Section 8

[Paul C]

 

That's not what the Act says. A boater without a home mooring has to "satisfy the Board" which implies that Board has some discretion in deciding what will or will not satisfy them in a particular circumstance. For a boater with a home mooring it is simply a requirement that he has a home mooring - a simple matter of fact which CRT has no discretion over, and which I understand they accept is the situation in Mr Dunkley's case.

 

That IS what the act says....

 

 

 

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

[David Mack]

 

Yes it is:

 

 

 

That'll teach me to actually read the wording again before putting finger to keyboard!

 

But there is still a difference in the way "satisfying" is achieved in the 2 parts.

 

If a boater who has declared himself to be a CCer doesn't actually CC, then CRT are entitled to take that behaviour into account at licence renewal, as a factor in deciding whether they are satisfied that the boater intends to CC for the following year.

 

Whereas if CRT have already accepted that a particular home mooring is a place where a boat can reasonably and lawfully be kept, and nothing of the circumstances of the mooring has changed, then I can't see that they have any discretion to be no longer satisfied that it is a valid home mooring, regardless of the extent to which it has or has not been occupied by the boat in question.

[carlt]

If a boater who has declared himself to be a CCer doesn't actually CC, then CRT are entitled to take that behaviour into account at licence renewal, as a factor in deciding whether they are satisfied that the boater intends to CC for the following year.

 

Whereas if CRT have already accepted that a particular home mooring is a place where a boat can reasonably and lawfully be kept, and nothing of the circumstances of the mooring has changed, then I can't see that they have any discretion to be no longer satisfied that it is a valid home mooring, regardless of the extent to which it has or has not been occupied by the boat in question.

Yes I agree that the "satisfaction" only has to be achieved once for the home moorer whereas the performance has to be consistent and prolonged in order that the ccer satisfies the board continuously.

[Paul C]

 

Whereas if CRT have already accepted that a particular home mooring is a place where a boat can reasonably and lawfully be kept, and nothing of the circumstances of the mooring has changed, then I can't see that they have any discretion to be no longer satisfied that it is a valid home mooring, regardless of the extent to which it has or has not been occupied by the boat in question.

 

It might be that CRT were satisfied previously, due to the fact that they can't realistically check in great detail the various facts surrounding each boat's mooring (ie they trust the boater in that a fairly normal arrangement occurs, they use the boat on the canal then return to the home mooring when not using it for cruising). However, later on (possibly viat sightings by enforcement officers, or other sources) new information is made available, which while not altering material facts, is new to CRT so they change their mind and are no longer satisfied.

[mayalld]

 

Again you are conveniently ignoring the fact that there is no right to navigate, any more than there is a right to moor.

 

You buy both of those rights when you purchase a licence as CRT openly acknowledge.

 

You are making a distinction between two things that does not actually exist.

 

I am ignoring nothing.

 

In buying a licence, you buy a (limited) right to navigate, and a (limited) right to moor in the course of navigation. You do NOT buy a right to moor otherwise than in the course of navigation.

 

Mr Dunkley appears to be mooring otherwise than in the course of navigation.

[carlt]

I am ignoring nothing.

 

In buying a licence, you buy a (limited) right to navigate, and a (limited) right to moor in the course of navigation. You do NOT buy a right to moor otherwise than in the course of navigation.

 

Mr Dunkley appears to be mooring otherwise than in the course of navigation.

I have asked before if you could cite the legislation that introduces this requirement to navigate but you have failed to produce it so far.

 

I think it is purely a bizarre invention of your own to support your argument.

 

I would suggest that by moving his boat he is navigating and, when he is not moving his boat, he is moored.

 

Your "interpretation" would make all of the many boaters who take their boat from their mooring to their favourite spot repeatedly and nowhere else at risk of prosecution.

[NigelMoore]

 

So are C&RT taking action for non-compliance with the licence T&Cs rather than the 1995 Act ?

