Boater With Home Mooring - Court Action Started.

[Captain Zim]

If you owed CRT costs for a court case (forget the fine, that's the court's problem) then surely they'd mention this when you came to re-licence? You can't hide from them forever. Anyway, the whole point is with a better approach hopefully it would never come to this and people wouldn't need to be fined.

 

One problem I thought of: I fail to move my boat. It's on a VM. after 14 days CRT call me up and tell me they're moving it out of sight of the VM's. I go home. 14 days later I don't move again. Where do they move me to now? Not back to the VM's obviously. So further away? How far this time?

[MtB]

If you owed CRT costs for a court case (forget the fine, that's the court's problem) then surely they'd mention this when you came to re-licence?

 

 

I'm sure they would, but as Nigel regularly points out, they have no authority to refuse a licence for the reason you owe them money.

 

Which leads on to another question, can you get a licence without giving a postal address? EG by applying in person at a CRT office?

 

MtB

[Bod]

If you owed CRT costs for a court case (forget the fine, that's the court's problem) then surely they'd mention this when you came to re-licence? You can't hide from them forever. Anyway, the whole point is with a better approach hopefully it would never come to this and people wouldn't need to be fined.

 

One problem I thought of: I fail to move my boat. It's on a VM. after 14 days CRT call me up and tell me they're moving it out of sight of the VM's. I go home. 14 days later I don't move again. Where do they move me to now? Not back to the VM's obviously. So further away? How far this time?

 

Move you to a more inconvenient spot.

Repeat offenders, would be removed from C&RT waters. Been warned in an unmissable way!

 

Bod

Edited July 16, 2014 by Bod

[Jerra]

Surely if it has been there 14 days it should be moved to the next "place".

[NigelMoore]

Which leads on to another question, can you get a licence without giving a postal address? EG by applying in person at a CRT office?

 

Schedule 2 of the 1971 Act lists the “Particulars To Be Supplied For Registration Of Pleasure Boats And Houseboats” as including Name and address of owner and Name & Address of applicant for registration.”

 

So no. Potentially only, there might be an argument that these days an electronic address could be substituted for a postal address to conform to the statutory requirement, but in the strictest terms of the expression as drafted in the days of Top Hats and monocles, a street address is obviously meant.

 

Given that even then, live aboard pleasure boats were statistically significant, it could also be argued that boat people could presumably give accommodation addresses. However an ability to identify and contact the owner/master was at the heart of that legislation [as recorded in the Select Committee Minutes], so that is the essential meaning that must be accorded to the wording.

[phill]

 

#511

 

Overstaying on a restricted time Visitor Mooring by a trading boat was held by a County Court judge to amount to obstruction.

 

Boat Licence Terms & Conditions Schedule 2, section 6

 

An overstaying boat is causing an obstruction at a mooring since it

means that the mooring is not available for other boats to use.

 

 

I still bow to ladies, but I dont recall monocles and top hats being prevalent in 1995?

What is the legal basis for time limiting moorings ? ( without facilities)

[MtB]

What is the legal basis for time limiting moorings ? ( without facilities)

 

Oversimplified, the law only allows mooring out on the cut which is incidental to cruising. BW arbitrarily settled on 14 days.as a rather generous allowance for stopping and mooring during your cruise.

 

Otherwise you must keep your boat on its home mooring or be engaged on a continuous cruise.

 

No doubt Nigel will correct me on most of this

 

Actually I wonder if this is the rational behind CRT's fight with Mr Dunkley. They may plan to say his mooring pattern illustrates he is not cruising his boat, but just storing it out on the cut.

 

MtB

[boathunter]

So is it right that you can't licence as a boat with a home mooring without a street address?

[NigelMoore]

What is the legal basis for time limiting moorings ? ( without facilities)

 

That depends entirely upon whether you are talking about offside or onside.

 

Offside mooring facilities - whether owned by CaRT or private members of the public – are not time limited by statute; the duration of stay at such locations is entirely down to the owner, with the constant proviso that there shall be no obstruction to the navigation of boats.

 

So the legal basis for CaRT to set time limits on such moorings arises from the grant of ability to provide such services in the Enabling Acts, in conjunction with the lifting of ceilings on costs and conditions for supplying such services as was provided for under s.43 of the 1962 Transport Act.

 

There is no similar legal basis for setting time limits on mooring to the towpath. The situation there is rather the other way around – one could ask what legal basis there might be for permitting any mooring other than that which is necessary in the course of navigation [i.e. overnight stays]. There is none.

