Boater With Home Mooring - Court Action Started.

[Chop!]

Licence, license either spelling works according to which dictionary you care to quote

[adam1uk]

Licence, license either spelling works according to which dictionary you care to quote

 

Not in English. The one with a c is a noun, the one with an s is a verb. The Americans do their own thing, but that doesn't mean we have to.

[jenlyn]

If all else fails, rather than lose, pick on some spelling..... Comical...

[Tuscan]

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

The one thing that is clear and can be enforced is the need to move every 14 days or shorter if on a signed visitor mooring. The number of boaters that abuse the system I suggest is relatively small and tinkering with Visitor mooring restrictions does not really impact on the few that abuse the system but does on the many that don't.

 

A far greater problem to focus the minds is the congestion that exists and is growing in London and the western K&A.

[blackrose]

Complete lack of information, only scaremongering as is to be expected. Although it would seem that the CRT legal bods have cocked up again.

 

In the Tony Ball case mentioned, I don't see that the fact that the boat was facing the other way is relevant. If you spend 48 hrs on a VM, cast off at 9pm and cruise 2.5 miles each way there and back again, tie up at 10:30 pm for another 48 hrs, you are a piss-taker and I'm glad that the Trust are giving such folk a hard time. So the poor dear had a sore arm, but he managed to cruise 2.5 miles each way. There is therefore no reason why he couldn't have cruised 5 miles to another "place". He is obviously using his sore arm to try to justify pisstaking overstaying because that location suits him.

But surely by making that judgement with the lack of information you mentioned, you're not only guilty of exactly the same sort of scaremongering, but also guilty of hypocrisy?

[J R ALSOP]

Back in Newbury after going to Bristol, I would think 80% were P*** takers, when will people get the message, CaRT ( I hate the name, BWB was better) they are a NAVIGATION authority Not a housing association.

[Athy]

If all else fails, rather than lose, pick on some spelling..... Comical...

No, entertaining for those who participate. Those who do not wish to may ignore those posts.

[mark99]

No, entertaining for those who participate. Those who do not wish to may ignore those posts.

 

Whom.

[Quinafloat]

CaRT ( I hate the name, BWB was better) they are a NAVIGATION authority Not a housing association.

 

I'm not very sure what a housing association does having never been involved with one, but it seems to be about renting out social housing. Something that CaRT is unlikely to be doing anyway. Like any other navigation authority, surely they have a duty of care to their parishioners otherwise there is no point in even having a navigation authority.

[Athy]

 

Whom.

Nope.

[Sir Nibble]

I'm not very sure what a housing association does having never been involved with one, but it seems to be about renting out social housing. Something that CaRT is unlikely to be doing anyway. Like any other navigation authority, surely they have a duty of care to their parishioners otherwise there is no point in even having a navigation authority.

They don't have "parishioners" and their duty of care is provide a safe navigation not a home.

[Guest]

 

 

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.

 

 

Could you give a bit more info on that please, Alan. I have not heard about this before.

Thanks.

If all else fails, rather than lose, pick on some spelling..... Comical...

[Paul C]

Could you give a bit more info on that please, Alan. I have not heard about this before.

Thanks.

 

Google "British Waterways Act 1995" then look at Section 17, to read the exact wording of what Alan is saying.

[Quinafloat]

They don't have "parishioners" and their duty of care is provide a safe navigation not a home.

 

True, at one time they expected you to move from parish to parish, difficult if they don't have parishes. I guess that's why they changed the cc guidance. Similarly I agree they do not provide homes any more than a highways agency provides vehicles. However CCers have a legal right to moor for 14 days, or more if appropriate. I believe that CaRT's duty of care extends to people who are doing just that to the extent of providing safe moorings and the right to live in peace for that time period.

 

If CaRT wish to be in denial that people live on boats, so be it. I am sure that at some point a court will change their minds.

[Sir Nibble]

True, at one time they expected you to move from parish to parish, difficult if they don't have parishes. I guess that's why they changed the cc guidance. Similarly I agree they do not provide homes any more than a highways agency provides vehicles. However CCers have a legal right to moor for 14 days, or more if appropriate. I believe that CaRT's duty of care extends to people who are doing just that to the extent of providing safe moorings and the right to live in peace for that time period.

 

If CaRT wish to be in denial that people live on boats, so be it. I am sure that at some point a court will change their minds.

Entirely agree. There must have been some misunderstanding.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

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.

 

 

 

Could you give a bit more info on that please, Alan. I have not heard about this before.

Thanks.

