Continual cruising

[Paul C]

I seem to have missed the bit that say's boaters with a home mooring need to move every 14 days and as I am on phone difficult to look it up, maybe you could just post that bit for me

I have most probably missed it as normally I only look at the Act as it concerns boaters without a home mooring

 

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/boating/mooring/mooring-rules

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/boating/mooring/mooring-rules

Sorry I thought you were quoting the 1995 Act my mistake

[Tony Dunkley]

This "bona fide for navigation" aspect needs clarifying properly. For a start, the 1995 waterways act section 17 c doesn't just say that, there's more words than the 4, and the bit after it is the pertinant bit for CCers. Here's the full wording, and I've highlighted the bit I mean:

 

 

 

 

Thus, CCers need to go from place to place. A boater with a home mooring doesn't need to, so he can moor somewhere, then move (so as not to overstay on the wider 14 day mooring time limit) but has no restriction on not returning to the same place, ie they can if they wish to return to the same place. It might not be the exact mooring point, but it can be the same place eg a few boats along on the same stretch of towpath.

 

One could use the abbreviation A-B-A for this, or even if no stop was done (ie a loop route, or a turn without stopping A-A.

 

Bona fide or not? A ferry may shuttle from A-B, but its navigation is considered bona fide.

 

 

I can think of many examples of something which WOULDN'T be bona fide. For example:

 

1. Going forwards or backwards a couple of feet, or a boat length, merely to be in a slightly different mooring position.

2. Going forwards to a winding hole (or wide stretch), turning, then returning to the same place facing the other direction

3. Going a couple of boat lengths for water then returning - maybe could be called bona fide depending on distance or other factors (ie was the cruise for the pure joy of boating, and coincidentally the water tank was low so an opportunity was taken to fill it; or was the sole purpose to go and get some water, the fact that the boat had to move to do it being an inconvenience which must be tolerated) - this is more difficult to clearly say, and relies on the boater's intention.

4. Any other services such as pump out etc in a similar fashion to 3.

5. Simply swinging a short boat around to face the other direction if the canal is wide enough (similar to 2)

6. Going a few yards up the canal to a convenient point with good banking/near a bridge/near road access, to load/unload something heavy, then returning.

 

3, 4 and 6 would probably involve the boat going backwards the same amount as forwards, if its a typical length boat on a typical width canal, ie its too long to turn most places except eg winding holes, junctions, marina/other entrances etc. Can anyone claim they enjoy boating only in reverse???

That is what the law says you can do . . . But C&RT are now saying that you can't do that, and they will revoke your licence and take you to Court if you do.

[Paul C]

Sorry I thought you were quoting the 1995 Act my mistake

 

If you're looking for legislation which states that the widely known-about general limit for mooring time, unless otherwise signed, is 14 days, then you won't find it because it isn't in the legislation. A boat(er) with a home mooring doesn't have the protection of law to define this time period (a CCer (more pedantically/accurately a boater with a boat licenced under section 17.3 c (ii) consent) DOES have a 14 day limit written into law). Clearly, CRT aren't expecting boaters to literally be unable to stop and must keep moving except when on their home mooring, thus the concept of a "short stay" mooring, or to phrase it slightly differently, a "transit mooring", exists. CRT have publically declared, and its widely publicised, that the time limit for this type of mooring on general towpath, unless otherwise signed, is 14 days. And its written into the terms and conditions of the licence.

 

Let us know if you find legislation wording confirming/denying this on your phone though.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Paul C

[Tony Dunkley]

You still seem unable to grasp that I am putting forward a proposal for what a revised and better law might look like.

 

Central to the concept of revision of the law is that the new law redefines what will be legal in future. Suggesting that it would be illegal because it isn't what the current law says shows a fairly serious lack of understanding on your part.

 

Yes I have given consideration to what imposing CCing requirements on a boater with a mooring would be.

 

As to what "non bona fide navigation" is, the trite answer is that it is anything that isn't bona fide navigation.

