Jump to content

Continual cruising


Boston

Featured Posts

ok what I am doing is going from the City Centre of Oxford up to Anyho the distance being a total of 18 miles, I stop at around 8 places for about 14 days each. I work in Oxford so I do not intend to go further North. I am Adhering to the rules set by C&RT. My point is that if the warden does not patrol the areas I am moored and only sees me at about 4 mooring places then to C&RT I am not moving far enough. I have to prove that I am by taking photos, this cannot be right.


I have actually been told by Lisa Jarvis that I need to take photos to prove that I am moving outside the range of the warden and moving 18 miles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok what I am doing is going from the City Centre of Oxford up to Anyho the distance being a total of 18 miles, I stop at around 8 places for about 14 days each. I work in Oxford so I do not intend to go further North. I am Adhering to the rules set by C&RT. My point is that if the warden does not patrol the areas I am moored and only sees me at about 4 mooring places then to C&RT I am not moving far enough. I have to prove that I am by taking photos, this cannot be right.

I have actually been told by Lisa Jarvis that I need to take photos to prove that I am moving outside the range of the warden and moving 18 miles

Given that you have been issued with two notices now do you not think it would be wise to keep a photo log of where you have been and when and where you are mooring?

 

It is of course up to you but if you don't prove it you run the risk of having your home taken away or being asked to remove it from CRT waterways.

 

It will be beneficial to you to prove your movements.

 

Are there no moorings you can take in the area? If you are tied to an area so small then CCing isn't the most ideal option!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only say what I believe and that is that you are skirting along the edge of what is accepted as being CCing,

If because of this C&RT require specific evidence, that to my mind is entirely reasonable.

If you are in fact only navigating an 18 mile stretch of water I would guess that it is very hard to describe that as progressing round the system

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lifted directly from the CRT licencing general terms and conditions.

 

"If a boat is licensed without a home mooring it must move on a regular basis. This Guidance seeks to explain in day to day terms the nature of the movement that must take place.
There are three key legal requirements:-
  • the boat must genuinely be used for navigation throughout the period of the licence.
  • unless a shorter time is specified by notice the boat must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days (or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances)
  • it is the responsibility of the boater to satisfy the Trust that the above requirements are and will continue to be met.
“Navigation”
The law requires that the boat “will be bona fide used for navigation throughout the period of [the licence]”. ‘Bona fide’ is Latin for “with good faith” and is used by lawyers to mean ‘sincerely’ or ‘genuinely’. ‘Navigation’ in this context means travelling on water involving movement in passage or transit.
Therefore, subject to stops of permitted duration, those using a boat licensed for continuous cruising must genuinely be moving, in passage or in transit throughout the period of the licence.
Importantly, short trips within the same neighbourhood, and shuttling backwards and forwards along a small part of the network do NOT meet the legal requirement for navigation throughout the period of the licence.
The terms ‘cruise’ and ‘cruising’ are used in this guidance to mean using a boat bona fide for navigation.
“Place”
The law requires that stops during such cruising should not be “in any one place for more than 14 days”. “Place” in this context means a neighbourhood or locality, NOT simply a particular mooring site or position
.
Therefore to remain in the same neighbourhood for more than 14 days is not permitted. The necessary movement from one neighbourhood to another can be done in one step or by short gradual steps. What the law requires is that, if 14 days ago the boat was in neighbourhood A, by day 15 it must be in neighbourhood B or further afield. Thereafter, the next movement must be at least to neighbourhood C, and not back to neighbourhood A (with obvious exceptions such as reaching the end of a terminal waterway or reversing the direction of travel in the course of a genuine cruise).
What constitutes a ‘neighbourhood’ will vary from area to area – on a rural waterway a village or hamlet may be a neighbourhood and on an urban waterway a suburb or district within a town or city may be a neighbourhood. A sensible and pragmatic judgement needs to be made. It is not possible (nor appropriate) to specify distances that need to be travelled, since in densely populated areas different neighbourhoods will adjoin each other and in sparsely populated areas they may be far apart (in which case uninhabited areas between neighbourhoods will in themselves usually be a locality and also a “place”). "
Some of this may be useful reading to the OP.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok what I am doing is going from the City Centre of Oxford up to Anyho the distance being a total of 18 miles, I stop at around 8 places for about 14 days each. I work in Oxford so I do not intend to go further North.

