Nbta's Nick Brown Finally Is Granted Permission For A Judicial Review

[Natalie Graham]

Surely the question to be reviewed is not whether following the CRT guidelines is a measure of having satisfied the requirements of the law, but whether those guidelines are the only way to do so and whether CRT is right to automatically regard those who have not followed those guidelines as being in breach of the law and of their licensing conditions. As BW used to tell us, the guidelines do not have force of law but are what they consider will satisfy the requirements of the law. There may be other ways to satisfy those requirements. For example if I was to set off at 9am and travel until 1pm, stop for lunch, then turn around and return to my staring point and did that every day I would be complying with the requirement to use my boat 'for navigation' but I doubt CRT would consider I had followed their guidelines.

 

I think the problem comes from the fact that the requirement 'to have a place where the boat may be lawfully be kept when not being used for bona fidé navigation' has its origins in the original legislation giving BWB powers to charge licence fees ( I can't remember off hand if this was the 1962 or 1971 act) Previously boats had been charged by a system of tolls and most boats had been working boats. With the growth of pleasure boats using the canals this was not an appropriate system so pleasure boat licences were introduced. It was realised that unlike working boats, which were in near constant use, pleasure boats were often used occasionally by owners who lived and worked elsewhere and thus they would need somewhere to be kept when not being used. The result is that we have legislation worded on the assumption that a boat would normally be in use and would need some provision for when it was not, I don't believe the situation of boats being lived on and only moved as necessary to meet the minimum requirement of the law was ever foreseen.

 

As I said, a pleasure boat repeating the same short trip every day would be just as much in use for bona fide navigation as the boats that used to go back and forth carrying fire-bricks to Tipton basin, for example, and would, I believe, be in compliance with the original intention of the legislation. However, what if the boat only does that trip every other day, every third day, once a week, or every 14 days? I would say it still complies with the letter of the law as set out but is not being used in a way that was intended or envisaged when the provision was originally made. Or, arguably, in a way that is desirable for the canal system and its users as a whole.

 

Unfortunately after several decades with this system we have a situation where 'continuous cruisers' appear often to be seen as a problem that needs to be kept moving around the system and alternatively as an option to push the law as far as can be got away with. In my view we need to get away from the idea of a boat needing to move on every 14 days and devise new legislation that gets us away from, 'What is the least distance I can get away with moving my boat?' and provides a more flexible option for those who genuinely want to live on their boats and explore the system. Something that recognises the genuine waterways enthusiast who wants to live on their boat but discourages the idea of the canals as a housing alternative. However I don't think the goodwill is there from the authorities to make this happen and fear that any new legislation would be unlikely to benefit any liveaboard boater

[peterboat]

Hi it all seems like a waste of time and money to me! When I wandered around the system a few years ago I saw all these little and some large communes all over the system, a lot of the boats were in really poor condition and not displaying a licence, bank people in those areas were unhappy about the situation as they wondered where the sewage went? and they also thought boating was about moving? They were interested about our travels but felt intimidated by the communes! So if at long last somebody really rules that we should do x and y would that not be money well spent? I wait with baited breath at what is going to happen in court but hope for common sense

 

Peter

[churchward]

Unfortunately after several decades with this system we have a situation where 'continuous cruisers' appear often to be seen as a problem that needs to be kept moving around the system and alternatively as an option to push the law as far as can be got away with. In my view we need to get away from the idea of a boat needing to move on every 14 days and devise new legislation that gets us away from, 'What is the least distance I can get away with moving my boat?' and provides a more flexible option for those who genuinely want to live on their boats and explore the system. Something that recognises the genuine waterways enthusiast who wants to live on their boat but discourages the idea of the canals as a housing alternative. However I don't think the goodwill is there from the authorities to make this happen and fear that any new legislation would be unlikely to benefit any liveaboard boater

Surely there already is an alternative that many people use. Rent/buy a mooring.

[MtB]

Surely there already is an alternative that many people use. Rent/buy a mooring.

 

Agreed. This is fundamentally about people who wish to live on a boat, without moving, and without renting a home mooring, isn't it?

 

 

MtB

[Tuscan]

Agreed. This is fundamentally about people who wish to live on a boat, without moving, and without renting a home mooring, isn't it?

 

 

MtB

I wasn't aware that this was about doing away with the requirement to move every 14 days.

 

He certainly seems to have touched a nerve as the IWA have also rushed out a press release very similar to CRT's

[Lady Muck]

Surely there already is an alternative that many people use. Rent/buy a mooring.

Depends whether you can afford it, many of the ccers I come across, they can't even afford fuel in the winter. No wonder the waterways chaplaincy is rushed off it's feet, there are some real heartbreaking stories out there.

