CRT - Press Release - Roving Mooring Permits

[Leo No2]

CANAL & RIVER TRUST UPDATE: ROVING MOORING PERMITS

 

The Canal & River Trust has reluctantly concluded that roving mooring permits, which it was proposing to introduce in two local areas from April 2014, cannot be used to deal with localised issues of mooring congestion on the waterways. This follows further consideration of legal issues which raised doubts about the practical implications of implementing the scheme.

 

We would like to thank everyone who has helped us to develop and explore these proposals; those involved in this process had been assured previously that the proposal was deliverable, and bear no responsibility for this late change.

 

We will continue to work with local boaters to improve understanding of the Trust's guidance for boaters without a home mooring and to develop ways to help people to comply.

[churchward]

That's interesting I wonder what the legal advice and issues are behind this decision or indeed what is going to happen now with the people who Roving mooring permits would have been issued to.

Edited March 7, 2014 by churchward

[ChimneyChain]

Oh well.

 

Darren

[alan_fincher]

Personally I think this is a great shame.

 

This could have been a maybe not perfect, but at least a pragmatic, work around to an issue that there doesn't actually seem to be any other practical ideas to alleviate, other than rendering people homeless.

 

As CRT seem to have attracted a possibly unwarranted level of bad press and petitions recently only a small number of enforcement activities, I sincerely hope they don't decide to get heavy handed on those that who had signed up to be part of this scheme, but to whom it has been denied. They really don't need any more of that kind of bad press at a time they are increasingly looking for people to dip their hands in their pockets.

 

I'm disappointed that much of what seems to have gone on to scupper it has been under the auspices of other live-aboard boaters, often in a much better place than some of those this might have helped. I hope they are all "proud" of their "success" in this matter.

 

Roving permits would also have brought in significant extra monies to a cash strapped CRT.

 

Not good, but not unexpected, I guess.

[churchward]

I'm disappointed that much of what seems to have gone on to scupper it has been under the auspices of other live-aboard boaters, often in a much better place than some of those this might have helped. I hope they are all "proud" of their "success" in this matter.

 

Roving permits would also have brought in significant extra monies to a cash strapped CRT.

 

Not good, but not unexpected, I guess.

What was the counter argument against the RMP proposal?

 

I thought though that these RMPs were only to a few specific people so assumed that the the income would not have been that much and wasn't the point. How many RMPs would have been issued?

[cotswoldsman]

About 15 on G&S

[nicknorman]

My gut feeling is that this demise has come as a result of pressure from other boaters complaining that "why should they get that for breaking the rules when I have always complied with the rules - rewarding rule-breakers" type of comment, which is sad though not untypical of the human race.

[cotswoldsman]

That's interesting I wonder what the legal advice and issues are behind this decision or indeed what is going to happen now with the people who Roving mooring permits would have been issued to.

2 very good questions.

What does it say about CRT Legal Advise? First legal advise was they are legal and now legal advise is completely different.

I guess those that were going to have them will now have to carry on and just hope.

[jenlyn]

It was more or less a forgone conclusion some time ago that this would hit the fail.

The incompetent and obstructive behaviour by some within the Trust over the 17 months, was making it obvious that they did not wish to see RMP come to fruition.

The underlying fact remains, the enforcement team mislead some people in some areas. This continues, and until enforcement becomes consistent, the problem will remain.

[alan_fincher]

It was more or less a forgone conclusion some time ago that this would hit the fail.

The incompetent and obstructive behaviour by some within the Trust over the 17 months, was making it obvious that they did not wish to see RMP come to fruition.

The underlying fact remains, the enforcement team mislead some people in some areas. This continues, and until enforcement becomes consistent, the problem will remain.

Yes,

 

And after I made my post, it occurred to me that I had undoubtedly attributed failure to various boating "self interest", both from groups and individuals, but failed to lay any blame for the failure on CRT.

