New bye law for Richmond Thames

[WJM]

 

There was some concern at the recent PLA open meeting in Putney that some of these boats would move on to the tideway.

 

I would guess the owners of the boats involved think that the canals are probably safer ....

Mooring on the tideway requires a good knowledge of boating and a good boat. Most of these floating junk heaps would be dangerous on the tideway. Thin plastic v-shaped hulls are just not suitable for settling on the bottom twice a day.

 

I am not sure how these boats are getting through Thames Lock, the manned gateway. They just don't look like they could have a BSS Certificate. But then I have heard of a boat being turned away by CaRT at Brentford only for it to head up to Oxford and get onto the CaRT system at the un-manned Isis Lock!

[OldGoat]

Thanks to those who have explained how far 'Richmond' have extended upstream.

Thanks also to Nigel Moore, who as always, cast light (?) on the legal aspect.

 

I would point out to others that upstream of Teddington Lock is administered by EA and not CaRT. EA has no rights or duties over the river banks.

 

While I have much sympathy for those - often by necessity - live on the river, I do not have much truck with those who take advantage and care not for others as evidenced by the gaggle of hulks above Teddington Lock. There are lots of liveaboards on the Thames and most enhance the view!

 

To my mind it's a huge shame that there is so much congestion (I'm really talking about CaRT waters now) that it is beginning to put folks off cruising. Certainly on the southern Oxford most of the moorable spots are taken up by CMers a significant number of these are not liveaboards.

 

My point in all of this is that if there is little traffic on these waterways then - at some point - the government will cease funding EA navigations an CaRT as they can not see any benefit to the public at large.

[OldGoat]

Mooring on the tideway requires a good knowledge of boating and a good boat. Most of these floating junk heaps would be dangerous on the tideway. Thin plastic v-shaped hulls are just not suitable for settling on the bottom twice a day.

 

I am not sure how these boats are getting through Thames Lock, the manned gateway. They just don't look like they could have a BSS Certificate. But then I have heard of a boat being turned away by CaRT at Brentford only for it to head up to Oxford and get onto the CaRT system at the un-manned Isis Lock!

 

EA are in a difficult position. Because there is a public right of navigation they are limited to what they can demand. Proof of third party insurance is only a recent requirement and the boater can make a declaration that his vessel complies with the BSS in order to be granted passage.

 

Most of the hulks above Teddington have been there for some years.

[NigelMoore]

 

I must admit to being slightly confused about the whole thing.

 

1) I was under the impression CaRT could introduce T+C's (re not moving far enough or not satisfying the CaRT board) and if you do not follow them your licence would be withheld by CaRT and the the boat removed by CaRT because it was not licensed. However in the various threads this seems to be argued in that the T+C's are not ultimately enforceable as CaRT do not have ultimate power to introduce them and the legislation surrounding such matters is what we are told the courts will discuss are very open to interpretation as far as CaRT may be concerned.

 

2) CaRT would not be seeking a legislation change (to give them more power) as it's too difficult, costly and Parliament have lots more on their plate than faffing around with minor bills.

 

3) But here we have a council with a few boats giving them grief who have gone out and got the tools they need (bylaws) to crash right down on any overstayers.

 

4) Hence if situation for CaRT and Local Authorities is same and 1,2 above is true then, why do CaRT not seek bylaws (like Richmond) rather than introduce T+C's?

 

5) Or, is it that the CaRT T+C's DO give them the power to not licence a boat and that IS good enough to start S8?

 

There is no surprise that confusion reigns. Part of that is down to the misguided use of the licensing power in order to apply s.8. For some reason people seem to have the impression that this is the sole sanction available to CaRT.

 

To start at the end:

 

Issue of a pleasure boat licence is itself a condition of use of the waterways under the byelaws.

 

Issue of a pleasure boat licence is NOT subject to terms and conditions regulating use of the boat, outside of those specified in the 1995 Act.

 

Terms and conditions of USE of the licensed boat are regulated by way of statute and byelaws, with set penalties provided for any breach.

 

CaRT are in a better position than the Councils respecting controlled use of their offside property, because they have express powers to run those as a boating business, provided that the facilities on offer are open to all customers.

 

Use of the towpath is, however, a different story, because from the outset those were integral to the right of navigation, in direct contrast to the situation on rivers, where no common law right exists to use the banks as towpath despite the public right of navigation.

