Ghost Moorings NBW wrong again

[Guest]

carlt, on 10 Apr 2014 - 12:09 PM, said:carlt, on 10 Apr 2014 - 12:09 PM, said:

I'm not entirely sure why somebody's personal circumstances are any business of CRT's.

 

I see no reason why I should have to tell CRT whether I am working or have kids or anything else that is nothing to do with them.

 

Possibly yes but I was trying to think of a way CRT might argue that I wasn't in a position to be able to return my boat and what a counter to that might be as in "But how can you possibly move your boat all that way when you are working full time"? "Easy I know of at least two boat movers who I could engage....."

 

The same as if they said well Martin "you do know you cant get your wide-beam back to Pollington don't you? - there is no way from the south to the North", when of course there is at the very least one option to get around that.

Edited April 10, 2014 by The Dog House

[carlt]

"But how can you possibly move your boat all that way when you are working full time"?

But do CRT have the right to demand the employment status of anyone and is that even relevant.

 

If, for example, a retired couple who have a mooring on the Northern waterways decide that they want to spend the next ten years cruising around London in order to visit every tourist attraction the capital has to offer but keep their remote mooring as security, in case they should become tired of the smoke or become too ill to cruise, do they have to go back to that mooring regularly or are they a different case to someone who fancies working and cruising in London for a few years but keeps their Manc mooring as security, etc.,

Edited April 10, 2014 by carlt

[Guest]

carlt, on 10 Apr 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

But do CRT have the right to demand the employment status of anyone and is that even relevant.

 

I have no idea - I am just hypothesising around how CRT might challenge some body who boats a long way away from their mooring, I make no comment about whether it's a legitimate or relevant challenge or not.

 

For all I know they might just be satisfied if I wave my LTM agreement at them but I doubt it, they will surely have to try some angle to try and justify whether your claim that you can get back to your mooring is reasonable or not as distance alone is clearly not an obstacle.

[cotswoldsman]

Surely it is up to CRT to prove someone can not get back to their mooring as they will be the ones bringing the case

[mayalld]

 

Possibly yes but I was trying to think of a way CRT might argue that I wasn't in a position to be able to return my boat and what a counter to that might be as in "But how can you possibly move your boat all that way when you are working full time"? "Easy I know of at least two boat movers who I could engage....."

 

Whilst you could argue that your personal circumstances are none of their business, they are entitled to form a view as to whether you could actually use that mooring. If you live on board, work in London, and have a mooring in Manchester, then you do not actually have a mooring that you can use.

[Guest]

mayalld, on 10 Apr 2014 - 12:40 PM, said:mayalld, on 10 Apr 2014 - 12:40 PM, said:

 

Whilst you could argue that your personal circumstances are none of their business, they are entitled to form a view as to whether you could actually use that mooring. If you live on board, work in London, and have a mooring in Manchester, then you do not actually have a mooring that you can use.

 

But that only assumes I cannot find alternative accommodation? OK it may be challenge, agreed and expensive, agreed but not beyond the realms of possibility?

 

And then I could just send the boat on it's merry way back to Manchester under the auspices of a paid for boat mover, I can do that as much or as little as I want. The boat has a home mooring which it can use end of.

 

(But yes I realise we are stretching the definition of reasonable to a point a judge might agree with CRT that it's not reasonable at all.)

Edited April 10, 2014 by The Dog House

[mayalld]

But do CRT have the right to demand the employment status of anyone and is that even relevant.

 

If, for example, a retired couple who have a mooring on the Northern waterways decide that they want to spend the next ten years cruising around London in order to visit every tourist attraction the capital has to offer but keep their remote mooring as security, in case they should become tired of the smoke or become too ill to cruise, do they have to go back to that mooring regularly or are they a different case to someone who fancies working and cruising in London for a few years but keeps their Manc mooring as security, etc.,

 

They may decide to retain a mooring so that at some future date they can moor their boat there, then it isn't actually the mooring for that boat during this annual licence. If they have no intention of returning to the mooring during the year, then they should register as CCers and cruise accordingly.

[KevMc]

Surely it is up to CRT to prove someone can not get back to their mooring as they will be the ones bringing the case

 

BUT doesn't the legislation say that you must "satisfy the board" or something like that - and if that is the case all they need say is that they aren't satisfied and it would be up to you to prove that they accepted other boaters with the same activity / mooring location and were persecuting you unfairly (of course that risks the other boaters being refused a licence on the same grounds so they might be unwilling to back you up) ????

 

Or have I missed something?

