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

[MtB]

 

Moore v Robinson, 1831 [and no, it wasn’t me again]

 

 

With your level of knowledge of canal law I'm of the opinion you must be well over 184 years old...

 

 

MtB

[churchward]

 

Here's another group of officials who have just been granted powers to enter private property without the owner's permission.

I'm OK with that it isn't into someone's home and these invasive species need to be tackled.

I thought the authorities always had the power to enter property if they suspect weed is present....

I am pretty sure they do but the new legislation adds the power to remove/deal with certain species. Might be a way to get yer garden dug!

Edited February 17, 2015 by churchward

[jenlyn]

With your level of knowledge of canal law I'm of the opinion you must be well over 184 years old...

 

 

MtB

That will make you not even born yet then... Lol

[NigelMoore]

I'm of the opinion you must be well over 184 years old...

 

Damn it!

 

I just knew that it was mistake mentioning that case.

 

Here I had been still fooling myself that I stood a chance of persuading the ladies that I was younger than I looked.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

The Merchant Shipping Acts have always applied to narrowboats on the cut, even back to the 18thC version.

 

A useful bit of case law exists, querying the standing of a fly-boat operator on the Aire and Calder to bring an action of trespass as the master of a ship was empowered. The initial court agreed that he could, citing the case of Pitts v Gaince “where Lord Holt said, that the master of a ship might bring trespass . . .”

 

This was appealed on the grounds that the case was distinguishable “because there Lord Holt was speaking of the master of a ship, laden, and ready to sail for Dantzig. It may be necessary that the master of a vessel navigating to foreign parts should have such full powers and authority as may confer on him a possessory interest therein. But that is not so in the case of a mere boat plying on a canal, where there does not exist such a necessity.”

 

The appeal was refused, the court ruled “The cases are not distinguishable.”

 

Moore v Robinson, 1831 [and no, it wasn’t me again]

The MSA may apply to narrow boats but is rarely invoked (particularly if there is other legislation or Case Law that would suffice). Technically you are correct on your earlier comments concerning the trespass laws, but you are unlikely to succeed in getting any sanction imposed by a Court if the offender had not been told that he was trespassing. All you would get would be a legalese version of 'Yes, he was trespassing, don't do it again'.

 

If we are to abide by the MSA and following on from another thread (Pirate Flags) when do the prosecutions for unlawfully flying flags and ensigns begin?

Edited February 17, 2015 by Wanderer Vagabond

[tillergirl]

Apologies if this link has already been posted

 

http://www.canalboat.co.uk/news/news_2_12053/canal_boating_changes_to_come_1_3959223

[NigelMoore]

The MSA may apply to narrow boats but is rarely invoked (particularly if there is other legislation or Case Law that would suffice). Technically you are correct on your earlier comments concerning the trespass laws, but you are unlikely to succeed in getting any sanction imposed by a Court if the offender had not been told that he was trespassing. All you would get would be a legalese version of 'Yes, he was trespassing, don't do it again'.

 

If we are to abide by the MSA and following on from another thread (Pirate Flags) when do the prosecutions for unlawfully flying flags and ensigns begin?

 

I have no quibble with your cynicism over court sanctions against offenders, and so far as the flag-flying etc is concerned – as with the criminal law, it takes an empowered body with an interest in the matter to press the issue, and in most such instances they would take a ‘common sense’ view and pass off such infractions as insignificant. The law still stands, but it is only applied/enforced when the powers that be see some point in doing so.

 

Having said that, the right of the master to bring an civil action for trespass still stands [as any homeowner could do in analogous instances], and whether or not the court imposed any meaningful sanction as provided for under the statute, it would be still be worthwhile asking for an injunction against any repeat offence. Violation of that would be taken seriously by the court – not so much because of the repeat trespass itself, but because of the associated contempt of court.

