CRT v Andy Wingfield Update

[RLWP]

Is the Soar in flood?

 

Richard

[onionbargee]

 

I think you're being very generous by crediting them with anything resembling a considered and reasoned policy on sunken/abandoned boats, . . . or much else for that matter.

 

Apart from stealing boats that haven't been abandoned by the owners, and distancing themselves as far away as possible from the all the normal tasks and activities one would expect a competent and 'fit for purpose' navigation authority to engage in on a daily basis, C&RT don't seem to have any real policies, or purpose, at all.

Defending themselves in court is going to be their sole purpose if they keep on ignoring the law. Shoosmiths must think all their Christmases have come at once by securing such a rich and stupid client, how long before it tops half a million a year legal expenses ?

 

They are going to crash and burn again unless they stop trying to promote the terms and conditions as " the law", at some point they will have to admit no one has to agree to it, or else they will have to refuse to issue a licence to anyone who declines to agree to it, they will then have broken the law, and will need rescuing from that hole as well.

[Arthur Marshall]

Quite glad I'm off on the boat with no internet in a week or two so I don't have to read any more whinging about CRT breaking the law by people who happily admit to deliberately breaking the accepted rules themselves. And then complaining they get charged for it.

Thank gods most of us get boats because we like them, use them with consideration for others and so generally enjoy our lives with very little grief.

[Bod]

Quite glad I'm off on the boat with no internet in a week or two so I don't have to read any more whinging about CRT breaking the law by people who happily admit to deliberately breaking the accepted rules themselves. And then complaining they get charged for it.

Thank gods most of us get boats because we like them, use them with consideration for others and so generally enjoy our lives with very little grief.

Arthur, would you have the same attitude, if you were on the wrong end of some of the Trusts ideas?

When an organisation gets things this badly wrong, who else is next?

 

Bod

[onionbargee]

Quite glad I'm off on the boat with no internet in a week or two so I don't have to read any more whinging about CRT breaking the law by people who happily admit to deliberately breaking the accepted rules themselves. And then complaining they get charged for it.

Thank gods most of us get boats because we like them, use them with consideration for others and so generally enjoy our lives with very little grief.

No one has to read the internet Arthur, it is voluntary.

[Arthur Marshall]

Arthur, would you have the same attitude, if you were on the wrong end of some of the Trusts ideas?

When an organisation gets things this badly wrong, who else is next?

 

Bod

If I'd done my best to cheat the system by not licensing my boat for a few years (so saving a fair bit of money) I think I'd probably keep my head down for a bit when I got caught rather than moaning thaat everyone else is so unfair. Bit adolescent, aint it?

And no, I don't have to read the net, but some bits of the thread are interesting.

[NigelMoore]

 

Given that S.8 of the 1983 Act went onto the statute books for the specific purpose of dealing with 'sunk, stranded or abandoned' boats in any inland waterway . . .

Just in case any confusion might arise over the statutory chronology, I should point out that BW had ALWAYS had powers to deal with sunk, stranded or abandoned boats, under s.19 of the BTC Act of 1958.

 

However, having recently succeeded in making the presence of boats on the waterways subject to their authorisation, BW wanted the removal powers extended to include boats left on the waterways without their authorisation.

 

This naturally (???) raised issues of property rights, so that, as Tony has said elsewhere, added clauses were incorporated to address any concerns. S.19 was abolished - except in Scotland - and replaced with the now infamous s.8.

 

Scotland having rejected this replacement ( they retain s.19 of the 1958 Act) Lord Burton on the Commons Select Committee in 1993 did not lose the opportunity to remind BW's barrister that they had managed perfectly well running the waterways in Scotland without that s.8 power.

[nicknorman]

Just in case any confusion might arise over the statutory chronology, I should point out that BW had ALWAYS had powers to deal with sunk, stranded or abandoned boats, under s.19 of the BTC Act of 1958.

However, having recently succeeded in making the presence of boats on the waterways subject to their authorisation, BW wanted the removal powers extended to include boats left on the waterways without their authorisation.

This naturally (???) raised issues of property rights, so that, as Tony has said elsewhere, added clauses were incorporated to address any concerns. S.19 was abolished - except in Scotland - and replaced with the now infamous s.8.