 

As you have indicated to me that the infamous CRT department of "heavy tinkering" has had its hands on this far too often, buggering around, as I understand it not only with the T&Cs, but even the pricing that was agreed at by fair consensus, then I was being too quick to just blame other boaters I think.

 

It's probably more balanced to say that it is a classic case of a good idea that could have launched, but where a mixture of self-interest and incompetence has scuppered it.

[cotswoldsman]

Yes,

 

And after I made my post, it occurred to me that I had undoubtedly attributed failure to various boating "self interest", both from groups and individuals, but failed to lay any blame for the failure on CRT.

 

As you have indicated to me that the infamous CRT department of "heavy tinkering" has had its hands on this far too often, buggering around, as I understand it not only with the T&Cs, but even the pricing that was agreed at by fair consensus, then I was being too quick to just blame other boaters I think.

 

It's probably more balanced to say that it is a classic case of a good idea that could have launched, but where a mixture of self-interest and incompetence has scuppered it.

Incompetence sums it up fairly well but also the inner politics of CRT old guard v new guard

[BEngo]

I am in some ways quite pleased to see this. RMP should have at least regularised the impossible situation in some parts, and did have the promise that it was to be restricted to existing CMers with no transfers and no new ones, the intention being that RMP would "wash out" in due course. That would have been OK, but I and others are old enough to remember the moorings moratorium (better described as a no-moorings enforcement moratorium) introduced in the SE some years ago, which also had good intentions and was supposed to have prevented the current situation developing. Only BW thought it would work, though it was supported by those who were advantaged by it, as you would expect.

 

I know where the road that is paved with good intentions leads, I see that the current CART team is much the same as the BW team and I see that there are still many many people who hope the canal will provide them with cheap housing. I don't think CART would have been any better at enforcing the rules with RMP than without, but they might have had a fig-leaf to hide behind. At least someone has decided that another fudge is not what is needed, because sooner rather than later fudge is only going to lead to an irresolvable problem.

 

I feel sorry for those who were conned by BW and their non-enforcement staff, but that's life. Hopefully whatever comes next will alleviate their situation, but I'm still of the opinion that sooner or later there will have to be a proper definition and enforcement of the rules, and those who don't comply will have to fall back on the local authorities if they need housing in a particular town.

 

N

[churchward]

2 very good questions.

What does it say about CRT Legal Advise? First legal advise was they are legal and now legal advise is completely different.

I guess those that were going to have them will now have to carry on and just hope.

Yes it is a minefield. Often civil law is not absolute so it becomes a matter of interpretation and there will often be differing advice. I wonder if some of the recent cases taken to court have had a bearing and changed the legal precedents and so advice given.

 

It does seem a shame that a pragmatic solution has failed.

My gut feeling is that this demise has come as a result of pressure from other boaters complaining that "why should they get that for breaking the rules when I have always complied with the rules - rewarding rule-breakers" type of comment, which is sad though not untypical of the human race.

You could easily be right more's the pity.

[jenlyn]

At the time, we were actually pushing for community moorings, based on a boat club sort of structure. We were however, told by John Dodwell and Sally Ash, that the RMP was a simpler and better favoured option. We trusted the view of both, a mistake that has now become evident.

Lesson learnt.....

[cotswoldsman]

Yes it is a minefield. Often civil law is not absolute so it becomes a matter of interpretation and there will often be differing advice. I wonder if some of the recent cases taken to court have had a bearing and changed the legal precedents and so advice given.

 

It does seem a shame that a pragmatic solution has failed.

 

You could easily be right more's the pity.

Yes it is a shame for those that for the last 9 months thought there was a solution I am left wondering about the legality of the Winter Roving Permit and trust that those that took one will now apply for a rebate of monies paid. WRP was very much linked to RMP

[churchward]

Yes it is a shame for those that for the last 9 months thought there was a solution I am left wondering about the legality of the Winter Roving Permit and trust that those that took one will now apply for a rebate of monies paid. WRP was very much linked to RMP

Not sure why anyone could expect to get a rebate on the winter moorings permit unless they were cut-short and removed. I thought they were seen as a success by CRT and boaters alike.

