Continuous cruising- Macc canal- mile posts?

[mayalld]

Going right back to where all this started, I suggested there were probably no more than just 4 or 5 "continuous moorers" on the Macc. You have spotted two, I suspect there are maybe a couple of more discrete ones too, so I am probably not far wrong in my estimate. They are really irritating and upset lots of boaters but on the grand scheme of things they are small in number and just don't justify the dramatic action that CaRT are taking, (such as the S.E. mooring changes) that will impact upon the rest of us..

 

I have mentioned two of the most serious piss takers on the top pound. I could mention others (the boat moored on the 48 hour moorings for 3 months, just the other side of the bridge from the guy on the 24 hour mooring for 5 months, the boat that has been moored near Bollington for several years, the boat that has moved from Furness Vale, where he was for 3 years, to near Bollington, not to mention a gaggle of boats that hang around on a couple of favourite spots). All of these aren't merely bridge hoppers. but are seriously taking the piss.

 

I would say that the number of boaters on the top pound who are not even making a token effort at pretending to comply is in double figures.

 

You might suggest that they are small in number and not a major problem, but stop to think. Two of the boats are sat right outside a Marina for many months. Do you imagine that ALL the moorers in the marina cheerfully paid their half-yearly bill and thought "well, yes he is getting exactly what we pay over a thousand pounds for and paying nothing for it, but that is fine". If people see piss-takers getting away with it then they will be tempted to join them.

[blodger]

 

Not easy to define of course, and it depends on exactly how one defines continuous moorer. Some people sadly use the term to refer to any untidy boat that they do not like the look of.

Also do note that I said "could POSSIBLY be continuous moorers". I choose my words carefully as we spend a lot of time on the K&A and I well know that many boats that sometimes appear fixed to the towpath, with possessions all over the place, actually up sticks and move very frequently

 

We were last on the Macc a year ago and I noticed one boat that is moored on the towpath in exactly the same position as it was then, and had fixed various protest notices to a nearby bridge. There was no sign to indicate it was a CaRT permanent mooring. This boat might possibly be a very continuous moorer, but it might have every right to be where it is. In general boats that have a huge amount of associated clutter, and even a "tender" full of more stuff are less likely to be on a major progressive journey round the system...but then I know one or two who are.

 

I also know a few continuous moorers who know how to look nothing at all like a continuous moorer and have successfully lived on the same 5 mile stretch of canal for many years!

 

For a bit of fun maybe the forum could make a list of the ten obvious characteristics of a continuous moorer?.

 

.............Dave

 

Re-opened this thread to say that after fairly lengthy litigation the boat referred to above was moved by CART yesterday.

[Jigsawged]

Re-opened this thread to say that after fairly lengthy litigation the boat referred to above was moved by CART yesterday.

Yes, quite sad really but understandable in the circumstances. I know the boat well and a few years ago it was a beauty. The lady who bought it was going through a marriage breakdown, and decided that living aboard was her only option. It appears that the boat has been unlicensed for about 4 years and CaRT finally had enough of the protest signs etc. and did a section 8 on it. The boat was towed several miles to Macclesfield where it was lifted out prior to being sent for disposal. The lady in question followed it all the way on a bike and was (understandably) in quite a distressed state.

[junior]

Yes, quite sad really but understandable in the circumstances. I know the boat well and a few years ago it was a beauty. The lady who bought it was going through a marriage breakdown, and decided that living aboard was her only option. It appears that the boat has been unlicensed for about 4 years and CaRT finally had enough of the protest signs etc. and did a section 8 on it. The boat was towed several miles to Macclesfield where it was lifted out prior to being sent for disposal. The lady in question followed it all the way on a bike and was (understandably) in quite a distressed state.

 

If wishing to have your boat unlicensed, wouldn't it be better to try and stay under the radar and not attract attention. I don't know the boat granted, but surely covering the boat in banners is just attracting attention?

[StarUKKiwi]

Ah that was what was happening yesterday - the one in Bollington is still there; there are one or two more; mostly older men convinced they are unfairly treated. It's a shame and the local enforcement officer doesn't help really. I know it is a difficult job; but a smile and a hello doesn't hurt.

[StarUKKiwi]

I understand the ptrol/enforcement officer to have advised that all those without home moorings habitually on the Macclesfield Canal are going to be given up to date information regarding guidance and the enforcement action that will be taken.

Strangely 7 miles is mentioned?

Apparently there is a story doing the rounds that the LEO is quoting the legal case where someone was removed from a canal after moving 6 miles in 10 years. As I say; not helping the case and with some on the Macc, not quite all out war declared against said officer. It's a shame, because surely we are her customers and we pay her wages?

