CRT's new agenda ?

[Señor Chris]

 

Life is more than just money and rules. Unfortunately, the money and rules goal posts have moved after many of us made a life choice. That's just simply wrong, and what next?

 

Is it wrong? Or has a previous wrong been righted?

[bassplayer]

Is it wrong? Or has a previous wrong been righted?

I suppose we'll only find that out once a judge decides whether or not CRT's enforcement is backed by law or not.

 

Personally, I don't believe CRT should be engaged in enforcement at all. If someone is breaking the law, it's a police matter. Why should CRT's customer's money be wasted on enforcement when it would be better spent on maintaining the infrastructure? It could even be spent on creating more official paid moorings to accommodate live aboards in London (and other hot spots).

 

There is nothing constructive about this bullying other than to satisfy a few control freaks...

[Ricco1]

I struggle a bit with the recent guideline 'those covering a range of less than 15 to 20 miles in a licence period'. This was brought in after pressure from boaters. This implies, at least, that a boater covering a larger range would 'satisfy the board'. The reality is that this is not the case. Something like this:

 

CRT: You're not moving far enough

 

Boater: How far do I have to move to comply?

 

CRT: We can't tell you that, you must continuously cruise

 

Boater: OK, I'll move more often, within a larger range

 

CRT: You're not moving far enough

 

Boater: I've moved further, as you requested. Please tell me how far I have to move to comply

 

CRT: We can't tell you that, you must continuously cruise

 

Eventually; CRT: You won't comply if you cover a range of less than 15 to 20 miles in a licence period.

 

Boater: OK, I'll make sure I comply, you'll have no need to contact me again.

 

CRT: You're not moving far enough

 

I wonder how this recently published 'guideline' would be viewed in court, should a boater comply with it yet CRT refuse to issue a licence?

[mark99]

There are a few broker sites repeating the mantra of "own your own home for £x" whilst keeping quiet about how it works in reality. Perhaps when you got numerous boats a month travelling to sit in London because of the housing crisis (and it is in London a crisis - I've had someone offer to rent a room in my narrowboat when we were in London) it was time for CaRT to wake up before the canals get clogged up. Cos it will only spread to others parts if nothing is done.

 

I suspect CaRT as an organisation is putting out a message which is we expect boaters to abide by the guidelines and <their>T+C's as signed up to when the licence was issued. They are looking after the canals for all not just boaters albeit they pay the most. I would imagine that there are local authorities who will take them to task if CaRT just allowed boaters a free for all in cities/urban locations.

 

There will be flak/misunderstandings/resentment at first but eventually it will settle down with a new understanding by all that the old ways are ended.

 

What CaRT could do better is reinstate lengthsman who is able to act with field knowledge, know what's going on re mooring and also inspect/repair his bit rather than do things by cold letter/email and covert number taking. IE a face on the ground.

Edited June 15, 2015 by mark99

[frangar]

Agreed, I was in 1 spot 15 days as my flexible coupling was out waiting for replacement and I got an email on the 15th day saying I have been in the same spot for too long. Hopefully I will not get my license terminated however I do only keep within Milton keynes or surrounding areas so the boat only really travels a maximum of 30 miles per year which isn't a great deal. There are however no CRT owned marinas round here (I don't think) so the only thing they will be doing if cancelling licenses round here is effectively turning money away which doesn't make sense???

Other marinas are available you know...not just CRT ones.....and if you never leave the MK area you really need a mooring!

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[jenlyn]

 

WRONG. The problem has been created by those who cannot, or will not abide by the rules !

Wrong. In fact, most were following the rules. Rules that had been put before them over the years by CRT's own enforcement team.

Although there are a very small minority who do make the effort to abuse the system, many were told that three boroughs, three locks or three miles was enough. Now the very people that told everyone the rules, has decided to move the goal posts.

 

Not quite as simple as you would have us believe after all.

[Naughty Cal]

marina boaters are feeling the pressure as much as CC-ers. ...when you leave your marina you are treated exactly the same as a CC-er.

Speak for yourself Dean.

 

As marina boaters we have not felt any additional pressure, but then again our cruising pattern when away from our mooring would easily comply with what a CCer would be expected to achieve.

[jenlyn]

Speak for yourself Dean.

