Boater With Home Mooring - Court Action Started.

[NigelMoore]

Do you perceive something to sneer at, in the ability to produce proven facts and their provenance for anything posted?

I spend very little time on CaRT propaganda. I have spent such time as was necessary to learn enough of Statute and other law as could fend off the authority's determination to evict me from the waterways for utterly specious [and originally purely venal] reasons based on dishonest representations of what the law permitted them.

At some point, I shall get a specialist legal firm to quantify that, in order to claim the 75% of the value of that time at statute-set rates as has been awarded to me by the courts for success in establishing that the authority was wrong.

Only then would I be in a position to give you a meaningful answer.

[NigelMoore]

 

As with any court case, debating the path it might take in court is one thing . . .

 

The course this will take in court will hinge [as all cases do] upon the outcome of the case management conference in September, when the court will decide what significant issues lie for determination.

 

This is where such cases are won or lost. It is highly likely that CaRT’s specialist barrister will manage to persuade the court that only such issues need deciding as he knows cannot fail. If he does, it’s a slam-dunk, having managed to bypass the real core issues.

 

Recognising the import of what is included and what is discarded so far as questions for decision are concerned, is the area of greatest difficulty and vulnerability for any litigant in person.

[bassplayer]

 

....could fend off the authority's determination to evict me from the waterways for utterly specious [and originally purely venal] reasons based on dishonest representations of what the law permitted them.

Ok, I'm being nosey again but I would love to know what the reasons were....

[Ange]

I did follow this for 28 pages but have dipped out for the latest so apologies if this has been covered.

 

I'm being very selfish here, just thinking about our situation. We've cc'd for the last 5 years and during the winter I've worked. With the exception of a short period of time when we took a mooring at Beeston Marina we've cc'd while I've been working. This year I need to work throughout the summer and have a contract until the end of January. We decided that although we have enough of a cruising range to legitimately cc we'd spare ourselves the hassle and get ourselves a mooring.

 

Now here's the rub. We have a mooring which I thought meant we could amble out and back at will (never staying more than we should at designated moorings but occasionally staying on them.) I thought that now we were paying for a mooring the cc rules were no longer applicable to us. Have I got this wrong. There is no way we are staying in this marina until January without venturing out onto the cut. There is also no way we are going through the hassle of abiding by cc rules when we have a legitimate mooring.

 

If by venturing out on the cut regularly we suddenly fall foul of some new found regulation then sod it we'll give up our marina mooring and take our chances.

 

We're desperately trying to abide by the rules but it seems if you can't be pigeon holed you're stuffed!

[nicknorman]

I did follow this for 28 pages but have dipped out for the latest so apologies if this has been covered.

 

I'm being very selfish here, just thinking about our situation. We've cc'd for the last 5 years and during the winter I've worked. With the exception of a short period of time when we took a mooring at Beeston Marina we've cc'd while I've been working. This year I need to work throughout the summer and have a contract until the end of January. We decided that although we have enough of a cruising range to legitimately cc we'd spare ourselves the hassle and get ourselves a mooring.

 

Now here's the rub. We have a mooring which I thought meant we could amble out and back at will (never staying more than we should at designated moorings but occasionally staying on them.) I thought that now we were paying for a mooring the cc rules were no longer applicable to us. Have I got this wrong. There is no way we are staying in this marina until January without venturing out onto the cut. There is also no way we are going through the hassle of abiding by cc rules when we have a legitimate mooring.

 

If by venturing out on the cut regularly we suddenly fall foul of some new found regulation then sod it we'll give up our marina mooring and take our chances.

 

We're desperately trying to abide by the rules but it seems if you can't be pigeon holed you're stuffed!

You have nothing to worry about! Plenty of folk have marina berths, and plenty of them regularly pop out of the marina for a weekend and stay in similar locations on a Saturday night. What perhaps has to be avoided is spending 1 night in the marina, 14 days on a prime mooring and repeating this pattern at the same prime mooring ad infinitum. It is just a matter of being reasonable about it.

[NigelMoore]

You have nothing to worry about!

 

Agreed. Regardless of the basis on which you obtained your licence, you are entitled to the benefits entailed in engaging a legitimate mooring should you choose, and there is in fact nothing in the letter of the law on CC’ing that could constrain your use of the waterway as you doubtless envisage. The only potential conflict that could arise would do so arising from extrapolation of the requirements, rather than the statutory requirements themselves.

 

The authority can and do take action against boaters regardless, but only when they have a point to prove [as they see it]; an agenda for ‘creating’ new boundary constraints with test cases, or when feathers have been ruffled for whatever reason.