Scotland having rejected this replacement ( they retain s.19 of the 1958 Act) Lord Burton on the Commons Select Committee in 1993 did not lose the opportunity to remind BW's barrister that they had managed perfectly well running the waterways in Scotland without that s.8 power.

Although it has to be said that the way the waterways are run in Englandshire is infinitely preferable to the way they are run in Scotland. Be careful what you (might) wish for! Edited June 23, 2016 by nicknorman

[StarUKKiwi]

CaRT are very mindful of pending cases such as yours, as was revealed in the hearing. It seems improbable [though not impossible] that they will be pursuing County Court trials that duplicate the issues, now that Leigh's case is progressing.

Although Shoosmiths had indicated to the Court last year that the case should properly be transferred to the County Court in the interests of costs, yesterday their QC acknowledged that it would be in their interests – if the case was to survive their Strike-out application - to keep it in the High Court to avoid the duplication of successive CC trials [many being in the pipeline] on the same issues, none of which would result in binding judgments. This will be cheaper for them in the long run [if they win of course].

It put me in the happy position of agreeing with the opposition entirely, although the Master pointed out to me some potential argument over my reliance on the Toll aspect, which he suggested I might want to look up. I don’t think it holds water particularly [from his precis], but it will be interesting to see – and it has not mattered anyway for this case.

 

So you may have plenty of opportunity to prolong your correspondence.

 

Interestingly, I caught a very faint hint from the Master's comments at one point, that he may have been researching the background beyond what each side's pleadings provided. He seemed aware of a groundswell of boater dissatisfaction with the way CaRT were applying s.8's in many cases, that was not in anything the parties had specifically mentioned. Perhaps he also, is reading the Forum? Unlikely perhaps, but it is indicative of more than usual care and interest being exercised.

 

Which Gentleman's club in London does he belong to and which MP's are also members might provide an insight into where he gained information

[NigelMoore]

Although it has to be said that the way the waterways are run in Englandshire is infinitely preferable to the way they are run in Scotland. Be careful what you (might) wish for!

Referring to style, maintenance, or operational efficiency? How do they deal with licence evasion?

[Tony Dunkley]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . How do they deal with licence evasion?

 

. . . . . and do they 'manufacture' and impose something that has the appearance of licence evasion when dishonestly paraded before a Judge as such ?

Edited June 24, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[nicknorman]

Referring to style, maintenance, or operational efficiency? How do they deal with licence evasion?

Primarily about operational strategy. One is not allowed to operate any locks or lift/swing bridges, one has to arrange CRT staff to do that on a timetable. That must consume a lot of resource. The F&C is heavily locked but it is difficult to do the locks, and return, "just for the sake of it". As I always say, it is their (Scottish Canals) train set!

 

Haggis will correct me if I'm wrong but pretty sure CCing is not allowed, you have to have a mooring. I'm not sure how licence evasion is dealt with but it doesn't seem to be a problem. Whether that is because no-one evades, or because they have an equitable system when anyone does, I don't know.

 

Obviously it is a much smaller system than Englandshire and thus quite easy to keep tabs on everyone, especially if they all have to have a home mooring.

Edited June 24, 2016 by nicknorman

[raymondh]

not hard to find

 

https://www.scottishcanals.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2016-Long-Term-Licence-Moorings-booklet.pdf

 

Ray

[NigelMoore]

Scotland having rejected this replacement ( they retain s.19 of the 1958 Act) . . .

 

Have I got this wrong? I know the website page linked to by raymondh makes the same claim, but . . .

 

I have been having another look at s.19 of the 1958 Act, and first off, I think it reinforces something I have said previously regarding the right [or not] to leave boats on the towpath. This matters ‘only’ as a matter of principle of course, seeing the standard historical practice of BW was to allow up to 14 days – since when, that has been specifically enshrined in statute from 1995.

 

Referring only to boats “sunk stranded or abandoned”, the definition in the 1958 Act nonetheless included boats that were left in the waterways without written permission – and as no such permission was at that time required to simply be on the waterways, and private mooring rights remained sacrosanct then as now, the only application could be to those boats which were, for whatever reason, left unused on the towpath for a month or longer; these could, under s.19, be classified as ‘abandoned’ whether that was the intention of the boat owner or not.

