New T&C's question

[cotswoldsman]

No, there's no requirement to go from place to place as a home moorer. There is a requirement to "cruise" while away from home moorings in the new T&C, but I think they mean effectively, "cruise" = "boat used bona fide for navigation".

 

For a CCer, the requirement is further defined: "boat used bona fide for navigation without remaining in continuously any one place longer than 14 days".

 

 

Of course, CRT might get sloppy and apply their perception of satisfactory boat movement for a CCer (which is debatable anyway....) to a home moorer. If they did this, (and probably depending on how targeted or broad-brush the approach is), its inevitible it will be legally challenged sooner or later; and since the underlying wording of the relevant legislation is unchanged, I can't see it resolving in CRT's favour.

I had a meeting with a very senior person within CRT last October where it was made very clear that boaters with a home mooring would be subject to the same conditions as those without a home mooring so these new T&C same to confirm that

[Alan de Enfield]

No, there's no requirement to go from place to place as a home moorer. There is a requirement to "cruise" while away from home moorings in the new T&C, but I think they mean effectively, "cruise" = "boat used bona fide for navigation".

 

For a CCer, the requirement is further defined: "boat used bona fide for navigation without remaining in continuously any one place longer than 14 days".

 

 

Of course, CRT might get sloppy and apply their perception of satisfactory boat movement for a CCer (which is debatable anyway....) to a home moorer. If they did this, (and probably depending on how targeted or broad-brush the approach is), its inevitible it will be legally challenged sooner or later; and since the underlying wording of the relevant legislation is unchanged, I can't see it resolving in CRT's favour.

 

The new T&Cs state (for boats WITH a home mooring)

 

3.1 You must cruise on the Waterways whilst you are away from the Home Mooring (save for any period when you leave the Waterways or when the Boat is lawfully moored at another mooring site.

 

With the 'plain English' explanation being :

 

If you are away from your home mooring you can only stay in one place for up to 14 days (or less ......)

 

You need to understand the intent behind the statements and not just put on the 'best' interpretation. It is not what YOU think that matters, it is what the words say and the interpretation that a court (with C&RTs guidance) can put on them

 

[Paul C]

.......

 

You need to understand the intent behind the statements and not just put on the 'best' interpretation. It is not what YOU think that matters, it is what the words say and the interpretation that a court (with C&RTs guidance) can put on them

 

 

I understand the intent........

 

I agree that it is ultimately up to a court to say.

[Phil.]

I had a meeting with a very senior person within CRT last October where it was made very clear that boaters with a home mooring would be subject to the same conditions as those without a home mooring so these new T&C same to confirm that

And this very senior person was able to say precisely what legislation is allowing them to do this ?

[jenlyn]

And this very senior person was able to say precisely what legislation is allowing them to do this ?

The answer is, are you going to spend money on a court case to find out?

[Paul C]

The answer is, are you going to spend money on a court case to find out?

 

I think ultimately YES, in that someone is going to challenge the new T&Cs, in court if needs be.

[cotswoldsman]

And this very senior person was able to say precisely what legislation is allowing them to do this ?

Would you like his email address so you can ask him yourself?

[kris88]

 

I think ultimately YES, in that someone is going to challenge the new T&Cs, in court if needs be.

Who is this mythical someone, or do you just mean not you. It's up to every boater who is concerned to do something now, before this farce goes any further.

Regards kris

[costalot]

The part of that Post 14 I was referring to is this : -

" BW was a nationalised institution, CRT is a different animal and cannot afford the wastage of the past

The objective is not to engender fear but awareness and encourage a change in behaviour."

. . . . . . anyone believing that is most definitely out of touch with reality.

 

Thank you for the warning re. the impending demise of my business after surviving for the last 46 years. I've never found the need to categorize my customers into anything other than the ones I'm happy to do business with again, and the ones that get told to piss off .

 

If only CRT was able to run their business like you and tell their category D customers to piss off rather than spending avoidable resources attempting to convert them to customers they are happy to do business with!

[Alan de Enfield]

If only CRT was able to run their business like you and tell their category D customers to piss off rather than spending avoidable resources attempting to convert them to customers they are happy to do business with!

 

Keep up at the back - They are now doing just this.

 

The non-compliant boaters who are becoming expensive to 'maintain' (enforcement etc.) are now not having their licences renewed and being told to remove themselves from C&RT waters.

 

Edit to add evidence :

 

From C&RT website :

 

Since January, 792 new continuous cruisers have received welcome letters, and we have been providing them with regular feedback if we have been concerned about their movement patterns. 63 are now in the enforcement process with a further 83 contacted to say we are concerned. Of these, we’ve contacted 23 with regard to refusing to renew their licences.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Alan de Enfield

[jenlyn]

I think ultimately YES, in that someone is going to challenge the new T&Cs, in court if needs be.

Good luck....

