Why the Roving Permit

[RLWP]

That's a fair point but it does bring with it some further questions:

 

1. Given that the underlying law's not changed, what's different now, than then, regarding enforcing the current laws we have, against CCers (ie those who might be new CCers, or are existing in the area but don't pay the money and take a roving permit, or who might otherwise be ineligible)?

 

2. Given that historically people have (for various reasons) not followed guidelines which are backed by law, what's the chances that some people will also abuse these new guidelines which are not backed by any law?

 

Point 1/. Nothing has changed, except a specific issue has arisen. As English law is based on case law, there won't be a precedent and so this is likely to be complex and involved if taken to court. Plus, as has been pointed out, perhaps CRT want to work with this group to resolve the problem, not prosecute them.

 

Point 2/. I think 'drinking in the last chance saloon' is an appropriate phrase here. A group of boaters are being offered an opportunity to work with CRT to resolve an issue. Should they choose not to take it...

 

Richard

 

Richard

[Berengaria]

Just two quick questions, apologies if I've missed the answers buried in this thread anywhere!

 

1. Someone quoted the Human Rights Act 2000 as not being able to de-home anyone. If this is the case, does that mean non-payment of rent or mortgage (house) or non-compliant CCing (boat) can NOT result in eviction? I'm confused, does that mean whatever you do (or don't do) it's illegal for you to be booted out and made homeless?

 

2. These RPs, are the costs (£50/m/pa) in ADDITION to the standard boat licence?

 

Sorry it's been a long day

[RLWP]

Point 2/. Yes

 

Richard

[Grace and Favour]

Just two quick questions, apologies if I've missed the answers buried in this thread anywhere!

 

1. Someone quoted the Human Rights Act 2000 as not being able to de-home anyone. If this is the case, does that mean non-payment of rent or mortgage (house) or non-compliant CCing (boat) can NOT result in eviction? I'm confused, does that mean whatever you do (or don't do) it's illegal for you to be booted out and made homeless?

 

2. These RPs, are the costs (£50/m/pa) in ADDITION to the standard boat licence?

 

Sorry it's been a long day

And point 1/ - THE HRA does NOT mean that a person cannot lose their home/boat/tent/tree-house or, now, even a squat

[MtB]

Just two quick questions, apologies if I've missed the answers buried in this thread anywhere!

 

1. Someone quoted the Human Rights Act 2000 as not being able to de-home anyone. If this is the case, does that mean non-payment of rent or mortgage (house) or non-compliant CCing (boat) can NOT result in eviction? I'm confused, does that mean whatever you do (or don't do) it's illegal for you to be booted out and made homeless?

 

2. These RPs, are the costs (£50/m/pa) in ADDITION to the standard boat licence?

 

Sorry it's been a long day

 

1) It's twaddle. There have been about ten posts discussing this exact point just before your question! The answer is no the HRA cannot prevent someone being 'de-homed' provided a few basic safeguards are met by the 'de-homer'.

 

2) An RP (Roving Permit) is a misnomer. The name needs changing in my opinion or the confusion the misnomer creates threatens to wreck the progress made so far. It is a Mooring Permit not a license. A ROVING Mooring permit. So If you want to moor in a particular area, you now buy a permit to moor in that particular area as I understand it.

 

The bit I don't quite understand, is why 'grandfather rights' apply. Why can't we all buy Roving Mooring Permits in a given area? If demand is high, then put the price up until a 'normal' mooring begins to look attractive again.

 

MtB

 

 

 

(Edited to clarify my first answer.)

Edited May 20, 2013 by Mike the Boilerman

[magnetman]

...

 

The bit I don't quite understand, is why 'grandfather rights' apply. Why can't we all buy Roving Mooring Permits in a given area? If demand is high, then put the price up until a 'normal' mooring begins to look attractive again.

 

MtB

 

 

 

(Edited to clarify my first answer.)

 

I believe you have to be someone who has persistently 'flouted' the 'law' or 'rules' over a period of time but we don't quite know how long this is.

 

reward for bad behaviour

 

is it a club can I join please

 

or is it simply divide and attempt to rule

[RLWP]

I believe you have to be someone who has persistently 'flouted' the 'law' or 'rules' over a period of time but we don't quite know how long this is.

 

reward for bad behaviour

 

is it a club can I join please

 

or is it simply divide and attempt to rule

 

And have been advised by a BW representative that this behaviour is legitimate and acceptable

 

Richard

[magnetman]

what baffles me is why bw don't just put in more long term moorings. they don't have resi planning permission anyway and there are loads of places where visitors don't stop and people 'wanting moorings'

 

a few mooring rings on concrete blocks some wooden signs bobs your uncle and charlies your aunt nice bit of money in

 

or is the truth that these moorings would lie empty because people are actually driven by the low cost of cc ing and it is actually convenient that there is a lack of moorings

 

 

And have been advised by a BW representative that this behaviour is legitimate and acceptable

 

Richard

this bit is interesting has someone got the bloke on tape or in writing ??

[RLWP]

 

this bit is interesting has someone got the bloke on tape or in writing ??

 

No idea. It is the crux of this well identified group though.

