Boater With Home Mooring - Court Action Started.

[MtB]

 

 

So when they tell you, (off the record), they are not keen to do that, because they might establish a precedent of losing, they are just having a larf, then?

 

They haven't told me this, either off on on the record.

 

And losing what? A single case? If they lose one, then it highlights poor drafting of the license contract, and for the next year's contract they get the chance to re-draft it more tightly. I don't get the problem.

 

MtB

[alan_fincher]

The discussion did acknowledge this point right at the start. We don't need to keep repeating it. However would you rather CRT paid no attention to those who go away from a VM for a few hours, or even move along to some different rings, and thus restart their VM clocks, in perpetuity, (in which case VMs would soon become unusable for visitors in some locations), or would you rather they did their best, despite the impediment of the law, to control the situation for the overall good?

I would prefer that instead of continually spending money to invent new rules that they will probably never dare to test in court, CRT first put greater effort into working with the basics they already have clear legal powers for. That view is shared by a great many people, in my experience.

 

The obvious start point, if you are really committed to giving fairer access to moorings to all, is to start to enforce the 14 day rule as comprehensively as resources allow - at least at sites where people claim moorings are at a premium.

 

OK there is still the argument that the 14 days does not actually apply in law for those with a home mooring, but as most people still seem to think that those without a home mooring are more likely to overstay 14 days than those with, there is absolutely no ambiguity that someone with no home mooring should not be anywhere for more than 14 days unless they fall into the category of having reasonable reasons for being there longer.

 

The 14 day rule is not enforced with any great consistency, and in many places not at all, so why go off on expensive tangents that you have even less chance of enforcing?

And losing what? A single case? If they lose one, then it highlights poor drafting of the license contract, and for the next year's contract they get the chance to re-draft it more tightly. I don't get the problem.

 

MtB

 

We come back to the "lime green" boat conundrum then, don't we?

 

This is about the extent to which CRT can impose conditions above those clearly supported in the relevant acts.

 

Boating associations don't think CRT can enforce no return, some in CRT don't think so either. You think they can, so perhaps you need to try convincing them?

 

Is it important enough to you that you want CRT spending their limited resources on it?

[nicknorman]

Many thanks for your blessing on the way I conduct my life. I'm sure that I feel better for that. Mind you an apology for your unwarranted attack would make me feel even better.

 

I was not attacking you or your lifestyle, I was attacking the fallacy in this statement:

 

"I often have to return to the same place for things like blood test results, or even just to get suitable doctors appointments."

 

Because it is simply not true. You don't HAVE to return your boat to the same place for the things you mention, you just want to and choose to. Within the context of the previous discussions there was an implication that you too could fall foul of the issues we were discussing, but after your further details it became obvious that you would not, and therefore you whole argument thrust was irrelevant.

 

So sorry, I am not going to apologise for something (not even sure what, unless it was just that I disagreed with the above statement).

[Rich]

I know the boater involved in that one and its not as clear cut as NBW would like you to believe.

 

(Surprise, Surprise)

Can you explain why it is not?

[Rich]

 

 

If a boater (whether he has a home mooring or not) habitually occupies the same mooring spot most of the time, he renders it unavailable to anybody else.

I missed the bit where it was stated that he occupied the same mooring spot for most of the time. Where was it?

[David Schweizer]

 

 

As a fully qualified barrack room lawyer myself, I hold that you are overlooking contract law.

 

If CRT make it a term of the license contract to comply with whatever arbitrary mooring time limits and no-return limits they choose to set, then boaters ignoring those time limits will be in breach of their license contracts. CRT will then be entitled to cancel those licences and take enforvement action to have the unlicenced boats removed.

 

Simple!

 

 

MtB

 

From another qualified Barrack Room Lawyer.

 

Not that simple. You also have to take the EU unfair contracts legislation into account before any definitve assessment can be made. If the boat owner has an ongoing agreement which preceeds the new conditions, the first party cannot introduce new conditions unless the third party agrees to them, and to cancel the agreement if they refuse is an offence under the legislation

Edited July 9, 2014 by David Schweizer

[Rich]

 

Did you know that there is a punctuation mark for irony? It is this one: ؟

 

Richard

Irony? I thought he was just demonstrating what a prat he was. Both definitions could apply.

[mayalld]

 

 

As a fully qualified barrack room lawyer myself, I hold that you are overlooking contract law.

