Section 8

[Sir Nibble]

I'd be staggered if CaRT (press office, senior management) did not look in here virtually every day. It's a massive source of free feedback.

 

I'd give my right arm to have this intelligence re my customers and competitors. I'm forever looking at what my competitors are doing - using the internet mainly! and personal contacts/moles.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if they ever looked at all. As far as I can tell boaters are just nice scenery for the visitors and an income and if they weren't there then the nice linear wildlife park and cycle network would be so much easier to run. I'm afraid I really have come to believe that boats and boaters are actually unwelcome.

[NigelMoore]

As far as I can tell boaters are just nice scenery for the visitors and an income . . .

 

Sadly I rather agree with you, but that isn't to say they don't apply the precept of "know thine enemy". And they can't yet afford to do without our income - both direct through licences and moorings etc, and indirect through the touristic value we add.

[NigelMoore]

Has the judgement in CaRT v Meyers been published?

 

Well CaRT were never going to publish it, that’s for sure!

 

They did publish the Order –

 

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/5890.pdf

 

- which actually reveal that costs were awarded of £50,000 on account, so that the bill must have been at least double that.

 

You can read the full judgment here –

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/235689154/Meyers-Judgment-2013

[mark99]

 

Sadly I rather agree with you, but that isn't to say they don't apply the precept of "know thine enemy". And they can't yet afford to do without our income - both direct through licences and moorings etc, and indirect through the touristic value we add.

 

They cannot really publicly directly act on anything much on forums direcly as:

 

1) They would be running first one way and then the other as there is rarely concensus

 

2) If they did, they would be innundated with posts advising them what's a priority and then getting in a reactive mess or criticised

 

However it's productive ground to see trends, feelings, groundswell and wider attitudes.

[MtB]

Interesting the judge mixes up the terms 'bona fide for navigation' and bona fide navigation.

 

One could argue it is the intent is what makes 'bona fide for navigation'. So it is still possible to 'bona fide navigate' whilst not using your boat 'bona fide for navigation'.

 

An example might be when one moves one's bote the 2 miles mentioned, purely for the purposes of avoiding being snared by the 14 day rule and no other reason, rather than because you wanted to enjoy navigating your boat. In which case I hold the boat is being used for bona fide navigation as per the dictionary, but as the intent is not bona fide, the boat is not being used bona fide for navigation.

 

A third term ought to have been used in the legislation; "Bona fide for bona fide navigation", I reckon!

 

MtB

[mark99]

 

 

- which actually reveal that costs were awarded of £50,000 on account, so that the bill must have been at least double that.

 

 

 

To be clear - were CaRT awarded costs of at least £50K against, I presume, a chap with no assets or means to pay?

Edited August 2, 2014 by mark99

[NilesMI]

I'm afraid I really have come to believe that boats and boaters are actually unwelcome.

In the relatively short time I've had a boat this is a view I've heard from many other boaters. The thing is, that having expressed that view, there are almost as many reasons why they feel that as there are boaters who've expressed it. ISTM that if only there was a group of people called "boaters" then BW or CRT could be called to account for not engaging with it. It's not just that there is a conflict between the demands of walkers, cyclists and anglers with those of boaters, but there are even bigger conflicts between boaters themselves as to what CRT's priorites should be.

 

As long as boaters prefer to see themselves and demand representation as factions, CRT will have difficulty satisfying them all. Who could blame them if they said to hell with that? If boaters are of the view that CRT doesn't properly cater for their needs, they should at least be able to agree what those needs are. I don't see that happening.

You can read the full judgment here –

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/235689154/Meyers-Judgment-2013

 

Thx, Nigel.

Edited August 2, 2014 by NilesMI

[NigelMoore]

Interesting the judge mixes up the terms 'bona fide for navigation' and bona fide navigation.

 

One could argue it is the intent is what makes 'bona fide for navigation'. So it is still possible to 'bona fide navigate' whilst not using your boat 'bona fide for navigation'.

 

An example might be when one moves one's bote the 2 miles mentioned, purely for the purposes of avoiding being snared by the 14 day rule and no other reason, rather than because you wanted to enjoy navigating your boat. In which case I hold the boat is being used for bona fide navigation as per the dictionary, but as the intent is not bona fide, the boat is not being used bona fide for navigation.

 

A third term ought to have been used in the legislation; "Bona fide for bona fide navigation", I reckon!

 

MtB

 

I think most of these judgments are wrong in law in striving to define the point with this degree of finesse. When you have to start dissecting phrases like this at such a level of forensic [and speculative] analysis, then you really have to 'fess up to the reality that ambiguity is present. That being the case, whatever interpretation you put on it, it has to be that which least favours the authority. The judges all faithfully spout the legal maxim that ought to bind them in that regard, and all as uniformly go on to ignore it.

