Why the Roving Permit

[MtB]

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 actually. Free Roving Mooring Permits for people who can show BW used to tell them their cruising style was legitimate and compliant.

 

For everyone else they should still be available at a price. For each paid-for Roving Mooring Permit issued a permanent on-line mooring should be converted to 14 days. This way people who use their boats regularly get to moor on-line and it encourages into marinas those who don't.

 

 

MtB

[blodger]

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

Thank you. Your final sentence is what I have also concluded but got there for slightly different reasoning to do with the end point that Roving Permits are to die out or else there introduction was possibly fraudulent.

[Jerra]

Can I have an opinion from somebody (without too much legalese) does the fact people were told their cruise pattern was OK by BW now gone have any bearing on the matter. In other words can CRT be held responsible for things BW did and which CRT had no control over.

[NigelMoore]

Can I have an opinion from somebody (without too much legalese) does the fact people were told their cruise pattern was OK by BW now gone have any bearing on the matter. In other words can CRT be held responsible for things BW did and which CRT had no control over.

 

Yes

[Jerra]

Yes

Thank you. Can you explain almost as succinctly why?

[MtB]

Thank you. Can you explain almost as succinctly why?

 

See post 147.

 

 

MtB

[Paul C]

You misunderstand what the impact of the HRA is.

 

.........

 

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.

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

 

Ok apologies that I had misunderstood the HRA angle in terms of the technical legal aspect - and thank you for those contributors who have been able to explain it better than I could have. However, pragmatically it has the same effect:

 

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

[Tuscan]

 

I agree actually. Free Roving Mooring Permits for people who can show BW used to tell them their cruising style was legitimate and compliant.

 

 

MtB

But don't we all in effect get a free Roving Mooring Permit when we buy a license from CRT this entitles me to moor for 14 day periods and requires me to move after that period but it does not tell me how far or in which direction.

[Jerra]

See post 147.

 

 

MtB

I had read post 147 and have reread it and I am still wondering why BW pass on responsibility to CRT. Yes I can see that the public have a right to expect an authority to keep its promises but CRT aren't the authority who made the promises. Its like "visiting the sins of the father on the son yea even to the 5th generation".

[NigelMoore]

More accurately perchance: "the Fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge".

Even more accurately:

 

The British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012

 

Supplementary provision

 

4.(1) Nothing in this Order affects the validity of anything done (or having effect as if done) by or in relation to the British Waterways Board before the transfer date; and anything (including legal proceedings) which on that date is in the process of being done by or in relation to the British Waterways Board, so far as it relates to any of the transferred functions, may be continued by or in relation to Canal & River Trust.

 

(2) Anything done (or having effect as if done) by or in relation to the British Waterways Board, so far as it relates to any of the transferred functions, has effect, so far as is necessary for continuing its effect after the transfer date, as if done by or in relation to Canal & River Trust.

 

 

[RLWP]

Yes

 

 

I had a more verbose repIy was going to write

 

Richard

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I had read post 147 and have reread it and I am still wondering why BW pass on responsibility to CRT. Yes I can see that the public have a right to expect an authority to keep its promises but CRT aren't the authority who made the promises. Its like "visiting the sins of the father on the son yea even to the 5th generation".

 

CaRT inherits responsibility for BW's actions just as it inherits its statutory powers.

 

To give a non related example, many will remember the lad who drowned in Stourport two years ago when attempting to ride his bike over a lock crossing with no handrail. The Health and Safety Executive is still refusing to provide any information regarding the accident because a criminal prosecution is being considered. It does not matter, that BW's name has changed to CaRT or that it has moved from being a non departmental public body to a Trust since the accident they will still be held accountable.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Allan(nb Albert)

[NigelMoore]

 

Ok apologies that I had misunderstood the HRA angle in terms of the technical legal aspect - and thank you for those contributors who have been able to explain it better than I could have. However, pragmatically it has the same effect:

 

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

 

Not quite. It is not accurate to say that “enforcement didn’t occur” anywhere on the system due to the HRA. What the HRA has done has been to ensure that in most cases, BW/CART give serious thought to whether the action: first, is correct in law [i.e. an offence is actually committed], and secondly, that such action WILL be appropriate and proportionate etc.

 

Between April 2012 and January this year, they have successfully taken s.8 action against 12 boats.

 

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/publication-scheme/publication-scheme/court-action-to-remove-boats-from-our-waterways

 

They indulge in misleading misquotation again, this time as to the application of s.8, but that's to be expected; the details of cases are that which are pertinent to your query.

[blodger]

But don't we all in effect get a free Roving Mooring Permit when we buy a license from CRT this entitles me to moor for 14 day periods and requires me to move after that period but it does not tell me how far or in which direction.