So it takes 16 weeks to go the 18 miles from Oxford to Anyho then turn round and spend 16 weeks going back to Oxford, then turn round and do it again so about 60 miles a year all on the same bit of canal you can see why they might think you're overstaying. Personally I don't have a problem with that but I can see why CRT might, to the tune of a £1,500 mooring they could be charging you for.

K

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nope, not seeing the word "progress", can you highlight it for me please


So it takes 16 weeks to go the 18 miles from Oxford to Anyho then turn round and spend 16 weeks going back to Oxford, then turn round and do it again so about 60 miles a year all on the same bit of canal you can see why they might think you're overstaying. Personally I don't have a problem with that but I can see why CRT might, to the tune of a £1,500 mooring they could be charging you for.

K

 

Many moorings available around Oxford for £1,500?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Please supply a reference to a requirement to progress around the system.

 

Your friend with one L has gone quiet since I asked him this.

 

Progression....."The act or an instance of moving from one thing in a sequence to the next" Collins concise

 

i.e. A to B to C to D etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find interesting about the endless discussions of the rules/guidance on CCing are these two points;

 

First

====

 

The law is vague, resting upon the boater having to "satisfy the board". It seems to be a matter of dispute as to whether that gives the board any right of interpretation.

 

Some claim that the board cannot expect anything other than strict observance of those words in the Act that admit no dispute as to their meaning, and that in consequence, whilst the Act requires Bona Fide Navigation, the mere fact that this is undefined means that the board cannot require anything in respect of the Bona fide element for satisfaction

 

Others (me included) contend that in requiring that the board be satisfied, the Act allows the board to determine what is required (subject of course to legal challenge).

 

Second

======

 

Given a vague law, and endless arguing as to meaning and intent, there appears to be a lack of a level playing field.

 

Those who would neuter the powers to regulate anything feel that they can introduce anything that was ever discussed that is to their advantage, and claim it as sacrosanct, but their opponents are to have nothing but the bare minimum of powers that it can be reduced to.

 

 

Let us consider the BW Act 1995, and the reasoning behind the relevant powers.

 

 

BW sought, originally, to require every boat to have a home mooring. Its ostensible reasoning being that an uncontrolled right for boaters to simply nab a bit of towpath for themselves was no way to run a canal system, and would lead to the canals being an unattractive destination for leisure (as opposed to residential) users. It may well be that they had an eye to the income possibilities, but the presence of an ulterior motive doesn't negate the presence of a legitimate purpose.

 

Clearly that was opposed by those who travel the canals, and for whom having a home mooring was a nonsense. They were travelling and couldn't actually make use of a home mooring.

 

Thus the concept of the CCer was born. A CCer was a boater who needs no home mooring, because he is moving on.

 

Over time, boaters have declared themselves CCer with a clear intent, not of travelling far and wide, but of paying out no mooring fees, and finding the limit of what they can do and remain CCers.

 

In arguing for an exemption for those who had no use for a home mooring because they were travelling, did those who did so represent that some of those travellers were actually moving over a distance that they could easily travel in a couple of days by canal?

 

My view is that they didn't.

 

The CCing element of the 1995 Act is there for the benefit of those who couldn't use a home mooring if the obtained one, not those whose use of the canals in a very limited range would be accommodated just as well on a home mooring.

Very well put Dave. Greenie to you sir.

Bob

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who would neuter the powers to regulate anything feel that they can introduce anything that was ever discussed that is to their advantage, and claim it as sacrosanct, but their opponents are to have nothing but the bare minimum of powers that it can be reduced to.