 

On canals therefore, the public right to use of the towpath and channel is subject [for boats] only to the requirement for a boat to be licensed; it is a public benefit and cannot be removed from the public use by conferring any exclusive private right – whether for consideration or gratis.

 

Regulation as to a boat’s use of the towpath beyond that necessary to navigation can only be governed by way of Parliament approved law [whether by Act, Statutory Instrument, or Byelaw], but there is no public right to use beyond that required for navigation.

 

So far as mooring in any one spot on the towpath for longer than necessary for navigation – the outside limits to that are set: (i) in the case of CC’ers by the terms of s.17(3)( c )(ii) of the ’95 Act & (ii) in the case of HM’ers under the permissive terms of the licence.

 

Any one boat occupying a mooring spot to the exclusion of others on the towpath, beyond the outside time limits, has been held to be an obstruction, which entitles CaRT to impose the relevant sanctions provided for under s.18 of the ’95 Act. That was not an available option under the statutory powers of the riparian councils such as Richmond.

 

Can CaRT obtain more byelaws to further regulate mooring to the towpath? Yes. I see absolutely no necessity for that, however, given their existing powers.

 

Why don’t they? Well to a degree that must remain speculation, but certain things are known from the public records. They HAVE already drafted byelaws enabling greater control over towpath mooring, plagiarised from the rejected clauses in the 1990 Bill. A problem for them would lie in the fact that these [as with those of Richmond and all such] must be subjected to public consultation before government approval, and the record of their earlier attempt to criminalise recalcitrant boaters would rather set an awkward precedent to overcome. Plus, as I have said, the benefit obtained would scarcely be worth the effort, pragmatically speaking – I can’t see that it would have significant impact, and they now have to balance the required expenditure against projected cost benefits.

 

The single most compelling reason why they do not apply for more powers, however, is that they have realised how little they need them [practically speaking, not legally] in an environment where so many of their relevant customers simply accept that they can regulate as they want without government sanction, and who positively support that extra-legal exercise of power, with most, even of the target population, believing they have the power. For the authority, what else matters? Why go to any expense at all, when you can do what you like without fear of challenge from any but an ineffective minority?

 

Another reason lies with the taste for extremism. Byelaw breaches are subject to fixed penalties [including criminal record as with the Richmond byelaw], but BW and CaRT have historically always preferred the maximum sanction possible, and seizure of expensive boats they see as the greatest deterrent – they only need to finagle what powers are available already, in order to position themselves in a place where that can be applied. They have the moral support of a sufficiently significant element of their customer base to enable them to continue in that vein. Why bother with derisory penalties such as fines, and a criminal record of no more significance than a speeding ticket?

 

I am unaware of ANY action ever being taken against boaters for enforcement of any of the existing byelaws – though surely there must have been.

 

Private bankside owners on the canals have their common law rights to take action against trespass, while where [if] any such land is owned by a Council, they too would have the same option as Richmond, to get similar byelaws passed. The only powers a council ordinarily have to regulate mooring per se have to do with the use made of the moored boat under planning law - they cannot deny a right simply to moor [as BW managed to extract from the Ladies Bridge case against the local council].

[NigelMoore]

I am not sure how these boats are getting through Thames Lock, the manned gateway.

 

There is no legal mechanism whereby CaRT can prevent anyone passing through the Thames Locks; they can only stop boats passing though the Gauging Locks at the head of the tidal stretch. It remains a criminal offence to obstruct the public right of navigation [and as I have mentioned before, CaRT are still repaying tens of thousands of pounds previously extracted for pleasure boat licences on this stretch in defiance of the PRN]. It does not stop them from continuing to defy the law, of course, in obstructing passage through the lock, because until that too is challenged they simply get away with it.

 

But the legal situation, if the system was governed by those who cared for such things, does admittedly, pose a potentially very awkward situation should a bunch of boats ascend to the semi-tidal stretch and seek to camp on the ‘spare’ towpath or offside spaces. I did warn BW against the ramifications of attempting to prove any abolition of the PRN here, but naturally they wouldn’t listen, and the situation now being made more public knowledge than previously, has opened a can of worms.

 

In amelioration of that, however, the fact that BW acquired [however fraudulently] title to most of the banks along this stretch [the surviving private riparian owners having their own common law sanction of trespass], does put them in the position of being able to condition the use of specific facilities provided [where that exists on the towpath] and use of their banks where offside. The real problem lies in what you do with an offending boat in those circumstances?

