C&RT U-Turn On New T&Cs

[Dave_P]

Still cant see the problem boats are for sailing not mooring up. When we go out we cruise might change when I retire but still think I will move every few days

 

Peter

How lovely for you that you're unaffected. I'm unaffected too, but I choose to show some consideration for those in a different situation to me.

[cotswoldsman]

How lovely for you that you're unaffected. I'm unaffected too, but I choose to show some consideration for those in a different situation to me.

Yes I agree to much me, me, me about

[alan_fincher]

Still cant see the problem boats are for sailing not mooring up. When we go out we cruise might change when I retire but still think I will move every few days

 

Peter

 

 

How lovely for you that you're unaffected. I'm unaffected too, but I choose to show some consideration for those in a different situation to me.

 

^^^^^ Yes, exactly this.

 

I thought precisely the same, but am getting to the point where I can no longer be bothered to keep repeating it.

 

Lets not worry about whether CRT might be going beyond any legal powers they have, as long as it doesn't currently affect us personally.

[magictime]

 

And - whilst not binding a Judge said as much in his comments during the Mayers case.

 

...

 

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.

 

What the judge is doing here, surely, is drawing attention to the apparent perverse consequences of the way the act and the guidelines are worded. Plainly the mere availability of a "totally unused" home mooring somewhere doesn't make it any more or less of a problem if a boat is being shuffled between two popular mooring spots (or whatever); but the wording of the act and the guidelines appears, perversely, to give boaters with a home mooring a "right to take the piss" not enjoyed by those without.

 

Legally speaking, I'm not sure what the answer is. I'm guessing the CRT would argue that their new guidelines are based on their interpretation of the legislation, and that anyone who favours an alternative interpretation (with the perverse consequences mentioned) should see them in court. It would then (I guess?) be for a judge to decide whether there actually was any room for differing interpretations of the legislation, and if so, which interpretation should stand. I'd like to think there'd be some legal means by which sanity could prevail short of bringing forward new legislation.

[Paul C]

 

What the judge is doing here, surely, is drawing attention to the apparent perverse consequences of the way the act and the guidelines are worded. Plainly the mere availability of a "totally unused" home mooring somewhere doesn't make it any more or less of a problem if a boat is being shuffled between two popular mooring spots (or whatever); but the wording of the act and the guidelines appears, perversely, to give boaters with a home mooring a "right to take the piss" not enjoyed by those without.

 

Legally speaking, I'm not sure what the answer is. I'm guessing the CRT would argue that their new guidelines are based on their interpretation of the legislation, and that anyone who favours an alternative interpretation (with the perverse consequences mentioned) should see them in court. It would then (I guess?) be for a judge to decide whether there actually was any room for differing interpretations of the legislation, and if so, which interpretation should stand. I'd like to think there'd be some legal means by which sanity could prevail short of bringing forward new legislation.

 

As I see it, its a legal loophole. No amount of T&C writing can overturn the law. I suspect there will be a case brought to court sooner rather than later (within the year) upon this very issue.

[jenlyn]

 

I suspect there will be a case brought to court sooner rather than later (within the year) upon this very issue.

Na, I think Mike's just blustering.

[Arthur Marshall]

Info request due to confusion, probably because I've been inhaling cement dust for three days... if I leave my home mooring, and follow the general rule of not staying anywhere more than 14 days, how can I be doing anything but cruising? What kind of pattern of movement would get me introuble with CRT in people's opinion?

[jenlyn]

Info request due to confusion, probably because I've been inhaling cement dust for three days... if I leave my home mooring, and follow the general rule of not staying anywhere more than 14 days, how can I be doing anything but cruising? What kind of pattern of movement would get me introuble with CRT in people's opinion?

That's the problem Arthur. No one knows, apart from CRT, and they ain't telling.

They prefer to leave you under "the threat of".

[Timleech]

Info request due to confusion, probably because I've been inhaling cement dust for three days... if I leave my home mooring, and follow the general rule of not staying anywhere more than 14 days, how can I be doing anything but cruising? What kind of pattern of movement would get me introuble with CRT in people's opinion?