[MtB]

You have nothing to worry about! Plenty of folk have marina berths, and plenty of them regularly pop out of the marina for a weekend and stay in similar locations on a Saturday night. What perhaps has to be avoided is spending 1 night in the marina, 14 days on a prime mooring and repeating this pattern at the same prime mooring ad infinitum. It is just a matter of being reasonable about it.

 

I have yet to notice anyone in this thread describe the mooring pattern of Mr Dunkley that CRT have taken exception to. Not even Mr Dunkley.

 

I suspect once the facts of this case are out in the open, the hypothetical mooring pattern Nick describes (which appears to me legal yet piss-taking) will turn out to be pretty close to the mooring behaviour CRT are attempting to stop Mr Dunkley from engaging in.

 

 

MtB

 

 

 

(Edit to highlight the relevant part of Nick's post.)

Edited July 17, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[Naughty Cal]

 

 

Do you perceive something to sneer at, in the ability to produce proven facts and their provenance for anything posted?

I spend very little time on CaRT propaganda. I have spent such time as was necessary to learn enough of Statute and other law as could fend off the authority's determination to evict me from the waterways for utterly specious [and originally purely venal] reasons based on dishonest representations of what the law permitted them.

At some point, I shall get a specialist legal firm to quantify that, in order to claim the 75% of the value of that time at statute-set rates as has been awarded to me by the courts for success in establishing that the authority was wrong.

Only then would I be in a position to give you a meaningful answer.

Not sneering at all Nigel. You just seem to spend an awful lot of time quoting facts and figures yet we never seem to get any posts from you regarding actual cruising or other more relaxing boating passtimes.

 

Isn't boat ownership supposed to be about enjoying yourself?

 

There are far more enjoyable aspects to boat owner ship than the legal nitty gritty!

[Tuscan]

You have nothing to worry about! Plenty of folk have marina berths, and plenty of them regularly pop out of the marina for a weekend and stay in similar locations on a Saturday night. What perhaps has to be avoided is spending 1 night in the marina, 14 days on a prime mooring and repeating this pattern at the same prime mooring ad infinitum. It is just a matter of being reasonable about it.

Actually not strictly true CRT is increasingly adding no return rules which feature things like no more than 10 days or 14 days in a month to visitor moorings. There is a whole new can of worms around the legality of this.

[Naughty Cal]

Actually not strictly true CRT is increasingly adding no return rules which feature things like no more than 10 days or 14 days in a month to visitor moorings. There is a whole new can of worms around the legality of this.

Why would these time limits be a problem?

[adam1uk]

Actually not strictly true CRT is increasingly adding no return rules which feature things like no more than 10 days or 14 days in a month to visitor moorings. There is a whole new can of worms around the legality of this.

 

It's quite difficult (some might say impossible) to spend ten days a month on the same mooring, if you're only popping out of a marina for the weekend.

[Tuscan]

Why would these time limits be a problem?

In my area several boats went to the Foxton area most weekends some going Friday and returning Monday morning when the 10 day a month pattern was introduced all year round (now 14 day) they could now no longer do that now most moorings are also 48 hrs. They now go often elsewhere there is even more space on the visitor moorings and the pubs have lost the trade. Incidentally the couple of boats that used to overstay that evidently were the prime cause of the changes are still in the area but not on the visitor moorings.

 

As others have said it's all about boaters being reasonable , personally I'm against rules being introduced that effect all boaters by CRT when they are targeting just a a very small number. I would rather a little more effort was put in to targeting the few.

[BruceinSanity]

Interesting Q&A from Jackie Lewis at CRT on S17 iii, pages 18 and 19 of this month's NABO News.

 

Basically confirms that (c ) i & ii are mutually exclusive and that a boat with a home mooring is not bound by the CC guidelines.

 

She uses some weasel words about no return rules which of course NABO argues (as many do on here) have no basis in statute.

[Naughty Cal]

In my area several boats went to the Foxton area most weekends some going Friday and returning Monday morning when the 10 day a month pattern was introduced all year round (now 14 day) they could now no longer do that now most moorings are also 48 hrs. They now go often elsewhere there is even more space on the visitor moorings and the pubs have lost the trade. Incidentally the couple of boats that used to overstay that evidently were the prime cause of the changes are still in the area but not on the visitor moorings.

 

As others have said it's all about boaters being reasonable , personally I'm against rules being introduced that effect all boaters by CRT when they are targeting just a a very small number. I would rather a little more effort was put in to targeting the few.

So go on Saturday and come back Sunday instead. Or moor away from VM's where there is no time limit , other than 14 day of course, or return restriction.

[NigelMoore]

There are far more enjoyable aspects to boat owner ship than the legal nitty gritty!

