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

[Paul C]

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.

 

Please can you cite the relevant legislation which says you can "keep and use a boat on C&RT waters". I've had a good look at British Waterways Act 1995 but it only mentions "use", not "keep".

[Alf Roberts]

 

Oh well. There might come a time when I feel so assured as a member of this forum that I could feel comfortable labelling anyone who persists in disagreeing with me as 'insane', weird', 'obtuse' etc. Though perhaps I would decide not to.

 

Meanwhile. Presuming you are mooring on a CRT-controlled waterway and you are over a CRT-controlled river or canal bed. Hence CRT would have some say in the matter.

well sorry Noah T but you are coming across as well weird.

 

Despite many people telling you exactly what 'say' CRT have in the matter - because for various reasons they have researched and studied, you seem incapable of grasping the basic facts of the legislative framework no matter how many times or how simply they are explained.

 

...or perhaps you are an executive of CRT who recite the same mantra as you appear to; 'it must be right because we say it's right'

 

I shall leave you to it. feel free to be wrong. or read again what is written in this thread and learn.

 

Please can you cite the relevant legislation which says you can "keep and use a boat on C&RT waters". I've had a good look at British Waterways Act 1995 but it only mentions "use", not "keep".

off the top of my head no, Nigel Moore gave a précis a while ago. it's in one of the earlier acts - the one that went from a right to navigate to a license system.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Please can you cite the relevant legislation which says you can "keep and use a boat on C&RT waters". I've had a good look at British Waterways Act 1995 but it only mentions "use", not "keep".

There is no such legislation dating from the time of C&RT or BW. The right to keep and use a boat on any canal was conferred by the original enabling Acts.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Wanderer Vagabond]

There is no such legislation dating from the time of C&RT or BW. The right to keep and use a boat on any canal was conferred by the original enabling Acts.

Surely the original Enabling Acts for the canals were to overcome the opposition of landowners to having canals driven over their land. The right to use a boat on any canal was to prevent the landowner obstructing the canal to prevent the passage of boats once it was built. Since, at that time, the canals were principally a means of transport rather than somewhere to live it does rather twist the original intention of the Act. When the canals were originally built how many boat owners would have even wanted to stay anywhere for more than a few days, if they weren't carrying goods they weren't earning.

 

The point that strikes me about this discussion is that if we are going to ignore the three legal Judgements that have been granted to BW regarding this then perhaps we should just ignore all other judgements that we disagree with. In fact let's have a field day and ignore all laws and judgements we disagree with!

[Noah T]

if we are going to ignore the three legal Judgements that have been granted to BW regarding this then perhaps we should just ignore all other judgements that we disagree with. In fact let's have a field day and ignore all laws and judgements we disagree with!

 

To be fair to those who disregard those judgements, perhaps the judges were insane, or just being weird .

[Jerra]

Assuming the judges were wrong and CRT has no right to charge for EOG moorings how will/should CRT make up the income shortfall?

 

Does it also mean that providing I don't attach to the land I can tie up (use mud weights) anywhere offside that I like?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

To be fair to those who disregard those judgements, perhaps the judges were insane, or just being weird .

What, you mean all three of the Judgements were '...insane or just being weird..'? I suppose that is how laws work in the UK then, if you disagree with any particular law or judgement you just ignore it. Personally I think the drug laws in the UK are rubbish so I'll just ignore them, and if anyone does anything to me to enforce them, well that is just soooo unfair!

[Alf Roberts]

What, you mean all three of the Judgements were '...insane or just being weird..'? I suppose that is how laws work in the UK then, if you disagree with any particular law or judgement you just ignore it. Personally I think the drug laws in the UK are rubbish so I'll just ignore them, and if anyone does anything to me to enforce them, well that is just soooo unfair!

 

You are just being hyperbolic.

 

What this has to with the drug laws is anybody's guess - of course people who take drugs ignore the law and sometimes campaign against them, that's a bit different for discussing the reason's behind a high court decision on boat mooring. If you were discussing a high court decision that modified or clarified the drug laws you may have a point but we're not.

 

As has been said many times before and is ignored by you and treated sarcastically by the biblical gentleman, it is considered that there are grounds for a further challenge to these decisions, that BW/CRT's access to highly paid legal support may have been an influencing factor, together with the all-too-common assumption that 'they are in charge, they must be right'

 

It's my opinion this is the case. I also don't think it is in the general boater's interest to challenge it - it is when all is said and done an income stream for a cash-strapped business - but it may be in particular cases in some individual's interest to challenge the decisions.

 

If you are going to make such ill-informed and sweeping statements, i would like to see your references to three decisions as far as i know there is one that was used in two more cases as case law.

[mayalld]

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.

 

Wrong.

 

Whilst a boat is away from its EOG mooring, it occupies water space elsewhere, whilst still retaining the exclusive rights over the waterspace at the end of the garden.

