Continual cruising

[NigelMoore]

 

Moved where though?

 

The minimum distance along the towpath that would free the obstruction. If that was far enough to be out of sight, then that would qualify as the sort of situation where advising the owner where it has been moved [as per s.19(5)( a )] would be appropriate.

[Phoenix_V]

 

.

 

Jenlyn is right though, there are a lot of people with appalling attitudes against CCers. Without doubt some CCers are abusing the system, but don't paint us all with the same brush.

 

There seem to be a lot of people with appalling attitudes against ccers, probably more with (not necessarily appalling) attitudes against those who abuse the system and a lot of people with appalling attitudes against leisure boaters none helps in any way to resolve any problems (though the middle one is understandable)

Edited October 11, 2014 by Phoenix_V

[Paul C]

 

The minimum distance along the towpath that would free the obstruction. If that was far enough to be out of sight, then that would qualify as the sort of situation where advising the owner where it has been moved [as per s.19(5)( a )] would be appropriate.

 

The point is, most people would moor semi-considerately and given the choice between "normal" towpath and a lock landing/water point/bridge landing etc, would choose the normal towpath area. It might be that they were out of ideas for mooring (the normal places all taken) so thought that sticking it on the end of a lock landing (for example) was okay. With the normal towpath occupied, what should CRT do? And if it didn't have rings, would they supply mooring pins FOC? What if the boat subsequently came adrift due to passing boaters etc etc?

[Tuscan]

It might be that they were out of ideas for mooring /quote]

 

I can just see the judge now..........

[NigelMoore]

 

The point is, most people would moor semi-considerately and given the choice between "normal" towpath and a lock landing/water point/bridge landing etc, would choose the normal towpath area. It might be that they were out of ideas for mooring (the normal places all taken) so thought that sticking it on the end of a lock landing (for example) was okay. With the normal towpath occupied, what should CRT do? And if it didn't have rings, would they supply mooring pins FOC? What if the boat subsequently came adrift due to passing boaters etc etc?

 

I am presuming you are not suggesting that any canal runs out of towpath within the vicinity of places where obstruction could occur – or anywhere else on the canal system for that matter?

 

All authorities are expected to employ due care and respect for other’s property while exercising their duties; this would be no exception. If no mooring pins were on the offending boat but were needed, and CaRT did not wish to expend a few quid on supplying them [if needed, that could comprise recoverable monies via the legitimate court action for the byelaw offence] then they could move it on to where bankside mooring facilities were available [even if only steel piling] – whichever was cheapest and most convenient.

 

If, despite reasonable care, the actions of passing boats caused the boat to become adrift, there would be no liability for CaRT. The situation is different where they have moved a boat that was otherwise legally moored [as per s.19].

 

The fact that liability is imposed on CaRT where moving a boat under s.19 that was otherwise lawfully moored, implies that that liability does not extend to cases where the boat had NOT been lawfully moored, because in breach of s.18.

[Paul C]

 

I am presuming you are not suggesting that any canal runs out of towpath within the vicinity of places where obstruction could occur – or anywhere else on the canal system for that matter?

 

The towpath will exist, but it will probably be occupied by another boat (being moored against it).

[NigelMoore]

 

The towpath will exist, but it will probably be occupied by another boat (being moored against it).

 

That calls for a reprise of McEnroe’s favoured expression of incredulity.

 

Is it that you only classify as “towpath” those small sections of it which have been developed for convenient mooring? Otherwise, you are suggesting that the entirety of the towpath system-wide is probably occupied at any given time by moored boats.

 

“CaRT won’t be able to move an obstructing boat to anywhere else on the system because the whole towpath will probably be already occupied by another boat being moored against it!?”

 

As an attempt to belittle and deny the various alternate options available to CaRT, that is bordering on a level of infantility that I have not hitherto associated with your posts.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

I am presuming you are not suggesting that any canal runs out of towpath within the vicinity of places where obstruction could occur – or anywhere else on the canal system for that matter?

