Canal and River Trust changes in Licence Terms and conditions

[jenlyn]

so what about boaters who stay in one area in term time but go on long journeys in the school holidays?

a common pattern.

Try looking at it this way.

If they can bring out something acceptable to control home moorers when cruising, they can then use it to point out CC'ing needs more to comply, and get support for it.

Mr Parry is a clever man.

[mango]

That post shows how you cannot, or will not look at the problem with an open mind. Neither do you understand ccing.

If I moved a distance of 2 miles every fortnight, that would only ad up to 48 miles in one year.

Then there is the fact I have a widebeam, so would struggle to do "your" whole system.

Your simplistic thinking may look good on here in your eyes, but it's never going to have any input value until you think about it without prejudice.

A continuous cruiser does not have to wait two weeks before they move their boat, though a newcomer to the discussion could be excused for believing that this is the case.

I do know what a widebeam is and that full length boats are excluded from the northern waterways. I did not suggest that a continuous cruiser should attempt to cover the network. As far as I'm concerned, they can go round and round the Four Counties Ring annually, complying with mooring restrictions and the 14 day limit and CRT are unlikely to hassle them.

 

I'm not sure it's me that does not understand.

[jenlyn]

A continuous cruiser does not have to wait two weeks before they move their boat, though a newcomer to the discussion could be excused for believing that this is the case.

I do know what a widebeam is and that full length boats are excluded from the northern waterways. I did not suggest that a continuous cruiser should attempt to cover the network. As far as I'm concerned, they can go round and round the Four Counties Ring annually, complying with mooring restrictions and the 14 day limit and CRT are unlikely to hassle them.

 

I'm not sure it's me that does not understand.

I'm not spending my morning picking your last two posts to bits, but just to clarify and make an attempt to point out your errors with one relevant titbit, you stated

 

"Continuous Cruising should be about going round the network and enjoying boating."

 

That sentence seems clear to me.

[Higgs]

From a home moorer's perspective (mine), I'm classed as a CC'er beyond the locale of the marina.

[NigelMoore]

which has precedent, 1995 Act or 2015 T&C's.

 

The unhesitating answer of a BW witness at a Public Inquiry to the identical question [does an internal BW memorandum take precedence over an Act of Parliament?] was “Yes”. Anything decided by BW had greater authority than any statute so long as it post-dated the statute. Their ‘successor’s’ view, as is obvious from their published rationale for the T&C’s, remains unchanged.

 

Naturally [?] this would have to be the merely cynical line trotted out by people who know far better, but who also recognise that public confusion over the matter, and presumption of probity in the authority, has the practical effect of making it de-facto reality.

 

But the question was surely answered early on by Tony Dunkley’s response to nicknorman’s question as to the legal enforceability of the T&C’s?

 

Truth is, however: they do not have to be legally enforceable for so long as the majority of their ‘clients’ believe them to be so, and believe the line that the T&C’s are contractually binding on everyone ‘agreeing’ to them by keeping a boat on CaRT waters. It is false, but pragmatically speaking, it works.

 

It is a great pity that CaRT are abandoning the more honest line that the T&C’s [insofar as they go beyond what statute and byelaws lay down] have the force of guidance only; as guidance to ‘best practice’ boaters should be encouraged to follow in everyone’s interest, they are of some value. They would have been better promoted by the PR department than by the Enforcement department.

 

As I have often said before, it is indicative of the current managerial taste that the T&C’s are published as enabling more efficient enforcement. It also defies the Appeal Court ruling: that a thing is not unlawful merely because CaRT withhold permission for it; they remain bound by the constrictions of their enabling legislation.

[Alf Roberts]

hi Nigel.

 

thank you for your clarity.

 

a hypothetical case : I have a small boat. I have mooring, valid BSS and insurance. I attempt to license it but delete the part that says ' I accept the terms and conditions '.

 

Presumably CRT refuse to license it.

 

What next?

 

my theory;

I send them a letter demanding that, as I meet all statutory conditions, they license the boat

 

when they again refuse I apply for judicial review.

[Alan de Enfield]

churchward, on 02 Feb 2015 - 09:18 AM, said:

Any T&Cs are in effect a contract made in the UK and as such the contract is made under the scope of any and every pertinent law that applies in the UK including the 1995 act.

 

That however does not mean that it can't have anything in the T&Cs that is not mentioned in the act but the T&Cs terms must be legal otherwise they like any contract those terms are not binding as you cannot (even knowingly and voluntarily) contract to do something illegal.

 

Thinking aloud :

 

The 1995 Act makes no mention of a boat with a home mooring having to travel / 14 days etc etc. C&RT can therefore "add" to their T&Cs a requirement to do so and this does not contravene the statutory requirement. There is no requirement in any Act to have your boat painted green - but C&RT could make this a requirement in their T&Cs.

