Ordered to Return to Moorings

[luctor et emergo]

 

As I stated in my original post, they were bridge-hopping in Chester. It was this that BW objected to more than the fact the boat wasn't using the mooring, just using the mooring as an excuse.

 

Anyway, I only paid for the five minute argument so I will leave it there.

Heads I win, tails you lose...

 

 

So, even if you have a mooring, legit and fully paid up, you have to travel around the system, and can't travel in a smaller area? What next? No traveling further than 20 miles from your mooring, otherwise you revert to being a CC'r? No mooring at the same moorings in your vicinity within a given time space?

[carlt]

 

 

 

 

You declare there is a place where your boat may be lawfully and reasonably kept. I'm look forward to finding out if the court considers your dry land mooring to be 'reasonable'. That's all.

 

MtB

©either—

 

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere;

 

Good enough?

[alan_fincher]

 

Anyway, I only paid for the five minute argument so I will leave it there.

 

No you didn't!

[MtB]

I suspect that a court would frown upon CRT if they stopped a boater from using his boat within the law and forced him to break that law just because they disapproved of his legitimate cruising practices.

Read the relevant bit of law MIke. It specifically states that it doesn't have to be a "mooring" so the hard is a perfectly reasonable place to keep a boat.

 

My boat has been on the hard for 2 years now, perfectly reasonably.

 

I fully understand your point Carl, I am just pointing out that if CRT decide to make an example of you, you're going to have to convince a judge, not me, that keeping your boat on a hard standing is reasonable, and from my experience of judges, they tend to apply common sense.

 

The weakness introduced to your case by choosing to have a hard standing place means you have a chance of losing your case in my personal opinion, whereas if you had a floating mooring, CRT would almost certainly lose. You are beginning to remind me of Paul Davis with you line of reasoning!

 

MtB

 

Good enough?

 

 

Not really. You failed to highlight the word REASONABLY!

 

MtB

[carlt]

 

I fully understand your point Carl, I am just pointing out that if CRT decide to make an example of you, you're going to have to convince a judge, not me, that keeping your boat on a hard standing is reasonable, and from my experience of judges, they tend to apply common sense.

 

The weakness introduced to your case by choosing to have a hard standing place means you have a chance of losing your case in my personal opinion, whereas if you had a floating mooring, CRT would almost certainly lose. You are beginning to remind me of Paul Davis with you line of reasoning!

 

MtB

The difference between Paul Davies and me is that I have the law on my side.

 

Look around any boatyard, marina or harbour and you will see boats being stored on the hard (they even have a marine term for it "ON THE HARD").

 

Common sense will, of course prevail and as I have every intention of storing my boat ON THE HARD at the end of each season how can it not be "common sense" that a reasonable place to store a boat, when not cruising is ON THE HARD?

 

 

I would also add that, when the time comes, should anyone claim that my boat cannot be reasonably and lawfully kept on the hard, in my yard, I will produce a photograph of that boat in my yard.

Edited July 4, 2013 by carlt

[MtB]

The difference between Paul Davies and me is that I have the law on my side.

 

Look around any boatyard, marina or harbour and you will see boats being stored on the hard (they even have a marine term for it "ON THE HARD").

 

Common sense will, of course prevail and as I have every intention of storing my boat ON THE HARD at the end of each season how can it not be "common sense" that a reasonable place to store a boat, when not cruising is ON THE HARD?

 

Paul Davies also had the law on his side so he thought, unlike everybody else, and he lost in the end, as expected.

 

But I dunno why you are trying to convince me, it's a judge you'll need to convince should CRT decide to have a go at you, unless you are rehearsing your courtroom argument here in advance, in order to expose any weaknesses.

 

 

MtB

[carlt]

 

 

But I dunno why you are trying to convince me, it's a judge you'll need to convince

You are part of this discussion, a judge is not.

 

A judge will be far easier to convince because all he will consider is the law, not additional non-existent rules and provisos that you and PaulC have invented.

 

My boat will be commissioned in my yard, proof that it can be reasonably and lawfully kept there.

[luctor et emergo]

Reasonably.

 

Another one of those words that are open to interpertation, like 'bona fide navigation'.

[mayalld]

 

I thought the licence was issued on condition you agree to comply with the terms and conditons. Sounds like a contract to me.

 

Nope.

 

A licence is issued, provided that you comply with the legal requirements for issuing a licence.

 

The terms and conditions are imposed under statutory powers, and there is no power to refuse a licence on the basis of non-compliance with T&Cs

[luctor et emergo]

Imagine if the traffic laws were written in a similar vein..

 

'The speedlimit in a build up area should not be much above 30mph'

[carlt]

Reasonably.

 

Another one of those words that are open to interpertation, like 'bona fide navigation'.

In this case quite easy to interpret.

 

Judge Dredd: Ordah! Can a boat be reasonably and lawfully kept in the defendant's yard?

 

The Accused: Yes M'lud and here is a photograph of the boat in question in the yard in question, being "reasonably and lawfully kept".

