Jump to content

Boater With Home Mooring - Court Action Started.


Featured Posts

Tony Dunkley - the boater with a fully paid up "home mooring", BSS, insurance and licence, who had his licence revoked for not complying with the 'rules' (despite C&RT admitting they have recorded him on his mooring 88 times in the last 5 years) is summoned to court.

 

Article from Narrowboatworld.

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/7085-guilty-until-proved-innocent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complete lack of information, only scaremongering as is to be expected. Although it would seem that the CRT legal bods have cocked up again.

 

In the Tony Ball case mentioned, I don't see that the fact that the boat was facing the other way is relevant. If you spend 48 hrs on a VM, cast off at 9pm and cruise 2.5 miles each way there and back again, tie up at 10:30 pm for another 48 hrs, you are a piss-taker and I'm glad that the Trust are giving such folk a hard time. So the poor dear had a sore arm, but he managed to cruise 2.5 miles each way. There is therefore no reason why he couldn't have cruised 5 miles to another "place". He is obviously using his sore arm to try to justify pisstaking overstaying because that location suits him.

Edited by nicknorman
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complete lack of information, only scaremongering as is to be expected. Although it would seem that the CRT legal bods have cocked up again.

 

In the Tony Ball case mentioned, ..................

 

Agreed, - in the Dunkley case there are a number (maybe half-a-dozen) previous posts that give the full background.

 

Basically, he is accused of not using his home mooring enough times, and therfore C&RT have reclassified him as a "Boater without a home mooring"

 

As he was not moving to a "new parish" every 14 days (he admits to making short distance movements as he is allowed to as a boat with a home mooring) C&RT claimed he was not fullfilling the "Boat without a Home Mooring" requirements and revoked his licence.

 

He was then issued a Part 8 summons as being on C&RT waters without a licence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, - in the Dunkley case there are a number (maybe half-a-dozen) previous posts that give the full background.

 

Basically, he is accused of not using his home mooring enough times, and therfore C&RT have reclassified him as a "Boater without a home mooring"

 

As he was not moving to a "new parish" every 14 days (he admits to making short distance movements as he is allowed to as a boat with a home mooring) C&RT claimed he was not fullfilling the "Boat without a Home Mooring" requirements and revoked his licence.

 

He was then issued a Part 8 summons as being on C&RT waters without a licence.

Yes, however without knowing the full details it is hard to know why CRT did what they did, but it seems unlikely they did it purely out of spite and boredom. Let's say he took his boat out of its mooring, where he didn't want to be, to a location where he did want to be - perhaps near his work - and then bridge-hopped around a small and popular area for a couple of months, returned to his home mooring for a weekend, then repeat ad-infinitum. Setting aside the legal details, he would be a pisstaker and I would be glad that CRT tried to rein him in. Not saying this is what he did (I don't know), merely "if". Edited by nicknorman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Er, so he had a valid, paid-for licence, CART took it away and then try to do him for not having a licence? They're having a larf, aren't they?

CART is now a charity. They are not, it appears, behaving very charitably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the trick of refusing to renew, or removing, a licence is not a new trick.

It is, surely, a "trick" most often used when a boater has not paid for his licence. This chap apparently had paid for his licence, but chose to take his boat to different parts of the waterways system.

 

We hear from time to time of boaters, often retired people with time on their hands, who proudly tell stories of epic six-month trips to distant canals. Are such people now in danger of becoming the objects of draconian licence- snatching if they do not report to base and salute every three weeks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is, surely, a "trick" most often used when a boater has not paid for his licence. This chap apparently had paid for his licence, but chose to take his boat to different parts of the waterways system.

 

We hear from time to time of boaters, often retired people with time on their hands, who proudly tell stories of epic six-month trips to distant canals. Are such people now in danger of becoming the objects of draconian licence- snatching if they do not report to base and salute every three weeks?

 

No. Don't be silly

 

Richard

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is, surely, a "trick" most often used when a boater has not paid for his licence. This chap apparently had paid for his licence, but chose to take his boat to different parts of the waterways system.

 

We hear from time to time of boaters, often retired people with time on their hands, who proudly tell stories of epic six-month trips to distant canals. Are such people now in danger of becoming the objects of draconian licence- snatching if they do not report to base and salute every three weeks?

 

No.

 

People are in danger of such action, not for being moored in lots of different places, but for being regularly moored in the SAME place.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your condescension.

 

No problem

 

Look, conflating anything CRT does into a disaster would be funny done by Private Frazer. Otherwise all it is doing is spreading fear and uncertainty based on factless speculation

 

CRT do not have the resources to run vendettas, secret police groups, massive databases of who was on their home mooring when and so on. They do have the ability to spot people taking the piss and now also have the intention to do something about it. Good!

 

Richard

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No.

 

People are in danger of such action, not for being moored in lots of different places, but for being regularly moored in the SAME place.

But if they do not stay there for more than 14 continuous days, or fewer if there are shorter limits, what is the problem?

 

 

 

CRT do not have the resources to run vendettas, secret police groups, massive databases of who was on their home mooring when and so on. They do have the ability to spot people taking the piss and now also have the intention to do something about it. Good!

 

Richard

No, not good. We have seen no evidence that this chap was flouting the rules or taking the rise. His crime appears to have been mooring his boat in a variety of locations in an area which he liked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if they do not stay there for more than 14 continuous days, or fewer if there are shorter limits, what is the problem?

 

The problem is that certain people take the cheapest mooring that they can find, even though it is completely unsuitable for their needs.

