Boater With Home Mooring - Court Action Started.

[cheshire~rose]

snip< 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.>

 

No one can possibly know because this entire thread is based upon something that has been reported on NBW and we all know how biased (and potentially inaccurate) anything we read there is

 

CRT feel the need to put return times on some VM's simply because there are a minority of boaters taking the pee and spoiling it for everyone else.

 

I would hate to be the person employed by CRT to work out what the correct return time for a VM is before they make up their signs. Whatever they choose will not fit some peoples cruising patterns.

 

I have recently become aware of a sign at a VM stating no return within 7 days. I fully understand why this was done - because there have been people bridge hopping in the area for years and it is a popular place to moor, There is a decent pub and a shop and good public transport links on the doorstep as well as CRT services point. This particular VM is on a canal that is a dead end and it is likely to the the last VM people use before they move on to the head of navigation ( a days cruising with a lot of locks) While there is a VM at the top it is not the most desirable place to spend any amount of time and so most people overnight there (or somewhere close by) before making the trip back through the locks the next day. It would be a natural choice for them to stay at the VM they stayed at 2 days before but they are denied this by the restrictions on the sign.

So if CRT don't have a restriction for this VM it will continue to be constantly clogged by CMers. If they do they potantially put genuine visitors off making the trip to the head of navigation because they do not feel they are welcome to stop there on their way back.

 

Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

[Quinafloat]

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

 

I know that person very well.

[cotswoldsman]

 

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 license. I don't remember those being statutory provisions, but terms of the license contract.

 

 

MtB

 

 

 

(Spelling edit.)

Insurance certainly is in the act but guess BSS isn't as that I think came in after 1995 on phone so can not check

[Naughty Cal]

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?

So you have based your assumption that he must be in the right based on NBW reporting? Is that what you are trying to say?

[KarlosMacronius]

 

It would be a natural choice for them to stay at the VM they stayed at 2 days before but they are denied this by the restrictions on the sign.

So if CRT don't have a restriction for this VM it will continue to be constantly clogged by CMers. If they do they potantially put genuine visitors off making the trip to the head of navigation because they do not feel they are welcome to stop there on their way back.

 

Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

I was going to mention shorter restrictions at end of arms but had already waffled on long enough. My basic point is the restriction should be tailored to the VM, its location within the system and the general pattern of use in the area. I'd argue that the no return within 7 days should be 48 hours instead. Though I'm not sure if having to move away for a weekend would be enough to shoo the CMers away. As you mentioned it would be difficult (thought not impossible) to get the time period right on all VMs. At present it seems to me little thought is put into it and the easy answer of 1/2 weeks is just slapped on. Whilst it might work in as much as having the desired effect (shooing away CMers) in CRT's eyes, whether or not it is the best option is another matter.

[NigelMoore]

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

 

Correct. Yet this is exactly the liberty they assumed in revoking his licence. Having suggested that his boat movement pattern did not fit the requirements of clauses 2.1 and 3.1 of the Terms & Conditions of the “licence”, they claimed on that basis to have “had no choice but to revoke your licence.”

 

As mayalld has said, they are not entitled to such an action.

 

Incidentally, they have not claimed that he exclusively hogged the visitor moorings nearby, but that he did not move away from “the vicinity of that location”.

 

The clauses cited are actually ridiculous and need redrafting. It would be correct to say that the licence does not give you any right to moor to the public towpath [other than for periods they determine], but it is incorrect to say that it does not allow you moor in the waterway at all other than incidentally to navigation [by direct implication, even where such moorings are places where boats may reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left – such as mooring to private offside land where no obstruction is caused to navigation.]

 

No offence is committed by any boat being moored at legitimate locations with appropriate landowner permissions, whether on or offline. That goes for CC’ers as well as for those with home moorings. They don’t thereby change the nature of their licence, nor breach any rules. In other words, the Licence does not confer a right to moor, but neither can it proscribe such a right, whether arising from common law or from statutorily conferred rights of riparian landowners [amongst which CaRT are included].

 

If there had been actual mooring offences involved in his pattern of use, then the appropriate sanctions were and are available to the authority and they should implement them. If there were no such offences, then the unlawful Licence revoking and renewal refusal under the circumstances, is the answer to nothing but a desire to have some sort of mandate for doing as they please.

 

An interesting absurdity of the situation is that, given the waterway concerned is one of the scheduled rivers under the 1971 Act, for so long as he moored anywhere off the main channel with the landowner’s permission [i.e. anywhere not on CaRT owned visitor moorings], he does not even need the River Registration Certificate which they have refused to grant him, let alone the general Canal & Rivers Pleasure Boat Licence. The s.8 sanction is therefore all the more misconceived.

[Rich]

So you have based your assumption that he must be in the right based on NBW reporting? Is that what you are trying to say?

Sadly the piece you quoted and your question don't make sense. You must allow for the fact that some of us think logically and are therefore at a disadvantage when reading your offerings.