 

My analysis has always been that no right existed to leave a boat unused on the towpath for any longer than overnight, but I believe that is unaffected by this; the s.19 power simply gave the British Transport Commission a drastic power to classify a boat left unused on the towpath for longer than a month, as abandoned, in the absence of their written consent to do so.

 

However what has really struck me, was that the section specifically removes any application to Scotland, which is at odds with what is promoted as the present position [and which I have hitherto accepted, as I wrote in above quote]. This needs further investigation; I am obviously forgetting something – the 1983 Act expressly repealed s.19 of the 1958 Act so far as it extended to “the Board”, so somewhere there will have to be a clause post 1958 applying s.19 to Scotland, and exempting Scotland from the 1983 repeal. Old age and dry rot must be setting in - would be grateful for someone filling in the missing bits; am disinclined to delve deeper into anything other than the whisky barrel for tonight.

 

Yet another thought that had never occurred to me before – it has always seemed somewhat odd that the wording of s.8 refers to craft “left or moored therein without lawful authority” while not defining what was meant by that “lawful authority” [the assumption having been that it could only refer to the post 1976 position, wherein all boats required a licence [or certificate where appropriate] simply to be kept on the waterways.

 

Yet, reading the section in context [as such things always should be], it now seems obvious that the [at least immediately relevant] definition has always been there in the immediately previous section 7, dealing with unsafe craft. Subsection (6) provided that if any boat deemed unsafe by the Board had not had matters put in hand to remedy the identified defects within a notified period, then the Board could deal with that boat “as a craft which is left on an inland waterways without lawful authority under section 8 (Removal of vessels) of this Act.”

 

Not that the wording of s.8 taken in isolation is incapable of applying to unlicensed craft, but section 7 does seem to indicate that this was not the primary intention, at the very least; it was rather intended as a power to remove unsafe vessels that the owners were not putting right.

 

[NigelMoore]

OK – to answer myself: the sub-section denying the application of section 19 of the 1958 Act to Scotland was removed under section 9 of the BW Act 1975. So s.19 applied to Scotland post 1975.

As to the repeal of s.19 and the replacement of it with s.8 of the 1983 Act, none of that 1983 act applied to Scotland.

The treatment of unlicensed boats in Scotland as “sunk stranded or abandoned” if unlicensed, strikes me as very creative extrapolation of the definitions, especially given the perceived need for the additional wording of the 1983 Act for England and Wales, to cover such a circumstance [supposing even, as per my previous post, that even that much was intended].

From the 1993 comment to the Select Committee, it is apparent that no such interpretation had been applied to s.19 up to that point, so the current very dubious claim that s.19 can be used in Scotland to remove unlicensed boats is of relatively recent origin.

[NigelMoore]

Another useful snippet of legislation I have noticed Tony, which you should add to your authorities collection –

In the British Waterways Act 1963, all rights of navigation were abolished [along with the attendant obligation to maintain as navigable, or even to act as a supply to navigable waterways] along certain waterways. However, a section was included “For the protection of the Trent River Board” that the “closed canal” and the “adjacent watercourses” had to be maintained for land drainage purposes into the Trent.

This rather puts a dampener on the current argument that the “main navigable channel” of the Trent included all of the river, with the adjacent watercourses being the secondary navigable channels – none of the adjacent watercourses were any longer by 1971 legally navigable!

[NigelMoore]

However what has really struck me, was that the section specifically removes any application to Scotland, which is at odds with what is promoted as the present position [and which I have hitherto accepted, as I wrote in above quote].

 

Reflecting on the above exchange with myself over the applicability of s.19 to Scotland, it is sobering to realise that even someone with as much reason as me to be cynical over what BW/CaRT claim as to their powers, could find themselves having accepted a claim without question.

 

The fact that in this case, the claim was accurate, is not the point – for a little while there I was accepting something for which I had no rational basis within the bounds of my knowledge. Scary; until I had re-read s.19, the relevant subsection 11 had either escaped my notice or had been sublimated, and the answers to my own queries over the effect of that were not readily discoverable within the subsequent legislation. [it was a most peculiar history of shifting statutory application to areas within the same authority.]

