CRT answer questions to new T&Cs

[luctor et emergo]

It just maybe that C&RT were trying to sort out this type of anomaly when the link to the places map was leaked and given that they were aware of these types of issues then withdrew it completely.

 

Given the grief that is directed at C&RT because of the unauthorised release of (what has turned out to be) an incomplete version of the map, some people might believe that it was deliberately leaked to try and undermine C&RT and anything they do to try and sort out the people who claim to CC, but in fact are not interested in 'bona fide navigating', but can't be bothered to pay for a mooring.

Can you define 'bona fide navigation', please.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Can you define 'bona fide navigation', please.

It seems to me that the expression ‘navigation' clearly means the process of undertaking any purposeful journey from one specific point to another by water. The addition of the words ‘bona fide' import an entirely subjective element and merely mean that the journey must be undertaken for genuine purposes and not for the purpose of circumventing the legislation, when in reality the intention of the boat owner is to stay as nearly as possible in the same place.

 

HHJ Halbert (from the Mayers Judgement)

[tree monkey]

What's needed is a "National Association Of Boaters With A Home Mooring Who Like To Hang About in the Same Area But Move A Bit every Fourteen Days"

 

Their voices should be heard!

Would there be a nice cup of tea and a couple of biscuits, if so I'm in

[Sir Nibble]

It seems to me that the expression ‘navigation' clearly means the process of undertaking any purposeful journey from one specific point to another by water. The addition of the words ‘bona fide' import an entirely subjective element and merely mean that the journey must be undertaken for genuine purposes and not for the purpose of circumventing the legislation, when in reality the intention of the boat owner is to stay as nearly as possible in the same place.

 

HHJ Halbert (from the Mayers Judgement)

Which is exactly why a minimum cannot be set because that would only define how "nearly as possible in the same place" it is possible to stay. Working to a minimum would mean a cruising pattern "for the purpose of circumventing the legislation". Bona fide means because you want to, not because you must. Chugging along for no better reason than that you enjoy it, or going for fuel or services is bona fide, moving only because you seek by doing so to be compliant is not.

[NigelMoore]

Edit... by way of an nb in the classic term; I will say Davidson while I remember the name of the case. The bloke who left his trading boat on the moorings in Brum. That had been sat on moorings for ages while the owner volunteered to pay the overstay charge. Eventually they towed it; that was held to be norty. I probably need to track that decision down again.

 

Are you not thinking of Taylor v BWB, BM013306, 2001?

 

If so, towing the boat away was not “held to be norty”; on the contrary the judge endorsed BW’s entitlement to do so. What he denied was their right to charge for it. [Which doubtless accounts for their disinclination to ever again take this straightforward route to dealing with overstayers.]

 

He also commented on Mr Taylor regarding the overstay charge as a mooring payment, suggesting that was ill conceived [the judge made no comment regarding the legitimacy of the charge].

 

As to Mr Taylor’s case for Breach of Contract, the judge found in his favour and awarded a couple of hundred pounds in damages.

[Alan de Enfield]

Is this another example of C&RT "trying it on" in their new T&Cs ?

 

"An overstaying boat is causing an obstruction at a mooring since it means that the mooring is not available for other boats to use. If we do need to move the boat, you agree to repay our costs."

 

 

Are you not thinking of Taylor v BWB, BM013306, 2001?

 

If so, towing the boat away was not “held to be norty”; on the contrary the judge endorsed BW’s entitlement to do so. What he denied was their right to charge for it. [Which doubtless accounts for their disinclination to ever again take this straightforward route to dealing with overstayers.]

 

He also commented on Mr Taylor regarding the overstay charge as a mooring payment, suggesting that was ill conceived [the judge made no comment regarding the legitimacy of the charge].

 

As to Mr Taylor’s case for Breach of Contract, the judge found in his favour and awarded a couple of hundred pounds in damages.

[luctor et emergo]

Is this another example of C&RT "trying it on" in their new T&Cs ?

 

"An overstaying boat is causing an obstruction at a mooring since it means that the mooring is not available for other boats to use. If we do need to move the boat, you agree to repay our costs."

 

 

They start to sound like those ex clamping cowboys, who now run the extortion rackets in car parks. ..

[NigelMoore]

Which is exactly why a minimum cannot be set because that would only define how "nearly as possible in the same place" it is possible to stay. Working to a minimum would mean a cruising pattern "for the purpose of circumventing the legislation". Bona fide means because you want to, not because you must. Chugging along for no better reason than that you enjoy it, or going for fuel or services is bona fide, moving only because you seek by doing so to be compliant is not.

 

All of which only goes to illustrate the utter absurdity of the entirety of CaRT’s current enforcement philosophies and the surrounding debates. If they are required to be mind-readers in order to differentiate between two boaters undertaking exactly the same movement pattern, then how can that possibly be of import, let alone interest, to the actual organisational function and aims?

