Story's a bit mixed up, who won again?

[Graham.m]

 

Yes they do - they just do not have to move to a new 'place' (as in the definition of parish, etc etc) but they do have to be in a new place (as in a new 'location', which could be 200 yards away from the old location) but, then of course, 14 days later they can return to 1st mooring which a CCer cannot do.

 

As the thread is about licenses I can't agree. It cannot be a condition of getting a licence for those with a Home mooring, the act lays down the conditions required. As I understand it whilst there might be something in CRT rules etc and as they are not permitted to fine etc I would suggest it is really unenforceable.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

As the thread is about licenses I can't agree. It cannot be a condition of getting a licence for those with a Home mooring, the act lays down the conditions required. As I understand it whilst there might be something in CRT rules etc and as they are not permitted to fine etc I would suggest it is really unenforceable.

 

Correct - they cannot refuse to issue a licence (under the conditions of the 1995 Act) but it can be immediately 'withdrawn' if a HMer has not moved for 15 days.

Although, not as a condition of licence provision, the 14 day limits are covered in other Acts / Byelaws, and, as the Landowner, C&RT can make such conditions.

 

Nigel Moore has quoted chapter &verse on this before but I cannot now find it - maybe he will be kind enough to cite the references.

[Gordias]

[...]

Unless you want a system where every single boat on the system is logged every single day, which is obviously impossible, you can only have a system which is approximate and is therefore prone to the odd error.

[]

Not disagreeing with the main point of your post (or the inevitability of occasional errors in a recording system), but ...

 

It's already technically possible to track something like a boat automatically. There are also alternatives that would make manual tracking much more efficient.

For now I suppose it's not worth the cost and effort to CaRT for them to change the way they work, but it's not realistic to assume that recording and enforcement will always be limited to manual methods.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Gordias

[Graham.m]

 

Correct - they cannot refuse to issue a licence (under the conditions of the 1995 Act) but it can be immediately 'withdrawn' if a HMer has not moved for 15 days.

Although, not as a condition of licence provision, the 14 day limits are covered in other Acts / Byelaws, and, as the Landowner, C&RT can make such conditions.

 

Nigel Moore has quoted chapter &verse on this before but I cannot now find it - maybe he will be kind enough to cite the references.

 

Sounds interesting, I am aware that CRT are trying to add a license condition regarding this. I have advised CRT that it is not acceptable and I have take the new license under duress and they have been advised in writing. As a disabled person I find their lack of adjustment under the Equalities Act very poor. Yes they do know I am disabled and have had proof of government approval of my disabilities.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Correct - they cannot refuse to issue a licence (under the conditions of the 1995 Act) but it can be immediately 'withdrawn' if a HMer has not moved for 15 days.

Although, not as a condition of licence provision, the 14 day limits are covered in other Acts / Byelaws, and, as the Landowner, C&RT can make such conditions.

 

Nigel Moore has quoted chapter &verse on this before but I cannot now find it - maybe he will be kind enough to cite the references.

 

Not so. Alan.

A boat licence can only be terminated if the licence holder ceases to fulfill the three requirements of S.17[3] of the 1995 Act, under which it was issued; S.17[4] and [5] then become applicable, with a minimum of 28 days to remedy the situation.

Licence refusal, or termination, is not a sanction available to C&RT under the Byelaws.

Some, but by no means all, of the Licence T&C's are regurgitated Byelaws, and those alone carry any weight in law, the rest of the T&C's can be ignored with impunity.

Of course, that is not to say that C&RT don't do their best to convince everyone otherwise.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Graham.m]

 

Not so. Alan.

A boat licence can only be terminated if the licence holder ceases to fulfill the three requirements of S.17[3] of the 1995 Act, under which it was issued.

 

That is what I believe to be the situation

[Tony Dunkley]

 

That is what I believe to be the situation

 

I have got a written admission to that effect from C&RT. It was produced, in error, for consumption by the Waterways Ombiasman when C&RT were about to begin advising him about his what his findings were going to be with regard to a Complaint about having my boat 'Licence' unlawfully revoked that I made in early 2014.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Not so. Alan.

A boat licence can only be terminated if the licence holder ceases to fulfill the three requirements of S.17[3] of the 1995 Act, under which it was issued; S.17[4] and [5] then become applicable, with a minimum of 28 days to remedy the situation.

Licence refusal, or termination, is not a sanction available to C&RT under the Byelaws.

Some, but by no means all, of the Licence T&C's are regurgitated Byelaws, and those alone carry any weight in law, the rest of the T&C's can be ignored with impunity.

Of course, that is not to say that C&RT don't do their best to convince everyone otherwise.

 

Maybe I am getting confused about the ability to revoke a licence, but they certainly ( I think) have the force of law behind them to apply the 14 day limit

[Graham.m]

 

Maybe I am getting confused about the ability to revoke a licence, but they certainly ( I think) have the force of law behind them to apply the 14 day limit

 

I don't think so for those whose license is issued as having a home mooring. The only place I am aware of that 14 days is mentioned, could be wrong, is where the act refers to the conditions for a CC license.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Graham.m

[Alan de Enfield]

 

I don't think so for those whose license is issued as having a home mooring. The only place I am aware of that 14 days is mentioned, could be wrong, is where the act refers to the conditions for a CC license.