 

The so-called “14 day Rule” is, as I have said oft before, best understood as a rule of thumb period of tolerance, within which time the authority will not get upset about a boat staying moored at the same place. It was supposedly based [according to what Parliament was told by BW] on similar periods of grace afforded indigents travelling between parishes.

 

As for a legal basis for permitting mooring to the towpath for up to 14 days, this applies only to those who, by virtue of the relevant provision in the 1995 Act, apply for the necessary “relevant consent” not having a home mooring.

 

In short, there is no legal basis for setting time periods as a positive right for anyone other than CC’ers to moor to the towpath longer than necessary for their journey. But that could be quite the reverse import to what you may have expected.

 

{I see MtB has provided a more digestible synopsis of the position]

[MtB]

So is it right that you can't licence as a boat with a home mooring without a street address?

 

No. Somewhat tangentially it makes no difference whether you have a home mooring or not.

 

It's the same application form and the same licence. You need a postal address regardless, it appears.

 

MtB

[NigelMoore]

Actually I wonder if this is the rational behind CRT's fight with Mr Dunkley. They may plan to say his mooring pattern illustrates he is not cruising his boat, but just storing it out on the cut.

 

It is indeed. I rather suspect they know very well s.8 can’t ‘bite’ under the particular geographical circumstances. They are taking the tack that because he isn’t engaging in navigation, he is therefore by default NOT a pleasure boat at all, and so has to be classified as a houseboat.

 

There is no discernible geographical limitation or savings for houseboat certificates as there are for pleasure boat licences/certificates, so that’s why they are emphasising this as an action under s.13 of the 1971 Act rather than an action under s.8 of the 1983 Act.

 

It’s a line of argument that has impressed judges before now, so could well do so again. This time around, however, there are the musings of the Brown v CaRT judge to factor in as to the definitions of ‘pleasure boats’ vis-à-vis ‘houseboats’. The vast bulk of narrowboats spend their time year-round at moorings, despite being obviously designed and intended for cruising. It is that latter characteristic that makes them pleasure boats instead of houseboats; they do not become houseboats simply because they spend most of their time in a marina.

 

That argument, however, is how they will justify the power to evict from the waterways; it is separate from the issue as to whether they were entitled to deny the relevant consent in the first place, nor as to whether this was appropriate, instead of dealing with the alleged improper mooring according to the powers entrusted to them for that purpose.

[NigelMoore]

It's the same application form and the same licence. You need a postal address regardless, it appears.

 

Clarifying what I said earlier, you need to supply an address of whatever sort that will enable the authority to communicate with you, and to serve notices and court papers on you should they need to.

 

Accommodation addresses will serve that purpose, and I can envisage electronic addresses being accepted – at some point in the future at least.

 

The caveat to providing anything other than a street address which you have regular access to, is that you could miss out on timeously collecting important notices that have been sent to your “address for service” – and if these are time-sensitive court documents, they will be deemed to have been served on you within standard postal delivery expectations.

 

In line with this, I noticed a couple of years ago that the courts have decreed that placing court application notices on a defendant’s ‘facebook’ page could be deemed lawfully served, if no alternative street address was discoverable.

 

So you either provide the appropriate address or suffer the consequences should you fall foul of that rookie enforcement officer without your even being aware of it!

[BruceinSanity]

Sorry. I didn't mean literally wait by the boat. I meant deal with those cases slightly differently.

As for the question over why someone wouldn't give a phone number, I agree this is always a possibility. But I am slightly confused. It seems to me that quite often, those who shout loudest for something to be done about this menace are also those who pick holes in all the suggestions that come up. What do we actually want? For pisstakers to be shot at dawn and their boats sunk in the channel? We have to start somewhere. So far, there seems to be a genuine improvement as a result of CRT talking to boaters as asking them to do the decent thing. The movement of obstructing boats is simply giving this method a bit more bite without financially inconveniencing either party.

I don't advocate moving boats when it is not possible to inform the owner of where their boat is.

Leaving notes won't work unfortunately as these can and do go missing. Theoretically it should be possible to work with the local police so that if someone reports a boat stolen, they check a register of boats moved that day. I say theoretically because this sort of thing is always tricky. That said, if enough boats are suddenly being moved and reported as stolen, the police will have a big incentive to work with CRT to manage the situation.

Anyhow, if this idea is no good, which is entirely possible, how about some other ideas from all those who want to see the problem sorted. Personally, overstayers, cmers, whatever you want to call them, don't bother me in the slightest. Maybe I've just got too much else to be interested in?

A second greenie from me. You do talk a lot of sense, Cap'n.

 

It canna last...

 

 

[Naughty Cal]

 

I think this is unknown to the majority of people and should be worth C&RT publishing the information as a 'warning'.

