NABO Press Release

[Tuscan]

_{PRESS RELEASE}

 

_{The National Association of Boat Owners (NABO) has for many years been concerned over some of the ways in which British Waterways (and latterly the Canal and River Trust – CRT) have interpreted the Acts of Parliament that govern the canal system.}

_{NABO has in the past – and again recently – obtained advice from both Counsel and its own legal advisor on the relevant Acts of Parliament. We made British Waterways aware of our opinion that it had exceeded its powers – but to little effect. Earlier this year we brought these concerns to the attention of CRT Chief Executive Officer Richard Parry, and we have subsequently had meetings with both him and Jackie Lewis (Head of Legal Affairs), in which we shared with them the legal opinions we had received. Further dialogue is ongoing and, although it is clear that areas of disagreement remain, the discussions continue to be very constructive.}

_{NABO has decided to publish the legal opinion it has obtained as a supplement to this month’s NABO News, together with our comments and CRT’s response. This material is also available on our website at www.nabo.org.uk}

_{NABO believes that with the increasing public discussions regarding enforcement, charges for overstaying, and the introduction of rules such as ‘no return within x days’ it is appropriate that our members and the wider boating public are made aware of the legal position as we understand it. We intend to remain a ‘critical friend’ of CRT, and to be proactive in our dialogue.}

_{Further information on NABO membership can be obtained from gen@nabo.org.uk}

_{Important note:}

_{The legal supplement provided by NABO contains general information based on English law and, although we try to ensure that the content is accurate and up-to-date, no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to its accuracy or completeness and therefore the information and views expressed should not be relied upon. Readers should always seek appropriate legal advice before taking, or refraining from taking, any action. The contents of the supplement should not be construed as legal or other professional advice.}

_{To the extent permitted by law, NABO disclaim liability for any loss (however caused) arising directly or indirectly from reliance on the information in this supplement.}

 

_{24 May 2014}

 

[FadeToScarlet]

Direct link to the document (PDF): http://www.nabo.org.uk/files/nabo-news/nn-2014/supplement.online.pdf

[Donald Gilchrist]

Ok, tried to read but have no idea what that all ment, anyone with some brains out there able to explain .

[saltysplash]

Ok, tried to read but have no idea what that all ment, anyone with some brains out there able to explain .

Excellent, saves me showing my ignorance and asking the same question

[NigelMoore]

With due respect, reading the article in the magazine makes for far greater clarity than navigating the ‘artistic’ supplement.

[Ex- Member]

Ok, tried to read but have no idea what that all ment, anyone with some brains out there able to explain .

 

Agreed is there a simple summery somewhere LOL

 

All I got from it is that everything BW/C&RT do with regard to enforcement is illegal LOL

Edited May 24, 2014 by Julynian

[Ray T]

_{"NABO believes that with the increasing public discussions regarding enforcement, charges for overstaying, and the introduction of rules such as ‘no return within x days’ it is appropriate that our members and the wider boating public are made aware of the legal position as we understand it. We intend to remain a ‘critical friend’ of CRT, and to be proactive in our dialogue."}

 

Perhaps I am missing some salient facts here, but it seems to me that for a long time various bodies have been complaining that BW/CRT were doing nothing about CMer's, bridge hoppers,overstayers on visitor moorings etc.

 

Now CRT is attempting to confront these issues people are now squealing they do not like what CRT is doing because unfortunately it affects the innocent as well as the guilty, always has and always will.

 

Do people really want a no rules, free for all with anarchy reigning? I don't.

 

As NABO are plainly unhappy with CRT's proposals, can NABO come up with some credible alternative suggestions as how to run our waterways?

Edited May 24, 2014 by Ray T

[Alan de Enfield]

_{"NABO believes that with the increasing public discussions regarding enforcement, charges for overstaying, and the introduction of rules such as ‘no return within x days’ it is appropriate that our members and the wider boating public are made aware of the legal position as we understand it. We intend to remain a ‘critical friend’ of CRT, and to be proactive in our dialogue."}

 

Perhaps I am missing some salient facts here, but it seems to me that for a long time various bodies have been complaining that BW/CRT were doing nothing about CMer's, bridge hoppers,overstayers on visitor moorings etc.