 

Interesting. It seems to me it's exactly the opposite. It seems to me to be CRT and its apologists that are continually rewriting the 1995 Act to gain what they believe to be their advantage. Even though experience is beginning to show it's anything but - it's your favourites, the marina moorers who are falling foul of a lot of the recent tinkering.

 

Aside: funny that your favoured pattern should be exactly the same as your pattern. Why do you think that might be?

 

The opponents of this, who in the main are just wanting to get on with their boating lives, find that all they have to fall back on is the bare minimum of the laws.

 

 

Now why do you think that two people who hold such opposing views should argue the same position?

 

 

To deal with your assertions about the debate behind the 1995 Act, all I can say is that your analysis is deeply flawed by its attempt at twisting the debate to fit your chosen stance. There have been many expositions as to exactly why you are wrong not least by Nigel Moore on this forum.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Interesting. It seems to me it's exactly the opposite. It seems to me to be CRT and its apologists that are continually rewriting the 1995 Act to gain what they believe to be their advantage. Even though experience is beginning to show it's anything but - it's your favourites, the marina moorers who are falling foul of a lot of the recent tinkering.

 

Aside: funny that your favoured pattern should be exactly the same as your pattern. Why do you think that might be?

 

The opponents of this, who in the main are just wanting to get on with their boating lives, find that all they have to fall back on is the bare minimum of the laws.

 

 

Now why do you think that two people who hold such opposing views should argue the same position?

 

 

To deal with your assertions about the debate behind the 1995 Act, all I can say is that your analysis is deeply flawed by its attempt at twisting the debate to fit your chosen stance. There have been many expositions as to exactly why you are wrong not least by Nigel Moore on this forum.

Isn't that all that any of us want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be happy to take mooring on the cut if it was available, which it is not in my area, my only option would be to move into marina which is pretty much like living in a carpark having a boat on either side of you. Not what I want or want to pay for. C&RT are very much aware of the lack of mooring in certain areas and I feel a waiting list would be a much fairer system. But aside from this issue, C&RT expect me to move a distance of 18 miles, I do this and also take winter mooring. what I don't expect is to get harassed just because I am using the same mooring spots a couple of times a yr, common sense would dictate that if the warden has not spotted my boat for a couple of months then I have clearly moved away from his area and not parked up in a field nearby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be happy to take mooring on the cut if it was available, which it is not in my area, my only option would be to move into marina which is pretty much like living in a carpark having a boat on either side of you. Not what I want or want to pay for. C&RT are very much aware of the lack of mooring in certain areas and I feel a waiting list would be a much fairer system. But aside from this issue, C&RT expect me to move a distance of 18 miles, I do this and also take winter mooring. what I don't expect is to get harassed just because I am using the same mooring spots a couple of times a yr, common sense would dictate that if the warden has not spotted my boat for a couple of months then I have clearly moved away from his area and not parked up in a field nearby

Where does it say that?

 

I'm sorry if I dont seem very sympathetic but you signed up to the terms and conditions of the licence knowing full well what they are.

 

You choose to cruise on what is the fringe of what CRT expect of you. Are you really surprised that you have caught their attention?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do like the idea of taking photos of my boat next to nondescript hedging at each stop, maybe I could claim I moved as far as Scotland


I actually had a phone call from Lisa Jarvis who stated I had to move a distance of 18 miles, this is what I am doing. If they insist on this requirement for CC then why have they not got a system in place to make sure we are monitored, putting patrol notices on boats and expecting boaters to submit prove the notices are innapropriate is just harassement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that all that any of us want?

 

you would have thought so, yes, but it seems there is a sizeable minority that would rather tell everyone else how they should boat

I do like the idea of taking photos of my boat next to nondescript hedging at each stop, maybe I could claim I moved as far as Scotland

I actually had a phone call from Lisa Jarvis who stated I had to move a distance of 18 miles, this is what I am doing. If they insist on this requirement for CC then why have they not got a system in place to make sure we are monitored, putting patrol notices on boats and expecting boaters to submit prove the notices are innapropriate is just harassement

 

I'll email you some pictures of 100 miles away.