 

It looks as though who they are after is people who shuffle back and forth when away from their home mooring for long periods. It's quite possible that we'll be picked up on their radar this summer as we'll hopefully be travelling to and from various dead ends in Yorkshire while our mooring is in Cheshire, but I'll be surprised and seriously disappointed if they try to make anything of it.

 

Tim

[Arthur Marshall]

That's the problem Arthur. No one knows, apart from CRT, and they ain't telling.

They prefer to leave you under "the threat of".

Anybody asked them? I think I might, especially as my boating pattern is about as legit as you can get under any interpretation, so there's no chance of me being radared...

[magictime]

Info request due to confusion, probably because I've been inhaling cement dust for three days... if I leave my home mooring, and follow the general rule of not staying anywhere more than 14 days, how can I be doing anything but cruising?

 

You could be shuffling backwards and forwards between two mooring spots two miles apart, or "bridge-hopping" your way along a ten-mile stretch of canal and back over the course of a year. Any claim to be "cruising" year-round would then look pretty questionable, to say the least.

[cuthound]

Yes I agree to much me, me, me about

Absolutely agree, it is those selfish people that have continuously tried to circumnavigate the rules that have brought about the need for CRT to bring in these new T&C's.

[cotswoldsman]

Absolutely agree, it is those selfish people that have continuously tried to circumnavigate the rules that have brought about the need for CRT to bring in these new T&C's.

Yes I have always said it is those with a home mooring that have caused the problems

[bassplayer]

Absolutely agree, it is those selfish people that have continuously tried to circumnavigate the rules that have brought about the need for CRT to bring in these new T&C's.

Not to mention the selfish people who expect to have the waterways to themselves and clense out the riff raff...

[jenlyn]

Absolutely agree, it is those selfish people that have continuously tried to circumnavigate the rules that have brought about the need for CRT to bring in these new T&C's.

I'm not so sure. When you look at all the parliamentary stuff being bandied about during the writing of the 95 act, BW did seem to have a beef with people living on boats without a home mooring.

I think over the years, this beef has been carried through, and although BW were quite lazy with enforcement for a couple of years, they still tend to believe living in a boat without a home mooring, "should be" against the law.

At the very best, I would say it's all a bit muddled, and has seen a small problem being used and abused, to solve a "perceived" bigger one.

[MisterDave]

Absolutely agree, it is those selfish people that have continuously tried to circumnavigate the rules that have brought about the need for CRT to bring in these new T&C's.

 

I'm more worried about CRT's own circumnavigation of the rules governing them. If CRT themselves are acting outside the law surely this will provide encouragement for others to do likewise. I know of 2 boats which have always been fully compliant but will soon be unlicensed because their owners refuse to sign their name on CRT's unlawful power grab.

 

One thing nobody has commented on here, if you don't buy a license then you haven't consented to the new T&C, which makes them somewhat toothless against many of the people they were aimed at.

[alan_fincher]

Absolutely agree, it is those selfish people that have continuously tried to circumnavigate the rules that have brought about the need for CRT to bring in these new T&C's.

 

And your evidence for that is?

 

Yes I have always said it is those with a home mooring that have caused the problems

 

If so, I think you are over simplifying.

 

When processing a large batch the detailed replies to the SEVM proposals, I was fairly horrified to see some of the bile heaped out against some without home moorings, from people who are themselves very prominent CC-ers also not having a home mooring. (Including people who are highly respected in many circles, carry a lot of influence, and serve on various CRT groups ).

 

In my view it is about attitude, and whether you think you have some god given right right to consider yourself better than others, and hence dictate how they should behave, or be controlled if you don't consider they are. There are plenty of CC-ers with poisonous attitudes to other CC-ers.

 

To bring this down to "it is those with a home mooring that have caused the problems" simply can't be justified - although I hope you actually meant "it is some of those with a home mooring that have caused the problems", rather than tarring us all with the same brush?

 

Also, as you are well aware, there are plenty of people, some of whom you have worked with, who regularly "switch status", between having spells without a home mooring and having one, (plenty of ACC members past and present in that category). Are these people "causing a problem" when they do have a home mooring, but not when they do not?

Edited May 6, 2015 by alan_fincher

[cotswoldsman]

 

And your evidence for that is?

 

 

If so, I think you are over simplifying.

