CRT v Andy Wingfield Update

[NilesMI]

Tony. Would it be possible for you to post the notices and letters in the same way Nigel has done for court transcripts and other documents, perhaps using scribd?

 

I know you have quoted the interesting highlights, but given your case is liable to attract a good deal of interest, having the actual documents available would be very helpful.

[NigelMoore]

Thoughts in progress – s.8 had its origins, as Tony has alluded to, back in the fifties with the BTC legislation, that empowered the authority to deal with sunken and abandoned boats even though they could not trace the owners. It meant that subject to posting sufficient notice, they could subsequently clear them away however they wished [although title with attendant liabilities remained vested in the owners]. In that original form, they could even blow the boats up in situ, should that be the most cost efficient means of dealing with the obstruction.

The 1983 version omitted the blowing up bit, and added the bit about “left or moored therein without lawful authority”, so that even if an unlicensed boat did not appear obviously abandoned, if they could not trace the owner &/or the owner did not move the boat away within the notice period, they could either move it away from its location if that was practical, or remove it altogether. If no-one turned up to claim it within 6 weeks, they could then dispose of it [even though, once again, title remained vested in the owners, who could reclaim the boat if they came forward within a year.]

The interesting thing is, that even though this was post the compulsory licence legislation, the descriptive terms did not include “let for hire or used” – which the licence specifically covered in addition to being “brought” onto any canal or “kept” therein. Why not? Why not simply specify the requirement for a “relevant consent”?

To me, it is a clue to the intention for the section to apply in only a limited sense, to those boats that were seemingly abandoned because left at the same place for extended periods, without a current licence indicating any intent to use. That would be commensurate with the previously listed situations retained [“sunk, stranded or abandoned”].

“Left or moored therein” entails the boat being “kept” on the waterway – and without a licence where requisite, the boat will be kept therein without lawful authority. But a boat using [i.e. navigating] the waterway without that licence is also doing so without lawful authority – and yet section 8(1) does NOT cover that situation; that situation is covered by the penalties provided under byelaw or statute, even as mooring offences under byelaws or statute have specified appropriate penalties.

Hence my belief that s.8 was never intended to apply to boats where the owner was known and contactable, unless they were contacted and they subsequently failed to move the boat away within the notice period. In that scenario, the first steps to take should be prosecution for the relevant offence, and only after failure of that [to get the boat licensed], could s.8(2) be legitimately processed. It seems patently obvious from all this that s.8 was never intended to be used as a tool for licence enforcement.

As to the navigable rivers with PRN, the last ditch stand in proceeding under s.8 would be to simply move the boat out of the main navigable channel, and if necessary, “marking, watching, buoying or otherwise controlling the relevant craft.”

 

 

edit to add: As Tony has previously commented, CaRT have no powers to over-ride the PRN so as to enable them to remove a boat from any public navigable river, and this latter provision under s.8(3)( c ) provides for the boat to be simply moved out of the regulated area and monitored.

Edited January 9, 2016 by NigelMoore

[Tony Dunkley]

I have today E-mailed the following response to C&RT in respect of the LA3 letter and Section 8 and Section 13 Notices referred to in Post #941.

Earlier drafts were considerably more lengthy and comprehensive but I felt that simply focusing on the primary flaw in their proposed course of action may be more productive at this stage.

I think the arguments with regard to the main navigable channel and houseboat issues may well be better formulated following C&RT's response, which will be posted up on receipt.

____________________________________________________

 

E-mail to C&RT dated 2 February 2016 :~

 

Fao: CEO and Head of Enforcement.

I refer to your letter Ref.LA3/ZE13695201/SC dated 5 January 2016 in which you notify me of the Trust's intention to commence legal proceedings in respect of the above vessel in consequence of my failing to comply with the Trust's demands, in writing on 12 November 2015 in letter Ref. LA1&2/13695201/SC, that I either obtain a Licence for the above vessel, or remove it from the inland waterways owned or managed by CRT.

Enclosed with the 5 January 2016 letter is a "NOTICE OF INTENDED REMOVAL OF A VESSEL PURSUANT TO SECTION 8 OF THE BRITISH WATERWAYS ACT 1983" stating the intention of the Trust to remove the the above mentioned vessel from "waterways owned or managed by the Canal and River Trust" on the grounds that it is "there without lawful authority".

