CANAL & RIVER TRUST OUTLINES POLICY FOR BOATERS WITHOUT A HOME MOORING

[alan_fincher]

We were here sitting on the boat just saying Alan fincher will be the first to reply ;-)

 

Well done then, but it isn't hard to actually quote correct distances, if they are part of the point you are trying to make

 

It seems you are better at guessing who the next poster will be, than how far two places are apart by canal.

[Tony Dunkley]

Through all the long years of this debate and supported by the Davies judgement I have come to the conclusion that as far as the law allows distance is not the thing, the use to which the boat is put is. I would suggest that "bona fide for navigation" means going boating. If a boat is cruised a short distance two or three times a week whilst staying in a restricted area then the owner is clearly enjoying the navigation of their boat. If on the other hand the boat is never moored for less than 14 days then it becomes more likely that the owner is seeking to minimise navigation and is probably not Bona fide. I would submit that a map giving minimum distances is actually something of a concession since whilst it increases the travelling distance, it makes no observation of frequency. I expect to have it forcibly pointed out that 14 days is what the act says etc etc but that is a limit, not a target and 14 days moved followed by an hour of movement and another 14 days mooring is clearly the minimum someone thinks they can get away with. The very act of seeking a minimum blows bona fide out of the water.

 

I don't follow the point you make about a map being something of a concession, but otherwise I agree wholeheartedly with what you've said, as I think, would any Court.

Unfortunately, in the video clip from the link in #88 it's clear that C&RT remain fixated on distance alone being what really counts.

[mark99]

 

It's also not right for them to have to guess what the requirements are. I can't believe the number of people who cannot see the middle ground in the debate...but only see two polarised options.

 

 

Re guess's = is it not already laid out pretty well (bearing in mind no two parts of the canal are the same) in those CaRT guidelines for CC'ers?

 

As ones boat licence/renewal is at risk unless you want an expensive, stressful moment in court arguing interpretations with CaRT, it's imperative on the individual to read the guidelines carefully and be able to easily tick every requirement off imo.

 

Some CaRT Key Requirements

 

"Since ‘navigation’ means travelling by water and ‘travel’ means a journey of some distance, the word ‘place’ in this context is used by the Act to mean an “area inhabited or frequented by people, as a city, town, a village etc”

 

"to remain in the same neighbourhood for more than 14 days is not permitted. The necessary movement from one neighbourhood to another can be done in one step or by short gradual steps. What the law requires is that, if 14 days ago the boat was in neighbourhood A, by day 15 it must be in neighbourhood B or further afield. Thereafter, the next movement must be at least to neighbourhood C, and not back to neighbourhood A"

 

"Exact precision is not required or expected – what is required is that the boat is used for a genuine cruise" (cruise = bona fide for navigation = transit)

 

"short trips within the same neighbourhood, and shuttling backwards and forwards along a small part of the network do NOT meet the legal requirement for navigation throughout the period of the licence"

 

"Unacceptable reasons for staying longer than 14 days in a neighbourhood or locality are a need to stay within commuting distance of a place of work or of study"

 

If you cannot easily tick those above off before signing it but seek further clarification then that's very possible an early warning sign that you may get some attention.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2015 by mark99

[jenlyn]

Well done then, but it isn't hard to actually quote correct distances, if they are part of the point you are trying to make

 

It seems you are better at guessing who the next poster will be, than how far two places are apart by canal.

Well yes, good at guessing that you would come back with a reply that did not really address the problem, preferring instead to "pick" out the simpler point of my mileage.

From Paddington Basin, to the top of Watford is actually close to 40 miles, however, I did state roughly, because I predicted you would only pick up on that point.

[Paul C]

Your choosing to miss the point that there will be a 1500 boat linear marina shuffling along.

 

You're choosing to miss the point that there won't.

[Wanted]

Whilst on the whole it is clear that some shift is needed I can't help,but feel there is still some concerning language within people's approach to this.

 

Take NABOs responce, Mike Roddsays that ' For those who are living on their boats as a lifestyle choice, these requirements [to continuously cruise] will not present any problem NABOs own survey of continuous cruisers shows just this. Of course some folk who live on their boats may be affected: those who are genuine boaters will welcome the clarity, but a small number will find it difficult to conform. Here we welcome CRTs new Welfare Officer, Sean Williams, and applaud his work, especially in getting CRTs existing enforcement officers briefed on the resources available to help those who are in difficulty.

