Boater With Home Mooring Charged With Not Making "Due Progress"

[MtB]

Surely home mooring taking the term home is somewhere where you live reside ?

 

Home mooring' is not the term used by the law here. It is "a place where the vessel may lawfully be kept" or similar phrase.

 

MtB

[Pete & Helen]

I think half the problem is is that CaRT don't look at it as law but just as a contract, so they can decide what they want to apply even though its all meant to be based on acts that have been passed

[KenK]

Here we go again, C&RT can only base their guidance on the 1995 act they have no power to amend the act.

Nothing in the act requires you to use the mooring or place where you can lawfully keep the boat.

Unless C&RT can prove that the mooring is not legitimate they haven't got a leg to stand on.

If you have a legitimate mooring you need to move every fourteen days, no distance is specified, nothing prevents you from moving from A to B and back to A.

 

Ken

[MtB]

Here we go again, C&RT can only base their guidance on the 1995 act they have no power to amend the act.

Nothing in the act requires you to use the mooring or place where you can lawfully keep the boat.

Unless C&RT can prove that the mooring is not legitimate they haven't got a leg to stand on.

If you have a legitimate mooring you need to move every fourteen days, no distance is specified, nothing prevents you from moving from A to B and back to A.

 

Ken

 

And you were doing so well until that last bit!

 

You are no more qualified to say whether A to B to A counts as 'used bona fide for navigation' (or whatever the words actually are) than CRT. Only a court can decide that.

 

MtB

[Alan de Enfield]

 

And you were doing so well until that last bit!

 

You are no more qualified to say whether A to B to A counts as 'used bona fide for navigation' (or whatever the words actually are) than CRT. Only a court can decide that.

 

MtB

 

I think Ken is correct - dont forget we are talking about a boat WITH a home mooring which has no requirement to 'bona fide navigate'

 

I can leave the Marina (A). go to the "dog and duck" ( for the weekend and then back to the marina (A) and repeat this every weekend.

[Rich]

Only a court can decide that.

 

Reading about some of the decisions made by their lordships I sometimes wonder why they should be considered the arbiter of all that is right or proper.

[MtB]

 

I think Ken is correct - dont forget we are talking about a boat WITH a home mooring which has no requirement to 'bona fide navigate'

 

I can leave the Marina (A). go to the "dog and duck" ( for the weekend and then back to the marina (A) and repeat this every weekend.

 

Yes good point, but CRT is alleging this boat does not have a valid 'home mooring', and they have withdrawn it's licence saying it doesn't bonafide navigate...

 

MtB

[KenK]

 

And you were doing so well until that last bit!

 

You are no more qualified to say whether A to B to A counts as 'used bona fide for navigation' (or whatever the words actually are) than CRT. Only a court can decide that.

 

MtB

 

Only applies if you declare yourself to be CC ing, not if you have a home mooring.

 

Ken

[MtB]

Reading about some of the decisions made by their lordships I sometimes wonder why they should be considered the arbiter of all that is right or proper.

 

Meanwhile out here in the real world, the court still decides. Whether or not you consider it fit to decide. Your opinion (and mine) on this is of nothing before the law.

 

 

MtB

[mark99]

Reading about some of the decisions made by their lordships I sometimes wonder why they should be considered the arbiter of all that is right or proper.

 

 

Over to you then, lets hear your take on it. Let's start with this easy question. Do you think CaRT/courts have gone this far but it's all a mistake and they have failed in their research/interpretation? or perhaps you are happy with a free for all?

Edited March 12, 2014 by mark99

[KenK]

 

Yes good point, but CRT is alleging this boat does not have a valid 'home mooring', and they have withdrawn it's licence saying it doesn't bonafide navigate...

 

MtB

Various posts seemed to suggest that if C&RT succeeded in this instance it could be applied to all boaters with moorings, that clearly is not the case.

If he has been playing the system then that is his problem but it is not applicable to anyone else.

 

Ken

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Yes good point, but CRT is alleging this boat does not have a valid 'home mooring', and they have withdrawn it's licence saying it doesn't bonafide navigate...

 

MtB

 

It would be ver interesting to find out why the 'boater' in question thinks he has a paid for mooring and C&RT think he hasn't, It should be relatively easy to prove

[MtB]

 

It would be ver interesting to find out why the 'boater' in question thinks he has a paid for mooring and C&RT think he hasn't, It should be relatively easy to prove

 

I agree.

 

On balance I suspect CRT will have it right, and boater concerned will turn out to be taking the p!ss.

 

MtB

[by'eck]

I don't see why the rules governing overstaying a public mooring shouldn't apply to every boater.