 

The 1995 Act makes mention of a boat without a home mooring having to travel / 14 days etc etc - C&RT could not remove this stipulation as that would contravene the statutory requirements.

 

This being correct (?) then C&RT do not seem to be doing anything they "cannot do" by requiring Home moorers to agree to CCer guidance.

[Higgs]

 

It is a great pity that CaRT are abandoning the more honest line that the T&C’s [insofar as they go beyond what statute and byelaws lay down] have the force of guidance only; as guidance to ‘best practice’ boaters should be encouraged to follow in everyone’s interest, they are of some value. They would have been better promoted by the PR department than by the Enforcement department.

 

 

 

 

Given that there is an intention to clarify for boaters what would/could be understood as best practice; is it not sufficient, when applied, to keep most boaters informed enough to avoid problems with CRT. There won't be that many boaters who would be vaguely interested in legalities. Having seen the knots that this causes, is knowing the legal points of any practical use to the average boater who may well have no difficulty with the guidance.

 

Legalities are important, but don't you think it is too much information and guidance is more easily of use to most. You can't please everyone and they can't. They're after the majority.

[costalot]

hi Nigel.

 

thank you for your clarity.

 

a hypothetical case : I have a small boat. I have mooring, valid BSS and insurance. I attempt to license it but delete the part that says ' I accept the terms and conditions '.

 

Presumably CRT refuse to license it.

 

What next?

 

my theory;

I send them a letter demanding that, as I meet all statutory conditions, they license the boat

 

when they again refuse I apply for judicial review.

There is probably a sentence in the license application which states words to the effect "when you accept a license from us you agree to our T&C"

[Jerra]

There is probably a sentence in the license application which states words to the effect "when you accept a license from us you agree to our T&C"

You mean something like:

 

s.

We may from time to time review and revise the Conditions. You will be given at least one month’s prior

written notice of any substantive changes and we will tell you the reasons for the change. At the end

of the notice period referred to above, the changes will be effective and you will be issued with the

new revised Conditions that replace the previous Conditions. You will be

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

My bold.

[Higgs]

 

You mean something like:

 

s.

We may from time to time review and revise the Conditions. You will be given at least one month’s prior

written notice of any substantive changes and we will tell you the reasons for the change. At the end

of the notice period referred to above, the changes will be effective and you will be issued with the

new revised Conditions that replace the previous Conditions. You will be

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

My bold.

 

 

 

This kind of being had-by-the-goolies never comes across as good. I don't know where there's room for negotiation without membership and a constitution or by court. Stuffed, mostly. Fait accompli.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Higgs

[Arthur Marshall]

To clarify again the changes as regards those of us with home moorings, I presume the application of CC rules would mean that I'm OK to potter out of my Macclesfield moorings up and down the Macc for a few days as I will then be returning to the home mooring before pottering out again. But when I'm on a longer cruise, if, say, I go to Leeds, I wouldn't be able to bridge-hop round Leeds for six weeks before heading home again. If this IS the only change, I can't really see a problem. If I've missed a point I'd appreciate explanation.

[b0atman]

Lets wait and see how many marina boaters go out and receive a letter because on their return trip they are stopping at places they moored at on the out bound trip so where in that place more than 14 days .

What about the weekend trips to the same area each weekend in the summer.e.g. Debdale to Foxton.

[Higgs]

To clarify again the changes as regards those of us with home moorings, I presume the application of CC rules would mean that I'm OK to potter out of my Macclesfield moorings up and down the Macc for a few days as I will then be returning to the home mooring before pottering out again. But when I'm on a longer cruise, if, say, I go to Leeds, I wouldn't be able to bridge-hop round Leeds for six weeks before heading home again. If this IS the only change, I can't really see a problem. If I've missed a point I'd appreciate explanation.

 

 

I don't think you would be able to potter around Leeds unless you were also complying with CC guidance. I also think that once you are beyond the parish location of the home mooring, again, CC kicks in.

[Bod]

 

 

As I have often said before, it is indicative of the current managerial taste that the T&C’s are published as enabling more efficient enforcement. It also defies the Appeal Court ruling: that a thing is not unlawful merely because CaRT withhold permission for it; they remain bound by the constrictions of their enabling legislation.

 

If I understand Nigel's, last paragraph correctly. C&RT as a body created by legislation (Statute) is only able to use the powers granted in that legislation.

This has been upheld by the Appeal Court, on previous occasion's. So a legal precedent has been set.

I suppose the question now is, what can the Trust do, if T&C's are breached?

If the T&C is not covered by legislation.

