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

[cotswoldsman]

scroll down to the bottom.

Still see nothing other than case number etc

scroll down to the bottom.

 

60622

Pearl

Geoffrey Douglas Mayers

10/02/2014

Chester

Court Order Obtained

Thanks will look later when not on phone

[Tony Dunkley]

Interesting, the way I interpret the judgement is that the judge couldn't provide a decision about the legality of the CRT cc guidelines because of the actions of Mayer in provoking CRT. The judge appears to have rejected all of Mayers claims. He used a lawyer and still lost.

 

Yes, he lost because he didn't comply with the statutory requirements of the 1995 Act, instead of complying with the Act but not complying with the CC'ing Guidance. In breaching the statutes, he left the Judge with nowhere to go except to find for C&RT.

[Paul C]

 

Well, that's not really what happened. Geoff Mayers did not take C&RT to Court, but he intentionally provoked them into taking legal action against him, hoping that the Court would find in his favour and in doing so, expose C&RT's flouting and abuse of the Law.

If, after ensuring that he was fulfilling the relevant statutory requirements of the 1995 Act, he had instigated proceedings with an Application for Declaratory Relief (in respect of C&RT's threatened action against him) then the outcome would have been very different. This was remarked on by the trial Judge at 5.16 of the Judgment, and is another of the reasons why Parry and C&RT didn't want this Judgment to be made generally known and didn't publish it on their website.

 

That's a "what if" scenario though! Personally I think the injustics Mayers suffered is that he had a home mooring which was paid for by housing benefit (no problems here) but because he didn't want to stay on it, he didn't; and they stopped paying for it.

[Jerra]

 

That's a "what if" scenario though! Personally I think the injustics Mayers suffered is that he had a home mooring which was paid for by housing benefit (no problems here) but because he didn't want to stay on it, he didn't; and they stopped paying for it.

If that is the case surely any problems following from that were self inflicted. It isn't right to expect us the (tax payers) to continue to pay for some thing you have no intention of using.

[Paul C]

If that is the case surely any problems following from that were self inflicted. It isn't right to expect us the (tax payers) to continue to pay for some thing you have no intention of using.

 

He was "using" it though, just not in the way as first appears. Having a home mooring, but not (permanently) locating the boat there, is a perfectly legal thing do to, and also means you comply with section (i) of the 1995 act, thus not requiring complying with (ii). There is no minimum time the boat must be located on its home mooring mentioned in the law, just the fact that its available.

[bassplayer]

That's a "what if" scenario though! Personally I think the injustics Mayers suffered is that he had a home mooring which was paid for by housing benefit (no problems here) but because he didn't want to stay on it, he didn't; and they stopped paying for it.

That's a "what if" scenario though! Personally I think the injustics Mayers suffered is that he had a home mooring which was paid for by housing benefit (no problems here) but because he didn't want to stay on it, he didn't; and they stopped paying for it.

"What if" is the same as "Personally I think"...so how does this all personally affect you?

[BlueStringPudding]

This means looking at how far boats have moved over the course of their previous licence to see if it satisfies the requirement for continuous cruising. When this is introduced from 1 May, regular reminders will be sent to all those boaters whose limited movement is causing a concern.

 

On the expiry of their licence, those that have consistently failed to move in accordance with the Trusts Guidance will be refused a new licence unless they take a home mooring.

As usual, half-arsed so-called transparency.

 

Unless they specifically state what the requirement is (distance) then it is utterly unenforceable to make someone pay for a mooring for breaking rules that have not been explicitly and numerically described. It'll fail at the first boater to challenge them in court.

 

By not explicitly stating the required distance they're setting boaters up to fail. And that could be perceived as entrapment for financial gain or even harassment IMHO.

[Paul C]

"What if" is the same as "Personally I think"...so how does this all personally affect you?

 

It affects us all if it prompts CRT to divert much-needed funds from maintenance etc to enforcement, and start making up more and more rules, policies and terms & conditions which will bring many more people who use their boat in ways slightly different to each other under the spotlight of (possibly inappropriate, possibly illegal) enforcement. With the proposed alterations to the T&Cs, all home moorers who actually use their boat rather than leave it safely tucked up on its mooring, effectively become CCers in the eyes of the enforcement officer!

[bassplayer]

It affects us all if it prompts CRT to divert much-needed funds from maintenance etc to enforcement, and start making up more and more rules, policies and terms & conditions which will bring many more people who use their boat in ways slightly different to each other under the spotlight of (possibly inappropriate, possibly illegal) enforcement. With the proposed alterations to the T&Cs, all home moorers who actually use their boat rather than leave it safely tucked up on its mooring, effectively become CCers in the eyes of the enforcement officer!

