Pre. CC1

[NigelMoore]

 

I guess what I'm asking is how, in practical terms, I can force them to issue a licence, if their communication to me states that they won't?

 

Alternatives would be to apply for Judicial Review of the decision, or perhaps even better in the current judicial climate of resistance to questioning governing bodies, apply for Declaratory Relief, asking the court to declare that you were entitled to a licence on the presented facts. Under those circumstances you would also need to include an application for a stay on any threatened s.8 proceedings.

[Arthur Marshall]

To take it right back to basics, I think (can't find my download for the moment) the Act says they have to give you a licence either if you have a home mooring or declare as a continuous cruiser (the definition of which we know is a contentious point). But if you are just sat more or less still (eg move a mile or so down the canal and back again) and refuse to do anything that could really be interpreted as cruising, are they still required legally to give you a icence or can they then refuse? There seems to be an argument above that they MUST issue the licence as long as you apply for it. Obviously, you will declare CC as you have to do one or the other, even if you haven't in the past and have no intention of doing so in the future. So what should CRT do about it, if anything? (Note, the "you" referred to is emphatically not anyone in particular!)

[MtB]

To take it right back to basics, I think (can't find my download for the moment) the Act says they have to give you a licence either if you have a home mooring or declare as a continuous cruiser (the definition of which we know is a contentious point). But if you are just sat more or less still (eg move a mile or so down the canal and back again) and refuse to do anything that could really be interpreted as cruising, are they still required legally to give you a icence or can they then refuse? There seems to be an argument above that they MUST issue the licence as long as you apply for it. Obviously, you will declare CC as you have to do one or the other, even if you haven't in the past and have no intention of doing so in the future. So what should CRT do about it, if anything? (Note, the "you" referred to is emphatically not anyone in particular!)

 

 

As I understand it they can refuse. The Waterways Act says it is for the boater to 'satisfy the board' that they will CC throughout the term of the licence. As the OP has established a track record of CMing, he needs to satisfy the board in some way that he will CC nicely in future. Ball's in his court.

 

If he takes a home mooring then yes they are obliged to issue the licence (subject to him having insurance and BSS).

 

All as I understand it.

 

 

MtB

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Thanks. I mean, they have the computer that issues the licence, and the bits of paper that it's printed on. I guess what I'm asking is how, in practical terms, I can force them to issue a licence, if their communication to me states that they won't?

 

I see that Nigel Moore has answered that for you.

You are, in fact, in a far stronger position than you seem to realise. Should C&RT decide to refuse to renew your licence, or restrict it to a shorter than normal period, and the matter does end up being argued in front of a Judge, then it won't be the distance you've been moving that C&RT will use as an argument to justify the refusal, not because they themselves have not actually specified a minimum distance in order to be compliant, but because no minimum distance is specified or required in the 1995 Act, that being the sole legislation, and basis, upon which they can lawfully refuse a Licence.

To successfully argue against an Application by you for Declaratory Relief, they would need to demonstrate an intention on your part to routinely stay in one 'place' for longer than 14 days without good reason for doing so, and more importantly, that you would not be using your boat 'bona fide for navigation'

As I said in an earlier post (# 195) you have made it clear that you move your boat around, however small the distance, and have declined to take a mooring because you don't want to stay in the same place all the time. You will be, and in fact, have been, complying with the requirements laid down in S.17(3){c}(ii) of the 1995 Act.

The Judges in BW v Davies and C&RT v Mayers made it clear that they considered that the purpose for any boat journey, rather than the distance travelled, is what defines use 'bona fide for navigation'.

[The Lockie]

[quote name="Ricco1" post="1544312" timestamp="142799961

 

I would think something like "I really want to live on a boat so I can genuinely cruise a large part of the canal network" would be pretty freaky to be honest.

 

 

WOW!!! With those few words you have just blown your credibility!! Do you want another shovel or is that hole you have dug big enough!!

[Tony Dunkley]

To take it right back to basics, I think (can't find my download for the moment) the Act says they have to give you a licence either if you have a home mooring or declare as a continuous cruiser (the definition of which we know is a contentious point). But if you are just sat more or less still (eg move a mile or so down the canal and back again) and refuse to do anything that could really be interpreted as cruising, are they still required legally to give you a icence or can they then refuse? There seems to be an argument above that they MUST issue the licence as long as you apply for it. Obviously, you will declare CC as you have to do one or the other, even if you haven't in the past and have no intention of doing so in the future. So what should CRT do about it, if anything? (Note, the "you" referred to is emphatically not anyone in particular!)