[NigelMoore]

 

To be clear - were CaRT awarded costs of at least £50K against, I presume, a chap with no assets or means to pay?

 

Well he had the boat until they snatched it. I don't know the timetable of events post judgment; he had time to leave the jurisdiction, but gossip says CaRT went in, put him out of the boat and took it away cross-country before he did so, on grounds that he was a 'flight risk'. That, I don't know the truth of, but he certainly was presented with a whopping costs bill for the removal if he wanted the boat back, and he doesn't have that.

 

You will notice that the court costs order was specifically NOT to be enforced without express permission from the court. Now, he has not even the asset of the boat.

 

It is altogether usual for the court to award costs to the winner regardless of the impecuniosity of the loser. You only used to get insulation from that when defended by public funding [Legal Aid]. The total allowable costs in the case have yet to be assessed. When summary interim costs are awarded, the court usually takes a very conservative line as to the proportion of costs applied for will be eventually awarded, so the percentage "on account" is only a fraction of that.

 

They have now served him with a Sale of Goods notice under the Torts Act, seeing he hasn't been able to stump up the removal and storage costs since March.

[Paul C]

 

Well CaRT were never going to publish it, that’s for sure!

 

They did publish the Order –

 

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/5890.pdf

 

- which actually reveal that costs were awarded of £50,000 on account, so that the bill must have been at least double that.

 

You can read the full judgment here –

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/235689154/Meyers-Judgment-2013

 

Interesting reading. 10.14 is a bit of a blow to some forum members here.

[NilesMI]

 

Interesting reading.

 

IMO, court judgements must be read and and can only be understood in their entirety. The narrative examines argument and counter argument to reach a single conclusion or group of conclusions. It's very easy to take part of the argument out of context.

[Paul C]

 

IMO, court judgements must be read and and can only be understood in their entirety. The narrative examines argument and counter argument to reach a single conclusion or group of conclusions. It's very easy to take part of the argument out of context.

That's why I sat down and read the whole thing.

[NigelMoore]

 

IMO, court judgements must be read and and can only be understood in their entirety. The narrative examines argument and counter argument to reach a single conclusion or group of conclusions. It's very easy to take part of the argument out of context.

 

Paul C has very obviously . .. no, shan't bother, he beat me to it!

[Hawkmoth]

In the relatively short time I've had a boat this is a view I've heard from many other boaters. The thing is, that having expressed that view, there are almost as many reasons why they feel that as there are boaters who've expressed it. ISTM that if only there was a group of people called "boaters" then BW or CRT could be called to account for not engaging with it. It's not just that there is a conflict between the demands of walkers, cyclists and anglers with those of boaters, but there are even bigger conflicts between boaters themselves as to what CRT's priorites should be.

 

As long as boaters prefer to see themselves and demand representation as factions, CRT will have difficulty satisfying them all. Who could blame them if they said to hell with that? If boaters are of the view that CRT doesn't properly cater for their needs, they should at least be able to agree what those needs are. I don't see that happening.

 

Thx, Nigel.

As ever, divide and rule!

Bob

[NilesMI]

That's why I sat down and read the whole thing.

 

I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to suggest you hadn't. In fact I was agreeing that it is interesting to read the judgement, when you get to see it in full.

[Grace and Favour]

Interesting the judge mixes up the terms 'bona fide for navigation' and bona fide navigation.

 

One could argue it is the intent is what makes 'bona fide for navigation'. So it is still possible to 'bona fide navigate' whilst not using your boat 'bona fide for navigation'.

 

An example might be when one moves one's bote the 2 miles mentioned, purely for the purposes of avoiding being snared by the 14 day rule and no other reason, rather than because you wanted to enjoy navigating your boat. In which case I hold the boat is being used for bona fide navigation as per the dictionary, but as the intent is not bona fide, the boat is not being used bona fide for navigation.

 

A third term ought to have been used in the legislation; "Bona fide for bona fide navigation", I reckon!

 

MtB

Wouldn't Julian and Sandy at Bona Law be able to do that for CRT?

 

( it's an age thing!)

[John V]

Wouldn't Julian and Sandy at Bona Law be able to do that for CRT?

 

( it's an age thing!)

 

Round the Horn had a different meaning in sailing ship days........

[muddywaters]

This I doubt. I do not believe CaRT have sufficient interest in what this forum or boaters in general think to justify logging on. They will be too busy avidly participating in cycling and angling groups.

Never heard the saying keep your friends close and your enemies closer then.

A good reason for them to monitor it IMHO.