[Dave_P]

If wishing to have your boat unlicensed, wouldn't it be better to try and stay under the radar and not attract attention. I don't know the boat granted, but surely covering the boat in banners is just attracting attention?

From what I've read here (forced on to a boat through unforeseen circumstances, no attempt to move, no license, drawing attention, lone woman living aboard), it seems that she needs help as well as enforcement. I'd be interested to know what support and referrals CaRT make when doing a section 8, and during the enforcement process leading up to it. I'm sure they can't simply leave people homeless, but where was her support worker while she was cycling along the towpath in a distressed state?

[junior]

From what I've read here (forced on to a boat through unforeseen circumstances, no attempt to move, no license, drawing attention, lone woman living aboard), it seems that she needs help as well as enforcement. I'd be interested to know what support and referrals CaRT make when doing a section 8, and during the enforcement process leading up to it. I'm sure they can't simply leave people homeless, but where was her support worker while she was cycling along the towpath in a distressed state?

 

I try not to get drawn into things that I know little about, however I'm sure I read recently that if CRT are to remove somebody's boat (and it is their home), then a judge has to determine that is is proportionate to make that alleged offender homeless so to speak. That has obviously happened in this case so I'm confident that all things were considered fairly.

 

Having said all that, from a distance and not being aware of allcthe circumstances, it is a shame to hear of anyone being made homeless, especially someone who probably turned to a boat as a last resort.

 

One thing I've noticed down in London since I've been here is that there is loads, perhaps hundreds, of little plastic cruisers dotted all over the place. Some not even big enough to stand up in, no heating and a plastic sheet to keep the water out. I had a friend to visit a few weeks ago and he asked me why would anyone would want to live in a 's**t heap'. I guess the alternative is these people all become homeless.

[Jigsawged]

From what I've read here (forced on to a boat through unforeseen circumstances, no attempt to move, no license, drawing attention, lone woman living aboard), it seems that she needs help as well as enforcement. I'd be interested to know what support and referrals CaRT make when doing a section 8, and during the enforcement process leading up to it. I'm sure they can't simply leave people homeless, but where was her support worker while she was cycling along the towpath in a distressed state?

I did post something similar earlier this AM but it seems to have disappeared. I agree with all that you say. I only hope that there are no tragic, unforeseen consequences. I would add that I have heard of a few people who have had their licence fee paid by the local authority (in circumstances where they qualify of course).

[Dave_P]

Please don't think I'm suggesting the CaRT don't do all they can. They're in a very tough situation in these cases. I work in an enforcement role for a local authority and I'm currently dealing with a case where an extremely vulnerable person was concerned that my actions could leave them homeless. Needless to say I have gone to great lengths to ensure that doesn't happen and that the vulnerable person in reassured about this. On the other side however, I have a complaining neighbour who's only concern is in trying to sell his house and doesn't really seem to care what happens to this poor person. Sadly, the law is on the side of the complaining neighbour.

 

Clearly, there are striking paralliels with these type of section 8 cases. Which is why I was wondering...

[Jigsawged]

Please don't think I'm suggesting the CaRT don't do all they can. They're in a very tough situation in these cases. I work in an enforcement role for a local authority and I'm currently dealing with a case where an extremely vulnerable person was concerned that my actions could leave them homeless. Needless to say I have gone to great lengths to ensure that doesn't happen and that the vulnerable person in reassured about this. On the other side however, I have a complaining neighbour who's only concern is in trying to sell his house and doesn't really seem to care what happens to this poor person. Sadly, the law is on the side of the complaining neighbour. Clearly, there are striking paralliels with these type of section 8 cases. Which is why I was wondering...

Never thought that your reply was anything but sensitive to all the issues involved - on both sides. I'm certain that CART wouldn't just evict someone and take away their home and possessions. There must have been a sort of multi-agency approach.

[Dave-Shrop]

I was chatting to a fellow boater on the Macclesfield canal today. He told me that CRT are about to introduce a new system for continuous cruising on the canal. They will install a post every mile. Anyone without a home mooring has to move (in one direction only) a given number of posts every 2 weeks. He told me it was 10 posts (10 miles!!) although I can't believe that.

 

Anyone heard anything about this?

It is in the - TOWPATH MOORING MANAGEMENT PROJECT UPDATE – 8 NOVEMBER 2013

and as it states, info will be available early in 2014

 

"To help boaters understand the Guidance better, we are developing some examples of movement patterns which we think illustrate compliance and non-compliance. We will discuss these with our Navigation Advisory Group and national boating organisations before publishing early in 2014. We are also considering publishing maps suggesting possible interpretations of places throughout the network which we will share in the same way before publishing.