 

Someone once said, nearly two thousand years ago, that everyone should be able to give to anyone that asked, a reason for their beliefs; for awhile there, I could not have done so if challenged over my previous post – I was right [as it happened], but could not have produced any reason for my belief, other than that BW/CaRT were making the same statement [never a sound reason].

 

Just a little self-deprecatory homily for the admonition of all . . .

 

[NigelMoore]

For the factual legislative background to what I have said:

Section 19 of the 1958 Act, sub-section (11) reads: “This section shall not extend to Scotland.”

Section 9(2) of the 1975 Act [extending s.19 to Scotland] reads: “Section 19 (As to vessels sunk, stranded or abandoned) of the Act of 1958 in its application to the Board shall have effect as if subsection (11) were omitted therefrom.”

Section 21 of the 1983 Act [which repealed s.19] reads: “This Act shall not extend to Scotland.”

[NigelMoore]

A useful tool in the anti-s.13 arsenal - essential in dealing with classification [for enforcement purposes only] of pleasure boats as houseboats – is the BW undertaking respecting Clause 15 of the Bill as at 1993, wherein BW wrote to Parliament:

“The Board undertake not to treat as a houseboat any vessel which, although not in fact bona fide used for navigation, is not in use as a residence by any person or persons.”

For any liveaboards this would not be helpful perhaps, but it certainly would be in Leigh’s case, should CaRT be allowed to run that argument despite lack of any s.13 Notice.

Any CC’ers or HM’ers who were not live-aboards, who nonetheless ran foul of a CaRT s.13 notice, could likewise cite this.

It does call into question the blanket dual classification of pleasure boats that CaRT indulge in, in order to render all argument over s.8 applicability 'otiose'.

Another potentially useful tool in argument over the proportionality of using s.8 instead of, for example, use of the 1971 penalties for failure to possess a current pleasure boat certificate, is the second of BW’s “Statements of Intent” dated 18 June 1993.

This asserted that: “The established practice of the Board is to bring prosecutions in connection with any failure to have a relevant consent in force in respect of a vessel as a last resort.” If prior warnings were heeded, no court proceedings would be brought, and respecting s.13 penalties under the 1971 Act, the same approach would be followed.

If this stated intent respecting prosecutions under the terms of the 1971 Act [or indeed any ‘relevant consent’] was to undertake them only as a last resort, how much less ready ought the authority to be, in bypassing such processes altogether, in favour of powers of removal under s.8?

Regarding the status of these statements, BW wrote: "While these statements of intent have no legal effect, the Board intends to observe them until changing circumstances require their reconsideration and revision, in which case changes will only be made following consultation with NABO and such persons and organisations as are stipulated in paragraph 1.6 of the Board's revised draft Leisure and Tourism strategy."

[NigelMoore]

Signed by Mr Duffy himself:

[Mike Todd]

Signed by Mr Duffy himself:

 

 

Having read some of the court transcripts posted on here in the past, it does seem that the term 'houseboat' is used in a very particular way that may differ from common parlance. On occasions I have found it hard to reconcile all of them. For example, sometimes it is said that a houseboat must not have an installed means of propulsion whilst others it is clearly implied as a possibility (short of assuming horse drawn!).

 

Can you clarify what, as far as you have discovered, is the current definition to which everyone signs up? Or is it another of these opportunities for endless lawyer debate?

[Giant]

Having read some of the court transcripts posted on here in the past, it does seem that the term 'houseboat' is used in a very particular way that may differ from common parlance. On occasions I have found it hard to reconcile all of them. For example, sometimes it is said that a houseboat must not have an installed means of propulsion whilst others it is clearly implied as a possibility (short of assuming horse drawn!).

 

Can you clarify what, as far as you have discovered, is the current definition to which everyone signs up? Or is it another of these opportunities for endless lawyer debate?

 

The meaning of "houseboat" for BW/CRT purposes is defined in the British Waterways Act 1971, section 3(1):

 

 

"houseboat" means any boat or barge or any vessel or structure or any part, remains or wreckage thereof whether or not the same shall be used or intended to be used for human habitation but does not include any boat, barge, vessel or structure-

• which is bona fide used for navigation; or

• which is on an inland waterway with the written consent of the Board for the purpose of being broken up or disposed of; or

• which is owned or used by the Board; or

• which consists of a floating or fixed pier or jetty bona fide used by pleasure boats."

