Minimum distance? The enforcement officers have it in black and white.

[KenK]

Exactly...CRT have literally littered the whole system with signs and notices which have no grounds in law. Aren't there laws about littering though?

C&RT like BW can impose any conditions they wish on their services and facilities and I'm fairly certain that an official visitor mooring would fall under one or the other of those categories.

The Transport Act 1962 Sec 43 (3) clearly states that, I know they use that as a catch all for all their terms and conditions a lot of which very dubious but it is clear with regard to services and facilities.

 

Ken

[DeanS]

A bit off topic, but:

 

Dean, I know you currently on the Manchester side of Summit, and have to commute. If you were to go over the top, to Todmorden you won't add many minutes to your journey.

 

If you go on to Mytholmroyd, then you can change your commute by going up through Cragg Vale, onto the A58, and straight back down to Littleborough. Hardly any distance in a car.

 

This would give you so many more mooring opportunities, and some absolutely stunning scenery. Have a drive down there, and see what you are missing.

 

Littleborough to Manchester is about 35mins through the A627 towards Oldham, but rerouting down the A663 ...2 almost straight roads which bypass all the maintenance work happening on the M62 and M60...

 

It's 22mins from Mytholmroyd to Littleborough, which would make the total journey about an hour, and since I drive a kids school bus at 3pm each day, and can't take a risk of being late, I have to add a lot of leeway...so for me...Walsden would be the max I can travel from my marina...

 

I am however, stretching my cruising boundaries as I learn about new routes etc. My wife doesn't always work the same shifts that I do, so trainlines etc are all part of it. At the moment, we've mostly got into a decent routine, balancing being away from the marina, with a few miles of cruising area, in lush surroundings.

 

but yes....I might take a drive and submit to the beauty.

[bassplayer]

C&RT like BW can impose any conditions they wish on their services and facilities and I'm fairly certain that an official visitor mooring would fall under one or the other of those categories.

The Transport Act 1962 Sec 43 (3) clearly states that, I know they use that as a catch all for all their terms and conditions a lot of which very dubious but it is clear with regard to services and facilities.

 

Ken

They can 'impose' what they like but as they have discovered, if it isn't backed up by law, it can't be enforced in court.

[Paul C]

They can 'impose' what they like but as they have discovered, if it isn't backed up by law, it can't be enforced in court.

 

 

In your mind, does that mean it CAN be enforced if it IS backed up by law?

[bassplayer]

 

 

In your mind, does that mean it CAN be enforced if it IS backed up by law?

Simple answer, yes. BUT, even the law is an ass sometimes and needs changing.

 

As you well know Paul, I tow the CRT line as far as is reasonable. That is far more than I need to do in law...CRT's tactics rely on boaters towing the line..unfortunately they've over fished...

[magnetman]

I feel it is best to toe the line or the outcome may be that in future there is no line available to be toed in the same way that it is available now.

 

Persistent non-toeing of the line may result in that line being moved significantly.

 

Not sure about the overfishing personally

[bassplayer]

I feel it is best to toe the line or the outcome may be that in future there is no line available to be toed in the same way that it is available now.

 

Persistent non-toeing of the line may result in that line being moved significantly.

 

Not sure about the overfishing personally

Yes, fair play. I was trying to be clever in the last bit, but was trying to make the point CRT have gone too far with enforcement. Maybe the hook is better than the net...

[sirweste]

Un-educated enforcement is a concern, hopfully they've seen that my boat presently hasn't had enough water around it to float for the last 3 days... Wonder if I'll be able to move him tonight...

[KenK]

They can 'impose' what they like but as they have discovered, if it isn't backed up by law, it can't be enforced in court.

The reason I quoted the Transport Act 1962 is because they do have the backing of the law in this case.

That section of the act also allows them to set charges for their services, so it is entirely possible that if someone was faced with an overstaying charge they would win, again because Parliament gave them the power to set charges for their services.

 

Ken

[cotswoldsman]

The reason I quoted the Transport Act 1962 is because they do have the backing of the law in this case.

That section of the act also allows them to set charges for their services, so it is entirely possible that if someone was faced with an overstaying charge they would win, again because Parliament gave them the power to set charges for their services.

 

Ken

The law also says the charges have to be fair for the services offered. So £25 a night for mooring rings in Foxton compared to £5 a night in Gloucester with electricity or even frée in Stourbridge with electric the £25 would be hard to justify.