 

CaRT would be best served by turning a blind eye to unlicensed boats entering through the Gauging Locks, and then pouncing with s.8’s. I suspect, however, that they would rely on their offside bank ownership to refuse permission to moor, and justify s.8 on the basis of unlawful mooring. Obstruction of the visitor moorings set aside for use of Thames Locks would engage s.18 powers of summary removal. With nowhere to legitimately moor, and anchoring in the middle necessarily obstructing navigation, boats without legitimate moorings could only sail in and sail out again the next tide, if not prepared to license the boat to enter the system above the Gauging Locks.

[Gordias]

Nigel

 

Do you have a link to the current bye laws? Preferably on the "http://www.legislation.gov.uk"site.

 

I've read these: http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/foi/legal/BW_General_Canal_Bye-laws.pdf and I think you said here a few months ago that the current bye laws are essentially the same as the 1965 version except for the fines.

 

Assuming that's the case, there are two things where i I either disagree with your post above, or have misinterpreted:

• I don't see anything in those bye laws that provide CaRT with the ability to manage and control mooring according to (what I believe to be) their current objectives
• As I understand it, these bye laws don't entitle CaRT to ask the police to enforce them - i.e. that they'd have to take anyone violating the bye law to court at CaRT expense (with the best possible outcome of recovering a hundred pounds or so

If I'm right, CaRT current approach, while very "heavy handed" (at best), is the most efficient one for them.

 

Equally, if they could easily and efficiently use moderate fines they'd probably do so. The deterrent effect of e.g. 100 pounds per day (imposed for e.g. a one-time cost of 50 pounds worth of administration time) would be sufficient.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Gordias

[matty40s]

Nigel

 

Do you have a link to the current bye laws? Preferably on the "http://www.legislation.gov.uk"site.

 

I've read these: http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/foi/legal/BW_General_Canal_Bye-laws.pdfand I think you said here a few months ago that the current bye laws are essentially the same as the 1965 version except for the fines.

 

Assuming that's the case, there are two things where i I either disagree with your post above, or have misinterpreted:

• I don't see anything in those bye laws that provide CaRT with the ability to manage and control mooring according to (what I believe to be) their current objectives
• As I understand it, these bye laws don't entitle CaRT to ask the police to enforce them - i.e. that they'd have to take anyone violating the bye law to court at CaRT expense (with the best possible outcome of recovering a hundred pounds or so

If I'm right, CaRT current approach, while very "heavy handed" (at best), is the most efficient one for them.

 

Equally, if they could easily and efficiently use moderate fines they'd probably do so. The deterrent effect of e.g. 100 pounds per day (imposed for e.g. a one-time cost of 50 pounds worth of administration time) would be sufficient.

 

 

Gordias, how does it work on your side of the Atlantic, perhaps give us some real life input.

 

The boats being moved on are not spreading up through from Brentford as far as this weeks observations show. Brentford has no more boats than it has had in the last three years I have brought boats up (or down).

The only West London local area where there is an increase in boats is near the new Tesco and flats just south of the Slough Arm junction. I have heard that the Slough Arm itself has started to fill up since the Central London enforcement has kicked in, however, didn't go up so cannot verify.

There was plenty of space up to and including Uxbridge, and then beyond, no more boats than previously through Harefield, Rickmansworth.

 

There are new official LTM just south of Croxley Green - approx 9 boats , plenty of boats above the lock as well.

In all, no great increase.

[WJM]

 

There is no legal mechanism whereby CaRT can prevent anyone passing through the Thames Locks; they can only stop boats passing though the Gauging Locks at the head of the tidal stretch. It remains a criminal offence to obstruct the public right of navigation [and as I have mentioned before, CaRT are still repaying tens of thousands of pounds previously extracted for pleasure boat licences on this stretch in defiance of the PRN]. It does not stop them from continuing to defy the law, of course, in obstructing passage through the lock, because until that too is challenged they simply get away with it.

 

You are wrong on two counts. Thames Lock is the manned gateway lock where licenses are checked/issued, BSS certs are checked etc. The Gauging Locks further up are unmanned, boater operated and free for passage to anyone who has a BW key.

 

The CaRT staff at Thames Lock do check the paperwork of boats seeking access to the CaRT water above it and they do turn away boats that do not meet the requirements.

[WJM]

 

The boats being moved on are not spreading up through from Brentford as far as this weeks observations show. Brentford has no more boats than it has had in the last three years I have brought boats up (or down).

