enforced moorings

[carlt]

I suppose it also depends on CRT's definition of "distant from your mooring".

Where,in the legislation, does it mention "distant from your mooring".

 

I have a workshop and yard where I can reasonably put a 40' narrowboat therefore I am exempt from the continuous cruising requirements, if I ever choose to own a narrowboat 40' or less, regardless of the distance between the two.

 

CRT set the two definitions, CC and Home Mooring.

Actually the government set the two definitions in the BWA 1995.

 

CRT just have to enforce them...and abide by them.

[Higgs]

I don't understand why someone would pay for a mooring they don't use, am I missing something.

 

Freedom of choice.

 

Actually the government set the two definitions in the BWA 1995.

 

CRT just have to enforce them...and abide by them.

 

Gotcha.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Higgs

[Jerra]

I may be interpreting the wording completely erroneously but I don't think Dancers has anything to worry about.

 

If CRT don't see you on a mooring or are continuously too far way for your declared mooring to be your "home" mooring they will check with the mooring owner on the status of your declared mooring. To me that means check that you are actually paying for a mooring and it is near where they often see you.

 

I assume they are trying to prevent somebody say declaring a mooring which they don't actually pay for/have a right to use. The other motive would be to prevent somebody paying for a cheaper mooring "out in the sticks" and living by bridge hoping in a city.

 

Dancers isn't doing either of these things so I would assume they fit into the Yes part of the opening "yes and no" statement.

 

 

 

[nicknorman]

As I understand it you haven't been contacted by CRT personally, so I think you are to some extent worrying about nothing. Depending on whether you are driven by "a matter of principle" or " a desire to compromise by taking the middle path" - the latter of which is a better approach to life IMHO - you could steal yourself to spend just one night in the marina. Then you could hand on heart say that you don't "never use the mooring" and therefore are not making a false declaration.

 

I have to say its interesting to know that some people pay for a home mooring but never use it whilst remaining close to the local area. I wonder how many of the "CMers" around our way are the same!

 

If you hate the marina so much, maybe you are paying for the wrong one. I certainly wouldn't like to live permanently in our marina (I get marina fever after a week!) but enjoy the odd few days there because its a very sociable place.

[Higgs]

 

The other motive would be to prevent somebody paying for a cheaper mooring "out in the sticks" and living by bridge hoping in a city.

 

 

It's a loophole, like companies use to avoid tax. A ghost mooring, to virtually CC. It isn't good practice, but frequenting places local to the mooring is probably easier to understand.

[DeanS]

I HAVE A VERY INTERESTING QUESTION

 

If someone has a mooring, and goes out each weekend...lets say...leaving on Sat morning...and returning Sun afternoon. That would mean that each week they are travelling on the same canal. Voluntary "spotters" may then see their boats on the same VMs in the area, or along the same towpath each week. Would they be "ticketed" for being in the same "zone" too long...or does the fact they have a home mooring listed in the CRT database, mean they wont be ticketed. I have a widebeam, which means I am already limited in where I can travel. I have a home mooring, but hate being tied to it. I intend going out every Thurs till Sunday, returning to allow the teenager to get to college Mon-Wed. Some will think "I've seen that boat on this canal every week", but I have no choice. The Ashton doesnt fit widebeams. The Rochdale is locked and has 50locks to the summit, and 50 locks return. The Bridgewater is not a CRT canal and has it's own limitations. While college is running, I'll be cruising weekly where I can, and in the college holidays I'll go cruising further afield. Let's hope someone doesnt think I'm an overstayer. I've even considered cruising round "in the marina" just so I'm not tied to the ^&**&^%^&*(*&^ pontoon

[MtB]

I don't understand why someone would pay for a mooring they don't use, am I missing something.

 

It's complicated. Broadly speaking, if one has no home mooring one is expected to 'continuously cruise'. This means to be actually engaged on a bona fide journey. Shuffling back and forth along say, a ten mile stretch of cut in order to stay near work, skool etc does not count as continuously cruising according to the Paul Davis test case.

 

If you have a home mooring, as I understand it, you are excused the need to be engaged on a bona fide journey, and ARE allowed to shuffle around an area indefinitely, provided you observe mooring time limits. (This is known as 'bridge hopping'.)

 

So if you want to bridge hop, you need a home mooring. Until now, there was no obligation to have a home mooring in any particular place, or to ever use it. Only that it must be available for you to use.

 

No doubt I have some details wrong but broadly speaking, until now we all thought it was legal to take a mooring in a cheap area and bridge hop anywhere you like, so this is why people pay for a mooring they don't use. To make their bridge hopping legal.

 

Now CRT now seem to be saying otherwise, so they will probably be challenged soon, and a test case will result.

 

 

MtB

[BEngo]

Where,in the legislation, does it mention "distant from your mooring".

 

I have a workshop and yard where I can reasonably put a 40' narrowboat therefore I am exempt from the continuous cruising requirements, if I ever choose to own a narrowboat 40' or less, regardless of the distance between the two.

 

 

Actually the government set the two definitions in the BWA 1995.