(In which case we should read carefully the licence T&Cs each year to see what new rules the have 'slipped in')

 

In effect, yes, because while they are going to court principally on the basis of a s.13 [i.e. for not having a houseboat certificate], they ensured that he arrived at an unlicensed situation [whereupon that claim could be made], via revoking his prior consent "for non-compliance with the licence T&Cs"

[Ssscrudddy]

 

It might be that CRT were satisfied previously, due to the fact that they can't realistically check in great detail the various facts surrounding each boat's mooring (ie they trust the boater in that a fairly normal arrangement occurs, they use the boat on the canal then return to the home mooring when not using it for cruising). However, later on (possibly viat sightings by enforcement officers, or other sources) new information is made available, which while not altering material facts, is new to CRT so they change their mind and are no longer satisfied.

But they have already said that they were satisfied that it is a valid home mooring, & have indeed spotted him on it 88 times. They are now saying it doesnt count as a home mooring because he only got it (the valid home mooring) to avoid having to comply with the CC rules. That's a bit like saying you only pay your taxes to avoid getting done for not paying your taxes therefore even though you have paid your taxes it is now going to count as not paying your taxes.

[mayalld]

I have asked before if you could cite the legislation that introduces this requirement to navigate but you have failed to produce it so far.

 

I think it is purely a bizarre invention of your own to support your argument.

 

I would suggest that by moving his boat he is navigating and, when he is not moving his boat, he is moored.

 

Your "interpretation" would make all of the many boaters who take their boat from their mooring to their favourite spot repeatedly and nowhere else at risk of prosecution.

 

I have cited no legislation, because none is needed!

 

CRT own the towpath and permit its use in the course of navigation.

 

They do not permit its use otherwise than in the course of navigation (other than for LTMs where they make a specific charge)

 

CRT are either exercising common law rights as landowners or s43 rights (take your pick).

 

Whilst non-binding and relating to CCers, the judge in the Davies rather nicely defined navigation and it provides a useful definition that CRT will doubtless seek to persuade a higher judge to give the force of precedent to.

 

A boater who cruises to a favourite spot regularly, for pleasure, then returns to a home mooring is undertaking a journey (navigating) for a purpose (to visit a place that he enjoys visiting) in the course of that journey, he moors. Such mooring is ancillary to the journey. It is necessary to enable the objective of the journey to be met.

 

A boater who cruises only with the intent of not falling foul of mooring limits is a different kettle of fish.

 

It is a question of degree. Is the boater mooring to CRT property in the course of a cruise, or is he cruising in the course of mooring to CRT property.

[carlt]

I have cited no legislation, because none is needed!

 

CRT own the towpath and permit its use in the course of navigation.

 

They do not permit its use otherwise than in the course of navigation (other than for LTMs where they make a specific charge)

 

CRT are either exercising common law rights as landowners or s43 rights (take your pick).

So could you cite where CRT have stated that, contrary to legislation, they have decided to implement a requirement to engage in navigation in order to engage in the act of not navigating?

 

Introducing a requirement to be engaged in navigation for a group that legislation has specifically exempted from this requirement suggests an attempt to change the law where they have no power to do so.

[mayalld]

So could you cite where CRT have stated that, contrary to legislation, they have decided to implement a requirement to engage in navigation in order to engage in the act of not navigating?

 

Introducing a requirement to be engaged in navigation for a group that legislation has specifically exempted from this requirement suggests an attempt to change the law where they have no power to do so.

 

There is no requirement being imposed to engage in navigation.

 

Boaters with a home mooring are free to remain on that mooring. They are free to moor on other private moorings by arrangement with the relvant landowner. However, they are only permitted to moor on CRT owned public moorings whilst in the course of navigating.

[carlt]

Whilst non-binding and relating to CCers, the judge in the Davies rather nicely defined navigation and it provides a useful definition that CRT will doubtless seek to persuade a higher judge to give the force of precedent to.

You have hit the nail squarely on the head here.

 

Navigation has been nicely defined for those who have a legal requirement to navigate not for those who are exempted from the requirement to navigate in that very same section of legislation.

[NigelMoore]

Actually that's not the case . . . There is no feedback to the data logger as to whether the boat is licensed or has overstayed.