The Trust is aware that the river waterway, namely the river Trent at Barton-in-Fabis in Nottinghamshire, upon which the above mentioned vessel is moored outside of the main navigable channel and to privately owned land, is listed in Schedule 1 of the 1971 British Waterways Act (as amended) and as such is subject to a statutory public right of navigation.

The subject vessel is therefore present on the waterway as of statutory right and the Notice claiming that it is " there without lawful authority" and stating that the Trust "intend to remove the vessel" is not only invalid and unenforceable, but is a clear indication of intent to exceed the Trust's lawful powers in attempting to amend and curtail the statutory public right of navigation.

To remove any remaining doubt or confusion there may be within departments of the Trust in this matter, reference to the following extract from one of your own Freedom of Information responses dated 2 August 2013 may be of some assistance :~

"The canal licence (which includes use of rivers) is distinctly a licence – this is because we own the canals and the device for granting permission to use is via a licence. Rivers are different. There is a statutory right of navigation and we don’t own them, so all that people have to do is to ‘register’ to use them (subject to a fee which the statutes allow for subject to the percentage condition we covered in the last query). So technically, it is not a ‘river only licence’ but a ‘river registration’'

Given that the above named vessel is neither "sunk, stranded or abandoned", nor moored and located on the river Trent "without lawful authority", the provisions of Section 8 of the 1983 British Waterways Act are not applicable and the Notice of Intended Removal dated 5 January 2015 must be withdrawn forthwith.

Included with the Section 8 Notice enclosed with the letter of 5 January 2016 was a "NOTICE REQUIRING REMOVAL OF A HOUSEBOAT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OF THE BRITISH WATERWAYS ACT 1971". As will be evident from previous Licensing and Registration records the above named vessel is not a houseboat, does not fall within the definition of a houseboat as specified in Section 3(1) of the 1971 Act, and therefore has never been issued, or required to have issued, a Houseboat Certificate. I can only assume that this Notice has been issued in error and that this also will be withdrawn.

Signed A. K. Dunkley.

_______________________________________________________

Edited February 2, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[jenlyn]

Greenie.

[Sabcat]

Excellent Tony.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Sabcat

[Tony Dunkley]

It should be noted, in particular by the lawyers responsible for so spectacularly failing Andy Wingfield on 8 October last, that with the following changes to the wording in respect only of location and ownership/control of the land to which the vessel in question was moored, in order to make paragraph 3 of today's E-mail to C&RT read :~

 

The Trust is aware that the river waterway, namely the river Trent at County Hall steps in Nottingham, upon which the above mentioned vessel is moored outside of the main navigable channel and to Local Authority owned/controlled land, is listed in Schedule 1 of the 1971 British Waterways Act (as amended) and as such is subject to a statutory public right of navigation.

 

~ : the entire contents and wording would then be equally relevant and applicable to Andy's situation at the time C&RT served Section 8 and 13 Notices on him as a prelude to last years 'illegally founded' legal proceedings, and to the owner of any other vessel moored to private or non-C&RT controlled/owned land on any of the scheduled rivers.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[kris88]

Have another greenie, we'll done Tony.

[Loafer]

Virtual pint here.

[bassplayer]

Good luck Tony, fair play.

[Mike Todd]

Might you need to prepare a defence to the argument that long term mooring is not contained within the term 'navigation'?

[Tony Dunkley]

Might you need to prepare a defence to the argument that long term mooring is not contained within the term 'navigation'?

 

Can you be a bit more specific, . . . I'm not quite sure what aspects of the term 'navigation' you're wondering about.

[Mike Todd]

 

Can you be a bit more specific, . . . I'm not quite sure what aspects of the term 'navigation' you're wondering about.

What I picked up is that you are asserting a 'statutory right to navigation' and that this differentiates your situation on a river from that on a canal. My concern was that a court might be persuaded, unless alternatives are presented, that a right to navigate does not include a right to moor unless incidental to navigating.

[Tony Dunkley]

What I picked up is that you are asserting a 'statutory right to navigation' and that this differentiates your situation on a river from that on a canal. My concern was that a court might be persuaded, unless alternatives are presented, that a right to navigate does not include a right to moor unless incidental to navigating.

