Hackney CMers want to have a "CC Licence" and to remain in one place.

[Tony Dunkley]

Exactly. There can be no mooring pirates because there can be no mooring to pirate. It is not a question of actually anchoring a boat on an eog mooring it is the fact that if CaRT cannot give exclusive use to an individual then an eog mooring cannot exist, usual ban on mooring offside applies. You cannot have it both ways. Either CaRT are able to allocate a bit of space on their water as a mooring (at a price) or they cannot because every license payer has already paid for it. I fully agree that the mudweight scenario is far fetched it was not meant to be more that an illustration but if you don't believe people will use tenders then you really have not been watching. The whole thing falls on the fact that what is free tends to be worth the price. There is absolutely no way any of us surely would consider a mooring not allocated to the boat can be considered to meet the requirements of the act.

This is just something you've invented, there is no ' ban on mooring offside', only dishonest, but regrettably successful, instances of BW / C&RT frightening boat owners into paying again for something that their boat Licence already entitles them to do, ie. keep and use a boat on C&RT waters. Of course, I may be overlooking something here and if there is some way that a boat can be kept on C&RT waters without floating above the canal bed I think, for everyone's benefit, you should explain how.

[Sir Nibble]

It's not a question of not floating above the canal bed. I take your point and it appears reasonable. The point I extrapolate from it though is that if CaRT cannot lease you that boatsworth of canal bed which must be as open to other users as you. therefore it cannot be accepted as a place where the boat can be left for the purposes of the act. We are required to move from any mooring except our own permanent mooring after 14 days and I am quite sure that CaRT can (and it seems have) argue that your licence does not permit you to occupy that piece of canal bed for longer.

[Tony Dunkley]

It's not a question of not floating above the canal bed. I take your point and it appears reasonable. The point I extrapolate from it though is that if CaRT cannot lease you that boatsworth of canal bed which must be as open to other users as you. therefore it cannot be accepted as a place where the boat can be left for the purposes of the act. We are required to move from any mooring except our own permanent mooring after 14 days and I am quite sure that CaRT can (and it seems have) argue that your licence does not permit you to occupy that piece of canal bed for longer.

That's not quite right. The 14 day limit only applies to moorings where the boat is alongside and and secured to C&RT owned land, ie. the towpath side canal bank and there is an admission of this Para. 2 in Schedule 2 of the Licence T&C's as follows : -

 

" 2. Moorings along the towpath, other than those designated for use by long term permit holders only,

are available for boaters to use subject to conditions. As a land owner, the Trust may impose

further conditions over and above those within the licence conditions."

They would have no need to be so specific about their powers to control casual or long term moorings being only on the towpath side if their powers also included the authority to control moorings against privately owned land on the offside, particularly as the preceding Para. 1 in Schedule 2 has already stated : -

" 1. There are no public law provisions concerning moorings along the Trust’s canals. This is entirely a

matter for management by the Trust as property owners."

In this context it is reasonable and correct to argue that 'property' means the canal bed and the towpath side land. However the 'management' of the canal bed element of that 'property' has already been taken care of by the right conferred by the Licence to keep a boat on the canal, and therefore floating above the canal bed, leaving only the towpath side land that can be subject to any further 'management' in the form of charges and permission for use.

C&RT's ownership of the towpath and bank gives them the same, but no more, rights against trespassers as the owners of private land on the offside have, and their assertion that payment of their mooring fees can give a boat owner the exclusive right to moor against, and secured to, a length of towpath is reasonable, correct and lawful, but that is no more or less than an agreement with, and the payment of a mooring fee to, the owner of land on the offside can do. Also indicative of the truth about the EoG charges is the fact that they apply the waterspace argument only to moorings on private land and not to towpath moorings.