 

The confusion arises because there are very different definitions for other purposes in other legislation. HMRC VAT Notice 701/20 defines:

 

 

A houseboat is defined for the purposes of VAT as being a floating decked structure

• which is designed or adapted for use solely as a place of permanent habitation, and
• which does not have the means of, and which is not capable of being readily adapted for, self-propulsion

 

And both of these in turn differ from what the "man on the Clapham omnibus" might consider to be a houseboat.

[NigelMoore]

Can you clarify what, as far as you have discovered, is the current definition to which everyone signs up? Or is it another of these opportunities for endless lawyer debate?

 

The latter I am afraid.

 

I am frankly totally disinterested in what people with houseboat certificates “sign up” to; the last figure I read was that affected at most some 80 people, with CaRT, as BW before them, angling to get rid of them almost altogether [i suspect they would like to retain the legislation for seizure purposes while needing to issue none].

 

Nobody actually "signs up" to a definition anyway, although due to the efforts of NABO over the years, the definitions have been broadened for practical purposes in favour of the certificate holders, with any changes to be introduced only after consultation. Otherwise, there are a standard statutory set of Terms to which all these certificates are subject [distinguishing them from pleasure and commercial boats], with any additional conditions able to be imposed at CaRT’s whim, subject only to consultation as agreed outwith the legislation itself.

 

The ‘difficulty’ is that the definitions of various craft within the 1971 Act are largely couched in the negative – they are each defined as not belonging to the other class, which is rather circular. The definitions were in fact a matter of considerable debate both in Hansard and in the Select Committees during passage of the 1990 Bill, but in the end, everyone decided that there were no great practical difficulties with the situation, no matter how dysfunctional the wording was.

 

It helps in understanding why the definition was phrased as it is, when you realise the purpose of the houseboat legislation. As the problem was presented to Parliament, there were many unsafe structures littering the banks of canals and rivers, over which BW had no jurisdiction whatsoever, yet these potentially gave rise to dangerous situations and obstruction to navigation. Further, they were usually attached to banks [in the case of rivers] which were entirely outside of BW’s ownership.

 

[At that point in their history BW had apparently not conjured up the canal/riverbed trespass issue, which in any event could not help with the rivers, where riparian ownership extended under common law to the centre of the river].

 

Many of these dangerous structures could scarcely be described as boats at all, some not even floating, so BW took a scattergun approach and drafted the ‘houseboat’ as anything not a pleasure boat; commercial vessel or pontoon. The body of the definition allows for it to be any sort of structure whether designed/used for habitation or not; whether part only of a structure or not. Basically, any flotsam or jetsam tangled up on the bank could fit the definition. The powers allocated enabled forcible removal and destruction regardless of the ownership of the mooring/bankside to which they were attached.

 

Nonetheless, if you had a boat, the purpose of which was for navigation [powered or not is immaterial], that could be classified as pleasure boat. Whether you actually used it for navigation throughout the period of the certificate, or not at all, made no difference to the nature of the boat: if the boat was designed to navigate [and was not used commercially to carry cargo], it fitted the definition [the distinction was pointed out by the judge in discussing the NBTA JR]. At the same time, because classified as a pleasure boat, it fell out of the houseboat definition; a pleasure boat is itself defined [inter alia] as NOT a houseboat!

The complications set in when conflict arises over which classification should be applied. Essentially and crucially, however, the houseboat ‘definition’ cannot be taken in isolation from the conditions of the applicable certificate, nor in isolation from the disclaimers of the original legislation.

 

Hence, you could not certify a houseboat without a mooring with LPA approval, nor in the absence of permission from the relevant landowner to use the mooring for the purpose, for the duration of the certificate. BW/CaRT had/have no say, even, in whether the certificate is valid or not, in circumstances [for example] where a third party withdraws consent to moor prior to expiry of the certificate term – the houseboat certificate’s validity determines with expiry of the mooring consent.

 

IF therefore, regardless of any other criteria, a vessel had no approved mooring for residential purposes, then it could never fit the essential pre-requisites for defining it as a houseboat. The rubbish spouted by CaRT’s barrister at the first Wingfield hearing notwithstanding.

