Why the Roving Permit

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I

 

Insufficient detail Allan. They provide copies of the Orders only, not the judgments. From such detail as there is, it is possible to determine that 5 of the cases were arrears in Boat Licences, and if they were made good the boats could stay.

 

But more detail is given earlier, for cases between March 2009 and June 2012 as can be found at –

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/125138/response/332309/attach/4/List%20of%20Court%20Cases.pdf

 

That list includes 24 “LA” [Lawful Authority I presume – i.e. no licence] and 5 “CC” cases.

 

Of the 5 CC cases, one was discontinued, while one is still awaiting judgment. The others were found in BW’s favour.

 

Of the 24 LA cases, BW/CART lost only one.

I will own up to asking a loaded question to which I already know the answer.

 

Are members of this forum aware that CaRT spends £2.2m a year on enforcement, with Trustees now agreeing a further £500,000 but can only show three 'CC' court cases since 1995 where judgement has been found in BW/CaRT's favour?

Edited May 20, 2013 by Allan(nb Albert)

[mayalld]

Yes I know and basically agree but this isn't just a reorganisation it is a complete new body running under charity rules rather than what it was before. The NHS however reorganised is still the NHS (until they succeed in privatising it) and a council is still the same organisation. The CRT isn't.

The NHS isn't a single organisation and any liability rests with a particular NHS organisation or it's successor.

 

I work for the NHS but legally my employer is NHS Business Services Authority (and previously it was Yorkshire and Humber Strategic Health Authority). There is simply no legal entity that is "the NHS"

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Yes this is correct. It allows you to bridge hop permanently in one area. Stick to the 14 day limit but move around in one area with NO INTENTION of engaging in "bona fide navigation". Perfect solution!

 

MtB

This assumes that the 14 day limit is not the test for 'bona fide navigation'.

 

Whilst NBTA have produced evidence that suggest it is, CaRT have failed to produce any to suggest it is not (apart from suggesting what is quoted is selective).

 

 

 

 

[MtB]

This assumes that the 14 day limit is not the test for '

 

Whilst NBTA have produced evidence that suggest it is, CaRT have failed to produce any to suggest it is not (apart from suggesting what is quoted is selective).

 

 

 

 

 

Its not an assumption. The test for bona fide navigation' would be common sense, as explained by the judges cited Nigel Moore earlier.

 

 

MtB

[blodger]

This assumes that the 14 day limit is not the test for 'bona fide navigation'.

 

Whilst NBTA have produced evidence that suggest it is, CaRT have failed to produce any to suggest it is not (apart from suggesting what is quoted is selective).

 

 

 

 

 

Methinks those that move at least fortnightly will not expect to have to purchase a Roving Permit to continue to do what they have lawfully done hitherto. Those that have failed to move at least fornghtly are hardly likely to move more having lashed out on a Roving Permit. Or am I missing something?

[Tuscan]

 

Yes this is correct. It allows you to bridge hop permanently in one area. Stick to the 14 day limit but move around in one area with NO INTENTION of engaging in "bona fide navigation". Perfect solution!

 

MtB

I agree that permanent bridge hopping is not what I want to do and gets many exercised on here (a marina mooring suits my purposes at the moment) but if some one wants to move up and down a section of the River Lea or the London canals I'm cant see why that isn't bona fide navigation even if many including CRT would like a different definition. The problem in some areas is the sheer number of boats and I'm not sure that RMP's address this although it should free up some Visitor Moorings for those who wish to continue to CC.

 

As CRT seem intent on introducing a "no return" rule i am sure things will get more difficult for those whose travel pattern does not fit in with the pattern that CRT would like to see and this will in time create its own problems unless challenged.

[blodger]

I agree that permanent bridge hopping is not what I want to do and gets many exercised on here (a marina mooring suits my purposes at the moment) but if some one wants to move up and down a section of the River Lea or the London canals I'm cant see why that isn't bona fide navigation even if many including CRT would like a different definition. The problem in some areas is the sheer number of boats and I'm not sure that RMP's address this although it should free up some Visitor Moorings for those who wish to continue to CC.

 

As CRT seem intent on introducing a "no return" rule i am sure things will get more difficult for those whose travel pattern does not fit in with the pattern that CRT would like to see and this will in time create its own problems unless challenged.

 

Having first seen some logic in Roving Permit introduction I am coming round to having difficulty in seeing what they resolve.

 

I think I have picked up that having a Roving Permit means that you cannot use short term visitor moorings which is why you say it might free up some VMs. Is that what all this is supposed to be about?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Its not an assumption. The test for bona fide navigation' would be common sense, as explained by the judges cited Nigel Moore earlier.

 

 

MtB

As I have already posted on this forum, in the run up to the 1995 Act, BW's Marketing and Communications Manager, a Mr Dodd, was questioned as to why 28 days in one place would be disastrous compared to 14. His reply was -

 

I would be happy to have no period mentioned at all and rely upon the expression “bona fide used for navigation”. This is an attempt to clarify in the interests of boaters just what we reasonably mean by “bona fide used for navigation”, what are the parameters, that it appears to be either necessary or helpful to put some indication of what genuinely “on the move” means. I think that to extend leaving a boat in one place as long as a month as, as it were, a test or an explanation as to what is acceptable for bona fide navigation, it would seem to me that as long a period as a month in any one place is not really a true reflection of “bona fide used for navigation”.