My dispute with C&RT was not, as you seem to believe, about staying in one place for longer than 14 days, but was a consequence of my refusal to comply with CC'ing requirements when not using my home mooring . . . . quite simply another good example, in a similar way to EoG charges, of their liking for either exceeding the statutory powers they have, or inventing others that they would like to have.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Sir Nibble]

I am impressed by what you have told me. I was impressed the first time, I liked the rehash and the supporting argument is nice. meanwhile the point that unless CaRT agree that that bit of canal bed can be allocated for your EXCLUSIVE use then no permanent mooring can be established remains ignored. It is just not important enough to me to keep raising the same point. I'm out.

[Noah T]

 

The 14 day limit only applies to moorings where the boat is alongside and and secured to C&RT owned land, ie. the towpath side canal bank

 

 

On that basis, would you argue that CRT could not apply the 14 day limit to a boat that is double moored (perhaps using mud weights to avoid being secured even indirectly to the bank!) next to another boat on the tow path side?

 

 

[Edited for clarity]

Edited January 2, 2015 by Noah T

[Tony Dunkley]

 

On that basis, would you argue that CRT could not apply the 14 day limit to a boat that is double moored (perhaps using mud weights to avoid being secured even indirectly to the bank!) next to another boat on the tow path side?

 

 

[Edited for clarity]

I don't know the answer to that, mainly because silly hypothetical situations aren't something that I spend my time thinking about, but if someone was stupid enough to leave a boat in the way you describe then C&RT would, or more realistically let us say, should, take action long before 14 days had passed.

[Noah T]

I don't know the answer to that, mainly because silly hypothetical situations aren't something that I spend my time thinking about, but if someone was stupid enough to leave a boat in the way you describe then C&RT would, or more realistically let us say, should, take action long before 14 days had passed.

 

If word got round that it would make boaters immune from the 14 day requirement, then I would bet that such situations would rapidly cease to be hypothetical, and that some inventiveness would be applied to the matter of making mud weights (or other solutions) more effective.

[Tony Dunkley]

I am impressed by what you have told me. I was impressed the first time, I liked the rehash and the supporting argument is nice. meanwhile the point that unless CaRT agree that that bit of canal bed can be allocated for your EXCLUSIVE use then no permanent mooring can be established remains ignored. It is just not important enough to me to keep raising the same point. I'm out.

Your point about establishing a 'permanent mooring' is being ignored because there is no statutory requirement to do any such thing. The requirement within the 1995 Act is for a mooring to be 'available', and that requirement is met by either having permission to moor on private land or owning a piece of suitably sized water's edge land bordering the offside bank of a canal, and any such mooring is not, in practice or reality, any the less likely to be made unavailable through unauthorized occupation by a passing boat looking for somewhere to tie up than a mooring on the towpath for which C&RT is being paid. If the owner of a passing boat has decided to use someone else's long term mooring, be it on private offside land or the towpath, do you really think they are going to be deterred by considerations about who pays who, and for what? In fact, in the circumstance of choice between a towpath mooring and a less accessible or convenient offside mooring, which one do you think they are more likely to choose?

[Noah T]

If the owner of a passing boat has decided to use someone else's long term mooring, be it on private offside land or the towpath, do you really think they are going to be deterred by considerations about who pays who, and for what? In fact, in the circumstance of choice between a towpath mooring and a less accessible or convenient offside mooring, which one do you think they are more likely to choose?

 

You seem to be assuming that a towpath mooring is readily available. That isn't always the case, eg in parts of London.

 

Further, isn't your case that the towpath side is subject to the 14-day rule, whereas the offside bank is immune from it? In which case, that would make an offside mooring more (not less) attractive to quite a few boaters.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

You seem to be assuming that a towpath mooring is readily available. That isn't always the case, eg in parts of London.

 

Further, isn't your case that the towpath side is subject to the 14-day rule, whereas the offside bank is immune from it? In which case, that would make an offside mooring more (not less) attractive to quite a few boaters.