 

In fact, the terminology ' continuous cruiser / cruising' doesn't appear anywhere in the 1995 Act, or for that matter, anywhere else in any inland waterways legislation. It's a BW invention and it doesn't even come anywhere near describing what the law demands, which is this : -

 

either—

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

 

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

The introduction of any other wording, or non-existent requirements for specified distances to be covered is a red herring intended to distract attention from what the law actually requires and obliges C&RT to do, and very successful it's been.

The above clauses, together with the requirement to hold a current BSS certificate and Third Party Insurance are the sole criteria upon which C&RT can lawfully condition the issue, refusal or revokation of a boat licence.

Edited April 5, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Ricco1]

 

I have not seen any reply to the question about Ricco's business.

 

Is he not running a day-boat hire business in that vicinity ?

That would probably require to be somewhere close by on a regular basis to service / hand over / take back the boat.

 

Hi Alan yes I do, and I do often have to be in the area. The boat is at Whaley Bridge, the terminus of the Upper Peak Forest. I range between there and Bosley on the Macclesfield, a distance of 22 miles. It's 12 miles from Bosley to Whaley by road, no problem, I use my bike.

 

As far as I know CRT can't refuse a licence because I work. They may try to intimidate people by suggesting "moving backwards and forwards within a small area for work or children's school purposes", or words to that effect, may lead some to think it can't be done, but it can. Whether I work or not is has no bearing on any legal matter at all, and it's none of CRT's business.

[Ricco1]

WOW!!! With those few words you have just blown your credibility!! Do you want another shovel or is that hole you have dug big enough!!

 

The point I was making was that many people, myself included, just want to live on a boat, so they buy one. They have no idea at first, moving around a bit playing with their new toy. They might then have an urge to go far away, or travel the whole network, or maybe they find a few nice places they like. With the latter, they might then learn that their movements are not acceptable.

 

What I'm saying is that these things are not pre ordained or set in stone. They begin, they change, they develop. It's not the intent on day 1 that matters, it's the ongoing intent.

[mayalld]

 

In fact, the terminology ' continuous cruiser / cruising' doesn't appear anywhere in the 1995 Act, or for that matter, anywhere else in any inland waterways legislation. It's a BW invention and it doesn't even come anywhere near describing what the law demands, which is this : -

either

(i)

the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

(ii)

the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

The introduction of any other wording, or non-existent requirements for specified distances to be covered is a red herring intended to distract attention from what the law actually requires and obliges C&RT to do, and very successful it's been.

The above clauses, together with the requirement to hold a current BSS certificate and Third Party Insurance are the sole criteria upon which C&RT can lawfully condition the issue, refusal or revokation of a boat licence.

Interesting that you selectively bold certain words, then pretend that they are the whole requirement.

 

You totally ignore the words "satisfy the board"

 

Pray tell what you imagine those words to mean

[Tony Dunkley]

Interesting that you selectively bold certain words, then pretend that they are the whole requirement.

 

You totally ignore the words "satisfy the board"

 

Pray tell what you imagine those words to mean

 

I haven't ignored, or imagined anything about, the words 'satisfy the Board', they're included and quoted exactly as they appear in the Act.

I wouldn't need to ignore or imagine anything about them because I know what they mean, although it seems that perhaps you aren't too sure. I can't wait to hear what you've 'imagined'.

[MtB]

Thought better of it

Edited April 5, 2015 by Mike the Boilerman

[boathunter]

 

 

As I understand it they can refuse. The Waterways Act says it is for the boater to 'satisfy the board' that they will CC throughout the term of the licence. As the OP has established a track record of CMing, he needs to satisfy the board in some way that he will CC nicely in future. Ball's in his court.

 

If he takes a home mooring then yes they are obliged to issue the licence (subject to him having insurance and BSS).

 

All as I understand it.

 

 

MtB

And here perhaps is the source of the new guidelines for boaters with a home morring. CRT have realised that if they pester everyone into taking a home mooring, these boaters, should they so choose, could be legally right back moored where they were, but without having to satisfy the board of anything other than shuffling every 14 days. In the long run, CRT cannot win if people are aware of the law and how to use it.

Edited April 5, 2015 by boathunter

[costalot]

 

Hi Alan yes I do, and I do often have to be in the area. The boat is at Whaley Bridge, the terminus of the Upper Peak Forest. I range between there and Bosley on the Macclesfield, a distance of 22 miles. It's 12 miles from Bosley to Whaley by road, no problem, I use my bike.

 

As far as I know CRT can't refuse a licence because I work. They may try to intimidate people by suggesting "moving backwards and forwards within a small area for work or children's school purposes", or words to that effect, may lead some to think it can't be done, but it can. Whether I work or not is has no bearing on any legal matter at all, and it's none of CRT's business.

A boater without a home mooring has to satisfy CRT that they are genuinely and in good faith cruising from place to place. The distances between places is irrelevant. However CRT appear to have indicated boaters who moves in a radius greater than 20 miles will not be included in soon to be introduced enforcement action.