 

Now CRT is attempting to confront these issues people are now squealing they do not like what CRT is doing because unfortunately it affects the innocent as well as the guilty, always has and always will.

 

Do people really want a no rules, free for all with anarchy reigning? I don't.

 

As NABO are plainly unhappy with CRT's proposals, can NABO come up with some credible alternative suggestions as how to run our waterways?

 

 

I think the issue is more to do with C&RT's 'illegal activities' of trying to do something that they do not have the powers to do

 

There have been a number of examples cited here recently such as the examples where a boat with a home mooring has been section 8'd for not using his home mooring, or another where the boat was section 8'd for not having a licence when it was on waters that did not need a licence.

 

C&RT are making up the rules to suit themselves.

 

They (C&RT) appear to be taking the 'easy options' and ignoring the long term problem 'continuous moorers' who have claimed the towpath as their garden etc etc - these people are 'a bit difficult ' so C&RT turn a blind eye and go for the easy targets.

 

Its not that anyone is unhappy with enforcement - its just that the enforcement should be legal & consistently applied - and - be seen to be so

[Jerra]

It strikes me that publishing this is likely to do considerable damage to the "Further dialogue is ongoing and, although it is clear that areas of disagreement remain, the discussions continue to be very constructive." situation.

[NigelMoore]

It strikes me that publishing this is likely to do considerable damage to the "Further dialogue is ongoing and, although it is clear that areas of disagreement remain, the discussions continue to be very constructive." situation.

 

Hardly, I would have thought, given that CaRT were evidently happy to provide responses for the article, as they had been invited to do.

[Donald Gilchrist]

Thats a 'no' then

[FadeToScarlet]

I think the issue is more to do with C&RT's 'illegal activities' of trying to do something that they do not have the powers to do

 

There have been a number of examples cited here recently such as the examples where a boat with a home mooring has been section 8'd for not using his home mooring, or another where the boat was section 8'd for not having a licence when it was on waters that did not need a licence.

 

C&RT are making up the rules to suit themselves.

 

They (C&RT) appear to be taking the 'easy options' and ignoring the long term problem 'continuous moorers' who have claimed the towpath as their garden etc etc - these people are 'a bit difficult ' so C&RT turn a blind eye and go for the easy targets.

 

Its not that anyone is unhappy with enforcement - its just that the enforcement should be legal & consistently applied - and - be seen to be so

So why are CRT making up rules and enforcing them? If anything, we have to blame boaters and boating organisations for putting pressure on them to solve "problems" (inverted commas optional!) such as CMing and.overstaying. I'm certain that, if they had a free hand, not as.much would be done at all.

 

I do have a lot of sympathy for CRT, as.they seem to be on a hiding to nothing here- people moan and complain, so they try and.address problems and issues, but the legislation they have to deal with it is full of loopholes, which people can.exploit.after.years of practice has been.shared. They really are damned if they do, and.damned if they don't.

[jenlyn]

Many are missing the point, and therefore the whole issue.

CRT are not dealing with the problem, they are not enforcing the very people giving them problems. They have the adequate tools to do the job, but refuse to use them.

 

In time, the moans from boaters won't be about CCer's, or constant moorers, it will be about how everyone uses their boats, where you can moor, how long you can be away from your home mooring, how far you must travel from your home mooring.

 

The very quality that appeals to a boat owner, is being eroded. It's effecting all boat ownership.

[Alan de Enfield]

jenlyn, on 25 May 2014 - 10:23 AM, said:

Many are missing the point, and therefore the whole issue.

CRT are not dealing with the problem, they are not enforcing the very people giving them problems. They have the adequate tools to do the job, but refuse to use them.

 

 

100% agree and well put.

 

To avoid creating problems and negative-press by moving-on people who have flouted the law, and are even maybe claiming 'squatter rights' they decide to make their own laws and try and enforce those so they can claim they are 'doing' enforcement.