The towpath mooring(s) I am referring to above are long term C&RT moorings, not casual or Visitor moorings. All the assumptions are being made by Sir Nibble and I'm just attempting to persuade him, and anyone else interested in the subject that his, and C&RT's, arguments in defence of the dishonestly levied EoG mooring charges bear a strong resemblance to the condition into which most of their locks have been left to deteriorate . . . they just don't hold water.

[Noah T]

The towpath mooring(s) I am referring to above are long term C&RT moorings, not casual or Visitor moorings.

 

But that would have to be paid for by the (potential) moorer- unlike the space at the end of somebody or other's garden, which you point out has already been paid for by any random licence payer; hence free at the point of use.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

But that would have to be paid for by the (potential) moorer- unlike the space at the end of somebody or other's garden, which you point out has already been paid for by any random licence payer; hence free at the point of use.

I'm not quite sure who's Posts you're reading, but if you would like to go back to the start of this thread and read all of mine you won't find anything that says that.

[Noah T]

there is no ' ban on mooring offside', only dishonest, but regrettably successful, instances of BW / C&RT frightening boat owners into paying again for something that their boat Licence already entitles them to do, ie. keep and use a boat on C&RT waters.

 

QED?

[Tony Dunkley]

 

QED?

I think you're misunderstanding what I have said. The right to keep, as well as use, a boat on BW /C&RT waters ( and that comes with the Licence) does not mean that a boat Licence holder has the right to moor his boat to privately owned offside canal bank land or, for that matter, to land owned by C&RT, such as the towpath.

C&RT are entitled, in the same way as any other land owner, to charge a boat owner for mooring to their land, but what I'm objecting about is that they demand payment of a fee ( the EoG mooring charge) from boat owners who either moor their boats to their own land, such as a garden that backs onto a canal, or with permission of and payment to the owners of, other private land that backs onto the offside of a canal. They explain and attempt to justify this charge by claiming that it is for the 'waterspace' that the boat is occupying and that's not only nonsense, it's dishonest nonsense because having paid for a boat Licence, a boat owner has already paid for occupying that 'waterspace' on the canal, and unless it's a boat that is capable of being in two different places at the same time, the owner is being charged twice for the same thing.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[magnetman]

But....

 

er...

 

Is this idea that CRT own a strip of land on each side just a made up thing? I seem to think it is the case with railways but maybe not with canals. I guess it wouldn't be too troublesome to find out for sure, but we can agree that if they did own, say, a 5ft 'strip' of bank on the offside then they would be fully entitled to levy a charge even if the bit 6ft in from the bank was someone's garden, and the bit leading up to the edge of the canal was also the same person's garden but did not in fact fall into the boundary of their property ownership.

 

this may be the case in a lot of situations and perhaps the fact that the garden owner has used the land would give them some sort of equivalent to squatters rights? All quite complex and makes me want to do a land registry map search on a particular bit of canal bank now to clear this up a bit

 

typo

Edited January 3, 2015 by magnetman

[Tony Dunkley]

But....

 

er...

 

Is this idea that CRT own a strip of land on each side just a made up thing? I seem to think it is the case with railways but maybe not with canals. I guess it wouldn't be too troublesome to find out for sure, but we can agree that if they did own, say, a 5ft 'strip' of bank on the offside then they would be fully entitled to levy a charge even if the bit 6ft in from the bank was someone's garden, and the bit leading up to the edge of the canal was also the same person's garden but did not in fact fall into the boundary of their property ownership.

 

this may be the case in a lot of situations and perhaps the fact that the garden owner has used the land would give them some sort of equivalent to squatters rights? All quite complex and makes me want to do a land registry map search on a particular bit of canal bank now to clear this up a bit

 

typo

Offside land ownership probably does differ from canal to canal, after all each one was built under it's own specific Enabling Acts, and where C&RT do now own a narrow strip of land on the offside they are undoubtedly entitled to charge for mooring, and there is no argument against that. However, were that the case on all canals they would not need to resort to this ridiculous 'waterspace' justification for EoG charges. The fact that the 'waterspace' argument is, as far as I am aware, the usual route they choose to go down, suggests that C&RT themselves are well aware of the truth of the matter, but choose to keep it quiet and ignore it because it's advantageous to them to do so.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Noah T]

having paid for a boat Licence, a boat owner has already paid for occupying that 'waterspace' on the canal

 

Ok,I'll try to break this down. It is that you believe that when a boater, who happens to have a garden facing the waterway, buys a license, that license includes specific rights regarding that part of the canal or river which is adjacent to the said garden?