 

This to me suggests that it is excepted that those in need of welfare are described as non genuine boaters. Where is the welfare in that?

At what point does a genuine boater become a non genuine boater because of the need for help?

 

I have said this all along but this to me is the admittance that Sean Williams is essentially a sugar coated enforcement officer. Welfare meaning helping people off the cut and into the hands of the local authority.

[jenlyn]

You're choosing to miss the point that there won't.

Lol.

You really have no idea whatsoever of the issue.

[Paul C]

Lol.

You really have no idea whatsoever of the issue.

 

Lets rewind: you're saying that out of 2000 CCers in London, 500 will simply give up, leaving 1500. And out of those 1500, NO MOVEMENT AT ALL currenly occurs, but on April 1st, ALL 1500 WILL MOVE IN EXACTLY THE SAME DIRECTION, AT THE SAME TIME, STARTING FROM THE SAME PLACE?

 

If not, then what (sensible) change of traffic density are YOU saying will occur after April 1st?

[wreckferret]

Here we go, off on the merry go round again........

 

The common sense approach would need to be adopted by ALL parties ( boat license holders are ONE group IMO)

 

It really is of no importance whether Paddington to Watford is 30 miles, 40 miles or as SWMBO would say.....3 inch on the map

 

Distance isn't an issue, places are. If you move the required number of places you will, by default, have moved the required distance.....

[bassplayer]

Lets rewind: you're saying that out of 2000 CCers in London, 500 will simply give up, leaving 1500. And out of those 1500, NO MOVEMENT AT ALL currenly occurs, but on April 1st, ALL 1500 WILL MOVE IN EXACTLY THE SAME DIRECTION, AT THE SAME TIME, STARTING FROM THE SAME PLACE?

 

If not, then what (sensible) change of traffic density are YOU saying will occur after April 1st?

Out of curiosity, what kind of boater are you? Is your boat in the London area?

[Dave_P]

 

The C&RT stipulation in their 'Guidance' that boats cannot comply with the Law by moving between only two different places is nonsense. There is no mention in the '95 Act of 'cruising pattern', nor have any Courts found that boat movements limited to journeys between only two different places are unacceptable. It may be important to C&RT, but they cannot lawfully refuse a Licence because a boat's movement is limited to travelling between only two different places.

This is bang on point. There is a gulf between the wording of the act and the CRT guidance. There is no such thing as an acceptable cruising pattern. What may be acceptable for one person, may not be for another person. The key difference is intent. This is something which CRT know but continue to try the wool over our eyes over. Looking at most of the posts on this thread, I'd say they've achieved their intentions brilliantly!

 

All this talk of A to B to C and back is utter nonsense. It represents what CRT want us to do and they've tried to justify it as the only way that navigation can be 'bona fide'. In the recent Mayers case, the judges comments completely contradict CRTs interpretation. You can cruise between place A and place B indefinitely provided you reasons for doing so can be considered bona-fide for navigation.

 

The problem here is that the only way legally to come to an accepted definition of 'bona-fide for navigation' is through case law. Unfortunately, the relevant cases have not gone before any court of precedent. The two most relevant cases which have reached court so far are the Davies case and the Mayers case. CRT won both but neither of them hinged just on cruising pattern. I fully expect CRT to lose a case at some point...

[Wanted]

I have already noticed an increase in traffic heading further west than where we are on the GU Paddington arm.

I also agree that there will be a chunk of people who have never given a second thought to long term boat living and are doing it for a larf. Most of those guys will sack it off. Those who find themselves on hard times will stay for a bit and then realise that the waterways are just as intolerant of poverty as the rest of the world.

 

I reckon Jenlyn had it about right.

[bassplayer]

I have already noticed an increase in traffic heading further west than where we are on the GU Paddington arm.

I also agree that there will be a chunk of people who have never given a second thought to long term boat living and are doing it for a larf. Most of those guys will sack it off. Those who find themselves on hard times will stay for a bit and then realise that the waterways are just as intolerant of poverty as the rest of the world.

I reckon Jenlyn had it about right.

I'm guessing (hoping) that quite a few CM'ers will just ignore the new 'rules' as before. If not, this will make finding a mooring a nightmare if they start using official VM's where previously they weren't. This isn't just an own goal by those who pushed for the changes, it's going to affect all of us including genuine CC'ers (which is why I'm pretty annoyed about it). Edited February 14, 2015 by bassplayer

[kris88]

On the point about maps, when the trial one was on the internet this year. I showed it to the local data loggers, they couldn't believe it. I don't know about nationally, but in this area it seemed to be arbitrary and bear no relation to how local boaters actually use the canal. The data loggers expressed concern at the increased work load, in there opinion a lot of boaters would come onto there radar (local moorers not just cc'ers).