 

That's why I am having some difficulty comprehending that there are folk queueing up to purchase these Roving Permits after years of roving without

[magnetman]

 

That's why I am having some difficulty comprehending that there are folk queueing up to purchase these Roving Permits after years of roving without

maybe they just aren't Bona Fide and they have been rumbled

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Not quite. It is not accurate to say that “enforcement didn’t occur” anywhere on the system due to the HRA. What the HRA has done has been to ensure that in most cases, BW/CART give serious thought to whether the action: first, is correct in law [i.e. an offence is actually committed], and secondly, that such action WILL be appropriate and proportionate etc.

 

Between April 2012 and January this year, they have successfully taken s.8 action against 12 boats.

 

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/publication-scheme/publication-scheme/court-action-to-remove-boats-from-our-waterways

 

They indulge in misleading misquotation again, this time as to the application of s.8, but that's to be expected; the details of cases are that which are pertinent to your query.

Would I be right in saying that none of those s.8's relate to continuous cruisers.

 

 

 

 

[Jerra]

Thank you Nigel (still a little full of legalese but I think I have translated it). Not sure I would want to take on somebody else's muck ups in perpetuity as CRT seem to have done.

[blodger]

maybe they just aren't Bona Fide and they have been rumbled

 

BoneFide, rumbled or not

[Spesh]

Thank you Nigel (still a little full of legalese but I think I have translated it). Not sure I would want to take on somebody else's muck ups in perpetuity as CRT seem to have done.

In simple terms, reorganisations of public bodies happen fairly frequently (think changes of local councils, NHS trusts etc etc), and when it happens responsibility for existing liabilities, acts, statements etc will always transfer to the new body. It couldn't happen any other way because otherwise there is a total lack of accountability for the actions of the previous authority which, if you'd been wronged by it, wouldn't be desperately fair.

[Jerra]

In simple terms, reorganisations of public bodies happen fairly frequently (think changes of local councils, NHS trusts etc etc), and when it happens responsibility for existing liabilities, acts, statements etc will always transfer to the new body. It couldn't happen any other way because otherwise there is a total lack of accountability for the actions of the previous authority which, if you'd been wronged by it, wouldn't be desperately fair.

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.

[NigelMoore]

I

Would I be right in saying that none of those s.8's relate to continuous cruisers.

 

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.

[MtB]

But don't we all in effect get a free Roving Mooring Permit when we buy a license from CRT this entitles me to moor for 14 day periods and requires me to move after that period but it does not tell me how far or in which direction.

 

Not as I understand it.

 

If I wanted to keep REGINALD hanging around in say, the Braunston area permanently, I could not do it by declaring myself a CCer. I CAN do it however by having a home mooring, and I could also do it if I had a Roving Mooring Permit covering the Braunston area (were there such a thing).

 

A Roving Mooring permit counts as "a place where the boat may lawfully be kept" for licensing purposes. This is the whole point of a Roving Mooring Permit, I believe.

 

The reason a Roving Mooring permit fixes the CMer problem is that it releases them from the obligation to declare themselves engaged in a bona fide navigation when they are plainly not, having in the past been lead to believe they are having been told (incorrectly) so by BW employees.

 

MtB

Edited May 20, 2013 by Mike the Boilerman

[NigelMoore]

. . . this isn't just a reorganisation it is a complete new body running under charity rules rather than what it was before.

 

That’s a matter of widely promoted perception.

 

Same chairman at the top; same executive running it; same admin staff, same enforcement staff, same legal staff, same property management staff; same PR/Customer Relations staff; same statutory framework.

 

Not the same government funding support, nor the same nominal governmental oversight.

 

The charity stuff is a bolt-on, as are the various ‘partnerships’. Nothing stopped you volunteering time, work and money previously; this way you just get a tax-break for it.

[blodger]

Not as I understand it.

 

If I wanted to keep REGINALD hanging around in say, the Braunston area permanently, I could not do it by declaring myself a CCer. I CAN do it however by having a home mooring, and I could also do it if I had a Roving Mooring Permit covering the Braunston area (were there such a thing).

 

A Roving Mooring permit counts as "a place where the boat may lawfully be kept" for licensing purposes. This is the whole point of a Roving Mooring Permit, I believe.

 

 

MtB

 

 

I understand but stand to be corrected that the Roving Permit will not overide mooring restrictions or the 14 day rule but allow for the fact that a continuous journey is not being pursued and adjacent localities/places are favoured for mooring in

Not as I understand it.

 

If I wanted to keep REGINALD hanging around in say, the Braunston area permanently, I could not do it by declaring myself a CCer. I CAN do it however by having a home mooring, and I could also do it if I had a Roving Mooring Permit covering the Braunston area (were there such a thing).

 

A Roving Mooring permit counts as "a place where the boat may lawfully be kept" for licensing purposes. This is the whole point of a Roving Mooring Permit, I believe.

 

 

MtB

Edited May 20, 2013 by blodger

[MtB]

I understand but stand to be corrected that the Roving Permit will not overide mooring restrictions or the 14 day rule but allow for the fact that a continuous journey is not being pursued and adjacent localities/places are favoured for mooring in

 

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