 

I suspect your difficulty will be in convincing CRT you have genuine reasons for not complying. If these reasons have already existed for the previous 7 months then they may want evidence. Moreover they may want to know how long this situation is to continue. CRT may then decide whether to continue to give you a non-moorers licence or require you to obtain a home mooring for the duration.

 

CRT are not going to provide you with advice on how far you must move to avoid enforcement because that would imply your intent isn't to bona fide navigate. Actually, by asking this question you are advising CRT you do not intend to comply with the licence requirements.

[Sir Nibble]

 

I haven't ignored, or imagined anything about, the words 'satisfy the Board', they're included and quoted exactly as they appear in the Act.

I wouldn't need to ignore or imagine anything about them because I know what they mean, although it seems that perhaps you aren't too sure. I can't wait to hear what you've 'imagined'.

daresay he'll get back with a response to his answer if you were to give him one. The point is that "satisfy the board" squarely places the role of arbiter on CaRT and no one seems to want to address that. If someone says "What is the minimum I must do to comply" then CaRt could lawfully say "I am not satisfied of your bona fide intent" and refuse a licence. CaRT's decision can only be overturned if it is shown to be unreasonable.

[mark99]

<Snip>

 

CRT are not going to provide you with advice on how far you must move to avoid enforcement because that would imply your intent isn't to bona fide navigate. Actually, by asking this question you are advising CRT you do not intend to comply with the licence requirements.

 

Yes that's my reasoning of it too. Also CaRT, if answering a query like this will set a precedent and / or set up a situation whereby and boater without home mooring could deliberately fall foul and then ask and expect a rely from CaRT to "set" them a minimum distance.

Edited April 5, 2015 by mark99

[Arthur Marshall]

If I recall the start of all this, the OPs problem with CRT only started recently, so presumably he has a previous history of acceptable movement. Whaley to Bosley is a reasonable bit of bona fide, I'd have thought.

[Ricco1]

If I recall the start of all this, the OPs problem with CRT only started recently, so presumably he has a previous history of acceptable movement. Whaley to Bosley is a reasonable bit of bona fide, I'd have thought.

 

I guess we'll see if it is, as that's what I'll be doing. I'm not going to jump through hoops to try to satisfy CRT. At the end of the day I enjoy moving regularly. Each time I moor up in a new spot it's great. I've got new scenery to look at through the window. Working out the angle for the aerial to get the most tv stations is fun. I have different water to fish in, with different species predominating. A different towpath, can I get my bike off safely? Different water to paddle in on my kayak, maybe I'll get a couple of free fishing floats! I can go to the shops on different roads rather than plodding the same route every day. I meet new people walking their dogs and riding their bikes. All of this is good. I like a little routine in my life but not too much, I like new things a lot more.

 

Compared to this the thought of waking up on the same bit of towpath for a year or more fills me with horror.

Edited April 5, 2015 by Ricco1

[Tony Dunkley]

 

I guess we'll see if it is, as that's what I'll be doing. I'm not going to jump through hoops to try to satisfy CRT. At the end of the day I enjoy moving regularly. Each time I moor up in a new spot it's great. I've got new scenery to look at through the window. Working out the angle for the aerial to get the most tv stations is fun. I have different water to fish in, with different species predominating. A different towpath, can I get my bike off safely? Different water to paddle in on my kayak, maybe I'll get a couple of free fishing floats! I can go to the shops on different roads rather than plodding the same route every day. I meet new people walking their dogs and riding their bikes. All of this is good. I like a little routine in my life but not too much, I like new things a lot more.

 

Compared to this the thought of waking up on the same bit of towpath for a year or more fills me with horror.

 

You should ensure that you keep your own record of posts such as that, and anything else, such as diaries or logs, in which you express similar sentiments. This is useful evidence that you're moving about and using your boat for the sheer pleasure of doing so, and not simply in order to comply with what the law requires.

You should read carefully the Judgment in BW v Davies, paying particular attention to paragraphs 14) and 15), and also the remarks made by the Judge re. S.17 of the 1995 Act in C&RT v Mayers, which is the Judgment that C&RT wanted to remain a secret.

Edited April 5, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[eggpie]

CRT have realised that if they pester everyone into taking a home mooring, these boaters, should they so choose, could be legally right back moored where they were, but without having to satisfy the board of anything other than shuffling every 14 days. In the long run, CRT cannot win if people are aware of the law and how to use it.

But everyone of those non compliant ccers will now have a mooring. Result: exactly what we have now, but with more money for CRT

 

If an online mooring costs £2k (which is £40/week, or about 2 pints in London) and there are 5000 non compliant ccers (or more, if you up the enforcement/crushing range) that's £10 million/year. Isnt it all about the money CRT get?

