NICK BROWN vs CANAL & RIVER TRUST Charity responds to misconceived claim for judicial review

[furnessvale]

No wonder I get confused so people with a home mooring never make a "bona fide" cruise also where in the 1995 Act does it say "bona fide" is exclusive to boats without a home mooring? The question was has Allan made a "bona fide" cruise?

You do seem to get confused easily. I reckon those MPs will run rings round you at that meeting.

 

A person with a home mooring does not HAVE to make a bone fide cruise. He has a home mooring. I saw a boater in the summer who crossed from his EOG to the towpath for a few days for a change. I don't think that was a bone fide cruise. That doesn't mean he never makes such a cruise as many marina dwellers prove when out in the summer.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[cotswoldsman]

You do seem to get confused easily. I reckon those MPs will run rings round you at that meeting.

 

A person with a home mooring does not HAVE to make a bone fide cruise. He has a home mooring. I saw a boater in the summer who crossed from his EOG to the towpath for a few days for a change. I don't think that was a bone fide cruise. That doesn't mean he never makes such a cruise as many marina dwellers prove when out in the summer.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

The question was not did Allan have to make a bona fide cruise but did he make a bona fide cruise.

Not worried about MP's running rings round me and as they are trying to help to make it easier for CCers to get "bus passes" why would they want to run rings round me? (Confused again)

[furnessvale]

Can I ask whether, rather than repeating that 'bona fide" and "place" etc etc are not clearly defined, someone from one of the organisations, I don't know, perhaps the ACC, can enlighten me on exactly how cc'ing should be defined? Genuine question, not facetiousness. I ask because its often very easy to deconstruct something and to argue against it but do these organisations have an alternative real plan? In actual easily understood words? Or is that up to CaRT to come up with? And if so, why? And apologies if this has new answered eleswhere. I know distances are often bandied about but I'm interested from the point of view of organisations that are apparently engaged with CaRT to resolve this matter, rather than general personal opinions. Thanks

You are joking of course. The last thing CMers want is a tight definition of CCing which would tie them down.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[NBDensie]

I would agree with that all I have ever said is that they are what it says on the tin "Guidelines" and not "Law" or "rules" so best to not quote them as Law

 

Though from a practical point of view it's the Guidelines that are the more important as failure to meet them could in the end lead you to losing your licence.

[cotswoldsman]

 

Though from a practical point of view it's the Guidelines that are the more important as failure to meet them could in the end lead you to losing your licence.

If CRT take away your licence you have the option to go to court they have to serve a Section 8

[Ex- Member]

You are joking of course. The last thing CMers want is a tight definition of CCing which would tie them down.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

The current guidelines are amply sufficient to do that for those willing to read them that have a trace amount of intelligence and common sense. As previously stated thousands of boaters don't seem to have a problem with the guidelines, just a few people on a couple of internet forums it seems

Edited February 22, 2014 by Julynian

[Sir Nibble]

I would suggest that most boat movement by most mooring holders is "bona fide" since they are cruising for the love of it. Anyone can and usually does use their boat "bona fide for navigation" But only those declaring no home mooring are obliged to do so.

[nicknorman]

Well isn't it already? Even with CCing boaters that comply with the guidelines all that's happening is that the majority of compliant boats are just being shuffled around around the system, if all the boats stayed where they are now for the next 6 months, nothing would change. The entire argument of continuous movement on the canal system is basically flawed.

 

No, it isn't already, except maybe in the slums of W K&A and London. There is point to boats having to shuffle round the system, one it allows everyone a fair crack of the honeypot sites, and two it means that some folk can't function like that so have to get a home mooring. That keeps some degree of restraint on an otherwise endlessly increasing population boom. So the argument is far from flawed, even though you would like it to be. Edited February 22, 2014 by nicknorman

[cotswoldsman]

No, it isn't already, except maybe in the slums of W K&A and London. There is point to boats having to shuffle round the system, one it allows everyone a fair crack of the honeypot sites, and two it means that some folk can't function like that so have to get a home mooring. That keeps some degree of restraint on an otherwise endlessly increasing population boom. So the argument is far from flawed, even though you would like it to be.