[Jerra]

I also don't think it is in the general boater's interest to challenge it - it is when all is said and done an income stream for a cash-strapped business - but it may be in particular cases in some individual's interest to challenge the decisions.

This is what concerns me.

 

Firstly those who think the EOG mooring charge is illegal/dishonest haven't (that I have noticed) given a good suggestion as to where the cash can be replaced and yet everyone knows CRT isn't rolling in cash. Yes I know we can debate for hours how they should spend their money but even if it was spent in the way that suited everyone there still isn't enough.

 

Secondly if enough boaters challenge CRT and win then everyone will and the cash will be gone and still no sensible suggestions for replacement.

 

Mayalld makes (to me) a good point in #434 if you have a EOG mooring and go cruising you are demanding 2 boat spaces of water unless of course you don't mind any passing boater tying up to your garden. So surely it is fair to charge for this extra personal boat space.

[carlt]

 

Mayalld makes (to me) a good point in #434 if you have a EOG mooring and go cruising you are demanding 2 boat spaces of water unless of course you don't mind any passing boater tying up to your garden. So surely it is fair to charge for this extra personal boat space.

 

So are you suggesting that someone who has a canalside property on the off side but doesn't own a boat should have to pay CRT in order to prevent boats mooring against their land?

[Jerra]

 

So are you suggesting that someone who has a canalside property on the off side but doesn't own a boat should have to pay CRT in order to prevent boats mooring against their land?

NO because CRT hasn't permitted a mooring, so boats aren't allowed to moor there.

[carlt]

NO because CRT hasn't permitted a mooring, so boats aren't allowed to moor there.

 

Do short term casual moorings need to be "permitted"?

[GUMPY]

 

Wrong.

 

Whilst a boat is away from its EOG mooring, it occupies water space elsewhere, whilst still retaining the exclusive rights over the waterspace at the end of the garden.

Except you don't have to pay if the boat isn't there........

For many years I used to pay L3 mooring in September for a year, cancel it in March cruise for the summer and then renew in September.

All perfectly legal and my space was kept by the landowner as I was still paying them.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Yes, unfortunately it does and will no doubt result in C&RT continuing to behave in a dishonest manner by charging fees they have no right to. Incidentally, I think the number of Judgements on this in BW's favour that I stated is wrong, it is I believe in fact 3, not 2, and all of them gained by paying expensive lawyers ( with our money) to persuade the Courts that they had powers beyond those actually granted by Parliament.

 

 

 

You are just being hyperbolic.

 

What this has to with the drug laws is anybody's guess - of course people who take drugs ignore the law and sometimes campaign against them, that's a bit different for discussing the reason's behind a high court decision on boat mooring. If you were discussing a high court decision that modified or clarified the drug laws you may have a point but we're not.

 

As has been said many times before and is ignored by you and treated sarcastically by the biblical gentleman, it is considered that there are grounds for a further challenge to these decisions, that BW/CRT's access to highly paid legal support may have been an influencing factor, together with the all-too-common assumption that 'they are in charge, they must be right'

 

It's my opinion this is the case. I also don't think it is in the general boater's interest to challenge it - it is when all is said and done an income stream for a cash-strapped business - but it may be in particular cases in some individual's interest to challenge the decisions.

 

If you are going to make such ill-informed and sweeping statements, i would like to see your references to three decisions as far as i know there is one that was used in two more cases as case law.

In terms of the number of Judgements in favour of BW I will have to agree that I recklessly accepted TD's assertion (above) but it still amounts to three Judgements whether or not the subsequent cases made their Judgements using the original case as case law or not. I think we are (sort of) coming to agreement regarding the income stream for CRT and how it isn't really in the interest of the general boater to have these Judgements challenged since it will only cost the rest of us more money.

 

As a minor aside, what I first put forward as a hypothetical scenario, the boat moored on the non-towpath side using mudweights I have today passed in reality. To the East of Olinthus Bridge on the BCN Wyreley and Essington Canal is a boat which is moored using an anchor from the bow and a weight from the stern with no direct access to the shore so is presumably using some form of tender to get to and from his/her boat. Now if this notion of mooring over CRT land is 'ridiculous' as asserted by TD, this moorer is probably believing that he can stay there forever if he wants to. I'm not sure of the wisdom/acceptability of using anchors to moor in canals though, how thick is the puddle clay in the canal base and is he likely to penetrate it with his anchor??

[b0atman]

Is anything happening in Hackney ?

[Jerra]

 

Do short term casual moorings need to be "permitted"?

I wasn't aware anybody did short term casually moor against non CRT land at the moment.

[carlt]

I wasn't aware anybody did short term casually moor against non CRT land at the moment.

When ccing I used to regularly moor offside when it suited.

 

Just because you are unaware of the practice doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

[Jerra]

When ccing I used to regularly moor offside when it suited.

 

Just because you are unaware of the practice doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Don't you need the landowners permission?