 

As such, NBTA say that the test for 'bona fide navigation' is what the Act says. 'remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances'.

 

 

What I am saying is that, although BW/CaRT say that NBTA is quoting selectively, they have never produced any evidence that simply moving every 14 days does not constitute 'bona fide navigation'.

 

[blodger]

It was worth repeating though Allan as it was queried earlier on and answered with the usual false gusto and the view that the term Bona Fide Navigation was clearer than it is and a law itself

Edited May 20, 2013 by blodger

[Allan(nb Albert)]

It was worth repeating though Allan as it was queried earlier on and answered with the usual false gusto and the view that the term Bona Fide Navigation was clearer than it is and a law itself

I'm afraid what Mr Dodd said is a matter of parliamentary record and, as such, may be treated as 'legitimate expectation' unless anyone can show evidence of a contrary view.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Allan(nb Albert)

[NigelMoore]

. . . CaRT spends £2.2m a year on enforcement, with Trustees now agreeing a further £500,000 . . .

 

I’ve been doing some sums [not a favourite occupation]. Presumably the enforcement budget covers the salaries of the legal team, enforcement team and on-the-ground Patrol Officers as well as the outside solicitors and barristers.

 

But taking the figure of 2.2 million for 2012 and applying it as an average spend on each case brought in that year –

 

13 cases = £169,230 each

 

Costs summarily assessed in their favour, total: £9,477

 

Costs to be assessed awarded against them, maximum: £65,000

 

I really don’t quite know what to make of these figures. The average cost of the County Court proceedings was £950 – not a vast sum, but the overall cost of the enforcement infrastructure [whether any boats are pursued to court or not] is extraordinary.

 

Aggregating the last 4 years, there is a spend of nearly £9 million on a couple of dozen cases – which if all were won would add up to awarded costs of about £24,000 in total. Each removed boat then, costs around £375,000?

 

But from the figures Allan and CART are providing, if every single boater does the right thing and no action need be taken against any of us, it will STILL be costing £2&1/2 million this coming year to ‘ensure’ that state. If they are spending all that money anyway, it hardly seems that the prospect of dragging a few boaters into court would make any significant dent in the budget at all, at roughly a grand a pop.

 

Rather takes the force out of the suggestion that they haven’t pursued the Uxbridge lot on grounds of cost.

 

 

edited to amend costs against [forgot one calculation step]

Edited May 21, 2013 by NigelMoore

[NigelMoore]

duplicated somehow

Edited May 20, 2013 by NigelMoore

[Chris Pink]

HRA reared its head ---> the legal process became more complicated/expensive ---> enforcement didn't occur due to excessive cost vs benefit.

Duh. That is our human right.

 

That it shouldn't be easy for a government to have such power over people's lives and homes. It's only right (human) that it should be stringent and expensive to make someone homeless, so much so that other solutions are found.

[mayalld]

Duh. That is our human right.

 

That it shouldn't be easy for a government to have such power over people's lives and homes. It's only right (human) that it should be stringent and expensive to make someone homeless, so much so that other solutions are found.

 

You need to keep in mind that when people make it expensive for the government to do something, the government has to get the money from somewhere.

 

Every time somebody flies a HRA kite, in the hope (rather than expectation) of finding some angle by which to frustrate the rule of law, we all pay for it.

[kris88]

So let's all give up our human rights then and let the government or any other institution that wants ride rough shod over us

Regards kris

[blodger]

I'm afraid what Mr Dodd said is a matter of parliamentary record and, as such, may be treated as 'legitimate expectation' unless anyone can show evidence of a contrary view.

 

I am in the camp that thinks that is good and means that Bona Fide Navigation does not mean what it is portayed as in the arguments regarding CCing

[Sir Nibble]

I can support the roving permit as a pragmatic solution and would accept that it didn't help for many years that BW staff gave out information diametrically opposed to their employers published policy. On that subject, how come some bloke on the bank telling you you can do something counts as BW misleading the poor old boater?

 

"Here is a set of carefully worked out guidance formulated by our legal team and is our corporate policy".

Is unenforceable, contrary to the intention of parliament and stops me doing what I want so I reject it.

 

"Here is the concession made by a lowly peon in the organisation in the interests of a quiet life that you are ok travelling through 3 parishes"

Brilliant! This character has no right to formulate policy and what he says contradicts policy but this allows me to do as I want so I believe it.

 

Would these folk accept that a Copper using his discretion to let you off being 3 mph over the limit counts as overturning the legal underpinning of speed limits?

"Your honour, a copper told me that I would not be prosecuted so that means speed limits no longer exist!"

 

Human rights, where has this idea come from? It seems to be an article of faith with some that the HRA is the downfall of civilisation, when the daily mail banners something patently stupid, it normally is patently stupid and for that reason false (a lie in other words). I have Social services bleating to a judge that I clearly do not have a child's interests at heart because I dared to mention that they have trampled on my right to a family life, (S 11?) They do not dispute that they have infringed my human rights only that it is unsporting of me to say so!