Slums???

[Ex- Member]

No, it isn't already, except maybe in the slums of W K&A and London. There is point to boats having to shuffle round the system, one it allows everyone a fair crack of the honeypot sites, and two it means that some folk can't function like that so have to get a home mooring. That keeps some degree of restraint on an otherwise endlessly increasing population boom. So the argument is far from flawed, even though you would like it to be.

 

Well maybe we're W of K&A

 

Not every boater would stay in the same place though, most CC'rs do actually like to cruise.

[nicknorman]

Slums???

Emotive language isn't banned, is it? Anyway, since no-one bit me on my BUHMS I'm sulking.

Edited February 22, 2014 by nicknorman

[cotswoldsman]

Emotive language isn't banned, is it? Anyway, since no-one bit me on my BUHMS I'm sulking.

You use whatever language you like but not sure why you said Slums hence the??? Edited February 22, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[Ex- Member]

You use whatever language you like but not sure why you said Slums hence the???

 

Nick needs attention

[nicknorman]

You use whatever language you like but not sure why you said Slums hence the???

Well, wall to wall accommodation, no water supply, no sewerage system, no electricity supply, muddy access. What would you call a slum?

 

But anyway, I was being deliberately provocative as you well know.

Nick needs attention

Thankyou for noticing!

[Captain Zim]

I guess at the end of the day it is up to Parliament or maybe a Judge certainly not the Associations

From a practical point of view it is up to C&RT to implement policies that are compatible with its interpretation of the Act. It is very likely to do this in consultation with interested groups. Anyone who disagrees would ultimately have to get a judge to make a ruling, presumably on the basis of "reasonableness" .

Okay. But if I'm the authority for something and lots of associations and representative groups come to me and say "we're not happy with this" as a reasonable person I'm going to say "fair enough. What do you propose instead?" if they can't answer that question, the whole thing seems like a bit of a waste of time to me. I think it's exactly the point of the associations otherwise, to be blunt, what is the point?

 

And no George, I wasn't joking. But hopefully you can see why I'm concerned that a few people, albeit they think it's well intentioned, are stirring up a lot of trouble and when asked what they think the alternative is they put their hands in the air and say "don't ask me. I've no idea."

 

I don't want the rules defined anymore than they already are because I don't have a problem following them, like the majority of cc'ers.

Edited February 22, 2014 by Captain Zim

[NigelMoore]

 

Last Monday, I moved from where my boat was moored about three quarters of a mile to a water point, filled with water and returned to exactly the place that my boat was moored (even winded and reversed for some distance so the boat was facing the same way). The trip took just under two hours and I travelled a total distance of 1.5 miles.

 

I make this same trip throughout the period of my licence

 

Am I "bona fide navigating"?

 

Yes you are bona fide navigating while undertaking your trip – but so what? According to judge Lewis’s postulate, it is the wrong question, or at least an irrelevant one. The relevant question is whether your boat is one bona fide used for navigation, throughout the term of your licence?

 

The answer to that will determine – not whether you are an HM’er or CC’er, but - whether or not you are a pleasure boat. You need to establish first, that it is a vessel designed to be bona fide used for navigation to qualify as a pleasure boat, and second [arguably perhaps], that it remains capable of navigation for so long as you want to licence it as such.

 

For so long as your boat is not an active tug, cargo carrier or pontoon, then it either is bona fide used for navigation throughout the term of the licence – as understood in terms of the postulate - or it is a houseboat [which it can only be, provided the vessel and its mooring also meets further criteria, importantly, Local Planning Authority consent - see BWA 1971, s.13(1)].

