Enforcement

[Maffi]

I'm hearing some horror stories already about the new constant cruising enforcement. What I will be doing in the future will be getting a written record of whether my movements are acceptable, if I have to overstay for any reason I will get permission, and their opinion on how far i need to travel to satisfy CRT. So I know exactly where I stand. Everything will be copied and filed away just in case.

 

I would encourage every other CC'er to cover themselves by emailing their enforcement officer if they are in any doubt.

 

The decision to stay is down to the boat's master not CRT. Inform CRT by all means to be polite but don't ask them if it is OK its your decision not theirs! If CRT get in a huff all you have to do is convince a judge that you had good reason.

[adam1uk]

 

That's a pretty fair expression of what I suppose I always took the "bona fide for navigation" requirement to be about: you're navigating in good faith if your purpose in having a boat is to travel around the system, and in bad faith if your purpose in having a boat is something else and such navigating as you do is just a means to that end.

 

But on reflection, that's clearly too strong. I could buy a boat with the purpose of living on it mortgage-free and decide that as a means to that end, I would move at least ten miles every fortnight in a progressive journey around the system, in order to be sure of avoiding any trouble with the CRT over compliance. I'd then, surely, be complying with CRT's requirements, completely regardless of my purpose or intention in owning the boat.

 

So it does seem as if "bona fide navigation" can't mean something like "navigation for its own sake", but rather must mean something as simple as "genuine navigation". The question then becomes whether regular cruises of two miles to the water point, or to a new mooring, etc., are nonetheless instances of genuine navigation. And I don't see why they're not. It's not as if there's something conceptually special about "navigation", as opposed to land-based forms of travel, such that it must involve progressive journeys.

 

As you correctly quote in your first sentence, the law says 'bona fide for navigation' -- which some might argue is not the same as bona fide navigation.

 

So if you have someone who really just wants to stay in the same town, for example: going to the water point may be bona fide navigation, because it's a journey with a purpose. But is the boat really being used 'bona fide for navigation' -- or is it in fact just cheap housing, and the navigating to the water point is only done because there's no other option?

 

That 'for' could be pretty important.

[carlt]

 

going to the water point may be bona fide navigation, because it's a journey with a purpose. But is the boat really being used 'bona fide for navigation' --

 

And yet bimbling about the system with no purpose or destination in mind is not necessarily boating with a purpose so it could be argued that ccing is not within the spirit of the law since the judge mentioned intent being more important than distance travelled.

[adam1uk]

 

And yet bimbling about the system with no purpose or destination in mind is not necessarily boating with a purpose so it could be argued that ccing is not within the spirit of the law since the judge mentioned intent being more important than distance travelled.

 

But people who are bimbling about the system have the intent of bimbling about the system. They do not have the intent of trying to stay in the same place.

[carlt]

 

But people who are bimbling about the system have the intent of bimbling about the system. They do not have the intent of trying to stay in the same place.

I was thinking more about boaters attempting to stay within the spirit of the law by moving every 14 days within a limited geographic area (bridgehoppers) rather than those who never move other than to the bins and waterpoint.and back (CMers).

[nicknorman]

The decision to stay is down to the boat's master not CRT. Inform CRT by all means to be polite but don't ask them if it is OK its your decision not theirs! If CRT get in a huff all you have to do is convince a judge that you had good reason.

Within reason I agree, however the extension has to be reasonable for the circumstances. That means reasonable, not reasonable solely in the eyes of the master. We have seen on here plenty of examples where something an individual thinks is reasonable seems unreasonable to the vast majoirty. Therefore there is a need to reach an amicable agreement with CRT and I would suggest that is best initiated by not being too dogmatic with them at the outset.

[adam1uk]

I was thinking more about boaters attempting to stay within the spirit of the law by moving every 14 days within a limited geographic area (bridgehoppers) rather than those who never move other than to the bins and waterpoint.and back (CMers).

 

They're trying to stay within the letter of the law, not the spirit of it, aren't they?