 

CRT just have to enforce them...and abide by them.

 

 

Point of order.

 

The BW Act 1995 went through parliament as a Private Bill not a Government Bill so between them BW (with its Draft and amendments) and Parliament (with its amendments) set the two definitions. The Government was not involved, but the whole process of the BWA 1995 was so badly handled by BW that BW were reportedly told never again would DEFRA permit them to try for a Private Act.

 

But as you say, the bed has been made and CRT now must lie in it.

 

N

[Athy]

Dean's question interests me too. We moor four locks up from Cropredy village. Sometimes we take 'Trojan' on longer jaunts, but quite often we get on board, go down the four locks and moor at Cropredy. We do this because we like stopping in Cropredy - indeed, immediately below the lock is my favourite mooring of any that I have ever used.

But, I have heard rumours that if you've moored in one place on a visitor mooring, you are not supposed to moor there again for a fixed time (within a month, I think I was told). Is this true?

Edited February 22, 2013 by Athy

[carlt]

No doubt I have some details wrong but broadly speaking, until now we all thought it was legal to take a mooring in a cheap area and bridge hop anywhere you like, so this is why people pay for a mooring they don't use. To make their bridge hopping legal.

 

Now CRT now seem to be saying otherwise, so they will probably be challenged soon, and a test case will result.

 

The law hasn't changed.

 

CRT, like BW before them, are just relying on the fact that people don't know the law so they are free to "interpret" it as suits them.

 

Point of order.

 

The BW Act 1995 went through parliament as a Private Bill not a Government Bill so between them BW (with its Draft and amendments) and Parliament (with its amendments) set the two definitions. The Government was not involved, but the whole process of the BWA 1995 was so badly handled by BW that BW were reportedly told never again would DEFRA permit them to try for a Private Act.

 

Interesting point of order considering that BW was and Parliament is part of "The Government".

[nicknorman]

I HAVE A VERY INTERESTING QUESTION

 

If someone has a mooring, and goes out each weekend...lets say...leaving on Sat morning...and returning Sun afternoon. That would mean that each week they are travelling on the same canal. Voluntary "spotters" may then see their boats on the same VMs in the area, or along the same towpath each week. Would they be "ticketed" for being in the same "zone" too long...or does the fact they have a home mooring listed in the CRT database, mean they wont be ticketed. I have a widebeam, which means I am already limited in where I can travel. I have a home mooring, but hate being tied to it. I intend going out every Thurs till Sunday, returning to allow the teenager to get to college Mon-Wed. Some will think "I've seen that boat on this canal every week", but I have no choice. The Ashton doesnt fit widebeams. The Rochdale is locked and has 50locks to the summit, and 50 locks return. The Bridgewater is not a CRT canal and has it's own limitations. While college is running, I'll be cruising weekly where I can, and in the college holidays I'll go cruising further afield. Let's hope someone doesnt think I'm an overstayer. I've even considered cruising round "in the marina" just so I'm not tied to the ^&**&^%^&*(*&^ pontoon

In summary, depends on whether CRT's "SE Visitor Mooring Proposals" come into force oop north. If we do nothing, they probably will! As things stand right now, you are OK. And I think if you don't use VMs you would be OK even with the new proposals.

 

We use our boat a lot for weekends and frequent Fradley visitor mooring quite often in summer so I for one don't want the Proposal enacted!

[MtB]

Dean's question interests me too. We moor four locks up from Cropredy village. Sometimes we take 'Trojan' on longer jaunts, but quite often we get on board, go down the four locks and moor at Cropredy. We do this because we like stopping in Cropredy - indeed, immediately below the lock is my favourite mooring of any that I have ever used.

But, I have heard rumours that if you've moored in one place on a visitor mooring, you are not supposed to moor there again for a fixed time (within a month, I think I was told). Is this true?

 

I've heard this too. It bothers me for the same reason as you, and I think it must be a pattern of cruising for many thousands of weekend boaters. Therefore I can't imagine CRT succeeding in making this stick, assuming it's more than a baseless rumour.

 

 

MtB

[carlt]

It's a loophole, like companies use to avoid tax. A ghost mooring, to virtually CC. It isn't good practice, but frequenting places local to the mooring is probably easier to understand.

A "ghost" mooring (if this is their new word for a "paper" mooring) is fraudulent and the boater would not be complying with either the BWA 1995 or the licence T&Cs.

 

An actual mooring (or somewhere to keep your vessel off CRT waters), however, is perfectly good practice and whether you use it or not is none of CRT's or anyone else's business. It just has to exist.

[Dave_P]

This raises an interesting question for me. I have a permanent home mooring in Birmingham but I'm working for a year in Yorkshire so I've been paying for a private mooring there too. At the beginning of march ill be leaving my mooring and cruising around West Yorkshire until returning to Birmingham in the summer. I assumed I'd need to comply with ccing guidance during this time. Now I'm not so sure. Now I'm thinking that provided I don't overstay on any one visitor mooring, I could shuttle from a to b for 4 months and that would be ok. I don't plan to do this but it seems that maybe I could???