 

As marina boaters we have not felt any additional pressure, but then again our cruising pattern when away from our mooring would easily comply with what a CCer would be expected to achieve.

Not really relevant given you cruise very little of the canal system.

[kris88]

What amazes me about this situation, is the number of people happy for the navigation authority to make up unlawful terms and conditions. If crt want every boat to have a home mooring and to be able to legally charge £25 overstay fines, they should go to parliament and ask for the right.

But as has been stated, this is a over reaction to a none problem, I feel it is a way of instating the "linear theme park", get rid of a percentage of the livaboard boaters. Increase the number of hire boats, charge marina/mooring dwellers £25 a day when not on there mooring.

This might sound fanciful but we are sleep walking into this , unless we all wake up to the reality. There are a lot of people acting like ostriches. I'm alright it doesn't effect me, it's only the scruffy piss takers who deserve it anyway! This attitude has been cultivated,by certain user groups, to further there own agendas.

It's time if you care about the future of the waterways, to put the divisions aside. If you have enjoyed the freedom's and peace,that the waterways have given us all. Then in my opion you have a responsibility, to ensure that future generations have the chance to enjoy the same peace and freedoms that we have. In short we the enjoyers of the waterways have a collective responsibilty, to ensure they are protected for future generations.

Regards kris

[larkshall]

People who have a boat / live on a boat for the purpose of cruising/exploring the system. As opposed to people who have or live on a boat but don't want to cruise and explore the system, rather they want to stay in one area due to life commitments, but don't want a home mooring, perhaps for reasons of cost or because they don't like a marina or online LTM lifestyle. I would describe the latter as "people without a home mooring" but not "continuous cruisers" - the latter of course has no official meaning anyway.

I like that definition on the whole. But I don't understand this home mooring thing. When I take off, I intend to visit as much of the rivers and canals that I can. Oh I might take a winter mooring somewhere, but I would be unlikely to stop anywhere for more than 10 days. If I want to stay in a vicinity for a bit longer, I would either move upto 30 miles, or rent a berth in a marina. But I wouldn't be returning home. A Japanese friend of mine says it reminds her of not being able to own a car without a parking space.. That's not where we are going is it?

[nicknorman]

... That's not where we are going is it?

No I don't think so. Removing the "no home mooring" alleviation would require a change to the law. From the sound of it, you have nothing to worry about since you seem to be a "genuine" continuous cruiser, unlike folk who say, for example, "I have to stay around Milton Keynes". Where we are going is merely a reasonable interpretation of "Bona Fide for navigation" as might be the interpretation of the "man in the street".

 

What amazes me about this situation, is the number of people happy for the navigation authority to make up unlawful terms and conditions. If crt want every boat to have a home mooring and to be able to legally charge £25 overstay fines, they should go to parliament and ask for the right.

But as has been stated, this is a over reaction to a none problem, I feel it is a way of instating the "linear theme park", get rid of a percentage of the livaboard boaters. Increase the number of hire boats, charge marina/mooring dwellers £25 a day when not on there mooring.

This might sound fanciful but we are sleep walking into this , unless we all wake up to the reality. There are a lot of people acting like ostriches. I'm alright it doesn't effect me, it's only the scruffy piss takers who deserve it anyway! This attitude has been cultivated,by certain user groups, to further there own agendas.

It's time if you care about the future of the waterways, to put the divisions aside. If you have enjoyed the freedom's and peace,that the waterways have given us all. Then in my opion you have a responsibility, to ensure that future generations have the chance to enjoy the same peace and freedoms that we have. In short we the enjoyers of the waterways have a collective responsibilty, to ensure they are protected for future generations.

Regards kris

Peace and freedom comes with responsibility to act reasonably. In your case you agreed to use your boat bona fide for navigation, and then moored it in one spot on the towpath for 9 months whilst you carried out a major refit. The "man in the street" would not regard that as acting reasonably.

 

I do agree that CRT seem to be acting above the law in some cases, but the root cause of that is folk acting irresponsibly and disingenuously with CRT not really having adequate powers to deal with it. You only have to look at London to see what happens when there is a free-for-all, and whilst you might say "Yeabut there isn't a problem up North" and be right, unfortunately if CRT had one rule for the southeast and another for the North, there would be even more bleating of "So Unfair!"