 

For most boaters, the concern over the definition only arises when CaRT wish to define their pleasure boats as ‘houseboats’ when under threat of removal, in order that any legislative obstacles to s.8 procedures are removed.

 

For the very few current houseboat certificate holders, the problem is more one of confirming that prior acceptance of self-powered navigable craft may remain classified as houseboats. On the face of the original legislative definition, my own view is that they cannot be - but I totally support the position that offering the houseboat certificates to any boat that has taken up a BW/CaRT residential mooring is within the authority’s discretion, and that they should be held to the terms of any such existing agreements.

 

For their part, CaRT dislike the houseboat certificates because they perform the designed function [on CaRT owned mooring sites] of granting a degree of security of tenure with transferable equity for the boat owner.

 

Those interested in getting one of these should bear a couple of things in mind: CaRT cannot refuse a houseboat certificate for a qualifying boat on a private third party mooring, despite recent publications, but in all honesty these are valueless for the reason I have outlined above. They cannot confer the benefits legislated where mooring ownership is in third party hands. Those with approved long-term CaRT residential moorings on the other hand, are well advised to apply for them, for that legislated security of tenure and equity.

 

Of course, dealing with an authority of this nature, the caveat has to be that they do attempt to keep switching the goalposts, altering the conditions and definitions, and importantly, denying the full degree of statutory protections bound up in them. Everyone with such certificates or hoping for one should get in touch with NABO and/or Simon Robbins, so that the maximum solidarity over contentious issues is maintained.

 

[Mike Todd]

 

The latter I am afraid.

 

I am frankly totally disinterested in what people with houseboat certificates “sign up” to; the last figure I read was that affected at most some 80 people, with CaRT, as BW before them, angling to get rid of them almost altogether [i suspect they would like to retain the legislation for seizure purposes while needing to issue none].

 

Nobody actually "signs up" to a definition anyway, although due to the efforts of NABO over the years, the definitions have been broadened for practical purposes in favour of the certificate holders, with any changes to be introduced only after consultation. Otherwise, there are a standard statutory set of Terms to which all these certificates are subject [distinguishing them from pleasure and commercial boats], with any additional conditions able to be imposed at CaRT’s whim, subject only to consultation as agreed outwith the legislation itself.

 

The ‘difficulty’ is that the definitions of various craft within the 1971 Act are largely couched in the negative – they are each defined as not belonging to the other class, which is rather circular. The definitions were in fact a matter of considerable debate both in Hansard and in the Select Committees during passage of the 1990 Bill, but in the end, everyone decided that there were no great practical difficulties with the situation, no matter how dysfunctional the wording was.

 

It helps in understanding why the definition was phrased as it is, when you realise the purpose of the houseboat legislation. As the problem was presented to Parliament, there were many unsafe structures littering the banks of canals and rivers, over which BW had no jurisdiction whatsoever, yet these potentially gave rise to dangerous situations and obstruction to navigation. Further, they were usually attached to banks [in the case of rivers] which were entirely outside of BW’s ownership.

 

[At that point in their history BW had apparently not conjured up the canal/riverbed trespass issue, which in any event could not help with the rivers, where riparian ownership extended under common law to the centre of the river].

 

Many of these dangerous structures could scarcely be described as boats at all, some not even floating, so BW took a scattergun approach and drafted the ‘houseboat’ as anything not a pleasure boat; commercial vessel or pontoon. The body of the definition allows for it to be any sort of structure whether designed/used for habitation or not; whether part only of a structure or not. Basically, any flotsam or jetsam tangled up on the bank could fit the definition. The powers allocated enabled forcible removal and destruction regardless of the ownership of the mooring/bankside to which they were attached.

 

Nonetheless, if you had a boat, the purpose of which was for navigation [powered or not is immaterial], that could be classified as pleasure boat. Whether you actually used it for navigation throughout the period of the certificate, or not at all, made no difference to the nature of the boat: if the boat was designed to navigate [and was not used commercially to carry cargo], it fitted the definition [the distinction was pointed out by the judge in discussing the NBTA JR]. At the same time, because classified as a pleasure boat, it fell out of the houseboat definition; a pleasure boat is itself defined [inter alia] as NOT a houseboat!