[carlt]

Now I'm thinking that provided I don't overstay on any one visitor mooring, I could shuttle from a to b for 4 months and that would be ok. I don't plan to do this but it seems that maybe I could???

Yes you could, as long as you have a permanent mooring or somewhere you could keep your boat you will be complying with BWA Act 1995 and the licence T&Cs.

[DeanS]

Alternatively I could become a hire company, and hire my boat out to myself each week , because apparently the hire companies are "exempt" from persecution.

[carlt]

Alternatively I could become a hire company, and hire my boat out to myself each week , because apparently the hire companies are "exempt" from persecution.

From what my hire boat operator friends say they are not exempt from persecution, just subject to different kinds.

[Higgs]

A "ghost" mooring (if this is their new word for a "paper" mooring) is fraudulent and the boater would not be complying with either the BWA 1995 or the licence T&Cs.

 

An actual mooring (or somewhere to keep your vessel off CRT waters), however, is perfectly good practice and whether you use it or not is none of CRT's or anyone else's business. It just has to exist.

 

I think I'm taking the two definitions as meaning the same - Ghost and paper mooring.

 

Proving fraudulent intent would not be easy. It would be a judgement call and there should at least be criteria to guage this.

[Ray]

Where,in the legislation, does it mention "distant from your mooring".

 

 

 

I was referring to the phrase in the website quote that Dancers originally posted.

 

I also recognise that some people may have a mooring in one place and then spend a long time cruising well away from that mooring. However, I would respectfully suggest that it is a trifle unusual to continually cruise in a confined area well remote from your mooring. Consequently, for the occasional person who does it, I could understand why CRT might start asking questions. If everything is above board then I presume nobody has anything to fear. However, if the quoted mooring isn't bona fide and is used to circumvent the CC guidelines I think CRT have the right to check it out.

[NilesMI]

Interesting point of order considering that BW was and Parliament is part of "The Government".

 

 

Point of point of order...

 

Parilament is absolutely NOT part of "The Government".

 

Though it might seem from time to time as though the Government owns Parliament, while the Government runs the country, Parliament makes laws and (should) hold the government to account.

 

Confusing "The Government" and Parliament is as mistaken as refering to "elected Ministers" or "the elected Government". They're appointed, not elected.

 

 

Sorry to veer of topic. This is a good discussion on home mooring, which I'm enjoying reading.

Edited February 22, 2013 by NilesMI

[madcat]

Just to muddy the waters a bit,I pay for a mooring and I leave my boat there [far too much of the time as it happens] but due to my husbands age and disability I cannot go very far very often so Iam liable to be in the same places if I ever escape. Grief from CART I do not need and the IWA or I want Authority busybodies will get short shrift if they come mythereing me too.I'm just about as fed up as I can be with the whole pot boiling of them and their small minded outlook.

Edited February 22, 2013 by madcat

[KenK]

Alternatively I could become a hire company, and hire my boat out to myself each week , because apparently the hire companies are "exempt" from persecution.

 

Dean,

If you have a home mooring, you can put your boat on any stretch of the towpath for 14 days which is not subject to a shorter mooring restriction. After 14 days you could move it a few hundred yards, less in reality, and moor for another 14 days, then move back to the original one and repeat as required. There is absolutely nothing to prevent you, under the current leglislation, from doing that. The rules are different if you CC but if you have a home mooring there is no requirement to make a progressive journey.

 

Ken

[PaulG]

And muddying the waters even more, I have a standard Rivers and Canals licence, but my "home mooring" is on the Warwickshire Avon.

 

As far as I can see under the terms of that licence, there is nothing to stop me from spending all my time on C&RT waters if I so choose.

 

They(C&RT)have no way of checking the status of my "home mooring" as it is (quite legitimately) on a separately administered waterway, and therefore outside their remit to control.

[Alanji]

The relevant question on the license application is:

Where will the boat be kept when not being used for cruising? - my bold

The printed answer is:

At a home mooring site on a Canal & River Trust waterway

 

Dancers has (presumably) honestly answered the question - just because Dancers chooses to cruise all the time it does not in my layman's thinking make it a false declaration. That the mooring has not been used for x years matters not. In case of illness etc. it is likely that the mooring would be used ie when not being used for cruising.

 

Alan

[blackrose]

Ludicrous.

I own a house. Whether I live in it or not is my own damned business, it's paid for and I shall use it or not,as i wish.

Same for a mooring, surely: if a boater has a mooring, that means they are paying for it, but they are under no obligation to moor there for any particular length of time - or ever.

Bit daft if they don't, mind you, what are they paying the fees for?

 

They're paying the fees so that they don't get hassled by C&RT (at least that's what they thought).

 

I can imagine a future when boaters are innocently moored somewhere away from their home mooring and suddenly there's a knock on the cabin and a C&RT representative pokes his head in and says "Excuse me sir, we noticed you'd been away from your home mooring for some time. Would you mind going back please?"

 

I wonder if the continuous moaners will be happy then?

Edited February 22, 2013 by blackrose