 

I have done it. I applied for an injunction against the BW chairman and employees from boarding my boats without my consent, and the judge told them that if they did not give an undertaking to that effect, then he would grant the injunction. They chose, in the face of that, to give the undertaking to the court, and the argument as to the offence was adjourned to the main trial [at which, you will not be surprised the court decided not to consider it, along with other stuff].

 

So yes: they ‘got away with it’ without sanction [i wanted Hales gaoled], but I still got the protection against repetition of the offence, despite their arguing that they needed to board my boats to deliver notices and court files. Plus, even though the complaint itself was not adjudicated, BW were expressly told to bear their £6,000 costs of arguing against the application.

 

Further, given that some years down the line a new patrol officer had decided that if the boats had moved the undertaking no longer applied, and affixed a s.8 reminder on one of them - and because BW had refused to respond to my mild request for assurance that this was due to ignorance unsanctioned by the upper echelon of BW - the judge was so incensed that he demanded a full explanation of the chronology of events to be produced at BW's expense, and refused to release Nigel Johnson from his oath for the duration of the 6 days' trial.

[thunderbird]

And perhaps of a better shape!!

Good and let's hope its not as farcical as the last one.

[bassplayer]

Apologies if this link has already been posted

 

http://www.canalboat.co.uk/news/news_2_12053/canal_boating_changes_to_come_1_3959223

Mr Parry is very keen to see more boats moving on the waterways isn't he? I still don't quite get how that will save CRT money though.

 

It also looks like they are hoping that many CM'ers will cough up for official CRT moorings and capture more revenue that way. Personally I think some existing CM'ers will either just ignore the new T&C's and the rest will try to comply with the new CC'er rules. So if you thought you had problems finding an official VM last year.....!!

 

The hornet nest is about to be poked....good luck everyone...

[thunderbird]

Since when do we have to sign to renew a licence? The criteria for our licence is that the boat is insured and has a current BSS. End of story. If any are stupid enough to sign their rights away sobeit! The loss of boats will certainly assist CRT to reduce reduced maintenance!

 

Well it states "on" the vessel too?

 

Am I being to thick here Nigel - you sign T+C's which are a clear way set out by the Board to aid you to be "SATISFYING" the board. If you then don't stick to them you are not satisfying and are refused a licence?

[thunderbird]

sorry playing catch up here but I found this interesting...

 

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/7556-cc-rules-shot-down-in-flames

 

 

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/6791-do-cc-rules-apply-to-all

 

why not spend some of this cash on making more marinas for boats? all the fields that flood & farmers don't use could be dug out & made profitable again? more boats less moorings that is a fact but no one would complain about better services like more water points, pump outs, electric points, boat yards...... make it better not worse I would say why do we try to fix things by beating folks with a stick?

 

I would say drag it to the courts until CRT have a massive hole in the budget then fire the lot of them & get some boaters to run the trust......

Why not cut to the chase, get the boaters in to run the trust anyway, while we still have waterways to run!

 

OK, that raises two issues.

 

1) Is it ever necessary to attach a notice, because the address of the owner can be determined? Well, yes, CRT could try to track down an address, but unless that is an address that the customer has given them, you can bet you last tenner that the determined taker of the urine would claim that it wasn't an address where post could be sent to him and that the notice wasn't served on him.

2) They could put it near the vessel. Yes, but again huge scope for arguing about whether it was near enough, whether he ought reasonably to have seen it, whether the owner of the land can remove it.

 

I would say that as the act provides that they can exhibit a notice in a conspicuous position on the vessel, this provides an implicit right to come on board so as to safely achieve that purpose.

It does not!

Moot point. If proven to be deterring an intruder the insurance company may pay a bonus!

A dog can be classed as dangerously out of control even in your own house if:

• injures someone
• makes someone worried that it might injure them

So it would be dangerously out of control if it bit someone.

[thunderbird]

What worried me is that it isn't only fellas single manning, we ladies do, too. I would certainly be distinctly uncomfortable to have some stranger enter my boat without permission, and the t & c's do refer to entry as well as boarding.

