More on Rovng Mooring Permits

[mayalld]

To the first, because one law for him and one law for me is wrong. The concept of local mooring strategy has validity but local 'law' does not.

 

 

To the second, it's not my interpretation, it's my reading of this forum (mainly the last, protracted, thread on the subject) and others that people don't see the roving mooring permits as a mooring permits (a fiction) because there is no mooring place and they are seen as a validation of an existing (mooring-less) boating pattern (the reality).

 

You can dress up the RMPs as 'mooring permits' but it's only words intended to once again 'adjust' the 1995 Act.

 

The law refers to a place where the vessel can lawfully be kept when not in use. This is commonly refered to as a mooring,

 

A standard mooring permit doesn't give a right to a particular 70ft of bank, but does allow use of 70ft of bank in a particular area. A roving mooring permit simply allows that over a wider area.

[cotswoldsman]

 

Sorry John I post as an individual and only occasionally post regarding NABO policy and if that happens I believe I make it clear. I will continue to post on an individual capacity and will try and make it clearer if I am posting details of a specific policy statement or communication raised by NABO. I do say personally when I make a comment.

 

It seems to be difficult to have a debate about RMP's (which does not just effect Uxbridge but potentially other areas of the system) without those that have negotiated these with CRT drowning out the conversation if you read my first post I just posted a link and specifically didnt pass comment but thought other boaters might care to read it. if you think the points they are making regarding the Transport act are wrong then please refute them

 

As Chris says the Davis case is not relevant it is the boaters "intent" which is the defining factor and in his case he declared that his intent was never to move beyond If I recall a 10km range. Obviously by inference you can spend a long time in one area if you move as required as long as your "intent" is to continue to move.

 

 

 

We can agree to disagree which is fine

So can you answer my questions as an individual please as I am confused

 

OK just so I understand where you are coming from. Does your existing licence show you to be subject to the T&C of a Continuous Cruiser?

I amazed that you think the T&C of Continuous Cruiser allow you to cruise for 12 months in a 5 mile stretch of canal, is this now the advise from NABO you that the T&C of CCing allow boaters to spend 12 months on a 5 mile stretch of canal? Who advised them you that 5 miles in 12 months is within the T&C of CCing?

[Chris Pink]

The law refers to a place where the vessel can lawfully be kept when not in use. This is commonly refered to as a mooring,

 

A standard mooring permit doesn't give a right to a particular 70ft of bank, but does allow use of 70ft of bank in a particular area. A roving mooring permit simply allows that over a wider area.

Exactly. The boat cannot, under the terms of the roving mooring permit, be left there.

 

Welcome back Dave, I hope your recent operation doesn't mean you're always going to agree with me.

[mayalld]

Exactly. The boat cannot, under the terms of the roving mooring permit, be left there.

 

Welcome back Dave, I hope your recent operation doesn't mean you're always going to agree with me.

 

Any mooring permit is simply leave to remain for a period of time. It does not give leave to remain indefinitely or to remain in a particular location.

 

Any permit to moor is simply a permit that grants the holder some right (over and above the right that a licence grants) to moor his boat.

 

No operation here, just been out cruising.

[Chris Pink]

Any mooring permit is simply leave to remain for a period of time. It does not give leave to remain indefinitely or to remain in a particular location.

 

Any permit to moor is simply a permit that grants the holder some right (over and above the right that a licence grants) to moor his boat.

 

You seem confused, either a mooring permit satisfies Section 17 iii c i (which doesn't say 'forever') or it doesn't.

 

If a boater has a roving mooring permit that give them a "place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left" but only for 14 days, then anyone who says they can leave their boat on the towpath for 14 days satisfies exactly the same criteria without a mooring permit.

 

There is no right in the RMP to leave a boat for 15 days.

[jenlyn]

There is no right in the RMP to leave a boat for 15 days.

ooooo, think you might be wrong there mr pink.

[casper ghost]

Which is the problem the K and A boaters are having with the permits, the idea that 'laws' can be set differently for different areas.

 

 

I don't think these "laws" should be local, we need one rule which covers the whole system, otherwise boaters will just move to where the rule suits them, and some places will only have the shiney boats.

Casp'

[Jerra]

I don't think these "laws" should be local, we need one rule which covers the whole system, otherwise boaters will just move to where the rule suits them, and some places will only have the shiney boats.

Casp'

As I understand RMP you can't just move and take advantage of them as they are only for those with Grandfather rights. At least that is how I understand it.

[jenlyn]

As I understand RMP you can't just move and take advantage of them as they are only for those with Grandfather rights. At least that is how I understand it.

Correct.

[Chris Pink]

ooooo, think you might be wrong there mr pink.

I might be (it has been known even if no-one can remember when) but your own minutes of meeting say that the proposed 28 days has been reduced to 14 days to address resentment from 'proper' permit holders.

Though the point remains.

 

A roving mooring permit does not satisfy (my reading of) the 1995 Act Section 17 iii (c ) i and i know full well if I got a mooring for 28 days CRT would not accept this as satisfying that provision.

[jenlyn]

I might be (it has been known even if no-one can remember when) but your own minutes of meeting say that the proposed 28 days has been reduced to 14 days to address resentment from 'proper' permit holders.Though the point remains.A roving mooring permit does not satisfy (my reading of) the 1995 Act Section 17 iii (c ) i and i know full well if I got a mooring for 28 days CRT would not accept this as satisfying that provision.

The CRT legal satisfied my understanding. I suppose at the end of the day, thats the end of it. I aint planning to fight it in court, though I did suggest to nick brown on another site that he might like a go.