 

Once you are away from any home mooring or marina you may have paid for, surely your privileges become no more or less than any other boater.

 

Apart from anything else it makes policing of such very difficult otherwise.

 

I don't see any need to return to your home mooring as long as you are not overstaying or bridge hopping.

[Rich]

 

Meanwhile out here in the real world, the court still decides. Whether or not you consider it fit to decide. Your opinion (and mine) on this is of nothing before the law.

 

 

MtB

 

 

 

Over to you then, lets hear your take on it. Let's start with this easy question. Do you think CaRT/courts have gone this far but it's all a mistake and they have failed in their research/interpretation? or perhaps you are happy with a free for all?

It was just an observation. Perhaps it is past your bedtime as these two posts don't make a lot of sense to me. I have no doubt that it IS me, or if it isn't it soon will be.

I don't see why the rules governing overstaying a public mooring shouldn't apply to every boater.

 

Don't they?

[mark99]

Rich, it would be helpful and even advance the debate if you gave a logical or presented a cogent point(s) to explain your opinion/assertion - unless you just want a slap on the back for expressing an opinion?

[MtB]

I don't see why the rules governing overstaying a public mooring shouldn't apply to every boater.

 

They do apply to every boater. You seem to be conflating overstaying on public moorings with the subject under discussion, i.e. failing to CC properly. Overstaying on public moorings is nothing to do with it.

 

 

Once you are away from any home mooring or marina you may have paid for, surely your privileges become no more or less than any other boater.

 

Wrong. The law says your boat must be 'used bona fide for navigation' all the time if you have no home mooring. You are excused this requirement if you have a home mooring. The whole debate is about the meaning a court would give to 'used bona fide for navigation'.

 

Apart from anything else it makes policing of such very difficult otherwise.

 

Err... keep up at the back. Yes it sure does!

 

 

I don't see any need to return to your home mooring as long as you are not overstaying or bridge hopping.

 

Nor do CRT as long as they think you have one. But swerving off topic, what does 'bridge hopping' mean to you? To me it means moving around in one single area whilst not overstaying anywhere you stop.

 

 

MtB

[Rich]

Rich, it would be helpful and even advance the debate if you gave a logical or presented a cogent point(s) to explain your opinion/assertion - unless you just want a slap on the back for expressing an opinion?

Oh dear. It was just an observation, as I previously said.

 

The case that springs readily to mind occurred recently where a man, who had the temerity to object to someone riding a bike on the pavement was punched so hard that he fell, hit his head and died. When found guilty the sentence was 4 years for manslaughter.

 

Some years ago a guy in the local town was found guilty of GIVING away copies of Windows 98 with computers he had built. He was found guilty and fined £7000. In the same week a guy who had just come out of prison after completing a sentence for a driving offence crashed a car, killed three or four people (can't remember more exactly) and was fined £1500.

 

None of this has anything to do with the guy in the boat but is an example of where judges have come to surprising decisions. Who says judges are right, bit like who watches the watchers?

 

I was going to ask if you considered your previous post logical or cogent but thought that if I did it would just unleash more of the same, so I won't. Oh damn!

[Arthur Marshall]

It's not at all surprising that crimes against property are regarded more seriously than crimes against the person. Historically, that's what the law is for. After all, it costs a lot more to create an operating system than it does another person...

[mark99]

Oh dear. It was just an observation, as I previously said.

 

The case that springs readily to mind occurred recently where a man, who had the temerity to object to someone riding a bike on the pavement was punched so hard that he fell, hit his head and died. When found guilty the sentence was 4 years for manslaughter.

 

Some years ago a guy in the local town was found guilty of GIVING away copies of Windows 98 with computers he had built. He was found guilty and fined £7000. In the same week a guy who had just come out of prison after completing a sentence for a driving offence crashed a car, killed three or four people (can't remember more exactly) and was fined £1500.

 

None of this has anything to do with the guy in the boat but is an example of where judges have come to surprising decisions. Who says judges are right, bit like who watches the watchers?

 

I was going to ask if you considered your previous post logical or cogent but thought that if I did it would just unleash more of the same, so I won't. Oh damn!

 

 

 

I now understand and follow the context of your original post now you have added to it. Not sure how anyone was meant to guess it without the added argument. I do actually have some sympathy with the wider point you make.

[by'eck]

 

They do apply to every boater. You seem to be conflating overstaying on public moorings with the subject under discussion, i.e. failing to CC properly. Overstaying on public moorings is nothing to do with it.