 

All authorities are expected to employ due care and respect for other’s property while exercising their duties; this would be no exception. If no mooring pins were on the offending boat but were needed, and CaRT did not wish to expend a few quid on supplying them [if needed, that could comprise recoverable monies via the legitimate court action for the byelaw offence] then they could move it on to where bankside mooring facilities were available [even if only steel piling] – whichever was cheapest and most convenient.

 

If, despite reasonable care, the actions of passing boats caused the boat to become adrift, there would be no liability for CaRT. The situation is different where they have moved a boat that was otherwise legally moored [as per s.19].

 

The fact that liability is imposed on CaRT where moving a boat under s.19 that was otherwise lawfully moored, implies that that liability does not extend to cases where the boat had NOT been lawfully moored, because in breach of s.18.

The case I referred to, the inconsiderate muppet who decided to 'winter' on the bridge moorings, anyone moving his boat would, as another poster suggested, have to supply the mooring pins since he was using the bridge bollards and to get clear of all the other boats moored (legitimately) on either side of the bridge would probably have involved moving it half a mile or so.It would probably also have involved clearing all of his crap off the towpath and you just KNOW that if CRT tried moving it in his absence an allegation of theft of something or other(generator,fuel,tools,etc.etc) would be forthcoming. Trying to move him with his assistance would be a long slow procedure involving allegations of harassment I don't doubt. Let's face it wintering on bridge moorings isn't really an unavoidable situation is it, there are no reasons whatsoever for that level of selfishness (yes, I would include illness,death or breakdown). The reason it made it so d*mn difficult to operate the bridge was because there was nowhere to moor ( if single-handing) to go and work the bridge since it was in a section that was otherwise full of moored boats.

[NigelMoore]

Let's face it wintering on bridge moorings isn't really an unavoidable situation is it, there are no reasons whatsoever for that level of selfishness (yes, I would include illness,death or breakdown).

 

I absolutely agree. And so what if it was half a mile or ten miles that they had to haul the boat before finding a place to moor him? As to crap on the towpath, that is a separate offence for which he could be done. If CaRT wanted to insulate themselves against allegations of theft etc, they could arrange for police to attend, but you [and CaRT] make too much of this as any real problem.

 

The fact is that on rare occasions CaRT DO move obstructing boats [nowhere near often enough], and in London anyway, do so with police attendance and not otherwise.

 

In London, that is for reasons of pusillanimity not fear of false charges [they don’t want to be shouted at]. How difficult and expensive is it, in this day and age, to have the entire operation recorded on video? That would be protection enough against false charges.

 

Neither you nor anyone else should have been subjected to the inconveniences of anyone mooring where he should not, in the way you describe, and it was CaRT’s duty to resolve it straightaway. There was/is no viable excuse not to.

[Jerra]

 

you are suggesting that the entirety of the towpath system-wide is probably occupied at any given time by moored boats.

No it just feels like that sometimes.

[Paul C]

 

That calls for a reprise of McEnroe’s favoured expression of incredulity.

 

Is it that you only classify as “towpath” those small sections of it which have been developed for convenient mooring? Otherwise, you are suggesting that the entirety of the towpath system-wide is probably occupied at any given time by moored boats.

 

“CaRT won’t be able to move an obstructing boat to anywhere else on the system because the whole towpath will probably b'vee already occupied by another boat being moored against it!?”

 

As an attempt to belittle and deny the various alternate options available to CaRT, that is bordering on a level of infantility that I have not hitherto associated with your posts.

 

I think you've misunderstood my post, possibly because I used only a few words (I was in a hurry, to go to work). Of course I don't mean the ENTIRETY of the towpath on the canal network system-wide, what I mean is a pragmatic distance that CRT or its contractors may move a boat. I think we'd probably disagree on what that distance might be - I'd suggest CRT's resources could be better used than "valet mooring" continuous moorer's boats 10 miles along the canal, etc - but I think we'd agree that costs would incur from the moving of such boats, and that cost is in proportion to the distance (approximately), and that the recovery of those costs from the boater is by no means guaranteed.