 

Richard

[MtB]

what baffles me is why bw don't just put in more long term moorings. they don't have resi planning permission anyway and there are loads of places where visitors don't stop and people 'wanting moorings'

 

a few mooring rings on concrete blocks some wooden signs bobs your uncle and charlies your aunt nice bit of money in

 

 

Because BW's policy was to reduce the miles of online moorings that everyone complains about and get all the boats into marinas. I certainly don't like cruising at tickover for hours on end past lines of moored boats. CRT appear to be using the same policy and frankly, I support it.

 

A better way would be to convert ALL the online mooring permits into Roving Mooring permits. Then everyone has to keep shuffling about and the liveaboards no longer get to colonise the bank and take over a spot, as we have all seen happen no doubt.

 

MtB

[Berengaria]

what baffles me is why bw don't just put in more long term moorings. they don't have resi planning permission anyway and there are loads of places where visitors don't stop and people 'wanting moorings'

 

a few mooring rings on concrete blocks some wooden signs bobs your uncle and charlies your aunt nice bit of money in

 

or is the truth that these moorings would lie empty because people are actually driven by the low cost of cc ing and it is actually convenient that there is a lack of moorings

 

 

this bit is interesting has someone got the bloke on tape or in writing ??

 

I suspect the situation has come about from inaction rather than action. If the rules are fuzzy, and you do what you want believing yourself to be within the rules, if no-one challenges you then I guess you get a situation like this.

[oarfish]

The bit I don't quite understand, is why 'grandfather rights' apply. Why can't we all buy Roving Mooring Permits in a given area? If demand is high, then put the price up until a 'normal' mooring begins to look attractive again.

 

Can't you just use a cheap mooring outside of the SE and bridgehop inner London to your heart's content?

Edited May 20, 2013 by oarfish

[magnetman]

I do exactly this am I legal

 

I haven't signed a move every 14 day thing

 

but I do move,every 14 days to fill up water tank

[MtB]

 

 

I haven't signed a move every 14 day thing

 

 

 

Yes you have, unless your boat is not licensed.

 

MtB

 

 

Can't you just use a cheap mooring outside of the SE and bridgehop inner London to your heart's content?

 

Yes you can, although CRT said something recently about declaring this practice 'fraudulent'.

 

Which leads to a whole nother can of worms. How many nights a year would you have to stay on your distant home mooring to avoid having it declared a fraud? And how would you prove you used it? And... and ....

 

 

MtB

Edited May 20, 2013 by Mike the Boilerman

[Chris Pink]

 

I don't support this unpleasant 'Nigel-bashing' sentiment emerging.

 

I find his posts perfectly understandable even though they require some mental application.

 

 

MtB

Completely agree. I think the material is worth reading I certainly don't want it dumbed down.

 

I also find Richard's assertion that he dumbs down his engineering information extremely insulting. I am perfectly capable of asking for further explanation if I don't understand.

 

Nigel's posts are well researched and useful. Please keep it up.

 

Good communication is about explaining complex ideas on a way that people can understand not treating people as 5 year olds.

[oarfish]

Which leads to a whole nother can of worms. How many nights a year would you have to stay on your distant home mooring to avoid having it declared a fraud? And how would you prove you used it? And... and ....

 

Just a bit. Especially as many of us are not actually legitimately resident on our home moorings in the first place.

Edited May 20, 2013 by oarfish

[Chris Pink]

 

Can't you just use a cheap mooring outside of the SE and bridgehop inner London to your heart's content?

Where is this mythical animal?

[RLWP]

 

Good communication is about explaining complex ideas on a way that people can understand not treating people as 5 year olds.

 

Did I say I did that?

 

Richard

[magnetman]

 

 

Yes you have, unless your boat is not licensed.

 

MtB

 

 

 

Yes you can, although CRT said something recently about declaring this practice 'fraudulent'.

 

Which leads to a whole nother can of worms. How many nights a year would you have to stay on your distant home mooring to avoid having it declared a fraud? And how would you prove you used it? And... and ....

 

 

MtB

oh yes you are right thanks for the correction

 

fraudulent? this sounds a bit extreme, they do seem to want to seperate cc-ers from people 'who pay moor money' so i'm not sure they should be describing the latter as 'fraudulent'

 

I think you idea of roving permits for all is good.

 

how about tolls for useage and mooring ?

 

you want to use the canal you pay for how much you want to have

 

Where is this mythical animal?

uxbridge

[mayalld]

I don't know the wider details of the HRA, just that it can (and has) been used as a successful defence to avoid section 8 action (boat removed from the water) to be followed through, in the context of CCers on the canal network. Also, its not possible to give a yes/no answer to your posed scenario because its very general, but the HRA could be used in certain circumstances.

 

You misunderstand what the impact of the HRA is.

 

The powers that CRT have to deal with unlicenced boats (which includes boats that are unlicenced because they have had the licence withdrawn or refused by CRT) are actually fairly simple.

 

They simply serve appropriate notice and remove your boat at the end of it. They don't need a court order.