My concern would be where's the extra finance going to come from to pay for this. Maintenance is paired back to the bone anyway.

In my opinion if CRT feel they need a map, use the parish boundaries, rather than something made up by a bod sat in an office who probably doesn't even know that stretch of the cut.

I wonder with all these announcements ( what are the real issues we are be distracted from.) my money is on June for the announcement of outsourcing enforcement to private contractors.

April for the new guidance and map, May for new T&C'S june for private enforcement .

I hope I'm wrong

Regards kris

Edited February 14, 2015 by kris88

[Allan(nb Albert)]

This is bang on point. There is a gulf between the wording of the act and the CRT guidance. There is no such thing as an acceptable cruising pattern. What may be acceptable for one person, may not be for another person. The key difference is intent. This is something which CRT know but continue to try the wool over our eyes over. Looking at most of the posts on this thread, I'd say they've achieved their intentions brilliantly!

 

All this talk of A to B to C and back is utter nonsense. It represents what CRT want us to do and they've tried to justify it as the only way that navigation can be 'bona fide'. In the recent Mayers case, the judges comments completely contradict CRTs interpretation. You can cruise between place A and place B indefinitely provided you reasons for doing so can be considered bona-fide for navigation.

 

The problem here is that the only way legally to come to an accepted definition of 'bona-fide for navigation' is through case law. Unfortunately, the relevant cases have not gone before any court of precedent. The two most relevant cases which have reached court so far are the Davies case and the Mayers case. CRT won both but neither of them hinged just on cruising pattern. I fully expect CRT to lose a case at some point...

You are absolutely right about the Mayers case. What it did was reinforce the view expressed in the Davis case that purpose or intent was the key.

 

Back before Christmas, when Richard Parry had his last facebook session, I asked him if he intended to apologise to national boating organisations for not making the Mayers judgment available to them (bear in mind that he was trying to encourage those organisations to suggest what they would like to see in terms of CC cruising patterns).

 

The exchange ended with 'Allan, there was nothing in this case that changed our view of our Guidance. That's why we've not changed it'.

 

Undeterred, I made a request under the Freedom of Information Act -

 

Please provide via whatdotheyknow.com -

 

1. A copy of the judgement.

 

2. A copy of any document held that would support the assertion

that there was nothing in the judgement that changed CaRT's view of

its guidance.

 

CaRT have refused the first part of the request on the basis that NBTA have already published the information. That in itself is significant. When I requested a copy of the Davis judgment from BW, they simply provided it and subsequently published it on their website.

 

Regarding the second part of the request, this was initially refused under Section 42 'litigation privilege', with CaRT claiming that the documents requested contained information relating to current court cases.

 

After an exchange of emails, I reworded the the request such that it did not inadvertently include any information not relating to the Mayers case (which, of course is not 'current'). Some two months after making the request, CaRT is still refusing it under Section 42 but this time as 'advice privilege' rather than 'litigation privilege'.

 

Section 42 is not an absolute exemption. In other words CaRT can not simply say 'we are prevented by the Act from providing this information'. Instead, they have to apply the public interest test -

 

'The authority must consider whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure'

 

For two months, CaRT has been saying we hold information that supports the assertion 'that there was nothing in the judgement that changed CaRT's view of its guidance'.

 

For two months, CaRT has been saying that it is not in the public interest to make this information public.

 

.. and for two months, CaRT have been failing state what factors (for and against) it has taken into account when applying the public interest test.

 

 

[John Williamson 1955]

Mod hat off.

 

What CRT propose is reasonable, but they have forgotten one thing.

 

To give boaters a clear places map, so that boaters know BEFORE any need for CRT to contact them, whether they are in breach of the guidelines or not.

It is slightly/(very?) unfair to not tell boaters what the acceptable cruising pattern in any (wide) area is....and then send them a letter when it's too late. I suspect that by the time you receive your first letter, you are already on a naughty list, that you will never be removed from....until you buy a home mooring. Even then I suspect you'll remain on the list. I fear the enjoyment of boating for many will be eroded because they'll never actually know if they're within the rules or not, and will spend a lot of time looking over their shoulders, when a map would remove any uncertainty, and let people enjoy their boating without any worries.