 

That requires a definition of "bona fide navigation" (or some other term with no historical baggage)

 

This would be based on the guidance that has previously been issued an incorporate the concept of moving from place to place with some limitations on reversing direction and some concept of "areas" which would be groups of places with limitations on remaining in an area for more than so many months.

 

The rules would incorporate the concept of a "cruise". A boat must comply during each cruise

but NOT across multiple cruises

 

Does that assist you?

No, but it does make me very glad that you're normally occupied counting bedpans and don't have a say in running our waterways.

[Paul C]

That is what the law says you can do . . . But C&RT are now saying that you can't do that, and they will revoke your licence and take you to Court if you do.

 

Agreed its your circumstances and mooring/cruising pattern led to bizarre and intruiging enforcement action.

 

I'm not sure CRT are publically saying this (yet), except for the special case of K&A local mooring plans (where they kindly asked home moorers to return to their home mooring in between using the boat, not obliging them to and not quoting any underlying legislation etc).

[MtB]

That is what the law says you can do . . . But C&RT are now saying that you can't do that, and they will revoke your licence and take you to Court if you do.

 

 

Where are they saying that then?

 

MtB

[Tony Dunkley]

 

 

Where are they saying that then?

 

MtB

Wherever they happen to be at the time.

 

Any chance of a response to Post 770 ?

Edited October 30, 2014 by Tony Dunkley

[Dar Kuma]

Loool....at the suggestion that it could happen.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Dar Kuma

[jenlyn]

No, but it does make me very glad that you're normally occupied counting bedpans and don't have a say in running our waterways.

 

He doesn't count bed pans, he's helping develop a communication base (telephone book) for the NHS.

[Phil.]

That is what the law says you can do . . . But C&RT are now saying that you can't do that, and they will revoke your licence and take you to Court if you do.

Has this specific point not been subject to a judicial review.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Agreed its your circumstances and mooring/cruising pattern led to bizarre and intruiging enforcement action.

 

I'm not sure CRT are publically saying this (yet), except for the special case of K&A local mooring plans (where they kindly asked home moorers to return to their home mooring in between using the boat, not obliging them to and not quoting any underlying legislation etc).

They've got as far as putting it into a Statement on a Court document, as below : ~

 

" 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" . . .

Has this specific point not been subject to a judicial review.

Don't think so.

[Tony Dunkley]

He doesn't count bed pans, he's helping develop a communication base (telephone book) for the NHS.

That will be an end to all their problems then.

[NigelMoore]

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?

 

Since CRT employ a firm of Solicitors, Shoosmiths, for their legal advice,

Shoosmiths are a legitimate target for criticism, certainly, but they are not CaRT’s advisors, except in a strategic, procedural sense. They are the hounds who get shown the scent and relied upon to deliver the prey. For advice in terms of being shown ways to formulate a legal argument in justifying a desired course of action, CaRT will usually pay for a barrister’s opinion, and Shoosmiths will ‘instruct’ Serle Court accordingly.

 

Although Shoosmith are the firm most to the fore, they are by no means the only firm employed – there are many. Some are employed for differing purposes, so that specialist debt-collecting solicitors are used for straightforward money claims. Shoosmiths are the eviction and [latterly] the land grab specialists [previous, reputable property specialists fell by the wayside when things got sticky].

 

Knowing that whatever they may wish to propose WILL be subject to legal challenge by someone or other.

But they don’t know any such thing. As masters of procedural manoeuvring, they anticipate that legal challenges will be rare indeed – and they are right.

 

Do we have any evidence that CRT or Mr Parry is disregarding the legal advice that is given to him?

All the evidence is that he follows his legal advisors slavishly.

 

. . . and are now having to attempt attempting to have the action dismissed in a different manner, where CRT don't pay Tony's costs and where they can again take further action against Tony at any time without prior court approval.

