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

[AndrewIC]

its not allocated too the boat in question

I moor in a marina. I have no right to a particular mooring for my boat, the marina reserve the right to move boats without notice. I trust the marina not to sell more feet of moorings than they physically have. Do I have a real mooring?

[MtB]

I moor in a marina. I have no right to a particular mooring for my boat, the marina reserve the right to move boats without notice. I trust the marina not to sell more feet of moorings than they physically have. Do I have a real mooring?

 

Do you have a real invoice for it?

 

If so I'd say CRT would be happy you have a real mooring.

 

 

MtB

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Do you have a real invoice for it?

 

If so I'd say CRT would be happy you have a real mooring.

 

 

MtB

 

Not necessarily - an invoice can be 'bought', but I agree - how else could you prove you have a mooring.

I moor in a marina. I have no right to a particular mooring for my boat, the marina reserve the right to move boats without notice. I trust the marina not to sell more feet of moorings than they physically have. Do I have a real mooring?

 

Yes - its just you dont know exactly where it is as it may move about.

[Ex- Member]

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). .

 

Hi Matt

 

Surely logic would dictate that when not paying for the mooring he doesn't have one so shouldn't be bridge hopping. I don't reckon he'll get away with that (or did he LOL).

 

Having something available is completely different to having something bought and paid for.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Hi Matt

 

Surely logic would dictate that when not paying for the mooring he doesn't have one so shouldn't be bridge hopping. I don't reckon he'll get away with that (or did he LOL).

 

Having something available is completely different to having something bought and paid for.

 

It doesnt say in the C&RT 'guidelines' that you have to pay for somewhere - just that it may 'lawfully be left'.

My 'mate' has a a couple of moorings on the River, he lets me use one FOC, and its available whenever I want to use it.

Have I got a place where it can reasonably be kept and lawfully left ?

 

"....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"

[MtB]

 

Hi Matt

 

Surely logic would dictate that when not paying for the mooring he doesn't have one so shouldn't be bridge hopping. I don't reckon he'll get away with that (or did he LOL).

 

Having something available is completely different to having something bought and paid for.

 

 

Yes the step step along this line of thinking would to say "there is a space at Pillings/Braby/ANOtherMarina available for me to rent should I ever choose to..."

 

 

MtB

[Ex- Member]

 

It doesnt say in the C&RT 'guidelines' that you have to pay for somewhere - just that it may 'lawfully be left'.

My 'mate' has a a couple of moorings on the River, he lets me use one FOC, and its available whenever I want to use it.

Have I got a place where it can reasonably be kept and lawfully left ?

 

"....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"

 

Then I suppose a judge would want to have proof of such a claim, and even asking you (assuming you were the accused), to prove that your friend has legitimacy in offering you the mooring foc.

 

I still maintain though someone can't reasonably claim to have a mooring just because one could be made available. however agreed your FOC mooring would probably have credence if proven to be legitimately offered to you FOC by a legitimate owner of the mooring.

[cotswoldsman]

According to the story, he "has a home mooring that he chooses not to use". Which does sound a bit like someone renting a cheap mooring somewhere oop north for a few hundred quid a year and then spending your life on visitor moorings in the middle of London - both examples from my imagination, you understand (that's what we generally think of as a paper or ghost mooring, by the way). In which case I can only say good luck to CART because it's a con job, and if you play the system, you can't complain if the system bites back.

 

I mean, why, if you weren't trying to pull a fast one, would you bother renting a mooring you actively didn't want to use? You'd get one which you wanted to use, wouldn't you? Or register as CC.

i guess it is horses for courses. I have a friend that has a LTM that he has not visited for 4 years he has kept the mooring because it is cheap and close to his family so when the time comes that he can no longer cruise he has somewhere to go,

As for myself I have just purchased a piece of land that has EOG Rights. I intend to use it when I move back into my house but in the mean time I have to pay CRT every years to technically I have a Home mooring

[AndrewIC]

Not necessarily - an invoice can be 'bought', but I agree - how else could you prove you have a mooring.

 

Yes - its just you dont know exactly where it is as it may move about.

All true, but an operator could (but I'm certainly not suggesting my operator is!) be letting more space than they actually have, taking a gamble that not everyone will show up at the same time (rather like airline overbooking), or to people who have no intention of ever showing up, and the boat owners individually would never know. So how do any of them know they have a legitimate mooring? If no one has a right to a particular spot, which of them are ghosts? They are reliant on the scruples of the operator.

[stickleback]

 

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”.

 

 

IF "a" is your home mooring - which in effect it is NOT in this case, as the moorer in question chooses not to use it.

 

If your home mooring is a mooring, which you choose not to use (which the article in question states is so in this case) then moving away TOO a point "A", travelling to a point "B" and so forth back and forward looks to me very like bridge hopping and there is, in my view, no "prestidigitation" from C&RT.