So are you in the London area (where I'm guessing you'll be adversely affected)?

[kris88]

So are you in the London area (where I'm guessing you'll be adversely affected)?

I think you'll find it's not only boaters in London who are going to be adversely effected

Regards kris

[bassplayer]

I think you'll find it's not only boaters in London who are going to be adversely effected

Regards kris

Ok, I'll keep the question simple..are you in the London area?

It affects us all if it prompts CRT to divert much-needed funds from maintenance etc to enforcement, and start making up more and more rules, policies and terms & conditions which will bring many more people who use their boat in ways slightly different to each other under the spotlight of (possibly inappropriate, possibly illegal) enforcement. With the proposed alterations to the T&Cs, all home moorers who actually use their boat rather than leave it safely tucked up on its mooring, effectively become CCers in the eyes of the enforcement officer!

...and...are you in the London area?

[Jerra]

 

He was "using" it though, just not in the way as first appears. Having a home mooring, but not (permanently) locating the boat there, is a perfectly legal thing do to, and also means you comply with section (i) of the 1995 act, thus not requiring complying with (ii). There is no minimum time the boat must be located on its home mooring mentioned in the law, just the fact that its available.

Then I suspect it would depend on what the benefits authorities think about how often and for how long he was away. If he was behaving like the supposed ghost moorers and having the mooring in one area but hanging around another I am not surprised they stopped paying. While legal under the canal laws it would seem to the benefits people that he didn't want/need the mooring so why pay for it.

[kris88]

I'll keep the answer simple NO

Regards kris

I think it is a very simplistic stereotypical question if you think everybody who has concerns about these changes is from London

Edited February 15, 2015 by kris88

[bassplayer]

I'll keep the answer simple NO

Regards kris

Sorry I did fail to check who replied ...doh! If you're near a big city or town on the network I suspect the 'extra movement' will affect you but the greater London area will be the big test case. As I said earlier, hopefully the CM'ers will take no notice of any changes to CRT's T&C's or guidelines...

 

Edited..but must stop posing under the influence...

 

...sorry....posting...oh bugger...

Edited February 15, 2015 by bassplayer

[costalot]

Actually the judge in the Mayer case made it clear in his judgement that distance was nowhere near as relevant as intent. He considered short journeys could be made provided they were bona fide for navigation.

[bassplayer]

Actually the judge in the Mayer case made it clear in his judgement that distance was nowhere near as relevant as intent. He considered short journeys could be made provided they were bona fide for navigation.

 

Yes, intent is the key and supposedly (and hopefully) the core of the law in this country. Personally, I'm not bothered by CM'ers and bridge hoppers so long as they don't start moving!

[pearlygeoff]

 

That's a "what if" scenario though! Personally I think the injustics Mayers suffered is that he had a home mooring which was paid for by housing benefit (no problems here) but because he didn't want to stay on it, he didn't; and they stopped paying for it.

 

If that is the case surely any problems following from that were self inflicted. It isn't right to expect us the (tax payers) to continue to pay for some thing you have no intention of using.

 

Here is an excerpt from one of my witness statements.

 

''It has been suggested to me, by an area manager and by the Ombudsman, that I claim housing benefit for a 'mooring' in a marina, that is payable because the council doesn't want to re-house people, and then moor on the towpath. This is an admission that I would be left alone on the towpath if I paid a payment to British Waterways ('protection' money) and advice that I commit what would probably constitute benefit fraud.

I know exactly what happens as I tried it once as an 'experiment'.''

 

I argued that it was unreasonable to force, by threat of legal action, a person to take an 'unlawful mooring' (no planning permission) that he did not intend to use and also claim housing benefit.

 

I have said this many times and no-one seems to grasp the importance of it. People on boats mostly have a low income. If forced to have a 'home mooring' to be free from harassment they will have to claim housing benefit.

 

The Judge said he hadn't had time to read our submissions. He has one day for 'reading'. CRT submit hundreds of pages which he has no chance of reading. One of their, or Shoosmiths', 'tricks'.

 

My intention with the case was to expose the unlawful and unreasonable behaviour of BW/CRT having had my questions through meetings with the manager in the Northwich area, and complaints to the Ombudsman, unanswered and being told I would have to take them to court. I said you will have to take me to court then I can get legal aid. They use public money I am entitled to use public money. They provoked me. I responded.

 

I have exposed their wrongdoing and the Judge found in my favour regarding the unlawfulness of their 'rules', in particular, the requirement for the 'progressive journey around the system'. This was my primary challenge as I was told I couldn't stay in the area to attend vital medical appointments although 'reasonable in the circumstances'.