 

Interestingly, while tidying papers today, I came across Nigel Johnson’s third Witness Statement which he had been ordered by the judge to produce, to explain BW’s contempt of court. This is dated 11 November 2011.

 

In explaining how much improved BW’s patrolling activities were since the incident, he says:

 

“The Data Checkers are each provided with a handheld personal date recorder (“PDR”) to enable them to record the location of all vessels they see as they patrol a particular section of a canal on any given day. As they sight a particular vessel they input the index number for the vessel into the PDR and the PDR instantly gives them relevant data regarding that vessel including its licence and mooring details as well as recording the current location of the vessel (linked to GPS).” [my bold]

 

I would not dream of relying on the sworn testimony of a BW/CaRT official to gainsay a CWDF member of course, but [being ignorant myself of the technicalities] thought the proffered information might be of interest.

[carlt]

 

However, they are only permitted to moor on CRT owned public moorings whilst in the course of navigating.

 

Again you are fabricating non-existent requirements to suit your argument.

[mayalld]

 

Again you are fabricating non-existent requirements to suit your argument.

 

CRT are free to make requirements as to the use of their land as they see fit.

[carlt]

 

CRT are free to make requirements as to the use of their land as they see fit.

Treading on lime green boat territory again Dave?

 

CRT are not free to alter the legislation to which they are bound to.

 

They have told nobody that they are changing the way they expect their customers to use the towpath, contrary to existing legislation nor have they told anybody about the penalties that they will be unlawfully imposing on anybody who abides by the existing legislation but not in the way they want them to.

 

If CRT was free to impose any restrictions or penalties on their customers regardless of existing legislation then we might just as well rip the Acts of Parliament and Byelaws up and submit to your bizarre concept of corporate anarchy.

Edited August 1, 2014 by carlt

[John V]

There is a major difference between someone with a home mooring,who

On their weekend take a short trip to a favourite spot and spends a night and moves back to their home mooring for their weeks work.

and

Someone with a home mooring who visits it for a night at the weekend and then moves back to a spot for a 6 nights which is close to their work.

That is taking the pee

justify it by whatever regulations you like, it is still taking the pee.

[mayalld]

Treading on lime green boat territory again Dave?

 

CRT are not free to alter the legislation to which they are bound to.

 

They have told nobody that they are changing the way they expect their customers to use the towpath,

 

 

I don't believe that;

 

2. Use of the boat

2.1. The Licence allows you to use the Boat in any Waterway including mooring for short periods while

cruising. ‘Short period’ means up to 14 days or less where a local restriction applies. The Licence

does not permit mooring for any longer period. Daily charges may be applied for staying longer than

the maximum time allowed.

 

3. Mooring

3.1. The Licence does not allow you to moor the Boat in any Waterway except for short periods whilst

cruising (see Condition 2.1 above). This Licence does not give a right to moor that is sufficient to

meet the requirement in the British Waterways Act 1995 for the Boat to have a Home Mooring.

 

is a recent innovation in the licence terms.

 

It seems clear to me that they have long made it clear that you can only moor ancillary to cruising against their land.

[Captain Zim]

There is a major difference between someone with a home mooring,who

On their weekend take a short trip to a favourite spot and spends a night and moves back to their home mooring for their weeks work.

and

Someone with a home mooring who visits it for a night at the weekend and then moves back to a spot for a 6 nights which is close to their work.

That is taking the pee

justify it by whatever regulations you like, it is still taking the pee.

I'm not sure many would disagree with this. I think where the problems arises is that if you allow an authority to bend the rules to deal with one situation, where does it end?

 

I am still trying to understand how navigation is different depending on whether you are moving for one reason and not another?

[mayalld]

I'm not sure many would disagree with this. I think where the problems arises is that if you allow an authority to bend the rules to deal with one situation, where does it end?

 

I am still trying to understand how navigation is different depending on whether you are moving for one reason and not another?

 

I think that the Judge's comments in the Davies case are very interesting and intelligent.

