Boater Sues C&RT for Section 8

[Paul C]

 

You are suggesting then that you support C&RTs breaking of the law.

 

Hang on its not been determined in court yet.

[NigelMoore]

Crowd funding something that suggests mooring to a side of a waterway allows you to escape contributing to the upkeep of a waterway seems so wrong, a way of destroying the waterways.

 

 

Did the Thames Conservancy Act 1966 contribute to the destruction of the Thames?

 

Boats under that Act could be moored even in the middle of the navigation and not require registration, supposing only that they never ‘used’ the river to go navigating.

 

That was the Act on which the BW Act 1971 was modelled, with the added bit that demanded registration even if never ‘used’.

 

Only a minority of boats moored to the banks will choose to be unregistered if they want the freedom to go cruising once in awhile throughout the year; if they do not intend to do so, they are not utilising costly resources.

 

The case is challenging abuse of power by the authority on a number of levels. If successful, it should result.in a fairer system of enforcement, aimed at rigorous action in the Magistrate's Courts over all breaches of licensing/registration requirements, where-ever that can be be established. The current practice results only in significant financial losses; deleterious public imagery, and completely fails to ensure the boats under action conform to the law..

 

[Tony Dunkley]

............. ................ ................ ..............

 

Anyone who is able to set up the suggested crowd funding for Leigh to afford professional representation [whether permission for me is granted or not] – please come forward and get it going. I remain willing to contribute my time and expertise as before, by way of assisting/instructing any willing barrister keen to add such a major case to their CV.

 

Would it be worthwhile asking 'debbifiggy' to make an approach to Parry and suggest that C&RT themselves should offer to underwrite the cost of instructing and retaining CLP and Miss Easty to act for Leigh ?

[NigelMoore]

 

Would it be worthwhile asking 'debbifiggy' to make an approach to Parry and suggest that C&RT themselves should offer to underwrite the cost of instructing and retaining CLP and Miss Easty to act for Leigh ?

 

Please Tony - not even in jest!!!!

 

On past performance, they would lap up that idea!!

[Hawkmoth]

Crowd funding something that suggests mooring to a side of a waterway allows you to escape contributing to the upkeep of a waterway seems so wrong, a way of destroying the waterways.

I may be wrong but aren't we talking here about rivers? If canals are included in the "free to moor" scenario then I don't agree that should happen.

However, if, as has been stated many times, CRT is breaking the law, or trying to set up its own laws to suit its own vision of the world, then that is plain wrong.

Bob

[Tony Dunkley]

I may be wrong but aren't we talking here about rivers? If canals are included in the "free to moor" scenario then I don't agree that should happen.

However, if, as has been stated many times, CRT is breaking the law, or trying to set up its own laws to suit its own vision of the world, then that is plain wrong.

Bob

 

You're not wrong, Bob, this is about rivers, specifically the PRN rivers listed in Schedule 1 of the 1971 British Waterways Act, and in this particular instance, about a boat moored out of the MNC on privately owned land, over which C&RT have publicly acknowledged they have no control or right to demand charges/mooring fees.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Alan de Enfield]

I may be wrong but aren't we talking here about rivers? If canals are included in the "free to moor" scenario then I don't agree that should happen.

However, if, as has been stated many times, CRT is breaking the law, or trying to set up its own laws to suit its own vision of the world, then that is plain wrong.

Bob

 

Careful - you will have 'Paul C' on your back. (post #551)

 

Apparently they are not breaking the law until the court tells them they are.

[OldGoat]

NigelMoore, on 02 Sept 2016 - 8:17 PM, said:

 

 

Did the Thames Conservancy Act 1966 contribute to the destruction of the Thames?

 

Boats under that Act could be moored even in the middle of the navigation and not require registration, supposing only that they never ‘used’ the river to go navigating.

 

That was the Act on which the BW Act 1971 was modelled, with the added bit that demanded registration even if never ‘used’.

 

Only a minority of boats moored to the banks will choose to be unregistered if they want the freedom to go cruising once in awhile throughout the year; if they do not intend to do so, they are not utilising costly resources.

