Enforcement or Harassment

[Gordias]

 

C&RT is very similar to me when I was at school - my reports often said :

 

"Sets himself extremely low standards which he consistently fails to achieve"

 

C&RT have all the legislation in place to maintain a steady movement of boats - they just choose not to use it - except occasionally when they want to make a 'noise' then pick some poor soul and section 8 his boat.

TBH I probably shouldn't have responded that way - it was a "knee-jerk" reaction to be asked to do time-consuming research on something that's clearly established and being discussed in the local thread.

 

A little closer to the thread topic: my impression is that CaRT have identified some issues (not necessary the right ones) concerning near-stationary boats being used as permanent residences, but not located in places intended to support boats as permanent residences.

 

This is never going to be a simple matter specifically because people live on these boats, but that doesn't mean the current situation is ideal, or even acceptable in the medium term.

 

CaRT couldn't just publish some rules that match their vision and effectively evict a few thousand households, even if they nominally had the power actually do this. Instead they appear to be trying out different things to effect the changes they want over the medium term.

 

So far this is all straightforward ... or is it? Nobody wants to start a discussion at the obvious baseline.

 

But look at the original topic of the thread. It's nearly impossible to assess this situation without an opinion about CaRT's objectives. Of course it's also impossible to assess it without information about how it all started and escalated, and none of the parties involved are ever likely to share that

Edited October 28, 2014 by Gordias

[NigelMoore]

Of course it's also impossible to assess it without information about how it all started and escalated, and none of the parties involved are ever likely to share that

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/239355054/Dunkley-CaRT-Filed-Court-Case

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/239355055/Dunkley-CaRT-Filed-Court-Case-Exhibits

[Gordias]

Nigel

Thanks for the links.

 

I haven't read it all yet (every hard on my eyes) but so far it seems to confirm my original expectation that both parties in the exchange, and multiple individuals "messed up" one way or another.

 

TBH the "endgame" of this particular case doesn't interest me all that much. I'm more interested in CaRT's followup if it turns out they can't define "bona fide navigation" in a way that matches their objectives, and efficiently enforce it according to that definition. It only took me five minutes to draft the draconian but practical (with modifications) scenario I created earlier. CaRT have a budget of UKP 140M according to their web site, and plenty of people available to work out something much more effective - but probably restrictive and intrusive compared to the current situation.

 

If CaRT have been trying an "encourage the others" tactic by targeting people perceived "worst offenders" and it fails, is it likely they'll just abandon their objectives?

Edited October 28, 2014 by Gordias

[Alf Roberts]

 

... but how much? They are relatively few. They can have a negative impact on other users. They aren't as expensive as cruisers though, since they don't care if the larger part of the waterways are kept in good condition, or the locks, tunnels, bridges, etc are "fit for purpose".

 

 

You make a hell of a lot of hyperbolic assumptions. Where. Is your data to back up these claims?

 

This is not a picture I recognise, nor is it reflected on any of the groups outside this forum.

 

If you start from a false premise you will inevitably lead to false conclusions.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

Gordias, on 28 Oct 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

TBH I probably shouldn't have responded that way - it was a "knee-jerk" reaction to be asked to do time-consuming research on something that's clearly established and being discussed in the local thread.

 

 

I am beginning to think that you want all the answers 'spoon fed' to you, you may find it useful to actually do some research yourself.

 

There is a search feature (top right hand corner of each page) and if you search for "overstayers', 'continuous Cruising' , 'CMers' 'Tony Dunkley' you will find more than enough background to answer your questions.

 

It may also be useful for you to read, absorb and understand the 1995 Waterways act so you understand what powers C&RT legally have and have not.

To save you the trouble of finding it here is a link :

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/contents/enacted

 

I do wonder why, whenever discussing costs / prices, you use the term GBP rather than the £ symbol - are you outside of the UK ?

[NigelMoore]

 

I'd be interested to see some data on the types of users of the waterways, and what the average user in each category costs for hour or day of recreational use.

 

The statistics you would be interested in are probably available in broad terms from one of CaRT’s publications, alternatively you could ask them via FoI for any held information where the details have been set out in some report.