Someone leaked a proposed map of places, and there was a major outcry about CRT's cheek in having drawn up a map from some boaters who apparently didn't want there to be any rules as to how far they needed to travel. There was also a recent court case where the judge said that the distance didn't matter, but any movement made with the sole objective of avoiding a ticket was not bona fide navigation. CRT won that case, but the judge was very careful to say that no precedent had been set, and his comments applied only to that case.

Edited February 14, 2015 by John Williamson 1955

[cotswoldsman]

Someone leaked a proposed map of places, and there was a major outcry about CRT's cheek in having drawn up a map from some boaters who apparently didn't want there to be any rules as to how far they needed to travel. There was also a recent court case where the judge said that the distance didn't matter, but any movement made with the sole objective of avoiding a ticket was not bona fide navigation. CRT won that case, but the judge was very careful to say that no precedent had been set, and his comments applied only to that case.

I think the objection to the map was the fact it was drawn up on a stick the tail on the donkey basis.

what case are you referring to please?

[kris88]

Exactly it bore no relation to the way the majority of boaters use the cut. All the people with home moorings need remember that after the new T&C'S come in it will apply to them. So more nipping to the same spot every weekend

Regards kris

Edited February 14, 2015 by kris88

[Dave_P]

You are absolutely right about the Mayers case. What it did was reinforce the view expressed in the Davis case that purpose or intent was the key.

 

Back before Christmas, when Richard Parry had his last facebook session, I asked him if he intended to apologise to national boating organisations for not making the Mayers judgment available to them (bear in mind that he was trying to encourage those organisations to suggest what they would like to see in terms of CC cruising patterns).

 

The exchange ended with 'Allan, there was nothing in this case that changed our view of our Guidance. That's why we've not changed it'.

 

Undeterred, I made a request under the Freedom of Information Act -

 

CaRT have refused the first part of the request on the basis that NBTA have already published the information. That in itself is significant. When I requested a copy of the Davis judgment from BW, they simply provided it and subsequently published it on their website.

 

Regarding the second part of the request, this was initially refused under Section 42 'litigation privilege', with CaRT claiming that the documents requested contained information relating to current court cases.

 

After an exchange of emails, I reworded the the request such that it did not inadvertently include any information not relating to the Mayers case (which, of course is not 'current'). Some two months after making the request, CaRT is still refusing it under Section 42 but this time as 'advice privilege' rather than 'litigation privilege'.

 

Section 42 is not an absolute exemption. In other words CaRT can not simply say 'we are prevented by the Act from providing this information'. Instead, they have to apply the public interest test -

 

For two months, CaRT has been saying we hold information that supports the assertion 'that there was nothing in the judgement that changed CaRT's view of its guidance'.

 

For two months, CaRT has been saying that it is not in the public interest to make this information public.

 

.. and for two months, CaRT have been failing state what factors (for and against) it has taken into account when applying the public interest test.

 

 

My view of this is that CRT are terrified of the implications of the judge's comments in the Mayers case. Previously when they've scaled back their guidance is has been a change of degree. The problem with the Mayers case is that the judge's comments undermine the whole premise of their guidance. The judge's comments were entirely consistent with the conclusions any sensible person would draw after reading the act and applying some common sense. The term 'bona-fide navigation' can only be defined in terms of the intent behind the navigation, not the distance traveled. Obviously, this makes any prosecution very tricky indeed.

 

CRT's response to this problem is to brush it under the carpet and hope that they can side-step it with 'guidelines' and a robust enforcement approach which determinedly hounds boaters ever onwards, with the threat of a prosecution. It's an approach which many authorities adopt, for good reasons - it usually works. There's a huge risk too though and CRT could easily end up getting a big spanking from a judge from it if they try to carry through a prosecution. The question is: will any boaters stand firm and call CRT's bluff? My guess is they will - boaters can be a damned stubborn bunch! ;-)

I think the objection to the map was the fact it was drawn up on a stick the tail on the donkey basis.

what case are you referring to please?

He's referring to the Geoff Mayers case

[alan_fincher]

From Paddington Basin, to the top of Watford is actually close to 40 miles, however, I did state roughly, because I predicted you would only pick up on that point.

Well you must do a lot of weaving from left to right to artificially increase the distance travelled then.

 

If you travel 40 miles from Paddington Basin, you will be near as damn it in the Waitrose pound in Berkhamsted, which few other people would describe as "top of Watford".