 

The case is challenging abuse of power by the authority on a number of levels. If successful, it should result.in a fairer system of enforcement, aimed at rigorous action in the Magistrate's Courts over all breaches of licensing/registration requirements, where-ever that can be be established. The current practice results only in significant financial losses; deleterious public imagery, and completely fails to ensure the boats under action conform to the law..

 

Eh?

 

Without digging out the TCAs and the TWA to clarify, my understanding is that the Thames registration is required when a boat is kept on the Upper Thames (and other 'parts' now being contested) and that includes the banksides. The concept of the main navigation channel doesn't apply.

If the Thames has been destroyed - the only evidence I can see is that so few of the registered boats actually venture out and actually cruise.

But (grammar) that's a different issue....

[Tony Dunkley]

Crowd funding something that suggests mooring to a side of a waterway allows you to escape contributing to the upkeep of a waterway seems so wrong, a way of destroying the waterways.

 

Would the four Forum members who have demonstrated their support for C&RT's criminal activities by voting approval for the above post care to explain why ?

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Would the four Forum members who have demonstrated their support for C&RT's criminal activities by voting approval for the above post care to explain why ?

 

I don't think he, or the 'greeny providers' actually understand the case and the background to it.

 

Maybe they are getting confused with CMers on a 'muddy ditch'

[Tony Dunkley]

 

I don't think he, or the 'greeny providers' actually understand the case and the background to it.

 

Maybe they are getting confused with CMers on a 'muddy ditch'

 

Or, maybe Parry has got more than one Forum snooper at work !

 

Could Parry and his Head of Boat Thieving be among them ?

Edited September 3, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[nicknorman]

I think a few of us are a bit torn on this one, including me (though I didn't vote up that post). I think many of us feel that everyone should contribute to the cost of upkeep of the inland waterways - no freeloaders please! In your case it seems you kept your boat out of the MNC and thus it wasn't really "using" the facilities as a navigation. According to your version of the law this is perfectly legal (yet to be proven in court) however it does create a problem for CRT in that if loads of people did the same, it would be very difficult to police licensing - it would be very easy for someone to claim they were permanently bankside whilst in fact sneaking out for a cruise whenever they felt like it, knowing the chances of being spotted were slim.

 

So to my mind the primary problem lies in the inadequacies of the legislation. But of course if you and other win, it could in fact be the precipitator of new and more draconian legislation that would not be in the interests of the majority. Who knows?

 

Set against that is of course the strong dislike of CRT making up the law to suit their agenda, applying bullying tactics and ultimately therefore acting unlawfully (yet to be proven in court of course).

 

As I said, I'm torn on this issue. But it nevertheless is very interesting to follow, and looking forward to the court cases.

[NigelMoore]

Eh?

 

Without digging out the TCAs and the TWA to clarify, my understanding is that the Thames registration is required when a boat is kept on the Upper Thames (and other 'parts' now being contested) and that includes the banksides. The concept of the main navigation channel doesn't apply.

 

You are confusing the Thames Conservancy Acts with the recent Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order of 2010. The requirement for boats merely “kept” within the applicable registration area to be registered, dates only from the 6th April that year..

 

You are correct though, that the concept of "main navigable channel" does not enter the picture within the Thames legislation; the registration area covers the whole of the Thames within the meaning of section 4 of the Thames Conservancy Act 1932(3). It is just such differences that demonstrate the deliberateness of defining the BW river waterways as confined in the way the 1971 Act does.

[Cheshire cat]

I feel the same way as Nick.

 

As far as data logging goes, we met one on the T&M at Wood End lock last weekend. She said she was one of ten across the system. Some do it every day but others only when they've got time.

[NigelMoore]

. . . it does create a problem for CRT in that if loads of people did the same, it would be very difficult to police licensing - it would be very easy for someone to claim they were permanently bankside whilst in fact sneaking out for a cruise whenever they felt like it, knowing the chances of being spotted were slim.