 

I have observed a steady trickle of clapped out cabin cruisers passing through Brentford over the last few weeks. They seem to stay a while outside the Services Block before moving on. One of them is up by the Great West Road bridge now. There was also an ex-Lifeboat there for a week or so, since moved on. I have also spotted a narrowboat in Brentford that used to be a regular in the Teddington squatter camp. I am on the Thames and the GU quite a lot and believe me, the Teddington camp are moving onto the canals.

[Alan de Enfield]

You are wrong on two counts. Thames Lock is the manned gateway lock where licenses are checked/issued, BSS certs are checked etc. The Gauging Locks further up are unmanned, boater operated and free for passage to anyone who has a BW key.

 

The CaRT staff at Thames Lock do check the paperwork of boats seeking access to the CaRT water above it and they do turn away boats that do not meet the requirements.

 

Are they then not exceeding their legal powers ?

 

The fact that they choose to operate their policies in the wrong place is not the problem of the boater - we have an almost 1 mile long drive to our house - its a bit like the Police setting up a checkpoint half way along our drive and not allowing me to take my untaxed tractor all the way to the 'public' road

[WJM]

 

Are they then not exceeding their legal powers ?

 

The fact that they choose to operate their policies in the wrong place is not the problem of the boater - we have an almost 1 mile long drive to our house - its a bit like the Police setting up a checkpoint half way along our drive and not allowing me to take my untaxed tractor all the way to the 'public' road

 

There seems to be some confusion - Thames Lock is on Brent Creek, a couple of hundred meters from where the River Brent (and the GU Canal) and the tidal Thames meet. It is the first lock on the GU. It belongs to CaRT and is operated only by their staff.

 

There is also a Thames Lock on the River Wey, at the point where the Wey and the Thames meet. And here too, the staff of the navigation check paperwork and refuse entry to non-compliant boats.

 

Edited March 2, 2015 by WJM

[Gordias]

 

 

Gordias, how does it work on your side of the Atlantic, perhaps give us some real life input.

 

The boats being moved on are not spreading up through from Brentford as far as this weeks observations show. Brentford has no more boats than it has had in the last three years I have brought boats up (or down).

The only West London local area where there is an increase in boats is near the new Tesco and flats just south of the Slough Arm junction. I have heard that the Slough Arm itself has started to fill up since the Central London enforcement has kicked in, however, didn't go up so cannot verify.

There was plenty of space up to and including Uxbridge, and then beyond, no more boats than previously through Harefield, Rickmansworth.

 

There are new official LTM just south of Croxley Green - approx 9 boats , plenty of boats above the lock as well.

In all, no great increase.

 

I have no idea why you quoted my post before writing this. There is no connection between the two ... except a claim you cannot possibly support, which indicates that if I wanted to use the "information" in the remainder of the post I'd have to independently verify all of it first.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Gordias

[matty40s]

 

I have no idea why you quoted my post before writing this. There is no connection between the two ... except a claim you cannot possibly support, which indicates that if I wanted to use the "information" in the remainder of the post I'd have to independently verify all of it first.

 

 

Several forum members either recommended you get on the canal yourself, a couple have even offered to let you join them. This would let you independently verify everything I have just posted which has been seen in the real world between last Wednesday and yesterday.

I have lots of pics too, but wouldn't want to bore you with such unreliable evidence.

[NigelMoore]

Nigel

 

Do you have a link to the current bye laws? Preferably on the "http://www.legislation.gov.uk"site.

 

I've read these: http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/foi/legal/BW_General_Canal_Bye-laws.pdf and I think you said here a few months ago that the current bye laws are essentially the same as the 1965 version except for the fines.

 

Assuming that's the case, there are two things where i I either disagree with your post above, or have misinterpreted:

• I don't see anything in those bye laws that provide CaRT with the ability to manage and control mooring according to (what I believe to be) their current objectives
• As I understand it, these bye laws don't entitle CaRT to ask the police to enforce them - i.e. that they'd have to take anyone violating the bye law to court at CaRT expense (with the best possible outcome of recovering a hundred pounds or so

If I'm right, CaRT current approach, while very "heavy handed" (at best), is the most efficient one for them.

 

Equally, if they could easily and efficiently use moderate fines they'd probably do so. The deterrent effect of e.g. 100 pounds per day (imposed for e.g. a one-time cost of 50 pounds worth of administration time) would be sufficient.

 

The link you gave is the whole of it Gordias, up to and including the latest approved in 1976.