[cotswoldsman]

The biggest shame about this complete farce is that IMO it showed that the then newly formed Trust were prepared to look at solutions to problems it seems that some within The Trust were not and that to me shows that things have not changed.

Not sure why anyone could expect to get a rebate on the winter moorings permit unless they were cut-short and removed. I thought they were seen as a success by CRT and boaters alike.

They have been a success but were a RMP for the winter months so if CRT now say RMP are not legal I am left wondering if WRP are legal have boaters spent money on something that is not legal?

[David Schweizer]

Whenever issues like this come up the same few people come on with some of them criticising CaRT using phrases like "incompetence", "buggering around", " failure", "obstructive behaviour" etc, yet these comments are coming from the very same peopl;e who seek to "represent" other boaters at various consultation meetings, and then wonder why they don't get anywhere. I fully understand why people feel like they do, but if they are going to use such confrontational language on a public forum how do they expect to be taken seriously in closed meetings?

 

I spent more than twenty years as Trades Union representative on various Consultative Committees, and one quicklly learns that you achieve far more by restraining hostile feelings and only going into attack when you have a cast iron case, and even then civil language won far more arguements than insult.

Edited March 7, 2014 by David Schweizer

[BEngo]

I think the legality issue is explained in the press release, if you read between the lines.

 

"Legal issues which raised doubts about the practical implications of implementing the scheme" says to me- CART have realised "we can legally sell the permits, but if someone simply stays put in one of the locations we cannot enforce movement". The revised legal team have already admitted to user groups that they do not have the power to impose penalty charges for overstaying, so one sanction to enforce movement is gone. If CART have sold a mooring permit to someone who then remains moored at a permitted location CART are not going to convince any court that they should then be allowed to remove the boat under Sect 8 using the 'bona fide for navigation ' section ( 1995 Act Sect 17??) on the grounds that the boat doesn't have a permitted mooring and is not bona fide navigating!

 

 

Ergo, if they had gone ahead they would have effectively sold a set of low-cost permanent mooring permits and contravened their policy of reducing moorings on-line. They have looked at something new, realised that in the end it wouldn't work and given it up. That's better than BW would have done. At least they can start again without having made their problem worse.

 

 

N

[cotswoldsman]

Whenever issues like this come up the same few people come on with some of them criticising CaRT using phrases like "incompetence", "buggering around", " failure", "obstructive behaviour" etc, yet these comments are coming from the very same peopl;e who seek to "represent" other boaters at various consultation meetings, and then wonder why they don't get anywhere. I fully understand why people feel like they do, but if they are going to use such confrontational language on a public forum how do they expect to be taken seriously in closed meetings?

 

I spent more than twenty years as Trades Union representative on various Consultative Committees, and one quicklly learns that you achieve far more by restraining hostile feelings and only going into attack when you have a cast iron case, and even then civil language won far more arguements than insult.

I can only speak for myself and I represent no one and this incompetence I spent many years negotiating with Trade Unions and found that if you told them how you felt and saw things they had no problems and I was always happy if a TU official told me exactly how they felt

Whenever issues like this come up the same few people come on with some of them criticising CaRT using phrases like "incompetence", "buggering around", " failure", "obstructive behaviour" etc, yet these comments are coming from the very same peopl;e who seek to "represent" other boaters at various consultation meetings, and then wonder why they don't get anywhere. I fully understand why people feel like they do, but if they are going to use such confrontational language on a public forum how do they expect to be taken seriously in closed meetings?

 

I spent more than twenty years as Trades Union representative on various Consultative Committees, and one quicklly learns that you achieve far more by restraining hostile feelings and only going into attack when you have a cast iron case, and even then civil language won far more arguements than insult.