 

That is one of CaRT’s arguments, and it cannot be denied that such sneaking freebies could occur – but that is no different to the ability to slip a boat in and out in a day, or with portable craft to drop in and pull out for a quick day trip; even, of course, for boats in older marinas and in other adjacent non-controlled waters to do the same. They would, of course, be subject to the criminal penalties if caught.

 

But the 1971 Act is also less subject to abuse than the Thames Conservancy Acts, wherein [prior to the 2010 Order], boats merely kept on the river – even mid-stream on trot or chain moorings – were free from the registration requirement. There, it would have been easier still to take unnoticed trips – and yet that concern was a very minor factor in the EA’s petition for the Statutory Instrument amending the old Acts.

 

One cannot validly argue that difficulty of enforcement of poorly drafted legislation justifies radical re-interpretation; the Thames situation gave rise to the new Order only after centuries of efficient management, with no more crowding or cheating, I suspect, than was evident in Edwardian times. If this argument could work for CaRT, then it could have worked for the EA even more so – and yet, naturally, it could not, hence going to Parliament for the amendments.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

I feel the same way as Nick.

 

As far as data logging goes, we met one on the T&M at Wood End lock last weekend. She said she was one of ten across the system. Some do it every day but others only when they've got time.

 

C&RT say that every inch of waterways in their jurisdiction is 'logged' as a maximum every 2-weeks.

I would have thought there are many more than 10 'loggers' across the 2000 miles if C&RTs IW's

[Tony Dunkley]

I think a few of us are a bit torn on this one, including me (though I didn't vote up that post). I think many of us feel that everyone should contribute to the cost of upkeep of the inland waterways - no freeloaders please! In your case it seems you kept your boat out of the MNC and thus it wasn't really "using" the facilities as a navigation. According to your version of the law this is perfectly legal (yet to be proven in court) however it does create a problem for CRT in that if loads of people did the same, it would be very difficult to police licensing - it would be very easy for someone to claim they were permanently bankside whilst in fact sneaking out for a cruise whenever they felt like it, knowing the chances of being spotted were slim.

 

So to my mind the primary problem lies in the inadequacies of the legislation. But of course if you and other win, it could in fact be the precipitator of new and more draconian legislation that would not be in the interests of the majority. Who knows?

 

Set against that is of course the strong dislike of CRT making up the law to suit their agenda, applying bullying tactics and ultimately therefore acting unlawfully (yet to be proven in court of course).

 

As I said, I'm torn on this issue. But it nevertheless is very interesting to follow, and looking forward to the court cases.

 

The only aspect of the MNC argument disputed by C&RT is the extent of it. They insist that it extends across the full width

of river navigations from bank to bank. The problem they face in promoting this ridiculous claim is their own Byelaw 19, which requires pleasure craft to move out of the MNC when encountering commercial vessels.

The question of policing 'licensing' doesn't arise on any of the river navigations listed in Schedule1 of the 1971 BW Act, because the common law public right of navigation removes the obligation to licence a boat, and the absence of that obligation is recognized in statute.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'inadequacies of the legislation'. Which particular piece of legislation did you have in mind ?

Edited September 3, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[MtB]

The CRT volunteer 'warden' I know tells me he does data logging too. And my guess is there are hundreds of volunteer 'wardens' out there. (Now called 'rangers' I believe.)

[Phil.]

The question of policing 'licensing' doesn't arise on any of the river navigations listed in Schedule1 of the 1971 BW Act, because the common law public right of navigation removes the obligation to licence a boat, and the absence of that obligation is recognized in statute.

This section sounds a little flaky. Are you saying that you are relying on common law rights or statutory rights not to require a licence in your circumstances, as the latter in most cases takes precedence over the former.

[RichardN]

 

You're not wrong, Bob, this is about rivers, specifically the PRN rivers listed in Schedule 1 of the 1971 British Waterways Act, and in this particular instance, about a boat moored out of the MNC on privately owned land, over which C&RT have publicly acknowledged they have no control or right to demand charges/mooring fees.