 

If this does end up before a Judge then I can well imagine the sort of logic defying and contorted arguments that C&RT will wheel out, they may even come up with something even more ridiculous than the 'continuously cruising houseboat' conjured up in the first Andy Wingfield hearing.

 

However, in the circumstances of this dispute, they've got some major difficulties to overcome with my boat moored to private land, on waters that even they concede are subject to a statutory public right of navigation, and with the PRN conditioned only by the provisions of the 1971 BW Act.

 

They would also have this, from the Licensing T&C's, to explain away :~

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS AND GENERAL 1. There are no public law provisions concerning moorings along the Trust’s canals.

This is entirely a matter for management by the Trust as property owners.

 

Irrespective of whether or not that statement is technically correct with regard to their powers to control moorings, I think they would have a hard time convincing a Court that other property owners don't have at least the same level of control over boats mooring to their property.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Tony Dunkley]

C&RT have sent an unusually prompt, but typically inane response to yesterday's E-mail. It's come from the Head of Enforcement, and focuses solely on their view that the main navigable channel extends the full width of the river from bank to bank whilst failing to address the PRN aspect at all.

I'll be putting a reply together and sending it tomorrow.

__________________________________

 

The response from C&RT :~

 

Dear Mr Dunkley

 

I refer to your email of 2 February.

 

I enclose a copy of an *email sent to you on 17 September 2015 which responds in some detail to the points you are making regarding the “main navigable channel” of the River Trent.

 

As set out in our previous response, our firm view is that you are required to have a boat licence (in the form of a river-only licence or registration) whilst your boat is moored in its current location.

 

We are, therefore, continuing the legal proceedings to remove your vessel from the waterway pursuant to section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983.

 

Yours sincerely

Dense Yxllxnxd (Ms)

Head of Enforcement

 

 

Nb. * The 17 September 2015 E-mail letter referred to above is on Post #851 of this thread/topic.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Tony Dunkley]

My reply to yesterday's E-mail from C&RT ( Post #964) :~

 

Fao. Head of Enforcement and CEO.

Dear Ms. Yelland,

I am somewhat perplexed by your response to my E-mail of 2 February 2016 in which I dispute the Trust's apparent belief that it has the authority and powers to override the statutory public right of navigation as and when it so chooses, by removing and excluding vessels exercising the statutory public right of navigation on the river navigations listed in Schedule 1 of the 1971 British Waterways Act [as amended].

Any dispute as to the extent and parameters of the main navigable channel, and the prescribed statutory penalties for keeping or using an unregistered boat within it, are an entirely separate matter from the question of whether or not a vessel is present on a navigation 'without lawful authority'.

The circumstances under which powers conferred by Section 8 of the 1983 BW Act may be invoked by the Trust are specified and limited within Section 8 itself to vessels "sunk, stranded or abandoned", or to vessels which are "left or moored [in any inland waterway] without lawful authority".

The above named vessel, and in fact any vessel, has lawful authority to be on the river Trent navigation, and any of the waterways listed in Schedule 1 of the 1971 BW Act [as amended], by virtue of the statutory public right of navigation, and that same lawful authority is not in any way or under any circumstances, conditional upon a current Pleasure Boat Certificate being in force for the vessel in question.

A Pleasure Boat Certificate, consistently and misleadingly referred to as a 'Rivers only Licence' by the Trust, is required under Section 5(1) of the 1971 BW Act for vessels kept or used within the main navigable channel of the rivers listed in Schedule 1 of the Act. The Pleasure Boat Certificate is not a Licence and therefore the issuing of such Certificate cannot be construed or represented as any form of permission or consent for a vessel to be kept or used on a scheduled river. That permission or consent derives from the statutory public right of navigation and as such is not subject to being granted, refused or overridden in any way by the Canal and River Trust, or any person or body acting on behalf of the Trust.

It follows, therefore, that any vessel on any scheduled river, irrespective of whether or not it is within the main navigable channel, is on the water with the 'lawful authority' derived from the statutory public right of navigation, and the Notice of Intended Removal stating that my boat is "there without lawful authority" issued on 5 January 2016 under Section 8 of the 1983 BW Act, is neither valid nor enforceable on the grounds that the vessel is ~ "there without lawful authority".