 

You may have misinterpreted me: the only mooring byelaws applicable are the one demanding proper tying up, and the one prohibiting mooring to infrastructure not designed for the purpose. You are correct, there is nothing there providing CaRT with the control their current objectives seek.

 

The single statutory clause affecting moorings in general [there are a few dealing with private moorings] is s.18 of the ’95 Act providing for dealing with boats causing obstruction. Intelligent application of s.18 would resolve all the genuine mooring problems faced by CaRT.

 

As to use of byelaw powers where applicable [as with boats failing to re-licence, or failing to display their licence], there can be no greater difficulty for CaRT to enforce these than for councils to enforce parking tickets or somewhere like Richmond to enforce their new mooring byelaw. The costs of bringing the case are recoverable along with the fine [for so long as the in-house solicitor deals with it], which has the dual benefit of incentive for CaRT to keep costs down by NOT employing expensive external legal teams, and for added incentive for the boater to avoid what amounts to at least double the statutory £100 fine.

You are wrong on two counts. Thames Lock is the manned gateway lock where licenses are checked/issued, BSS certs are checked etc. The Gauging Locks further up are unmanned, boater operated and free for passage to anyone who has a BW key.

 

The CaRT staff at Thames Lock do check the paperwork of boats seeking access to the CaRT water above it and they do turn away boats that do not meet the requirements.

 

It is beyond all rationality that you would flatly contradict me on this subject. It is even sillier when nothing in what you go on to say contradicts anything I have said.

 

I know perfectly well what BW/CaRT have done/are doing since the nineties. The purpose of my post was not to deny what they do, but to deny what they may do legally [i believe I interpolated that qualifier into my opening sentence].

 

Since when could anything they say or do be accounted lawful just because they said or did it?

 

 

Edit to say that penultimate sentence would make more sense reading: "to deny that they do it legally". There is nothing particularly wrong in checking, at the Thames Locks, that boats are licensed to proceed above the Gauging Locks, but there is everything criminal in denying access through the Thames Locks for those without a licence who do not intend to go above the Gauging Locks.

 

The current set up only dates from the nineties, pursuant to the licensing policy of the notorious Mark Bensted once he became London's Regional manager/director/whatever; previously all licences were checked at the Gauging Locks, which were manned and staff operated.

 

As I said earlier: Bensted's policy of demanding licences for all boats not proceeding above the Gauging Locks has come back to bite CaRT's exchequer considerably, with repayment of licence fees plus interest. It would be interesting to discover at some point, just how many tens of thousands of pounds that ends up costing them.

 

If they were so foolish as to fight the similar principle on the scheduled rivers, the eventual cost fall-out would be exponentially greater.

Edited March 2, 2015 by NigelMoore

[Gordias]

 

Several forum members either recommended you get on the canal yourself, a couple have even offered to let you join them. This would let you independently verify everything I have just posted which has been seen in the real world between last Wednesday and yesterday.

I have lots of pics too, but wouldn't want to bore you with such unreliable evidence.

 

Each such forum member has done as as a bluff - similar to your implication that you know where I live.

 

Naturally where I know (100% certainty) someone is just bluffing I don't take the content seriously. Some of it is probably accurate, but why should I bother trying to sift out the useful parts?

 

All this kind of thing tells me is who talks to whom on facebook .

Edited March 2, 2015 by Gordias

[matty40s]

 

Each such forum member has done as as a bluff - similar to your implication that you know where I live.

 

Naturally where I know (100% certainty) someone is just bluffing I don't take the content seriously. Some of it is probably accurate, but why should I bother trying to sift out the useful parts?

 

Ll this kind of thing tells me is who talks to whom on facebook - .

Yet again, you assume, I do not do facebook.

[WJM]

 

It is beyond all rationality that you would flatly contradict me on this subject. It is even sillier when nothing in what you go on to say contradicts anything I have said.

 

There is nothing particularly wrong in checking, at the Thames Locks, that boats are licensed to proceed above the Gauging Locks, but there is everything criminal in denying access through the Thames Locks for those without a licence who do not intend to go above the Gauging Locks.

 

The current set up only dates from the nineties, pursuant to the licensing policy of the notorious Mark Bensted once he became London's Regional manager/director/whatever; previously all licences were checked at the Gauging Locks, which were manned and staff operated.

 

So what you are saying is that the semi-tidal stretch of River Brent / Grand Union Canal has different rules from elsewhere on CaRT waters and a license is not required until going above the Gauging Locks?