In a nutshell, the Bill that became the 1995 BW Act asked for the power to erect signs to control mooring and the power to impose fines for contravention.

 

These powers were not granted.

 

The only time restriction on mooring imposed by the 1995 Act is for those without a home mooring. This is for 14 days or longer, if reasonable. There is no restriction for those with a home mooring.

 

However, BW (and now CaRT) imposes a general 14 day limit in its T's & C's.

 

Some hold that it is not within the navigation authorities power to impose more stringent time limits than those imposed by law.

 

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

They are not a charity in the sense of giving away stuff and being all fluffy. They are a charitable trust, charged with running our waterways in a business-like way without distributing profit, which is not the same thing at all. Anyway, the trick of refusing to renew, or removing, a licence is not a new trick. It's what you could reasonably expect if fail to comply with the terms and conditions you agreed to when you took out the licence.

Charities have a tighter governance than companies with where they can give things away or not collect

Why?

 

That would pretty much scupper a lot of weekend boaters out and back cruising patterns. As long as they move off before the VM time limits and take their boat back to the mooring I see no reason to be so draconian.

 

Eg if I want too pootle up to Syke house junction from my mooring three weekends on a trot and stay a couple of nights each time what exactly am I doing wrong?

 

Nothing. Under you suggestion I would be.

Good job you don't moor in Cropredy marina and like Banbury then. Because that is the case there.

[NigelMoore]

Much of your argument seems to revolve around the fact that you have a different interpretation of the statute than the court does.

 

What argument? I have presented the facts and confirmed that the reasons given by CaRT for revoking the licence have no statutory validation – as they themselves agree.

 

What interpretation of the statute have I presented, that differs from what any court has ever said? None.

 

CaRT are bringing a standard s.8 case for expulsion from the waterways due to the boat being on their waters without lawful authority.

 

The lawful authority of a general Licence was revoked for alleged failure to abide by clauses 2.1 & 3.1 of the Licence Terms & Conditions.

 

They have justified refusal of a subsequent application for a River Registration Certificate on the grounds that they are not satisfied [by reason of the boat’s pattern of use away from the mooring nearby] that the boat’s home mooring [which they acknowledge to be a legitimate mooring that has been and is being paid for] “falls within the above stated section 17(3)( c )(ii) of the 1995 Act.”

 

I haven’t managed to work out how a home mooring could comply with 17(3)( c )(ii). Maybe they were just careless, maybe they are confused, maybe there is some subtle fusion being attempted.

 

Even supposing [as I presume] they meant 17(3)( c )(i), given that they have no doubts that the mooring is available [they just wish he’d use it more often], it is difficult to understand how improper cruising/mooring away from the mooring [granting a possibility of this being a correct allegation] could render the home mooring no longer “genuine” and therefore somehow “unavailable”.

 

There are shades of the Paul Davies case here: ‘It’s not good enough to comply with the rules/law, if you are only complying in order to stay within the law.’

[b0atman]

I will in august probably go from Cropredy down the south Oxford to maybe Thrupp and will have to decide whether to stop at Banbury going or returning .

Oh wait it will have to be going as in the early part of September I will be meeting friends on a hire boat at Aynho and to stop at Banbury on that trip I need 28 days between visits.

This is a ridiculous situation because I will also have to factor in do I want to go to Banbury canal weekend in October ?

[NigelMoore]

The only time restriction on mooring imposed by the 1995 Act is for those without a home mooring. This is for 14 days or longer, if reasonable. There is no restriction for those with a home mooring.

 

However, BW (and now CaRT) imposes a general 14 day limit in its T's & C's.

 

Some hold that it is not within the navigation authorities power to impose more stringent time limits than those imposed by law.

 

 

 

 

I know that my understanding of all this is at odds with most everyone else, but I’ll try again to explain how I see it.

 

There is no right, either in common law or under statute, to moor to the towpaths or public banks of CaRT waterways - as on other natural or improved rivers – other than for purposes incidental to navigation; EXCEPT for boats licensed under 17(3)( c )(ii).

 

The right to moor to private offside banks is in the gift of the landowner. By statutory prohibition CaRT “shall not prevent the mooring of any vessel which could lawfully have been moored pursuant to any such private right but for the exercise of such powers" [the s.20 powers to require licensing of mooring structures in areas appointed by resolution of the Board].