We also think there may be a need for greater clarity in respect of the home mooring definition in the light of increased cases of boaters declaring as a home mooring a location which they never use. This will be one of a small number of changes needed to licence terms and conditions which again we will discuss with the Navigation Advisory Group and boating organisations before publishing and communicating."

 

[Dave_P]

I'll be interested in this new definition of 'home mooring'. For the life of me, I can't see what the problem is with someone paying for a home mooring and hardly ever going there. I'd always assumed that the 14 day rule for cc'ers was an arbitrary way of havinh some fairness in the system. Otherwise, people would be reluctant to pay for a towpath mooring if they could have the same thing for free. If i had a paid home mooring and then decided to cruise within a very limited area elsewhere, but sticking to the VM time limits; who is it really hurting? I suppose it could cause a problem with people repeatedly returning to popular VMs, but surely there's easier ways of dealing with that anyway?

[matty40s]

I'll be interested in this new definition of 'home mooring'. For the life of me, I can't see what the problem is with someone paying for a home mooring and hardly ever going there. I suppose it could cause a problem with people repeatedly returning to popular VMs, but surely there's easier ways of dealing with that anyway?

This is the main issue Dave. You could have a paper mooring costing £100 py on a farmers field on the Lancaster Canal, a backwater of a navigable river, or in CarlTs yard, and live on your boat and work in London.You would not be having to make a progressive journey, and be allowed to flit back and forth between two spots as often as you wished..

[mayalld]

I'll be interested in this new definition of 'home mooring'. For the life of me, I can't see what the problem is with someone paying for a home mooring and hardly ever going there. I'd always assumed that the 14 day rule for cc'ers was an arbitrary way of havinh some fairness in the system. Otherwise, people would be reluctant to pay for a towpath mooring if they could have the same thing for free. If i had a paid home mooring and then decided to cruise within a very limited area elsewhere, but sticking to the VM time limits; who is it really hurting? I suppose it could cause a problem with people repeatedly returning to popular VMs, but surely there's easier ways of dealing with that anyway?

 

The problem comes where the "home mooring" is actually a fiction.

 

Not in the sense that there is no mooring, but in the sense that more boats claim it as their home mooring than can actually moor there.

 

Essentially, somebody sells a cheap mooring, on the understanding that this is simply to satisfy the authorities, and that the boat won't actually turn up.

 

A CCer who moved back and forth between two spots will find himself in enforcement. A boater with a home mooring who does the same hasn't broken any rules, so for the boater who doesn't want to fork out for a mooring, and doesn't want to actually cruise, paying £300 to somebody for a mooring they can't use is a cheap way of getting round the rules.

 

(and no, there aren't easier ways of dealing with it)

[Tuscan]

This is the main issue Dave. You could have a paper mooring costing £100 py on a farmers field on the Lancaster Canal, a backwater of a navigable river, or in CarlTs yard, and live on your boat and work in London.You would not be having to make a progressive journey, and be allowed to flit back and forth between two spots as often as you wished..

 

Isn't that exactly what all these proposals like roving mooring permits or community moorings are all about. Why should someone on one type of mooring permit be allowed to do something different to another boater on a another mooring permit.

[matty40s]

no, the roving and community moorings are aimed at people who have been in an area for a long time without much /any movement and due to CRT not enforcing for so long, may have grandfather type rights to carry on as they wish. So having a localised permit would generate revenue along with giving this type of boater a degree of legitimacy. It would not be open to new boaters.

[Dave_P]

This is the main issue Dave. You could have a paper mooring costing £100 py on a farmers field on the Lancaster Canal, a backwater of a navigable river, or in CarlTs yard, and live on your boat and work in London.You would not be having to make a progressive journey, and be allowed to flit back and forth between two spots as often as you wished..

I still don't really see a big problem with that. At the moment and in recent years, people have been doing this anyway, without paying for a home mooring at all. I suppose I really can't imagine that many people using this as a loophole. Does anyone actually have any numbers? It seems to me that the most common argument in the CM debate is that people are getting something for nothing. Not so here.

[carlt]

I suppose I really can't imagine that many people using this as a loophole.

It isn't a "loophole".

 

Just because somebody is complying with the law in a way that someone else doesn't approve of does not make it a "loophole".

 

 

When I move back on to a boat I have every intention of keeping a house despite having no intention of visiting it too often.

 

Can I expect enforcement action from the local council for not going there as often as they might wish?

[Paul C]

Whilst avoiding the discussion on the semantics of "loophole", I can't see how CRT can take a much different approach on this issue because they are bound by the existing legislation which is quite accommodating to unusual setups.