[mango]

The government gave CRT 15 years to become self-sustaining. There is no point in CRT asking for more funding, but the government could help CRT by bringing the legislation up to date to help CRT deal with those who are exploiting uncertainties and loopholes.

 

We want to see CRT funds used for maintenance and not pursuing those who are trying to play the system.

[Tuscan]

IF "a" is your home mooring - which in effect it is NOT in this case, as the moorer in question chooses not to use it.

 

If your home mooring is a mooring, which you choose not to use (which the article in question states is so in this case) then moving away TOO a point "A", travelling to a point "B" and so forth back and forward looks to me very like bridge hopping and there is, in my view, no "prestidigitation" from C&RT.

I am sure there must be more to this.

 

If you have been numerous times by CRT on a mooring which you claim and presume can prove is a home mooring then it's difficult to argue otherwise unless there are others who have also been seen and claim that it is their home mooring at the same location.

[Paul C]

 

It doesnt say in the C&RT 'guidelines' that you have to pay for somewhere - just that it may 'lawfully be left'.

My 'mate' has a a couple of moorings on the River, he lets me use one FOC, and its available whenever I want to use it.

Have I got a place where it can reasonably be kept and lawfully left ?

 

"....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"

 

It also says "The Board are satisfied....". So, as well as having a place it can be kept, you need to satisfy CRT of it. Those first 4 words are quite powerful, because they can decide they're not satisfied with your mooring arrangements and there's not much you can do about it.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Paul C

[KenK]

 

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). .

If you mean Ralf Fr****n he has a mooring in Aston Marina on the T&M, he is a genuine CC'er.

I, at the moment, keep my boat there and have spoken to Ralf many times and seen him around the area.

If we are talking about the same person he doesn't boat the K&A, at least not recently.

 

Ken

[Alan de Enfield]

 

....................has a mooring in Aston Marina on the T&M, he is a genuine CC'er.

 

 

That appears to me to be a contradiction, you either have a place where your boat can be 'kept', or you are a 'Continuous Cruiser'

[KenK]

 

That appears to me to be a contradiction, you either have a place where your boat can be 'kept', or you are a 'Continuous Cruiser'

Ok, the way it works, Ralf decalres himself to be a CC'er. He single hands his boat and he also has a motorhome. He has an arrangement with the marina, it is not full at the moment, which allows him to come and go. He doesn't have to pay full rate for a year but he does have a place where the boat can be lawfully kept when he needs it.

He, because he declares himself to be a CC'er and folows the rules, isn't taking the piss.

It is an arrangement which works for him and the marina at the moment, might be more difficult if marinas were full but as they are not any income is better than none.

 

Ken

[Arthur Marshall]

Now I'm confused. If he wants to leave his boat there for six months he obviously can as he has an arrangement. But does he not then need a mooring permit as well as his licence? I know some marinas require a permit as well as a licence and some don't. But anyway, if he's parked up there for a while, then he isn't engaged in bona fide navigation, so he can't be a CCer. In which case he's still fiddling the system. I begin to suspect Catch 22 applies...

[KenK]

Now I'm confused. If he wants to leave his boat there for six months he obviously can as he has an arrangement. But does he not then need a mooring permit as well as his licence? I know some marinas require a permit as well as a licence and some don't. But anyway, if he's parked up there for a while, then he isn't engaged in bona fide navigation, so he can't be a CCer. In which case he's still fiddling the system. I begin to suspect Catch 22 applies...

How is he fiddling the system, he pays for a license, he pays the marina for a mooring when he is using it, he obeys the CC rules when he is out on his boat. There is nothing to stop a CC'er taking a short term mooring if they want a break or the weather is bad.

He uses his boat in a way which works for him, he is engaged in bona fide navigation when he is out of the marina which is all he has to do.

He can't declare a mooring because he has no guarantee that there will be a mooring when he needs one, so far it has not been a problem but if the marina filled up he would need to find somewhere else.

 

Ken

[IanM]

How is he fiddling the system, he pays for a license, he pays the marina for a mooring when he is using it, he obeys the CC rules when he is out on his boat. There is nothing to stop a CC'er taking a short term mooring if they want a break or the weather is bad.

 

I think the issue is that he keeps coming back to the same marina. It would be different if he was CC'ing then staying in the marina over the winter however I think popping out and coming back over and over is taking the piss out of the CC'ing rules a bit.

[kbarber]

 

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

 

<big snip>

( 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.)

 

It seems to me that the 'can reasonably be kept' qualification might be relevant here; if a boater has a mooring a couple of hundred miles from any waters they have ever been recorded as navigating on, it might be argued that they cannot reasonably keep their boat on that mooring under those particular circumstances. I hear the sound of m'learned friends rubbing their hands...