 

If CRT make it a term of the license contract to comply with whatever arbitrary mooring time limits and no-return limits they choose to set, then boaters ignoring those time limits will be in breach of their license contracts. CRT will then be entitled to cancel those licences and take enforvement action to have the unlicenced boats removed.

 

Simple!

 

 

MtB

 

or not.

 

Contract law is a red herring, because CRT are NOT at liberty to make licences conditional on contractual terms.

[RLWP]

Both definitions could apply.

 

Yeah, but with my interpretation I get to show off the irony mark

 

Richard

[nicknorman]

I thought he was just demonstrating what a prat he was.

Could be worse, I could be demonstrating that the only contribution I can make to this discussion is to snipe.

[Naughty Cal]

Could be worse, I could be demonstrating that the only contribution I can make to this discussion is to snipe.

[cheshire~rose]

I have not read the post on NBW (I don't feel the need to as I think the thread here gives me sufficient info on what it is all about)

 

Personally I have recently been becoming a little nervous of how things seem to be going with CRT with regard to popular VM's and I have to admit that I am now quite anxious not to overstay at all anywhere whereas once upon a time we might have stayed a little longer on a VM in the dead of winter than we should have done (especially if there was plenty of room for other boats)

 

My view all along is that if CRT actually enforce the rules they already have in place then it will solve the problem without the need for loads more signs everywhere.

 

I see the fact that they are taking one person (who appears to be taking the pee big time) to court then that is a positive thing for the rest of us. It sends a big loud message out to all those others that choose to take the pee and it might help to alleviate the problems without the need for extra restrictions and signs.

[Quinafloat]

Could be worse, I could be demonstrating that the only contribution I can make to this discussion is to snipe.

 

About right.

[nicknorman]

or not.

 

Contract law is a red herring, because CRT are NOT at liberty to make licences conditional on contractual terms.

Citation needed (as they say in Wikipedia). Not that I disagree necessarily, I am just always wary of definitive statements made without any supporting evidence.

[Rich]

Could be worse, I could be demonstrating that the only contribution I can make to this discussion is to snipe.

I wouldn't dream of sniping when you are about. I acknowledge your mastery of the art.

 

There isn't really a lot more to be said about the subject until such time as the results of the court case are known. From what I read the guy concerned conformed to the conditions of his licence. Canal and River Trust decided he wasn't. He may or may not be "taking the piss" but nevertheless he appears to be acting within the rules.

Blimey, an intelligent post form NC.

 

About right.

[nicknorman]

There isn't really a lot more to be said about the subject until such time as the results of the court case are known. From what I read the guy concerned conformed to the conditions of his licence. Canal and River Trust decided he wasn't. He may or may not be "taking the piss" but nevertheless he appears to be acting within the rules.

 

"Appears to be acting within the rules", according to the evidence presented by...?? You are right of course, we can really only await the outcome of the court case, but it is interesting that you seem to be "on his side" by default, even though you have only one side of the evidence, and pretty limited and known-to-be-unreliable evidence at that.

 

Out of interest, what would be your preference? - no ability to control return to VMs ( so you only had to push off from the bank for 5 mins before returning and restarting the clock) or some reasonable control that ensured VMs were available to be used as intended - for visitors?

[MtB]

 

or not.

 

Contract law is a red herring, because CRT are NOT at liberty to make licences conditional on contractual terms.

 

Good point, thanks.

 

Knocks my argument into a cocked hat, dunnit!

 

 

MtB

[RLWP]

Good point, thanks.

 

Knocks my argument into a cocked hat, dunnit!

 

 

MtB

Well, you are a man who likes a hat

 

Richard

[Naughty Cal]

I wouldn't dream of sniping when you are about. I acknowledge your mastery of the art.

 

There isn't really a lot more to be said about the subject until such time as the results of the court case are known. From what I read the guy concerned conformed to the conditions of his licence. Canal and River Trust decided he wasn't. He may or may not be "taking the piss" but nevertheless he appears to be acting within the rules.

Blimey, an intelligent post form NC.

You seem to have a lot to say for someone who thinks there "isnt really a lot to be said"

 

I would be interested to here where your evidence for:

 

"From what I read the guy concerned conformed to the conditions of his licence. Canal and River Trust decided he wasn't. He may or may not be "taking the piss" but nevertheless he appears to be acting within the rules."

 

has come from. There has been little in the way of any firm evidence given in this case and all we have are a few poorly written articles from NBW who are reknowned for not letting the facts get in the way of a "good" story, giving CRT a bashing whenever possible.