 

It follows that your scenario potentially qualifies your boat as a pleasure boat – but then, the trip you describe, supposing the place you always moor at is a place where the boat may legitimately be left, is unnecessary anyway; it needs only to be established that you are a non-commercial vessel which is designed to navigate. You don’t have to prove that it is capable of navigating by taking those trips. Throughout the period of your licence, your boat will presumably remain a vessel designed to navigate, whether you use it to fulfil its purposed function or not.

 

Then too, indulging in the trips cannot of itself distinguish your boat as a pleasure boat, since even a houseboat may be taken on such a trip, even though not designed to do so. So in fact the navigating itself is redundant as a qualifier, only the intention of the boat’s design is relevant.

 

On the other hand, if that place you moor at is not one where the boat may legitimately be left, then you can indulge in that described navigation twice a day or more, every day of the year, in your boat designed for such movement, and you will nonetheless for ever be non-compliant with (ii).

 

It is not, therefore, the number of movements, or distance of movement, or direction of movement, or pattern of movement, or [as in Davies] the purpose of the movement, that is relevant at all - it is remaining in the same place longer than 14 days if that place is not one where the boat may legitimately be left. Obviously, the boat will be engaging in navigation in order to move to a different place, but that act of navigation is not [according to the postulate] itself the deciding criteria; it is simply the necessary mechanism whereby the deciding criteria can be fulfilled. If it was incapable of that, then of course it would not be a pleasure boat in the first place.

 

The basic point, as cotswoldsman highlights in #362 & #367, is that "bona fide used for navigation” HAS to have the same meaning for boats with home moorings as it does for those without.

[Mike Todd]

What Allan doesn't say is that the mooring in question is a "home" mooring.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Did I say I was talking about Allan?

Does that mean "bona fide" has. 2 meanings one for a boat with home mooring and one for boats without home mooring, I am confused!!

Yes - boats with a home mooring do not need to avail themselves of the special dispensation for those without. It is only the latter where the bona fide bit comes in. With a home mooring you can take as long as you like just so long as you do not overstay on a towpath or visitor mooring. Technically, I believe, you do not even have to visit your home mooring at any specified intervals! (Although some people who enjoy pushing at boundaries are testing out this one as well)

No wonder I get confused so people with a home mooring never make a "bona fide" cruise also where in the 1995 Act does it say "bona fide" is exclusive to boats without a home mooring? The question was has Allan made a "bona fide" cruise?

I think that is a second accident: just because you are not a boat without a home mooring does not prevent you from bona fide navigation. (Formal logic does have its place)

[Paul C]

 

Yes - boats with a home mooring do not need to avail themselves of the special dispensation for those without. It is only the latter where the bona fide bit comes in. With a home mooring you can take as long as you like just so long as you do not overstay on a towpath or visitor mooring. Technically, I believe, you do not even have to visit your home mooring at any specified intervals! (Although some people who enjoy pushing at boundaries are testing out this one as well)

I think that is a second accident: just because you are not a boat without a home mooring does not prevent you from bona fide navigation. (Formal logic does have its place)

 

This seems the clearest explanation so far, and should help cotswoldman understand the law a bit better.

[Ex- Member]

 

This seems the clearest explanation so far, and should help cotswoldman understand the law a bit better.

 

I disagree

 

‘Bona fide’ is Latin for “with good faith” and is used by lawyers to mean ‘sincerely’ or ‘genuinely’.

 

 

Boats in marinas have to comply with the 14 day rule as well.

I actually prefer Nigels explanation.

The quote above is from

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/633.pdf

[cotswoldsman]

 

This seems the clearest explanation so far, and should help cotswoldman understand the law a bit better.

Nigel explained it fine thanks at least he seems to understand the point I was making that clearly went over your head

[Paul C]

 

 

 

Boats in marinas have to comply with the 14 day rule as well.