I have no idea where you want to take this but I note you guys have also mentioned main navigable channel on canals in the past. That said "rivers" alone is bad enough, eg think of the Lee

 

I don't think he, or the 'greeny providers' actually understand the case and the background to it.

 

Maybe they are getting confused with CMers on a 'muddy ditch'

I think my one line summary covered it well enough.

[Hawkmoth]

 

You're not wrong, Bob, this is about rivers, specifically the PRN rivers listed in Schedule 1 of the 1971 British Waterways Act, and in this particular instance, about a boat moored out of the MNC on privately owned land, over which C&RT have publicly acknowledged they have no control or right to demand charges/mooring fees.

As I thought, thanks Tony.

Bob

 

Careful - you will have 'Paul C' on your back. (post #551)

 

Apparently they are not breaking the law until the court tells them they are.

[Tony Brooks]

 

One cannot validly argue that difficulty of enforcement of poorly drafted legislation justifies radical re-interpretation; the Thames situation gave rise to the new Order only after centuries of efficient management, with no more crowding or cheating, I suspect, than was evident in Edwardian times. If this argument could work for CaRT, then it could have worked for the EA even more so – and yet, naturally, it could not, hence going to Parliament for the amendments.

 

 

I find it interesting that in the Thames Conservancy days the River Inspector would patrol his section at least once a day on their patrol boats. They even went out when the river was very high, but not as I recall when in full flood. At any time they could pull a boat over and inspect it for licensing AND complaints with the Launch By-laws.

 

Gradually first the Rivers Authority and later the EA dropped this practice. One wonders if this lack of enforcement of the existing legislation caused the perceived need for the newish Order.

[nicknorman]

The only aspect of the MNC argument disputed by C&RT is the extent of it. They insist that it extends across the full width

of river navigations from bank to bank. The problem they face in promoting this ridiculous claim is their own Byelaw 19, which requires pleasure craft to move out of the MNC when encountering commercial vessels.

The question of policing 'licensing' doesn't arise on any of the river navigations listed in Schedule1 of the 1971 BW Act, because the common law public right of navigation removes the obligation to licence a boat, and the absence of that obligation is recognized in statute.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'inadequacies of the legislation'. Which particular piece of legislation did you have in mind ?

In your particular context the inadequacies I refer to are those that (may, subject to confirmation by a court) allow you to keep a boat on the Trent without contributing anything to the upkeep of the river. And also the complex interactions of the various different acts. I can't help thinking things would be a lot clearer if all the relevant preceding acts were repealed to be replaced by a single act fit for inland boating in the 21st century.

[Tony Dunkley]

This section sounds a little flaky. Are you saying that you are relying on common law rights or statutory rights not to require a licence in your circumstances, as the latter in most cases takes precedence over the former.

 

Reliance is on common law navigation rights on C&RT river navigations, which remained, unaffected, after the statutory navigation rights on the canals were extinguished under the 1968 Transport Act.

 

Section 5(1) of the 1971 BW Act recognizes the fact that a boat Licence is acceptable as a substitute form of registration in differentiating between the registration of a vessel [being kept or used within the MNC of a river navigation] by obtaining a Pleasure Boat Certificate , and the licensing of a vessel by obtaining a ". . licence issued by the Board allowing the use of all inland waterways without further payment''.

[Tony Dunkley]

In your particular context the inadequacies I refer to are those that (may, subject to confirmation by a court) allow you to keep a boat on the Trent without contributing anything to the upkeep of the river. And also the complex interactions of the various different acts. I can't help thinking things would be a lot clearer if all the relevant preceding acts were repealed to be replaced by a single act fit for inland boating in the 21st century.

 

This particular 'inadequacy' is the undisputed [even by C&RT] common law right of navigation, not requiring confirmation by any Court.

 

There is no 'upkeep' of the river to contribute to outside of the MNC.

C&RT emphatically, and correctly, deny responsibility for any dredging outside of the MNC [they refer to it as the Minimum Open Channel in navigational/maintenance documentation] or bank protection and maintenance.