Section 8

[RLWP]

 

Maybe we should go off at a tangent then...

 

Should the 1995 Act be amended to say that all boats so licensed must be used bona fide for navigation when not kept at their home mooring?

 

And now entering another circle - that would need an act of parliament

 

Richard

[NilesMI]

Obviousy it would require an Act of Parliament.

 

It's the kind of minor amendment which could be tagged on to any suitable Bill. If there was a desire to do it, there is no problem getting it enacted. The question is whether it would be A Good Thing.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Maybe we should go off at a tangent then...

 

Should the 1995 Act be amended to say that all boats so licensed must be used bona fide for navigation when not kept at their home mooring?

 

But we would then need a definition of Navigation - I have a home mooring, I go 5 miles up the river/canal every Friday night, stay on the 48 hour moorings and return to my Mooring on a Sunday night.

 

Is that navigation ?

 

You could argue that my home mooring is not where I want to be, so I dont have a valid home mooring ?

 

Roll on September and the court case.

[Paul C]

I have another theory. No links or evidence etc to support it, its simply a theory. TD lives on his boat, but the mooring he has is a leisure-only mooring, not residential. The moorings manager was let it go under the radar for some time, but was getting nervous about the possible implications so they came to a deal where TD said something to the effect of "don't worry, I'll never he here".

 

IF this is the case (I don't think it is though....but its possible) it could have massive implications for all those living on non-residential moorings.

 

Maybe we should go off at a tangent then...

 

Should the 1995 Act be amended to say that all boats so licensed must be used bona fide for navigation when not kept at their home mooring?

 

I suspect if there was the possibility of getting the 1995 Act amended, CRT would simply do away with CCing and make everyone have a home mooring. No other navigation authority of canals that I know of, allows it.

[Mr Badger]

 

 

I suspect if there was the possibility of getting the 1995 Act amended, CRT would simply do away with CCing and make everyone have a home mooring. No other navigation authority of canals that I know of, allows it.

 

BW proposed that everyone should have a home mooring in the 1995 Act but Parliament insisted on adding the option to CC.

[Paul C]

 

BW proposed that everyone should have a home mooring in the 1995 Act but Parliament insisted on adding the option to CC.

 

I know.....and its now 2014, not 1995.

[NilesMI]

 

BW proposed that everyone should have a home mooring in the 1995 Act but Parliament insisted on adding the option to CC.

 

Before there was an option to CC, did BW's proposal require boats to be kept at their home mooring or was it just sufficient that they had one?

[mayalld]

 

Maybe we should go off at a tangent then...

 

Should the 1995 Act be amended to say that all boats so licensed must be used bona fide for navigation when not kept at their home mooring?

Yes, and I gave suggested as much previously.

 

I actually see these cases as a kind of death or glory attempt by CRT.

 

They conclude that the acts are a mess and that anything they do is argued time and again. Push it into court and either the court supports them which gives them the powers unequivocally or they lose and have proof that they need new legislation.

 

Before there was an option to CC, did BW's proposal require boats to be kept at their home mooring or was it just sufficient that they had one?

I doubt that they considered the possibility of this particular piece of piss taking

[mark99]

The test for unreasonableness is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could think it reasonable. Some reasonable people might think the mooring in question is not a place where the vessel could reasonably be kept; but if other reasonable people could think it is a reasonable place it must be a reasonable place.

 

But you have not defined a reasonable person in the quest to define reasonableness. In my dim and distant memory a reasonble person was partially defined by a type of person one might find on the Clapham Omnibus.

[MtB]

 

I suspect if there was the possibility of getting the 1995 Act amended, CRT would simply do away with CCing and make everyone have a home mooring. No other navigation authority of canals that I know of, allows it.

 

You've never heard of the EA then?

 

No home mooring needed to keep a boat on The Thames.

 

 

 

MtB

[Paul C]

 

You've never heard of the EA then?

 

No home mooring needed to keep a boat on The Thames.

 

 

 

MtB

 

Which canals do the EA look after?

[Ssscrudddy]

Dunno, but they do have a bunch of canalised rivers (& normal rivers)... guess what... with narrowboats (& widebeams) on them.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Ssscrudddy

[Paul C]

Dunno, but they do have a bunch of canalised rivers (& normal rivers)... guess what... with narrowboats (& widebeams) on them.

 

Rivers have riparian rights though, which means the navigation authority, except for a small number of places, are NOT the owner of at least 1 of the banks. Canals are significantly different in that most of the towpath side IS owned by the navigation authority. Its a massive difference.

[b0atman]

Its a mess and a money boost for lawyers yet again.

[NigelMoore]

Roll on September and the court case.