[carlt]

 

They're trying to stay within the letter of the law, not the spirit of it, aren't they?

That would depend on your opinion as to what the spirit of the law actually is.

[Nightwatch]

Right, here we go. Our situation.

 

Moored at Norton Junction. Towards the end of our 14 day mooring period the alternator bust. New in January. Our electrician is away until early July. Got in contact. Told who he bought from. Ordered replacement. Incorrect fitting. Managed to get going again last Thursday. Informed CRT that we would over stay. Didn't hear anything from George the enforcer! Must have been acceptable.

Moved through lock 7 heading South obviously. Moored here Thursday. Need to top up water. Like where we are. Helping neighbour fit new wardrobe and also doing a bit for our boat. Do I reverse up lock seven to get water near the New Inn and return or go down six locks to Whilton and be nearer M1 and railway.

 

Opinions please.

Martyn

[magictime]

 

As you correctly quote in your first sentence, the law says 'bona fide for navigation' -- which some might argue is not the same as bona fide navigation.

 

So if you have someone who really just wants to stay in the same town, for example: going to the water point may be bona fide navigation, because it's a journey with a purpose. But is the boat really being used 'bona fide for navigation' -- or is it in fact just cheap housing, and the navigating to the water point is only done because there's no other option?

 

That 'for' could be pretty important.

 

Yes, I can see what you're driving at. It comes down to this business of intent/purpose again.

 

In fact, if I were going to start picking holes in my own argument:

 

I don't see that intent comes into it. Suppose I buy a vintage car with the intention of enjoying the challenge of doing it up, and the pride of displaying it on my driveway. Do these ulterior motives mean that I am then not using it "bona fide" for transportation if I pop to the shops in it?

 

- I'd suggest that this analogy doesn't really hold, because that drive to the shops is not itself undertaken in order to enjoy the challenge of doing up the car or the pride of displaying it on my driveway. Rather, it is undertaken in order to do some shopping. Hence I am genuinely/bona fide using the car for transportation on that occasion. If I were doing that drive just to check a rattle under the bonnet, say, arguably I would not be genuinely/bona fide using the car for transportation on that occasion. So intent would come into it.

 

Hence, one might argue, whether or not someone moving their boat two miles to a new mooring spot is using their boat bona fide for navigation might depend on their purposes in doing so. If they're doing so in order to visit a nearby town, say, or in order to enjoy the cruise, they're using their boat bona fide for navigation. If they're doing so in order to satisfy what they perceive to be the requirements of their licence, so that they can continue to live aboard in a local area, they're not. So the argument would go.

 

But I'm not convinced that's a knock-down argument, as it still seems to me that there's a good sense in which you can still be using your boat "bona fide for navigation" - genuinely with the purpose of travelling by water from one place to another - even if ultimately, boating is (for you) more about living on the canal than it is about getting from A to B, or enjoying cruising for its own sake. That's what the example of someone doing a long, progressive journey, but ultimately with the goal of living aboard, was supposed to illustrate.

[Jess--]

CRT's guidance seems quite clear....

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/633.pdf

 

"What the law requires is that, if 14 days ago the boat was in neighbourhood A, by day 15 it must be in neighbourhood B or further afield. Thereafter, the next movement must be at least to neighbourhood C, and not back to neighbourhood A (with obvious exceptions such as reaching the end of a terminal waterway or reversing the direction of travel in the course of a genuine cruise)"

[magictime]

Sure, but the question a lot of people have is whether that guidance is based on a correct interpretation of the relevant laws.

 

There are all sorts of businesses offering their own 'guidance' on when they'll accept returns, offer refunds, allow orders to be cancelled, etc., but ultimately their customers' rights are not based on that guidance but on the relevant laws.

Edited June 23, 2015 by magictime

[Nightwatch]

Define neighbourhood.

 

This is the problem over and over again. It just isn't clear enough to follow and if needs be, adhere to.