[peterboat]

The law also says the charges have to be fair for the services offered. So £25 a night for mooring rings in Foxton compared to £5 a night in Gloucester with electricity or even frée in Stourbridge with electric the £25 would be hard to justify.

Very true John

 

Peter

[bassplayer]

Well the law was changed in 1995..

[KenK]

The law also says the charges have to be fair for the services offered. So £25 a night for mooring rings in Foxton compared to £5 a night in Gloucester with electricity or even frée in Stourbridge with electric the £25 would be hard to justify.

Yes, I would agree that £25.00 is hard to justify however in a similar vein many supermarkets erect signs stating that overstaying can cost £70, 80 etc. At the moment one car driver is appealing a judges ruling that a charge of £90 was acceptable. Note a charge not a fine and if that appeal is lost it leaves the door wide open.

 

Ken

Well the law was changed in 1995..

Which one?

 

Ken

[Paul C]

Well the law was changed in 1995..

 

Yes but look at Schedule 3 (of the 1995 Waterways Act) - the 1962 Transport Act wasn't repealed. Nevertheless, I believe there is some merit in the debate because I don't think its been tested in court (yet), in an issue surrounding moorings etc - happy to be corrected here.

[cotswoldsman]

Yes, I would agree that £25.00 is hard to justify however in a similar vein many supermarkets erect signs stating that overstaying can cost £70, 80 etc. At the moment one car driver is appealing a judges ruling that a charge of £90 was acceptable. Note a charge not a fine and if that appeal is lost it leaves the door wide open.

 

Ken

 

 

 

Ken

Comparing apples with pears not many boats moored in supermarket car parks. A towpath is a towpath so the act is quite specific about services provided because the licence already allows you to moor for upto 14 days. And that brings them to another slight problem area as a 48 hour mooring is no longer a 48 hour mooring if you can stay longer upon payment and in this case boaters already pay for 14 days. As I said it is all about if £25 is a fair charge for what is provided

[bassplayer]

I believe there is some merit in the debate because I don't think its been tested in court (yet)

Good luck..

Even retired judges dream of freedom...

[KenK]

Comparing apples with pears not many boats moored in supermarket car parks. A towpath is a towpath so the act is quite specific about services provided because the licence already allows you to moor for upto 14 days. And that brings them to another slight problem area as a 48 hour mooring is no longer a 48 hour mooring if you can stay longer upon payment and in this case boaters already pay for 14 days. As I said it is all about if £25 is a fair charge for what is provided

It is of course not our decision, it would be for the court to decide and they might feel that overstaying is the same however or wherever it happened.

 

Ken

[cotswoldsman]

It is of course not our decision, it would be for the court to decide and they might feel that overstaying is the same however or wherever it happened.

 

Ken

Well I know 3 boaters that have refused to pay the overcharge and at this stage CRT have not threatened anything. One is happy to go to court but seems CRT are a bit reluctant at this stage

[Paul C]

Well I know 3 boaters that have refused to pay the overcharge and at this stage CRT have not threatened anything. One is happy to go to court but seems CRT are a bit reluctant at this stage

 

The banks were reluctant - very reluctant - to go to court in the OFT bank charges case http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/faq/bank-charges.html

 

......but they won.

[cotswoldsman]

 

The banks were reluctant - very reluctant - to go to court in the OFT bank charges case http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/faq/bank-charges.html

 

......but they won.

Again you are not comparing like with like.

 

We pay an annual licence that allows us to moor. CRT need to show why a basic towpath with rings and no other services is so much more than moorings with facilities

[Paul C]

My point is, that reluctance to have a case challenged in court doesn't necessarily offer an accurate prediction of its result.

[bassplayer]

The banks were reluctant - very reluctant - to go to court in the OFT bank charges case http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/faq/bank-charges.html

 

......but they won.

True colours...

[Sabcat]

My point is, that reluctance to have a case challenged in court doesn't necessarily offer an accurate prediction of its result.

 

No, it doesn't. It does mean though that in the absence of any attempt to collect, the charge is purely optional.

[KenK]

The reason for this charge, as I see it, is to try to prevent boaters overstaying. If it works without the need for court action then all well and good, if not then at some point C&RT will either have to bring a test case or think again. Selfish boaters do not cause C&RT problems but they do to other boaters.

 

Ken

[cotswoldsman]

The reason for this charge, as I see it, is to try to prevent boaters overstaying. If it works without the need for court action then all well and good, if not then at some point C&RT will either have to bring a test case or think again. Selfish boaters do not cause C&RT problems but they do to other boaters.

 

Ken

That sounds like a fine to me