Ghost Moorings NBW wrong again

[dor]

I hesitate to admit to going over to the dark side, but today an article has appeared, written by our own Allan, suggesting that C&RT are introducing a new policy for "ghost moorings".

 

These are where someone takes up a cheap mooring somewhere and uses it as a means to abuse the privilege by not following the rules for CCers. There is nothing new in this. I know of a boat that was refused a license renewal some ten or more years ago as they had a mooring near Nantwich, but spent their entire time moored up in Chester. I believe a similar scam was used by people claiming to have a mooring on non-BW/C&RT waters.

 

NBW are having another go at C&RT suggesting they are victimising some boaters by telling them that they are not spending enough time on their moorings and trying to make it sound like a ridiculous requirement, as though we can hardly leave our home mooring without being classed as temporary continuous cruisers. In truth, they are having a go at people who are abusing the rules. Whether they can do this in law is another matter , just as someone who moves 10 yards every two weeks claim to be continuously cruising whereas we all know who is taking the Piss.

 

One would think that, as a member of this forum, our Allan would be better informed rather than just joining in with Tom's C&RT-bashing.

Edited April 9, 2014 by dor

[magnetman]

A ghost mooring can be entirely valid

 

Example

I have a boat.

I live in London

I am going to be moving to land in 8 months' time.

I want to sell the boat myself not use a broker. I find a cheap mooring which I can then use for the boat when I move to land. There's no scam in that and if moorings are scarce it would be sensible to take one while available, for future security

[cotswoldsman]

In all fairness I think NBW were responding to this

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/6791-do-cc-rules-apply-to-all

[b0atman]

The continuous moorers are a pain in the side for rule following boaters but the guidance that is needed and which should be enforced without prejudice needs to be very carefully written not an easy task.

[Rich]

In truth, they are having a go at people who are abusing the rules.

In what way are they abusing the rules. If Canal and River Trust don't like what they are doing then they should seek to change the rules, not put their interpretation on the existing.

 

Put simply the a boat should either be CCing, or have a home mooring. If it has a home mooring and doesn't use it that is the business of the boat owner. If Canal and River Trust start bring in their own interpretations that could be somewhat dangerous.

[Arthur Marshall]

If you live permamently on your boat, but your home mooring is non-residential, I suppose it is reasonable for CART to assume that you are actually a CCer rather than a holiday boater and are fiddling the rules. Maybe there should be residential or non-residential licences?

[carlt]

If you live permamently on your boat, but your home mooring is non-residential, I suppose it is reasonable for CART to assume that you are actually a CCer rather than a holiday boater

 

Why?

 

Your boat is your home, not your mooring.

 

If you spend lots of time away from your mooring then there is no need for it to be "residential" which is a matter between boater and local authority, nothing to do with CRT.

[Machpoint005]

In that scenario there's no getting away from the fact that if you live on a boat and its mooring isn't residential, then you shouldn't be.

 

ETA: But there will be limits to the amount of time you can spend on board at the home mooring, so if you do move about, there's no contravention of the rules and you are not a CCer.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Machpoint005

[carlt]

In that scenario there's no getting away from the fact that if you live on a boat and its mooring isn't residential, then you shouldn't be.

 

Sorry but that just isn't the case.

 

BBC Clicky

[cotswoldsman]

If you live permamently on your boat, but your home mooring is non-residential, I suppose it is reasonable for CART to assume that you are actually a CCer rather than a holiday boater and are fiddling the rules. Maybe there should be residential or non-residential licences?

I know it is normal for some people to make up the rules as they go along but sometimes it is just such utter rubbish and you have just managed to do that.

[kevinl]

A ghost mooring can be entirely valid

 

Example

I have a boat.

I live in London

I am going to be moving to land in 8 months' time.