 

Do you have any documents or evidence of this, or is it just "people known to you" ?

Just a couple of boats that were seen to be shuffled up and down the Fossdyke by CRT staff with their tug. Both cruisers one very elderly which is now sunk in the CRT Lincoln depot. The other a more modern cruiser which is being stored at our marina at the request of CRT.

[cotswoldsman]

Oversimplified, the law only allows mooring out on the cut which is incidental to cruising. BW arbitrarily settled on 14 days.as a rather generous allowance for stopping and mooring during your cruise.

 

Otherwise you must keep your boat on its home mooring or be engaged on a continuous cruise.

 

No doubt Nigel will correct me on most of this

 

Actually I wonder if this is the rational behind CRT's fight with Mr Dunkley. They may plan to say his mooring pattern illustrates he is not cruising his boat, but just storing it out on the cut.

 

MtB

I am on my phone so looking all the way through the 1995 Act a bit difficult but can not remember anything in the act that says "be engaged in a continuous cruise" could,do you just provide a link so I can refresh my memory? Thank you in advance

 

Edited: predictive text on phone drives me nuts

Edited July 17, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[MtB]

I am on my phone so looking all the way through the 1995 Act a bit difficult but can not remember anything in the act that says "be engaged in a continuous cruise" could,do you just provide a link so I can refresh my memory? Thank you in advance

 

Edited: predictive text on phone drives me nuts

 

No I can't. I was paraphrasing the requirements. I may be wrong in that detail. What do YOU think the law says? You should know far more than me about it, being boss of the ACC.

 

MtB

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I am on my phone so looking all the way through the 1995 Act a bit difficult but can not remember anything in the act that says "be engaged in a continuous cruise" could,do you just provide a link so I can refresh my memory? Thank you in advance

 

Edited: predictive text on phone drives me nuts

Its 2.1 in licencing terms and conditions

Edited July 17, 2014 by Allan(nb Albert)

[cotswoldsman]

 

No I can't. I was paraphrasing the requirements. I may be wrong in that detail. What do YOU think the law says? You should know far more than me about it, being boss of the ACC.

 

MtB

You really are getting confused it is not what I think the law says it is what the acts of parliament say so can I suggest you slow down on your posts and spend some time reading them

I am simply a member of ACC be it a founder member but yes I do appear to know far more than you but going by your posts that would not be difficult

[NigelMoore]

It has always surprised me that no-one else seems ever to have challenged the practice started by BW of serving s.13 notices simultaneously with s.8’s when taking live-aboards to court. This is especially ridiculous when they are doing so because they are unhappy about a boat not moving enough.

 

The essence of a houseboat is that it is NOT a pleasure boat, i.e. not genuinely “used for navigation”; it being distinguished in that respect as something that is essentially fixed in its position and is NOT designed to be used for navigation [although it can be so used from time to time].

 

According to the 1971 Act, without the Houseboat Certificate, it “shall not be lawful to moor, place, keep or maintain any houseboat in an inland waterway” – the list is all about variants on static mooring.

 

An important characteristic of the Houseboat Certificate that separates it from all other forms of BW certificate or licence, is that it alone, carries no unilateral authority. It is implicit in the terms that there must be a place where the houseboat can be “moored, placed, kept or maintained”, and the use of that place for the purpose must be authorised separately by the local planning authority.

 

So how can the Pleasure Boat suddenly qualify, under such terms, for re-classification as a Houseboat, when the only reason for doing so is to “cover all bases” when asking a court to rubber stamp eviction of a live-aboard [bearing in mind also, that living aboard is expressly stated in the Act to be irrelevant to the houseboat definition]?

 

In the present case of course, it is a contrivance to legitimise eviction of a pleasure boat – as it had always been classified by BW/CaRT prior to wanting it off their waterways – in circumstances where such eviction is otherwise problematic.

 

It seems obvious that judges like the classification so much because it appears to be so clear and unequivocal – it’s unlawful to have a houseboat anywhere in the jurisdiction without the relevant Certificate, it doesn’t have such a certificate, ergo it’s gotta go.

 

I wonder if at any time a judge is going to stop to think long enough to wonder why, if the boat has NEVER had such a certificate, it wasn’t evicted long before? Why, in the case of the tens of thousands of other boats that are hardly ever engaged in navigation, they aren’t all evicted for having the “wrong” licence/certificate?

[NigelMoore]

The other interesting aspect of a s.13 Notice, is that the section does not grant BW any power to demand that the Houseboat be removed from the waterway – it simply provides for them to remove/have removed the vessel/structure from the location where it is “moored, placed, kept or maintained” [it being integral to the definition that such a specific location exists]. Absent removal, the Act grants power to demolish the houseboat instead.