 

Whilst I struggle to comprehend some of the information posted by Nigel Moore I'm sure I have read that C&RT could, within the powers granted to them, charge £100 for overstaying the 14 days, and could even move the boat elsewhere.

 

Its purely down to a fear of implementing the rules - similar to a new Manager coming into a company where the rules have not been enforced, and he has to now enforce them - he will not be popular but its his job.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[cotswoldsman]

I am suffering from document overload at present but sure on one of them I saw a preposal by CRT to introduce a booking and charging system for some moorings in London is this the start of something new?

[Alan de Enfield]

I am suffering from document overload at present but sure on one of them I saw a preposal by CRT to introduce a booking and charging system for some moorings in London is this the start of something new?

 

There is apparently "A New Moorings Plan For London" to be released by C&RT next week, part of which is to reduce all moorings to 7 days with each site policed / monitored by volunteers who have yet to be recruited.

[Ssscrudddy]

This reminds me of when I was a traffic warden. I booked a guy who turned out to be a solicitor. He told me why I had no authority to book him in that particular place. He also told me where I could go to find out for myself the reasons why. I looked it up & he was correct.

As a traffic warden there was no reason why I should know these particular reasons, it was up to my bosses to know this & therefore they shouldnt have had us patrolling there in the 1st place. I did bring it to their attention & they confirmed that I (& the solicitor) was correct & that we (traffic wardens) had no authority to be issuing PCNs to anyone parked there.

BUT they told me to carry on booking there anyway. I refused to issue any more tickets there & ended up with 3 different disciplinary hearings over the matter (all of which I won). Their reasons were that it is a busy main road & parking there causes problems, & so carry on booking anyway. I did kick off at the 3rd hearing because they were trying to sack me for refusing to break the law. I think I came out with something along the lines of

"If it's so effing important then get the effing highly paid solicitors to do their effing job right & then I will happily book there. Dont effing threaten to sack me just because I wont break the effing law. & if you do sack me over this then expect to see it all over the effing press & you lot can then explain why you happily & knowingly kept ordering us to break the effing law under threat of getting sacked if we didnt".

Well I didnt get sacked & they did issue instructions for everyone to stop booking there until they sorted out all the legal stuff, the threat of a strike & it appearing in the press is what I think kicked their arses into gear.

[Jerra]

So why are CRT making up rules and enforcing them? If anything, we have to blame boaters and boating organisations for putting pressure on them to solve "problems" (inverted commas optional!) such as CMing and.overstaying. I'm certain that, if they had a free hand, not as.much would be done at all.

 

I do have a lot of sympathy for CRT, as.they seem to be on a hiding to nothing here- people moan and complain, so they try and.address problems and issues, but the legislation they have to deal with it is full of loopholes, which people can.exploit.after.years of practice has been.shared. They really are damned if they do, and.damned if they don't.

If mods were allowed to receive greenies I would award you one.

[bassplayer]

So why are CRT making up rules and enforcing them?

It's probably true that CRT have a job on their hands trying to satisfy the wishes of different types of boater (and non-boaters for that matter). However, and this is the main point, CRT are not above the law. Fair play to the people who have worked hard to help make CRT see this (hopefully!).

[cotswoldsman]

 

There is apparently "A New Moorings Plan For London" to be released by C&RT next week, part of which is to reduce all moorings to 7 days with each site policed / monitored by volunteers who have yet to be recruited.

That's the document I am talking about there is also a preposal to charge for some VM that have to be booked first I think it was £20 per night

[Higgs]

So why are CRT making up rules and enforcing them? If anything, we have to blame boaters and boating organisations for putting pressure on them to solve "problems" (inverted commas optional!) such as CMing and.overstaying. I'm certain that, if they had a free hand, not as.much would be done at all.

 

I do have a lot of sympathy for CRT, as.they seem to be on a hiding to nothing here- people moan and complain, so they try and.address problems and issues, but the legislation they have to deal with it is full of loopholes, which people can.exploit.after.years of practice has been.shared. They really are damned if they do, and.damned if they don't.

 

 

I would remove that word - Blame.