 

In fact I think I'll start a Picasa album of well known canal landmarks with instructions as to how to manipulate the EXIF data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do like the idea of taking photos of my boat next to nondescript hedging at each stop, maybe I could claim I moved as far as Scotland

I actually had a phone call from Lisa Jarvis who stated I had to move a distance of 18 miles, this is what I am doing. If they insist on this requirement for CC then why have they not got a system in place to make sure we are monitored, putting patrol notices on boats and expecting boaters to submit prove the notices are innapropriate is just harassement

Because the onus is on you to prove it not CRT.

I do like the idea of taking photos of my boat next to nondescript hedging at each stop, maybe I could claim I moved as far as Scotland

I actually had a phone call from Lisa Jarvis who stated I had to move a distance of 18 miles, this is what I am doing. If they insist on this requirement for CC then why have they not got a system in place to make sure we are monitored, putting patrol notices on boats and expecting boaters to submit prove the notices are innapropriate is just harassement

And confirm to CRT that your claims are BS. That would be a wise move frusty.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind so much but there is one particular blue boat that is permanently moored at Pigeon Lock in Kirtlington, (where there is no permanent mooring) C&RT are aware of him and by their own admission never gets a petrol notice and according to him the warden just leaves him alone, and when I ask C&RT if I can have the same mooring arrangements as he has I'm told no and if I do as he does I WILL get petrol notices.

Has it occured that he might have an agreement with CRT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

you would have thought so, yes, but it seems there is a sizeable minority that would rather tell everyone else how they should boat

 

I'll email you some pictures of 100 miles away.

 

In fact I think I'll start a Picasa album of well known canal landmarks with instructions as to how to manipulate the EXIF data.

 

 

about what might have been expected from you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

oooh, my stalker's back. Hello stalker.

 

Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion or is that your wad shot for the afternoon?

 

I noticed that you ignored the reply to your progression request......run out of argument and retreating into your normal bluster?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I noticed that you ignored the reply to your progression request......run out of argument and retreating into your normal bluster?

 

No, not really Johnny, I thought your reply beneath comment. I know how to use a dictionary thanks, I asked you to point me to the place in the law or even in the guidelines that requires a progressive journey.

 

But you knew that. I expect you and your little friend one-L had a childish little giggle over that.

 

CRT is a charity; it's a young charity; it has a whole lot of external pressures; and it has bugger all money.

 

Saying "why have they not got a system in place" is the wrong attitude. There are lots of things that CRT should be doing and isn't. But it doesn't have the staff, or the money, to do everything all at once.

 

It is much more cost-effective for you to document where you are than for CRT to send a warden up and down every bit of towpath every four days. For you to do it takes 30 seconds each time you moor up (if you have a smartphone, just take a geotagged photo - you could post it on Twitter if you like, for a public record). For CRT to do it, they have to employ a warden, or at the very least cover all the external costs associated with volunteers.

 

That money has to come from somewhere and, ultimately, it comes from maintenance. Yes, CRT isn't a 100% efficient organisation - you'll always be able to point to examples of "why are they spending money on this or that thing I don't like" - but that's true of any organisation and my experience is that CRT is only averagely inefficient.

 

If you do your bit, I do my bit, and we all help a little, the waterways will be better. If you and I and 25,000 other licence payers all stamp our little feet and say "I demand CRT does everything by itself and I won't help", then they have less to spend on keeping the water in the canals and the gates on the locks. Your call.

 

Missing the point. If they weren't making themselves obnoxious for no reason it wouldn't cost them anything. I see no reason to support these absurdities that waste their and everyone else's time. Look at Cotswoldman's experience. That doesn't fit your model.

 

Where the OP was (within 18 miles or 100 miles) they are still somewhere.

 

To turn it around are you happy to stamp your feet and demand CRT chases him up and down the Oxford canal to absolutely no effect?

If it's a charity with bugger-all money, why is it spending so much on these ineffectual and derisory processes?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.