[KarlosMacronius]

It seems to me (that's me covering my arse even before I've begun) that no one as yet can say with any certainty that this guy was taking the piss, equally no one can say with any certainty that CRT were not right in taking the action they have against him. More info is needed.

 

On time limits for returning to VM's I believe that instead of a blanket 'no return within 14 days' there should be different return times on different moorings.

For example those closer to marinas could have shorter (48hrs?) no return times to allow for the out and back routes often travelled in those areas, or even a no return within 48 hours except at weekends like city centre parking. Other VM's could have longer no return limits if there are a number of moorings within a days cruise. Or perhaps matching the no return days to the number of days stay? 7 days mooring no return within 7 days etc. though this might not work so well for 48 and 24hr VM's...

 

So a string of moorings (for arguments sake lets say 5, each half a day away from the last.) could be:

VM1 is 2 weeks no return for 2 weeks,

VM2 is 24 hour no return within 24hrs,

VM3 is 1 week no return within 1 week,

VM4 is 48 hrs no return for 48 hours.

VM5 is 2 weeks no return for 2 weeks

 

There's a marina between VM2 and VM3. (which are shorter stays due to this demand)

 

A boat from the marina can go out to VM1 and back over the course of a weekend stopping twice at VM2 or out to VM4 with no problems.

A CCer could go between them as they wish (no to mention stopping between VMs where conditions allow)

 

Not sure if it would work, As a CCer I have no real idea of the cruise patterns or habits of boaters based in marinas only guesses. What do others think?

(Also please note this in no way takes into account piss-takers or over-stayers which is a separate issue and requires enforcement both by CRT and perhaps by the community in the form of peer pressure, I always talk loudly about the boats moored on lock landings to my partner as we 'struggle' to moor)

[MtB]

 

or not.

 

Contract law is a red herring, because CRT are NOT at liberty to make licences conditional on contractual terms.

 

Actually, on reflection I'm not sure that argument holds.

 

CRT seem able to make a valid BSS and third party insurance a condition of granting a licence. I don't remember those being statutory provisions, but terms of the licence contract.

 

 

MtB

 

 

 

(Spelling edit for the benefit of Athy)

Edited July 9, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[KenK]

Having nipped over to the dark side to see the original post which generated this one, I spotted another post which might prove useful if indeed C&RT are about to cast us all into the fires of hell. www.gpslogs.com I have absolutely no connection with the person but if you do want peace of mind.

 

Ken

[Rich]

"Appears to be acting within the rules", according to the evidence presented by...?? You are right of course, we can really only await the outcome of the court case, but it is interesting that you seem to be "on his side" by default, even though you have only one side of the evidence, and pretty limited and known-to-be-unreliable evidence at that.

 

Out of interest, what would be your preference? - no ability to control return to VMs ( so you only had to push off from the bank for 5 mins before returning and restarting the clock) or some reasonable control that ensured VMs were available to be used as intended - for visitors?

So, does, or did, he not have a licence and a home mooring? I understood from what I have read that he did. So the CC rules do not apply to him. If this is the case and Canal and River Trust don't like it change the rules, not the interpretation.

[scrunch]

I wonder if this has been mentioned before at the moment residential mooring cost around £2500.00 around our area, but you can also get a mooring for just over £1000.00 with no facilities pretty dismal, no parking and you are not allowed to stay on your boat at the mooring. So easy answer would be cheaper mooring and move up and down canal living on your boat, you can understand why some folk use this option £1500,00 less per year is aa lot of money.

[Rich]

You seem to have a lot to say for someone who thinks there "isnt really a lot to be said"

 

I would be interested to here where your evidence for:

 

"From what I read the guy concerned conformed to the conditions of his licence. Canal and River Trust decided he wasn't. He may or may not be "taking the piss" but nevertheless he appears to be acting within the rules."

 

has come from. There has been little in the way of any firm evidence given in this case and all we have are a few poorly written articles from NBW who are reknowned for not letting the facts get in the way of a "good" story, giving CRT a bashing whenever possible.

I believe that it featured somewhere in a forum and that he had his licence cancelled or in some way removed. I think that if that is the case it may be a clue to the fact that he had a licence (you can follow that, can't you?). Also stated was the fact that he had a home mooring that he didn't use and couldn't get to quickly or conveniently. I seem to recall that the thread got into parking boats on drives, or something like that. It was the fact that he had a mooring up north somewhere and the relevant licence that provoked screams of "piss taker".

 

Am I wrong in thinking you took an active part in that thread, or was it something else?