Canal and River Trust changes in Licence Terms and conditions

[Ian Mac]

Help! I have a question. We have a home mooring on a none C&RT waterway, If we want to travel to the other end of the country and back, there may be times when we wish to leave the boat somewhere for more than 14 days. Traditionally, we have bought/swapped a mooring space at another boat club or placed her in a marina, basically somewhere where the boat is looked after and is secure ie not on a random piece of towpath. We then carry on. We may do this several times during a year. The new section 1.5 seems to imply that you have to have A Home mooring "which will be available throughout the period of the Licence" which implies a single place, so how does this work legally, because we are not going to surrender our Proper "Home Mooring" and make this temporary mooring a home mooring, can you have more than 1 Home mooring, what is the process for changing your Home Mooring and when do you have to go through the process of informing C&RT? HOw should this work?
I believe what we do should be legal and that lots of people do this sort of thing, so how does it fit in with the Ts &Cs? Or is it incorrect use of language again! and Home doesn't mean home but paid for and legal?

--

Cheers Ian Mac

[Tony Dunkley]

yes they can, read the new T&C's

No, they must comply with the law (statutes), and there is no provision in the 1995 BW Act for refusing to issue a new Licence on the grounds of previous transgressions, not that 'overstaying' actually is forbidden under that Act, it never has been and it still isn't, no matter how much Parry and his legal goons mess about with the T & C's.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

You bought a mooring and then 6 months later set up an association for continuous cruisers, now that is odd.

 

Sorry I missed the T&C that said boaters without a Home Mooring were not allowed to own a piece of land, or is that a new T&C do you have a link to that please

[Ricco1]

I think CART should show some urgency in deciding a 'minimum distance' for ccers. I believe the majority would find a way to comply. Of course areas that are currently popular would continue to be so and barren countryside stretches would continue to be empty. Whether boats are required to move 2 miles, 20 miles or 200 miles a year nothing will change.

 

Perhaps a way of solving the problem might be to introduce further limits at popular mooring spots but relax the 14 day rule/ distance requirement in the middle of nowhere. This should spread boats out more evenly along the system which is the ultimate aim, is it not?

[Tony Dunkley]

Help! I have a question. We have a home mooring on a none C&RT waterway, If we want to travel to the other end of the country and back, there may be times when we wish to leave the boat somewhere for more than 14 days. Traditionally, we have bought/swapped a mooring space at another boat club or placed her in a marina, basically somewhere where the boat is looked after and is secure ie not on a random piece of towpath. We then carry on. We may do this several times during a year. The new section 1.5 seems to imply that you have to have A Home mooring "which will be available throughout the period of the Licence" which implies a single place, so how does this work legally, because we are not going to surrender our Proper "Home Mooring" and make this temporary mooring a home mooring, can you have more than 1 Home mooring, what is the process for changing your Home Mooring and when do you have to go through the process of informing C&RT? HOw should this work?

I believe what we do should be legal and that lots of people do this sort of thing, so how does it fit in with the Ts &Cs? Or is it incorrect use of language again! and Home doesn't mean home but paid for and legal?

--

Cheers Ian Mac

There is nothing wrong or illegal about what your doing . . . you've got a paid for home mooring available to your boat throughout the period of the Licence.

[cotswoldsman]

I think CART should show some urgency in deciding a 'minimum distance' for ccers. I believe the majority would find a way to comply. Of course areas that are currently popular would continue to be so and barren countryside stretches would continue to be empty. Whether boats are required to move 2 miles, 20 miles or 200 miles a year nothing will change.

 

Perhaps a way of solving the problem might be to introduce further limits at popular mooring spots but relax the 14 day rule/ distance requirement in the middle of nowhere. This should spread boats out more evenly along the system which is the ultimate aim, is it not?

This assumes the problem is ccers and the fact that during the winter months there is plenty of empty Visitor Moorings and not many boats anywhere would seem to indicate that the problem might well be simply that there are a lot of boats about during what is termed "the boating season"

[Tony Dunkley]

I appreciate that there is a long drawn out procedure to deal with boaters that are ignoring the rules without an acceptable reason. I realise that CRT is obliged to give a licence to new boaters if they pay for it, but can they decline to renew the licence of non-compliant boaters? I don't want to see more money than necessary spent on enforcement and refusing to renew a licence seems a simple way of dealing with the problem. Obviously this should not happen unless CRT are sure of the facts and there is no valid reason for non-compliance.

In fact it needn't be, C&RT just make it into one, and needlessly expensive at the same time.

[Higgs]

only saying what's on the site.

Minor changes to clause 4.1 to refer more

accurately to the Guidance for Boaters without a Home Mooring.