 

 

There's 2 14 day rules though. There's the one where you need to be in a place for no more than 14 days (which applies to CCers and not boats with a home mooring) and there's the one which, unless otherwise signed, allows you to moor on the towpath for up to 14 days at a time in one particular mooring position.

[jenlyn]

 

 

(There's the one where you need to be in a place)

 

(there's the one which, unless otherwise signed, allows you to moor on the towpath for up to 14 days at a time in one particular mooring position.)

 

:-D:-D:-D:-D

Edited February 22, 2014 by jenlyn

[furnessvale]

Did I say I was talking about Allan?

 

Given that your post was a direct reply to one of Allan's, methinks I hear the sound of a hair splitting.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Yes you are bona fide navigating while undertaking your trip – but so what? According to judge Lewis’s postulate, it is the wrong question, or at least an irrelevant one. The relevant question is whether your boat is one bona fide used for navigation, throughout the term of your licence?

 

The answer to that will determine – not whether you are an HM’er or CC’er, but - whether or not you are a pleasure boat. You need to establish first, that it is a vessel designed to be bona fide used for navigation to qualify as a pleasure boat, and second [arguably perhaps], that it remains capable of navigation for so long as you want to licence it as such.

 

For so long as your boat is not an active tug, cargo carrier or pontoon, then it either is bona fide used for navigation throughout the term of the licence – as understood in terms of the postulate - or it is a houseboat [which it can only be, provided the vessel and its mooring also meets further criteria, importantly, Local Planning Authority consent - see BWA 1971, s.13(1)].

 

It follows that your scenario potentially qualifies your boat as a pleasure boat – but then, the trip you describe, supposing the place you always moor at is a place where the boat may legitimately be left, is unnecessary anyway; it needs only to be established that you are a non-commercial vessel which is designed to navigate. You don’t have to prove that it is capable of navigating by taking those trips. Throughout the period of your licence, your boat will presumably remain a vessel designed to navigate, whether you use it to fulfil its purposed function or not.

 

Then too, indulging in the trips cannot of itself distinguish your boat as a pleasure boat, since even a houseboat may be taken on such a trip, even though not designed to do so. So in fact the navigating itself is redundant as a qualifier, only the intention of the boat’s design is relevant.

 

On the other hand, if that place you moor at is not one where the boat may legitimately be left, then you can indulge in that described navigation twice a day or more, every day of the year, in your boat designed for such movement, and you will nonetheless for ever be non-compliant with (ii).

 

It is not, therefore, the number of movements, or distance of movement, or direction of movement, or pattern of movement, or [as in Davies] the purpose of the movement, that is relevant at all - it is remaining in the same place longer than 14 days if that place is not one where the boat may legitimately be left. Obviously, the boat will be engaging in navigation in order to move to a different place, but that act of navigation is not [according to the postulate] itself the deciding criteria; it is simply the necessary mechanism whereby the deciding criteria can be fulfilled. If it was incapable of that, then of course it would not be a pleasure boat in the first place.

 

The basic point, as cotswoldsman highlights in #362 & #367, is that "bona fide used for navigation” HAS to have the same meaning for boats with home moorings as it does for those without.

On Monday, knowing that the JV was imminent, I pondered the question and came to the same conclusion as in your last sentence.

 

It would seem that Mr Justice Lewis is in the same mind -

 

Mr Justice Lewis agreed that as far as “bona fide navigation” was concerned, what was good for boaters with moorings was also good for those without. “An occasional trip down to the Dog and Duck” might very well be bona fide navigation whether this was from a marina or from a towpath spot.

 

 

It also seems to be supported by parliamentary record which suggests that the test "bona fide for navigation" is simply that it should move every so often.

 

Edited February 22, 2014 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Machpoint005]

I suggest that those without a home mooring who cruise the system know perfectly well that they are playing by the rules and have nothing to worry about. I also suggest that those who bridge-hop within a limited area know perfectly well that they are taking the piss. The problem is differentiating between them, that's all.