CMers versus CRT

[Jim Riley]

DeanS's pic is Piccadilly Basin, looking towards the cut down to Canal st, the Rochdale Nine. Ashton canal comes in from the left. Boats often moor overnight prior to heading up the Rochdale, it's possible to moor below the tower block on the left. There's a good butty shop to the left of the bridge the pic is taken from, bacon butty to die for.

[Dave_P]

No! This proposal provides an incentive to comply with the rules by modifying behaviour. Anyone who knowing intends to breach the rules assesses the risk of doing so. Risk is measured in terms of likelihood and consequences. If CRT employ the same resources as the do currently then the likelihood remains the same. But at the moment the consequences are minimal. Eventually you might be asked to move on. However with this proposal if the boater breaches the rules and is caught they understand there is a financial consequence. It's not unfair. Every boater has the freedom to decide whether or not to breach the rules knowing they may be responsible for the consequences. It is actually fairer for those boaters who do comply because they will pay less for the running of the scheme. Those that get caught pay and that is the incentive to comply.

Err? So your key difference is that your sanction would be significant whereas the currently the 'consequences are minimal. Eventually you might be asked to move on.' It seems you've missed the entire point of all the angst and debating that's been going on for the last few months. The current sanction is not that you might be asked to move on it's that you might lose your license, leading to losing your home! That's not minimal. It's also why this issue has divided the boating community. There are numerous other threads on here you can look at as evidence of this. A good start would be the 10 year meeting thread. Your suggestion simply further confuses an already very difficult situation.

 

I have nothing further to say on this because there's no possible way it could ever be implemented.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Dave_P

[Paul C]

There are CMers in the north west area, for example at Christleton, Middlewich (just above Wardle Lock), Nantwich; however because there are only a few, the "problem" is mild or non-existant compared with other areas of the country.

[DeanS]

A far more proactive approach than simply coming on here to moan.

 

I am not moaning. The legal representative for CRT specifically responded to enquiries on the matter, that if you are a boat with a home mooring, that if you do not travel a certain distance from your marina mooring without returning to your mooring, your licence may be limited, stopped, etc. Do you not understand that this is not something said by some arbitrary enforcement officer, but said by CRTs legal division?

[Detling]

The idea of charging CC license at a higher rate has some merit alternatively giving a discount if you can show a receipt for mooring/marina. But to allow for London mooring rates the difference would need to be in the region of £9000 for a 50 foot boat. Most people react better to the carrot than the stick,

Until the risk and costs of being caught overstaying are more than behaving and moving as required or paying for a mooring then people will overstay,

 

When I was working in central London you had to balance the huge car park charges (£15 per day) against the then £30 penalty charge. If you were only ticketed one day in three it was cheaper not to pay. One guy I knew never paid for parking and parked in obscure spots, got a ticket maybe one day in ten, but did get towed away once or twice, he still said it was cheaper that buying a parking ticket every day.

 

So unless the penalty is great enough, and the certainty of being caught is high enough, this problem will continue.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

I am not moaning. The legal representative for CRT specifically responded to enquiries on the matter, that if you are a boat with a home mooring, that if you do not travel a certain distance from your marina mooring without returning to your mooring, your licence may be limited, stopped, etc. Do you not understand that this is not something said by some arbitrary enforcement officer, but said by CRTs legal division?

 

The words to which you are referring :

 

What it means to “cruise” on the waterway when away from a home mooring was explained by our General Counsel, Jackie Lewis, in an e-mail to Mike Rodd dated 23^rd February 2015. The following is what she said: “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".”

[Dave_P]

 

I am not moaning. The legal representative for CRT specifically responded to enquiries on the matter, that if you are a boat with a home mooring, that if you do not travel a certain distance from your marina mooring without returning to your mooring, your licence may be limited, stopped, etc. Do you not understand that this is not something said by some arbitrary enforcement officer, but said by CRTs legal division?

I understand very well and I'm horrified that CRT are even saying this. However, they simply do not have the authority to refuse to license a boat on that basis. CRT must know this which is why they use the word 'may' rather than 'will'. It's truly despicable scare tactics and it seems to be working.