[RLWP]

Yes this is correct. It allows you to bridge hop permanently in one area. {snip}

 

MtB

 

That is not my understanding. This is not a permanent solution, it is the beginning of a process.

 

Richard

[Leni]

"Here is a set of carefully worked out guidance formulated by our legal team and is our corporate policy".

Is unenforceable, contrary to the intention of parliament and stops me doing what I want so I reject it.

 

"Here is the concession made by a lowly peon in the organisation in the interests of a quiet life that you are ok travelling through 3 parishes"

Brilliant! This character has no right to formulate policy and what he says contradicts policy but this allows me to do as I want so I believe it.

 

But for a lot of the boaters in question, those who are likely to need the Roving Permit, their primary (or possibly only) contact would have been with the 'lowly peon'! They might not even be aware of the "carefully worked out guidance formulated by our legal team". Don't assume everyone would have read the 'small print' (or even that they are all able to! - after all, even some of the erudite users of this forum have found Nigel Moore's posts difficult to follow! ) They asked, and were told, what they were required to do, and have - some for many years - just done that.

 

It's no use talking about what they should have done at this point. I think we should now simply applaud the work which has been done by all those who have negotiated the solution to the problem, boaters and CRT alike.

[Sir Nibble]

But for a lot of the boaters in question, those who are likely to need the Roving Permit, their primary (or possibly only) contact would have been with the 'lowly peon'! They might not even be aware of the "carefully worked out guidance formulated by our legal team". Don't assume everyone would have read the 'small print' (or even that they are all able to! - after all, even some of the erudite users of this forum have found Nigel Moore's posts difficult to follow! ) They asked, and were told, what they were required to do, and have - some for many years - just done that.

 

It's no use talking about what they should have done at this point. I think we should now simply applaud the work which has been done by all those who have negotiated the solution to the problem, boaters and CRT alike.

Which is why pragmatism has to be the only way forward.

The suggestion of widespread illiteracy is a fragile straw to clutch at mind! Basing a lifestyle on an agreement you can't read is not exactly prudent mind, and putting a shakey X at the bottom without a grown up to help is even more stupid. 9 times out of 10 things are precisely how they appear to be and selective hearing is by far and away the most likely explanation.

[cotswoldsman]

 

That is not my understanding. This is not a permanent solution, it is the beginning of a process.

 

Richard

Yes it is the start of a solution and like everything we have to start from somewhere. It is maybe not the ideal solution but it is a comprise that has been negotiated between the Trust and the boaters effected. Some people might not like it but people must realise we are talking about real people here in many case children.

[MtB]

That is not my understanding. This is not a permanent solution, it is the beginning of a process.

 

Richard

 

Ah. Can you expand on that? Or maybe you can't because the process still being formulated.

 

My understanding from reading posts in this thread is that the Roving Mooring Permit would be a permanent solution for those qualifying for the 'grandfather rights'. That the whole point of the Roving Mooring Permit is that it allows a licence holder to declare "a place where the boat may lawfully be kept", thus releasing them from conducting the "bona fide navigation" they were (it turns out) incorrectly declaring.

 

Have I misunderstood?

 

 

MtB

[cotswoldsman]

 

Ah. Can you expand on that? Or maybe you can't because the process still being formulated.

 

My understanding from reading posts in this thread is that the Roving Mooring Permit would be a permanent solution for those qualifying for the 'grandfather rights'. That the whole point of the Roving Mooring Permit is that it allows a licence holder to declare "a place where the boat may lawfully be kept", thus releasing them from conducting the "bona fide navigation" they were (it turns out) incorrectly declaring.

 

Have I misunderstood?

 

 

MtB

The long term solution is to find affordable moorings

[Leni]

The suggestion of widespread illiteracy is a fragile straw to clutch at mind! Basing a lifestyle on an agreement you can't read is not exactly prudent mind, and putting a shakey X at the bottom without a grown up to help is even more stupid. 9 times out of 10 things are precisely how they appear to be and selective hearing is by far and away the most likely explanation.

 

I was not suggesting "Widespread illiteracy". To do so would be insulting. The fact is that a lot of perfectly intelligent people find 'the small print' hard to follow. Just look at the debates on what exactly "Bona Fide for navigation" means on this forum!

 

What I am saying is that face to face with "the lowly peon" of your hypothesis, most of the people concerned would have taken what they were told as being an accurate interpretation of what was required of them.

[Jerra]

Ah. Can you expand on that? Or maybe you can't because the process still being formulated.

 

My understanding from reading posts in this thread is that the Roving Mooring Permit would be a permanent solution for those qualifying for the 'grandfather rights'. That the whole point of the Roving Mooring Permit is that it allows a licence holder to declare "a place where the boat may lawfully be kept", thus releasing them from conducting the "bona fide navigation" they were (it turns out) incorrectly declaring.

 

Have I misunderstood?

 

 

MtB

I think the point is it isn't permanent as year by year some will move out of the area to new jobs, become too old for boats and move on land or die.

 

No new permits will be be issued so eventually there will be no RPs in the area.