[NigelMoore]

So what you are saying is that the semi-tidal stretch of River Brent / Grand Union Canal has different rules from elsewhere on CaRT waters and a license is not required until going above the Gauging Locks?

 

Yes.

 

This stretch of the Brent is not unique; other tidal river stretches elsewhere need no licence either – the ’76 byelaws making a boat licence compulsory for most of the system cannot apply to tidal waters.

 

Then there are the river waterways that even in their tidal stretches are subject to the amendment of the public right of navigation insofar as the 1971 Act made river registration certificates compulsory, if boats were to enter the main navigable channel of those rivers. Those rivers are specified and named; it is not a general rule for all CaRT rivers.

 

Note that the boat Licence is not compulsory for these either; only the 60% cheaper Certificate applies if the boat does not enter the canals. So they too have “different rules from elsewhere on CaRT waters”.

 

Where have you been the last few years? This was all made public back in 2012, with the High Court recognising that -

 

“vessels only using inland waterways that were not canals nor river waterways were not caught by the registration regime . . .” &

 

“In particular, in my view, BWB have never convincingly addressed or offered a coherent and consistent explanation of the fact that the legislation has distinguished between the various types of inland waterways under its ownership or control, and BWB's powers are differently expressed in relation to each.” [my bold]

 

Concluding:

 

"no licence is legally required for a vessel bona fide used for navigation exclusively on tidal stretches of the GUC which have not been designated as river waterways specified in or further to the 1971 Act: the PRN recognised by the 1793 Act still applies: and the relevant stretch of the GUC for the purposes of this action has been agreed to be tidal;"

[Gordias]

Yet again, you assume, I do not do facebook.

 

Yet again? /lol.

 

Why not do something practical: provide the evidence on which you base your belief that I live on the other side of the Atlantic. BTW: you'll need to do a lot better than pointing out I use CWDF's built-in spellchecker

[Gordias]

The link you gave is the whole of it Gordias, up to and including the latest approved in 1976.

 

You may have misinterpreted me: the only mooring byelaws applicable are the one demanding proper tying up, and the one prohibiting mooring to infrastructure not designed for the purpose. You are correct, there is nothing there providing CaRT with the control their current objectives seek.

 

The single statutory clause affecting moorings in general [there are a few dealing with private moorings] is s.18 of the ’95 Act providing for dealing with boats causing obstruction. Intelligent application of s.18 would resolve all the genuine mooring problems faced by CaRT.

 

As to use of byelaw powers where applicable [as with boats failing to re-licence, or failing to display their licence], there can be no greater difficulty for CaRT to enforce these than for councils to enforce parking tickets or somewhere like Richmond to enforce their new mooring byelaw. The costs of bringing the case are recoverable along with the fine [for so long as the in-house solicitor deals with it], which has the dual benefit of incentive for CaRT to keep costs down by NOT employing expensive external legal teams, and for added incentive for the boater to avoid what amounts to at least double the statutory £100 fine.

 

I've figured out my problem with the byelaws: originally (late last year) I must have found only the 1965 byelaws, or not read past them to the later (1966 to 1976) updates. Now I've read the "must be licensed" byelaw (1976: 3. (1)) and I can see it's (almost) useful.

 

Note: I'm not trying to make any claims about whether CaRT's objectives are good or not, nor whether they can be achieved legally. Naturally this includes the definition of "the genuine mooring problems faced by CaRT". In practice I don't think it makes any real difference if they're trying to solve genuine problems or CaRT were just trying to be annoying - they're trying to achieve the same objectives either way.

 

To my eye the usefulness of the 1976 byelaw depends on whether the "penalty principle" on 1965 byelaw 57 still applies at the increased rates (in which case it would be 100 pounds for the first day and 40 pounds for each subsequent day). The later revisions update the penalties byelaw, but don't include anything about subsequent days, which could be read as removing the penalty for subsequent days.

 

One aspect of the Richmond byelaw that caught my attention is that it specifies:

Every 24 hours the boat is moored, or attached, to the land, a new crime has been committed

which achieves the effect of the 1965 penalties by a slightly different means.

 

 

I can't see Section 18 of the 1995 Act helping CaRT much with their objectives for managing mooring:

No person shall moor or otherwise leave a vessel on an inland waterway so as to cause obstruction or hindrance to navigation or to the free passage of persons or vehicles over and along the towing path beside the inland waterway.

 

 

I think the choice (given CaRT's objectives) is between T's and C's on the license, Section 17 of the Act, and byelaws which would have to be changed a little for them to be a convenient tool.