[Arthur Marshall]

I understand very well and I'm horrified that CRT are even saying this. However, they simply do not have the authority to refuse to license a boat on that basis. CRT must know this which is why they use the word 'may' rather than 'will'. It's truly despicable scare tactics and it seems to be working.

The point is surely a simple one. If you've got a home mooring, when you leave it you are presumed to be out on a cruise, rather then just finding the nearest nice spot and staying there or a year or two - eg me leaving my online mooring (paid at about £500 a year) and then going and mooring up in London for the rest of my life. That's what CRT are trying to stop, and you can't really blame them. Whether they can legally do it is currently anyone's guess, although I have a strong suspicion that if they get a reasonable case, the court will agree with them whatever the Act says.

[Dave_P]

I know it's been posted on here many times but, for old time's sake, here's the relevant part of the act:

 

Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless—

(a)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;

(b)an insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence that it exists and is in force, has been produced to the Board; and

©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.

 

section (a) means it must have a BSS.

section means it must have insurance.

section © means it must either follow cc'ing guidelines or have a mooring.

 

That's it. If you meet those criteria, they are legally obliged to license you. If they refuse then you can enforce against them. The only proviso with the mooring is that it must be real, not a paper mooring. The wording of © (i) is very specific in that it uses the words can and may, rather than shall or will. In legal terms this means that you don't ever have to go onto your mooring. This is been confirmed in judge's comments following a case.

 

CRT may wish it were otherwise but it isn't.

The point is surely a simple one. If you've got a home mooring, when you leave it you are presumed to be out on a cruise, rather then just finding the nearest nice spot and staying there or a year or two - eg me leaving my online mooring (paid at about £500 a year) and then going and mooring up in London for the rest of my life. That's what CRT are trying to stop, and you can't really blame them. Whether they can legally do it is currently anyone's guess, although I have a strong suspicion that if they get a reasonable case, the court will agree with them whatever the Act says.

Can you point me towards any case in legal history, anything, not just boating, where a court has specifically acted contrary to an act of parliament?

[Alan de Enfield]

 

The only proviso with the mooring is that it must be real, not a paper mooring. The wording of © (i) is very specific in that it uses the words can and may, rather than shall or will. In legal terms this means that you don't ever have to go onto your mooring. This is been confirmed in judge's comments following a case.

 

CRT may wish it were otherwise but it isn't.

 

 

 

Would it be 'these' words to which you are alluding ?

 

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

[Dave_P]

 

 

Would it be 'these' words to which you are alluding ?

 

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

No. The words can and may are both used in section 17 of the act. I was simply referring to that.

 

 

p.s. where did you copy&paste that from?

Edited May 1, 2015 by Dave_P

[mayalld]

(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

 

That's it. If you meet those criteria, they are legally obliged to license you. If they refuse then you can enforce against them. The only proviso with the mooring is that it must be real, not a paper mooring. The wording of © (i) is very specific in that it uses the words can and may, rather than shall or will. In legal terms this means that you don't ever have to go onto your mooring. This is been confirmed in judge's comments following a case.

 

 

Comments that were incidental, and therefore not a precedent.

 

Such comments represent a superficial view of that area of the law and serve more to indicate what counsel will need to argue about next time that considered opinion.

 

Your simplification to "The only proviso with the mooring is that it must be real, not a paper mooring" is an oversimplification.

 

There are 3 criteria;

• where the vessel can reasonably be kept
• and may lawfully be left
• will be available

The fact that you have a mooring agreement satisfies only the second point. Evidence that the same mooring is not let to 18 boats satisfies the last.

 

But what of the first point?

 

If I leave my mooring on the Macc, and travel to London, then start a pattern of movement in a very limited area that keeps me in range of my new job, then notwithstanding that I have a mooring available where the boat may lawfully be left, that mooring is not a place where the vessel can reasonably be kept, because it is self-evident that I can never actually get there,

[Alan de Enfield]

 

where did you copy&paste that from?