 

However, some bright spark tried the HRA angle, and faced with the prospect that any live aboard might try the same again after being removed (with all the attendant "CRT made me homeless without any appeal", BW decided that in every case where the boater lived aboard, they WOULD ask a court to rule that its actions were not contrary to the HRA.

 

Where BW/CRT follow due process, the courts invariably rubber stamp it.

 

So, the HRA doesn't prevent enforcement, it just slows it down.

[Spesh]

And have been advised by a BW representative that this behaviour is legitimate and acceptable

 

Richard

 

 

one of the factors of this was that boaters had been told by enforcement over the years, that moving between 3 boroughs was sufficient. People built their lives around this and acquired ties to the area. It was not totally fair to suddenly say, we have changed our minds, now begger off. In fact, I think like us, CRT realised there was a possibility they might fall foul of a court at some stage.

For those that are interested in the legal stuff, there is some information about the impact of the "What you are doing is fine" statements made by BW available on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_expectation) and in a briefing from a law firm (http://www.pinsentmasons.com/PDF/LegitimateExpectationRevisited0708.pdf)

 

"Legitimate Expectation" is essentially a curb on public authorities saying one thing and then changing their minds. In one case it's been defined as 'Legitimate or reasonable expectation may arise either from an express promise given on behalf of a public authority or the existence of a regular practice which the claimant can reasonably expect to continue'.

 

I think at the very least, as Jenlyn says, CRT could have expected this to have been raised if they had pursued enforcement proceedings against boaters who fall within this group, and I'd have thought that such an argument would have had a decent chance of success. Equally, without knowing for sure that they could use this defence, the relevant boaters still had some uncertainty as to the status of their homes. The roving permit idea therefore makes pefect sense for both those boaters as well as CRT, and is a very sensible solution to the issue.

[NigelMoore]

 

Ok let me ask you the question, why historically has enforcement not been followed through? And why don't C&RT simply use their powers to remove the boats from the water, eg why isn't their enforcement effective in dealing with the problem, in other words why they need to introduce this new roving permits scheme?

 

Two points:

 

a. There was nothing wrong with the advice given earlier by the same employees then and now of BW/CART; such situations simply accumulate administrative stress as the local population of users grows, bringing conflicts of equal interests that might not have arisen previously. The present efforts nationwide to narrow down the relevant definitions are something the authority recognises as being fraught with all the legal problems that they, best of all, can see. That’s a pragmatic [if unadmitted] reason for not taking the enforcement approach.

 

b. There is an added element that colours the ‘humane’ approach to the situation [regardless of whether the previous advice on the rules was correct or not] – and that is the legal doctrine of “Legitimate Expectations”. If an authority has made representations to people that they will act in a certain way, then this doctrine can be applied in law to hold the authority to those representations. The public has a right to expect that an authority will keep their promises. This particular authority is now well aware of this, and so that’s a further pragmatic reason for not going down the litigation path.

 

Of course, there is such a thing as bowing to the inevitable gracefully, and if the pragmatic approach has been rendered essential, then why not make a virtue of it? It also helps if the native hue of resolution can be sicklied o’er with the honeyed balm of further finance.

 

It all gives boaters in particular localities a chance to work that, to the ends they see as desirable. The Jenlyn plan wouldn’t be my choice, but it’s a workable solution to an otherwise stressful situation – and situations can be stressful quite regardless of the rights and wrongs, which as the OP noted, are largely irrelevant here.

 

"Legitimate Expectation" is essentially a curb on public authorities saying one thing and then changing their minds.

 

Pipped at the post!

[Steilsteven]

I'm another who is quite happy with Nigel's posts, yes, they do take a bit of digesting but the information they provide is worth the effort.

 

On the matter of the OP, although, on the face of it, this scheme appears to be a fair solution to, what some regard as, a problem, I find it a little disturbing.

 

I find it disturbing because, if I was one of the boaters affected, I would be most put out or even angry that, for no apparent reason, something of which I'd been informed, by persons of authority, was my right at no extra charge is now going to cost me hundreds of pounds or face the consequences.

 

Whether or not one can afford it is beside the point, it's an extra expense that no one will have budgeted for when they took up the lifestyle and it's tantamount to demanding money with menaces.

 

The only way that it can be applied and be fair is for it to be free of charge.

 

Keith

[MtB]

So, the HRA doesn't prevent enforcement, it just slows it down.

 

And adds to the cost.

 

Money is spent getting court orders that could otherwise have been spent on maintaining the system....

 

 

MtB

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

I'm another who is quite happy with Nigel's posts, yes, they do take a bit of digesting but the information they provide is worth the effort.

 

On the matter of the OP, although, on the face of it, this scheme appears to be a fair solution to, what some regard as, a problem, I find it a little disturbing.

 

I find it disturbing because, if I was one of the boaters affected, I would be most put out or even angry that, for no apparent reason, something of which I'd been informed, by persons of authority, was my right at no extra charge is now going to cost me hundreds of pounds or face the consequences.

 

Whether or not one can afford it is beside the point, it's an extra expense that no one will have budgeted for when they took up the lifestyle and it's tantamount to demanding money with menaces.

 

The only way that it can be applied and be fair is for it to be free of charge.

 

Keith

I agree.

 

Glenn