[Emerald Fox]

I have to laugh at all this nit-picking. I think most people get the idea that CRT (encouraged no doubt by the hundreds of Angry of Tunbridge Wells e-mails to them) is just giving a gentle kick-in-the-nuts to boaters who are blatantly piss-takers, saving money on moorings by pretending to be genuine CCers but just shuftying up & down the same stretch of canal because their place of work is nearby, or their kids go to a school so that they can never be too far away. Of course those who are paying for moorings (of any kind) get annoyed by this riding-on-others'-backs.

CRT could get the general idea of what a boat has done over, say, a timescale of one year. And they could politely ask the boater what their future plans are - are they really going elsewhere or just hogging that particular area of the canals system?

 

But I wonder, if your boss says to you 'Do this now', would you say What, right now? Or would you say When you said Now that was a few seconds ago so I can't do it now because that moment has gone already. Or would you say Are you sure you mean now, not in 5 minutes' time? Or you would say Can you tell me with what legal authority you have to tell to to do something Now?

 

CRT's Terms & Conditions could make a good research project for a University Degree, eh? Could imagine that on Mastermind.

[mango]

 

The new T&Cs state (for boats WITH a home mooring)

 

3.1 You must cruise on the Waterways whilst you are away from the Home Mooring (save for any period when you leave the Waterways or when the Boat is lawfully moored at another mooring site.

 

With the 'plain English' explanation being :

 

If you are away from your home mooring you can only stay in one place for up to 14 days (or less ......)

 

You need to understand the intent behind the statements and not just put on the 'best' interpretation. It is not what YOU think that matters, it is what the words say and the interpretation that a court (with C&RTs guidance) can put on them

 

What has changed? The existing rules state:

 

"2. Use of the boat

1. 2.1. The Licence allows you to use the Boat in any Waterway including mooring for short periods while cruising. ‘Short period’ means up to 14 days or less where a local restriction applies. The Licence does not permit mooring for any longer period. Daily charges may be applied for staying longer than the maximum time allowed.

14 days seems a very generous 'short period'.

[Alan de Enfield]

What has changed? The existing rules state:

 

"2. Use of the boat

1. 2.1. The Licence allows you to use the Boat in any Waterway including mooring for short periods while cruising. ‘Short period’ means up to 14 days or less where a local restriction applies. The Licence does not permit mooring for any longer period. Daily charges may be applied for staying longer than the maximum time allowed.

14 days seems a very generous 'short period'.

 

Where is the mention of being in another 'PLACE' after 14 days ?

 

New T&Cs

If you are away from your home mooring you can only stay in one place for up to 14 days (or less ......)

 

That is the difference !

[jenlyn]

What has changed? The existing rules state:

 

"2. Use of the boat

 

 

 

 

• 2.1. The Licence allows you to use the Boat in any Waterway including mooring for short periods while [/size]cruising. ‘Short period’ means up to 14 days or less where a local restrictio[/size]n applies. The Licence does not permit mooring for any longer period. Daily charges may be applied for staying longer than the maximum time allowed. [/size]

 

14 days seems a very generous 'short period'.

Place is the key word you are missing. This then becoming neighbourhood will be very significant.

[mango]

 

Where is the mention of being in another 'PLACE' after 14 days ?

 

New T&Cs

If you are away from your home mooring you can only stay in one place for up to 14 days (or less ......)

 

That is the difference !

Thanks for that.

 

If it moves boats on from popular moorings, that will help make them available to more boaters. It might be a change for the better for many boaters.

[Arthur Marshall]

Place is the key word you are missing. This then becoming neighbourhood will be very significant.

If the CaRT defined place you normally potter about in is the same CaRT defined place that your home mooring is in, you could surely argue that you are NOT on a cruise at all, as to be on a cruise you must by definition be moving, or have the intention to move, from place to place. The 14 day rule may well then apply to a particular spot, but not to an overall area/place. It's a definition problem again, and one hopes, rather against some of the evidence, that some common sense will be applied.

[Tony Dunkley]

No, there's no requirement to go from place to place as a home moorer. There is a requirement to "cruise" while away from home moorings in the new T&C, but I think they mean effectively, "cruise" = "boat used bona fide for navigation".

 

For a CCer, the requirement is further defined: "boat used bona fide for navigation without remaining in continuously any one place longer than 14 days".

 

 

Of course, CRT might get sloppy and apply their perception of satisfactory boat movement for a CCer (which is debatable anyway....) to a home moorer. If they did this, (and probably depending on how targeted or broad-brush the approach is), its inevitible it will be legally challenged sooner or later; and since the underlying wording of the relevant legislation is unchanged, I can't see it resolving in CRT's favour.

 

As you say, C&RT do equate 'cruise' with 'used bona fide for navigation', and therefore the new T & C's requirement to 'cruise' when away from the home mooring is an attempt to place a use 'bona fide for navigation' obligation on boats with a home mooring that is not required by the 1995 Act, that requirement being specifically limited to boats without a (home) mooring.