 

I can only guess that there is becoming popular, the 'ghost mooring' where it is a legitimate mooring site but the length of boats with 'mooring' (contracts) there exceeds the available mooring length. Ie moorings are being let out multiple times.

[carlt]

I can only guess that there is becoming popular, the 'ghost mooring' where it is a legitimate mooring site but the length of boats with 'mooring' (contracts) there exceeds the available mooring length. Ie moorings are being let out multiple times.

I've always known them as "paper moorings" which is and has always been fraudulent practice and is somewhat different to the suggestion that CRT have the right to insist that boaters with a legitimate place to keep their vessels, whether on CRT waters or elsewhere, should return to them.

[Paul C]

I've always known them as "paper moorings" which is and has always been fraudulent practice and is somewhat different to the suggestion that CRT have the right to insist that boaters with a legitimate place to keep their vessels, whether on CRT waters or elsewhere, should return to them.

 

Yes, I think that's what CRT are after.

 

I guess what happens on forums is that people with moorings which comply but are not the norm, post their info/circs freely, while those with dodgy moorings ("paper", "ghost") keep quiet!

[mayalld]

I've always known them as "paper moorings" which is and has always been fraudulent practice and is somewhat different to the suggestion that CRT have the right to insist that boaters with a legitimate place to keep their vessels, whether on CRT waters or elsewhere, should return to them.

 

You may be surprised to learn that I agree with you to a large extent!

 

I suspect, however, that we differ on what can be done about it.

 

Firstly, as to the question of can they force you to return to your mooring. I would say "no, they can't".

 

I would however point out that the requirement is; "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"

 

I would say that the key phrases here are "can reasonably be kept" and "will be available".

 

Clearly a paper mooring fails both tests.

 

The question is "does remaining away from your mooring permanently fail either test".

 

I would say that, provided the mooring sits there unoccupied, it does not fail the latter test. The mooring is clearly available.

 

The question is whether it is a place where the boat can "reasonably be kept", which is something that it is not possible to give a simple objective answer to, because it is a question of degree. If the boater does return to the mooring (albeit infrequently), then clearly it is reasonable. If he never returns there, and his pattern of use suggests that it would be unduly difficult for him to actually return to his mooring, then it may well be less so.

 

Secondly, there is a question of what else they can do to render paper moorings or cheap moorings held simply to validate a particular cruising pattern elsewhere pointless.

 

Here, I would suggest that they can use their s43 powers to impose a rule that whilst a boat with a home mooring is away from that home mooring, it must engage in bona fide navigation etc. etc.

 

That is to say that they impose the same duty on boaters with a home mooring to cruise as s17 imposes on CCers.

 

Clearly, the sanction for a failure to obey a s43 rule is simply a finacial charge, rather that the removal of licence under s17, but to all intents and purposes it would remove the loophole.

[carlt]

 

 

Here, I would suggest that they can use their s43 powers to impose a rule that whilst a boat with a home mooring is away from that home mooring, it must engage in bona fide navigation etc. etc.

 

That is to say that they impose the same duty on boaters with a home mooring to cruise as s17 imposes on CCers.

Sorry Dave but, in my opinion, you are once again using s.43 to imply that CRT have unlimited powers and can impose any restrictions they like.

 

If this were the case then it would pretty much render all subsequent legislation unnecessary which quite simply isn't the case.

 

If s.43 could be used in this way then why has s.17 been argued over, interpreted and reinterpreted and generally discussed to such lengths when all BW/CRT could have said, following your logic, was "We don't need to discuss s.17 or provide any interpretation because we are just going to impose our will by utilising s.43".

 

You continually bestow powers on s.43 that quite simply do not exist.

[Paul C]

Sorry Dave but, in my opinion, you are once again using s.43 to imply that CRT have unlimited powers and can impose any restrictions they like.

 

If this were the case then it would pretty much render all subsequent legislation unnecessary which quite simply isn't the case.

 

If s.43 could be used in this way then why has s.17 been argued over, interpreted and reinterpreted and generally discussed to such lengths when all BW/CRT could have said, following your logic, was "We don't need to discuss s.17 or provide any interpretation because we are just going to impose our will by utilising s.43".

 

You continually bestow powers on s.43 that quite simply do not exist.

 

Having re-read mayalld's suggestion, I don't think CRT could use s.43 for this. I don't actually think there is an appetite for "going after" people who have cheap moorings (or other places the boat can be kept etc) but cruise extensively. I think they're solely after the fraudulent ones ie paper/ghost/don't exist moorings/false declarations.