 

The Judges comments in the Myers case. (useful information ?)

[Dave_P]

 

Comments that were incidental, and therefore not a precedent.

 

Such comments represent a superficial view of that area of the law and serve more to indicate what counsel will need to argue about next time that considered opinion.

 

Your simplification to "The only proviso with the mooring is that it must be real, not a paper mooring" is an oversimplification.

 

There are 3 criteria;

• where the vessel can reasonably be kept
• and may lawfully be left
• will be available

The fact that you have a mooring agreement satisfies only the second point. Evidence that the same mooring is not let to 18 boats satisfies the last.

 

But what of the first point?

 

If I leave my mooring on the Macc, and travel to London, then start a pattern of movement in a very limited area that keeps me in range of my new job, then notwithstanding that I have a mooring available where the boat may lawfully be left, that mooring is not a place where the vessel can reasonably be kept, because it is self-evident that I can never actually get there,

I was trying to simplify things as far as possible to try and help those who keep banging on and on about the terms and conditions. I was also hoping to reassure Dean a bit. I don't believe the first point has ever been tested in court but I am sure that Dean's cruising pattern easily falls within the expectations of this point.

 

Of course they weren't a precedent. But, as you well know, we don't have a applicable case which has gone to a court of precedent. So we have to do the best we can with the information we have. The terms 'shall' and 'may' are well used in many acts of parliament, including those I work with on a daily basis. They are used because they are unambiguous. They denote the existence of choice, or the lack of it.

 

The Judges comments in the Myers case. (useful information ?)

Since it's a little fuzzy in my head, can you confirm that the judge's comments in the Meyers case were made before the new T&Cs for home moorers was released?

Edited May 1, 2015 by Dave_P

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

Since it's a little fuzzy in my head, can you confirm that the judge's comments in the Meyers case were made before the new T&Cs for home moorers was released?

 

Yes

[mayalld]

I was trying to simplify things as far as possible to try and help those who keep banging on and on about the terms and conditions. I was also hoping to reassure Dean a bit. I don't believe the first point has ever been tested in court but I am sure that Dean's cruising pattern easily falls within the expectations of this point.

 

You actually simplified them more than is possible.

[Paul C]

What it says in black and white in law isn't the issue - or more accurately, isn't the immediate issue of concern to a boater who finds himself in the position of having their licence not renewed. Whilst its easy to say "illegal!!!" to require CRT to issue the licence would require a judicial review to be brought against them, the costs of which are approx £1000 as a starting point.

 

NABO have challenged it with a well thought out and well presented argument, and all they got in response was a reiteration that CRT are sticking to their new T&Cs, even though they are some distance away from the law. So I guess the possibility to negotiate/reason with/persuade CRT is over, and it now WILL need court action to change their minds on this one.

[onionbargee]

Nope, can't say CM'ers have really affected my enjoyment of boating over the years. The ones that destroy the towpath, light bonfires and dump rubbish, and CRT takes no action pisses me off, but its not my land. Not my problem.

 

You are totally flogging a dead horse if you think strictly enforcing boats to move every 14 days is going to achieve anything. CCers want to be left alone, to wander about at their leisure, not chased from place under threats. In return they live by the towpath with no security or any on site services.

 

The boat you complain about overstaying will just move to another visitor mooring, and you still won't be happy, so how often they move is irrelevant. I'm afraid a utopia of all boats being shiny and polished, the crews smartly dressed, and members of the IWA, and moving around to train like schedule is never going to happen.

[Dave_P]

 

You actually simplified them more than is possible.

I know. I've found that explaining them properly seems to get nowhere with many people and they simply go back to the same old tired arguments. Oftentimes those arguments are simply based on personal prejudice, a complete lack of understanding of how the law works and a desire for the law to say what they wish it would, rather than what it actually does.

 

Unfortunately, CRT are one of the worst offenders when it comes to this; both at an individual level and at a corporate level.

