CRT taking your licence away

[NBDensie]

In my view all of this is just ridiculous paranoia. If you are operating within the letter and spirit of the rules, ie undertaking bona fide navigation, you have nothing to worry about. On the other hand If your objective is to really stay in one place moving as little as you can get away with then you are at risk - and rightly so.

Edited May 18, 2014 by NBDensie

[Tuscan]

Part of the difficulty is the judge in the recent case implied if I read it right ( and I may not have) is that bona fide navigation for a pleasure boat with a home mooring was the same for one without a home mooring Which could just be an annual trip to the Dog and Duck.

[NigelMoore]

In my view all of this is just ridiculous paranoia. If you are operating within the letter and spirit of the rules, ie undertaking bona fide navigation, you have nothing to worry about.

 

“Peace in our time” ?!

 

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”

 

What you have said is true for most; it is not a universal truth.

[NigelMoore]

Part of the difficulty is the judge in the recent case implied if I read it right ( and I may not have) is that bona fide navigation for a pleasure boat with a home mooring was the same for one without a home mooring Which could just be an annual trip to the Dog and Duck.

 

It’s not an simple one Tuscan. The purely ‘persuasive’ comments of Judge Lewis do not form a complete judicial analysis of the situation. His insight was remarkable and penetrating nonetheless, and strikes at the heart of the convoluted semantics of BW/CaRT’s hired help.

 

It was, however, more of a shot across the bows of the pretentious nonsense of the authority’s developed apologetics than anything else. It is only that the legalistic attenuation of a simple phrase in the effort to wring more particularity from its original honest simplicity, was shown up for what it was.

 

In truth, viewing the subject from the [necessary] broader perspective, the phrase ‘bona fide for navigation’ as it originally appeared in the relevant legislation of 1971, was, as the judge highlighted, to do with – not the use of a vessel, but with the designed purpose of the vessel.

 

As such, applying focussed analysis on the 1971 adjectival wording, insofar as it applies to the contentious legislation of 1995, is rather tangential to the point. That later Act has to do with whether the boat actually fulfils its designed purpose, with actual and intended use on a continual/regular basis.

 

With that clarified, whether a vessel was used for its designed purpose or not, it remained a vessel classifiable according to that purpose. Hence, a Pleasure Boat always remains a Pleasure Boat – designated as such by reason of the designed purpose, regardless of whether it ever moves off its mooring. It might, as the judge said, move off only once a year for the round day trip to the Dog & Duck – but it remains a boat "used bona fide for navigation” nonetheless.

 

Braving the parapets of CWDF opinion, that does NOT necessitate any finding that a boat licensed under s.17(3)( c )(ii) will actually be classifiable as being in the process of 'navigating’ if it is parked on the public towpath, and limits its movement to an annual jaunt to the Dog & Duck once a year.

 

Judge Lewis’s analysis cannot, therefore, strictly be counted as suggesting the same movement pattern is applicable to CC’ers as to Home Moorers; it only [!!] illustrates that CaRT's dependence on its forensic dissection of the phrase is misconceived and inappropriately applied.

 

 

 

Edit to correct the initial 1971 wording, as alerted by MtB.

Edited May 19, 2014 by NigelMoore

[Tuscan]

Thanks Nigel I had hoped my comment would flush out more detail not that I am much clearer !

[Ex- Member]

Thanks Nigel I had hoped my comment would flush out more detail not that I am much clearer !

 

I think I basically get it. You could put it like bona fide navigation is to do with the boats ability to move/navigate through its design. Not to do with moving regularly or in any particular direction.

 

It's a bit like saying a car is bona fide for driving on the highway, that's what it's designed for and licensed to do and safe to do so with an M.O.T, it doesn't mean you have to drive it in a certain direction, or do continuous journeys in it.

 

Well that's my analogy for what it's worth

 

 

 

 

it only [!!] illustrates that CaRT's dependence on its forensic dissection of the phrase is misconceived and inappropriately applied.