CRT keep their discussions in house ours are in public

[mayalld]

But where in the Act does it say that a boater must intend to reasonably keep and lawfully leave his vessel on the home mooring? It only refers to a "mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left". And I don't think anyone is disputing that TD's boat can be left there.

 

Whilst I can't really support TD's apparent behaviour as being within the spirit of the rules I can't see that he has actually contravened any specific requirements.

 

I dispute that it can REASONABLY be left there.

 

The Act talks about a place where THE vessel can reasonably be left. Not "A" vessel, but "THE" vessel.

 

Now clearly, there are the easy physical reasons that would mean that a boat can't reasonably be left at a particular mooring (if you claim a mooring for a WB on the Macc, it obviously fails).

 

However, I would also contend that a strong aversion on the part of the owner to actually using the mooring would mean that the mooring is not available.

[Tuscan]

I dispute that it can REASONABLY be left there.

 

The Act talks about a place where THE vessel can reasonably be left. Not "A" vessel, but "THE" vessel.

 

However, I would also contend that a strong aversion on the part of the owner to actually using the mooring would mean that the mooring is not available.

 

Can't see anywhere in CRTs marina or mooring terms any minimum number of days that the boat must be on the mooring during the annual mooring agreement to ensure that it remains available for use.

[Mr Badger]

 

 

However, I would also contend that a strong aversion on the part of the owner to actually using the mooring would mean that the mooring is not available.

 

If the mooring exists (it does) and he could use it if he wanted to (he could) then how can it not be available to him? He has just made a choice not to use it. If the option to change his mind is available to him (it is) then so is the mooring.

[mayalld]

Can't see anywhere in CRTs marina or mooring terms any minimum number of days that the boat must be on the mooring during the annual mooring agreement to ensure that it remains available for use.

 

notwithstanding that the mooring stands there available for use, if the person who has taken the mooring indicates that he will not take his boat there, it ceases to be a place where the boat can reasonably be kept.

 

If the mooring exists (it does) and he could use it if he wanted to (he could) then how can it not be available to him? He has just made a choice not to use it. If the option to change his mind is available to him (it is) then so is the mooring.

 

Should he change his mind, then it does indeed become a mooring again.

 

For the duration of his refusal to use it, it is not.

 

Well CaRT were never going to publish it, that’s for sure!

 

They did publish the Order –

 

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/5890.pdf

 

- which actually reveal that costs were awarded of £50,000 on account, so that the bill must have been at least double that.

 

You can read the full judgment here –

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/235689154/Meyers-Judgment-2013

 

Very interesting.

 

It does provide some comfort to Mr Dunkley.

 

However, in terms of CCing, it pretty well consolidates CRTs position post-Davies (the comment about Davies being VERY persuasive is interesting)

[NilesMI]

 

notwithstanding that the mooring stands there available for use, if the person who has taken the mooring indicates that he will not take his boat there, it ceases to be a place where the boat can reasonably be kept.

 

This stretches the meaning of 'reasonably' by making it dependant on the intent of the actor. In this case, the intent of the licencee to keep the boat at the mooring place.

 

The words 'reasonable' or 'reasonably' crop up in law to qualify some kind of state or behaviour, e.g. 'reasonable force', 'an unreasonably long time'. Negligence is defined in terms of failing to exercise 'reasonable' care. In criminal cases juries convict if they believe the case is proved beyond 'reasonable' doubt. It's a subjective test, but it's one which a jury or a judge can determine by comparing someone's actions with those of a reasonable person.

 

I suggest that's exactly what Parliament intended when they included the word 'reasonably' in the 1995 Act. It places a subjective test on the mooring place. The boat can reasonably be kept there if it's a place a reasonable person would think the boat could be kept. The intent of the licencee doesn't, cannot, impinge on that test.

 

It would seem that CRT agree with that, as in Mayers, one of the remedies offered to allow him to avoid the requirements to use his boat bona fide to navigate was to simply acquire a home mooring. The offer did not state that he would be required to actually keep his boat there, let alone maintain an intent to do so. The judgement also says that CRT conceeded the point in the course of argument that if GDM acquired a home mooring for Pearl he would be left undisturbed provided he met the 14 day requirement.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

...................... The judgement also says that CRT conceeded the point in the course of argument that if GDM acquired a home mooring for Pearl he would be left undisturbed provided he met the 14 day requirement.

 

Just collecting some of these little gems that you quote, - would you have the original document in which this was quoted

[NilesMI]

 

Just collecting some of these little gems that you quote, - would you have the original document in which this was quoted

 

It is para 6.4 of the judgement kindly linked to by NigelMoore.

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/235689154/Meyers-Judgment-2013