 

Aside from wear and tear on apparatus such as locks [and occasional speeding bridges], which can be directly attributable to boaters’ use, the actual cost of maintaining the navigation to certain navigable standards is not related to the density of use. Maintenance of the canals to the specified standards is a statutory duty, regardless of use [the fact that this statutory duty is openly and consciously ignored does not change the position].

 

Since the Trust Settlement, the towpaths too must be maintained now to a suitable standard for the public use by walkers and all other recreational uses, regardless of level of that use.

 

In terms of your linked article then, the major part of the cost of maintaining the waterways is a mandatory cost, incurred whether the public [including boaters] choose to incur that cost, and regardless of whether that public choose to avail themselves of the benefit or not.

 

Of course, as you have observed, the whole nation benefits indirectly from the waterways, even if only from the tourist value and increased property values and business opportunities. That made the previous funding system - combining an obligation on the executive to run things as commercially as possible within the legislative framework [and mindful of the Monopolies & Mergers Report admonition regarding the need to not apply the maximum profit imperative to heritage premises], with the shortfall taken up by grant from government – the simplest and most obvious way to extract proportionate contributions from a tax-paying public, for the benefits they enjoyed.

 

The only fly in the ointment was the appalling management and system of applying those grants by DEFRA. In my opinion, that was where reforms were needed most; their grant system and managerial appointments were devastating to BW. The transition to private enterprise has just made thing worse.

 

I have been trying to do a swift search for the 1987 Report, unsuccessfully, but you may find the follow-up 1994 Report makes interesting reading: -

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/272024/2431.pdf

 

Given that use of the towpath should be made available to all users, for all purposes, as equitably as possible [and maintained to that end], then I fail to see how seeking to categorise users into those who should pay more and those who should pay less on a directly correlative basis can have any validity. But I hope you find much of relative value in the analysis given in the Report, which remains instructive for all its venerability.

Edited October 28, 2014 by NigelMoore

[Tony Dunkley]

Nigel

Thanks for the links.

 

I haven't read it all yet (every hard on my eyes) but so far it seems to confirm my original expectation that both parties in the exchange, and multiple individuals "messed up" one way or another.

 

TBH the "endgame" of this particular case doesn't interest me all that much. I'm more interested in CaRT's followup if it turns out they can't define "bona fide navigation" in a way that matches their objectives, and efficiently enforce it according to that definition. It only took me five minutes to draft the draconian but practical (with modifications) scenario I created earlier. CaRT have a budget of UKP 140M according to their web site, and plenty of people available to work out something much more effective - but probably restrictive and intrusive compared to the current situation.

 

If CaRT have been trying an "encourage the others" tactic by targeting people perceived "worst offenders" and it fails, is it likely they'll just abandon their objectives?

 

Can you elaborate on 'messed up' as you see it?

 

You're using the term 'bona fide navigation' in respect of some of C&RT's objectives but I'm not sure that's what you really mean, and I'm more than a little curious as to how one could navigate in a manner that's not 'bona fide'.

[Gordias]

Thanks for the link. I'm prepared to accept that BW wasn't doing a good job without reading it though.

 

Given that use of the towpath should be made available to all users, for all purposes, as equitably as possible [and maintained to that end], then I fail to see how seeking to categorise users into those who should pay more and those who should pay less on a directly correlative basis can have any validity.

 

This works only if every kind of user imposes the same costs for their use, including externalities.

 

An example of another view of something with very high fixed costs is a road system. People still reluctantly accept the relatively complex regulations and significant costs of parking in popular places. And pedestrians really like it when cars are banned from selected inner city streets.

[NigelMoore]

Thanks for the link. I'm prepared to accept that BW wasn't doing a good job without reading it though.

 

The report is not about BW failing to do a good job, but about the relationships between maintenance obligations, income sources and users. The sort of information you expressed interest in, as I understood you.

[Gordias]

 

Can you elaborate on 'messed up' as you see it?

 

You're using the term 'bona fide navigation' in respect of some of C&RT's objectives but I'm not sure that's what you really mean, and I'm more than a little curious as to how one could navigate in a manner that's not 'bona fide'.