 

 

I think that's a pretty fair statement IMO

[MtB]

Is it only me who perceives different natural English language meanings in the terms "bona fide navigation" and "bona fide for navigation"?

 

The two terms seem to be used interchangeably in discussions here.

 

 

MtB

[Jerra]

Is it only me who perceives different natural English language meanings in the terms "bona fide navigation" and "bona fide for navigation"?

 

The two terms seem to be used interchangeably in discussions here.

 

 

MtB

Its not just you..

[NigelMoore]

Is it only me who perceives different natural English language meanings in the terms "bona fide navigation" and "bona fide for navigation"?

 

The term “bona fide navigation” does not appear in the legislation MtB; it only appears in argument. You are perfectly correct that there are “different natural English language meanings” between those phrases, which is why I say that pulling apart the meanings of the individual words and applying the same meaning to each phrase leads to misapprehension.

 

The two variant phrases in the legislation are –

 

"bona fide used for navigation" - & - "used bona fide for navigation"

 

In seeking the meaning of the statutory phrasing, the judge looked to the first use in the relevant British Waterways statutes, specifically the 1971 Act. As clarified by BW to Parliament – other than Commercial boats, there are either Houseboats OR Pleasure Boats.

 

By definition of the 1971 Act s.3(1) a Pleasure Boat is anything other than "a vessel being used solely as a tug or for the carriage of goods or a houseboat or a mooring stage or a pontoon."

 

Likewise, a Houseboat does NOT include a vessel (a) which is bona fide used for navigation.

 

Hence, as Lewis J said, the core definition of a Pleasure Boat as distinct from a Houseboat is that it is a vessel bona fide used for navigation. I am uncertain as to how far [if at all] the judge’s analysis differentiates this from the re-arrangement of the identical words in the 1995 Act, wherein grounds for refusing “relevant consents” are given. He seized upon the word “for” as distinct from “in” [Transcript page 14(]

 

A boat that is bona fide used for navigation therefore, does not lose its Pleasure Boat status just because it is not currently being bona fide used in navigation; it does not and cannot become a Houseboat every time it moors up for the night.

 

The 1995 Act s.17 refers to every type of relevant consent – whether Commercial, Houseboat or Pleasure Boat. Obviously however, [& leaving aside Commercial vessels], s.17(3( c )(ii) does not apply to Houseboats but to Pleasure Boats. A Houseboat either has a fixed mooring or it cannot be a Houseboat.

 

So the condition a Pleasure Boat must meet, if it does not have a legitimate place to keep it when not being bona fide used in navigation, is that it be "used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid." So there is a fine semantic distinction. I suspect that this distinction is more mine than the judge's, because he seems to suggest that the same limited 'using in navigation' criteria must apply equally to both 'classes' of Pleasure Boat.

 

For the purpose of the 1995 Act, the [loose] constraints that must be met to qualify as being used bona fide for navigation are that it must not remain "continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable under the circumstances."

 

Even though a boat left for up to 14 days continuously in any one place is NOT in the process of being used in navigation in that period [anymore than a boat at a home mooring is], it is still a boat that is bona fide used for navigation through the time it is moored. It will become a boat used bona fide [for/ in] navigation once it sets off again.

 

The defining character of s.17(3)( c )(ii) therefore, is not so much the used bona fide for navigation phrase, as is the clarifying following qualifier defining that phrase for the purpose of this clause.

 

The concentration on the semantics of the phrase rather than its special definition for the purpose of the clause, is what contributes to confusion.

 

It is no disrespect to the judge to say that some of his off-the-cuff observations are slightly skewed respecting the application of the phrase to s.17(3( c )(ii) – he said himself that it all became less obvious the more he looked at it. The essential truth of his remarks resides more in the limitations in placing reliance on the phrase, than in the special definition – in my opinion.

 

My distinction between the 1971 phrase and the 1995 phrase would be that the 1995 variant emphasises by implication the using, so that it has the character of the judge's used in as distinct from the 1971 used for.