 

As s.8 is the one that provides for removal from the waterways, what practical, let alone legitimate purpose then, is served by also serving s.13?

 

Also, if certification as a houseboat is considered by CaRT to not be an option because it does not fit the definition, how can it be legal to demand that you have such a certificate, instead of a Pleasure Boat Certificate? The T&C’s state:

 

“If a boat is a Houseboat (see Definitions 1.4) you may purchase a Houseboat Certificate. These are only issued for boats covered by a Canal & River Trust long term mooring agreement, and the Houseboat Certificate and Trust mooring agreement must run concurrently with the same expiry dates.”

 

The whole scenario is a farcical lawyers’ dream. If it’s a houseboat without a certificate, it must be moved off the mooring – but it isn’t on the mooring anyway !? If it’s a houseboat it must keep on the move and the certificate is refused because it isn’t kept on the move instead of being kept at its mooring which is what the definition demands!?

 

If it can’t be a houseboat because it isn’t covered by a CaRT long term mooring agreement [as per the T&C’s], or because it isn’t on any other mooring with appropriate LPA consent [let alone because it’s actually a pleasure boat by definition], then where does s.13 fit in?

 

Despite the claim that this boat must be a Houseboat because it is NOT used “predominantly for navigation”, the T&C’s specifically allow that in such a case “A standard (Pleasure Boat) licence is acceptable” – although “you may request a Houseboat Certificate.”

 

If it isn’t a houseboat, then not only does s.13 not apply, but neither – in these special geographical circumstances – does s.8, if he keeps his boat out of the main navigational channel [whether on his own mooring or anywhere else with the landowner’s consent provided that too is out of the channel. To get from one to the other, he WILL need the certificate to navigate of course, but if situated thus legally by the time matters come to court, the maximum penalty imposable under the law is the £50 fine and £5/day from the date of withdrawal of the licence for every day he is out in the channel without the relevant consent - and that is supposing that withdrawal was valid in the first place!

[Paul C]

It has always surprised me that no-one else seems ever to have challenged the practice started by BW of serving s.13 notices simultaneously with s.8’s when taking live-aboards to court. This is especially ridiculous when they are doing so because they are unhappy about a boat not moving enough.

 

The essence of a houseboat is that it is NOT a pleasure boat, i.e. not genuinely “used for navigation”; it being distinguished in that respect as something that is essentially fixed in its position and is NOT designed to be used for navigation [although it can be so used from time to time].

 

According to the 1971 Act, without the Houseboat Certificate, it “shall not be lawful to moor, place, keep or maintain any houseboat in an inland waterway” – the list is all about variants on static mooring.

 

An important characteristic of the Houseboat Certificate that separates it from all other forms of BW certificate or licence, is that it alone, carries no unilateral authority. It is implicit in the terms that there must be a place where the houseboat can be “moored, placed, kept or maintained”, and the use of that place for the purpose must be authorised separately by the local planning authority.

 

So how can the Pleasure Boat suddenly qualify, under such terms, for re-classification as a Houseboat, when the only reason for doing so is to “cover all bases” when asking a court to rubber stamp eviction of a live-aboard [bearing in mind also, that living aboard is expressly stated in the Act to be irrelevant to the houseboat definition]?

 

In the present case of course, it is a contrivance to legitimise eviction of a pleasure boat – as it had always been classified by BW/CaRT prior to wanting it off their waterways – in circumstances where such eviction is otherwise problematic.

 

It seems obvious that judges like the classification so much because it appears to be so clear and unequivocal – it’s unlawful to have a houseboat anywhere in the jurisdiction without the relevant Certificate, it doesn’t have such a certificate, ergo it’s gotta go.

 

I wonder if at any time a judge is going to stop to think long enough to wonder why, if the boat has NEVER had such a certificate, it wasn’t evicted long before? Why, in the case of the tens of thousands of other boats that are hardly ever engaged in navigation, they aren’t all evicted for having the “wrong” licence/certificate?

 

 

The other interesting aspect of a s.13 Notice, is that the section does not grant BW any power to demand that the Houseboat be removed from the waterway – it simply provides for them to remove/have removed the vessel/structure from the location where it is “moored, placed, kept or maintained” [it being integral to the definition that such a specific location exists]. Absent removal, the Act grants power to demolish the houseboat instead.

 

As s.8 is the one that provides for removal from the waterways, what practical, let alone legitimate purpose then, is served by also serving s.13?