[Rich]

Now, there is a certain lack of punctuation that will keep lawyers happy for years in that sentence, but essentially, the requirement is that you "satisfy the board" that you have somewhere that the boat can be kept, reasonably and lawfully.

 

In some cases, it may appear to CRT that the boat remains in a very restricted area, a long way from its mooring, and that it is difficult to concieve that the boat could "reasonably" return to that mooring.

In all this could you point out the bit where it states that you MUST use the mooring and at what intervals?

[carlt]

They may decide to retain a mooring so that at some future date they can moor their boat there, then it isn't actually the mooring for that boat during this annual licence. If they have no intention of returning to the mooring during the year, then they should register as CCers and cruise accordingly.

Of course it is the mooring for that boat, if they are keeping it so that they can return that boat to the mooring if they need or want to (not just because CRT would like them to).

 

The mooring absolutely fulfils the requirement that it is somewhere that the boat can be kept, reasonably and lawfully.

[Pete & Helen]

I keep reading about the issue of having or not having a home mooring and the CCing rule and its interpretation by Law, CaRT and boaters, and to be honest I have sympathy with CaRT trying to get it right to suit everyone. There have been a lot of comments on here about how it doesn't work, but can anyone honestly tell me a way that it will work?

 

I ask myself what is the ruling trying to achieve? There is no financial gain by CaRT, in fact the opposite (provision of LTM licences apart). The rule to me is trying to keep the canal system moving so that people can enjoy it and have the chance of finding moorings while they visit different areas. For those that don't want to travel the system there is the provision of long term moorings be it on line or off line. You could say its the same as parking your car, keep it in long term parking facility or only park for (eg) 2hrs with no return for 4hrs, a situation I am sure we are all familiar with. The only difference to this is that there are always other streets close by that you can move to and park, an option that doesn't exist on the canal system.

 

Is this going to be the same as the pump-out v cassette discussion were people only see things from their own perspective so everyone else is wrong?

Should CaRT scrap the CCing rule? I'm sure that would cause more of a stink than ever (not talking about pump-outs now)

 

I'm sure this debate will go on for a while

[carlt]

Should CaRT scrap the CCing rule? I'm sure that would cause more of a stink than ever

If you mean the obligations of a boater with no home mooring then they cannot scrap it or change it without new legislation.

 

This is why they are continually changing their "interpretation" of the law .

[Rich]

 

There is no financial gain by CaRT,

 

There doesn't have to be a financial gain element. This could well be an example of what we refer to on our boat as "The Cardigan Tesco-Island principle". This is something that someone has decided, without thinking it through, and regardless of what happens after there will be no backing down, because that would be admitting that "they" got it wrong.

[MtB]

Of course it is the mooring for that boat, if they are keeping it so that they can return that boat to the mooring if they need or want to (not just because CRT would like them to).

 

The mooring absolutely fulfils the requirement that it is somewhere that the boat can be kept, reasonably and lawfully.

 

But it cannot absolutely fulfill the requirement. The board has to be satisfied and it is up to the board to decide whether it is satisfied. If the board says it isn't satisfied, the mooring does not fulfill the requirement.

 

MtB

[carlt]

But it cannot absolutely fulfill the requirement. The board has to be satisfied and it is up to the board to decide whether it is satisfied. If the board says it isn't satisfied, the mooring does not fulfill the requirement.

The board also has to act reasonably and if it decides it is "not satisfied" just because it doesn't like a boat's cruising patterns rather than any legal premise then it is not acting reasonably.

 

We are edging ever closer to a lime green boat scenario.

[John V]

I am getting a bit confused where I come in this discussion.....my canal cruiser lives off line on salt (ish) water but when cruising is on CRT waters it can be away from the mooring for more than a year at a time. My last trip was Thames - GU- Soar- Trent - Fosdyke-Sheffield & South Yorkshire- Aire & Calder- L&L-Brdgewater-Weaver-T&M and back down GU.....this took almost 18 months and the boat is now back on its registered mooring that is off C&RT waters When it had to be left for any length of time I arranged a mooring at a marina although I often needed to try a couple before I could find one that was prepared to negotiate a reasonable fee.......does this mean that you think that in some way I was breaking C&RT's interpretation of the rules ?

[Guest]

John V, on 10 Apr 2014 - 2:04 PM, said:

I am getting a bit confused where I come in this discussion.....my canal cruiser lives off line on salt (ish) water but when cruising is on CRT waters it can be away from the mooring for more than a year at a time. My last trip was Thames - GU- Soar- Trent - Fosdyke-Sheffield & South Yorkshire- Aire & Calder- L&L-Brdgewater-Weaver-T&M and back down GU.....this took almost 18 months and the boat is now back on its registered mooring that is off C&RT waters When it had to be left for any length of time I arranged a mooring at a marina although I often needed to try a couple before I could find one that was prepared to negotiate a reasonable fee.......does this mean that you think that in some way I was breaking C&RT's interpretation of the rules ?