 

Fair comment once I checked what conflating meant

 

 

 

Wrong. The law says your boat must be 'used bona fide for navigation' all the time if you have no home mooring. You are excused this requirement if you have a home mooring. The whole debate is about the meaning a court would give to 'used bona fide for navigation'.

 

I appreciate and understand the bona fide navigation bit for CC'ers not staying in a marina, but haven't seen the exclusion for those outside their home mooring documented anywhere. Can you quote the relevant text?

 

 

Err... keep up at the back. Yes it sure does!

 

A bit unfair when the posts are flooding in so quickly

 

 

 

Nor do CRT as long as they think you have one. But swerving off topic, what does 'bridge hopping' mean to you? To me it means moving around in one single area whilst not overstaying anywhere you stop.

 

 

MtB

 

Agreed

[matty40s]

I am suprised "Ralph" of the dark side didn't pen this one, as it relates directly to his own ongoing battle with BW/CRT over a very similar status check.

He states he has a home mooring but never uses it, just hops(very short ones) around the Western K&A.

BW said he had no mooring, he argued he did, it was there ready for him whenever he wished to return to it (he only pays when he is on it). .

[NigelMoore]

You are no more qualified to say whether A to B to A counts as 'used bona fide for navigation' (or whatever the words actually are) than CRT.

 

If “A” is your ‘Home Mooring’, then the latest CaRT attempt at legal interpretation is in defiance of their own suggestion that you should NOT return to “A” from “B” if the boat is to be considered as “used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid”.

 

The comments of the Brown v CaRT judge as to the understanding of ‘bona fide for navigation’ were based on the fact that 'Pleasure Boats' [the boats we are concerned with in this discussion] are defined by the 1971 Act [by necessary elimination as distinct from ‘Houseboats’] as those that are “bona fide used for navigation”.

 

If, therefore, CaRT were correct, and moving from “A” to “B” and back again was NOT “bona fide used for navigation”, then a ‘Pleasure Boat’’ with a ‘Home Mooring’ must NOT return to its Home Mooring having once ventured out from it – at least, not until it had performed whatever currently accepted permutations of the new theories required. Otherwise, on that logic, it would no longer in fact be a ‘Pleasure Boat’ as per the ’71 Act.

 

This latest foray into legislative presdigitation, as a consequence, is remarkably inept foot-shooting; the boater in question, in not returning to "A" [his home mooring] is doing exactly what CaRT allegedly want respecting 'bona fide navigators'.

 

MtB #42 - “Nor do CRT as long as they think you have one.” – but in the situation under discussion, they knew the boater in question had one [according to the article], that they recording him, moreover, as having occupied this Home Mooring, on some 88 occasions of their own observations, between 2009 and 2014. The real problem, would appear to be that he was NOT returning to A from B often enough for their liking!

[MtB]

 

Wrong. The law says your boat must be 'used bona fide for navigation' all the time if you have no home mooring. You are excused this requirement if you have a home mooring. The whole debate is about the meaning a court would give to 'used bona fide for navigation'.

 

I appreciate and understand the bona fide navigation bit for CC'ers not staying in a marina, but haven't seen the exclusion for those outside their home mooring documented anywhere. Can you quote the relevant text?

 

 

The British Waterways Act 1995, section 17,( 3 ), ( c ).

 

Takes a couple of reads to get yer head around the cascading negatives...

 

 

17 Conditions as to certificates and licences

 

(1) In this section—

 

“houseboat certificate” means a houseboat certificate issued under the Act of 1971;

 

“insurance policy” means an insurance policy complying with Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act;

 

“licence” means a licence issued by the Board in respect of any vessel allowing the use of the vessel on any inland waterways;

 

“pleasure boat certificate” means a pleasure boat certificate issued under the Act of 1971;

 

“relevant consent” means a houseboat certificate, a licence or a pleasure boat certificate; and

 

“standards” means standards for the construction and equipment of vessels prescribed under this section and Part II of the said Schedule 2.

 

(2) Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act shall have effect with respect to insurance policies and Part II of that Schedule shall have effect with respect to standards.

 

(3) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless—

 

(a) the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;

 

( b ) an insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence that it exists and is in force, has been produced to the Board; and

 

( c ) 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; or

 

(ii) the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/section/17/enacted

 

MtB

 

 

 

(Edit to clarify the formatting and add the link.)

Edited March 12, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[Dyertribe]

It's not at all surprising that crimes against property are regarded more seriously than crimes against the person. Historically, that's what the law is for. After all, it costs a lot more to create an operating system than it does another person...

Have you ever had a bill for IVF?