I think you'll find to board a boat, would mean entering any accomadation as we'll. ( when the coastguard board boats they don't just stand on deck.) what would worry me about this, is CRT imparting this power on third party agents.
Regards kris

[thunderbird]

I have concerns - and I am far from London!

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

[thunderbird]

Rubber dinghy sounds right.

 

Pragmatically, how are CRT supposed to attach enforcement notices to a boat which is breasted up outside another? Rubber dinghy?

[Gordias]

Mr Parry is very keen to see more boats moving on the waterways isn't he? I still don't quite get how that will save CRT money though.

 

It also looks like they are hoping that many CM'ers will cough up for official CRT moorings and capture more revenue that way. Personally I think some existing CM'ers will either just ignore the new T&C's and the rest will try to comply with the new CC'er rules. So if you thought you had problems finding an official VM last year.....!!

 

The hornet nest is about to be poked....good luck everyone...

 

Both sides will argue the other poked the hornet's nest.

 

It's hard to see CaRT (or a replacement organization) failing to get control over mooring and movement patterns in the medium term. Effective resistance via the courts would be expensive and uncertain, and the process would almost certainly lead to a few boats being removed from the system - who's going to organize and pay for it?

[Alf Roberts]

It is my opinion this is CRT's bluff.

 

I hope, and believe, it will be called. This time they have gone too far.

 

Perhaps if their management of the infrastructure was up to scratch they would have enough goodwill for such an expansion of the enforcement faction but that simply isn't the case.

[bassplayer]

Both sides will argue the other poked the hornet's nest.

 

 

CRT could have just left things alone and the vast majority of us would be happy. That's what my view has been all along. Those who would be unhappy, if things had been left alone, are those who complained about CC'ers/CM'ers hogging VM's and not having to pay for a mooring. Unfortunately the current solution will make finding an official VM even harder to find now more boats will be on the move. There is a possibility some CM'ers will now pay for mooring but I doubt it will be many.

[b0atman]

off topic slightly but point of note when they tightened up on licences a lot of what where un-licenced boats moved into the built up areas instead of hiding in the country side.

[Phil.]

CRT could have just left things alone and the vast majority of us would be happy.

I disagree. Clearly the vast majority are unhappy which is why C&RT are doing what they are.

[Naughty Cal]

Whatever CRT do they will be damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

They can't win.

[DeanS]

I disagree. Clearly the vast majority are unhappy which is why C&RT are doing what they are.

 

How would they know the thoughts of boaters. I don't think such communication channels exist where the overall thoughts of most boaters are captured. Perhaps some small meetings capturing the thoughts of a few loudmouths, but the silent majority aren't involved in any conversation that I'm aware of?

[Paul C]

 

How would they know the thoughts of boaters. I don't think such communication channels exist where the overall thoughts of most boaters are captured. Perhaps some small meetings capturing the thoughts of a few loudmouths, but the silent majority aren't involved in any conversation that I'm aware of?

 

They can't for sure. They can only take a best guess based on boater surveys; talking to various boating organisations; the boaters meetings; and various channels of direct communication with boaters.

[jenlyn]

I disagree. Clearly the vast majority are unhappy which is why C&RT are doing what they are.

Clearly? Where will I find this vast majority that you have discovered, are you talking about this forum, or somewhere else?

[Alf Roberts]

They can't for sure. They can only take a best guess based on boater surveys; talking to various boating organisations; the boaters meetings; and various channels of direct communication with boaters.

And you don't think those opinions are weighted? For instance IWA and APCO having undue influence?

 

 

To give one example; there are many cases where a few vociferous residents have obtained 'No Mooring' signs outside their houses. How can you say these are a majority?

Edited February 18, 2015 by Alf Roberts

[bassplayer]

Whatever CRT do they will be damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

They can't win.

 

CRT should never have got into any of this and just concentrated on keeping everything maintained.

 

Of course it's not just boaters who have influenced the changes. Mr Parry must have an agenda too.