CRT report on the SE Visitor Mooring Consultation

[Rebotco]

For me, the chief attraction of boating can be summed up in one word - FREEDOM.

Freedom from the petty interferences of all the controls, regulations, regimentation imposed by politicians, authorities and jobsworths who blight our everyday lives incessantly with their hypocrisy and arrogant abuse of power.

Its to escape from that suffocation that I go boating, and why I do not want to find it pointlessly restricted. There is obviously a need for a set of basic rules that everyone can understand and follow, because they see it as enabling their own freedoms and preserving the freedoms of others.

So these mooring proposals I see as OTT and largely unjustified.

The gist of CRT's motivation seems to be (1) There's a lot of complaining about the present system, although this is not recorded or verifiable, and (2) there is a 40% increase in the number boats compared to 10 yrs ago, so the "rules" must need review.

In regard to (1) it seems highly unprofessional to formulate policy on the basis of a gobby few, especially as they have no idea if those complainants are valid or are a significant number. Their first move must be to establish whether there is in fact a problem that needs resolving!

And on (2) It seems blindingly obvious that if there is a 40% increase in numbers of boats, then there is a need for a 40% increase in visitor moorings, not further restricting the facilities that exist. Presumably the increase in boats is matched by a similar increase in licence fees income. So spend that windfall income on extending visitor moorings, not on consultations, volunteers, signage, databases, invoices, fines and debt collections etc.

Finally, if part of the reason for these restrictions is because CRT's powers are inadequate to enforce the present rules, where is sense in replacing them with another set of of rules, which they also cannot enforce?

I value my freedom and I want CRT to promote and encourage that for me and all other boaters, not take it away.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Rebotco

[Tuscan]

Greenie Very well put

[onionbargee]

There is freedom in a way, that is CRT don't have much presence day to day on the canal anymore, so you can do what you like, i'm sure they would rather have hundreds of wardens and ticket stickers but they don't. The only way you will find CRT staff is if you call them out on an emergency.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Freedom is a good thing, until it's abused. I get the sense that even if CRT did enforce the rules they had already, the complaints would be the same.

[NigelMoore]

NABO are taking their usual ultra cautious approach to the legalities involved. They are, however, on the right track. It is a central, crucial indicator of the true situation that one of the 3 “consultation documents” listed by the authority is that entitled “Brief note on legal powers”.

 

It states: “During the course of this consultation one question has frequently been asked – “Under what powers are you setting the charge and conditions for extended stays at visitor moorings?” [my emphasis]

 

This flags up the major challenge the authority faced – the ubiquitous query as to the lawfulness of the proposals, without which foundation the entire exercise was simply abusive. Obviously, CART recognised the need to quash such potentially damaging challenge, hence the “Brief Note” – and brief it certainly is!

 

Importantly, it is dishonest. It could be thought that with the stakes involved, they would wish to show themselves sans reproche, but it is evident that their feeling of invulnerability in the face of boater ignorance and/or boater desire to have their authority un-impugned, has once again been the driving factor.

 

The bald statement made is once again – “Section 43(3) of the 1962 Transport Act gave BW (and subsequently the Trust) “power to demand, take and recover such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit”.

 

When the authority lies so unabashedly as to the underpinning authority for the actions contemplated in the whole “consultation” exercise, it is unsurprising that NABO and others are quizzical; the wonder is why they bother pussy-footing to the extent they do in the face of such bald – and carefully crafted – deceit.

 

The true situation is as described by CART respecting suggestions about boat shuffling at visitor moorings – “This is not something that can be sensibly legislated [neither this nor any of the proposals, of course, can be legislated at all, sensibly or otherwise], rather it’s just one example of considerate boating behaviour.”

 

[jenlyn]

I did not really wish to get into any debate with you on this forum nigel. Mainly because I have some respect for what you have achieved.

The issues that some of us are trying to deal with at the moment, are in my mind more important than your recent victory.

 

People are struggling financially, mainly due to the governments policies and solutions. Some people are on the verge of losing their homes (boats), not specifically because of CRT's policy, but mainly because Britain is in shite street.

Some of your posts and your recent roadshow at cowley are I am sure, important to you, after all, you beat BW. It does not help the people in shite street though. You are giving nothing that can help them. In fact, you are hindering, by having some believe there is another way, legally. The problem with that is, it costs money. Probably money that in truth, and reality would be lost.