 

Bod

[Lady Muck]

I would not really want to act as if Im participating in a round the world yacht race if I cced, I do think I might only cover 100 miles per six months or even a year. I'd want to pick a canal and throughly explore it before moving on.
I do exactly this when we summer cruise. Did not go far this summer, but spent a month up the Stort. i once spent three months cruising from oxford to Croppers and I will probalby spend five months on the Thames this summer. We don't ever spend 14 days in one place, we are more likely to move on every one to four days, but not necessarily go that far each time. We seldom use visitor moorings as we just don't like them. We're always the ones in the back of beyond, using a plank or tying to a tree somewhere.

I dislike all these new rules and regs, they don't take into account how people actually behave, they just attempt to send everyone on some silly mad dash.

Anyone else feel like they are being punished for trying to enjoy the canals?

Edited February 2, 2015 by Lady Muck
typo

[5thHorseman]

Anyone else feel like they are being punished for trying to enjoy the canals?

 

nope

 

After wading through the T&Cs and 20 pages of posts - my conclusion is "there is a lot of it about"

 

"Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion.^[1] Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself (e.g. "Everyone is out to get me"). Paranoia is distinct from phobias, which also involve irrational fear, but usually no blame. Making false accusations and the general distrust of others also frequently accompany paranoia. For example, an incident most people would view as an accident or coincidence, a paranoid person might believe was intentional."

 

From Wikipedia

[mango]

I would not teally want to act as if Im participating in a round the world yacht race if I cced, I do think I might only cover 100 miles per six months or even a year. I'd want to pick a canal and throughly explore it before moving on.

I do exactly this when we summer cruise. Did not go far this summer, but spent a month up the Stort. i once spent three months cruising from oxford to Croppers and I will probalby spend five months on the Thames this summer. We don't ever spend 14 days in one place, we are more likely to move on every one to four days, but not necessarily go that far each time. We seldom use visitor moorings as we just don't like them. We're always the ones in the back of beyond, using a plank or tying to a tree somewhere.

 

I dislike all these new rules and regs, they don't take into account how people actually behave, they just attempt to send everyone on some silly mad dash.

 

Anyone else feel like they are being punished for trying to enjoy the canals?

I very much doubt that we would have the new rules and regs and all these discussions about continuous cruising if others followed your example.

[bassplayer]

I very much doubt that we would have the new rules and regs and all these discussions about continuous cruising if others followed your example.

There will always be those who are jealous of the CC'er lifestyle and not having to pay for a mooring.

[DeanS]

I agree. A hire boat might cover about 100 miles in a week, for example going round the Four Counties Ring. If a continuous cruiser cannot manage to cover this distance in a year, then I would question their motivation. Is spending an hour a week and moving a couple of miles on average really too much to ask.

 

Rather than thinking in terms of whether the 14 days is up tomorrow or last week, Continuous Cruising should be about going round the network and enjoying boating. I very much support and respect the real continuous cruisers.

 

This "belief" that if a CC-er needs to know the minimum distance, makes them a "problem boater" is misplaced.

 

2 examples where this sort of information is helpful.

 

1. Let's say a CC-er wants to travel from Manchester to Skipton, because they've heard Skipton is a lovely town. They must first commit to roughly 2 weeks travel, along the L&L.. They may have no interest in any other town along the way, and to be honest, none of the towns along the way compare to Skipton. So having made the entire trip...arriving in Skipton, they reach ...a 48hr VM. Such a long trip for such a short stay. So now they must cruise again....but they want to cruise a certain LEGAL distance...turn around, and visit Skipton again...because it's a lovely town. In that instance, it would be helpful for them to know that if they travel 21km past Skipton, and turn around, that they are not going to be logged on someone's money making enforcement radar.

2. Having eventually left Skipton, and travelled through many many swing bridges, they finally reach Leeds. It's the warm months, so they look for a mooring in Clarence Dock, but alas, only space for 4 boats...all on 24-48hr VMs. It's taken 3 weeks to get to Leeds, but there's no where for them to stay ....so they have to leave again...but....if they knew the LEGAL distance they could travel....in order to turn around and go back to Leeds, to stay another 48hrs, before making the 3 week trip back to Manchester along the L&L again, it would be very helpful.

I have a home mooring, but these 2 scenarios affected me last year. I ended up mooring on the river section in Leeds....a dangerous place to moor, but legal for 14days I presumed....

 

I understand that CRT probably will only act on people who stay in one area for months.....but this may not be the case if things change to 3rd party enforcement...my fear is that if that ever happens, boating will become a nightmare, unless there is a "places map" that boaters can work to...

 

I fully understand peoples comments on .."true CC-ers" just keep moving along...but the 2 scenarios above try to show that there is a vested interest in remaining around certain areas as long as is legally possible, at times....

[Arthur Marshall]

There will always be those who are jealous of the CC'er lifestyle and not having to pay for a mooring.

