imposition of a fine also.

 

On top of that, those proposed new mooring regulations were all lumped together in rendering non-compliant boats subject to the s.8 penalty [by virtue of the proposed s.22], so that offending boats could be subject to seizure as well.

 

If BW had been prepared to forgo criminal sanctions and instead had asked for a power to control moorings and levy financial sanctions only [as is being rolled out now outwith Parliamentary sanction], then we would have had the useful, lawful regulations that Johnson et al [including many boaters] now desperately desire.

 

That short sighted stupidity evidenced a [continuing] nasty frame of mind to the detriment of good governance, and is directly responsible for the rising management problems now seen.

[scrunch]

I have to admit to being a older boater, and I am sure somebody please correct me if I am wrong ccer was not introduced until about 1994 before then every boat required a home mooring, ccing was introduced because it did seem very unfair that some boaters who just toured the canal network had to pay for a mooring they never used, obviously this also had some boaters who where not touring the network to moor for free, this was never really a problem as these boaters knew what they where doing kept their heads down moored where they did not cause a problem and moved if they where asked by a enforcement officer to move. When I think of some of the characters it did make the canals more interesting and generaly by their boats was always tidy, again to not draw attension to themselves. I also remember reading on the original ccing documentation for BWB something along the lines of if you have work school or family commitments ccing would not be for you, there was pretty much the same discussion then amongst boaters although no internet then, so not so well discussed, I think its a shame this has come so far and the consequence I fear is it will no longer be a grey area with a distance set with no returns in such a such a time, I am in a lovely marina at the moment due to work commitments I have to be on call with a 20 minute limit to be at my place of work through the night. Retirement looms and I cannot wait to tour our beautiful canals as a ccer so long as I still am allowed. No solution to it all wish I could, but really think this has gone to far now such a shame really.

[NigelMoore]

You do stand to be corrected scrunch. Before 1995 there never was any legal requirement to have a home mooring, although licence applications did invite you to inform BW where you normally kept your boat.

 

‘CC’ing’ wasn’t introduced because it was unfair to pay for unused moorings or for any other reason; it was a situation allowed to continue regardless of the new requirement for a home mooring, allowed on the understanding that such boats were not going to be just left alongside the canalbanks unsupervised, causing control and congestion problems with limited means of contacting the owners.

 

I wouldn’t get too upset as to how far things have gone; the ‘guidelines’ won’t bother me nor most boaters setting off to cruise having no longer any ties to a particular location, For those who do, where the statute is unclear it must be construed against the promoters in favour of the public.

 

Of course, no judge takes a blind bit of notice of the precept, but . . .

[FadeToScarlet]

The previous owner of my boat was one of the first people to do what we now call CCing, as he'd tend to move up and down the Grand Union in the early 80s whilst working in London, and didn't get a home mooring until I think the early 90s.

[Arthur Brown]

Could be fun when the homeless former occupants of a section 8ed boat walk into a council housing office and the council look into why they are getting lots of people from CART evictions. As local councils pick up a near permanent responsibility to house and care for these people they have a huge vested interest.

[Lady Muck]

Well thats why some local authorities pay benefits for leisure moorings and boat licenses as well - it's a damn sight cheaper than a b&b.

[Mick and Maggie]

I'm floating an idea so to speak.

 

Being a landlord, I have a bond on deposit from my tenants. The bond covers any incidental expenses created by my tenants. The remainder after the incidental expenses are covered is refunded at the end of their tenancy.

 

Would it be possible for CaRT to obtain a bond against boat owners who have a 'CC' licence and who do not have a home mooring. Which would be repaid at the end of the CC period minus any 'incidental expenses' incurred such as overstaying on a visitor mooring?

 

This might provide an incentive to those who ignore the terms and conditions and overstay for long periods. If the bond is exhausted by the end of the licence period, a further (possibly larger) bond would be required.

[NigelMoore]

Would it be possible for CaRT to obtain a bond against boat owners who have a 'CC' licence and who do not have a home mooring. Which would be repaid at the end of the CC period minus any 'incidental expenses' incurred such as overstaying on a visitor mooring?

 

That would be unlawfully creating an extra requirement as a condition for obtaining a licence – and doing so for one class of boater only. You might as well suggest it for both classes, both being liable to ‘offences’ of one sort or another.