 

Just to clear up a small point – they did seek to close the proceedings with a Consent Order, whereby both parties bore their own costs, and CaRT were free to start up proceedings again whenever they wanted, but having now filed a Notice of Discontinuance, their only argument can be respecting the costs liability. The judge might agree that each should bear their own costs in this instance, but they will still need to get permission from the court to renew proceedings at any future point. That is not in contention [we have yet to see CaRT’s response to Tony’s submissions to the court].

From my experience of competent solicitors, if you ask them to do something that is unprofessional or unlawful they will refuse to do it. If Shoosmiths will carry out unprofessional instructions that is a measure of their lack of competence rather than anything else.

 

It is not a question of competence, it is a question of willingness to take on certain types of action combined with a willingness to do ‘whatever it takes’ to achieve that. BW have been known to employ a string of solicitors, one after the other on the same case, until they ended up with the one firm prepared to employ tactics commensurate with BW’s taste and requirements.

 

Shoosmiths have become CaRT’s favoured firm for that reason – and the firm, while it does make the occasional slip-up, should never be under-estimated as incompetent.

 

They have become a regular tight partnership [even sharing the same main office building] precisely because they suit each other so well.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

They have become a regular tight partnership [even sharing the same main office building] precisely because they suit each other so well.

 

 

Was it C&RT or Shoosmiths that informed a defendent that the date of a court case had changed, ?

 

The date had not been changed, the defendent didn't turn up and therefore lost the case as a 'no-show'

 

Not very professional, but achieved the aim.

[mayalld]

He doesn't count bed pans, he's helping develop a communication base (telephone book) for the NHS.

 

You really haven't a hope of making it as a private detective!

 

You are extraordinarily wide of the mark in terms of what I actually do.

[MtB]

 

Any chance of a response to Post 770 ?

 

 

No, given the abuse you generally respond with when i ask you a civil question.

 

MtB

[jenlyn]

No, given the abuse you generally respond with when i ask you a civil question.

 

MtB

Sandpaper is sharp and abrasive, I wouldn't call it abusive. Some might of course..

[Jerra]

Sandpaper is sharp and abrasive, I wouldn't call it abusive. Some might of course..

It abuses polished surfaces if applied!

[DeanS]

ok, typically for this forum, this thread seems to have ended in bitching. I saw the thread title, went to the last 4 posts, and it's bitching.

 

TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE GUYS?

[thunderbird]

Somewhere they've already put all the workboats!

Not though I hope joining that workboat already moored in a blind bridgehole!

[thunderbird]

 

Was it C&RT or Shoosmiths that informed a defendent that the date of a court case had changed, ?

 

The date had not been changed, the defendent didn't turn up and therefore lost the case as a 'no-show'

 

Not very professional, but achieved the aim.

In all fairness here, it may have been the Defendants own Solicitors that screwed the dates up. Or it could have been that if the Defendant had relieved himself of their services the date change could have been missed as a result of this. Whilst unlike CRT I have little faith in Shoosmiths or in so called English justice, Shoosmiths could possibly have been blameless here.

[Alan de Enfield]

In all fairness here, it may have been the Defendants own Solicitors that screwed the dates up. Or it could have been that if the Defendant had relieved himself of their services the date change could have been missed as a result of this. Whilst unlike CRT I have little faith in Shoosmiths or in so called English justice, Shoosmiths could possibly have been blameless here.

 

The point is that the defendent was told that the date HAD changed, when it had NOT changed.

[Naughty Cal]

In all fairness here, it may have been the Defendants own Solicitors that screwed the dates up. Or it could have been that if the Defendant had relieved himself of their services the date change could have been missed as a result of this. Whilst unlike CRT I have little faith in Shoosmiths or in so called English justice, Shoosmiths could possibly have been blameless here.

Why let that get in the way of a good chance to fling mud at them?

[MtB]

Whilst unlike CRT I have little faith in Shoosmiths or in so called English justice, Shoosmiths could possibly have been blameless here.

Application of the law, and justice are two separate subjects entirely unconnected despite popular perceptions.

 

 

MtB