Edited June 15, 2015 by nicknorman

[Dave Clinton]

No I don't think so. Removing the "no home mooring" alleviation would require a change to the law. From the sound of it, you have nothing to worry about since you seem to be a "genuine" continuous cruiser, unlike folk who say, for example, "I have to stay around Milton Keynes". Where we are going is merely a reasonable interpretation of "Bona Fide for navigation" as might be the interpretation of the "man in the street".

 

 

As a judge has ruled that the Mersey ferry is an example of 'bona fide' navigation, I don't give much weight to your assertion that it's impossible within a 30 mile radius of Milton Keynes.

 

Perhaps you'd like to explain the fine distinction I have missed?

[Tony Dunkley]

I don't think there is anything new about C&RT's agenda except for the latest crop of fanciful and illegal methods by which they are attempting to achieve it.

The desire to purge our waterways of everyone but Marina based IWA members goes back to the days of British Waterways.

[matty40s]

Regardless of the circular arguments about Cc'ers, Cm'ers etc, this will affect all boaters in some way if the present focus that CRT seems to be pushing on, the 48 hour extending to more and more sites, continues.

Those "real" Cc-ers will no longer be able to visit places for more than two days without being charged, same rules appying to marina based boaters.

The daft thing is, and I have said this to BW and CRT is if they had a facility to charge people in advance ( prebooking a genuine extended stay) for a few prime moorings in busy spots, they would make far more money than fining over stayers and then taking them to court to reclaim the costs.

[jenlyn]

No I don't think so. Removing the "no home mooring" alleviation would require a change to the law. From the sound of it, you have nothing to worry about since you seem to be a "genuine" continuous cruiser, unlike folk who say, for example, "I have to stay around Milton Keynes". Where we are going is merely a reasonable interpretation of "Bona Fide for navigation" as might be the interpretation of the "man in the street".

 

Peace and freedom comes with responsibility to act reasonably. In your case you agreed to use your boat bona fide for navigation, and then moored it in one spot on the towpath for 9 months whilst you carried out a major refit. The "man in the street" would not regard that as acting reasonably.

 

 

Although I can understand your need to use kriss's situation, (given your lack of being capable of getting any other evidence) I cannot see the relevance of bringing it up in this thread. Unless of course you are attempting to derail it, or perhaps just spit your usual vitriol?

I really don't see the need for this manner of posting, it does little to promote the forum to other potential users.

[nicknorman]

As a judge has ruled that the Mersey ferry is an example of 'bona fide' navigation, I don't give much weight to your assertion that it's impossible within a 30 mile radius of Milton Keynes.

Perhaps you'd like to explain the fine distinction I have missed?

If you read my posts you will see that I was considering what the "man in the street" might consider to be "bona fide for navigation" and not what a judge might so consider. There is an important difference.

 

I'm not aware of the Mersey ferry case but a ferry whose job presumably is to navigate repeatedly between two places, and is not used for anything else, is clearly being used bona fide for navigation. It is not the extent of the distance travelled that is the point, it is about what the boat is being used for. Someone who wants to live on a boat in Milton Keynes and therefore wants to move their boat as little as possible, is clearly (to the man in the street) not using it bona fide for navigation, but rather is using it bona fide for accommodation. The navigation bit comes as a grudging afterthought. By the way, I didn't mention 30 miles, you did. Operating over a 30 mile radius, ie 60 mile stretch, whilst not true CCing in my eyes, would no doubt "satisfy the board".

 

But anyway, there is no point in us arguing about it since neither yours nor my opinion matters, it is only the opinion of CRT and the courts that matter, and so far the latter mostly agrees with the former.

Edited June 15, 2015 by nicknorman

[jenlyn]

If you read my posts you will see that I was considering what the "man in the street" might consider to be "bona fide for navigation" and not what a judge might so consider. There is an important difference.

 

I'm not aware of the Mersey ferry case but a ferry whose job presumably is to navigate repeatedly between two places, and is not used for anything else, is clearly being used bona fide for navigation. It is not the extent of the distance travelled that is the point, it is about what the boat is being used for. Someone who wants to live on a boat in Milton Keynes and therefore wants to move their boat as little as possible, is clearly (to the man in the street) not using it bona fide for navigation, but rather is using it bona fide for accommodation. The navigation bit comes as a grudging afterthought. By the way, I didn't mention 30 miles, you did. Operating over a 30 mile radius, ie 60 mile stretch, whilst not true CCing in my eyes, would no doubt "satisfy the board".