You are a very clever man, and I personally feel, you would better serve the boating community by finding a way forward.

I am not for one moment trying to belittle your victory, but I feel your missing the bigger issues. Perhaps time to rest on your laurels with some satisfaction, or put your obvious intelligence into helping us mere mortals move forward.

By the way, I was one of the 22 who attended your roadshow, but 6 hours was a flippin marathon, and I gave up and left after 2hrs, sorry.

Steve jay

[nicknorman]

Importantly, it is dishonest. It could be thought that with the stakes involved, they would wish to show themselves sans reproche, but it is evident that their feeling of invulnerability in the face of boater ignorance and/or boater desire to have their authority un-impugned, has once again been the driving factor.

 

The bald statement made is once again – “Section 43(3) of the 1962 Transport Act gave BW (and subsequently the Trust) “power to demand, take and recover such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit”.

 

When the authority lies so unabashedly as to the underpinning authority for the actions contemplated in the whole “consultation” exercise, it is unsurprising that NABO and others are quizzical; the wonder is why they bother pussy-footing to the extent they do in the face of such bald – and carefully crafted – deceit.

 

 

Unless I have missed it you don't explain where CRT are lying on this point nor how the quoted section of the act is wrong or inappropriate. I am not trying to be argumentative, I would just like to hear the justification for your comments.

[Tuscan]

I did not really wish to get into any debate with you on this forum nigel. Mainly because I have some respect for what you have achieved.

The issues that some of us are trying to deal with at the moment, are in my mind more important than your recent victory.

People are struggling financially, mainly due to the governments policies and solutions. Some people are on the verge of losing their homes (boats), not specifically because of CRT's policy, but mainly because Britain is in shite street.

Some of your posts and your recent roadshow at cowley are I am sure, important to you, after all, you beat BW. It does not help the people in shite street though. You are giving nothing that can help them. In fact, you are hindering, by having some believe there is another way, legally. The problem with that is, it costs money. Probably money that in truth, and reality would be lost.

You are a very clever man, and I personally feel, you would better serve the boating community by finding a way forward.

I am not for one moment trying to belittle your victory, but I feel your missing the bigger issues. Perhaps time to rest on your laurels with some satisfaction, or put your obvious intelligence into helping us mere mortals move forward.

By the way, I was one of the 22 who attended your roadshow, but 6 hours was a flippin marathon, and I gave up and left after 2hrs, sorry.

Steve jay

Fundamentally you are right CRT can pretty much do what they wish safe in the knowledge that an individual boater is unlikely to challange them in law for the greater good. All good law and policies rely on public acceptance on the introduction and those that get it wrong like poll tax can be changed by public opinion.

 

Here the introduction of relatively minor changes to visitor stay times at the "pilot" sites is unlikely to create a huge fuss but the wider introduction of the 'no return" rule with the penalty deterrent introduced for overstaying 14 days say in London and on the K& A or anywhere which of course they could do having created the precedent might get people slightly more energised.

[mayalld]

Unless I have missed it you don't explain where CRT are lying on this point nor how the quoted section of the act is wrong or inappropriate. I am not trying to be argumentative, I would just like to hear the justification for your comments.

 

I note that earlier in this discussion, Mr Moore made similar assertions about s43 powers.

 

His case regarding those powers depends entirely upon a fallacy.

 

Mr Moore contends that as there are very limited powers available to CRT to refuse a licence, that they must issue a licence even to somebody who declines to accept the terms of that licence.

 

Broadly speaking, he contends that CRT are obliged to enter into a contract, even with somebody who declines to contract on the terms that they offer.

 

The shifting sand upon which he builds his case is that he asserts that licence terms are contractual terms that are binding only if accepted by the other party to the contract.

 

The fact is that they are NOT contractual terms, but terms and conditions imposed under statutory powers that require no acceptance.

 

It is true to say that they cannot refuse a licence due to failure to obey the terms and conditions, but that doesn't alter the existence of or legality of those terms and conditions.

 

CRT can impose terms and conditions, and can make charges. They can invoice for those charges and they can recover them through the courts, not as a contractual charge, but as a charge imposed by statutory authority.

 

As a matter of convenience, CRT advise those applying for a licence of the terms and conditions, but the two regimes are essentially separate.

[NigelMoore]

I did not really wish to get into any debate with you on this forum nigel. Mainly because I have some respect for what you have achieved.