The complications set in when conflict arises over which classification should be applied. Essentially and crucially, however, the houseboat ‘definition’ cannot be taken in isolation from the conditions of the applicable certificate, nor in isolation from the disclaimers of the original legislation.

 

Hence, you could not certify a houseboat without a mooring with LPA approval, nor in the absence of permission from the relevant landowner to use the mooring for the purpose, for the duration of the certificate. BW/CaRT had/have no say, even, in whether the certificate is valid or not, in circumstances [for example] where a third party withdraws consent to moor prior to expiry of the certificate term – the houseboat certificate’s validity determines with expiry of the mooring consent.

 

IF therefore, regardless of any other criteria, a vessel had no approved mooring for residential purposes, then it could never fit the essential pre-requisites for defining it as a houseboat. The rubbish spouted by CaRT’s barrister at the first Wingfield hearing notwithstanding.

 

For most boaters, the concern over the definition only arises when CaRT wish to define their pleasure boats as ‘houseboats’ when under threat of removal, in order that any legislative obstacles to s.8 procedures are removed.

 

For the very few current houseboat certificate holders, the problem is more one of confirming that prior acceptance of self-powered navigable craft may remain classified as houseboats. On the face of the original legislative definition, my own view is that they cannot be - but I totally support the position that offering the houseboat certificates to any boat that has taken up a BW/CaRT residential mooring is within the authority’s discretion, and that they should be held to the terms of any such existing agreements.

 

For their part, CaRT dislike the houseboat certificates because they perform the designed function [on CaRT owned mooring sites] of granting a degree of security of tenure with transferable equity for the boat owner.

 

Those interested in getting one of these should bear a couple of things in mind: CaRT cannot refuse a houseboat certificate for a qualifying boat on a private third party mooring, despite recent publications, but in all honesty these are valueless for the reason I have outlined above. They cannot confer the benefits legislated where mooring ownership is in third party hands. Those with approved long-term CaRT residential moorings on the other hand, are well advised to apply for them, for that legislated security of tenure and equity.

 

Of course, dealing with an authority of this nature, the caveat has to be that they do attempt to keep switching the goalposts, altering the conditions and definitions, and importantly, denying the full degree of statutory protections bound up in them. Everyone with such certificates or hoping for one should get in touch with NABO and/or Simon Robbins, so that the maximum solidarity over contentious issues is maintained.

 

Thanks for such a full analysis - fascinating. What was at the back of my mind was that in at least one case either the judge or CaRT's barrister used the term houseboat in a context where I did not expect it as it related to a boat that was intended to move (the only problem being that it did not fulfil that expectation!)

[NigelMoore]

What was at the back of my mind was that in at least one case either the judge or CaRT's barrister used the term houseboat in a context where I did not expect it as it related to a boat that was intended to move (the only problem being that it did not fulfil that expectation!)

 

 

You probably are thinking back to # 37 in this topic –

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=78861&page=2#entry1640145

 

CaRT’s barrister claimed that Andy Wingfield’s small pleasure cruiser ought properly to have had “a houseboat certificate on the basis of continuous cruising”.

 

This conjured up nonsense was not a random or thoughtless piece of argument, it was calculatedly aimed at circumventing the arguments that had been presented that he was not on CaRT controlled moorings when s.8’ed. Honesty is not a strong point for CaRT's chosen legal representation.

 

Needless to say, the logical entanglements he became embroiled in when attempting to explain the relevance in terms of the 1995 Act were such that the judge was prompted to blurt out – “Sorry, are you trying to help me or are you trying to lead me further into a totally futile inane discussion?”

 

Bod’s posting on the subject encapsulates the position nicely –

 

“A houseboat is specifically not a vessel used for "Bona Fide" for navigation. i.e. A licence for a boat without a home mooring, requires it to be used "Bona Fide for navigation", therefore cannot by definition be a houseboat.”

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=78861&page=2#entry1640139

 

Of course, caRT's argument on this is basically that the moment the boat stops being used "bona fide for navigation" then it falls outside the scope of 'pleasure boat' definitions, and by default becomes an illegitimate houseboat.