 

Essentially, he said that you couldn't decide whether something was navigation by distances elc, but that the intent was paramount.

 

As such, whether one is a CCer with an obligation under the 1995 Act to navigate or a boater with a home mooring who has no such obligation, the question as to whether you are engaging in navigation (or cruising) and mooring for short periods whilst doing so rests upon your behaviour.

 

If the purpose of your movement is merely to move to another place nearby where you can moor, then you are not engaged in navigation. If you are moving for pleasure, or for some other purpose beyond simply restarting the time for which you need not move again, you are navigating, and entitled to moor for short periods whilst doing so.

[carlt]

 

I don't believe that;

 

2. Use of the boat

2.1. The Licence allows you to use the Boat in any Waterway including mooring for short periods while

cruising. ‘Short period’ means up to 14 days or less where a local restriction applies. The Licence

does not permit mooring for any longer period. Daily charges may be applied for staying longer than

the maximum time allowed.

 

3. Mooring

3.1. The Licence does not allow you to moor the Boat in any Waterway except for short periods whilst

cruising (see Condition 2.1 above). This Licence does not give a right to moor that is sufficient to

meet the requirement in the British Waterways Act 1995 for the Boat to have a Home Mooring.

 

is a recent innovation in the licence terms.

 

It seems clear to me that they have long made it clear that you can only moor ancillary to cruising against their land.

 

Well cruising is not navigating so it is clear that they have been more careful with their choice of words than you.

 

The fact remains that mooring a boat is an essential requirement of having a boat on a waterway and the period of time between "cruises" is laid down so if the boater with a home mooring is abiding by those regulations that form part of the T&Cs you have selectively quoted then a prosecution would be a farce.

 

Your assertion that anybody can do what they want on "their property" can be quickly dismissed by looking at legislation such as The Protection of Freedoms Act regarding clamping.

Edited August 1, 2014 by carlt

[mayalld]

 

Well cruising is not navigating so it is clear that they have been more careful with their choice of words than you.

 

The fact remains that mooring a boat is an essential requirement of having a boat on a waterway and the period of time between "cruises" is laid down so if the boater with a home mooring is abiding by those regulations that form part of the T&Cs you have selectively quoted then a prosecution would be a farce.

 

Your assertion that they can do what they want on "their property" can be quickly dismissed by looking at legislation such as The Protection of Freedoms Act regarding clamping.

 

I wasn't aware that they are clamping boats now.

 

I have selectively quoted merely because those are the relevant bits.

 

If there are other bits that say something different, then you may have a point, but if not, you are just bandying "selectively quoted" in desparation.

[carlt]

 

I think that the Judge's comments in the Davies case are very interesting and intelligent.

 

Indeed they are, but totally irrelevant to a case involving someone with a home mooring who has no obligation to engage in navigation, however defined.

[carlt]

 

I wasn't aware that they are clamping boats now.

 

I have selectively quoted merely because those are the relevant bits.

 

If there are other bits that say something different, then you may have a point, but if not, you are just bandying "selectively quoted" in desparation.

The clamping point was countering your assertion that they could do anything they wanted on their property.

 

There are no bits relevant to your assertion that navigation by those with a home mooring is a requirement.

 

"Cruising" within the requirements of the T&Cs is, however and I would suggest that "cruising" implies significantly less movement than "navigation".

 

I used to regularly "cruise" the mile from my mooring to Braunston but that would not have been nearly enough to satisfy the "navigation" requirement of those without a home mooring.

 

Using your corporate anarchy notion CRT would have been within their rights to revoke my licence if they decided they didn't want my boat cluttering up the Braunston towpath.

Edited August 1, 2014 by carlt

[Alan de Enfield]

Does this help :

 

Definition of cruising :

 

1 ) To sail about on a pleasure trip

2 ) To sail about, as a warship patrolling a body of water.

3 ) To travel about without a particular purpose or destination.

Definition of Navigating :

1 ) To plan, record, and control the course and position of (a ship or aircraft).

2 ) To follow a planned course

Edited August 1, 2014 by Alan de Enfield