[cotswoldsman]

Well I have to laugh. It used to be CCers that got a hard time and now it is people that pay for a mooring!!! It still boils down to the fact that people seem to spend a lot of time and energy worrying about what other people do when actually it does not effect them anyway.

 

Edited to alter predictive text

Edited July 4, 2013 by cotswoldsman

[mayalld]

Reasonably.

 

Another one of those words that are open to interpertation, like 'bona fide navigation'.

 

Spot on, and it will come down in the first instance to a question of whether CRT accept that it is reasonably possible to use the "place" for the boat, rather than theoretically possible.

[carlt]

 

Spot on, and it will come down in the first instance to a question of whether CRT accept that it is reasonably possible to use the "place" for the boat, rather than theoretically possible.

and the fact that I have demolished the workshop and rebuilt it further back in order to accommodate a boat should be evidence enough.

[mayalld]

and the fact that I have demolished the workshop and rebuilt it further back in order to accommodate a boat should be evidence enough.

 

Very likely.

 

I would hope that those who are actually going to remove the boat when not in use would have nothing to worry about.

 

Those who claim that they could remove the boat without any intention of ever doing so should worry.

[carlt]

 

 

Those who claim that they could remove the boat without any intention of ever doing so should worry.

Indeed although "intent" is just as vague as "reasonable" or "bona fide" especially as the legislation does not state that intent to remove the boat is necessary,merely that the place has to exist.

[luctor et emergo]

How does one prove ones 'intent'?

[Chris Pink]

"intent" "reasonable" and "bona fide" are all recognised in legal terms and have tests that a judge can apply.

[Arthur Marshall]

I've lost track of this somewhere along the line. Is Carlt saying that when he's cruising, he follows the CC rules, or that he doesn't need to because he's got somewhere on land to stick his boat when he's not cruising? It wouldn't seem to make any diffeence to the licence he needs to buy as he obviously doesn't need a mooring permit as he parks it on the drive. As he has to move his boat every 14 days anyway when it's on the ditch, so he can't really hog any particular moorings which visitors will want to use, and still has to honour the 24/48 hour moorings, I can't see a problem. Presumably, whenever he leaves the boat for any period of time over 14 days, it comes out of the water, otherwise it breaches his licence conditions.

[AndrewIC]

There's been a narrow boat sitting in the car park of a local pub for about 5 years...

[carlt]

I've lost track of this somewhere along the line. Is Carlt saying that when he's cruising, he follows the CC rules, or that he doesn't need to because he's got somewhere on land to stick his boat when he's not cruising? ....

Yes I'm saying that, by having a place I can reasonably and lawfully keep my boat I would be exempt from the ccing requirements but would have to abide by the 14 day rule and any mooring restrictions shorter than 14 days.

 

I would not leave the boat in one place for more than 14 days so taking it out of the water would not be an issue, before the end of the season.

 

The point of the thread is to highlight the fact that CRT have no legal authority to insist that someone has to return to their home mooring (or other place where they are able to reasonably and lawfully leave their boat) despite what they may claim.

 

There is only one leisure licence, btw, so it wouldn't make a difference whether I had a home mooring, hard standing or continuously cruised.

Edited July 4, 2013 by carlt

[larkshall]

Sorry. I did see Pauls post. I'm just impatient lol

I agree. I don't think we have all the facts on this one

Sorry again for being impatient. Nothing moves quick enough these days

Unemployed for the first time since school. I'm VERY impatient lol

On yer boat, get a job

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Yes I'm saying that, by having a place I can reasonably and lawfully keep my boat I would be exempt from the ccing requirements but would have to abide by the 14 day rule and any mooring restrictions shorter than 14 days.

 

I would not leave the boat in one place for more than 14 days so taking it out of the water would not be an issue, before the end of the season.

 

The point of the thread is to highlight the fact that CRT have no legal authority to insist that someone has to return to their home mooring (or other place where they are able to reasonably and lawfully leave their boat) despite what they may claim.

 

There is only one leisure licence, btw, so it wouldn't make a difference whether I had a home mooring, hard standing or continuously cruised.

And, when you choose to use your home mooring you have the bonus of not needing to license the boat.

 

Glenn

[wreckferret]

Am I missing something here?

 

Why not sort out the p*sstaking lot who don't have a home mooring and don't cc?

Hope you are not tarring everyone with the same brush ??

 

Some of us (well me to be precise) are having trouble finding a mooring in our location (Chesterfield Canal, Trent end) We did win a mooring auction / lottery but due to an oversight on my part (new to this ) it was not big enough for our boat at 65' so had to default.

 

Until we find and secure a mooring we are forced into the CC category by default ..............

[MtB]

Hope you are not tarring everyone with the same brush ??

 

Some of us (well me to be precise) are having trouble finding a mooring in our location (Chesterfield Canal, Trent end) We did win a mooring auction / lottery but due to an oversight on my part (new to this ) it was not big enough for our boat at 65' so had to default.

 

Until we find and secure a mooring we are forced into the CC category by default ..............

 

Nobody forced you to buy a boat when you had no mooring....

 

 

<head down for the flack>

 

 

MtB