I want to sell the boat myself not use a broker. I find a cheap mooring which I can then use for the boat when I move to land. There's no scam in that and if moorings are scarce it would be sensible to take one while available, for future security

I'm not with you here, you have a boat in London on a mooring and stay on it, in what way is that a ghost mooring? Or do you have a mooring somewhere else and moor in in London not needing to stick to the CC rules as you do have a mooring somewhere? I actually thought a ghost mooring was when a bunch of people all claim the same home mooring (in collusion with the marina owner) and no one actually uses it, it just exists on paper to keep the CRT off your case. Having a "mooring of convenience" then spending all your time in one place sounds like a CMer stretching the rules to the limit.

K

[junior]

If you live permamently on your boat, but your home mooring is non-residential, I suppose it is reasonable for CART to assume that you are actually a CCer rather than a holiday boater and are fiddling the rules.

Wow.

[Guest]

In what way are they abusing the rules. If Canal and River Trust don't like what they are doing then they should seek to change the rules, not put their interpretation on the existing.

 

Put simply the a boat should either be CCing, or have a home mooring. If it has a home mooring and doesn't use it that is the business of the boat owner. If Canal and River Trust start bring in their own interpretations that could be somewhat dangerous.

I agree.

 

Whilst it's understandable that there is a degree of ambiguity around whether somebody is continuously cruising or not due to the absence of definitive guidance in this case it is surely very clear.

 

You either have a home mooring or you do not.

 

Morally of course it is wrong to abuse the regs. and just have a mooring for the sake of it so you can take the pee and shuffle up and down a very short stretch many miles away from where your mooring is but from a legal perspective surely if you can prove you have somewhere you can lawfully leave your boat then CRT are set to fail to prove you have contravened anything.

 

Of course the definition of what constitutes 'a place where you can lawfully leave your boat' is also open to scrutiny and interpretation and some may claim they could keep it at home. I couldn't lawfully but I can easily evidence I have a CRT LTM.

 

I would say in the absence of a change in the regs that clearly state that boats that have a home mooring need to adhere to the same level of movement as boats without one then CRT are set to waste money pursuing any one in court who will almost inevitably be able to show they are doing nothing wrong.

[carlt]

I actually thought a ghost mooring was when a bunch of people all claim the same home mooring (in collusion with the marina owner) and no one actually uses it, it just exists on paper to keep the CRT off your case.

That's a "paper mooring" as I understand it.

 

A "ghost mooring" seems to be a new thing that CRT have invented in an attempt to enforce cruising patterns when they have no real power to do so.

[churchward]

That's a "paper mooring" as I understand it.

 

A "ghost mooring" seems to be a new thing that CRT have invented in an attempt to enforce cruising patterns when they have no real power to do so.

Yes it does all sound a bit odd although I am loathed to take the NBW word for it.

 

I do think that if someone is staying in one spot (ignoring 14 day rule etc.) with or without a mooring they should be moved on by CRT by the means they have at their disposal.

 

Mind you if they are targeting home mooring licensees then at least I can now claim to be part of a downtrodden minority

[Guest]

Yes it does all sound a bit odd although I am loathed to take the NBW word for it.

 

I do think that if someone is staying in one spot (ignoring 14 day rule etc.) with or without a mooring they should be moved on by CRT by the means they have at their disposal.

 

Mind you if they are targeting home mooring licensees then at least I can now claim to be part of a downtrodden minority:lol:

The problem is that the legal route does not in my opinion count as 'any means at their disposal'.

 

It's a dead end set to waste precious CRT funds. As I indicated it's perhaps morally wrong to abuse the fact you have a home mooring but in the eyes of the law I would suggest nothing is wrong and very open to challenge.

[Neil2]

A few years ago, I think it has moved now, there was a huge widebeam permanently moored on the towpath at Gargrave locks on the Leeds Liverpool.

 

It very often had an electricity cable trailing from the boat across the towpath into a building over the fence, which I presumed was the boat owners home.

 

When I asked one of the lockies why they were tolerating this he explained that the boat had a permanent BW berth further up the canal, so as the owner was paying for a permanent mooring he could effectively moor anywhere on the towpath for as long as he liked.

 

When I made the point that anyone with a canalside property could effectively turn "their" bit of towpath effectively into a home mooring this way, he replied yes, it was annoying and they were trying to find a way of dealing with it. That boat was stationed there continuously for at least two years. The last time I was down that way it had been joined by another boat which seemed to be doing the same thing.

