Boater With Home Mooring - Court Action Started.

[Ssscrudddy]

 

What if you declare a home mooring and do not CC ?

Lol, isnt that what this thread is about? The guy has a home mooring & doesnt CC so they wanna nick his boat

[mayalld]

 

What if you declare a home mooring and do not CC ?

 

Provided that you return to the home mooring when not actually cruising, no problem!

 

What I think is being missed here, amongst some (interesting to me, I will confess) discussion of the finer points of the law, is what the purpose of the law on moorings is.

 

The purpose is that boats that are not moving about shouldn't be clogging up public mooring space.

 

In the end, if enough people find enough loopholes to allow them to do exactly what the Act was supposed to prevent, CRT will have a good case to go back to HMG and say "the Acts aren't fit for purpose. We need new powers".

 

Those who got one over on BW/CRT may actually be the architects of a new Act that is worse for us all.

[BEngo]

Dave,

 

There is not a snowball's chance in a bonfire that C&RT will ever get Government parliamentary time for legislation on this in the next two Governments, unless C&RT go belly-up.

 

They asked for legislative changes as part of the Bill which transferred BW to CART and were politely but firmly told to go away.

 

Any C&RT Bill now would either have to be a private Bill (as the 1995 BW Act started out) or remotely possibly a hybrid Bill. Either and both are subject to the whims and arcane processes of Parliament and cannot be driven through by the Government of the day. The outcome is thus very uncertain. The changes wrought between the BW Bill introduced in ( IIRC) 1994 and the 1995 Act which eventually emerged were significant, but essential to enable the Bill to proceed at all. Much the same tactics are available today should a new C&RT Bill be introduced (and will no doubt be seen in action against the HS2 Bill currently before Parliament.)

 

About the only advantage a Hybrid or Private Bill has is that it does not fail when Parliament is prorogued.

 

N

[Athy]

 

 

it does not fail when Parliament is prorogued.

 

 

Que?

Something to do with Cajun canoes, n'est-ce pas? I can't imagine Cameron paddling along in one.

[BEngo]

No, it's the term for what happens between elections when Parliament needs a break. The monarch ( at whose whim parliaments exist, technically) tells a parliament to knock-off, by proroguing it, then re-opens it after the break.

 

www.parliament.uk/about/how/occasions/prorogation/

 

N

[bassplayer]

I think I've said it before but it's taken many decades to get this far...why fix it when it's not really broken? The only threat we've all got is having the freedom of the canals/rivers taken away from us.

 

I agree it's good to rap people who blatantly take the piss, but surely CRT funds are better spent on maintaining the system (something that may be a real problem soon). We may all end up with nothing but a mooring.....

[carlt]

Because the purpose of having home moorings is (at least in part) to ensure that opportunities for casual mooring exist for boaters who are actually using their boat.

No it isn't.

What I think is being missed here, amongst some (interesting to me, I will confess) discussion of the finer points of the law, is what the purpose of the law on moorings is.

 

The purpose is that boats that are not moving about shouldn't be clogging up public mooring space.

No it isn't.

[NigelMoore]

 

. . . boats that are not moving about shouldn't be clogging up public mooring space.

 

And the solution? Unclog the public mooring space; don’t waste resources attempting [whether successfully or not being beside my point] to gain extended reasons for reducing the best paying client base.

 

If a boat is clogging up a public mooring, move it off. If the owners do it again, take them to court for obstruction to boot. £100 fine, say £120 costs – CaRT get money in the coffers, boater winces without having to go bankrupt, and rethinks his mooring strategy. Or not of course, in which case CaRT can keep responding as they are entitled to, getting richer by £100 each time, as well as ensuring that newcomers always have a place to moor while the fairly brief small claims processes are dealt with.

 

Leaving aside altogether the legalities of starting the s.8 process as a first reaction [i am not counting the screeds of correspondence drivel serving only to provide a litigation base], the s.8 process does not help unclog the public mooring spaces, except insofar as it helps to engender a fear of such drastic consequences – in the meantime, boats left where they should not be left remain there for far longer. Removal at the end of the process simply deprives the waterways of a paying customer without resolving the immediate problem.

[Captain Zim]

Nigel, since what you say here, and have said before, seems to me the most straight forward and cost effective process for encouraging compliance, can I ask why this is not even a consideration for CRT as far as we know? As with anything, there must be some downsides. What are they? And has this option been suggested to CRT recently?