 

They then spend the overwhelming majority of their time on VMs that are convenient for them. Those VMs are then unavailable for visiting boaters. They may stay for 14 days, then leave and return in a matter of hours (the central contention in the article is that as the boat was facing the other way, it had moved and the clock should start again, even though it had almost certainly returned without mooring anywhere else.

 

The rules requiring people to have a home mooring are there for a purpose, to ensure that opportunities for casual mooring exist. The exemption for CCers exists because there is a legitimate reason for it.

 

Bridge Hopping, whether to base yourself on a prime mooring spot without payment, or to get a better mooring than you paid for is calculated to frustrate the legitimate reasons for requiring home moorings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, not good. We have seen no evidence that this chap was flouting the rules or taking the rise. His crime appears to have been mooring his boat in a variety of locations in an area which he liked.

 

To be fair though, "we" (being the users of an internet forum) aren't the ones who NEED to see the evidence. The judge in a court case is the one who needs it, because he/she is the one who has the power to make a judgement against the boater concerned. Yes it would be nice to have all the info to hand, but 1) it appears this isn't the case - there's no solid info on this case and a handful of token bits of info which have been flourished with a good deal of invention and speculation 2) for data protection, or plain old customer confidentiality reasons, we're not going to hear CRTs side of the story until a court case is made publically available.

Edited by Paul C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MMM I think the judge did well and I think CART may have jumped the gun a little, however a 48 hour mooring is just that and normally you then spend 14 days away before you reuse it again, or for me it is, so I suspect it might not go well for either of the 2 parties if they dont get the facts straight!! I think I would like more facts before deciding who is to blame

 

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To be fair though, "we" (being the users of an internet forum) aren't the ones who NEED to see the evidence. The judge in a court case is the one who needs it, because he/she is the one who has the power to make a judgement against the boater concerned.

But this "case" should never come anywhere near a judge in a court. This isn't Harold Shipman* or Rolf Harris we're talking about, it's a person who enjoys driving his boat around a part of the country which he enjoys being in. He's hardly a danger to the public, is he?

 

* Even if, like a considerable percentage of male narrowboaters, he physically resembles him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not good. We have seen no evidence that this chap was flouting the rules or taking the rise. His crime appears to have been mooring his boat in a variety of locations in an area which he liked.

 

I would like to point out that there are certain groups of boaters who are fighting CRT because they contest their right to be told to move. I know these are not the boaters involved in this dispute, nevertheless, it is in their interest to spread as much fear, uncertainty and doubt as possible amongst law abiding boaters as they can. In this way, said compliant boaters may begin to come onside in their case, or at least start getting worried about some highly unlikely court case against dear old Granny and Granpa and begin talking about it in public

 

Mr Athy, someone is pulling your chain for their own ends. No one is going to take compliant boaters to court

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a 48 hour mooring is just that and normally you then spend 14 days away before you reuse it

Why? We have fairly often gone from our home mooring, spent two nights below Cropredy lock, returned to our mooring and then done the same thing the following weekend. Are you suggesting that you, or the authorities, consider this to be reckless and anti-social behaviour?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? We have fairly often gone from our home mooring, spent two nights below Cropredy lock, returned to our mooring and then done the same thing the following weekend. Are you suggesting that you, or the authorities, consider this to be reckless and anti-social behaviour?

 

No, don't be silly

 

Richard

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this "case" should never come anywhere near a judge in a court. This isn't Harold Shipman* or Rolf Harris we're talking about, it's a person who enjoys driving his boat around a part of the country which he enjoys being in. He's hardly a danger to the public, is he?

 

* Even if, like a considerable percentage of male narrowboaters, he physically resembles him.

So I take it you maintain that laws should only apply to people who are danger to the public? An interesting concept but one that bears no relation to reality.

 

Although we don't know the facts, one can envisage the case where the bod in question has royally been taking the piss and despite "discussions" with CRT is standing his bridge-hopping ground, whereupon CRT have the choice of either going to court, or turning a blind eye and looking on as the pisstakers gradually take over the system. I am glad they choose to do the former.

Why? We have fairly often gone from our home mooring, spent two nights below Cropredy lock, returned to our mooring and then done the same thing the following weekend. Are you suggesting that you, or the authorities, consider this to be reckless and anti-social behaviour?

No, this is "normal behaviour", but if the reverse were the case - ie you spent weeks around cropredy lock, just returning to your home mooring for one night a month, then back to cropredy lock ad infinitum, that would be reckless and antisocial behaviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But how on earth can you say that, when you don't know the facts of the case?

 

Because he has been stirred into anger by a piece of ill informed drivel on an anti CRT website produced by people who need support for their views

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this "case" should never come anywhere near a judge in a court. This isn't Harold Shipman* or Rolf Harris we're talking about, it's a person who enjoys driving his boat around a part of the country which he enjoys being in. He's hardly a danger to the public, is he?

 

* Even if, like a considerable percentage of male narrowboaters, he physically resembles him.

 

 

Without reading the article (in order to avoid giving NBW the extra traffic) it seems to me that this bloke is royally taking the piss in spirit even if not to the letter of the (vague) law.

 

CRT are responding by giving him some time-and-money-wasting grief over it for which I applaud them. Even if he wins the case, he will have learned that taking the piss results in court action that soaks up one helluvalot of cruising time which could otherwise have been spent doing something productive or enjoyable, e.g. cruising.

 

MtB

 

 

(Edit for bad spilling)

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Without reading the article (in order to avoid giving NBW the extra traffic) it seems to me that this bloke is royally taking the piss in spirit even if not to the letter of the (vague) law.

 

He fails my duck spotting test. If he looks like a CMer, behaves like a CMer - he's a CMer no matter what kind of license

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.