[nicknorman]

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.

He did have a licence, until CRT annulled it for a breach of the Ts and Cs -exactly what breach, we don't know. If he is within the law, the court case will fail and he will be awarded costs, so it seems unlikely that CRT have no good reason in law to pursue the case.

[NigelMoore]

 

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 license. I don't remember those being statutory provisions, but terms of the license contract.

 

You haven’t been paying attention MtB, else you are getting forgetful [the contractual issues were canvassed within the Pillings thread].

 

The BSS and Insurance are the other two statutory requirements for relevant consents, beside ( c ) [the home mooring or CC’ing one]. -

 

S.17(3) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless—

( a ) the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;

( b ) an insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence that it exists and is in force, has been produced to the Board; and

( c ) either— [etc]

[Athy]

 

 

 

 

 

(Spelling edit.)

Are you licenced to do those?

[nicknorman]

Correct. Yet this is exactly the liberty they assumed in revoking his licence. Having suggested that his boat movement pattern did not fit the requirements of clauses 2.1 and 3.1 of the Terms & Conditions of the “licence”, they claimed on that basis to have “had no choice but to revoke your licence.”

 

As mayalld has said, they are not entitled to such an action.

 

Incidentally, they have not claimed that he exclusively hogged the visitor moorings nearby, but that he did not move away from “the vicinity of that location”.

 

The clauses cited are actually ridiculous and need redrafting. It would be correct to say that the licence does not give you any right to moor to the public towpath [other than for periods they determine], but it is incorrect to say that it does not allow you moor in the waterway at all other than incidentally to navigation [by direct implication, even where such moorings are places where boats may reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left – such as mooring to private offside land where no obstruction is caused to navigation.]

 

No offence is committed by any boat being moored at legitimate locations with appropriate landowner permissions, whether on or offline. That goes for CC’ers as well as for those with home moorings. They don’t thereby change the nature of their licence, nor breach any rules. In other words, the Licence does not confer a right to moor, but neither can it proscribe such a right, whether arising from common law or from statutorily conferred rights of riparian landowners [amongst which CaRT are included].

 

If there had been actual mooring offences involved in his pattern of use, then the appropriate sanctions were and are available to the authority and they should implement them. If there were no such offences, then the unlawful Licence revoking and renewal refusal under the circumstances, is the answer to nothing but a desire to have some sort of mandate for doing as they please.

 

An interesting absurdity of the situation is that, given the waterway concerned is one of the scheduled rivers under the 1971 Act, for so long as he moored anywhere off the main channel with the landowner’s permission [i.e. anywhere not on CaRT owned visitor moorings], he does not even need the River Registration Certificate which they have refused to grant him, let alone the general Canal & Rivers Pleasure Boat Licence. The s.8 sanction is therefore all the more misconceived.

I sometimes wonder if you shouldn't just post "IT'S ALL SO UNFAIR!" and be done with it!

 

It will be interesting to see if the court agrees with your one-man judiciary system. I suspect not, but who knows, only time will tell!

[Rich]

so it seems unlikely that CRT have no good reason in law to pursue the case.

Good heavens, as if they would do such a thing.

[Guest]

Good heavens, as if they would do such a thing.

But how many such cases have they actually won or lost. I don't know the answer (Nigel may) but it strikes me they must be pretty sure of winning to pursue it.

[Naughty Cal]

He did have a licence, until CRT annulled it for a breach of the Ts and Cs -exactly what breach, we don't know. If he is within the law, the court case will fail and he will be awarded costs, so it seems unlikely that CRT have no good reason in law to pursue the case.

Exactly. CRT don't just take people to court for the sake of it and nor do they remove your licence for no good reason. Why would they?

 

As with a ll of these cases there is more too it than we know about and a damn sight more than NBW would like to lead their sheep to believe.

I sometimes wonder if you shouldn't just post "IT'S ALL SO UNFAIR!" and be done with it!

 

It will be interesting to see if the court agrees with your one-man judiciary system. I suspect not, but who knows, only time will tell!

I'm glad it's not just me

[nicknorman]

Good heavens, as if they would do such a thing.

Why would they bother? Do you really imagine they wake up me morning and go "quiet day in the office today, let's pick a boater's name at random and go harass them"?

 

Do you have some anti-CRT agenda, maybe based on personal experience? If so it would be interesting to hear it. On the other hand if you have anti-CRT bias based on what you have read in the likes of NBW I doubt we want to hear it.

[Naughty Cal]

Why would they bother? Do you really imagine they wake up me morning and go "quiet day in the office today, let's pick a boater's name at random and go harass them"?

 

Do you have some anti-CRT agenda, maybe based on personal experience? If so it would be interesting to hear it. On the other hand if you have anti-CRT bias based on what you have read in the likes of NBW I doubt we want to hear it.

