Continual cruising

[Delta9]

 

NOT correct .......there are other waterways

CRT have a monopoly on all of the canals in my area.

You don't have to go boating on the canals, its not compulsory.

Nothing is compulsory.

[kris88]

 

according to Cotswoldman's post (another thread?) C&RT reckoned about 2,000 a few years ago.......that number of mooring fees would pay for a heck of a lot of maintenance!

Yes john I'm aware of cotswoldmans post, I'm also aware we don't know if it's accurate.

It's my fault though I was wondering if there are any accurate up to date figures. As you'd expect for such a major threat to the continued existence of the system(sarcasm)

Also when I said overstayers I should clarify I mean boats coming to the attention of the enforcement team (sorry for the confusion) I'm not up to date with the latest name for them cmer, fake continuos cruiser, piss taker etc.

Regards kris

Edited October 6, 2014 by kris88

[Alan de Enfield]

This is looking a if its going back to the Pillings Lock farce :

 

"It costs C&RT nothing to have extra boats on the system"

 

"C&RT have a monoploy so shouldn't be able to do it"

[John V]

CRT have a monopoly on all of the canals in my area.

 

if there are other areas it isn't a monopoly.......it is quite possible to live in a boat on dry land.......there is one I know of has been wrangling with the local council over planning permission.....he has a garden around the boat and the last time it flooded was 1953 in the tidal surge but he keeps claiming that he is only there because he is waiting for a big tide.

Yes john I'm aware of cotswoldmans post, I'm also aware we don't know if it's accurate.

It's my fault though I was wondering if there are any accurate up to date figures. As you'd expect for such a major threat to the continued existence of the system(sarcasm)

Also when I said overstayers I should clarify I mean boats coming to the attention of the enforcement team (sorry for the confusion) I'm not up to date with the latest name for them cmer, fake continuos cruiser, piss taker etc.

Regards kris

 

I find it confusing as well. The terms sometimes change during the lifetime of a thread

[Graham Davis]

CRT have a monopoly on all of the canals in my area.

Nothing is compulsory.

 

So move to another area.

[Delta9]

 

if there are other areas it isn't a monopoly.......it is quite possible to live in a boat on dry land.......there is one I know of has been wrangling with the local council over planning permission.....he has a garden around the boat and the last time it flooded was 1953 in the tidal surge but he keeps claiming that he is only there because he is waiting for a big tide.

 

I find it confusing as well. The terms sometimes change during the lifetime of a thread

It is a monopoly in my area.

 

So move to another area.

"if you don't like it move" is a logical fallacy, but a favourite on this forum.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

With a boat licence, it is granted to you (if you met the relevant criteria), and then 'taken away' if you have commited (in the eyes of C&RT) a 'crime', without any evidence being shown - it is your responsibilty to show evidence that you have not commited the crime.

 

Your driving licence is issued to you (if you meet the relevant criteria) You are accused of commiting a crime (speeding at 120mph) but your licence is not taken away from you until the 'authorities' have provided evidence that you commited the crime.

 

It is very hard to prove you have not done something

That surely is the whole point, they are not asking you to prove that you haven't done something, they are asking you to prove that you have. They are asking you to show that you have moved appropriately. As you rightly said it is almost impossible to prove a negative which is why English Law requires that you prove that something has happened, rather than proving that it didn't.

[MtB]

It is a monopoly in my area.

 

So it isn't a monopoly then, haha!!

 

MtB

[Delta9]

 

So it isn't a monopoly then, haha!!

 

MtB

It is in my area. Monopoly doesn't necessarily mean a worldwide monopoly.

 

ETA: haha

Edited October 6, 2014 by Delta9

[MtB]

That surely is the whole point, they are not asking you to prove that you haven't done something, they are asking you to prove that you have. They are asking you to show that you have moved appropriately. As you rightly said it is almost impossible to prove a negative which is why English Law requires that you prove that something has happened, rather than proving that it didn't.

 

Quite.

 

The OP is in effect demanding CRT prove they haven't moved in accordance with the rules. Difficult task.

 

MtB

It is in my area. Monopoly doesn't necessarily mean a worldwide monopoly.

 

ETA: haha

 

 

What counts as 'my area', if you are CCing?

 

(Warning, it's a trick question!)

 

MtB

[Delta9]

 

 

 

What counts as 'my area', if you are CCing?

 

(Warning, it's a trick question!)

 

MtB

An area that contains enough canal to be a legitimate CC'er but doesn't contain any other waterways

Edited October 6, 2014 by Delta9

[cotswoldsman]

 

Quite.

 

 

 

 

 

What counts as 'my area', if you are CCing?

 

(Warning, it's a trick question!)

 

MtB

How about 16 miles of the K&A or whatever the fairly short distance is Edited October 6, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[Alan de Enfield]

An area that contains enough canal to be a legitimate CC'er but doesn't contain any other waterways

How much canal is that then ?

[Sir Nibble]

An area that contains enough canal to be a legitimate CC'er but doesn't contain any other waterways

Then if there is enough canal to be a legitimate Ccer the issue doesn't arise does it. You argument seems to be that some people are forced to make a commitment they have no intention of fulfilling because of the lack of a waterway that does not set such conditions the only way they can obtain a licence is by deception. The conditions are the conditions and lying to get a licence is hardly excused by pleading that you are FORCED to lie because you wouldn't have got the licence honestly. By the way, there are NO waterways in "my area," should CaRT be forced to supply sufficient for me to cruise?