 

I'm actually very interested in the wider debate, but when distances and places are often central to the point under discussion, it seems important to me that statements made are fairly accurate. That's just me - I think it helps to be accurate, if only because I tend to find that if people think someone is not accurate on one point, they are then tempted to make the assumption that they may not being accurate on other points they make.

 

[Dave_P]

Well you must do a lot of weaving from left to right to artificially increase the distance travelled then.

 

If you travel 40 miles from Paddington Basin, you will be near as damn it in the Waitrose pound in Berkhamsted, which few other people would describe as "top of Watford".

 

I'm actually very interested in the wider debate, but when distances and places are often central to the point under discussion, it seems important to me that statements made are fairly accurate. That's just me - I think it helps to be accurate, if only because I tend to find that if people think someone is not accurate on one point, they are then tempted to make the assumption that they may not being accurate on other points they make.

 

But distances aren't central to the point. It's just that CRT have tried to convince us all that they are.

 

For example, in the 'famous' Weeks vs Ross case, a back and forth journey of 1.5 miles was determined to be navigation. Add Judge Halbert's statements on 'bona-fide' and it's easy to see that round trip (bridge hopping) of 3 miles was 'bona fide used for navigation.

 

In other words, the 1995 act allows continuous cruisers to bridge-hop. The test of its lawfulness is the reason for the bridge-hopping not the fact of it.

Edited February 14, 2015 by Dave_P

[cotswoldsman]

Well you must do a lot of weaving from left to right to artificially increase the distance travelled then.

 

If you travel 40 miles from Paddington Basin, you will be near as damn it in the Waitrose pound in Berkhamsted, which few other people would describe as "top of Watford".

 

I'm actually very interested in the wider debate, but when distances and places are often central to the point under discussion, it seems important to me that statements made are fairly accurate. That's just me - I think it helps to be accurate, if only because I tend to find that if people think someone is not accurate on one point, they are then tempted to make the assumption that they may not being accurate on other points they make.

 

So we now have the milage police to go with the spelling police wow

I think k most understood the point Jenlyn was making without worrying to much about exact distance. When posting from a phone it can be difficult to check distance so you have to rely on guesswork

[onionbargee]

Ah the simple life !

 

All you need to go boating is a degree in law, a log book signed by a judge, and a GPS record of all your movements from GCHQ.

[jenlyn]

Well you must do a lot of weaving from left to right to artificially increase the distance travelled then.

 

If you travel 40 miles from Paddington Basin, you will be near as damn it in the Waitrose pound in Berkhamsted, which few other people would describe as "top of Watford".

 

I'm actually very interested in the wider debate, but when distances and places are often central to the point under discussion, it seems important to me that statements made are fairly accurate. That's just me - I think it helps to be accurate, if only because I tend to find that if people think someone is not accurate on one point, they are then tempted to make the assumption that they may not being accurate on other points they make.

 

Oh for gods sake Alan. Get a grip.

If you are not capable of interacting in the debate, then at least don't attempt to trivialise it by using your pedant skills.

[Mike Todd]

 

I'll ask again: why do YOU think a simple distance is critical? Its been shown quite clearly that CRT cannot, by law, define the distance required and thus refuse licences etc based on insufficient distance. They can only use the legislation as-is, not mould it like putty into what they (might or might not, or might be perceived to) desire. Have a look at the wording of the actual law behind all this. And then have a good read of the guidance for CCers.

 

The 20km talked about in enforcement is an internal trigger which seems to be used to "get you onto their radar" then they'll look at your actual movement pattern and place it alongside the legal requirement (eg place to place) as well as the times at each place. 20km range isn't used in prosecutions or court cases.

 

Yes I know CRT vs Davies was won by CRT and cites a distance but it is not precedent and doesn't carry much weight because the distance was only one strand of a number used by the judge to interpret Davies' intentions.

 

Post #38 reinforces the above.

I think it is clear that CRT **can** use distance travelled but as evidence that a boater is not engaged in bona fide navigation, not that they have failed to meet a distance criterion.

 

There are lots of examples of linear moorings with no facilities where boaters 'reside'. The costs I suggest would be an par with the guide prices of existing moorings. The point is C&RT would create moorings where there is a need - as demonstrated by those who already occupy the space and are reluctant to move. Simply put charging for CM'ing

But they would have to obtain planning permission and locals may resist . . .