 

It is not an attempt to belittle or deny the alternate options, but a pragmatic view on these things based on what I've seen. For example, without thinking too hard I can think of 3 examples local to me where a bridge mooring, or the area of towpath near a bridge (such that if you moored there, it would obstruct) is surrounded by popular visitor moorings in both directions for some considerable distance, on a narrow canal (narrow as in physically narrow there, not just narrow/broad canal) - thus making any bowhauling or towing more exposed to issues of striking another vessel with the unpowered (or do you want them to fire up the engines?) boat being moved.

 

Yes there's some merit in suggesting byelaws and existing powers are used more, but there are often pragmatic reasons why something which seems like a good idea typed into an internet forum, isn't actually done by CRT.

[cotswoldsman]

A bit insulting to all of us who lives that mean we can't liveaboard isn't it? Shit stirring between different types of boaters might come round and bite you on the arse sometime, a snotty, superior attitude like this isn't going to do much for the "leave the CCers alone" so many of us subscribe to.

I'll leave you to get on "CCer along with CRT, will look after the network for five months" with your busy work of maintaining a system that while I'm not using am still paying for.

K

Is your mooring on the Bridgewater?

[Tony Dunkley]

Some time earlier this year, early to mid Summer I think, C&RT's Head of Legal Foul- ups, Jackie Lewis, made a statement, subsequently published in a NABO Newsletter to the effect that anyone with a 'home' mooring would quite definitely not have to comply with any 'continuous cruising' requirements.

Since that statement was made to NABO there have been a number of instances when it's been very clear that C&RT are saying one thing whilst doing just the opposite.

Here's the latest one : -

( from a statement in an Application Notice to the Court dated 23 Sept 2014, and appended with a Statement of Truth signed by C&RT's Solicitors) . . . as follows : -

 

" As the Defendant was neither using his declared home mooring, nor continuously cruising whilst away from his declared home mooring, his licence was revoked on 3 January 2014" . . .

 

I'm sure when Mr. Parry becomes aware of this he will be able to explain how they have ended up in a situation that makes it look as if he and either C&RT's Head of Legal or Shoosmiths are trying to mislead those who believe that C&RT have an agenda to impose CC'ing rules on boaters with home moorings.

[jenlyn]

Some time earlier this year, early to mid Summer I think, C&RT's Head of Legal Foul- ups, Jackie Lewis, made a statement, subsequently published in a NABO Newsletter to the effect that anyone with a 'home' mooring would quite definitely not have to comply with any 'continuous cruising' requirements.

Since that statement was made to NABO there have been a number of instances when it's been very clear that C&RT are saying one thing whilst doing just the opposite.

Here's the latest one : -

( from a statement in an Application Notice to the Court dated 23 Sept 2014, and appended with a Statement of Truth signed by C&RT's Solicitors) . . . as follows : -

 

" As the Defendant was neither using his declared home mooring, nor continuously cruising whilst away from his declared home mooring, his licence was revoked on 3 January 2014" . . .

 

I'm sure when Mr. Parry becomes aware of this he will be able to explain how they have ended up in a situation that makes it look as if he and either C&RT's Head of Legal or Shoosmiths are trying to mislead those who believe that C&RT have an agenda to impose CC'ing rules on boaters with home moorings.

 

Totally bonkers.

[cotswoldsman]

Some time earlier this year, early to mid Summer I think, C&RT's Head of Legal Foul- ups, Jackie Lewis, made a statement, subsequently published in a NABO Newsletter to the effect that anyone with a 'home' mooring would quite definitely not have to comply with any 'continuous cruising' requirements.

Since that statement was made to NABO there have been a number of instances when it's been very clear that C&RT are saying one thing whilst doing just the opposite.

Here's the latest one : -

( from a statement in an Application Notice to the Court dated 23 Sept 2014, and appended with a Statement of Truth signed by C&RT's Solicitors) . . . as follows : -

 

" As the Defendant was neither using his declared home mooring, nor continuously cruising whilst away from his declared home mooring, his licence was revoked on 3 January 2014" . . .