 

In other words [and my desperate attempt to keep things simple inevitably results in repetition] it is the qualifier that is pertinent more than the phrase. The pattern required/allowed re: boats licensed under (ii) differs from that for boats licensed under (i).

 

Considerably less confusion would arise if the phrase had been left out altogether – and the essential terms of the condition would still make sense.

 

[NigelMoore]

It's a bit like saying a car is bona fide for driving on the highway, that's what it's designed for and licensed to do and safe to do so with an M.O.T, it doesn't mean you have to drive it in a certain direction, or do continuous journeys in it.

 

The highway/navigation analogy has been used often in lawsuits, although caution as to how closely it is to be used has been rightly expressed by the courts.

 

It would, in this instance, be more closely applicable if we postulated a hypothetical case where car licences would only be granted if, in addition to the MOT and 3rd part insurance, you could satisfy the DVLA that you had somewhere to park the car when not driving it – the only alternative being that you agreed to leave it only where specified parking spots permitted it, keeping to the time restrictions of those parking spaces.

 

I would have thought that this was implicit anyway, so understandably the DVLA don’t bother with such a redundant requirement, nor do they require certain driving patterns and minimum mileages if you don't have your own garage or driveway.

 

Neither should BW have bothered. If, instead of setting movement patterns [to the limited extent the legislation does] they had concentrated on the mooring clauses, and had been content to have left out the criminalising element of those, we would never have arrived at the present situation – spilt milk of course.

[NigelMoore]

the only alternative being that you agreed to leave it only where specified parking spots permitted it, keeping to the time restrictions of those parking spaces.

 

In fact, reading through BW’s representation to Parliament as to the effect of s.17(3)( c )(ii), the hypothetical phrasing I used in respect of car-parking actually does apply -

 

“providing they can find somewhere to moor which is acceptable in terms of the local mooring regulations . . .” [refers to byelaws] the clause “. . . has not got anything to do with it. They have got their consent [boat Licence] and they can stay in that position as long as they like.”

 

The core organisational issue, in other words, is that boats should not be left where they shouldn't be, causing a problem for others. They can be left for as long as they like in places where that is lawful and reasonable [which does not include anywhere on the towpath on my view, such that mooring restrictions there are a misnomer - the regulations as to time limits there, amount more to periods of sufferance than permission.]

 

The problem is that the authority is not legally equipped to do more about designating mooring places and timings than exists in the current byelaws and s.18 & 19 of the 1995 Act. As I said - the failed clauses in the 1990 Bill would have suited the purpose far more than the home mooring or CC clause.

[the grinch]

 

I think I basically get it. You could put it like bona fide navigation is to do with the boats ability to move/navigate through its design. Not to do with moving regularly or in any particular direction.

 

It's a bit like saying a car is bona fide for driving on the highway, that's what it's designed for and licensed to do and safe to do so with an M.O.T, it doesn't mean you have to drive it in a certain direction, or do continuous journeys in it.

 

Well that's my analogy for what it's worth

 

 

 

 

well my car has sat outside our house for at least 3 months not moved an inch (engine seized) no problem its taxed and insured until sept only then will I have to move it! lol

 

sadly CRT don't like none movers! in fact they don't seem to like anyone!

[Tuscan]

I am struggling to find any reference to how far I must move beyond the fact that I can not stay in any one place longer than 14 days or shorter if so defined.

[MtB]

I am struggling to find any reference to how far I must move beyond the fact that I can not stay in any one place longer than 14 days or shorter if so defined.

 

That is because the distance between 'places' varies.

 

In a densely populated area 'places' are close together, in sparsely populated areas 'places' are a long way apart. As the distance from one 'place' to another varies, it makes sense to define movements required for the purposes of licensing in terms of 'places' rather than miles.

 

The hard bit is defining a 'place'.

 

MtB

[mark99]

Is it only me who perceives different natural English language meanings in the terms "bona fide navigation" and "bona fide for navigation"?

