Continual cruising

[Les Kay]

 

A reference to the law that says that please

General Terms and Conditions for Boat Licences - Schedule 2: MOORING INFORMATION

 

GUIDANCE FOR BOATERS WITHOUT A HOME MOORING

If a boat is licensed without a home mooring1 it must move on a regular basis. This Guidance2 seeks to explain in day to day terms the nature of the movement that must take place.

There are three key legal3 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); and

•  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. 4

  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.5

  The terms ‘cruise’ and ‘cruising’ are used in this guidance to mean using a boat bona fide for navigation.

  “Place”

I think this states clearly that to move between two points continuously is not considered CCing.

 

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.

Edited October 11, 2014 by lesdkay

[Paul C]

 

Thanks for the clarification. I would classify that as use of the facility for purposes other than intended, and obstructing use of the swing/lift bridges. A double-whammy of byelaw breach that ought to be very firmly clamped down on, with the offending boat moved off pronto. Those are just the sort of cases where any legal process is hopeless to cure the problem - for all that they can be instigated for punishment after the obstructing boat has been cleared off. But it is the clearing of the obstruction that is the immediate necessity, and CaRT have the powers to do just that.

 

Moved where though?

[SamKingfisher]

 

Moved where though?

Somewhere they've already put all the workboats!

[NigelMoore]

I think this states clearly that to move between two points continuously is not considered CCing.

 

 

Perhaps, that would be a reasonable extrapolation from the quote – though it still says nothing about progressive journeys around the system. But I strongly suspect that phill was asking for a reference to the law, not to an attenuated interpretation of it.

 

He was being deliberately disingenuous, because he knows there is no such law ‘that says that’. The ‘question’ was on a par with cotswoldsman’s refrain: “I must have missed that bit”.

[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.