 

I'm sure when Mr. Parry becomes aware of this he will be able to explain how they have ended up in a situation that makes it look as if he and either C&RT's Head of Legal or Shoosmiths are trying to mislead those who believe that C&RT have an agenda to impose CC'ing rules on boaters with home moorings.

certainly they have told me that those with a home mooring are subject to the 14 days in one place regulation(whatever a place is) CRT now wish to introduce a minimum mileage for ccers and I would suggest this might well creep to all boaters

[boathunter]

certainly they have told me that those with a home mooring are subject to the 14 days in one place regulation(whatever a place is) CRT now wish to introduce a minimum mileage for ccers and I would suggest this might well creep to all boaters

From reading here I understood that a home mooring entiled you to skip the "place" part and made it acceptable to move far more randomly and less distance? In other words just what you'd be likely to do if you always start from the same point.

[Tony Dunkley]

From reading here I understood that a home mooring entiled you to skip the "place" part and made it acceptable to move far more randomly and less distance? In other words just what you'd be likely to do if you always start from the same point.

You're right, the Law, in effect, does just that, but C&RT want to redefine and rewrite it to suit themselves, and are quite prepared to waste any amount of money, which is urgently needed elsewhere, to see if they can get away with it.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Tony Dunkley

[cotswoldsman]

From reading here I understood that a home mooring entiled you to skip the "place" part and made it acceptable to move far more randomly and less distance? In other words just what you'd be likely to do if you always start from the same point.

Can not answer that not sure how it would work but looking at what Tony posted seems like those with a home mooring are going to be subject to the whims of what way the wind blows within CRT

[Alan de Enfield]

Some time earlier this year, early to mid Summer I think, C&RT's Head of Legal Foul- ups, Jackie Lewis, made a statement, subsequently published in a NABO Newsletter to the effect that anyone with a 'home' mooring would quite definitely not have to comply with any 'continuous cruising' requirements.

Since that statement was made to NABO there have been a number of instances when it's been very clear that C&RT are saying one thing whilst doing just the opposite.

Here's the latest one : -

( from a statement in an Application Notice to the Court dated 23 Sept 2014, and appended with a Statement of Truth signed by C&RT's Solicitors) . . . as follows : -

 

" As the Defendant was neither using his declared home mooring, nor continuously cruising whilst away from his declared home mooring, his licence was revoked on 3 January 2014" . . .

 

I'm sure when Mr. Parry becomes aware of this he will be able to explain how they have ended up in a situation that makes it look as if he and either C&RT's Head of Legal or Shoosmiths are trying to mislead those who believe that C&RT have an agenda to impose CC'ing rules on boaters with home moorings.

 

I have worked with companies of 'all shapes and sizes' across the globe and before retiring was running a £55 million divison of a multi billion £ international group.

 

I have never seen such inept, ineffective, bumbling, incompetent management (in a business of any size). How on earth do they expect to continually 'get away' with making themselves such a laughing stock.

 

Hopefully the person affected in this latest fiasco will have sufficient support to fight the case* and force C&RT in to yet another embarrasing climbdown

 

At the end of the day - to whom are C&RT management responsible ?

 

* irrespective of the 'real reason' that C&RT have decided to make an example of this boater, their justification as outlined above is not within their powers to demand.

[Sir Nibble]

I am thinking that what we should all do is insist on a postal vote for the forthcoming elections and en masse, by the thousands just write "no confidence" on the ballot. Is there a mechanism for the elected trustees to call for a vote of no confidence?

[boathunter]

 

I have worked with companies of 'all shapes and sizes' across the globe and before retiring was running a £55 million divison of a multi billion £ international group.

 

I have never seen such inept, ineffective, bumbling, incompetent management (in a business of any size). How on earth do they expect to continually 'get away' with making themselves such a laughing stock.

 

Hopefully the person affected in this latest fiasco will have sufficient support to fight the case* and force C&RT in to yet another embarrasing climbdown

 

At the end of the day - to whom are C&RT management responsible ?