If, as would seem to be the case, the Trust is determined, come what may, to remove my boat from the river Trent under the provisions of Section 8 of the 1983 Act, then it will first have to prove to the satisfaction of a Court that it is "sunk, stranded or abandoned" in it's present location at my privately owned mooring at Barton-in-Fabis on the river Trent. Alternatively, in the event of the Trust having good reason to believe, and proof, that the vessel is, or has been, kept or used within the main navigable channel of the river Trent without a current Pleasure Boat Certifcate, then there is no lawful course of action open to the Trust other than to pursue the statutory remedy for so doing, as prescribed within Section 5(2) of the 1971 BW Act.

Signed. A.K.Dunkley.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[LankyStreak]

I'm not a frequent contributor to this forum but for several years I've read almost every post of every thread. I've learnt a lot, laughed a lot, and disagreed with what's been said quite often too. Perhaps I'm a member of the silent majority in the boating community. I rent a towpath mooring on the K&A from the CRT and have found all my dealings with them to be courteous and fair. I think it's in all our interests that CRT enforces the rules when people go out of their way to abuse those rules, and sadly this occasionally means that legal action against boaters is appropriate and necessary. However. . .

 

I have experienced in other areas of my life that large organisations with legal departments can sometimes develop an inflated sense of their powers and legal rights, and they can use their might to try to bully individuals who don't always have the education or money to defend themselves. I'm not a lawyer so I can't comment on the legal rights and wrongs of the cases being discussed here but I know that sometimes it's necessary to stick your head above the parapet and take a stand for what you believe is right, because it often is right. So I would like to follow many others on here by adding my vote of thanks to Nigel Moore and Tony Dunkley for their tireless and meticulous work in detailing the legal arguments in a way I can understand. I know it takes courage and an incredible amount of time to fight a large organisation but I wish you every success. Although each case concerns one person with one boat, it has the potential to affect many of us now or in the future. So thank you Nigel and Tony. I'm sure there are many like me sitting quietly in the background wishing you the strength to fight your case so that the rights of boaters are upheld, and the information we need to understand our rights is placed in the public domain. Thank you.

[Loafer]

I've just added your tenth greenie. I am not a CRT-knocker, I think CRT do an ok job, I'm a rule-follower by nature and I'm not really in Messrs Dunkley and Moore's camp.

 

I do respect and thank them however, for their publishing their grievances here for all to see, and from which to learn. I welcome all of their posts with great interest.

 

PS It took me almost 2 years to earn my first 10 greenies! (edit)

Edited February 5, 2016 by Loafer

[jenlyn]

 

My reply to yesterday's E-mail from C&RT ( Post #964) :~

 

Fao. Head of Enforcement and CEO.

Dear Ms. Yelland,

I am somewhat perplexed by your response to my E-mail of 2 February 2016 in which I dispute the Trust's apparent belief that it has the authority and powers to override the statutory public right of navigation as and when it so chooses, by removing and excluding vessels exercising the statutory public right of navigation on the river navigations listed in Schedule 1 of the 1971 British Waterways Act [as amended].

Any dispute as to the extent and parameters of the main navigable channel, and the prescribed statutory penalties for keeping or using an unregistered boat within it, are an entirely separate matter from the question of whether or not a vessel is present on a navigation 'without lawful authority'.

The circumstances under which powers conferred by Section 8 of the 1983 BW Act may be invoked by the Trust are specified and limited within Section 8 itself to vessels "sunk, stranded or abandoned", or to vessels which are "left or moored [in any inland waterway] without lawful authority".

The above named vessel, and in fact any vessel, has lawful authority to be on the river Trent navigation, and any of the waterways listed in Schedule 1 of the 1971 BW Act [as amended], by virtue of the statutory public right of navigation, and that same lawful authority is not in any way or under any circumstances, conditional upon a current Pleasure Boat Certificate being in force for the vessel in question.

A Pleasure Boat Certificate, consistently and misleadingly referred to as a 'Rivers only Licence' by the Trust, is required under Section 5(1) of the 1971 BW Act for vessels kept or used within the main navigable channel of the rivers listed in Schedule 1 of the Act. The Pleasure Boat Certificate is not a Licence and therefore the issuing of such Certificate cannot be construed or represented as any form of permission or consent for a vessel to be kept or used on a scheduled river. That permission or consent derives from the statutory public right of navigation and as such is not subject to being granted, refused or overridden in any way by the Canal and River Trust, or any person or body acting on behalf of the Trust.