I can only speak for myself and I represent no one and this incompetence I spent many years negotiating with Trade Unions and found that if you told them how you felt and saw things they had no problems and I was always happy if a TU official told me exactly how they felt

[jenlyn]

Whenever issues like this come up the same few people come on with some of them criticising CaRT using phrases like "incompetence", "buggering around", " failure", "obstructive behaviour" etc, yet these comments are coming from the very same peopl;e who seek to "represent" other boaters at various consultation meetings, and then wonder why they don't get anywhere. I fully understand why people feel like they do, but if they are going to use such confrontational language on a public forum how do they expect to be taken seriously in closed meetings?

 

I spent more than twenty years as Trades Union representative on various Consultative Committees, and one quicklly learns that you achieve far more by restraining hostile feelings and only going into attack when you have a cast iron case, and even then civil language won far more arguements than insult.

Hmmm, this from someone who whinged and moaned at CRT sending him emails. What a joke.

Don't let your spite blinker your view ;-)

[churchward]

They have been a success but were a RMP for the winter months so if CRT now say RMP are not legal I am left wondering if WRP are legal have boaters spent money on something that is not legal?

I hope the WMP is still deemed OK. The scheme seems better than the old fixed temporary winter moorings offering a bit of flexibility for people and I would expect rather more income than the RMPs would bring in for CRT.

 

In a way I think the loss of the WMP would be a greater shame than the RMP.

[luctor et emergo]

Perhaps somebody realised that the licence already allows you to move about in a certain area. Until cart get a cast iron introduction pf minimum distances to be moved in certain time frames, they can't enforce 'non compliance' on the basis of not having traveled enough distance.

[jenlyn]

Waves at debbifiggy :-)

Am still laughing at the comment you made "it's obvious he is an overstayer, he has a 42in tv on his boat". Lol, so funny.

[alan_fincher]

Whenever issues like this come up the same few people come on with some of them criticising CaRT using phrases like "incompetence", "buggering around", " failure", "obstructive behaviour" etc, yet these comments are coming from the very same peopl;e who seek to "represent" other boaters at various consultation meetings, and then wonder why they don't get anywhere. I fully understand why people feel like they do, but if they are going to use such confrontational language on a public forum how do they expect to be taken seriously in closed meetings?

 

David,

 

I suppose the alternate view is that if you are trying to deal with an organisation where you have bent over backwards to reach accommodation, and that organisation effectively says to you "it's in the bag, as agreed, all we need to now is work out the fine detail", it is pretty disappointing when you tell people what has been agreed, only to find that CRT go away and mess with it, and then tell you it was never the final version in the first place.

 

I have seen this happen repeatedly for the South East visitor mooring debate, and it seems that the same has happened with Roving Mooring Permits, (although my hands on involvement in that one is now far less).

 

Of course you may then say "don't tell anybody anything, until you get the fully signed off version from CRT, then you will not be promising anything that doesn't happen". But that of course then lays any of us getting actively involved to the regular criticisms that we are off doing clandestine negotiations with CRT, and are not keeping people informed of progress, and are hence "not representative" or "not accountable". So if you keep people informed you can't win, but neither can you if you do not.

 

In fact something like RMPs can only be done by keeping those who are affected in the loop, and regularly seeking their input. It would be pointless to forge a deal with CRT for RMPs at £50 per metre per year, for example, only to then find very few would be prepared to pay it, and hence you had not moved things on at all. Then of course if CRT end up demanding more...........

 

It is a sad fact that whilst some in CRT seem very keen to embrace new better co-operative ways of working, there is a residual mindset with some that seem to hamper progress on just about every front, and keep snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

As I have said, what has gone wrong with RMPs is not all CRTs fault - certain "boating", (or even "caravanning"!) interests have tried to scupper it throughout. But words like "bugger about with" are actually very fair to aim at CRT, and as it has got to the point where you sometimes have to say it to their face, I can't actually see the objection to sharing it with the wider world.

 

Perhaps if a few more people continue to tell Richard Parry to his face that things get needlessly killed off by "buggering about with" them he will be able to move more quickly in trying to engender in all his staff an understanding that it is not the way forward.