 

I don't think so no, not least because you cruised extensively.

 

The problem it seem kicks in if say you had just shuffled between Pollington and Knottingley while you were on the A&CN in all that time.

[Jerra]

This constant picking of holes in what BW/CRT can legally do is I feel going to be detrimental to all boaters. What I envisage happening is there being so many case going to law and the ability of CRT to run a system that isn't clogged up by CMers ( and home moorers who are CMers in disguise) that they need a new act.

 

If/when they do get a new act every thing will be so nailed down that there will be much regimentation and little room for freedom.

 

To me (naive I know) the only people who have a problem with the current situation are those trying to circumvent the rules either for personal gain or some misguided down on CRT.

 

It may take a long time but if challenges to how/why CRT run the canals as they do continue it will happen.

[carlt]

This constant picking of holes in what BW/CRT can legally do is I feel going to be detrimental to all boaters.

I see it more as people highlighting instances of BW/CRT picking holes in the rights of boaters by misinterpreting the law to their advantage.

 

CRT, in this instance are exaggerating the rules to the point where they are abusing their power by insisting on cruising patterns where they have no right to.

[Guest]

Jerra, on 10 Apr 2014 - 2:12 PM, said:

This constant picking of holes in what BW/CRT can legally do is I feel going to be detrimental to all boaters. What I envisage happening is there being so many case going to law and the ability of CRT to run a system that isn't clogged up by CMers ( and home moorers who are CMers in disguise) that they need a new act.

 

If/when they do get a new act every thing will be so nailed down that there will be much regimentation and little room for freedom.

 

To me (naive I know) the only people who have a problem with the current situation are those trying to circumvent the rules either for personal gain or some misguided down on CRT.

 

It may take a long time but if challenges to how/why CRT run the canals as they do continue it will happen.

 

To be clear my take on all of this particular issue is not around finding ways of exploiting of loopholes BUT rather how solid the ground is before CRT go to court and potentially lose an expensive court case when the judge says 'of course this person has a place where they can leave their boat, what's your problem CRT?

 

Nor do I have any sort of down on CRT.

 

So I do not fit your 'the only people who have a problem category' I'm afraid.

[carlt]

If/when they do get a new act every thing will be so nailed down that there will be much regimentation and little room for freedom.

But CRT are already attempting to remove that freedom by misinterpreting the law.

[mayalld]

In all this could you point out the bit where it states that you MUST use the mooring and at what intervals?

 

There is nothing that requires you to do so.

 

There is something that requires you to "satisfy the board" that it is a place where you could "reasonably" keep the boat.

 

Not somewhere that you could, at a pinch, at enormous inconvenience, if push came to shove, and you had a couple of months to arrange it, keep the boat.

[carlt]

Not somewhere that you could, at a pinch, at enormous inconvenience, if push came to shove, and you had a couple of months to arrange it, keep the boat.

What parameters are those then?

 

How do you measure "inconvenience" and where is the obligation to return your boat to its mooring within a certain time frame?

 

I have never taken months to arrange a boat move, by water or land. Ever since the invention of the telephone making such arrangements takes minutes, unlike the days when such things required the use of a stage coach (or fly boat).

 

Moving a boat is no inconvenience. People do it all the time and by all sorts of methods...It's easy.

[Rich]

 

There is nothing that requires you to do so.

 

There is something that requires you to "satisfy the board" that it is a place where you could "reasonably" keep the boat.

 

Not somewhere that you could, at a pinch, at enormous inconvenience, if push came to shove, and you had a couple of months to arrange it, keep the boat.

 

Could you define "reasonably"?

[Machpoint005]

This constant picking of holes in what BW/CRT can legally do is I feel going to be detrimental to all boaters. What I envisage happening is there being so many case going to law and the ability of CRT to run a system that isn't clogged up by CMers ( and home moorers who are CMers in disguise) that they need a new act.

 

If/when they do get a new act every thing will be so nailed down that there will be much regimentation and little room for freedom.

 

To me (naive I know) the only people who have a problem with the current situation are those trying to circumvent the rules either for personal gain or some misguided down on CRT.

 

It may take a long time but if challenges to how/why CRT run the canals as they do continue it will happen.

 

That's the most sensible post on this thread for a good while. Those of us who operate within the rules as generally interpreted have no problem with them. Those who bend or break the rules know they are doing so.