 

Fair enough, and of course you are right, boating should be about enjoying yourself – and I do. But when doing so I am not sat in front of a screen inclined to wax lyrical in sharing such moments; I am usually in more selfishly contemplative existential mode, while at other times I will be taking guests on a maritime pub-crawl and introducing them to the totally different perspective travelling a waterway gives – one on one as it were, rather than broadcast via the web.

 

I would be happy never to have got involved in “the legal nitty gritty”, but the choice was do so or move off the waterways, and the authority has not ceased their attempts to accomplish my removal through the courts even now, so the involvement continues.

 

I use posting on this forum as a means of clarifying my own understanding and learning how to convey that better, while compelled to sit in front of the screen anyway. Others do a far better job than I could in terms of sharing the joys, and I appreciate that too.

[Hawkmoth]

Well said Nigel. I enjoy your explanations of CRT's machinations. More power to your arm, have a greenie.

Bob

[boathunter]

Well said Nigel. I enjoy your explanations of CRT's machinations. More power to your arm, have a greenie.

Bob

Well said and seconded. I think this forum would be a bit in the dark without Nigels carefully crafted input.

[Alan de Enfield]

And another one.

 

Each to their own - some people enjoy telling every one what a good time they have had on their trips, other people like to keep the memories to themselves, some like (or have to) read up on legislation, others play games on their computers.

 

Keep up the good work.

[nine9feet]

Well said Nigel. I enjoy your explanations of CRT's machinations. More power to your arm, have a greenie.

Bob

 

And another!

 

I, for one, enjoy unravelling the meaning of Nigel's posts ;-)

[NigelMoore]

I suspect once the facts of this case are out in the open, the hypothetical mooring pattern Nick describes (which appears to me legal yet piss-taking) will turn out to be pretty close to the mooring behaviour CRT are attempting to stop Mr Dunkley from engaging in.

 

For myself, I am totally disinterested in mooring and cruising patterns and “rules” which can never affect me. Only very rarely would I wish to use a visitor mooring, and if someone is blocking a facility I need to use I will probably use it anyway over the top of them, or travel on to the next one.

 

I have been looking at the instant case from the hypothetical standpoint that the mooring/movement pattern was in fact unlawful. I see far greater significance in the way unlawful mooring is dealt with, than there is to whether it is unlawful to start with. [This is not to belittle the more ‘popular’ area of concern, which is naturally also of considerable interest].

 

If the mooring behaviour is something the authority wish to stop, then the first question is whether it is “legal” or merely undesirable. If illegal, why bypass the legal sanctions in favour of the most draconian of responses; why, in other words, as I said before, give preference to losing the customer rather than dealing with them?

 

If the mooring behaviour is “legal yet piss-taking”, then surely the most draconian of actions is so much the more inappropriate, to the extent that it is a worse illegality than the perceived problem sought to address?

 

However, as I have also attempted to clarify, there are alternate approaches to understanding the existing legislation that would entitle gentler, but more effective and prompt enforcement, which raises the disturbing question of why the authority finds it more to their taste to go the far less effective, vastly more costly route they do.

 

In cases such as this wherein the means employed to engineer a sectionable situation are so wrong, then the character of those in charge of the authority’s enforcement appears in even less favourable light.

 

It is right to encourage thoughtful boating practice giving respect to all users, even when it might be strictly lawful for a boater to do something that gives rise to discontent; it is wrong to encourage unlawful ways of dealing with those unsocial practices, whether the practices be themselves lawful or not.

[b0atman]

Surely the behaviour of the few in regards to inconsiderate mooring is penalising the many .

Surely CRT should not be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

[NigelMoore]

I, for one, enjoy unravelling the meaning of Nigel's posts ;-)

 

Ahh – so I still have lots of practice to get in, before my efforts can be enjoyed as anything other than a cryptic word puzzle!

 

But the votes of confidence are encouraging, thank you.

[mark99]

 

Ahh – so I still have lots of practice to get in, before my efforts can be enjoyed as anything other than a cryptic word puzzle!

 

But the votes of confidence are encouraging, thank you.

 

Please continue Nigel. I appreciate the lack of hissy fits when faced by some attacks that would send most of us away with the 'ump.

[MtB]

 

Ahh – so I still have lots of practice to get in, before my efforts can be enjoyed as anything other than a cryptic word puzzle!

 

But the votes of confidence are encouraging, thank you.

 

Yes you need more practice, but I'll add my name to the list of people who enjoy your posts even if my eyes DO still glaze over paret way through some of them!

 

Please consider that another vote of confidence

 

 

MtB

[Tuscan]

So go on Saturday and come back Sunday instead. Or moor away from VM's where there is no time limit , other than 14 day of course, or return restriction.

Indeed you can move marina or cruise elsewhere, that's is why the two pubs in the area have responded to the CRT survey to the effect that their trade has reduced since the new restrictions were implemented.