[mayalld]

Nope, can't say CM'ers have really affected my enjoyment of boating over the years. The ones that destroy the towpath, light bonfires and dump rubbish, and CRT takes no action pisses me off, but its not my land. Not my problem.

 

You are totally flogging a dead horse if you think strictly enforcing boats to move every 14 days is going to achieve anything. CCers want to be left alone, to wander about at their leisure, not chased from place under threats. In return they live by the towpath with no security or any on site services.

 

The boat you complain about overstaying will just move to another visitor mooring, and you still won't be happy, so how often they move is irrelevant. I'm afraid a utopia of all boats being shiny and polished, the crews smartly dressed, and members of the IWA, and moving around to train like schedule is never going to happen.

 

You assume that if you have a bunch of people who said they would move but don't actually move, and you tell them "this won't do", they will all start to move.

 

That won't happen.

 

Some of them have neither the will nor the capacity to actually comply, and will need to take home moorings.

[Dave_P]

What it says in black and white in law isn't the issue - or more accurately, isn't the immediate issue of concern to a boater who finds himself in the position of having their licence not renewed. Whilst its easy to say "illegal!!!" to require CRT to issue the licence would require a judicial review to be brought against them, the costs of which are approx £1000 as a starting point.

 

NABO have challenged it with a well thought out and well presented argument, and all they got in response was a reiteration that CRT are sticking to their new T&Cs, even though they are some distance away from the law. So I guess the possibility to negotiate/reason with/persuade CRT is over, and it now WILL need court action to change their minds on this one.

Are you aware of any moorer losing their license over this? If you are and they want to fight it, I would be very happy to donate to the cause, as I suspect would many others.

[Dave Clinton]

 

 

 

If I leave my mooring on the Macc, and travel to London, then start a pattern of movement in a very limited area that keeps me in range of my new job, then notwithstanding that I have a mooring available where the boat may lawfully be left, that mooring is not a place where the vessel can reasonably be kept, because it is self-evident that I can never actually get there,

 

Self-evident? Does water only flow downhill to London?

 

If you made the journey in the first place what is to stop you going back?

 

What is it, a two week trip? Seems reasonable enough to me?

 

You are making it up as you go along

[Paul C]

Are you aware of any moorer losing their license over this? If you are and they want to fight it, I would be very happy to donate to the cause, as I suspect would many others.

I know a number of boaters whose cruising pattern is not within the somewhat strict model that CRT suggest and might well have to either modify their cruising/mooring or risk breaking the T &Cs.

 

Since this is a very new change, nobody has - yet - lost their licence. If/when a development occurs, I dare say it will be well publicised since it will be (excepting the TD case which listed about 7 transgressions and was before the new rules) first case of its kind. NABO may well take the lead on the first one anyway I think.

[Dave Clinton]

What it says in black and white in law isn't the issue - or more accurately, isn't the immediate issue of concern to a boater who finds himself in the position of having their licence not renewed. Whilst its easy to say "illegal!!!" to require CRT to issue the licence would require a judicial review to be brought against them, the costs of which are approx £1000 as a starting point.

 

NABO have challenged it with a well thought out and well presented argument, and all they got in response was a reiteration that CRT are sticking to their new T&Cs, even though they are some distance away from the law. So I guess the possibility to negotiate/reason with/persuade CRT is over, and it now WILL need court action to change their minds on this one.

 

I think we live in very interesting times.

 

As someone unaffected by the new CRT regime it is fascinating to watch what happens when an unaccountable public body steps out of the law.

 

Until 2020 (is it?) when the government could take it back into public ownership and thus a clear channel of accountability it looks very much to me like a rogue corporation.

[DeanS]

My apologies for "going on" about the T&Cs.

 

I find myself probably one of a very small handful of boaters who will struggle to adhere to them unless I cruise back up the Rochdale 9 locks once a week (or whatever CRT expect). The new T&Cs say I can't stay in the area, unless I return to my mooring. I'm not fit enough to return to my mooring each week. I think it's known as a catch 22 situation. Anyway, I will try not to beat my drum on the issue again. ;-)