 

But anyway, there is no point in us arguing about it since neither yours nor my opinion matters, it is only the opinion of CRT and the courts that matter, and so far the latter mostly agrees with the former.

"""I'm not aware of the Mersey ferry case"""

 

"""But anyway, there is no point in us arguing about it since neither yours nor my opinion matters, it is only the opinion of CRT and the courts that matter, and so far the latter mostly agrees with the former."""

???

[Tony Dunkley]

If you read my posts you will see that I was considering what the "man in the street" might consider to be "bona fide for navigation" and not what a judge might so consider. There is an important difference.

 

I'm not aware of the Mersey ferry case but a ferry whose job presumably is to navigate repeatedly between two places, and is not used for anything else, is clearly being used bona fide for navigation. It is not the extent of the distance travelled that is the point, it is about what the boat is being used for. Someone who wants to live on a boat in Milton Keynes and therefore wants to move their boat as little as possible, is clearly (to the man in the street) not using it bona fide for navigation, but rather is using it bona fide for accommodation. The navigation bit comes as a grudging afterthought. By the way, I didn't mention 30 miles, you did. Operating over a 30 mile radius, ie 60 mile stretch, whilst not true CCing in my eyes, would no doubt "satisfy the board".

 

But anyway, there is no point in us arguing about it since neither yours nor my opinion matters, it is only the opinion of CRT and the courts that matter, and so far the latter mostly agrees with the former.

 

If you check back on the majority of Judgments when C&RT / Shoosmiths have not been successful in either avoiding Hearings continuing to a conclusion when things weren't going their way, or railroading cases through the Courts by means of the use of inappropriate Court procedures, such as flouting the Civil Procedure Rules or the late service/non service of Court papers, you will find that your assertion is far from correct.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Dave Clinton]

If you read my posts you will see that I was considering what the "man in the street" might consider to be "bona fide for navigation" and not what a judge might so consider. There is an important difference.

 

I'm not aware of the Mersey ferry case but a ferry whose job presumably is to navigate repeatedly between two places, and is not used for anything else, is clearly being used bona fide for navigation. It is not the extent of the distance travelled that is the point, it is about what the boat is being used for. Someone who wants to live on a boat in Milton Keynes and therefore wants to move their boat as little as possible, is clearly (to the man in the street) not using it bona fide for navigation, but rather is using it bona fide for accommodation. The navigation bit comes as a grudging afterthought. By the way, I didn't mention 30 miles, you did. Operating over a 30 mile radius, ie 60 mile stretch, whilst not true CCing in my eyes, would no doubt "satisfy the board".

 

But anyway, there is no point in us arguing about it since neither yours nor my opinion matters, it is only the opinion of CRT and the courts that matter, and so far the latter mostly agrees with the former.

 

Hmm... doesn't seem to make sense Nick. You're interested in the 'man in the street's opinion but then you say "neither yours or my opinion matters" - please explain this fine distinction as well.

 

Incidentally, if you are going to have an opinion about someone's use of a boat in Milton Keynes, perhaps you should read his post first before pontificating (no, I know, that might disagree with your hypothesis) where he says 30 miles. He doesn't actually say what his intention is - maybe he likes navigating for fun. If you'll allow his statements at face value can you tell me the fine distinction I, and the judge in Geoff Mayers case, have missed.

 

If you are going to use the precious forum bandwidth for your opinion, please research your subject first otherwise you just end up looking like a fool.

[nicknorman]

Regardless of the circular arguments about Cc'ers, Cm'ers etc, this will affect all boaters in some way if the present focus that CRT seems to be pushing on, the 48 hour extending to more and more sites, continues.

Those "real" Cc-ers will no longer be able to visit places for more than two days without being charged, same rules appying to marina based boaters.

The daft thing is, and I have said this to BW and CRT is if they had a facility to charge people in advance ( prebooking a genuine extended stay) for a few prime moorings in busy spots, they would make far more money than fining over stayers and then taking them to court to reclaim the costs.