 

In that case, yes I did previously misunderstand you. But I suspect you would be badly mistaken.

[gaggle]

 

Ok,I'll try to break this down. It is that you believe that when a boater, who happens to have a garden facing the waterway, buys a license, that license includes specific rights regarding that part of the canal or river which is adjacent to the said garden?

 

In that case, yes I did previously misunderstand you. But I suspect you would be badly mistaken.

heart breaking.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Ok,I'll try to break this down. It is that you believe that when a boater, who happens to have a garden facing the waterway, buys a license, that license includes specific rights regarding that part of the canal or river which is adjacent to the said garden?

 

In that case, yes I did previously misunderstand you. But I suspect you would be badly mistaken.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

Buying a Licence buys you the right to have your boat occupy an area of 'waterspace' commensurate with the size of the boat. That 'waterspace' is obviously in the same place, or position, as the boat at all times and can therefore be anywhere on the canal, and may be either moving or static. The right to moor is a separate issue, the granting of which is solely in the gift of the landowner to whose land it will be moored.

[John V]

I can state categorically that at least on one improved waterway (Canalised river) that BWB owned a strip of land on the offside of 1 foot in width from the waters edge and extending for 6 feet from the junction of the waterway up any tributary stream. This because in the 70's I knew someone who kept a boat 10 foot up such a tributary stream and every couple of years had to fight off an attempt by BWB to charge EoG (and incidentally a licence fee)

[Tony Dunkley]

heart breaking.

Yes, isn't it just . . . . must be quite encouraging for C&RT though.

[magnetman]

I can state categorically that at least on one improved waterway (Canalised river) that BWB owned a strip of land on the offside of 1 foot in width from the waters edge and extending for 6 feet from the junction of the waterway up any tributary stream. This because in the 70's I knew someone who kept a boat 10 foot up such a tributary stream and every couple of years had to fight off an attempt by BWB to charge EoG (and incidentally a licence fee)

Can you tell us where ?

[Paul G2]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

Buying a Licence buys you the right to have your boat occupy an area of 'waterspace' commensurate with the size of the boat. That 'waterspace' is obviously in the same place, or position, as the boat at all times and can therefore be anywhere on the canal, and may be either moving or static. The right to moor is a separate issue, the granting of which is solely in the gift of the landowner to whose land it will be moored.

 

Who are you and what have you done with the real Tony Dunkley? lol

 

I'm amazed at your patience here, Tony. You've tried to explain the same thing so many times to people who refuse to understand, I'm surprised you've maintained your composure. It would be one thing if people just told you you are wrong, but to refuse to acknowledge to understand such a simple concept is really insane.

 

Have you joined the Fluffy Bunny Appreciation Society while no one was looking?

 

ETA a missing word.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Paul G2

[Noah T]

The right to moor is a separate issue, the granting of which is solely in the gift of the landowner to whose land it will be moored.

 

Well, no doubt you would like that to be so. But that does not seem to be the legal position, nor have I heard any overriding principles which dictate that it must be the case.

 

 

[boathunter]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

Buying a Licence buys you the right to have your boat occupy an area of 'waterspace' commensurate with the size of the boat. That 'waterspace' is obviously in the same place, or position, as the boat at all times and can therefore be anywhere on the canal, and may be either moving or static. The right to moor is a separate issue, the granting of which is solely in the gift of the landowner to whose land it will be moored.

What Paul said, you have the patience of a saint Tony. Whether you're right is acceptably debateable, but to refuse to even understand this simple concept is plain weird.