We get desperately poor boaters taking the habitat piles (basically rotten wood) off the marsh and try to burn it to stay warm, it's not funny.

They're not on the canal because they want to be, it's because there is no other option open to them. Try getting socially housed if you're a young man, it's impossible. One of my friends was on the dole for two years (he now has a job), had to sofa surf, could not find a landlord who would rent to him.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Lady Muck

[paul68]

 

Norfolk ?!!!

 

( sorry couldn't resist)

surely you mean Cornwall.....

[carlt]

When I wandered around the system a few years ago I saw all these little and some large communes all over the system, a lot of the boats were in really poor condition and not displaying a licence, bank people in those areas were unhappy about the situation as they wondered where the sewage went?

I blame television.

 

It is inevitable that it would lead to trouble, showing these types that there is a world outside their slum tenements.

[churchward]

Depends whether you can afford it, many of the ccers I come across, they can't even afford fuel in the winter. No wonder the waterways chaplaincy is rushed off it's feet, there are some real heartbreaking stories out there.

We get desperately poor boaters taking the habitat piles (basically rotten wood) off the marsh and try to burn it to stay warm, it's not funny.

They're not on the canal because they want to be, it's because there is no other option open to them. Try getting socially housed if you're a young man, it's impossible. One of my friends was on the dole for two years (he now has a job), had to sofa surf, could not find a landlord who would rent to him.

I agree that those people who are in financial difficulty deserve our empathy and support. They need help and should get it. I would much rather for example see the £300 fuel allowance some wealthy pensioners get in winter go to those that could really use it and need it.

 

However I cannot believe all the people who have CC licences are in this position or are even a majority. Watching the K&A videos of the "ccers" there I got the distinct impression they were in the main doing OK and had jobs for example.

 

So yes in response to the post I do see that there is an alternative for many.

Edited July 25, 2013 by churchward

[Lady Muck]

Well people might say the same about us, but if I don't get my three outstanding invoices paid by Thursday, then my first mooring installment of £700 is going to bounce.

It's easy to watch a video and judge without knowing the whole story.

It's all very well saying people need help, I agree, but help is not on offer.

[churchward]

Well people might say the same about us, but if I don't get my three outstanding invoices paid by Thursday, then my first mooring installment of £700 is going to bounce.

It's easy to watch a video and judge without knowing the whole story.

It's all very well saying people need help, I agree, but help is not on offer.

I am not judging people they are your words. I watch such things, read articles and speak to people in order to be more informed. the videos in question after all were made by the people who were the subject of the piece. Would you rather I watch and read nothing and take a view that way?

[Lady Muck]

Not at all, I just think you're getting a different impression from these videos, which I agree do not show poverty. Almost everyone I speak to on the cut up here is completely skint.

 

I have to say I haven't seen anything in the media which shows it how it really is.

[bowten]

 

Agreed. This is fundamentally about people who wish to live on a boat, without moving, and without renting a home mooring, isn't it?

 

 

MtB

What if there are no moorings in the area or you are waiting for a mooring.What if through no fault of your own it is not possible to pay for a mooring.What if you have a job in the area but no mooring.What if you have a mooring but just lost your job.What if you have lost a mooring because your wife becomes pregnant and the owners don't like families on the moorings.Not everyone has a pension and a quality boat and can cruise to their hearts content.

[Natalie Graham]

Surely there already is an alternative that many people use. Rent/buy a mooring.

An alternative that has been available since before the regulations were put in place but which doesn't seem to have done much to avert the position we have now.

[churchward]

An alternative that has been available since before the regulations were put in place but which doesn't seem to have done much to avert the position we have now.

But an alternative none the less and one that works well for many people since that is the majority of licence holders.

 

There are many (most I wager) CCers quite happily making their onward wandering journey within the letter and spirit of the rules and law. There are those that are in financial difficulty who need help and then there are those who just want to do it their way and sod the rest pay a little as possible and stay put.

 

Good luck and bon voyage to the first group, my empathy and where possible help to the second and shape up and pay your way to the 3rd group.

 

I do recognise there are issues with the way BW administered CC licences and gave advice to people over the years so I do see that there is a limited need to help some people stuck in an area when they were led to believe this was OK. This is where the limited use of RMPs may be in order and at least an imaginative proposition and way to get to a better ongoing position.

[mayalld]

What if there are no moorings in the area or you are waiting for a mooring.What if through no fault of your own it is not possible to pay for a mooring.What if you have a job in the area but no mooring.What if you have a mooring but just lost your job.What if you have lost a mooring because your wife becomes pregnant and the owners don't like families on the moorings.Not everyone has a pension and a quality boat and can cruise to their hearts content.