It follows, therefore, that any vessel on any scheduled river, irrespective of whether or not it is within the main navigable channel, is on the water with the 'lawful authority' derived from the statutory public right of navigation, and the Notice of Intended Removal stating that my boat is "there without lawful authority" issued on 5 January 2016 under Section 8 of the 1983 BW Act, is neither valid nor enforceable on the grounds that the vessel is ~ "there without lawful authority".

If, as would seem to be the case, the Trust is determined, come what may, to remove my boat from the river Trent under the provisions of Section 8 of the 1983 Act, then it will first have to prove to the satisfaction of a Court that it is "sunk, stranded or abandoned" in it's present location at my privately owned mooring at Barton-in-Fabis on the river Trent. Alternatively, in the event of the Trust having good reason to believe, and proof, that the vessel is, or has been, kept or used within the main navigable channel of the river Trent without a current Pleasure Boat Certifcate, then there is no lawful course of action open to the Trust other than to pursue the statutory remedy for so doing, as prescribed within Section 5(2) of the 1971 BW Act.

Signed. A.K.Dunkley.

 

Greenie

I'm not a frequent contributor to this forum but for several years I've read almost every post of every thread. I've learnt a lot, laughed a lot, and disagreed with what's been said quite often too. Perhaps I'm a member of the silent majority in the boating community. I rent a towpath mooring on the K&A from the CRT and have found all my dealings with them to be courteous and fair. I think it's in all our interests that CRT enforces the rules when people go out of their way to abuse those rules, and sadly this occasionally means that legal action against boaters is appropriate and necessary. However. . .

 

I have experienced in other areas of my life that large organisations with legal departments can sometimes develop an inflated sense of their powers and legal rights, and they can use their might to try to bully individuals who don't always have the education or money to defend themselves. I'm not a lawyer so I can't comment on the legal rights and wrongs of the cases being discussed here but I know that sometimes it's necessary to stick your head above the parapet and take a stand for what you believe is right, because it often is right. So I would like to follow many others on here by adding my vote of thanks to Nigel Moore and Tony Dunkley for their tireless and meticulous work in detailing the legal arguments in a way I can understand. I know it takes courage and an incredible amount of time to fight a large organisation but I wish you every success. Although each case concerns one person with one boat, it has the potential to affect many of us now or in the future. So thank you Nigel and Tony. I'm sure there are many like me sitting quietly in the background wishing you the strength to fight your case so that the rights of boaters are upheld, and the information we need to understand our rights is placed in the public domain. Thank you.

Greenie

[NigelMoore]

a right to navigate does not include a right to moor unless incidental to navigating.

 

It is an area that gives rise to some confusion, even at the highest levels. A right of navigation necessarily includes a right to ‘keep’ a boat on the water [see Transport Act 1968 s.115(1)( a )]. That alone does not suffice [as Mike Todd correctly notes] to grant a right of mooring, which requires an additional right to attach to land. Both elements must obtain to confer a right to moor for longer than required incidental to navigation.

 

For those wondering about Tony’s argument here, it is simply that where PRN’s persist, the right to ‘keep’ a boat on the water is authorised by the common law right of PRN, betimes confirmed [as distinct from conferred] by statute [as e.g. implicit in the 1971 Act provisions respecting the river waterways]. Insofar as Tony refers in subsequent posts here to a 'statutory public right of navigation', it is important to recognise that statute here only confirms and does not confer the right.

 

If a boat’s presence on the waterway is so authorised by law, it cannot be said, as Tony has correctly observed, to be present “without lawful authority” and so s.8 of the 1983 Act cannot apply. If the mooring itself was contrary to law, and if you accepted Hildyard J’s conclusion that s.8 applied to unlawful moorings as well as to unlawful presence on the waterway, then CaRT would still need to identify the specific breach of such a law when relying on s.8. As the Appeal Court pronounced in 2013, mooring in absence of the authority’s consent cannot be classified as being [without more] in breach of any law.