 

Loopholes could also be seen as flexible. We could end up with a whole raft of regulations to bind every action, but that isn't something to aim for. That would just knock being on the canal for six.

 

I cannot see what right CRT would have to force moorers to visit their mooring if the moorer wished to cruise the canal. CRT would be right, IMO, to expect moorers, some distance away from their mooring, to act and be treated as if they were CC'ers. Where some areas are under 'stress', some extra perculiar rules may be the only solution.

[NigelMoore]

Jenlyn and Alan de Enfield in posts #13 & #14 have perfectly answered the protesters who claim CaRT are being criticised for law enforcement; CaRT are NOT being criticised for law enforcement, they are being criticised for seeking to enforce purely invented, ultra vires rules that do NOT address the perceived [and actual] problems.

 

Those real problems could be sorted simply, efficiently, economically, and above all with the promptitude that is needed, with the genuine powers of enforcement available to them.

 

If I might just correct a detail in Alan de Enfield’s #14 – CaRT cannot charge anything for anyone staying over 14 days at any one place – they can take the offender to the court for obstruction, and the court can impose that £100 fine. The cost to the authority would be a minimal small claims fee, recoverable along with the fine, needing none of the expensive legal teams currently employed. That is additional to the fact that the offending boat can immediately and without notice, be moved off from blocking other boaters’ access to the public facilities affected.

 

Those are the actions CaRT need to be taking, which would solve the problems instanter – as is needed – and which would, moreover, provide a recoverable income along with a genuine discouragement of future offences.

 

Not a single one of the few dozen cases where BW/CaRT have taken boaters to court on the basis of the absurdly extreme and mostly inappropriate s.8 statute – at an accumulative cost of millions - has accomplished anything helpful in addressing the problems of congestion, and blockage of facilities to the general boating public.

[NigelMoore]

Thats a 'no' then

 

Simplified, NABO has published the summary views of an independent Legal Chamber on the legitimacy of several of the “rules” BW/CaRT have sought to introduce and enforce. The “rules” and enforcement procedures that the legal Counsel has suggested have no legal basis [but respecting which CaRT disagree] are:

 

* The No-Return rule;

 

* The £25/day fines;

 

* Narrow definitions of “place”.

 

The article records the items previously contentious that have been now agreed by CaRT as:

 

* No power to issue Roving Mooring Permits;

 

* No power to set specific distances CC’ers are compelled to travel;

 

* No need to complete a minimum 20 KM journey before returning.

 

CaRT clarify with respect to those latter two points, that it is ultimately for a court to decide in individual cases.

 

Edit to add: CaRT say they have always accepted they have no power to "fine", and that calling them overstay "charges" make it legitimate.

Edited May 26, 2014 by NigelMoore

[jenlyn]

Simplified, NABO has published the summary views of an independent Legal Chamber on the legitimacy of several of the “rules” BW/CaRT have sought to introduce and enforce. The “rules” and enforcement procedures that the legal Counsel has suggested have no legal basis [but respecting which CaRT disagree] are:

 

* The No-Return rule;

 

* The £25/day fines;

 

* Narrow definitions of “place”.

 

The article records the items previously contentious that have been now agreed by CaRT as:

 

* No power to issue Roving Mooring Permits;

 

* No power to set specific distances CC’ers are compelled to travel;

 

* No need to complete a minimum 20 KM journey before returning.

 

CaRT clarify with respect to those latter two points, that it is ultimately for a court to decide in individual cases.

 

Edit to add: CaRT say they have always accepted they have no power to "fine", and that calling them overstay "charges" make it legitimate.

Hence their scrabbling around to find and produce a court case they can win.

[Detling]

Well I don't want the European solution, where you pay per 24 hours wherever you are just like car parking. This one I would be doable as the landowner is charging for access, just a change to the license terms and you pay every day. If the legal nit pickers continue to win their case re CMing and bridge hopping then this is going to be the probable outcome. If you want evidence look at France where mooring charges were banned by Napoleon but in the 1980's there was so much abuse the law was changed and you now pay in most places.