Most of us are envious, not jealous. There's a difference. Paying for a home mooring is irrelevant - we do that because it's convenient and we have to have somewhere safe to stuff the boat when we're not using it.

 

 

I don't think you would be able to potter around Leeds unless you were also complying with CC guidance. I also think that once you are beyond the parish location of the home mooring, again, CC kicks in.

But CaRT's definition of place no longer relates to parish boundaries - as far as I can tell no-one, including CaRT, knows what the hell it means, which seems to be the root of the problem, or at least of one of them.

[Jerra]

Surely Dean the Skipton example doesn't hold water (pun intended). Just because the VM is only 48 hours there is nothing to stop a boater moving off the VM and mooring where there are no restrictions for the other 12 days.

 

OK this will perhaps mean some inconvenience but surely not insurmountable.

[Timleech]

This "belief" that if a CC-er needs to know the minimum distance, makes them a "problem boater" is misplaced.

 

2 examples where this sort of information is helpful.

• Let's say a CC-er wants to travel from Manchester to Skipton, because they've heard Skipton is a lovely town. They must first commit to roughly 2 weeks travel, along the L&L.. They may have no interest in any other town along the way, and to be honest, none of the towns along the way compare to Skipton. So having made the entire trip...arriving in Skipton, they reach ...a 48hr VM. Such a long trip for such a short stay. So now they must cruise again....but they want to cruise a certain LEGAL distance...turn around, and visit Skipton again...because it's a lovely town. In that instance, it would be helpful for them to know that if they travel 21km past Skipton, and turn around, that they are not going to be logged on someone's money making enforcement radar.

   

• Having eventually left Skipton, and travelled through many many swing bridges, they finally reach Leeds. It's the warm months, so they look for a mooring in Clarence Dock, but alas, only space for 4 boats...all on 24-48hr VMs. It's taken 3 weeks to get to Leeds, but there's no where for them to stay ....so they have to leave again...but....if they knew the LEGAL distance they could travel....in order to turn around and go back to Leeds, to stay another 48hrs, before making the 3 week trip back to Manchester along the L&L again, it would be very helpful.

I have a home mooring, but these 2 scenarios affected me last year. I ended up mooring on the river section in Leeds....a dangerous place to moor, but legal for 14days I presumed....

 

I understand that CRT probably will only act on people who stay in one area for months.....but this may not be the case if things change to 3rd party enforcement...my fear is that if that ever happens, boating will become a nightmare, unless there is a "places map" that boaters can work to...

 

I fully understand peoples comments on .."true CC-ers" just keep moving along...but the 2 scenarios above try to show that there is a vested interest in remaining around certain areas as long as is legally possible, at times....

 

I understand the point you're making, and in practice the effect will very much depend on whether enforcement is rigorous or just applied 'where needed', and boaters' understanding of this.

That said, TWO WEEKS to get from Manchester to Skipton, with no interest in places along the way??

 

Tim

[GUMPY]

I don't feel that I am being punished for the way I use or want to use the canal system

 

I do feel that I am being punished for the way that others use the canal system.

[Lady Muck]

 

nope

 

After wading through the T&Cs and 20 pages of posts - my conclusion is "there is a lot of it about"

 

"Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion.^[1] Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself (e.g. "Everyone is out to get me"). Paranoia is distinct from phobias, which also involve irrational fear, but usually no blame. Making false accusations and the general distrust of others also frequently accompany paranoia. For example, an incident most people would view as an accident or coincidence, a paranoid person might believe was intentional."

 

From Wikipedia

I'm p*ssed off. I'm p*ssed off that no maintenance is being done on the services that we use (see Pearleys Stonebridge services thread), to the point that they are a health hazard. Despite this they have told us they will hike the price up, I'm frustrated that I spent a lot of my own spare time helping write new boater handouts for CRT only for Sally Ash to add a load of anti cc bullying into them behind my back (in handouts about boater safety and basics) and more than annoyed that they mistakenly sold me two licenses for the boat last month (a Gold and a River Only) and took two sets of money. I'm fed up of all the time I spent consulting with them, the hard work my friend who has a trading boat put in, all for it to be ignored, the doctoring of meeting minutes to hide the truth from boaters. It's not paranoia, none of it, it's reality. It's all based on fact, some of the stuff that's going on, well it kind of confirms things that I thought they might do next.

I very much doubt that we would have the new rules and regs and all these discussions about continuous cruising if others followed your example.

Yes but my point is, the way I like to boat could quite easily become, 'not allowed' .

 

Infact it very nearly did when they tried to bring the Lee and Stort proposals in, as even boats with home moorings had to follow the same daft pattern of cruising. It's was as if someone who plans bus routes had written it.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Lady Muck