Boater With Home Mooring - Court Action Started.

[b0atman]

Naughty Cal take it to the extreme of 6 months mooring hand notice in 6 months cruising then which would you declare certainly a lot of toing and froing with CRT.

At end of day will anything ever get sorted.

[cotswoldsman]

Naughty Cal take it to the extreme of 6 months mooring hand notice in 6 months cruising then which would you declare certainly a lot of toing and froing with CRT.

At end of day will anything ever get sorted.

In all honesty I don't think it would really matter to much as long as said boater moves every 14 days they are hardly lightly to come under enforcement

[Alan de Enfield]

In all honesty I don't think it would really matter to much as long as said boater moves every 14 days they are hardly lightly to come under enforcement

 

In all probability your are correct - but do they need to be in a new 'place / parish' every 14 days, or just to have 'moved' every 14 days ?

 

As you correctly pointed out I am not some Narrowboatworld "5th Columnist", I just read the article (and the series of articles leading up to the event) and thought it may be worthy of discussion, as the implications could possibly affect many boaters.

 

I do not know Tony Dunkley, nor am I aware of his cruising patterns, however, if it is as he has stated above in post #352 then I think, that this, (taken alongside the number of other examples quoted of C&RT/Shoesmiths actions recently), should start to ring alarm bells about the direction that C&RT is taking

[nicknorman]

Nick as Alan de Enfield was the original poster are you saying he is part of some PR team garnering support for the people who are named in the NBW article? I thought he was simply drawing attention to something he had read on NBW

 

You're right, I was getting myself confused with the other thread started by Tony - sorry.

[cotswoldsman]

You're right, I was getting myself confused with the other thread started by Tony - sorry.

Confusion happens in retirement

[bassplayer]

Is my understanding correct that CRT can't legally remove a boat from CRT waters without a court order? If that's the case, then the judge will insist on hearing the 'other side of the story' before allowing that notice to be served. Apparently, a judge can only serve a notice based on 'one side of the story' in extreme cases (forgotten the Latin term for these scenarios - Nigel?).

 

The way things are going, CRT will be diverting more and more budget to fight law suits due to allegations of harassment and causing unreasonable distress. As a customer, I'd rather it be spent on maintenance of rivers and canals....something I'm seeing less and less of. If people spent less time trying to inflate their ego's and more time working together to make the canals and rivers a nice place to be, we'd all be happier.

[Rich]

RANT- 19 pages in.............. I for one am sick to the back teeth of the minority of absolute blatant arrogant know it all pisstakers.

 

 

 

Presumably your reference to piss-takers means people like Tony Dunkley you, whilst sticking to the letter of the law, have fallen foul of someone at Canal and River Trust.

 

Firstly I would suggest that people whose boating pattern is similar to TD's are so few that if Canal and River Trust hadn't decided to go for him the vast majority of us wouldn't even know of their existence and should he win I feel that the number of boaters taking up his style of life will be very small, if any.

 

Secondly, if Canal and River Trust win the case what next will they be having a go at, scruffy boats, mooring lines on tiller arms, narrowboaters in yachting caps? I realise that this may be considered an absurd extension but is it not wrong to pursue a bloke who, it would seem, is not breaking the rules, but breaking the rules they would, for whatever reason, like.

[MtB]

Is my understanding correct that CRT can't legally remove a boat from CRT waters without a court order?

 

 

No. They can do it without a court order.

 

My understanding is that where a boat is the boater's home, CRT voluntarily apply to the court for a Court Order confirming their right to remove the boat. I don't fully understand why.

 

I've heard it said that the court order protects them from a claim under the Human Rights Act.

 

I've also heard it said one or other of the housing acts requires a court order before a tenant can be evicted and this might apply (but hasn't been tested), and the court order heads off the possibility of the victim applying for an injunction claiming contravention of the housing act.

 

I expect Nigel Moore understands properly and can explain it...

 

MtB

[MtB]

 

Secondly, if Canal and River Trust win the case what next will they be having a go at, scruffy boats, mooring lines on tiller arms, narrowboaters in yachting caps? I realise that this may be considered an absurd extension but is it not wrong to pursue a bloke who, it would seem, is not breaking the rules, but breaking the rules they would, for whatever reason, like.

 

It would seem to others, CRT especially, that he IS breaking the rules.