 

Hence, Tony’s boat being lawfully present on the waterway, and being lawfully attached to private land outwith the authority’s powers of consent, the most he could be charged with would be lack of a pleasure boat certificate [if required] – and CaRT’s statutory right of enforcement of that requirement is laid out specifically in the appropriate section of the 1971 Act he cites – NOT via s.8 of the 1983 Act.

 

Just for completeness: having lawful authority to be present in the waterways does not absolve a boater from compliance with relevant byelaws etc; it is simply that in the present context of debating the breadth of s.8 powers, the authority is always constrained by their statutes to enforcing against breaches of legitimate requirements via the appropriate and specific statutory remedy provided. It is proving the downfall of BW/CaRT's legal departments and executive that all such remedies have been discarded in favour of using s.8 as the sole, all-embracing remedy for offences it was never designed to apply to.

 

Edited February 6, 2016 by NigelMoore

[NigelMoore]

Thank you.

 

Much appreciated; it is good to know that information supplied is seen to be of value.

 

Of most value of course, would be a change of executive, allowing thoughtful employees within the legal department to engage in meaningful exploratory discussions, rather than permitting them to only engage via Shoosmiths within litigation proceedings, or in preliminary skirmishes prior to engaging them.

 

Still, the more exposure there is to the content of the relevant legislation and its proper application, the more likely it is that a gradual appreciation may be formed – even within CaRT - that using appropriate legislative power to effect legitimate desired results is the only way forward.

 

Until then, Tony’s publishing of all correspondence as he has been doing is an excellent step towards that utopian vision.

 

[Mike Todd]

 

Much appreciated; it is good to know that information supplied is seen to be of value.

 

Of most value of course, would be a change of executive, allowing thoughtful employees within the legal department to engage in meaningful exploratory discussions, rather than permitting them to only engage via Shoosmiths within litigation proceedings, or in preliminary skirmishes prior to engaging them.

 

Still, the more exposure there is to the content of the relevant legislation and its proper application, the more likely it is that a gradual appreciation may be formed – even within CaRT - that using appropriate legislative power to effect legitimate desired results is the only way forward.

 

Until then, Tony’s publishing of all correspondence as he has been doing is an excellent step towards that utopian vision.

 

I have just a little experience in a different area, but still within the charitable domain.I have some sympathy for Nigel's comments but at the same time realise that it is not that simple. As trustees, there is a duty to seek appropriate advice (legal, investment, etc etc). Sometimes that advice can lead to a very restrictive and precautionary interpretation of the law. Whilst the trustees may not wish to be that defensive, it is not easy to find a legitimate route to setting aside the full ramifications of the legal advice. If doing so then leads to problems, there are all sorts of consequences which may deter all but the more determined of trustees. Just because CaRT follow Shoosmiths advice cannot necessarily be taken as evidence that they are content with it! OTOH they might be . . .

[Bod]

If the client follows the advisors professional opinion, which turns out to be wrong, who is at fault?

 

Bod

[NigelMoore]

Just because CaRT follow Shoosmiths advice cannot necessarily be taken as evidence that they are content with it! OTOH they might be . . .

 

Accepting the general validity of your comments, my firm impression is that BW, as CaRT following them, have conferred amongst themselves [between legal and enforcement departments and – primarily to begin with - Nigel Johnson and the executive] to formulate a process with desired end results; informed Shoosmiths [and other firms] of the objectives, and subsequently made use of their talents in legalistic legerdemain in promoting those objectives.

 

I have presented the evidence in court before now, of BW’s history in one set of proceedings, wherein Shoosmiths ended up as the firm representing them in a particularly dodgy case, following a succession of three previous firms, hired but subsequently replaced!

 

Explanations were forthcoming as to why this was so, but I am personally unconvinced; I believe that BW/CaRT have shopped around until finding a firm that is prepared to fight their cases regardless of considered and honest opinion on the merits of those cases.

 

[waterworks]

Question.

 

Can CRT refuse to renew a licence for a CCer if they cannot meet the guidelines due to illness or disability ? (and have medical evidence to prove so if needed )

[Loafer]

Question.

 

Can CRT refuse to renew a licence for a CCer if they cannot meet the guidelines due to illness or disability ? (and have medical evidence to prove so if needed )

 

I suspect if it's long term, then you can't be considered a continuous cruiser. I feel for your predicament, but suspect you'd eventually have to get a mooring somewhere nearby. Best of luck with it, ww.