 

This is an extreme example of the practice CRT are trying to stamp out, but when you think about it it is not that easy, and the NBW reaction illustrates it. You could turn such areas into official restricted mooring sites then everyone gets penalised owing to the antics of a few - or is it just a few?

[carlt]

....This is an extreme example of the practice CRT are trying to stamp out, but when you think about it it is not that easy, and the NBW reaction illustrates it....

No it is completely different.

 

Under the licensing t&cs a boater with a home mooring is still obliged to adhere to any mooring restrictions or, if there are none, move every 14 days.

[Guest]

A few years ago, I think it has moved now, there was a huge widebeam permanently moored on the towpath at Gargrave locks on the Leeds Liverpool.

 

It very often had an electricity cable trailing from the boat across the towpath into a building over the fence, which I presumed was the boat owners home.

 

When I asked one of the lockies why they were tolerating this he explained that the boat had a permanent BW berth further up the canal, so as the owner was paying for a permanent mooring he could effectively moor anywhere on the towpath for as long as he liked.

 

When I made the point that anyone with a canalside property could effectively turn "their" bit of towpath effectively into a home mooring this way, he replied yes, it was annoying and they were trying to find a way of dealing with it. That boat was stationed there continuously for at least two years. The last time I was down that way it had been joined by another boat which seemed to be doing the same thing.

 

This is an extreme example of the practice CRT are trying to stamp out, but when you think about it it is not that easy, and the NBW reaction illustrates it. You could turn such areas into official restricted mooring sites then everyone gets penalised owing to the antics of a few - or is it just a few?

But a boat with a home mooring cannot stay any where longer than 14 days.

 

Ed Cross post with Carl

Edited April 9, 2014 by The Dog House

[jenlyn]

It's all down yet again to "place". If they get to define place as an x amount of area, everyone will be in do do's.

[churchward]

But a boat with a home mooring cannot stay any where longer than 14 days.

 

Ed Cross post with Carl

Indeed that was my point. So if someone is over staying regardless of home mooring or not they need to be moved on by the means open to CRT. Depending on the level of offence it will dictate what means CRT should deploy.

The problem is that the legal route does not in my opinion count as 'any means at their disposal'.

 

It's a dead end set to waste precious CRT funds. As I indicated it's perhaps morally wrong to abuse the fact you have a home mooring but in the eyes of the law I would suggest nothing is wrong and very open to challenge.

Actually I didn't say "by ANY means" but as always the the courts is a means of last resort, assuming that is what you mean by legal route. I hope you are not suggesting CRT should use an illegal means?

[cotswoldsman]

Indeed that was my point. So if someone is over staying regardless of home mooring or not they need to be moved on by the means open to CRT. Depending on the level of offence it will dictate what means CRT should deploy.

 

Actually I didn't say "by ANY means" but as always the the courts is a means of last resort, assuming that is what you mean by legal route. I hope you are not suggesting CRT should use an illegal means?

Or charge a £25 per night fine oooopps sorry I mean charge for using the facilities when what that is required is proper enforcement.

[Guest]

Indeed that was my point. So if someone is over staying regardless of home mooring or not they need to be moved on by the means open to CRT. Depending on the level of offence it will dictate what means CRT should deploy.

Actually I didn't say "by ANY means" but as always the the courts is a means of last resort, assuming that is what you mean by legal route. I hope you are not suggesting CRT should use an illegal means?

No I'm suggesting they should stick to what they have a reasonable chance of enforcing...in this case the courts are not a last resort, because such a case should not get near one.

[casper ghost]

It's all down yet again to "place". If they get to define place as an x amount of area, everyone will be in do do's.

Not sure about that, at least then everyone will know and will be able to make plans based on the x amount.

Casp'

[jenlyn]

Not sure about that, at least then everyone will know and will be able to make plans based on the x amount.

Casp'

And what of the older folk who just wish to come out and Pootle their little stretch?