[Chris Pink]

The CRT legal satisfied my understanding. I suppose at the end of the day, thats the end of it. I aint planning to fight it in court, though I did suggest to nick brown on another site that he might like a go.

Well of course it is. If CRT say "pay us £800 and we'll let you moor like this", who else is going to refuse you a license? Is Dave Mayall going to take you to court to enforce the license conditions?

 

How can you fight it in court? and why should you, you have what you want.

 

You and Sally Ash has just muddied the legal waters, that's all. CRT, as BW before them, have just applied their own desires over and above the law of the land.

It is, however going to make CRT's job of enforcing anything in Cowley more difficult. I don't believe that CUB boaters are naive enough to believe that other boaters are not going to follow the same pattern.

[cotswoldsman]

I don't think these "laws" should be local, we need one rule which covers the whole system, otherwise boaters will just move to where the rule suits them, and some places will only have the shiney boats.

Casp'

These are not rules they are mooring permits and you have to satisfy the criteria for Uxbridge, for K&A anyone can move down and take up the schem I know 4 CCers that will move to K&A as soon as the scheme becomes operational.

[casper ghost]

As I understand RMP you can't just move and take advantage of them as they are only for those with Grandfather rights. At least that is how I understand it.

Except, you try and make that stand in Court, not allowing a boater the same rights as another boater moored right next to them, I can't see that working...

Casp'

These are not rules they are mooring permits and you have to satisfy the criteria for Uxbridge, for K&A anyone can move down and take up the schem I know 4 CCers that will move to K&A as soon as the scheme becomes operational.

They're all being made up so it's hard to know what to call them. What you say about being open to anyone, doesn't agree with the post before yours, post 33, though i'd say it seems fairer.

I still say, CRT should just scrap the mooring permit and put everyone's licence fee up by enough to balance the loss. Fair to all and let boaters be, no more hassle about some not paying when others are.

Casp'

Edited June 12, 2013 by casper ghost

[alan_fincher]

A roving mooring permit does not satisfy (my reading of) the 1995 Act Section 17 iii (c ) i and i know full well if I got a mooring for 28 days CRT would not accept this as satisfying that provision.

I personally can't see why it doesn't, although clearly I am not a lawyer.

 

CRT presumably already have the rights to determine which bits of their tow-path are, or are not normal CRT operated long-term moorings, and if they choose, can earmark a length, and extract a fee from you to use it as a home mooring. Their rights to do this, and to charge handsomely for it, don't seem to be disputed, even if the resulting agreement says it only permits you to more somewhere at the nominated site, and not necessarily always at the same spot.

 

I can't see why just because if they do the same thing, but say your mooring permit is not for this specific site, but allows you to roam over a short stretch of the cut, it is still not defining "a place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left".

 

 

CRT, as BW before them, have just applied their own desires over and above the law of the land.

 

Or have been prepared to listen to a group of boaters, and considered their desires as well, possibly?

[Jerra]

Except, you try and make that stand in Court, not allowing a boater the same rights as another boater moored right next to them, I can't see that working...

Casp'

Perhaps but if that were the case how does any "grandfather rights" situation manage to work any where over anything?

[jenlyn]

Parking meters on the canal at K&A, points on a license. Boaters tribunals. Mental, absolutely mental. I despair at what goes through some peoples tiny minds.

[Smelly]

I hate doing this first thing in the morning as it'll get drowned before I get back to it but hey ho...

 

Does the RMP still demand movement every 14 days?

Why have I heard 25 miles discussed?

[cotswoldsman]

I hate doing this first thing in the morning as it'll get drowned before I get back to it but hey ho...

 

Does the RMP still demand movement every 14 days?

Why have I heard 25 miles discussed?

The 14 day thing is still subject to discussion but yes at present that is one of the conditiond.

The 25 mile thing is misinformation concerning boaters who do not take up the RMP as we all know distance is not defined as a condition of CCing. The RMP covers aprox 5 miles of canal

[Chris Pink]

Parking meters on the canal at K&A, points on a license. Boaters tribunals. Mental, absolutely mental. I despair at what goes through some peoples tiny minds.

 

You keep repeating this crap? Will that make it true? Why have you invented these absurdities?

 

You are becoming the master of divide and rule.

 

The London boaters are slagging the Cowley boaters who are slagging the Milton Keynes boaters.

 

 

Whoever keeps that boating hierarchy up to date (RLWP?) needs to add a few sub categories.

[jenlyn]

You keep repeating this crap? Will that make it true? Why have you invented these absurdities?

 

You are becoming the master of divide and rule.

 

The London boaters are slagging the Cowley boaters who are slagging the Milton Keynes boaters.

 

 

Whoever keeps that boating hierarchy up to date (RLWP?) needs to add a few sub categories.

Yeh ok chris, so I am taking the pee with a london like twist on pre payment fees. The points suggestion is in there for all to see, and also the boaters tribunal bit. To be honest though, all the legal cr*p is starting to grate, if they have such good grounds, do something.

In other words, put up, or shut up, because I listened to another load of legal cr*p last night! It's getting pathetic.

[Chris Pink]

Have I missed something?

 

Points? Tribunal? Where are these from?

[sueb]

When we were last on the K&A there were signs with a phone number so that you could pay to stay.

[Chris Pink]

Where exactly Sue?

[DeanS]

I'm visiting a marina now. It has a visitor mooring, 7 days free, and £5 per day thereafter.

Are marinas visitor moorings, seperate from CRT visitor moorings, and are each allowed to then make up there own charges?