[Dave Clinton]

CRT's guidance seems quite clear....

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/633.pdf

 

"What the law requires is that, if 14 days ago the boat was in neighbourhood A, by day 15 it must be in neighbourhood B or further afield. Thereafter, the next movement must be at least to neighbourhood C, and not back to neighbourhood A (with obvious exceptions such as reaching the end of a terminal waterway or reversing the direction of travel in the course of a genuine cruise)"

 

 

So why is it then that every time CRT go to court they feel the need to change the guidance?

[magictime]

I've fallen down the rabbit hole now and find myself reading the BW vs. Davies judgment. God help me!

 

It's clear that the judge in that case felt that intent matters when it comes to deciding whether someone is using his boat "bona fide for navigation", rather than using to navigate only incidentally, with some other purpose in mind. However, the defending counsel made what still looks to me like a well-reasoned argument that using a boat "bona fide for navigation" need mean no more than genuinely moving in it from one place to another, regardless of what one's purpose is in doing so.

 

Maybe future cases will clear things up. It looks highly relevant to me that the judge refers to another case (Moore vs. BWB) in which "it was held that a public right of navigation does not include an ancillary right to moor other than temporarily in the course of navigation". That would seem to imply that the right to moor on the towpath applies only to boats that are in the course of a cruise or journey. It seems to me that a boat cruising and mooring within a local area in a "bridge-hopping" pattern could reasonably claim to be making many short but genuine cruises/journeys all the time, but could not reasonably claim when moored overnight to be doing so in the course of a cruise. (Rather, they would be doing so in between cruises, raising the question of whether they have any right to do so.)

 

One thing looks clear to me: anyone who thinks that supporters/opponents of the CRT's position [delete as applicable] are being plain unreasonable in their interpretation of a perfectly clear and unambiguous law, is probably being too quick to dismiss the arguments of the other side.

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

So why is it then that every time CRT go to court they feel the need to change the guidance?

They are going to be busy changing them over next 12 months

[larkshall]

'Tis a truly great album I listened to incessantly when I was at skool.

 

Along with Deep Purple In Rock, Led Zep II and III, Wishbone Ash Wishbone Ash, and Paranoid. All timeless works of art.

 

Dark Side of the Moon was quite good too...

(But came out a bit later IIRC)

God I have seen all of those live, sheesh that bloody well dates me. Well nearly I'd also have to add Cream, Barclay James Harvest, Crosby Stills Nash and Young. Oh dear no hope is there Edited June 23, 2015 by larkshall

[Tony Dunkley]

CRT's guidance seems quite clear....

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/633.pdf

 

"What the law requires is that, if 14 days ago the boat was in neighbourhood A, by day 15 it must be in neighbourhood B or further afield. Thereafter, the next movement must be at least to neighbourhood C, and not back to neighbourhood A (with obvious exceptions such as reaching the end of a terminal waterway or reversing the direction of travel in the course of a genuine cruise)"

 

That's quite true, the C&RT Guidance is clear enough, . . . . it's also completely wrong.

All the quoted stuff about neighborhoods and what the law requires is utter garbage . . . . . the law, and what it requires, is to be found in the 1995 Act, and it's quite straightforward.

The C&RT Guidance is all about what they want you to believe the law requires, and not what it actually does require.

[Mike Todd]

If RFID readers were installed to monitor boats they would soon be removed/destroyed by those that feel strongly about being tracked.

In fact not: I am not advocating trackers at all but the suggestion is to identify those who have not moved via the law which requires boaters to prove that they have moved sufficiently to satisfy The Board. If tracker is removed then it would be reasonable to assume (through the absence of any data indicating passage past any reader) that the boat had not moved. Hence therew ould be an incentive to keep the tracker not to remove it.

[Steilsteven]

Prior to 1995, in order to use a boat on B.W. canals, you needed to licence it and have a mooring.