Plain English:

We have changed the wording to make it clear that the

'Guidance for Boaters without a Home

Mooring’ is only our understanding of

the law and explains our approach to

its enforcement. Only a court can judge

, in each individual case,what is

actually required.

 

 

Hope I'm right in assuming the text in bold is a quote. In which case, I find it ludicrous that the governing body, at best, can only apply their interpretation of rules. A court is then required to define whether CRT's interpretation is valid or whether the boater's is valid. This is placing a great deal of the burden on boaters having to second guess CRT and a court. I might be getting the wrong end of the stick here.

 

If CRT are unable to understand the rules, how can they be the governing body. Is this a frustration for CRT and boaters alike. Where does it leave CRT's authority.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Higgs

[Gordias]

I think CART should show some urgency in deciding a 'minimum distance' for ccers. I believe the majority would find a way to comply. Of course areas that are currently popular would continue to be so and barren countryside stretches would continue to be empty. Whether boats are required to move 2 miles, 20 miles or 200 miles a year nothing will change.

 

Perhaps a way of solving the problem might be to introduce further limits at popular mooring spots but relax the 14 day rule/ distance requirement in the middle of nowhere. This should spread boats out more evenly along the system which is the ultimate aim, is it not?

 

It's clear enough that CaRT would like to have some enforceable rules on this. They could certainly write some, and probably have numerous drafts "on the shelf".

 

Enforcement is another matter. If they had an efficient and effective method available they would probably have included some sign of it in this T's and C's update.

 

By the way: this can't be an urgent matter for CaRT. It wouldn't matter to them if it took 5 years to resolve (one way or another - they may not achieve their current objectives).

Edited February 1, 2015 by Gordias

[Alf Roberts]

for once Gordias, i agree with you. these termd and conditions take 1,000s of law-abiding boats into enforcement and there just isn't the money to take them all to court in the near future ( even if there was the will)

Edited February 1, 2015 by Lady Muck
Remove real name

[Alan de Enfield]

Gordias, on 01 Feb 2015 - 09:09 AM, said:

 

It's clear enough that CaRT would like to have some enforceable rules on this.

 

They could certainly write some, and probably have numerous drafts "on the shelf".

 

Enforcement is another matter. If they had an efficient and effective method available they would probably have included some sign of it in this T's and C's update.

 

By the way: this can't be an urgent matter for CaRT. It wouldn't matter to them if it took 5 years to resolve (one way or another - they may not achieve their current objectives).

 

From the 'summary' notes of the recent C&RT / Associations meeting, C&RT have a new policy for CCer Enforcement (to remain confidential at the moment) and subject to approval by the Trust will have means and resources to apply it.

The implication is that some 3402 (out of 5400) CCers - those who have been identified as having travelled less than 12 miles per year - may be the first to feel the effect.

 

Putting 2+2 together - as the new T&Cs allow the use of third parties, and the fact "we have given C&RT permission to release our names and details to third parties", I imagine the enforcement process will be handled by an outside contractor.

[Alf Roberts]

 

 

From the 'summary' notes of the recent C&RT / Associations meeting, C&RT have a new policy for CCer Enforcement (to remain confidential at the moment) and subject to approval by the Trust will have means and resources to apply it.

The implication is that some 3402 (out of 5400) CCers - those who have been identified as having travelled less than 12 miles per year - may be the first to feel the effect.

 

Putting 2+2 together - as the new T&Cs allow the use of third parties, and the fact "we have given C&RT permission to release our names and details to third parties", I imagine the enforcement process w]ill be handled by an outside contractor.[/quote

 

I thjnk you're probably right. but what private contractor in its right mind is going to sign up to the legal bills it's going to take to get rid of all these scum?

[bassplayer]

 

....as the new T&Cs allow the use of third parties, and the fact "we have given C&RT permission to release our names and details to third parties", I imagine the enforcement process will be handled by an outside contractor.

That does appear to be the case. I'm not sure of the legality of CRT trying to get around the data protection act in this way. Normally we would be given the option to allow CRT to pass our personal information onto third parties. The way it's written it gives them the right to pass our information onto anyone they like. Surely it's not legal??

[costalot]

My interpretation from these T&C is that once a boater leaves their home mooring all boaters have to abide by the same rules. That is; be on a bona fide cruise stopping at a place for no longer than 14 days or less, if otherwise stipulated. Everyone has a boat license and is treated the same. Those boaters who have an additional mooring licence are able to stay as long as they like on their home mooring.

[Alan de Enfield]

bassplayer, on 01 Feb 2015 - 09:46 AM, said:

That does appear to be the case. I'm not sure of the legality of CRT trying to get around the data protection act in this way. Normally we would be given the option to allow CRT to pass our personal information onto third parties. The way it's written it gives them the right to pass our information onto anyone they like. Surely it's not legal??