 

The straightforward alleged intent of the legislation was to avoid misuse of facilities such as water points, sanitary stations, and visitor moorings etc [as clarified precisely in the SC Minutes].

 

That it was entirely unnecessary and redundant did not escape the Committee, and it remains the case that BW/CaRT have always had adequate means to deal with the specific problems for which s.17(3)( c) was allegedly to be the answer. The farce of the present furore can be little more than a combined distraction ploy and indulgence in big-brotherism.

[NigelMoore]

Is this another example of C&RT "trying it on" in their new T&Cs ?

 

"An overstaying boat is causing an obstruction at a mooring since it means that the mooring is not available for other boats to use. If we do need to move the boat, you agree to repay our costs."

 

 

Of course it is; I’ve pointed this particular instance out before. When faced with the legal reality, they invent their own purported circumvention of the legislation, by way of persuading you that, although the law may prevent them, you agree to it anyway.

 

That such asinine nonsense is nonetheless of practical effect is illustrated by the constant recurrence of posters pointing out that you are bound by the law of contract in this manner. Untrue – but why would CaRT care, when it works on most?

 

“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time . . .” and so they work it.

[Jerra]

That such asinine nonsense is nonetheless of practical effect is illustrated by the constant recurrence of posters pointing out that you are bound by the law of contract in this manner. Untrue

So what is the point of contract law if it can't be applied? If it can be applied why can't it in this case?

[NigelMoore]

So what is the point of contract law if it can't be applied? If it can be applied why can't it in this case?

 

I am rather busy with other things at the moment, so cannot afford the time to answer that as comprehensively as the question deserves – besides, I rather think that I have done so previously in sufficient depth, but can’t seem to search back through my posts further than about a month.

 

Any assistance as to how one can do this would be appreciated.

 

At its simplest, a contract is no contract where the terms are unilaterally imposed, and further, seek to circumvent statutory protections of one party.

As the matter of issuing a licence is subject only to those conditions laid down by statute, no additional conditions to the issue can be legally imposed.

 

Seeking to evade lawful prohibition by way of a contract – even if voluntarily signed - is of no effect. It is illegal for the issuing body to impose such a contract, and it is unenforceable against the other party.

 

Mayalld off his own bat could no doubt supply the case law which escapes me at the moment [it was the Dairy case], or Doghouse [with his site navigational skills] could probably help dig up my relevant previous post.

[NigelMoore]

Attorney-General -v- Wilts United Dairies Ltd; CA 1921

 

"It makes no difference that the obligation to pay the money is expressed in the form of an agreement. It was illegal for the Food Controller to require such an agreement as a condition of any licence. It was illegal for him to enter into such an agreement. The agreement itself is not enforceable against the other contracting party;"

 

It being illegal for CaRT to demand your agreement to conditions of the licence as a pre-requisite to issue of the licence, the agreement is unenforceable.

 

Given that no agreement can in law be considered to have been made anyway, in non-negotiable situations such as this, the position taken by CaRT on the issue is all the more fraudulent and misleading.

[BrumSaint]

Can't beat a good conspiracy theory.

It's either that or C*ck up, which do you prefer?

Can you define 'bona fide navigation', please.

I think that's probably best left to a Judge, don't you?

[Smelly]

I'd like to know what to do should this come to pass, as would a few others like me who pay for a (legitimate) home mooring specifically so we can legally bridge hop.

 

MtB

First and foremost comes a necessary acceptance of those who also think they are legitimately on the canal through whatever route.

[Alan de Enfield]

NABO asked C&RT for clarification on the new T&Cs - It is interesting to note that the 'official reply' now makes no mention of being in a new 'place' every 14 days.

 

From the NABO website :-

 

NABO recently asked Jackie Lewis CRT General Legal Counsel to elaborate on the changes to the terms and conditions for boaters with a home mooring. We publish in full her reply with her permission.

“In accordance with Condition 3.1 and 3.2 of the revised terms and conditions, if you have a home mooring, you must cruise on the waterway whilst you are away from your home mooring, stopping only for short periods (defined as 14 days or less if a local restriction applies). This requirement to cruise is the same as it's always been - it is not an amendment to the terms and conditions.

What it means to “cruise” on the waterway depends upon the period of time your boat is away from its home mooring. The longer it spends away from its home mooring, the greater the range of movement expected. As an extreme, if you never returned to your home mooring for the entire period of your licence, we would expect you to cruise continuously and therefore your pattern of movement should be the same as that of a boat without a home mooring. In contrast, however, if your boat spends the majority of the time on its home mooring and only leaves to cruise for short periods of time, then the range of movement expected for each cruise will be much more limited.

To explain further, every time you return to your home mooring (provided that this is not merely for a nominal period in an attempt to circumvent the rules), your cruise ends and “the clock” is effectively re-set. The next time you leave, you start on a new cruise, the extent of which will depend upon the time spent away from the home mooring. If you are away for just a weekend, that cruise will be quite short in terms of distance. On the other hand, if you are away from your home mooring for several months, we would expect to see a much greater range of movement.