 

FWIW I now think CaRT should try to get the byelaws changed, even if it took a lot of time and effort. That still wouldn't address all the issues with interpretation of Section 17 though, so they'd want to make the kinds of T's and C's changes they announced lately anyway, and those require the threat of refusing to license non-conforming boats.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Gordias

[matty40s]

 

Yet again? /lol.

 

Why not do something practical: provide the evidence on which you base your belief that I live on the other side of the Atlantic. BTW: you'll need to do a lot better than pointing out I use CWDF's built-in spellchecker

I would much rather prove practically that CRT need not be wasting resources needed for maintenance in areas that do not have a moorings availability problem - something CRT - and YOU , seem to think needs data analysis, manipulation, think tank meetings etc etc etc.

 

I do it by seeing vacant spaces, taking pictures, talking to locals on the ground, I spotted at least 15 CWDF members on the latest cruise and talked to most of them - albeit some were just a hi.

I see most of the system year in year out, at all times of the year, along with living on it, what is your evidence other than gleaning information while you bash your keyboard.

[NigelMoore]

To my eye the usefulness of the 1976 byelaw depends on whether the "penalty principle" on 1965 byelaw 57 still applies at the increased rates (in which case it would be 100 pounds for the first day and 40 pounds for each subsequent day). The later revisions update the penalties byelaw, but don't include anything about subsequent days, which could be read as removing the penalty for subsequent days.

 

One aspect of the Richmond byelaw that caught my attention is that it specifies: "Every 24 hours the boat is moored, or attached, to the land, a new crime has been committed" which achieves the effect of the 1965 penalties by a slightly different means.

 

 

I can't see Section 18 of the 1995 Act helping CaRT much with their objectives for managing mooring:

 

 

I think the choice (given CaRT's objectives) is between T's and C's on the license, Section 17 of the Act, and byelaws which would have to be changed a little for them to be a convenient tool.

 

FWIW I now think CaRT should try to get the byelaws changed, even if it took a lot of time and effort. That still wouldn't address all the issues with interpretation of Section 17 though, so they'd want to make the kinds of T's and C's changes they announced lately anyway, and those require the threat of refusing to license non-conforming boats.

 

Section 18 addresses what the authority historically always pronounced as the only relevant ‘problem’ – the current objectives do go beyond that, I agree.

 

Frankly, the modern objective is to achieve no more than a pandering to their desire to control the minutae of all ‘customers’ useage pattern to no worthwhile end, so I have little interest in it.

 

The increase of byelaw penalties to £100 applies to all previous byelaws. I agree that no mention is made of per diem increases, which is odd [or careless?], but that would not imply repeal of the original daily charge [nor imply a commensurate percentage increase]. The Richmond phrasing certainly addresses the matter with clarity and stringency, but I imagine that there would be no real difficulty in the canals case of a repeat offender being ‘ticketed’ for the same offence each day – after all, it amounts to a repeat offence, so could effectively [with sufficiently zealous patrol officers] be applied to make breaches of the byelaws a £100/day matter.

 

None of the three choices you list can apply. The changes to Terms and Conditions are meaningless other than guidance for desirable behaviour, and there IS no statutory sanction for the new inventions – the [as you recognise, necessary] “threat of refusing to licence non-conforming boats” is an empty one for all those ‘in the know’; it is effective only with those who do not understand that the authority is not empowered to make issue of the licence subject to any additional conditions to those specified in the Act.

 

S.17 of the ’95 Act manifestly does not give them any basis for imposing extrapolated interpretations designed to achieve the latest objectives.

 

The byelaw route is the only practical option, for what it is worth. The existing ones do not need changing – “a little” or a lot; there could just be additional ones. The only time and effort would be in persuading the public and Parliament that the proposed new byelaws were reasonable, and fit for the purpose of achieving reasonable objectives.

 

Johnson earned tens of thousands in bonus payments over a couple of years, for having the legal department concoct a whole raft of new laws [some of which they would now be prohibited from applying]. These were designed to replace in their entirety the existing set of byelaws. Among the new ones are the 2 clauses that Parliament rejected from the 1990 Bill: -

 

http://noproblem.org.uk/blog/links/draftbyelaws.pdf

 

Directions as to mooring

 

51. (1) The master of a vessel who is proposing to moor or who has moored the vessel in a waterway shall comply with any proper direction of an authorised officer as to

( a ) the means by which the vessel is fastened or secured; and

( b ) the precise location in which the vessel is moored.