[BruceinSanity]

I guess we'll see if it is, as that's what I'll be doing. I'm not going to jump through hoops to try to satisfy CRT. At the end of the day I enjoy moving regularly. Each time I moor up in a new spot it's great. I've got new scenery to look at through the window. Working out the angle for the aerial to get the most tv stations is fun. I have different water to fish in, with different species predominating. A different towpath, can I get my bike off safely? Different water to paddle in on my kayak, maybe I'll get a couple of free fishing floats! I can go to the shops on different roads rather than plodding the same route every day. I meet new people walking their dogs and riding their bikes. All of this is good. I like a little routine in my life but not too much, I like new things a lot more.

 

Compared to this the thought of waking up on the same bit of towpath for a year or more fills me with horror.

Sounds like you are a genuine CCer to me!

[StarUKKiwi]

I find this very informative. I, too, have spent the last year, apart from four months on the same stretch as Ricco. I, too, spent the winter months on the same four mile stretch; between Whaley Bridge and Marple, as they are the two water points within two hours cruising distance (which tbh is about all we want to cruise in winter). I haven't had a letter; however, it would appear that enforcement in the Manchester and Pennines area are enforcing the new T&C from 1 January 2015, rather than 1May.

My evidence for this is, this is the ninth boater on this section of the network who has had a letter and had to alter cruising pattern/had to take a mooring/ moved off these two canals completely.

There appears to be a new team of enforcement officers, modus operandi is, they target an area for about a month every week issuing notices, having conversations etc. The Data collectors walk every two weeks, as you would expect, then the enforcement team arrive with a list of boats to speak to.

Personally, I haven't met the new officer for this area, but having spoken to people who have spoken to him, he sounds reasonable. I hope Ricco manages to sort this out, will be interested to know the outcome.

[Alan de Enfield]

...........I haven't had a letter; however, it would appear that enforcement in the Manchester and Pennines area are enforcing the new T&C from 1 January 2015, rather than 1May.

My evidence for this is, this is the ninth boater on this section of the network who has had a letter and had to alter cruising pattern/had to take a mooring/ moved off these two canals completely................

 

 

I do not think they are enforcing the new T&Cs 'early'.

Ricco is licenced as a 'boat without a home mooring', the requirements to 'cruise' / Bona fide navigate have not changed in the new T&Cs. The EO is purely now enforcing the Law (1995 Act) as it should have been enforced for the last 30 years.

 

The 'new' T&C requirement to 'cruise' is for boats WITH a home mooring

[MtB]

I I haven't had a letter; however, it would appear that enforcement in the Manchester and Pennines area are enforcing the new T&C from 1 January 2015, rather than 1May.

 

 

 

The new T&Cs apply to boaters WITH a home mooring, not CCers.

 

CCers have always been required to CC.

[Tuscan]

I find this very informative. I, too, have spent the last year, apart from four months on the same stretch as Ricco. I, too, spent the winter months on the same four mile stretch; between Whaley Bridge and Marple, as they are the two water points within two hours cruising distance (which tbh is about all we want to cruise in winter). I haven't had a letter; however, it would appear that enforcement in the Manchester and Pennines area are enforcing the new T&C from 1 January 2015, rather than 1May.

My evidence for this is, this is the ninth boater on this section of the network who has had a letter and had to alter cruising pattern/had to take a mooring/ moved off these two canals completely.

e.

This is where CRT have been so poor in their PR . Since Jan 2014 there has been a policy that effects anybody who has taken a new licence and not declared a home mooring. These license holders have been monitored and contacted should their cruising pattern not satisfy CRT leading to the potential withdrawal of the license or issueing of a shorter term on the anniversary of their license.this is why some boaters have been getting these letters already. Other lucense holders have been subject to the traditional enforcement process.

 

From 01 May this will be rolled out to all license holders without a home mooring subject to the additional guidance on range and distance that has been issued. In addition the new T&C's imposes additional restrictions on all boaters and noaters with a home mooring are no longer able to shuffle for example.

[Tony Dunkley]

This is where CRT have been so poor in their PR . Since Jan 2014 there has been a policy that effects anybody who has taken a new licence and not declared a home mooring. These license holders have been monitored and contacted should their cruising pattern not satisfy CRT leading to the potential withdrawal of the license or issueing of a shorter term on the anniversary of their license.this is why some boaters have been getting these letters already. Other lucense holders have been subject to the traditional enforcement process.

 

From 01 May this will be rolled out to all license holders without a home mooring subject to the additional guidance on range and distance that has been issued. In addition the new T&C's imposes additional restrictions on all boaters and noaters with a home mooring are no longer able to shuffle for example.

 

Traditional ??? . . . .