 

I, effectively, won the case and also brought to light their 'dirty tricks' amounting to contempt of court and abuse of process. I have also exposed the inadequacy of the legal process and protocols of legal representation in dealing with ambiguous waterways law which the Judge will have difficulty relating to the reality of living on a boat. Just look at the confusion on this forum with few people understanding the law and its relation to the ever changing rules (and their misinterpretation in application) and you can see what a, near impossible, task he has. Add to that my being, effectively, excluded from my own case through not having much opportunity to speak in court and not being able to communicate directly with my barrister. A long running farce but not very funny when you're the victim.

 

The judge made CRT give an undertaking to the court to negotiate with me as to how I could remain on the canal. I approached them and asked for reinstatement of my licence. They ignored my attempts at negotiation. They breached the undertaking to the court which is equivalent to a court order. They executed their court order and stole my boat.

 

I had some success as is now being discussed and had a 'way out' courtesy of the judge. CRT were determined to take my boat as ' an example to others'. As no-one else raised concerns about the matter CRT think they've got away with it and they can do the same to you. Your 'boating representatives' are firmly in the pocket of CRT and appear to have been 'seduced' by the tea and biscuits. You're on your own and my information is important to you.

 

More of this is on my website, Canal and River Tyranny, and if you are interested in what is going on, and you should be, you have to read it.

 

It's not about me. It's not a 'hard luck story'. It's the result of seven years of objecting to their blatant, deliberate and systematised abuse of people living on boats, mostly people vulnerable due to age and/or health problem - as I had after an illness - who were the primary targets.

 

Most of you don't know about it because you don't live on a boat on the towpath or because you ignored what you saw.

 

What I did, and am doing, is in 'the public interest'. CRT are refusing to reveal some details relating to my case as it's 'not in the public interest'.

 

There are lots of interesting 'revelations' on my site and there will be more.

 

I hope I haven't wasted my time.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Yes, he lost because he didn't comply with the statutory requirements of the 1995 Act, instead of complying with the Act but not complying with the CC'ing Guidance. In breaching the statutes, he left the Judge with nowhere to go except to find for C&RT.

Well there was one way in which the judge expressed his disaproval. It says a lot to me that the judge reversed a decision of the previous hearing to award CaRT its costs of £50,000+.

 

[Arthur]

Deleted as posted under wrong ID.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Arthur

[costalot]

The judgement concludes

 

12. RESULT

12.1 It follows that CRT are entitled to judgement and to the relief they seek. However, CRT indicated at trial that if they succeeded to this extent, they would give GDM a further opportunity to consider his position before removing Pearl from the canal. In these circumstances I fix a date to hand down this judgement and invite submissions at that hearing as to the form of order to be made.

So CRT had already informed the court they would give the defendant a final opportunity to reconsider his position if the judge found in their favour. All GDM had to then do was comply with the CRT requirements and he wouldn't lose his boat.

I suspect the judge didn't award CRT cost of 50,000+ at the second hearing because he would have known GDM had minimal income and was about to lose his home. In those circumstances I suspect the judge decided CRT, as the more "affluent" party, should bear their own costs.

 

[Dave_P]

 

 

Here is an excerpt from one of my witness statements.

 

''It has been suggested to me, by an area manager and by the Ombudsman, that I claim housing benefit for a 'mooring' in a marina, that is payable because the council doesn't want to re-house people, and then moor on the towpath. This is an admission that I would be left alone on the towpath if I paid a payment to British Waterways ('protection' money) and advice that I commit what would probably constitute benefit fraud.

I know exactly what happens as I tried it once as an 'experiment'.''

 

I argued that it was unreasonable to force, by threat of legal action, a person to take an 'unlawful mooring' (no planning permission) that he did not intend to use and also claim housing benefit.

 

I have said this many times and no-one seems to grasp the importance of it. People on boats mostly have a low income. If forced to have a 'home mooring' to be free from harassment they will have to claim housing benefit.

 

The Judge said he hadn't had time to read our submissions. He has one day for 'reading'. CRT submit hundreds of pages which he has no chance of reading. One of their, or Shoosmiths', 'tricks'.

 

My intention with the case was to expose the unlawful and unreasonable behaviour of BW/CRT having had my questions through meetings with the manager in the Northwich area, and complaints to the Ombudsman, unanswered and being told I would have to take them to court. I said you will have to take me to court then I can get legal aid. They use public money I am entitled to use public money. They provoked me. I responded.