The issues that some of us are trying to deal with at the moment, are in my mind more important than your recent victory.

 

People are struggling financially, mainly due to the governments policies and solutions. Some people are on the verge of losing their homes (boats), not specifically because of CRT's policy, but mainly because Britain is in shite street.

Some of your posts and your recent roadshow at cowley are I am sure, important to you, after all, you beat BW. It does not help the people in shite street though. You are giving nothing that can help them. In fact, you are hindering, by having some believe there is another way, legally. The problem with that is, it costs money. Probably money that in truth, and reality would be lost.

You are a very clever man, and I personally feel, you would better serve the boating community by finding a way forward.

I am not for one moment trying to belittle your victory, but I feel your missing the bigger issues. Perhaps time to rest on your laurels with some satisfaction, or put your obvious intelligence into helping us mere mortals move forward.

By the way, I was one of the 22 who attended your roadshow, but 6 hours was a flippin marathon, and I gave up and left after 2hrs, sorry.

Steve jay

 

My posting above makes no reference to the recent court case, and it is not about cleverness, mine or anyone else’s. I am saying the same thing now as I did before. What I have done here is make reference to NABO’s response to the Report, and to the crux of the advice they have received and passed on as to the legitimacy of the charges and conditions proposed.

 

It is in support of what they have published [in more careful & measured terms than my own] that I have made my comments. The consultation document demonstrates that there was very evidently a common concern expressed as to this fundamental issue underlying the whole wasteful exercise; it deals with the same justification trotted out for everything done that exceeds their proper remit.

 

I would not suggest that litigating is a way forward for any individual [i’m uncertain as to whether you think that is what I am doing], but if a challenge is contemplated by organisations such as NABO – or [more likely] a threat of challenge - then it is useful for them to be very clear on the basis.

 

I would agree, knowing as I now do how the system operates, that if such an organisation mounted a legal challenge, and did so with the talent pool available to them, it would be unlikely to succeed - at the first hurdle anyway, which is as far as they would be likely to push it. I suspect this would have to reach the Supreme Court level.

 

It is all the more important then, that they get the argument straightened out to begin with, and by showing a stronger hand at the initial stages, help to steer confrontation away from the courts. It’s what they did last time as I recall.

 

This is all entirely unrelated to my personal issues, as to which your advice to rest on my laurels is an option unavailable to me – the Appeal Court was only one of 5 battlefronts with the same authority: they are not stopping their efforts to be rid of me of me, and it’s currently 3 fights down with 2 to go. There are yet more years before I can rest up.

 

As to Cowley I commend your endurance. The only ground to be ‘sorry’ is that you expended your patience on the first 45 minute address rather than the last, given the theme of your concerns.

 

However it would be best to forget my background and deal just with what I’m saying here and now [or simply ignore it of course]. Campaigning against the rules you disagree with is going to be fruitless if, despite what NABO have suggested, the authority is, after all, empowered to make such rules as they see fit – because as is now obvious, they do see fit, regardless of what you and others are saying to them.

[NigelMoore]

Unless I have missed it you don't explain where CRT are lying on this point nor how the quoted section of the act is wrong or inappropriate. I am not trying to be argumentative, I would just like to hear the justification for your comments.

 

I recognise that you are not attempting to be argumentative here; it is a fair question. I haven’t explained in the above post because I have dealt with it, seemingly ad nauseam, in previous topics.

 

In short, it is deceitful to quote only part of a sentence when that which is omitted reverses the import of what is quoted. BW’s ellipsis has proven extraordinarily effective to date, so they will obviously continue with the ploy. Because of that, I believe it to be essential to expose the practice and demand the full quotation whenever used.

 

The misquoted section of the Act does not give BW powers to levy charges and set conditions as they please; it states that the existing powers to levy charges and set conditions are to have the previous limits to such exercise removed. Prior to this Act there were innumerable specific limits to the prices chargeable for the various specific services provided.

 

That removal of the caps on levels of charge is [reading s.43(3) from the beginning of the sentence], “Subject to” prior enactments - and the misquoted section does not exempt BW from any of those enactments where they provide for freedom from charges. The terms & conditions referred to relate to those chargeable uses.

 

It is not possible to ‘move forward’ with a party that persists in falsely maintaining a right to do as they please – you will recognise the form of the criticism, just apply it to both sides.