Due to the growing popularity of boat ownership, boats quickly outnumbered available moorings and extremely long waiting lists developed. Somehow, the situation developed where there were lots of boats around the system with no home mooring and very little likelihood of ever getting one.

 

It's my opinion that the Act was introduced as a means to overcome this situation and, in order to justify it, certain deliberately vague requirements were tacked on to it e.g. bona fide for navigation.

 

Had there not been a shortage of moorings, I dare say the legislation would never have been proposed.

 

I don't have any problem with the Act as it stands and feel that it's easy to comply, it's a joy and privilege to be able to have a different view from my window every week or so throughout the year.

 

I do feel a little annoyed by people who try to distort or pin down what the Act means, it's really very simple and doesn't need to be otherwise.

 

Keith

Prior to 1995, in order to use a boat on B.W. canals, you needed to licence it and have a mooring.

Due to the growing popularity of boat ownership, boats quickly outnumbered available moorings%2

[Dave Clinton]

Prior to 1995, in order to use a boat on B.W. canals, you needed to licence it and have a mooring.

Due to the growing popularity of boat ownership, boats quickly outnumbered available moorings and extremely long waiting lists developed. Somehow, the situation developed where there were lots of boats around the system with no home mooring and very little likelihood of ever getting one.

 

 

 

This is not actually the case. You didn't need a mooring to license a boat, this led to a large number of 'dumpers' - who were mainly small cruisers doing no harm to nobody.

 

BW took exception to this and tried to introduce, in their 1990 Bill, the requirement for a mooring.

 

Parliament, because of representations from boaters, refused this but introduced the provisions of the 1995 Act.

 

There was said to be a rule of '14 days in one parish' but this was never a rule or a law.

[Steilsteven]

 

This is not actually the case. You didn't need a mooring to license a boat, this led to a large number of 'dumpers' - who were mainly small cruisers doing no harm to nobody.

 

BW took exception to this and tried to introduce, in their 1990 Bill, the requirement for a mooring.

 

Parliament, because of representations from boaters, refused this but introduced the provisions of the 1995 Act.

 

There was said to be a rule of '14 days in one parish' but this was never a rule or a law.

I stand corrected.

 

Keith

[Delta9]

In fact not: I am not advocating trackers at all but the suggestion is to identify those who have not moved via the law which requires boaters to prove that they have moved sufficiently to satisfy The Board. If tracker is removed then it would be reasonable to assume (through the absence of any data indicating passage past any reader) that the boat had not moved. Hence therew ould be an incentive to keep the tracker not to remove it.

Once again, I'm referring to the RFID readers that Jess suggested be placed at choke points, not the RFID chips on boats.

[MisterDave]

Once again, I'm referring to the RFID readers that Jess suggested be placed at choke points, not the RFID chips on boats.

 

You would not necessarily even be able to identify an RFID reader if the installer chose to hide or disguise it. the device could be hidden completely out of site inside the woodwork of a lock gate, inside water level monitoring apparatus or even inside water and elsan points. There are already readers on the market which are compact, waterproof, and ruggedized. Adoption of active RFID tags would allow the readers to be situated a distance away from the water's edge eliminating the need to place readers at obvious locations like choke points, as well as allowing readers to be mounted high up out of harm's way on buildings or utility poles.

 

It would still be possible for a corrupt individual to take the chip off their boat and take it for a bicycle ride up the towpath to fool the system, however if the RFID readers were hidden the miscreant would never know if he had taken it far enough or moved it slowly enough between readers to give the appearance of a boat moving.

 

I'm not saying I want tracking, I don't like the idea at all, I'm just saying that it could be made to work in the context of detecting who had moved where.

[abraxus]

One thing looks clear to me: anyone who thinks that supporters/opponents of the CRT's position [delete as applicable] are being plain unreasonable in their interpretation of a perfectly clear and unambiguous law, is probably being too quick to dismiss the arguments of the other side.

 

That pretty much sums up what I was driving at, in that it's not clear and unambiguous at all, and open to elements of interpretation by either side.