By way of example, it would be perfectly acceptable to leave your home mooring for weekend, cruise a short distance and moor for 48 hours (at a legitimate mooring site) and then return to your home mooring, and this pattern of movement could be repeated on several weekends throughout the year. However, shuffling between two locations close together, neither of which is your home mooring, for an extended period is not permitted as that shuffling is not "cruising". “

 

The question now is "do we follow what is written in the new T&Cs, or, do we follow the explanation given by Council ?", maybe more to the point which do C&RT follow ?

Edited March 21, 2015 by Alan de Enfield

[luctor et emergo]

First and foremost comes a necessary acceptance of those who also think they are legitimately on the canal through whatever route.

greenie

NABO asked C&RT for clarification on the new T&Cs - It is interesting to note that the 'official reply' now makes no mention of being in a new 'place' every 14 days.

 

From the NABO website :-

 

NABO recently asked Jackie Lewis CRT General Legal Counsel to elaborate on the changes to the terms and conditions for boaters with a home mooring. We publish in full her reply with her permission.

In accordance with Condition 3.1 and 3.2 of the revised terms and conditions, if you have a home mooring, you must cruise on the waterway whilst you are away from your home mooring, stopping only for short periods (defined as 14 days or less if a local restriction applies). This requirement to cruise is the same as it's always been - it is not an amendment to the terms and conditions.

What it means to cruise on the waterway depends upon the period of time your boat is away from its home mooring. The longer it spends away from its home mooring, the greater the range of movement expected. As an extreme, if you never returned to your home mooring for the entire period of your licence, we would expect you to cruise continuously and therefore your pattern of movement should be the same as that of a boat without a home mooring. In contrast, however, if your boat spends the majority of the time on its home mooring and only leaves to cruise for short periods of time, then the range of movement expected for each cruise will be much more limited.

To explain further, every time you return to your home mooring (provided that this is not merely for a nominal period in an attempt to circumvent the rules), your cruise ends and the clock is effectively re-set. The next time you leave, you start on a new cruise, the extent of which will depend upon the time spent away from the home mooring. If you are away for just a weekend, that cruise will be quite short in terms of distance. On the other hand, if you are away from your home mooring for several months, we would expect to see a much greater range of movement.

By way of example, it would be perfectly acceptable to leave your home mooring for weekend, cruise a short distance and moor for 48 hours (at a legitimate mooring site) and then return to your home mooring, and this pattern of movement could be repeated on several weekends throughout the year. However, shuffling between two locations close together, neither of which is your home mooring, for an extended period is not permitted as that shuffling is not "cruising".

 

The question now is "do we follow what is written in the new T&Cs, or, do we follow the explanation given by Council ?", maybe more to the point which do C&RT follow ?

Either someone should take that spade away from CRT, or bridge hopping with a home mooring is on the way out.

 

Who will take it to court?

[kris88]

greenie

 

Either someone should take that spade away from CRT, or bridge hopping with a home mooring is on the way out.

 

Who will take it to court?

Mike the boilerman seems to be setting himself up for it.

Regards kris

[jenlyn]

greenie

 

Either someone should take that spade away from CRT, or bridge hopping with a home mooring is on the way out.

Who will take it to court?

I think that spade was traded in for a mechanical digger some time ago.

Mike the boilerman seems to be setting himself up for it.

Regards kris

Na, he's just one of his "piss takers", by his own admission. Being a little more polite, what we tend to now call "dumpers".

[bassplayer]

Seems we are all being regarded as CC'ers unless currently moored up on a home (or temporary home) mooring. Again, there seems to be no distances mentioned as a guide so nobody is 100% sure if they are on or off the radar. Are CRT planning to refuse licence renewal if someone is non compliant? I really wish the tinkerers just left everything alone.

Edited March 21, 2015 by bassplayer

[kris88]

I think that spade was traded in for a mechanical digger some time ago.

 

Na, he's just one of his "piss takers", by his own admission. Being a little more polite, what we tend to now call "dumpers".

I thought he was going to take on CRT, using Tony Dunkely as a makenzies friend.

 

Regards kris

Edited March 21, 2015 by kris88

[jenlyn]

I thought he was going to take on CRT, using Tony Dunkely as a makenzies friend.

Regards kris

Hehehe.

[MtB]

Piss takers are the CCers who CM. As are dumpers By definition they don't have a home mooring surely!

 

Anyway yes I'm happy to take on CRT over this if necessary, although my cruising pattern of bridge hopping a 20 mile stretch for six months on one boat then returing it to its home mooring while I do something similar with the other, seems to fit their latest definition of 'cruising for boaters with a home mooring' rather well.

 

So it's a 'fail' for you two dementers!

[kris88]

Are you going to ask Tony to be a makenzies friend ?

Regards kris

[MtB]

I think you should learn to spell it first!

 

 

MtB

[kris88]

I'm dyslexic as I've told you before.