 

(2) Any person to whom a direction is given under paragraph (1) shall if necessary move the vessel in order to comply with the direction.

 

(3) A direction under paragraph (1) need not be in writing and may be given in any reasonable manner.

 

(4) Any direction given under paragraph (1) may be given for the purpose of :

( a ) health and safety considerations;

( b ) enabling other vessels to moor in an appropriate manner and ensuring best use of waterspace;

( c ) avoiding the restriction of works being carried out by BW;

( d ) moving vessels that have overstayed visitor moorings; or

( e ) tending to an emergency situation.

 

Prohibition or control of mooring

 

52. No person shall moor or leave a vessel in contravention of a notice prominently displayed by BW in or beside any waterway -

( a ) prohibiting the mooring of vessels, as specified in the notice; or

( b ) making requirements as to the manner in which vessels are to be moored in the part of the waterway so specified and (without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing) the means by which vessels are to be fastened or secured; or

( c ) specifying the maximum period, hours of the day or night, or days of the week, during which mooring (whether of all vessels, or of vessels of a kind or kinds specified in the notice) is permitted or prohibited, or the period within which return to the mooring is prohibited, as the case may be.

Edited March 3, 2015 by NigelMoore

[Serenity Malc]

Yello,

 

MtB ..... that island you are talking of is Platts Eyot ..... the sinker trawler used to be moored on the eyot but was moved to the far bank.

The recent water company evictions were from 'the railings' adjacent to their property in Hampton. That was late last year, but I see they have been repopulated again since.I also note that the LB of Richmond extends up the north bank at least as far as Hampton 24hr moorings in Hampton village.

 

Many of the boats in the Hampton / Sunbury area are boats that have been imported from Europe by a particular lady (?) and are littered around the banks awaiting sale.

 

Serenity Malc.

[Gordias]

I would much rather prove practically that CRT need not be wasting resources needed for maintenance in areas that do not have a moorings availability problem - something CRT - and YOU , seem to think needs data analysis, manipulation, think tank meetings etc etc etc.

 

I do it by seeing vacant spaces, taking pictures, talking to locals on the ground, I spotted at least 15 CWDF members on the latest cruise and talked to most of them - albeit some were just a hi.

I see most of the system year in year out, at all times of the year, along with living on it, what is your evidence other than gleaning information while you bash your keyboard.

 

My evidence for what exactly? You appear to be implying a knowledge of my opinions and attitudes for which you'll find no evidence anywhere in this forum. Something similar to your unsupported claim to know where I live (and presumably my cultural background), except shifted into a domain you're more comfortable with.

 

If you read any of the posts I've made related to mooring management you'll see that I don't have a bias one way or the other. I'm interested in what CaRT is doing now, and can be expected to do in the future. This requires that I know something about why they are acting/planning the way they do. It makes no difference if whether I agree with them or not.

 

FWIW I believe denial of CaRT's objectives is among the worst ways to achieve a good compromise between the requirements and wishes of the many interested parities. Denial generally leads to delaying any real engagement in problems. Where there are multiple opposing interests, widespread denial can be expected to delay engagement until the more serious "side" has gained a significant advantage.

 

Derailing discussions in CWDF probably isn't going to make a big difference in the long run, but if it has any "real world" effect it will probably be to discourage boaters who are not affected by CaRT's objectives from working together with people who are negatively affected.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Gordias

[Gordias]

@NigelMoore

 

Nigel

 

Thanks for an interesting and informative reply. I should have looked for the BW proposal for a replacement set of byelaws earlier - you could read 51 and 52 (the ones you quoted) as being a compact statement fo what CaRT are trying to achieve now

 

FWIW I agree that T's and C's and Section 17 are an uncertain way for CaRT to get what they want. By "changing the byelaws" I was thinking along the lines of an acceptable form of the proposed 51 and 52 (mostly due to the specific context of the thread being managing mooring). Is there any information available on why CaRT haven't tried to add to or change the byelaws? I remember reading they didn't "inherit" the ability to propose legislation from BW, but I don't see why they couldn't ask a suitable person or organization to help them get it done.

 

I'm also still wondering what would happen if CaRT's current approaches fail. I don't see any sign of boaters mounting a serious challenge in court yet, but presumably it could be done, and CaRT could lose. But that raises the question "what would happen if CaRT lost the ability to control mooring?". TBH I don't see that working out as well for boaters as an early compromise would.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Gordias