 

Security deposits for landlords are provided for by law and strictly regulated by law; a similar set of laws would need to be set in place for the waterways – and in view of potential absorption of the EA waters, would need to contain an over-ride of existing legislation for those also.

 

But what would be the point really? The waterways authority has the power to enforce such regulations as it is empowered to impose, in ways that most directly and efficiently address the problem.

 

It is the continuing desire to address rule infractions by the most extreme methods conceivable that leads to enforcement problems. More knowledgeable and experienced people on the ‘ground’ and less lawyers and accountants would make all the difference.

[carlt]

 

Simply repeating it doesn't make right.

 

A ccer cannot simply move back to the 48 hour mooring or they would be in breach of ccing regulations.

 

A home moorer can move back and has every right to but if they overstay again they become in breach of their licence T&Cs and open to proceedings under s18(2) which I would have said was no longer "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut" if they are persistent offenders and is a legitimate penalty, unlike your s43

 

Zero.

Are you sure?

 

If you are asking me if I am sure then...yes I am but others may disagree and are free to offer an argument as to why they believe I'm wrong.

[cotswoldsman]

I'm floating an idea so to speak.

 

Being a landlord, I have a bond on deposit from my tenants. The bond covers any incidental expenses created by my tenants. The remainder after the incidental expenses are covered is refunded at the end of their tenancy.

 

Would it be possible for CaRT to obtain a bond against boat owners who have a 'CC' licence and who do not have a home mooring. Which would be repaid at the end of the CC period minus any 'incidental expenses' incurred such as overstaying on a visitor mooring?

 

This might provide an incentive to those who ignore the terms and conditions and overstay for long periods. If the bond is exhausted by the end of the licence period, a further (possibly larger) bond would be required.

Here we go again only Continuous Cruisers overstay!!!! I presume that there is no need for a Bond from other boaters as the only problem is Continuous Cruisers, I despair at the way some people are happy just to assume that a minority group such as Continuous Cruisers are the bad people, get real please

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

That would be unlawfully creating an extra requirement as a condition for obtaining a licence – and doing so for one class of boater only. You might as well suggest it for both classes, both being liable to ‘offences’ of one sort or another.

 

Security deposits for landlords are provided for by law and strictly regulated by law; a similar set of laws would need to be set in place for the waterways – and in view of potential absorption of the EA waters, would need to contain an over-ride of existing legislation for those also.

 

But what would be the point really? The waterways authority has the power to enforce such regulations as it is empowered to impose, in ways that most directly and efficiently address the problem.

 

It is the continuing desire to address rule infractions by the most extreme methods conceivable that leads to enforcement problems. More knowledgeable and experienced people on the ‘ground’ and less lawyers and accountants would make all the difference.

I am certain that some time back, BW gave consideration to some sort of bond or deposit scheme. The argument was that it was costing BW a considerable amount of money to remove abandoned boats from its waterways when the owner could not be traced.

 

However, the scheme did not go ahead and the idea was quietly dropped (I guess for the reasons that Nigel has given).

[Mick and Maggie]

Here we go again only Continuous Cruisers overstay!!!! I presume that there is no need for a Bond from other boaters as the only problem is Continuous Cruisers, I despair at the way some people are happy just to assume that a minority group such as Continuous Cruisers are the bad people, get real please

John, it was not my intention to discriminate against one group of users. In particular a group who you are obviously a member of. I think on reflection it was a bad choice of example on my part. Maybe my mindset was being influenced at the time. But that's not an excuse, the thread does come across as CC bashing in places.

 

My intention was to explore an idea that would move away from litigation to explore what I thought would be a more easier method that is already enshrined in tenant law. An example which could give a possible workable example. Maybe I should have given it more consideration. But it was intended to fly a kite and take onboard the feedback.

 

I actually think CCers get a bad press. In some cases from people who should know better. I actually believe from personal experience that overstaying is not a big problem. However a small number of people on CC terms and conditions are giving some cause for concern. The ill feeling I believe comes from a certain group of waterways users who have overstated the issue and people in authority who react without exploring and researching the real picture.

 

On reflection, I feel that I should offer an apology to anyone whose feelings I have infringed upon. I did not set out to wilfully do so.

[cotswoldsman]

I understand that and thank you. I am trying very hard to try and get CCers a slightly better press (I like a difficult job)