 

Surely the whole point of this action is to find out if this bloke is breaking the rules, or not, by asking the court for a ruling.

 

 

MtB

[bassplayer]

No. They can do it without a court order.

 

My understanding is that where a boat is the boater's home, CRT voluntarily apply to the court for a Court Order confirming their right to remove the boat. I don't fully understand why.

 

I've heard it said that the court order protects them from a claim under the Human Rights Act.

 

I've also heard it said one or other of the housing acts requires a court order before a tenant can be evicted and this might apply (but hasn't been tested), and the court order heads off the possibility of the victim applying for an injunction claiming contravention of the housing act.

 

I expect Nigel Moore understands properly and can explain it...

 

MtB

If that's the case, then the law really is an ass. The problem is that once the 'layman' stops respecting the law for reasons like this, those in high places are no longer safe either....

 

...actually many years ago a solicitor friend told me that he found it easier to his job once he accepted the law was an ass....

[Rich]

 

It would seem to others, CRT especially, that he IS breaking the rules.

 

Surely the whole point of this action is to find out if this bloke is breaking the rules, or not, by asking the court for a ruling.

 

Surely, the point of the action is to find out whether or not Canal and River Trust can persuade a court that he is breaking the rules. Actually, the two things are not the same.

[bassplayer]

Surely, the point of the action is to find out whether or not Canal and River Trust can persuade a court that he is breaking the rules. Actually, the two things are not the same.

This is the main issue (and I suspect the reason behind the NBW headline). CRT (or should I say certain members of CRT) seem to think they are above the law. Maybe they are!

[Tuscan]

I remember Sally Ash saying that ghost mooring was a growing problem and was one of the key reasons for introducing the no return rules on visitor moorings. I asked her if she could quantify the scale of the problem as introducing no return rules would effect ALL boaters not just those she as trying to target.

 

She then admitted she had no idea of the numbers whether it was 200, 2000 or 20,000 and just huffed when it was suggested introducing rules that effect everyone when you had no information was bad practice. The reason she explained that they had no information is that the marinas were not willingly giving them the data as to who had given up a "home" or winter mooring. Given that CRT are the major player in this sector this strikes me more of a reflection on their own relationships with the trade and recording systems.

 

Given that there are volunteers everywhere with data recorders it would appear from the above that their core information is hopelessly out of date and perhaps they need to focus on working with those that provide moorings (who you would thought not to be in favour of boaters claiming that they still have a mooring.) to discover the scale of the problem.

 

This case seems to introduce another dimension where someone with what would appear to be a legitimate home mooring is now accused of having a ghost mooring which would now also seem to be defined as a mooring nowhere near the owners normal cruising pattern.

 

At the moment one forum members p****taker is another members lawful cruiser.

[MtB]

Surely people whose cruising pattern deliberately occupies that fuzzy gap between what is definitely legal and what is definitely illegal ARE the piss takers.

 

MtB

[cotswoldsman]

Is my understanding correct that CRT can't legally remove a boat from CRT waters without a court order? If that's the case, then the judge will insist on hearing the 'other side of the story' before allowing that notice to be served. Apparently, a judge can only serve a notice based on 'one side of the story' in extreme cases (forgotten the Latin term for these scenarios - Nigel?).

 

The way things are going, CRT will be diverting more and more budget to fight law suits due to allegations of harassment and causing unreasonable distress. As a customer, I'd rather it be spent on maintenance of rivers and canals....something I'm seeing less and less of. If people spent less time trying to inflate their ego's and more time working together to make the canals and rivers a nice place to be, we'd all be happier.

That is sort of right they issue a section 8 to remove your boat you then have 2 choices let them remove it or fight them in court if you think they are wrong

[RLWP]

This is the main issue (and I suspect the reason behind the NBW headline). CRT (or should I say certain members of CRT) seem to think they are above the law. Maybe they are!

 

How can they be above the law if they are going to court?

 

Richard

[MtB]

That is sort of right they issue a section 8 to remove your boat you then have 2 choices let them remove it or fight them in court if you think they are wrong

 

This is sort of right too. If they have the court order, you'll have very little ammunition with which to argue your case so they will have spiked your guns.

[Alan de Enfield]

Surely people whose cruising pattern deliberately occupies that fuzzy gap between what is definitely legal and what is definitely illegal ARE the piss takers.