 

I have exposed their wrongdoing and the Judge found in my favour regarding the unlawfulness of their 'rules', in particular, the requirement for the 'progressive journey around the system'. This was my primary challenge as I was told I couldn't stay in the area to attend vital medical appointments although 'reasonable in the circumstances'.

 

I, effectively, won the case and also brought to light their 'dirty tricks' amounting to contempt of court and abuse of process. I have also exposed the inadequacy of the legal process and protocols of legal representation in dealing with ambiguous waterways law which the Judge will have difficulty relating to the reality of living on a boat. Just look at the confusion on this forum with few people understanding the law and its relation to the ever changing rules (and their misinterpretation in application) and you can see what a, near impossible, task he has. Add to that my being, effectively, excluded from my own case through not having much opportunity to speak in court and not being able to communicate directly with my barrister. A long running farce but not very funny when you're the victim.

 

The judge made CRT give an undertaking to the court to negotiate with me as to how I could remain on the canal. I approached them and asked for reinstatement of my licence. They ignored my attempts at negotiation. They breached the undertaking to the court which is equivalent to a court order. They executed their court order and stole my boat.

 

I had some success as is now being discussed and had a 'way out' courtesy of the judge. CRT were determined to take my boat as ' an example to others'. As no-one else raised concerns about the matter CRT think they've got away with it and they can do the same to you. Your 'boating representatives' are firmly in the pocket of CRT and appear to have been 'seduced' by the tea and biscuits. You're on your own and my information is important to you.

 

More of this is on my website, Canal and River Tyranny, and if you are interested in what is going on, and you should be, you have to read it.

 

It's not about me. It's not a 'hard luck story'. It's the result of seven years of objecting to their blatant, deliberate and systematised abuse of people living on boats, mostly people vulnerable due to age and/or health problem - as I had after an illness - who were the primary targets.

 

Most of you don't know about it because you don't live on a boat on the towpath or because you ignored what you saw.

 

What I did, and am doing, is in 'the public interest'. CRT are refusing to reveal some details relating to my case as it's 'not in the public interest'.

 

There are lots of interesting 'revelations' on my site and there will be more.

 

I hope I haven't wasted my time.

Thanks Geoff. The more I read of your case, the more horrified I am by it.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

The judgement concludes

 

12. RESULT

12.1 It follows that CRT are entitled to judgement and to the relief they seek. However, CRT indicated at trial that if they succeeded to this extent, they would give GDM a further opportunity to consider his position before removing Pearl from the canal. In these circumstances I fix a date to hand down this judgement and invite submissions at that hearing as to the form of order to be made.

 

So CRT had already informed the court they would give the defendant a final opportunity to reconsider his position if the judge found in their favour. All GDM had to then do was comply with the CRT requirements and he wouldn't lose his boat.

 

I suspect the judge didn't award CRT cost of 50,000+ at the second hearing because he would have known GDM had minimal income and was about to lose his home. In those circumstances I suspect the judge decided CRT, as the more "affluent" party, should bear their own costs.

 

The judge actually reversed the decision of the first hearing which was to award CaRT its costs including £50,000 payable within 21 days.

[thunderbird]

And whilst he does so he should remember that all of us, ccing or otherwise, will now be under surveillance. CRT obviously can't prevent ccing licences being issued, they can though discriminate against those taking them and make their lives hard enough to fill the coffers of the marinas they are pressured to please. I do so hope I didn't read that they claim the right to board our boats - something that at my home would require a warrant.

 

you spend a lot of time predicting what others will think

[Paul C]

Sort of, but I can't see it being a problem. Most people with home moorings are leisure boaters, and they wouldn't be particularly interested in hanging around the same place for more than a fortnight. After all, if you're on holiday, you want to see a bit of the system, otherwise you might as well leave the boat where it was.

 

Some boaters aren't "most people" though.....people use boats in different ways than you imagine.

 

 

 

 

PS Why do you have 2x IDs on the forum?

[Jerra]

something that at my home would require a warrant.

Not in some cases back in 1974 (I think) Richard Stilgoe sang a song about the people with a statutory right of entry to your home. There were about 8 then I suspect there will be even more now.

 

Also they wouldn't be entering your home they would be IMO in the equivalent of your garden (the decks) which doesn't require a warrant. After all for somebody with bricks and mortar they don't object to the postman coming up the path or the police crossing their garden to get to some where. As I understand it all the new terms and conditions ask for is the right to come on board to affix notices (equivalent to me to the postman) or to get to breasted up boats (equivalent to me to somebody using your garden (say a meter reader) who can't get past a locked gate to read a meter.

 

N.B. I am not saying it should be allowed.