 

Then you are in much the same position as somebody on the land who can't get a house where you want.

[carlt]

 

Then you are in much the same position as somebody on the land who can't get a house where you want.

Really?

 

I have yet to see someone who has a house that they are living in but with nowhere to put it.

[Lady Muck]

In a worse position, probably not able to produce any of the paperwork that one would need to be able to rent private sector. Got to be credit checked and would most likely fail the checks. I'd hate to have to try to find somewhere to live on the bankside, now - what with the dog and both of us 10 years self employment, it might be a bit tricky.

[The Pipe]

When I was very ill with pneumonia a few years back..I struggled into A&E at Rugby hospital.

Unable to clarify an address for me due to being on a boat, they logged me as a 'traveller'.

This was good...as they said "you are an ethnic minority "...(apparently they get extra money points ?)

 

This meant, I jumped the queue...was the next person seen...( I wasn't complaining)

As I was in difficulty and the initial examination went on for long time..they sent out for drinks and sandwiches for me...as 'You may be hungry'.

Eating was the last thing on my mind...so my wife had them.

 

I was hospitalised...and next morning at 6am felt ill as my blood sugar was getting low.

I asked for ..just a plain biscuit...to which she responed.."You're an ethnic minority"

She left the ward for 30 minutes..and came back with a tray...with several slices of nice buttered toast and a pot of tea..which she had made herself.

 

I..LIKE being a traveller !!

This makes my blood boil so you get preferential treatment over the majority if you’re a minority.

[Lady Muck]

He might've done that time but according to my neighbour the opposite is true.

[MtB]

What if there are no moorings in the area or you are waiting for a mooring.What if through no fault of your own it is not possible to pay for a mooring.What if you have a job in the area but no mooring.What if you have a mooring but just lost your job.What if you have lost a mooring because your wife becomes pregnant and the owners don't like families on the moorings.Not everyone has a pension and a quality boat and can cruise to their hearts content.

 

What if I had an accident that wasn't my fault?

 

If anything that happens that isn't my fault, you're saying I should be excused the consequences, yes?

 

I don't think that would work.

 

 

MtB

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

I dont consider the guidance to be that bad, and I would definately rather have it as guidance rather than law. Mr Brown is becoming the perverbiable.

With comments like this, (and plenty others you've made) you risk becoming the preverbiable.

 

If the guidance is 'not that bad' there'd be no need for this discussion.

 

All anyone wants is clear interpretation of the guidelines.

Personally, I prefer an interpretation of guidlines that benefits boaters and a boating community. An interpretation that allows boaters to act lawfully and fairly.

I don't want an interpretation, by C&RT, that is unlawful and an abuse of power for some other gain.

 

As for talks: C&RT may well put on a lovely lunch with plenty of butter, but by the time invites are sent out for such an event they'll have decided their agenda.

 

 

Glenn

[Lady Muck]

I think the guidance is really, really clear as it stands. Am I the only one?

[GUMPY]

I think the guidance is really, really clear as it stands. Am I the only one?

Its clear for those of a reasonable nature that do not want to take the proverbial, for others however.........

Edited July 26, 2013 by Loddon

[churchward]

With comments like this, (and plenty others you've made) you risk becoming the preverbiable.

 

If the guidance is 'not that bad' there'd be no need for this discussion.

 

All anyone wants is clear interpretation of the guidelines.

Personally, I prefer an interpretation of guidlines that benefits boaters and a boating community. An interpretation that allows boaters to act lawfully and fairly.

I don't want an interpretation, by C&RT, that is unlawful and an abuse of power for some other gain.

 

As for talks: C&RT may well put on a lovely lunch with plenty of butter, but by the time invites are sent out for such an event they'll have decided their agenda.

 

 

Glenn

So, we have an act that is in legal format so the layman needs help to understand.

 

Aha I know we will have guidelines to help.

 

but, but! they guidelines are not clear enough we need an explanation!

 

OK let's go to court.

 

But but! the court ruling is wrong and not in my favour it is so unfair an unclear!

 

OK we will have a judicial review

 

I don't expect the review will nail much down. but what I am trying to convey is that if you were having to go through this process you may get a little tired of guidelines of the law then interpreting the guidelines and then explaining the interpretation. Maybe in the end you might say blow it! and replace the act with some draconian but simple law and then we are stuffed. Worst still, make a simpler harsher interpretation of the act and start chucking people off the water and their homes. Just as bad another alternative is to go the other way and say stuff it do what you like and the canals descend into chaos and ultimate destruction.

Edited July 26, 2013 by churchward