[MtB]

I find myself wondering if a better mind than mine could find some mileage in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_Terms_in_Consumer_Contracts_Regulations_1999

 

 

As the term in British Waterways Act is so ambiguously drafted and the license T&Cs rely on it, I wonder if an argument could be formed that the following applies:

 

The 'contra proferentem' rule

The 'contra proferentem' rule is that where there is any ambiguity in regards to a clause it is to be interpreted against the party which insisted on including it. Regulation 7 states this very clearly:^[3]

"(1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language. (2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail but this rule shall not apply in proceedings brought under regulation 12."

[Delta9]

Then if there is enough canal to be a legitimate Ccer the issue doesn't arise does it. You argument seems to be that some people are forced to make a commitment they have no intention of fulfilling because of the lack of a waterway that does not set such conditions the only way they can obtain a licence is by deception. The conditions are the conditions and lying to get a licence is hardly excused by pleading that you are FORCED to lie because you wouldn't have got the licence honestly. By the way, there are NO waterways in "my area," should CaRT be forced to supply sufficient for me to cruise?

No, you have misunderstood my argument.

 

I find myself wondering if a better mind than mine could find some mileage in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_Terms_in_Consumer_Contracts_Regulations_1999

 

 

As the term in British Waterways Act is so ambiguously drafted and the license T&Cs rely on it, I wonder if an argument could be formed that the following applies:

 

The 'contra proferentem' rule

The 'contra proferentem' rule is that where there is any ambiguity in regards to a clause it is to be interpreted against the party which insisted on including it. Regulation 7 states this very clearly:^[3]

"(1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language. (2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail but this rule shall not apply in proceedings brought under regulation 12."

 

There seems to be quite a bit of doubt about the meaning of the written term "bona fide for navigation".

Edited October 6, 2014 by Delta9

[Alan de Enfield]

 

I find myself wondering if a better mind than mine could find some mileage in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_Terms_in_Consumer_Contracts_Regulations_1999

 

 

As the term in British Waterways Act is so ambiguously drafted and the license T&Cs rely on it, I wonder if an argument could be formed that the following applies:

 

The 'contra proferentem' rule

The 'contra proferentem' rule is that where there is any ambiguity in regards to a clause it is to be interpreted against the party which insisted on including it. Regulation 7 states this very clearly:^[3]

"(1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language. (2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail but this rule shall not apply in proceedings brought under regulation 12."

 

 

I believe that Nigel Moore has raised that on more than one occasion - something to do with "Big Company" Vs little guy - the interpretation should always favour the 'little guy'

 

Maybe if Nigel is reding this he will re-post it ?

[mark99]

"if you don't like it move" is a logical fallacy, but a favourite on this forum.

 

Not a fallacy for me.

 

I was born in London and live in London. I would love to be able to swan about in my home town in my boat but it's not easy, in fact it's a right old stress. It's full up with other shuffling or non shuffling boats. So as it's such a stress I don't like it so I cruise outwards from mooring towards the true North (just past Cassiobury Park ).

 

Even out towards there there is a spot I would dealy love to moor for a day ot two as I used to haunt the place as a kid. But there are always <the same old> boats that never move plonked there (cos there is a station nearby).

Edited October 6, 2014 by mark99

[Delta9]

 

Not a fallacy for me.

 

I was born in London and live in London. I would love to be able to swan about in my home town in my boat but it's not easy, in fact it's a right old stress. It's full up with other shuffling or non shuffling boats. So as it's such a stress I don't like it so I cruise outwards from mooring towards the true North (just past Cassiobury Park).

I don't think you understand the term 'fallacy'. It doesn't matter what your experiences are.

[Jerra]

 

You can PROVE you have moved, but the movement may not be sufficient to SATISFY the board

This is true but I was picking up on the fact CWM mentioned satisfy not prove. I doubt you could satisfy the board if you couldn't prove you had moved as far as they think fit.

[Alan de Enfield]

This is true but I was picking up on the fact CWM mentioned satisfy not prove. I doubt you could satisfy the board if you couldn't prove you had moved as far as they think fit.

OK - I'll go with that if we take 'prove' to equal 'evidence'

[Tony Dunkley]

 

 

The OP is in effect demanding CRT prove they haven't moved in accordance with the rules. Difficult task.

 

MtB

 

 

 

 

What's difficult about it for C&RT? If they are so minded, all they will have to do is demonstrate by means of 'recorded' sighting and photographic evidence, genuine or manufactured, that the boat has been at one 'place' for more than 14 days, or has returned to the same 'place' without first visiting a sufficient number of other 'places'. A simple and easy enough thing to 'prove' to the extent a County Court will be likely to accept from such as a Navigation Authority, whether or not the boat really has overstayed or returned without making the minimum required 'movement'(s) according to the "Guidance", and also whether C&RT really do check every mile of waterway as frequently as they claim to, but quite obviously don't.

Having been recently caught out manufacturing evidence for use in Court, they may be more careful, and possibly successful with their next attempt.

Edited October 7, 2014 by tony dunkley

[Jerra]

If they are complying with the rules why should they have to keep proving that?

I doubt very much if anyone complying with the rules will have to "keep proving it". I hope Cotswoldman doesn't mind me using him as an example. He has been CC within the rules for a good number of years (8 I think) and I feel sure he hasn't had to prove he is CCing in all that time. Recently had had to point out CRT had made a mistake which is hardly proving he is CC but even so it is only once.

 

I feel sure if had had to do it even once a year he would have remarked on it in discussions. Perhaps he will correct me if I amwrong.

[Smelly]

Here's an easy solution to providing evidence of movements that I employed successfully in a different context... Shop locally, in small shops (or pubs) on your debit card. You'll likely be able to establish where you were from your bank statements.

 

Worked for me!

[Alan de Enfield]

You could visit those shops by Boat, car, bus, train etc - I don't see that it proves you have moved the boat.