 

No court case in September, only a 30 minute hearing to work out the relevant issues to be decided.

[MtB]

 

No court case in September, only a 30 minute hearing to work out the relevant issues to be decided.

 

What happens once the issues to be decided have been decided?

 

MtB

[carlt]

A Date will be decided on to decide whether the issues to be decided can produce a decisive decision.

[NigelMoore]

- an impossibility of course, given the chosen venue!

 

Quite seriously - if CaRT were really in earnest about obtaining "decisive decisions", then instead of wasting time and money on County Court proceedings [however suitable for rubber-stamping straightforward and uncontested cases], they should go directly to the High Court for meaningful "declaratory relief". It has been accepted for nearly 20 years that issues of interpretation of the waterways Acts are properly heard in the High Court.

 

Swan Hill Developments v BWB in the Court of Appeal - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1997/1089.html - where Lord Woolf referred to the provisions in Enabling Acts for disputes over meaning to be resolved by “commissioners” [long since defunct of course].

 

“. . . it is accepted that the appropriate body to exercise what would otherwise be the powers of the commissioners in these circumstances is the High Court. The High Court can, by granting declarations, make any appropriate decision which is needed in the absence of the commissioners. That seems to me to be a happy resolution of what could otherwise be a purely technical problem."

 

I would suggest that this is no less appropriate in interpreting the modern private legislation.

Edited August 6, 2014 by NigelMoore

[Captain Zim]

Yes, and I gave suggested as much previously.

 

I actually see these cases as a kind of death or glory attempt by CRT.

 

They conclude that the acts are a mess and that anything they do is argued time and again. Push it into court and either the court supports them which gives them the powers unequivocally or they lose and have proof that they need new legislation.

 

I agree with this. Another reason why people shouldn't push it since, as previously confirmed by Nigel, the Act, through the hard work of many dedicated people, was actually very kind to boaters. Having said that, I can't see any government being keen on making the housing situation in this country worse than it already is.

[NilesMI]

I agree with this. Another reason why people shouldn't push it since, as previously confirmed by Nigel, the Act, through the hard work of many dedicated people, was actually very kind to boaters.

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "people shouldn't push it".

 

Are you saying that people who think they are not obliged to abide by the CC rules, because they have a home mooring, should meekly comply when CRT revoke their licence on those debatable grounds?

[mayalld]

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "people shouldn't push it".

 

Are you saying that people who think they are not obliged to abide by the CC rules, because they have a home mooring, should meekly comply when CRT revoke their licence on those debatable grounds?

 

People should avoid their attempts to find ways of doing things that are clearly not in the spirit of the law.

 

If they continue to do so, the prospect of new laws is increased.

[Tuscan]

I though having a home mooring and moving every 14 days was in the spirit of the law. More so perhaps than imposing no return rules and penalty charges of £25 for a 24 hour stay .

[Alan de Enfield]

mayalld, on 06 Aug 2014 - 1:05 PM, said:

 

People should avoid their attempts to find ways of doing things that are clearly not in the spirit of the law.

 

 

There is no 'spirit' to avoid :

 

The section of the act that refers to boats without a home mooring is extremely clear in its intent and meaning (apart from the definition of 'place') :

 

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

The section regarding boats with a home mooring, is similarly clear , and the absence of the 'clauses' in the above requirement show that they are not required.

 

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;

 

There is no implication, requirement, or 'spirit' that requires the boat to either 'bona fide' navigate, or, move to another 'place' .

[NigelMoore]

Push it into court and either the court supports them which gives them the powers unequivocally or they lose and have proof that they need new legislation.

 

But as I have said above, the support of the County Courts does NOT give them the powers unequivocally – for that they need High Court declarations, which they have never, so far as I know, chosen to initiate.

 

Even where they obtain “proof that they need new legislation” [and Hildyard J’s comments went as far in that direction as probably needed], in the process of achieving their separation from direct Parliamentary control and oversight, the BW power to promote primary legislation was stripped from them.

 

The best they could now hope for, is approval of the 'new' draft byelaws, the pertinent clauses of which have already previously been firmly rejected by Parliament, for reasons only too clearly vindicated by the subsequent abusive use of the available legislation thereafter.

[Naughty Cal]

 

There is no 'spirit' to avoid :

 

The section of the act that refers to boats without a home mooring is extremely clear in its intent and meaning (apart from the definition of 'place') :

 

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

The section regarding boats with a home mooring, is similarly clear , and the absence of the 'clauses' in the above requirement show that they are not required.

 

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;

 

There is no implication, requirement, or 'spirit' that requires the boat to either 'bona fide' navigate, or, move to another 'place' .

 

There is an implication that they need to be satisfied with the home mooring though