[NigelMoore]

I note that earlier in this discussion, Mr Moore made similar assertions about s43 powers.

 

His case regarding those powers depends entirely upon a fallacy.

 

Mr Moore contends that as there are very limited powers available to CRT to refuse a licence, that they must issue a licence even to somebody who declines to accept the terms of that licence.

 

Broadly speaking, he contends that CRT are obliged to enter into a contract, even with somebody who declines to contract on the terms that they offer.

 

The shifting sand upon which he builds his case is that he asserts that licence terms are contractual terms that are binding only if accepted by the other party to the contract.

 

The fact is that they are NOT contractual terms, but terms and conditions imposed under statutory powers that require no acceptance.

 

It is true to say that they cannot refuse a licence due to failure to obey the terms and conditions, but that doesn't alter the existence of or legality of those terms and conditions.

 

CRT can impose terms and conditions, and can make charges. They can invoice for those charges and they can recover them through the courts, not as a contractual charge, but as a charge imposed by statutory authority.

 

As a matter of convenience, CRT advise those applying for a licence of the terms and conditions, but the two regimes are essentially separate.

 

I fear there is some confusion evidenced here, as to what I was saying earlier, for which I must take some measure of responsibility for failure in communications skills.

 

I do not contend that the authority is obliged to enter into a contract, or that the licence terms are contractual terms – those are the arguments of BW and others here. It is BW/CART that publish the argument that non-statutory rules such as mooring regulations are enforced through the boat licence terms and conditions, and I was only pointing out why, in such a case, agreement to them would be unenforceable.

 

For every legitimate regulation, there is an appointed sanction. The boat licence controls entry onto and keeping and using a boat on the waterway; byelaws and statutes regulate the manner in which the waterways may be used by those boats; contractual terms govern the commercial exploitation of such services and facilities as are provided for by the authority, in such enterprises as are permitted to them.

 

The s.43(3) issue is not a topic that needs cleverness, or skill in abstruse statute construction – the reverse in fact. All that is needed is a common sense question to be applied to the BW position – if, as on their current interpretation, this section gives them all that they claim for it, then why would they have seen the need to expend the millions they have over the decades, in promoting private Acts of Parliament in order to give them the powers they already possessed? Why should government have given them byelaw making powers, when those are so much more restrictive than the claimed “as they see fit” powers?

 

As I said earlier, it is way too simple for the lower courts; it would take the former House of Lords to cope with anything so straightforward. Meanwhile, the support that some boaters give to the proposition is all the mandate they need to ride rough-shod over the well-meaning efforts of sensible people to engage with hopes of effectiveness.

 

The only effective alternative to legal frighteners is a mass of sufficient public support – which needs to extend wider than just the boating communities. For so long as the authority can demonstrate that a sufficiently high profile proportion of boaters actively support the measures they take, any such populist campaign would fail.

[BiggusDickus]

Is this not the case that the legislation covering the the use of the canal system is now not fit for purpose for the 21st century. The canals were a different entity in 1962. Do we need new legislation which defines canals its use, the role of CRT and its powers.

[Jerra]

Is this not the case that the legislation covering the the use of the canal system is now not fit for purpose for the 21st century. The canals were a different entity in 1962. Do we need new legislation which defines canals its use, the role of CRT and its powers.

You are very probably correct however, I can't help but feel with a bit more cooperation and less "you can't make me" things would probably potter along reasonably smoothly.

[carlt]

Is this not the case that the legislation covering the the use of the canal system is now not fit for purpose for the 21st century. The canals were a different entity in 1962.

This is why they produced the British Waterways Act 1995 (plus several preceding Acts) but there is nothing in those Acts that CRT can twist into a penalty charge so they are relying on the 1962 Act.

[BiggusDickus]

I agree I think to a large degree the boating community has a lot of cooperation. Its what to do with the selfish few.

[carlt]

You are very probably correct however, I can't help but feel with a bit more cooperation and less "you can't make me" things would probably potter along reasonably smoothly.

The funny thing is, from a moorings point of view, I believe the canals potter along pretty smoothly already and the "selfish few" do not have nearly as much impact as reducing mooring times and invoking illegal overstaying charges will.

 

This is a revenue earner that will hit the "unselfish many" and is being implemented by demonising a few folk who really don't affect anyone that much.

[cotswoldsman]

Its what to do with the selfish few.