 

Can you "sign away your rights" ? - I dont know. But we appear to be doing so :

 

 

You will be deemed to have accepted the changes by keeping the Boat on the Waterways.

 

[Alf Roberts]

another illegality that no-one will have the will to challenge.

[jenlyn]

only saying what's on the site.

Minor changes to clause 4.1 to refer more

accurately to the Guidance for Boaters without a Home Mooring.

Plain English:

We have changed the wording to make it clear that the

'Guidance for Boaters without a Home

Mooring’ is only our understanding of

the law and explains our approach to

its enforcement. Only a court can judge

, in each individual case,what is

actually required.

Yes, but their point being, "if you don't think we are right, put it before a court".

Tony is absolutely right. They take you to court "after" they have taken your licence.

[costalot]

Yes, but their point being, "if you don't think we are right, put it before a court".

Tony is absolutely right. They take you to court "after" they have taken your licence.

One assumes this is the cheaper option as in the majority of cases the boater will either: comply, move their boat off CRT waters, sell or abandon the boat. This probably solves 90% of the cases CRT identifies.

[Arthur Marshall]

Onion Bargee I agree , there's no place for parking wardens on the cut . Greenie

Bit late. They're already at Llangollen. If that was a trial to see if anyone challenged thir right to charge you to moor up on the towpath, they've already won that battle. if you want to visit Llangollen overnight, you pay.

[bassplayer]

Can you "sign away your rights" ? - I dont know. But we appear to be doing so :

 

 

 

You will be deemed to have accepted the changes by keeping the Boat on the Waterways.

 

 

I think this is one of the more sinister changes to the T&C's and maybe a good one for the various associations to get legal advice on. Of course the alternative is to let CRT pick on another poor guinea pig and waste yet more of our money on failed court actions (and the bad PR which goes with it).

 

Does any boater want to give CRT (and third parties) the power to be judge and jury bearing in mind they have shown they are unable to sample enough data to draw accurate conclusions about our cruising patterns? (and I mean every boater, not just CC'ers).

[Arthur Marshall]

Ah thank you I missed that. It does seem that the thread has moved to the cc debate and left behind an issue that troubles me, not for myself but for friends of mine.

 

I know a few people who live aboard their boats but are tied to a specific area for one reason or another. They have taken marina moorings to stay within the rules but don't like being in the marina, so spend a lot of their time cruising the immediate area, making sure they don't break the 14 day rule nor overstaying any specific time limits.

 

Now that us apparently to be outlawed, which I am deeply uncomfortable with because I believe it remains within the spirit of the legislation.

 

CRT can't change the rules willy nilly without recourse to parliament.

Can't see that that can be "illegal". It's what everyone with a home mooring does, whether they live on board or not. Just because they live on board doesn't make them a CC. if they outlawed that, they'd get rid of all the leisure boats on the system.

[alan_fincher]

I thought that the changes under discussion didn't have any relevance to ccers. Did I miss something?

 

I was under the impression that it was boaters with a home mooring now expected to move to a different place every 14 days that was the change.

 

Where is the change in cc t&c please because I'd be very interested.

 

Or have certain people seen the words 14 days, made an assumption and dived for their sabres?

 

Ange,

 

Helpfully NABO have put this this document which carefully details each and every way that the T&Cs differ from the old version, n their website.

 

So you don't need to take anybody else's slant on things, you can take a look for yourself, to see which affect those with a home mooring, which affect those without, and which affect everybody.

 

EDITED: To acknowledge Arthur Marshall's point that it is CRT produced - the perils of posting from a small device and not checking fully.

 

Have we though any reason to doubt that where it details the actual changes, (rather than CRT's explanation of them), that it is anything less than 100% accurate?

Edited February 1, 2015 by alan_fincher

[jenlyn]

One assumes this is the cheaper option as in the majority of cases the boater will either: comply, move their boat off CRT waters, sell or abandon the boat. This probably solves 90% of the cases CRT identifies.

 

Exactly, it's all about numbers.

[Arthur Marshall]

 

Ange,

 

Helpfully NABO have produced this document which carefully details each and every way that the T&Cs differ from the old version.

 

So you don't need to take anybody else's slant on things, you can take a look for yourself, to see which affect those with a home mooring, which affect those without, and which affect everybody.

 

Unlike some, NABO generally make such information available to all, rather than just their membership.

I thought that was the CaRT document, not one produced by NABO? So the interpretation is CaRT's, which rarther defeats the object.

[bassplayer]

Yes, but their point being, "if you don't think we are right, put it before a court".

Tony is absolutely right. They take you to court "after" they have taken your licence.

I wonder what would actually happen if thousands of us refused to sign up to a new licence on the basis that the T&C's were not fully approved by the various representative boating bodies and there are suspected illegalities in the wording.