 

The two terms seem to be used interchangeably in discussions here.

 

 

MtB

 

Like the little ego battle in the comedy "The Office".

 

David Brent's assistant was always calling himself "Assistant Manager" but David Brent always picked him up and said "no, you are Assistant to the Manager".

 

An important distinction.

[Athy]

Its an interesting question as to 'how do you prove you have moved ?

 

Diesel receipts ? - just shows you have run the engine ?

Photo of 'Local' dated newspaper with a land mark in the background - Possibly ?

Signed and dated 'affidavit' from lockeepers that you have passed ? - not many canals have permanent lockies.

Your cruising log ? - could be a total fabrication.

 

 

So - you are recorded at location A, and 15 days later are recorded at location A - just how can you provide evidence that in between those dates you have been to locations B to C to B and back to A

 

As an example we had a couple of weeks on an 'out & return' and we stopped at the same mooring on the 1st and last night - fortunately it was Cromwell Lock so the lock keeper would have records of us transiting the lock. If it wasnt a manned lock how could we argue we hadnt moved ?

 

I'd be interested in any proposals.

I spoke to my judge friend yesterday and raised this query,

His answer was very simple. You do not have to prove that you have moved. CART have to prove that you haven't moved. For this proof to be accepted legally, they would have to check your boat's location every day, not every 2 or 3 weeks. So don't worry.

[Alan de Enfield]

I spoke to my judge friend yesterday and raised this query,

His answer was very simple. You do not have to prove that you have moved. CART have to prove that you haven't moved. For this proof to be accepted legally, they would have to check your boat's location every day, not every 2 or 3 weeks. So don't worry.

 

Thanks for that it is what I would assume is the 'norm'. However it appears that with C&RT you are guilty until proved innocent, and unless you have the time and money to go to court and fight them they will always 'win'.

 

For a company in the public 'eye' (well at leat 60,000 eyes) they do appear to operate with some very underhand tactics - if the following is true then we should worry :

 

.....C&RT's Solicitors Shoesmiths, advised Geoff that his appearance in Court was not necessary as the hearing date had been moved - It hadn't and Judgement was found against him as a 'non-shower'.

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/leatest/6931-forcibly-removed-from-his-boat

 

With regard to 'overstaying' I am not worried - when I am out on the boat I want to make the most of the available time, I may stay in one place for a couple of days but thats it. If I just want to sit on the boat and unwind I can do that on the mooring, If I want 'countryside' views I stay at home.

[MtB]

I spoke to my judge friend yesterday and raised this query,

His answer was very simple. You do not have to prove that you have moved. CART have to prove that you haven't moved. For this proof to be accepted legally, they would have to check your boat's location every day, not every 2 or 3 weeks. So don't worry.

 

Did he also advise on how to make CRT issue a licence for your boat in the event of them issuing a pre-CC1, a CC1, and a CC2 incorrectly?

 

MtB

[Athy]

No, I did not ask him that (because I am not sure what it's about and he would not have had such specialist knowledge anyway).

[MtB]

No, I did not ask him that (because I am not sure what it's about and he would not have had such specialist knowledge anyway).

 

But that was the essence of your question!

 

If CRT decide (incorrectly) you haven't moved for the 15 days they issue the next one up in that series of letters. When you reach the top, they refuse you a license at next renewal.

 

So you have to challenge the letters, and to do that you have to prove their data loggers are wrong and to do that you have to produce evidence. So, guilty unless you can prove your innocence as originally asserted.

 

All AIUI.

 

MtB

 

 

 

(Edit to make multiple changes!)

Edited May 20, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[Athy]

No, they have to prove that you have not moved. That canot be done if the CART bod saw you twice in the same place 15 days apart. Just imagine the scene in court:

CART bod: Yes your honour, I saw Aldebaran parked below Cropredy Lock on May 1st and again on May 15th.

Judge: So can you prove that she didn't move between those dates?