 

Also, if certification as a houseboat is considered by CaRT to not be an option because it does not fit the definition, how can it be legal to demand that you have such a certificate, instead of a Pleasure Boat Certificate? The T&C’s state:

 

“If a boat is a Houseboat (see Definitions 1.4) you may purchase a Houseboat Certificate. These are only issued for boats covered by a Canal & River Trust long term mooring agreement, and the Houseboat Certificate and Trust mooring agreement must run concurrently with the same expiry dates.”

 

The whole scenario is a farcical lawyers’ dream. If it’s a houseboat without a certificate, it must be moved off the mooring – but it isn’t on the mooring anyway !? If it’s a houseboat it must keep on the move and the certificate is refused because it isn’t kept on the move instead of being kept at its mooring which is what the definition demands!?

 

If it can’t be a houseboat because it isn’t covered by a CaRT long term mooring agreement [as per the T&C’s], or because it isn’t on any other mooring with appropriate LPA consent [let alone because it’s actually a pleasure boat by definition], then where does s.13 fit in?

 

Despite the claim that this boat must be a Houseboat because it is NOT used “predominantly for navigation”, the T&C’s specifically allow that in such a case “A standard (Pleasure Boat) licence is acceptable” – although “you may request a Houseboat Certificate.”

 

If it isn’t a houseboat, then not only does s.13 not apply, but neither – in these special geographical circumstances – does s.8, if he keeps his boat out of the main navigational channel [whether on his own mooring or anywhere else with the landowner’s consent provided that too is out of the channel. To get from one to the other, he WILL need the certificate to navigate of course, but if situated thus legally by the time matters come to court, the maximum penalty imposable under the law is the £50 fine and £5/day from the date of withdrawal of the licence for every day he is out in the channel without the relevant consent - and that is supposing that withdrawal was valid in the first place!

 

I guess its up to someone who is facing a s.13 AND s.8 process, to contest the ridiculousness of bringing both against them simultaneously. I guess CRT started also mentioning/bringing cases on s.13 because they foresaw a loophole which allowed a boater, once their boat was deemed not to move enough to be a pleasure boat, to simply declare it as a houseboat and get off with the original offence. As with any court case, debating the path it might take in court is one thing, but as every case hinges on the facts of that particular case, so trying to extrapolate into future (unprecedented) court cases is not really possible, but its good discussion to guess what might happen.

[NigelMoore]

CaRT are actually re-drafting the definition of Houseboats now, to remove the section I quoted regarding the Certificates only being granted for boats covered by a Canal & River Trust long term mooring agreement.

 

This is because they still want to be in a position to extract licence fees from boats on the Brent, at the lower end of the Grand Union. Even while acknowledging that no navigation licence is required for boats not venturing above the Gauging Locks, they are saying that boaters must prove that they do take the boats navigating out on the Thames – by producing their up-to-date PLA boat licence [!!!]. In default of this, they will be classified as houseboats and Certificates demanded.

 

It’s a way of simplifying definitions I suppose, and is tying in directly with the approach being taken with the instant case - but has the effect of turning all long-term “home moorers” into houseboats automatically, unless they can prove they engage in the designed purpose for navigation – a variant on the “Use it or Lose it” slogan.

 

That then poses a whole new set of problems for the authority, because all those moorings they provide or approve for the purpose would have to be considered tied to the boat, with the statutory obligation of allowing the value of the moorings to be passed on with sale of the boat – i.e. automatic security of tenure for all the thousands of boaters for whom CaRT provide moorings directly via BWML et al.

 

[simon Robbins is the specialist on the subject, being the campaigner for retention of the Houseboat Certificate for this reason, when BW were keen to abolish them altogether [they still seek to escape the concomitant responsibilities of them].

[Mike Todd]

Why would you not give your licensing authority a valid phone number or email address?

 

It's on the forms each and every time you renew. If it's not up to date renew it.

 

I'm sorry but i would rather CRT had my up to date details incase they find my boat in distress.

 

Why would you not want them to contact you?

 

Unless if course you intend to take the piss. In which case let them take your boat. But don't complain they couldn't contact you!

I suspect (Nigel M??) that deliberately giving false information on the licence application form would be grounds for withdrawing the licence (it certainly is in other sitiuations)

[NigelMoore]

The 1971 Act on Pleasure Boat Certificates provides that the Board shall issue these “on payment to them for the registration of any pleasure boat of the prescribed charge and delivery to them on a form to be supplied by the Board of the particulars which are set out in Schedule 2 to this Act, together with such additional information as the Board shall, from time to time, determine”.

 

I would suggest that supplying false information is NOT "delivery to - the Board - of the particulars" requested - which would void the application as being contrary to statutory requirements.

[Naughty Cal]

Can I ask Nigel a quick question?

 

Just how much of your time does studying and quoting CRT actually take up?