Tony

I decided about ten pages ago not to "take sides" in any way. From your point of view it probably makes my posts rather vague, for which I can only apologize.

 

FWIW, if I'd been in CaRT's position I would have ended this matter differently.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Gordias

[Tony Dunkley]

Tony

I decided about ten pages ago not to "take sides" in any way. From your point of view it probably makes my posts rather vague, for which I can only apologize.

 

FWIW, if I'd been in CaRT's position I would have ended this matter differently.

But I wasn't asking you to take sides . . . why make that assumption?

Edited October 28, 2014 by Tony Dunkley

[manxmike]

This seems to be a case of Big Brother asking someone to stand still whilst they kick them, then expect the victim to pay to have the blood cleaned off Big Brother's boots.

Otherwise known as "my Dad's bigger than your Dad" or "I can afford to spend more on a lawyer than you can".

[Gordias]

 

The report is not about BW failing to do a good job, but about the relationships between maintenance obligations, income sources and users. The sort of information you expressed interest in, as I understood you.

Sorry. I haven't read it yet, and misinterpreted part of your post.

 

I'll check back in this thread for links to CaRT-related documents.

[NigelMoore]

If CaRT have been trying an "encourage the others" tactic by targeting people perceived "worst offenders" and it fails, is it likely they'll just abandon their objectives?

 

I would certainly hope that they do not give up any objectives relating to ensuring fair use of facilities by all boaters at locations where that is proving to be a problem [no matter that such areas are few in number nationally]. My hope would be that they redirected their resources towards more direct and timely action, using the lawfully appropriate measures available to them.

 

My problem with the tactics that CaRT are at least most visibly seen to be employing, is precisely that these are not aimed directly at the problem, nor, importantly, on the boaters creating any problem, but are instead directed at accumulating more powers inappropriate [and ultimately less effective] respecting that problem.

 

The s.8 cases that achieve the highest profile/notoriety are the few defended ones, in none of which did the boater targeted contribute to the problem of congested ‘hotspots’ as you describe them; neither could the results benefit the authority in terms of resolving such localised problems.

 

The solution lies, as others have observed, in abandoning the tactic of show-trials against isolated individuals in order to acquire a library of persuasive judicial approval of the methods and motivations for their arguments, and instead, simply grasping the nettle of applying the appropriate measures at their disposal – methods which do not have the same appeal to them, for reasons buried within the accumulative psychology of long established authoritarian bodies.

 

They should abandon the tactics, in other words, not the legitimate objectives. That would go a long way towards altering the character of their actions from perceived harassment to perceived efficient enforcement for the good of other users.

[Gordias]

The enforcement powers CaRT have seem to be limited to:

• Requesting additional fees for which they can't easily enforce payment
• Denying licensing (for which they need a good reason)
• Getting some kind of judgement that allows them to remove a boat from the water and scrap it

I supposed I missed some, but these are the ones I've noted so far.

 

NB: paragraph rewritten after Alan's response below, which accurately quotes the earlier version. It doesn't flow well because I inserted text, but this way it's closed to the following post:

 

I hope I've missed some, because if that's it, and they have some smart people somewhere in their organization, they will change the first one so they can easily enforce it.

<added text> CaRT must be able to request changes to the legistlation that governs their actions - for example they must be able to get as much power as whatever oprganization enforces parking fines in towns and cities. <end of added text>

And perhaps they'll add one that provides some immediate effect like the right to lock people out of their boats if they don't comply with CaRT rules (mainly mooring I suppose, but if they're they could easily probably add some inconvenient Health and Safety requirements).

 

It looks like they're getting started with some major changes to the mooring rules and enforcement:

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

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/7417-towpath-moorings-management-report-october-2014.pdf

Edited October 28, 2014 by Gordias

[Alan de Enfield]

The enforcement powers CaRT have seem to be limited to:

• Requesting additional fees for which they can't easily enforce payment
• Denying licensing (for which they need a good reason)
• Getting some kind of judgement that allows them to remove a boat from the water and scrap it

I supposed I missed some, but these are the ones I've noted so far.