 

When processing a large batch the detailed replies to the SEVM proposals, I was fairly horrified to see some of the bile heaped out against some without home moorings, from people who are themselves very prominent CC-ers also not having a home mooring. (Including people who are highly respected in many circles, carry a lot of influence, and serve on various CRT groups ).

 

In my view it is about attitude, and whether you think you have some god given right right to consider yourself better than others, and hence dictate how they should behave, or be controlled if you don't consider they are. There are plenty of CC-ers with poisonous attitudes to other CC-ers.

 

To bring this down to "it is those with a home mooring that have caused the problems" simply can't be justified - although I hope you actually meant "it is some of those with a home mooring that have caused the problems", rather than tarring us all with the same brush?

 

Also, as you are well aware, there are plenty of people, some of whom you have worked with, who regularly "switch status", between having spells without a home mooring and having one, (plenty of ACC members past and present in that category). Are these people "causing a problem" when they do have a home mooring, but not when they do not?

That is a nice long reply to a tongue in cheek post by me

[NigelMoore]

 

One thing nobody has commented on here, if you don't buy a license then you haven't consented to the new T&C, which makes them somewhat toothless against many of the people they were aimed at.

 

If you don’t buy a licence you are in breach of the relevant Byelaw. That gives CaRT the legal teeth they would not have with the licence in place.

 

If you buy a licence, you are NOT legally consenting to those of the T&C’s as are outwith relevant legislation anyway.

[alan_fincher]

That is a nice long reply to a tongue in cheek post by me

 

Maybe, but I don't think it hurts that people who fuel the CC-er vs non CC-er argument get to hear that some CC-ers are just as virulently anti "Pikey boats" as many who have home moorings. It's about attitudes, not which box you happen to tick when applying for a licence, and nasty unpleasant attitudes are still nasty unpleasant attitudes irrespective of who is expressing them.

 

(My reference to "Pikey boats", please understand, should be taken as equally "tongue in cheek" as your post, before anybody gets upset!)

[Phil.]

I'm more worried about CRT's own circumnavigation of the rules governing them. If CRT themselves are acting outside the law surely this will provide encouragement for others to do likewise. I know of 2 boats which have always been fully compliant but will soon be unlicensed because their owners refuse to sign their name on CRT's unlawful power grab.

 

One thing nobody has commented on here, if you don't buy a license then you haven't consented to the new T&C, which makes them somewhat toothless against many of the people they were aimed at.

I think this would be a mistake. Don't buy a licence and you are then placing yourself outside the law and therefore allowing action to be taken against you. Do buy a licence and it will be CRT acting outside the law if they try to enforce terms and conditions that the legislation does not support.

[Arthur Marshall]

Yes I have always said it is those with a home mooring that have caused the problems

The whole problem could be sorted by banning pumpout toilets.

[cotswoldsman]

The whole problem could be sorted by banning pumpout toilets.

[MisterDave]

Don't buy a licence and you are then placing yourself outside the law and therefore allowing action to be taken against you. Do buy a licence and it will be CRT acting outside the law if they try to enforce terms and conditions that the legislation does not support.

 

Do buy a license and you have entered into a legally binding contractual agreement with CRT that you will abide by everything in their T&C. They could bring action for breach of contract if you fail to abide by the terms and conditions which legislation does not support. Something does not need to be "supported" by legislation to be an enforceable part of a contract, it only needs to not be voidable. (Now all we need is some lawyer to turn up and explain how the contract is voidable, then I'll shut up)

 

I think maybe I wasn't as clear as I could have been, my bad, allow me to try again. The people in question will not be re-licensing their boats. Neither person is the sort to calmly deliberately break rules. They are removing their boats from the network due to their inability to agree with the new T&C, withdrawing their custom and their money, not joining the scofflaw club.

[Paul C]

 

Do buy a license and you have entered into a legally binding contractual agreement with CRT that you will abide by everything in their T&C. They could bring action for breach of contract if you fail to abide by the terms and conditions which legislation does not support. Something does not need to be "supported" by legislation to be an enforceable part of a contract, it only needs to not be voidable. (Now all we need is some lawyer to turn up and explain how the contract is voidable, then I'll shut up)

 

 

 

It needs to be "reasonable" too, in that unreasonable terms in a contract are not enforceable.