[BruceinSanity]

And the solution? Unclog the public mooring space; don’t waste resources attempting [whether successfully or not being beside my point] to gain extended reasons for reducing the best paying client base.

 

If a boat is clogging up a public mooring, move it off. If the owners do it again, take them to court for obstruction to boot. £100 fine, say £120 costs – CaRT get money in the coffers, boater winces without having to go bankrupt, and rethinks his mooring strategy. Or not of course, in which case CaRT can keep responding as they are entitled to, getting richer by £100 each time, as well as ensuring that newcomers always have a place to moor while the fairly brief small claims processes are dealt with.

 

Leaving aside altogether the legalities of starting the s.8 process as a first reaction [i am not counting the screeds of correspondence drivel serving only to provide a litigation base], the s.8 process does not help unclog the public mooring spaces, except insofar as it helps to engender a fear of such drastic consequences – in the meantime, boats left where they should not be left remain there for far longer. Removal at the end of the process simply deprives the waterways of a paying customer without resolving the immediate problem.

1) does clogging up a public mooring constitute obstruction within the meaning of the Act? Unless the channel is very narrow, it's not impeding navigation, surely?

 

2) I thought you said in another thread that the £100 was a fine upon summary conviction, so would just end up in the Treasury, not CRT's coffers.

 

I only ask because I want to know...

[NigelMoore]

1) does clogging up a public mooring constitute obstruction within the meaning of the Act? Unless the channel is very narrow, it's not impeding navigation, surely?

 

2) I thought you said in another thread that the £100 was a fine upon summary conviction, so would just end up in the Treasury, not CRT's coffers.

 

Obstruction may not necessarily involve impeding navigation. There are a half-dozen relevant byelaws on obstruction of one form or another. Overstaying on a restricted time Visitor Mooring by a trading boat was held by a County Court judge to amount to obstruction, entitling BW to physically move the boat off under the combined effect of 1983,s.8(5) and 1995,s.18. That was Taylor v BWB in Birmingham County Court 2001.

 

As to who gets the fines imposed by the court I honestly haven’t the faintest idea. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that they went to the complainant, but it appears from what you say that that is wrong?

[Hawkmoth]

 

Obstruction may not necessarily involve impeding navigation. There are a half-dozen relevant byelaws on obstruction of one form or another. Overstaying on a restricted time Visitor Mooring by a trading boat was held by a County Court judge to amount to obstruction, entitling BW to physically move the boat off under the combined effect of 1983,s.8(5) and 1995,s.18. That was Taylor v BWB in Birmingham County Court 2001.

 

As to who gets the fines imposed by the court I honestly haven’t the faintest idea. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that they went to the complainant, but it appears from what you say that that is wrong?

I would have thought that court fines would go to the exchequer. Don't they always end up with our money?

Perhaps CRT could get costs+.

Bob

[bassplayer]

Nigel, since what you say here, and have said before, seems to me the most straight forward and cost effective process for encouraging compliance, can I ask why this is not even a consideration for CRT as far as we know? As with anything, there must be some downsides. What are they? And has this option been suggested to CRT recently?

1) Enforcement often means dealing face to face with the owner of the boat?...Would you like that job? (especially if you intend to take his/her home away from them).

 

2) You can fine someone as much as you like, but if they have no money it's a waste of time. If you take the boat off them, the council are not going to like having to pick up the pieces.

 

As I said earlier, some people just don't see the 'big picture' do they?

[Machpoint005]

I would have thought that court fines would go to the exchequer. Don't they always end up with our money?

Perhaps CRT could get costs+.

Bob

 

Fines for anything end up in the Consolidated Fund, which is a great big central government catch-all bucket.

[bassplayer]

In a way, each individual case needs to be addressed separately. The court is probably in a better place to make a decision based on the boat owners financial and personal situation than CRT. Hopefully that way the piss takers will get what they deserve and genuine cases will get the support they need. I'm not convinced more rules will help.

[cotswoldsman]

1) Enforcement often means dealing face to face with the owner of the boat?...Would you like that job? (especially if you intend to take his/her home away from them).

 

 

I wish that were the case but unfortunately there is very little inter action between enforcement and boaters. I am a strong believer that if there was more interaction between boaters and enforcement a lot of these problems could be solved at an early stage.