 

I hope I've missed some, because if that's it, and they have some smart people somewhere in their organization, they will change the first one so they can easily enforce it. And perhaps they'll add one that provides some immediate effect like the right to lock people out of their boats if they don't comply with CaRT rules (mainly mooring I suppose, but if they're could easily add some inconvenient Health and Safety requirements).

 

It looks like they're getting started with some major changes to the mooring rules and enforcement:

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

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/7417-towpath-moorings-management-report-october-2014.pdf

 

Do you have any concept as to how laws are enacted ?

 

If as you suggest this was applied :

 

"........some immediate effect like the right to lock people out of their boats if they don't comply with CaRT rules......"

 

C&RT would be in serious trouble.

 

May I suggest again that you read the 1995 Waterways Act which tells you what C&RT CAN do, and by implication, what they CANNOT do. They cannot just make up laws any more than you can

[Gordias]

Sorry - I thought I'd included some text to set the context, to the effect that CaRT can almost certainly request changes in the legislation governing their actions.

 

I made some changes to the original to capture this, but noted it's been modified, and indicated where.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Gordias

[Alf Roberts]

Round and round and round.

 

Nigel Moore has explained, patiently and at great length, that CRT do have the powers they need to control any evidenced problem at so-called 'hotspots' and of abuse of any kind; licensing or mooring or navigation

 

so why do you persist in digging the same hole as CRT seem to, with the same blindness?

 

They cannot seek more primary legislation. There are a set of laws.

CaRT can almost certainly request changes in the legislation governing their actions.

 

 

No, they can't.

[Tony Dunkley]

The enforcement powers CaRT have seem to be limited to:

• Requesting additional fees for which they can't easily enforce payment
• Denying licensing (for which they need a good reason)
• Getting some kind of judgement that allows them to remove a boat from the water and scrap it

I supposed I missed some, but these are the ones I've noted so far.

 

NB: paragraph rewritten after Alan's response below, which accurately quotes the earlier version. It doesn't flow well because I inserted text, but this way it's closed to the following post:

 

I hope I've missed some, because if that's it, and they have some smart people somewhere in their organization, they will change the first one so they can easily enforce it.

<added text> CaRT must be able to request changes to the legistlation that governs their actions - for example they must be able to get as much power as whatever oprganization enforces parking fines in towns and cities. <end of added text>

And perhaps they'll add one that provides some immediate effect like the right to lock people out of their boats if they don't comply with CaRT rules (mainly mooring I suppose, but if they're they could easily probably add some inconvenient Health and Safety requirements).

 

It looks like they're getting started with some major changes to the mooring rules and enforcement:

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

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/7417-towpath-moorings-management-report-october-2014.pdf

Not only have you defined those three 'enforcement powers' inaccurately and over simplistically, but you've left out a whole lot of Bye Laws and powers they have but choose not to use, preferring instead to apply sanctions and penalties that are disproportionate and unjustifiable, but nonetheless ineffective as remedies for the perceived problems.

 

A little earlier today I asked you the following : -

 

Can you elaborate on 'messed up' as you see it?

and ;

You're using the term 'bona fide navigation' in respect of some of C&RT's objectives but I'm not sure that's what you really mean, and I'm more than a little curious as to how one could navigate in a manner that's not 'bona fide'. . . . . . any more thoughts about that ?

Edited October 28, 2014 by Tony Dunkley

[boathunter]

...

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/7417-towpath-moorings-management-report-october-2014.pdf

From this document, aside the usal stuff that gets discussed on here, I noticed this.

 

National Visitor moorings policy

Our Navigation Advisory Group, and representatives of national boating organisations, have been helping us to develop a national framework for visitor moorings designation and management. We are addressing actions the groups have raised, including setting out a process for how we reach decisions on visitor moorings locally, producing a draft behaviour code and proposing new standards for casual moorings to ensure they are suitable for use.

 

Casual moorings? What are these? Being a cynic, this sounds to me like they want to limit towpath mooring full stop. Nothing to do with moving, staying, CCing or home moorings.

[Jerra]

Nigel Moore has explained, patiently and at great length, that CRT do have the powers they need to control any evidenced problem at so-called 'hotspots' and of abuse of any kind; licensing or mooring or navigation.