I agree that there does seem a bit of a proliferation of 48 hr moorings, however I think your point is largely invalid since the vast majority of towpath, probably 99%, are not VMs and therefore 14day. You will only struggle to find 14 day moorings if you want to moor in prime spots or places where someone has installed rings etc.

Hmm... doesn't seem to make sense Nick. You're interested in the 'man in the street's opinion but then you say "neither yours or my opinion matters" - please explain this fine distinction as well.

 

Incidentally, if you are going to have an opinion about someone's use of a boat in Milton Keynes, perhaps you should read his post first before pontificating (no, I know, that might disagree with your hypothesis) where he says 30 miles. He doesn't actually say what his intention is - maybe he likes navigating for fun. If you'll allow his statements at face value can you tell me the fine distinction I, and the judge in Geoff Mayers case, have missed.

 

If you are going to use the precious forum bandwidth for your opinion, please research your subject first otherwise you just end up looking like a fool.

Surely I can be interested in the man in the street's view, whilst maintaining it doesn't matter. I am interested in what is going to happen in the next episode of Eastenders, but I am certain that it doesn't matter.

 

I have gave no opinion about any specific person's boat in MK, I just used MK as an example of where there seems to be a bit of a proliferation of CMers. Please read more carefully and/or desist from putting words into my mouth (well onto my keyboard, I suppose).

[BrumSaint]

As a judge has ruled that the Mersey ferry is an example of 'bona fide' navigation, I don't give much weight to your assertion that it's impossible within a 30 mile radius of Milton Keynes.

 

Perhaps you'd like to explain the fine distinction I have missed?

Again an example of someone only quoting the part of a case that supports their argument. The judge also said that if the intention of moving the boat was merely to stay in the same are/place then that would NOT be bona fide navigation. The Mersey ferry's purpose in movement is to carry passengers from one side to the other, the boater in the case in question had no reason for his movements other than to stay in the same area/place.

[onionbargee]

The most worrying point about all this is they seem to think "terminating" ( their word ) a licence is like a TV licence. Imagine what would happen if you opened that letter, your entire life and savings invested in living aboard, and now you either have to flee CRT waters and never come back, find a mooring space, or sell your home. ( or some convaluted scheme to re licence your boat under another name ) CRT say you didn't move enough, how can you prove other wise ?

 

We already know CRT are well versed in lying and trying to bend the law in their favour.

 

There needs to be some kind of protection of licences if you are living aboard, overseen by an independent third party.

[Naughty Cal]

The most worrying point about all this is they seem to think "terminating" ( their word ) a licence is like a TV licence. Imagine what would happen if you opened that letter, your entire life and savings invested in living aboard, and now you either have to flee CRT waters and never come back, find a mooring space, or sell your home. ( or some convaluted scheme to re licence your boat under another name ) CRT say you didn't move enough, how can you prove other wise ?

 

We already know CRT are well versed in lying and trying to bend the law in their favour.

 

There needs to be some kind of protection of licences if you are living aboard, overseen by an independent third party.

And when this letter does turn up who will the one to blame for the situation?

 

A clue. It isnt CRT.

[Señor Chris]

If crt want every boat to have a home mooring and to be able to legally charge £25 overstay fines, they should go to parliament and ask for the right.

 

The danger is, that's exactly what may happen, especially if it proves impossible to tighten up the grey area in the current legislation.

[nicknorman]

The most worrying point about all this is they seem to think "terminating" ( their word ) a licence is like a TV licence. Imagine what would happen if you opened that letter, your entire life and savings invested in living aboard, and now you either have to flee CRT waters and never come back, find a mooring space, or sell your home. ( or some convaluted scheme to re licence your boat under another name ) CRT say you didn't move enough, how can you prove other wise ?

We already know CRT are well versed in lying and trying to bend the law in their favour.

There needs to be some kind of protection of licences if you are living aboard, overseen by an independent third party.

Exactly the same applies to someone living in another moveable type of house eg caravan / motorhome. Are you saying one should be protected from harassment / being moved on if you plonk your caravan down by the roadside anywhere you like. I suspect not. What you want is for the country to formulate a law that suits only your specific personal circumstances.