[carlt]

1) Enforcement often means dealing face to face with the owner of the boat?...Would you like that job? (especially if you intend to take his/her home away from them).

#

 

If you are not happy to talk face to face with punters then enforcement is not the job for you.

 

There is always some hostility when your job is enforcement but it is very rare.

 

It is worth bearing in mind that many patrol officers are ex-police officers so do have a certain amount of relevant experience.

[cotswoldsman]

#

 

If you are not happy to talk face to face with punters then enforcement is not the job for you.

 

There is always some hostility when your job is enforcement but it is very rare.

 

It is worth bearing in mind that many patrol officers are ex-police officers so do have a certain amount of relevant experience.

Carl also wish that were true might have been ex police officers in the "old dsys" most now are simply putting numbers into a hand held computer and when head office says issue a ticket they write the ticket out preferably when no one is on the boat or just very quietly attach ticket to boat

[carlt]

Carl also wish that were true might have been ex police officers in the "old dsys" most now are simply putting numbers into a hand held computer and when head office says issue a ticket they write the ticket out preferably when no one is on the boat or just very quietly attach ticket to boat

That is a great shame.

[Captain Zim]

1) Enforcement often means dealing face to face with the owner of the boat?...Would you like that job? (especially if you intend to take his/her home away from them).

 

2) You can fine someone as much as you like, but if they have no money it's a waste of time. If you take the boat off them, the council are not going to like having to pick up the pieces.

 

As I said earlier, some people just don't see the 'big picture' do they?

1) enforcement is my job. Dealing face to face is what grown ups do.

 

2) I agree with this. The act of obstruction I think may be a criminal offence, so although the fine is perhaps never to be paid (and it goes to the court by the way) there is some outcome.

 

Don't get me wrong, in 99.9% of cases I think the use of these powers would be completely unnecessary if the enforcement officers, as John says, got out and talked to people a bit more. Worked the pounds, had a chat etc etc As per my earlier post, it seems to have worked in the south east as things seem to be a bit better. So all in all, as far as seeing the bigger picture goes, I think I do fairly well.

 

But as others have said, and as is unfortunately the case in any society, there has to be an ultimate sanction otherwise nothing works. If you disagree with that, that's fine. But you're living in a fantasy world if you think that everyone will one day just get along and do the right thing. And you know what, as an enforcement officer, I hate saying that. I would quite happily walk away from my job if the world was like that because the world would be a much nicer place to live. But I think, for now, I'm likely to stay employed.

 

Edited to add: the art to enforcement, if such a thing can be said to exist, is to remember that the person you are dealing with is a human being, and deserves utmost respect at all times, and that in 99% of cases has not committed a crime likely to lead to the end of civilisation. In other words, to retain some perspective on things.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Captain Zim

[matty40s]

Carl also wish that were true might have been ex police officers in the "old dsys" most now are simply putting numbers into a hand held computer and when head office says issue a ticket they write the ticket out preferably when no one is on the boat or just very quietly attach ticket to boat

I disagree John, the data checkers and enforcement officers are two different people.

The enforcement currently in the east Midlands is as good as I have seen it, not just ticketing CC poss taking over stayers,but also home moored overstaying as well, with good explanations given.

Anyone on board who is starting to blip the computers is spoken to if around.

I have this on good authority from personal conversations and observations over quite a wide area whilst moving boats and my own moorings.

[cotswoldsman]

I disagree John, the data checkers and enforcement officers are two different people.

The enforcement currently in the east Midlands is as good as I have seen it, not just ticketing CC poss taking over stayers,but also home moored overstaying as well, with good explanations given.

Anyone on board who is starting to blip the computers is spoken to if around.

I have this on good authority from personal conversations and observations over quite a wide area whilst moving boats and my own moorings.

Matty that sounds good but sorry to say that is not consistent over the country but going by your post and the one by Zim shows that CRT are maybe listening to the associations who have been pushing for more interaction between enforcement and boaters. I do take on board that some boaters simply will not listen

[NigelMoore]

Nigel, since what you say here, and have said before, seems to me the most straight forward and cost effective process for encouraging compliance, can I ask why this is not even a consideration for CRT as far as we know? As with anything, there must be some downsides. What are they? And has this option been suggested to CRT recently?