How about getting on with your life and stop worrying about the few.

[carlt]

How about getting on with your life and stop worrying about the few.

at least by not moving they are not swelling the ranks of the selfish few who leave lock gates open.

[cotswoldsman]

at least by not moving they are not swelling the ranks of the selfish few who leave lock gates open.

Nor taking up those valuable Visitor Moorings!!!

[NigelMoore]

. . . You are giving nothing that can help them. In fact, you are hindering, by having some believe there is another way, legally . . . I personally feel, you would better serve the boating community by finding a way forward . . . helping us mere mortals move forward.

 

 

 

You don’t know that I haven’t been participating behind the scenes. I feel that under the circumstances, it is better that any positive input from me into drawing up consensual guidelines is best kept undisclosed.

 

None of these new mooring restrictions will affect any pattern of cruising that I have ever done or intend to undertake. The only time I would wish to leave a boat for more than a day is when I need to return to London for awhile, and in such circumstances I have always been outside the proposed zones even though near a railway station [but not too near]. I have only ever had occasion to use “visitor moorings” for long enough to do some shopping; take on water, pump out and/or dispose of rubbish.

 

I am obviously aware, however, that the new “rules” will have a great impact on many others, hence my input, here and elsewhere. If you genuinely believe that posting what I do here is working against what you wish to achieve [and I understand the position, for all that I disagree], then I am content to just spectate from now on. I’ve provided enough information, after all, for people to work with if they choose to.

 

Post #42 portrays the picture pretty much as I see it.

 

I’ll leave you with the jovial warning of the Select Committee Chairman on 1 July 1993 [this is the Committee that disallowed the powers to create the moorings restrictions and fines now to be implemented regardless] –

 

 

Now, of course, we do know their successor - and it is one with even less Parliamentary oversight than before.

Edited May 10, 2013 by NigelMoore

[Tuscan]

Its been done to death I know but given that there are only 8 pilot visitor moorings now covered by this consultation how difficult would it have been to monitor usage last summer and this winter and note the effect that the renewed vigour to manage overstaying and then provide some evidence based observations to support any proposals. It would then be difficult to argue with the need.

 

Instead despite the verbal agreements given at the workshops to the contrary CRT's subsequent intent was that the new restrictions and deterrent penalties should apply all year round however after pressure this decision was reversed so for this we must be grateful.

[Paul C]

You don’t know that I haven’t been participating behind the scenes. I feel that under the circumstances, it is better that any positive input from me into drawing up consensual guidelines is best kept undisclosed.

 

None of these new mooring restrictions will affect any pattern of cruising that I have ever done or intend to undertake. The only time I would wish to leave a boat for more than a day is when I need to return to London for awhile, and in such circumstances I have always been outside the proposed zones even though near a railway station [but not too near]. I have only ever had occasion to use “visitor moorings” for long enough to do some shopping; take on water, pump out and/or dispose of rubbish.

 

I am obviously aware, however, that the new “rules” will have a great impact on many others, hence my input, here and elsewhere. If you genuinely believe that posting what I do here is working against what you wish to achieve [and I understand the position, for all that I disagree], then I am content to just spectate from now on. I’ve provided enough information, after all, for people to work with if they choose to.

 

Post #42 portrays the picture pretty much as I see it.

 

I’ll leave you with the jovial warning of the Select Committee Chairman on 1 July 1993 [this is the Committee that disallowed the powers to create the moorings restrictions and fines now to be implemented regardless] –

 

 

Now, of course, we do know their successor - and it is one with even less Parliamentary oversight than before.

 

Nigel, that's a fascinating little snippet of a document there. (Is this the one you couldn't use in court, for a technical reason)? Please don't stop posting based on people disagreeing with you on the forum. While your posts are sometimes lengthy and deal with complex issues, thus take time to comprehend, they are valuable and interesting to read.

[jenlyn]

 

Nigel, that's a fascinating little snippet of a document there. (Is this the one you couldn't use in court, for a technical reason)? Please don't stop posting based on people disagreeing with you on the forum. While your posts are sometimes lengthy and deal with complex issues, thus take time to comprehend, they are valuable and interesting to read.

oooo, would you both like an fb page to yourselves, or would you both prefer a room? ;-)

[onionbargee]

at least by not moving they are not swelling the ranks of the selfish few who leave lock gates open.

slipped that one in, but you haven't got away with it.