 

However to continue the line of thought that I was following from Mayilld if you are mooring casually (as a CCer) be it against CRT land or private you are not demanding a space is kept for you elsewhere. So a charge would be unreasonable.

 

IMO a charge for keeping a part of the canal bed free for you to return to is fair and reasonable. In other words an end of garden mooring. I take it you are one of the people who don't agree with EOG charges. Am I correct?

[carlt]

Don't you need the landowners permission?

 

Where have I said I didn't have it?

 

I would moor up, find the farmhouse, ask for permission and also ask if I could reduce the rabbit population a bit while I was there.

 

I have never been refused but some landowners expressed surprise that I took the trouble to ask.

 

...if you are mooring casually (as a CCer) be it against CRT land or private you are not demanding a space is kept for you elsewhere. So a charge would be unreasonable.

Whenever you moor up that length of canal bed cannot be used by anybody else.

[Jerra]

Where have I said I didn't have it?

 

You didn't that is why I asked a question. Your reply seems a little touchy.

 

Whenever you moor up that length of canal bed cannot be used by anybody else.

 

You appear to be missing the point (deliberately?) Mayalld made the point that a person with an EOG mooring was in fact taking up two boat spaces a they used the canal space where they casually moor. Which you rightly mention. They also take up (particularly with a garden mooring but also on a field if it is a mooring which the farmer has given permission for) a space which they have (for want of a better word) "reserved".

 

He made the point and I agree with him that it is unlikely that any other boat can use than space. Yes I know using mud weights is to a great extent hypothetical but the fact remains they are claiming a space. There will almost certainly be some sign that it is a persons mooring. That sign may be literal a sign say no mooring or perhaps giving the boat name or it might be decking etc put in place to make boarding and use of the bank more pleasant.

 

You obviously either can't see the argument or don't accept it. Fair enough. I do.

[carlt]

Funnily enough I thought it was you who didn't see the argument.

 

If there is no ransom strip I do not see why someone with an EOG mooring should pay to keep their canalside Land free of strange boats, if they are already contributing their licence fee, yet don't pay anything if they don't own a boat.

 

Let's put my question another way...

 

If you decided to buy a property which has an approved EOG mooring but don't want any boat spoiling your view of the canal, either yours or a stranger's, would you be happy to pay CRT an annual fee to stop anybody mooring up?

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Wrong.

 

Whilst a boat is away from its EOG mooring, it occupies water space elsewhere, whilst still retaining the exclusive rights over the waterspace at the end of the garden.

What utter rubbish, just considering the practical aspects of 'exclusive' rights, how exactly do C&RT exclude all other boats from the waterspace at the end of someone's garden?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

What utter rubbish, just considering the practical aspects of 'exclusive' rights, how exactly do C&RT exclude all other boats from the waterspace at the end of someone's garden?

That would bring us back to the 'obstruction' point of view. If you return to your exclusive mooring space and someone has occupied it you would be entitled to either move their boat or ask CRT to move it.

 

To look at the broader picture on your views of EOG mooring fees, have you REALLY considered the consequences if they were abolished or actually had Judgements made against them? You would then be in the position of Farmers who had the good luck to have canals running across their land being able to massively undercut the costs of marina owners and to trouser all of the profits themselves without putting anything at all into the network costs. If people could moor their boats on farmers land at a tenth of the cost of mooring in a marina, oddly enough that is what they would do I would suggest. There are thousands of boats currently moored in marinas which are hardly used, if these were then spread across the network it would mean mile after mile of moored boats on the canals which, as far as I'm concerned, would mean that the days of slowing down for moored boats would end. I don't mind at all slowing down for a few moored boats but I'm damned if I'm going to plod along at tickover all day just because it's cheaper for people to moor on farmer's land. Is that what you really want?

[Alf Roberts]

 

 

Where have I said I didn't have it?

 

You didn't that is why I asked a question. Your reply seems a little touchy.

 

 

Whenever you moor up that length of canal bed cannot be used by anybody else.

 

You appear to be missing the point (deliberately?) Mayalld made the point that a person with an EOG mooring was in fact taking up two boat spaces a they used the canal space where they casually moor. Which you rightly mention. They also take up (particularly with a garden mooring but also on a field if it is a mooring which the farmer has given permission for) a space which they have (for want of a better word) "reserved".

 

He made the point and I agree with him that it is unlikely that any other boat can use than space. Yes I know using mud weights is to a great extent hypothetical but the fact remains they are claiming a space. There will almost certainly be some sign that it is a persons mooring. That sign may be literal a sign say no mooring or perhaps giving the boat name or it might be decking etc put in place to make boarding and use of the bank more pleasant.

 

You obviously either can't see the argument or don't accept it. Fair enough. I do.

I don't. if you have an EOG mooring you are paying for the privilege to the land owner. that's a fee to reserve the space. you pay for a license that's the fee to use the 2nd space. if you choose to use a marina when out you'd pay a third time for a third space.

 

it's just woolly thinking by Maayalld and not to be used as argument.