[NigelMoore]

If he is within the law, the court case will fail and he will be awarded costs, so it seems unlikely that CRT have no good reason in law to pursue the case.

 

That is a magnificent vote of confidence in the wisdom and impartiality of the legal system. The confidence CaRT have in pursuing the case, has little to do with either – and their confidence is not misplaced.

I sometimes wonder if you shouldn't just post "IT'S ALL SO UNFAIR!" and be done with it!

 

It will be interesting to see if the court agrees with your one-man judiciary system. I suspect not, but who knows, only time will tell!

 

All of life is unfair, no need to shout about it or complain. Nor is that what I am doing. I have revealed the actual reasons given for revocation of the licence, and I am not alone in understanding that the authority has no lawful authority to do so for those reasons.

 

That is not to say that there will not be other sanctions to apply IF there are legitimate conditions violated for which sanctions are expressly provided – as I said.

 

As to the court decision, I will agree with your assessment of probabilities, for all that it will be for entirely different reasons.

[nicknorman]

That is a magnificent vote of confidence in the wisdom and impartiality of the legal system. The confidence CaRT have in pursuing the case, has little to do with either – and their confidence is not misplaced.

 

All of life is unfair, no need to shout about it or complain. Nor is that what I am doing. I have revealed the actual reasons given for revocation of the licence, and I am not alone in understanding that the authority has no lawful authority to do so for those reasons.

 

That is not to say that there will not be other sanctions to apply IF there are legitimate conditions violated for which sanctions are expressly provided – as I said.

 

As to the court decision, I will agree with your assessment of probabilities, for all that it will be for entirely different reasons.

I do detect a slight inconsistency in your line. On the one hand you are promoting that CRT should act within the letter of the law. On the other hand you complain that the law is not correctly implemented by the courts. However I would argue that the law is not just made up of the statute, it is also determined by the courts. The law is actually the combination of statute and the court's interpretation thereof. Much of your argument seems to revolve around the fact that you have a different interpretation of the statute than the court does. Naturally you think you are right (as I would) but in reality, because of the fore mentioned combination of factors that actually make up,the law, you are mostly wrong. All very unfair.

[Naughty Cal]

Is life really unfair?

[Ronniesonic]

Another blatant piss taker who is in the xtreme minority, Narrowmindedworld get another ill-informed opportunity to hang C&RT by the goolies. etc etc.............

 

I personally am more concerned about the crap NBW keep spouting in their personal agenda against authority, especially C&RT. Unfortunately lots of people do look a NBW & read their constant sniping. It is a very very poor media outlet.

 

C&RT do not just drag complete pisstakers like this to court for nothing & do not worry they will not be chasing Maud & Cyril of their VM on a balmy Saturday evening.

 

Give me strength!

[NigelMoore]

But how many such cases have they actually won or lost.

 

If by “such cases” you mean cases where licences were revoked for non-compliance with Terms and Conditions, other than the statutory requirements under the 1995 Act, then I have to confess to knowing of none that have ever been brought. This is a first within my knowledge.

 

The only broadly similar case would be that of Burnett v British Waterways, wherein BW sought to rely on published Terms & Conditions of use of their facilities as a contractual get-out clause in a liability case.

 

They lost, but only on Appeal.

[Pete & Helen]

Is anyone here in a position to know if CRT are going to (or have) form a working group including boaters to discuss the interpretation of and a sensible solution to moorings, CCing and those with home moorings?

 

I think its plain from this forum that the only thing everyone agrees on is that every suggestion that comes along doesn't work for one reason or another. I have racked my brain cell for ages over this one and what works for one group doesn't work for others. Has the basis for what the rules and restrictions were designed for been lost over time due to all the interpretations and bits that have been added to add clarity but don the reverse? Why can't life be simple

[MtB]

Are you licenced to do those?

 

Excellent. A chance to korrect you on your spelling

 

'License' is the verb. 'Licence' is the noun, innit!

 

 

MtB

[cotswoldsman]

Is anyone here in a position to know if CRT are going to (or have) form a working group including boaters to discuss the interpretation of and a sensible solution to moorings, CCing and those with home moorings?

 

I think its plain from this forum that the only thing everyone agrees on is that every suggestion that comes along doesn't work for one reason or another. I have racked my brain cell for ages over this one and what works for one group doesn't work for others. Has the basis for what the rules and restrictions were designed for been lost over time due to all the interpretations and bits that have been added to add clarity but don the reverse? Why can't life be simple

Good idea but the problem is no one represents all boaters. I believe the associations do discuss these type of things with CRT at there joint meetings but can only do so on behalf of their members. As I am sure you realise boaters agree on very little

[Athy]

 

Excellent. A chance to korrect you on your spelling

 

'License' is the verb. 'Licence' is the noun, innit!

 

 

MtB

Absolutely. I refer you to your post number 96 and your spellings therein.

Game, set and match.