 

* irrespective of the 'real reason' that C&RT have decided to make an example of this boater, their justification as outlined above is not within their powers to demand.

There we have it - "companies". This is not a company, has no shareholders to answer to. As I understand it, it's supposed to maintain the waterways so that people can use them for as large a variety of reasons as possible. That's no fun though particularly when the budget is wanting. People in jobs that need to justify their existences by doing "stuff". If it was a company they'd be redundant.

[NigelMoore]

This is not a company, has no shareholders to answer to.

 

True enough about shareholders in the ordinary sense, but it IS a private limited company - Canal and River Trust Ltd [with special consent to drop the ‘Ltd’ in use of the name] Company Registration No: 07807276. Look it up: -

 

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails

 

No shareholdings, two “subscribers” – Nigel Johnson on behalf of the British Waterways Board, and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. Each guarantees up to a tenner [as do the Secretary and 9 Directors] in case you were worrying about financial liabilities.

[Jim Riley]

Is it a "company limited by guarantee" as many charities are? I set up a charity as such in 1990 and am now Chair of Trustees amongst other roles. Yesterday I unblocked the drains, tonight I'm teaching a class. I couldn't get away with such behaviour, the rest of the board would take action!

[NigelMoore]

Is it a "company limited by guarantee" as many charities are?

 

Yes, it is. I notice that the link I gave does not work, coming up with a “timed out” message. You will have to go to the website home page and go from there in the “Find Company Information” section.

 

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/

 

Name & Registered Office:

CANAL & RIVER TRUST

FIRST FLOOR NORTH STATION HOUSE

500 ELDER GATE

MILTON KEYNES

MK9 1BB

Company No. 07807276

Status: Active

Date of Incorporation: 12/10/2011

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: PRI/LBG/NSC (Private, Limited by guarantee, no share capital, use of 'Limited' exemption)

Nature of Business (SIC):

36000 - Water collection, treatment and supply

52220 - Service activities incidental to water transportation

91020 - Museums activities

91030 - Operation of historical sites and buildings and similar visitor attractions

Accounting Reference Date: 31/03

Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/03/2014 (GROUP)

Next Accounts Due: 31/12/2015

Last Return Made Up To: 12/10/2014

Next Return Due: 09/11/2015

 

It is worthwhile paying a pound for the incorporation documents, including the Memorandum and Articles, which were drawn up by Johnson. These are heavily relied upon by CaRT in both refusing to comply with many FoI requests, and as ammunition for other arguments, such as rights to charge for whatever, despite the fact that such Articles of Association are powerless to subvert the Transfer of Functions Order that in fact was given Parliamentary approval the following year.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

With all of the bile that seems to be directed at CRT it seems to me that perhaps their legal representatives, Shoosmiths, should actually be the target.

 

Since CRT employ a firm of Solicitors, Shoosmiths, for their legal advice, knowing that whatever they may wish to propose WILL be subject to legal challenge by someone or other. Rather than Mr Parry randomly getting some idea in head, which seems to be the general criticism here, I would think that, since he takes legal advice (or why else would you employ solicitors??) it must be the advice that he is given that is flawed. Do we have any evidence that CRT or Mr Parry is disregarding the legal advice that is given to him? If we don't then if there is an issue it is with the company who are giving the advice, surely? So instead of accusing CRT et al of being ineffective,incompetent,bumbling,etc,etc, perhaps we should address the real target, the legal representatives since when you employ legal representatives it is to get legal advice is it not?

 

For those wishing to compare CRT with multinational companies let us compare them with BP who have already paid billions of pounds in compensation for the Deepwater catastrophe and are apparently lined up to pay billions more, are they ineffective? incompetent? bumbling? etc.etc because if so CRT have got a long way to go to catch them up!

 

I suppose it is just that I'm starting to get sick of listening to the repeated moans about CRT (and BW before them), perhaps it would have been better for the Government to just sell off the Canals to a foreign asset stripper (as they have done with most other things) then we would REALLY have had something to complain about. And no, I don't work for CRT or have any connection with it.