CART bod: No your honour, I didn't go back and look during the intervening fortnight.

Judge: So she could have travelled to Oxford and back without you knowing about it?

CARET bod: Er.....

 

Yeah, right, as those young people say.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Athy

[MtB]

No, they have to prove that you have not moved.

 

Eh?

 

Which part of the sequence of events I outlined above is wrong then?

 

Or more specifically, at which point in the sequence of events leading to refusal of a licence do they prove you have not moved? I contend they simply assert it, then refuse the licence, leaving the ball firmly in your court.

 

MtB

Edited May 20, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[Ex- Member]

 

That is because the distance between 'places' varies.

 

In a densely populated area 'places' are close together, in sparsely populated areas 'places' are a long way apart. As the distance from one 'place' to another varies, it makes sense to define movements required for the purposes of licensing in terms of 'places' rather than miles.

 

The hard bit is defining a 'place'.

 

MtB

 

Hi Mike

 

I recall that the definition of a place doesn't necessarily mean the name of somewhere in particular, although I follow your logic that that's what it means and base our movements on that criteria. I recall reading something from Nigel, that a place has not actually been defined by a judge as somewhere that has a name but could simply mean somewhere else or another place. I could be mistaken I suspect Nigel will clarify.

[Athy]

 

Eh?

 

Which part of the sequence of events I outlined above is wrong then?

 

Or more specifically, at which point in the sequence of events leading to refusal of a licence do they prove you have not moved? I contend they simply assert it, then refuse the licence, leaving the ball firmly in your court.

 

MtB

I simply ascertained the legal situation in response to a question by another forum member. You are innocent until proved guilty. CART must prove you guilty. If they don't, you have committed no offence.

A sentence including messenger, shoot and don't springs to mind.

[Paul C]

 

But that was the essence of your question!

 

If CRT decide (incorrectly) you haven't moved for the 15 days they issue the next one up in that series of letters. When you reach the top, they refuse you a license at next renewal.

 

So you have to challenge the letters, and to do that you have to prove their data loggers are wrong and to do that you have to produce evidence. So, guilty unless you can prove your innocence as originally asserted.

 

All AIUI.

 

MtB

 

 

 

(Edit to make multiple changes!)

 

 

 

Eh?

 

Which part of the sequence of events I outlined above is wrong then?

 

Or more specifically, at which point in the sequence of events leading to refusal of a licence do they prove you have not moved? I contend they simply assert it, then refuse the licence, leaving the ball firmly in your court.

 

MtB

 

I've quoted these two but many other posts are also relevant. Surely the movement is a red herring, since the requirement for the licence is that you have a home mooring:

 

 

 

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;”

So it would go something like this:

1) A boater with a home mooring, doesn't move their boat enough

2) CRT assumes they have a ghost mooring, or are underhand CCing and issue a pre-CC1, CC1, CC2 etc

3) boater provides proof that they have a home mooring - eg a contract, proof of regular (or one off) payment(s), etc. This would be very easy for a boater with a home mooring to do, unless they were disorganised in the extreme.

(3) is where someone with a ghost mooring would get stuck on - CRT may (and do) contact marinas etc and they may ask if this boat has a mooring there. If its the case that someone previously had a mooring but ended it, then they'd come unstuck. If the moorer was doing paper moorings/ghost moorings then they may ask to see the contracts for ALL the boats, and then simply add up the length/number of boats and say there's a mismatch with the physical layout of the facility and the number of boats (or probably for a marina, a mismatch in the NAA payment made!) so there's a large incentive here for a marina operator not to try cover up.

A fine line comes where the mooring is hundreds of miles away - eg the hypothetical case of a very cheap mooring in the north, for a boater on the (eg) K&A. While the mooring exists, CRT may choose to argue its unreasonable that its kept there.

SUMMARY: If you're a CCer, CRT have to prove you're not moving (often) enough to remove your licence. If you (claim to) have a home mooring, CRT have to prove that you don't.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Paul C