 

MtB

 

Then the fault is with the law-makers, there should be no 'fuzzy gap' that allows individual interpretation of the law - if I interperate it one way, and you interperate it another way, why is one of us a 'piss-taker', they are just different interpretations of the same law.

 

Where laws are clearly written these is no 'misunderstanding' or interpretation possible - eg If (in a 30 mph zone) I drive at 30mph (or less) I am not breaking the law, if I drive at 31mph then I am breaking the law.

 

The Waterways acts are not clearly defined with times, distances etc, & probably due to the evolving use of the waterways in the last 20-30 years are no longer 'fit for purpose'.

 

Without court cases to test either the C&RT interpretation or the boaters interpretation, it is impossible to call anyone a piss-taker. C&RT could be taking the piss just as much as the boater and relying on their 'muscle' and money to win the day.

 

In this case, we will have to wait and see.

[bassplayer]

How can they be above the law if they are going to court?

 

Richard

In the end, it's the judge who makes the decision (Ok, bigger cases it's the jury). So it all depends whether the judge is influenced by 'other forces'....there are good judges and bad ones...just like any other walk of life....

[bassplayer]

That is sort of right they issue a section 8 to remove your boat you then have 2 choices let them remove it or fight them in court if you think they are wrong

...Civil courts aren't that scary really...I recently went with a friend who needed to serve a notice on someone. We turned up in the morning to write out a witness statement....in the next hour they found a judge to hear the case. We were lead into a proper court room by the usher, there were only 4 people there. Us, the judge and an usher. They were very helpful. A good judge will listen to what you have to say and takes time to make sure you've expressed your side of the story.

 

There is no reason to believe you can't represent yourself without paying out on solicitors fees. The only important thing is to get all your points over. The truth is the truth regardless of your background, it does depend on the judge though...

[David Schweizer]

 

Then the fault is with the law-makers, there should be no 'fuzzy gap' that allows individual interpretation of the law - if I interperate it one way, and you interperate it another way, why is one of us a 'piss-taker', they are just different interpretations of the same law.

 

Where laws are clearly written these is no 'misunderstanding' or interpretation possible - eg If (in a 30 mph zone) I drive at 30mph (or less) I am not breaking the law, if I drive at 31mph then I am breaking the law.

 

The Waterways acts are not clearly defined with times, distances etc, & probably due to the evolving use of the waterways in the last 20-30 years are no longer 'fit for purpose'.

 

Without court cases to test either the C&RT interpretation or the boaters interpretation, it is impossible to call anyone a piss-taker. C&RT could be taking the piss just as much as the boater and relying on their 'muscle' and money to win the day.

 

In this case, we will have to wait and see.

 

The reality is often far removed from your idealized scenario.

 

Part of my job before I retired involved the management of activities which had to comply with a range of legislation particularly in the fields of Health and Safety and In Loco Parentis duty of care (all of which is very tightly written). One thing I learnt was that whilst one always operated within the Law as written, there were inevitably situations which arose, unforeseen by the law makers, which could lead to the law, as written, being contravened.

 

In such circumstances, if leading to a legal challenge, the Courts would make a judgment as to whether the defendant had acted reasonably whilst still technically committing an offence, The same could also arise where the defendant had acted within the letter of the Law but was found by the Court to have acted unreasonably.

 

That is what the Courts are for, to apply and interpret legislation.

Edited July 13, 2014 by David Schweizer

[b0atman]

Would this problem not have been sorted by CRT having long term offside moorings in the relevant area giving them much needed income.

Supply and demand.

[Graham Davis]

Would this problem not have been sorted by CRT having long term offside moorings in the relevant area giving them much needed income.

Supply and demand.

 

But since CRT often don't own the offside bank how can they rent out mooring along it?

[nicknorman]

Would this problem not have been sorted by CRT having long term offside moorings in the relevant area giving them much needed income.Supply and demand.

They could only do that if they owned the land, which chances are they don't. Plus the canal would have to be wide enough for boats on the VM, boats on the LTM opposite, plus 2 boats actually cruising (god forbid!) and passing each other, with a bit of "spare" to allow for bad steering / x-winds etc.

[mayalld]

Would this problem not have been sorted by CRT having long term offside moorings in the relevant area giving them much needed income.

Supply and demand.

No, I believe that Mr Dunkerly has just such a mooring. The issue is that he doesn't seem to like his mooring and chooses to use visitor moorings instead