I think it might be more correct to day Nigel has explained that CRT have powers and he feels they are all that is needed to control problems.

 

CRT may not necessarily agree, and just because Nigel (as expert as he obviously is) says they are enough it may not actually be the case.

 

However as they don't appear to have been tried it is hard to tell if the statement is correct or not.

[NigelMoore]

It looks like they're getting started with some major changes to the mooring rules and enforcement:

 

It does not look like that to me at all. On the face of it, they are instead viewing the problem with a far more realistic and sensible approach involving better education of both boaters and officers, and flexibility in dealing with the issues.

 

That we are still seeing disproportionate and draconian actions promoted from the top echelon of the Executive team, is evidence that the new approach is, and will continue to be for some time, an uphill struggle. I wish it well though. One of the most important elements of the aspirational targets to my way of thinking, is the recognition of the need for consultation and consensus.

 

What will have provoked a certain testiness from some contributors is the evident lack of knowledge of the legislative background, coupled with a degree of disinclination to properly research in remedy of that limitation.

 

While it is possible for CaRT to promote secondary legislation such as further byelaws, the probability of this happening is dubious. Certainly, the relevant provisions as drafted relating to moorings control would be particularly problematic, because Parliament has already considered them and told their predecessor that they were distasteful, and unnecessary in light of the powers even then available to them.

[Rich]

I think it might be more correct to day Nigel has explained that CRT have powers and he feels they are all that is needed to control problems.

 

CRT may not necessarily agree, and just because Nigel (as expert as he obviously is) says they are enough it may not actually be the case.

 

However as they don't appear to have been tried it is hard to tell if the statement is correct or not.

It would be interesting to learn why the powers that Canal and River Trust have aren't sufficient to control the problem.

 

It would also be interesting to know what the problem is that requires Canal and River Trust to "chance their arm, push their luck, try it on" by possibly misusing said procedures to alleviate them.

[boathunter]

I think it might be more correct to day Nigel has explained that CRT have powers and he feels they are all that is needed to control problems.

 

CRT may not necessarily agree, and just because Nigel (as expert as he obviously is) says they are enough it may not actually be the case.

 

However as they don't appear to have been tried it is hard to tell if the statement is correct or not.

 

It would serve CRT well if they could come to terms with the fact that the laws they do have at their disposal were drafted deliberately to STOP them interfering with peoples enjoyment of the waterways, while allowing them a few draconian powers (expressly?) to keep them clear for navigation for those peoples enjoyment. Rather than wasting their time getting frustrated at trying to control the users (using laws not intended for this purpose, hence the frustration) they need to take a step back and reassess their role.

Edited October 28, 2014 by boathunter

[Alan de Enfield]

It doesn't look as if the K&A proposals are working out too well :

 

Kennet & Avon Canal, west of Devizes

In August we produced the first quarterly report (covering May – July) on the Kennet & Avon Local Plan and presented it to the local Waterway Partnership for their information. The report, which is published on our website, showed that a total of 6,954 boat sightings (1,291 individual boats) have been recorded in the K&A Local Plan area between Bath and Foxhangers.

 

On visitor moorings, 99 boats were sighted as having exceeded the free mooring period on a first occasion and were contacted to remind them about the plan. 22 boats were sighted as coming to the end of their free mooring period on a second occasion. Of these, four boats have exceeded the free mooring period on more than one occasion and been issued with extended stay charges.

 

In terms of moving between neighbourhoods, during the period six 14-day sighting reports have been completed. 147 boats have not moved since the last 14 day sighting. They have been contacted by text, email or phone to remind them to move, or if there is a reason that they cannot move to contact the Trust. 93 have been contacted once, 36 have been contacted twice, 12 have been contacted

three times and 6 have been contacted on four or more occasions.

 

As a result of receiving multiple 14 day reminders, 18 boats have been sent a letter reminding them that if they do not follow the Local Plan they may attract the attention of enforcement officers.

 

How many chances do you get ?

Is spending 6 or 8 weeks in one place acceptable for a CCer ?

Why the reluctance to implement enforcement ?

Edited October 28, 2014 by Alan de Enfield