 

On many tidal waters that right to keep & use boats on the waterway arises from the common law right which CaRT are also statutorily forbidden to interfere with [bWA 1975]; the right to keep boats on the scheduled rivers is dependant upon their being kept outside of the main navigable channel, while the right to use the main navigational channel must be paid for via the River Registration Certificate or alternatively, by the general Canal & Rivers Licence; for the rest of the network the right to keep and use boats on that network must be paid for via the general Canal & River Licence.

 

CaRT have a duty to maintain the public banks/towpath available for the use of all boaters who have the right for their boats to be “kept or used” on the waterways [the right to “keep” the boat not by itself conferring any right to a particular mooring, being simply the right for the boat to kept wherever a place exists where such keeping is otherwise both reasonable and lawful].

 

This being so, the so-called ‘14 day rule’ as incorporated in the T&C’s could be viewed, not so much as an imposition [lawful or unlawful] on boats with home moorings, but rather as a voluntary rolling moratorium respecting CaRT’s period of tolerance before taking the remedial action they are mandated to take by virtue of their duty to keep the facility open to all - strictly, of course, in accordance with the lawful means granted to them for that purpose.

 

From this standpoint, CC’ers are a privileged class rather than one labouring under special restrictions; for them, there is statutory entitlement to moor in any one place for up to 14 days at a time – the rest of us moor along the towpath for such periods only by grace.

[Jerra]

Its late and I am probably being thicker than I usually am, but could somebody explain why CRT can't use terms and conditions for licences to impose any restrictions they choose.

 

The National Trust have restrictions on their members and the public so why can't CRT?

[nicknorman]

What argument? I have presented the facts and confirmed that the reasons given by CaRT for revoking the licence have no statutory validation – as they themselves agree.

For the avoidance of doubt of course I mean "argument" as in point, not as in argumentative. You are stating things as fact on the basis of your idea of how the court will interpret the statute. Maybe you are right, maybe not because as I said, the law is the combination of the statute and the court and (according to you IIRC) this has yet to be tested, so we cannot know that you are right yet.

I know that my understanding of all this is at odds with most everyone else, but I’ll try again to explain how I see it.

 

There is no right, either in common law or under statute, to moor to the towpaths or public banks of CaRT waterways - as on other natural or improved rivers – other than for purposes incidental to navigation; EXCEPT for boats licensed under 17(3)( c )(ii).

 

...etc

You do tend to focus on the letter of the statute. (well, someone has to I suppose!) Does custom and practice not come into it somewhere as well?

Its late and I am probably being thicker than I usually am, but could somebody explain why CRT can't use terms and conditions for licences to impose any restrictions they choose.

 

The National Trust have restrictions on their members and the public so why can't CRT?

I think it is a grey area. They are required to grant a licence reasonably applied-for. They didn't get the specific rules they wanted to control mooring into the 95 act. But AFAIK said act does not specifically preclude them from having reasonable terms and conditions in the licence contract. Some folk take the fact that they were not granted powers they wanted to control mooring in the act, as an indication that they may not have them as terms and conditions, but I suggest the law doesn't work like that - ie it is not that logical!

[John Holden]

I think it is a grey area. They are required to grant a licence reasonably applied-for. They didn't get the specific rules they wanted to control mooring into the 95 act. But AFAIK said act does not specifically preclude them from having reasonable terms and conditions in the licence contract. Some folk take the fact that they were not granted powers they wanted to control mooring in the act, as an indication that they may not have them as terms and conditions, but I suggest the law doesn't work like that - ie it is not that logical!

 

If I pay to go into my local cinema (for example) and while I'm in there behave in a manner that stops the enjoyment of others the proprietors do not have to rely on statutory law to eject me. The fact that they don't want me in there is enough reason for them to eject me and I suspect that if I took them to court in defence of my "right" to create mayhem in the local flea pit I would be laughed out of court.

[Graham Davis]

Sorry, but isn't this paragraph:

There is no right, either in common law or under statute, to moor to the towpaths or public banks of CaRT waterways - as on other natural or improved rivers – other than for purposes incidental to navigation; EXCEPT for boats licensed under 17(3)( c )(ii).

contradicted by this

By statutory prohibition CaRT “shall not prevent the mooring of any vessel which could lawfully have been moored pursuant to any such private right but for the exercise of such powers" [the s.20 powers to require licensing of mooring structures in areas appointed by resolution of the Board].

[NigelMoore]

why CRT can't use terms and conditions for licences to impose any restrictions they choose.

 

Because CaRT’s Powers derive solely from Parliament, and in this instance Parliament has specifically limited the conditions for issue of licences to the 3 specified conditions in the 1995 Act already referred to.