All true, but an operator could (but I'm certainly not suggesting my operator is!) be letting more space than they actually have, taking a gamble that not everyone will show up at the same time (rather like airline overbooking), or to people who have no intention of ever showing up, and the boat owners individually would never know. So how do any of them know they have a legitimate mooring? If no one has a right to a particular spot, which of them are ghosts? They are reliant on the scruples of the operator.

But in that case CRT's issue would have to be with the operator not with the boater. The existence of a contract, invoice or other document recording that the boat had a place at that operator's premises where the boat might legitimately be left should put the boater in the clear, unless there was evidence of bad faith (a deliberate arrangement to which the boater was party for an invoice for something that didn't truly exist). Even if there was bad faith, I'd expect CRT to want to pursue the marina operator if they were selling capacity over & above what they paid CRT for.

[Graham Davis]

How is he fiddling the system, he pays for a license, he pays the marina for a mooring when he is using it, he obeys the CC rules when he is out on his boat. There is nothing to stop a CC'er taking a short term mooring if they want a break or the weather is bad.

He uses his boat in a way which works for him, he is engaged in bona fide navigation when he is out of the marina which is all he has to do.

He can't declare a mooring because he has no guarantee that there will be a mooring when he needs one, so far it has not been a problem but if the marina filled up he would need to find somewhere else.

 

Ken

Do we have proof of any of those presumptions from the very limited info we have so far been given?

[Alan de Enfield]

Do we have proof of any of those presumptions from the very limited info we have so far been given?

 

I think this refers to "Ralf" (Post #66) rather than Tony Dunkley (the subject of this thread)

[Arthur Marshall]

How is he fiddling the system, he pays for a license, he pays the marina for a mooring when he is using it, he obeys the CC rules when he is out on his boat. There is nothing to stop a CC'er taking a short term mooring if they want a break or the weather is bad.

(snip)

Ken

My post was asking for clarification, not trying to start another argument. And I don't fully understand marina rules (never having moored in one, thank god). Do you not need a CART mooring permit in a marina? If you do, OK, he pays the marina same as I pay the farmer for my mooring, but same as I also need a mooring permit, so would he. So CART is missing out on that, and that's where the fiddle lies. I can't see that it matters if you move your mooring round the system in temporary places - you can't be moored up for a fair bit of the time and still be a CC. The clue's in the word "continuous"...

[MtB]

My post was asking for clarification, not trying to start another argument. And I don't fully understand marina rules (never having moored in one, thank god). Do you not need a CART mooring permit in a marina? If you do, OK, he pays the marina same as I pay the farmer for my mooring, but same as I also need a mooring permit, so would he. So CART is missing out on that, and that's where the fiddle lies. I can't see that it matters if you move your mooring round the system in temporary places - you can't be moored up for a fair bit of the time and still be a CC. The clue's in the word "continuous"...

 

I moor in Calcutt marina and I don't get a mooring permit. No Idea why not. Never occurred to me to ask for one. Who would I ask anyway?

 

Most marinas pay a fee to CRT under their Network Access Agreement based on the total available mooring space in the marina so CRT are not 'missing a trick' at all.

 

MtB

[Higgs]

My post was asking for clarification, not trying to start another argument. And I don't fully understand marina rules (never having moored in one, thank god). Do you not need a CART mooring permit in a marina? If you do, OK, he pays the marina same as I pay the farmer for my mooring, but same as I also need a mooring permit, so would he. So CART is missing out on that, and that's where the fiddle lies. I can't see that it matters if you move your mooring round the system in temporary places - you can't be moored up for a fair bit of the time and still be a CC. The clue's in the word "continuous"...

 

You don't need a mooring permit, whilst having a marina mooring. The licence you buy from CRT would indicate that you have a home mooring. Conversly, without a home mooring, you would fall into the Continuous Cruiser bracket.

 

In the case of 'Ralph', I think he has stated that he is a boater with a Home Mooring thus avoiding the guidance laid down for CC'ers. CRT would like him to indicate through licence that he is actually not a boater with a Home Mooring.

 

It is likely that his boating patterns may be deemed to fall outside what is acceptable to CRT. They think he's a CC'er without Home Mooring, he begs to differ.

 

I don't see why it is necessary to visit your mooring. My mooring is a touch over £3,000 a year and it would be a difficult stretch to say it wasn't seriously a mooring, even if I stayed out on the canal 12 months a year.

 

However, it would not be unusual for me to be making short trips to an fro, in the area local to the marina. For someone who only has a promissory agreement of a mooring, not actually in any paid contract, the same local pattern of boating is dubious. What exists, yet doesn't exist? No money is exchanged to secure a mooring, yet one exists. Used, have and paid for or, not used, have and not paid for.