[BD3Bill]

If the CaRT defined place you normally potter about in is the same CaRT defined place that your home mooring is in, you could surely argue that you are NOT on a cruise at all, as to be on a cruise you must by definition be moving, or have the intention to move, from place to place. The 14 day rule may well then apply to a particular spot, but not to an overall area/place. It's a definition problem again, and one hopes, rather against some of the evidence, that some common sense will be applied.

 

Yes this is what I meant in post 23.

 

Let's assume I am logged on the 1st of the month ( a Saturday) at favourite spot. On the 2nd I move back to HM.

 

Two weeks later I return to favourite spot from HM (having not moved from HM which has NOT been logged )

 

On the 15th (a Sunday) I am logged,

 

What is there to say in my defence? Nothing, the evidence that they have on their computer suggests I am 'Ghost Mooring'.

 

Honest & well intentioned I might be, I DON'T want to end up in court thanks.

[Alf Roberts]

No you won't fall foul, because what you're going fully satisfies the (unenforceable anyway, IMHO) requirement for "cruising" while away from a home mooring. CRT haven't actually defined the criteria they'll use for deciding what "cruising" is and isn't though, but lets look at the two prevolant scenarios: if the definition were very strict, they'd not have a hope in hell in court if it came to that. If it were less strict, you'd be okay.

 

I think what they're keen to avoid is people taking a home mooring then spending months on end in another place, shuffling up and down (eg) 200 yards of towpath.

 

It might be that your area simply isn't that often visited by the enforcement officers/data logging anyway, in which case they can't gather enough info on your boat movements to do anything. And if it was visited often enough, then they'll know you spend time on the home mooring too.....and that its quite close by.

so, tell me, what's the difference between (above) " people taking a home mooring then spending months on end in another place, shuffling up and down (eg) 200 yards of towpath" and "people taking a home mooring then spending months on end in nearby place, shuffling up and down (eg) 200 yards of towpath." legally speaking?

 

it's a bit rhetorical because the difference ( hair splitting) CRT are aiming for is the use of the home mooring in between the 'shuffling'. trouble is, it has been well established that using a home mooring is not a requirement of the 1995 Act.

 

so the answer to the OP is yes you will fall foul of the new regime but it always was going to be inconsistently applied to target a few boaters CRT and attendant skirt followers don't like the look of.

 

the fact that this kind of behaviour by a public body is in itself illegal seems to have escaped them.

[mango]

I am concerned that some of our continuous cruisers are trying to stir up fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst those with a home mooring, in the hope of increasing opposition to CRT taking action to resolve existing problems with mooring on our waterways.

[mayalld]

If the CaRT defined place you normally potter about in is the same CaRT defined place that your home mooring is in, you could surely argue that you are NOT on a cruise at all, as to be on a cruise you must by definition be moving, or have the intention to move, from place to place. The 14 day rule may well then apply to a particular spot, but not to an overall area/place. It's a definition problem again, and one hopes, rather against some of the evidence, that some common sense will be applied.

 

Let us consider what the condition SAYS;

 

You must cruise on the Waterways whilst you are away from the Home Mooring.

 

Notwithstanding that your HM is within a CRT "Place", the requirement to "cruise" in the same way as a CCer is so required begins when you leave the HM.

 

Where you were on the day before (with no cruising requirement) isn't relevant.

[BD3Bill]

so, tell me, what's the difference between (above) " people taking a home mooring then spending months on end in another place, shuffling up and down (eg) 200 yards of towpath" and "people taking a home mooring then spending months on end in nearby place, shuffling up and down (eg) 200 yards of towpath." legally speaking?

 

it's a bit rhetorical because the difference ( hair splitting) CRT are aiming for is the use of the home mooring in between the 'shuffling'. trouble is, it has been well established that using a home mooring is not a requirement of the 1995 Act.

 

so the answer to the OP is yes you will fall foul of the new regime but it always was going to be inconsistently applied to target a few boaters CRT and attendant skirt followers don't like the look of.

 

the fact that this kind of behaviour by a public body is in itself illegal seems to have escaped them.

 

So you think they WILL log boats that are on their HM ? I do hope so.

 

I agree that they shouldn't be alienating a very large section of Leisure Boaters by making up the rules as they go!

 

Cheers Bill

[jenlyn]

I am concerned that some of our continuous cruisers are trying to stir up fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst those with a home mooring, in the hope of increasing opposition to CRT taking action to resolve existing problems with mooring on our waterways.

I am concerned that mango is promoting complacency through the inability to see what CRT are putting out.

[Alf Roberts]

If the CaRT defined place you normally potter about in is the same CaRT defined place that your home mooring is in, you could surely argue that you are NOT on a cruise at all, as to be on a cruise you must by definition be moving, or have the intention to move, from place to place. The 14 day rule may well then apply to a particular spot, but not to an overall area/place. It's a definition problem again, and one hopes, rather against some of the evidence, that some common sense will be applied.

by 'common sense' you mean you hope they will pick on the boaters you want them to pick on?

 

what happens when an enforcement officer takes a dislike to someone?

Edited February 17, 2015 by Alf Roberts