 

It’s a good question. I note that various people have each come up with ideas, any and all of which contain part of the truth.

 

bassplayer's option (1) #513 deals with the most immediate reason, as I have recounted before. It is now, and has been for some years, official policy to not place employees in face to face confrontation with boaters, as is inevitably involved in towing a boat away from where it is causing an obstruction [if they are aboard that is]. They will do so only when they can get police officers to attend also ‘to keep the peace’ – at considerable expense and with great uncertainty of availability.

 

How ‘new’ this policy is I don’t know – obviously, as one point, in some places, they did exactly as they should – as they did twice in the Taylor v BWB scenario. As carlt has noted, there are those with the requisite background and training to cope perfectly well with such situations – and in fact the last enforcement officer I encountered was a retired police officer [he did take too much upon himself, but had the ability to conduct himself amiably in an unpopular role without exacerbating aggression.]

 

Then again, the simple small claims action for obstruction does not need any more personal contact than what they do engage in. In that respect, I am afraid that the mindset is simply one that regards the fines as too trivial for the bother taken. This was expressly stated by one of the judges in a recent case the details of which escape me just now. He got the sums wrong in fact, but the principle remains – he agreed with BW/CaRT that a mere £50 was derisory and ineffective. He would doubtless have said as much had he known it was £100. Of course, as I said earlier, the allowable court costs would more than double that, so I cannot agree with the characterisation of the penalty as derisory - and if CaRT thought/think that directly imposing way less [£25] was going to be effective, then it is entirely disingenuous to suggest that a fine nearly 10 times that [with costs] is of no useful effect.

[NigelMoore]

The act of obstruction I think may be a criminal offence, so although the fine is perhaps never to be paid (and it goes to the court by the way) there is some outcome.

 

If the authority bringing the action do not get the fine, then that is one more reason I daresay, for why they do not bother! At least they are entitled to the costs of bringing the action, so it is cost free for them.

 

If the boater is so poor that he cannot pay such a relatively modest sum, then any larger scale action - as on a s.8 basis - is surely going to be very costly indeed for CaRT unless the value of the seized boat can cover them. The simpler action remains – perhaps even more of a consideration in such circumstances – the preferable choice even from a business angle.

 

Yes, there is too, the outcome of a record of an offence, although how that fits into the scheme of things in terms of a criminal record I am again uncertain. Presumably the same sort of road offences are in the same category, and yet don’t usually get counted as part of a criminal record. But for many I would think that it was something to avoid.

 

There is also another consideration in CaRT’s mind for not simply moving the boat along when it causes an obstruction – for that, they are not entitled to recover the costs of doing so. It can surely involve only the time of an employee doing their job, or at most some fuel for a patrol boat, so I don’t see it as a valid excuse, but that is the situation.

 

S.8(2) removal of the vessel does entitle them to the recovery of the [considerable] costs of doing so, but s.8(5) moving a boat along does not – also confirmed by the judge in Taylor v BWB. Yet this action not only clears any obstruction for others to use the mooring without undue delay, it does so at the offender’s inconvenience regardless of whether he can pay fines or not, so has to be the obvious choice.

 

The fact remains that mooring offences where these can be held to be violations of law, carry their own approved sanctions and those sanctions are what should be applied. Failure to abide by the law in this respect is not a valid reason to withdraw the boat licence.

 

What revoking the licence and implementing s.8 does, is announce to all that you are incapable of governing the waterways, that you don’t wish to exercise the powers of control that have been given you, and that rather than having to deal with problem customers appropriately, you prefer getting rid of them.

 

I am not against use of this ultimate sanction per se, but we have come a very long way from the days when it was acknowledged to be the weapon of last resort. It is puerile to protest that it is done only at the end of a lengthy period of attempted resolution, when/if not a single appropriate action has been taken to resolve the issue with the less drastic and immediately effective powers available. S.8 should be invoked only when those avenues have been exhausted.

[mayalld]

 

Then again, the simple small claims action for obstruction does not need any more personal contact than what they do engage in. In that respect, I am afraid that the mindset is simply one that regards the fines as too trivial for the bother taken. This was expressly stated by one of the judges in a recent case the details of which escape me just now. He got the sums wrong in fact, but the principle remains – he agreed with BW/CaRT that a mere £50 was derisory and ineffective.

 

BWB vs Ward.