 

No - its not in the 1995 Act, its somewhere else ( another act or the byelaws or somesuch place)

[Graham.m]

 

No - its not in the 1995 Act, its somewhere else ( another act or the byelaws or somesuch place)

 

I would suggest to affect the license it would have to be in the primary legislation. Just checked the general Byelaws 1965. Using moor and 14 as the search terms no mention of a length of stay at mooring

[alan_fincher]

I'm not aware of anything in the acts or bye-laws that actually requires those who have a home mooring to move on after 14 days. I also believe that in law, at least, it only applies to those with no home mooring.

BW / CRT may have extended it to be something they want everybody to comply with because of T&Cs, but I don't think the requirement is stated in the underlying acts or bye-laws, is it?

 

Most with home moorings seem to accept it as reasonable that it also gets applied to them, but I don't know how successful CRT would be in taking action against someone with a home mooring that didn't move on after 14 days. Have they ever won such cases, so far?

[Loafer]

From a CCer's point of view, Home Moorers are just as annoying as continuous moorers, when they leave their boats outside the pub for weeks on end, for use as a dossing place to save them driving home.

 

Fortunately, that now seems to mean that they can't do that any more. Hurrah.

[Graham.m]

I'm not aware of anything in the acts or bye-laws that actually requires those who have a home mooring to move on after 14 days. I also believe that in law, at least, it only applies to those with no home mooring.

 

BW / CRT may have extended it to be something they want everybody to comply with because of T&Cs, but I don't think the requirement is stated in the underlying acts or bye-laws, is it?

 

Most with home moorings seem to accept it as reasonable that it also gets applied to them, but I don't know how successful CRT would be in taking action against someone with a home mooring that didn't move on after 14 days. Have they ever won such cases, so far?

 

Only by default, where the correct replies to service were not made, Andy.

 

I am afraid I don't accept them. For me to do a long cruise, for reason outlined earlier I need to cruise for a week or so then rest at home to recover and that time could be easily more than 14 days

Edited December 23, 2015 by Graham.m

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Only by default, where the correct replies to service were not made, Andy.

 

I am afraid I don't accept them. For me to do a long cruise, for reason outlined earlier I need to cruise for a week or so then rest at home to recover and that time could be easily more than 14 days

 

Nigel M. will be able to provide a far more comprehensive and definitive answer, but to the best of my knowledge C&RT's legal powers to control mooring to, or against, their land are no different from the same common law rights and powers to control moorings vested in any riparian landowner.

There are certainly no sanctions deriving from C&RT's ownership of land that can lawfully be applied in respect of boat 'Licences', although of course, as is usual, that won't stop them trying it on.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Graham.m]

 

Nigel M. will be able to provide a far more comprehensive and definitive answer, but to the best of my knowledge C&RT's legal powers to control mooring to, or against, their land is no different from the same common law rights and powers to control moorings vested in any riparian landowner.

There are certainly no sanctions deriving from C&RT's ownership of land that can lawfully be applied in respect of boat 'Licences', although of course, as is usual, that won't stop them trying it on.

 

I hear what you are saying Tony, but I wonder, the whole of the canal scene is controlled by legislation from the building of the canals to licensing boats. I think even CRT's inability to charge for moorings or overstays is related to the lack of legislation. I am not sure what sanctions they have re-mooring in the magistrate's courts, but suspect that would have to be under Bye Laws.

 

Yes would be very interested in Nigel's comments

Edited December 23, 2015 by Graham.m

[Dave Payne]

I asked CRT about having to move every 14 days even though i have a home mooring, they said yes you need to move every 14 days, i then asked if i had to move the same distance as a continuous cruiser, no reply...

[Graham.m]

I asked CRT about having to move every 14 days even though i have a home mooring, they said yes you need to move every 14 days, i then asked if i had to move the same distance as a continuous cruiser, no reply...

 

What happens if you don't?

[bigcol]

I also whilst out last year asked the same question last year, though not traveled far have stayed for or up to 14 days

And when returning will frequent same mooring sites.

I was told that the same rules apply, up to 14 days or as per local signage

Was it CRT legal to stay 14 days Gifford July 14 days Aug ?

i.e. Cosgrove no return. So when going through to stoke B, couldn't stay on the way back according to CRT

 

Anyway to be a marina gonowhere moorer, to a shuffler,was, I thought a promotion.

 

Col

Edited December 23, 2015 by bigcol

[David Mack]

Didn't we all used to HAVE to have a mooring, pre-1995?

 

 

No. Hence the 1990 Bill.

 

 

Don't follow. Very briefly?

 

Before the 1990 Bill nobody had a have a formal mooring at all.

 

BW, foreseeing that boats just left on the towpath could become a problem, and probably also looking at the potential income from moorings, tried to add a requirement that all boats should have a home mooring in the 1990 Bill. Boating groups, including IWA, responded that continuous cruising was a legitimate use of the waterways, and that such boats did not need a home mooring. Late in the progress of the Bill through Parliament BW conceded the point in order to get the Bill through, and the vague wording we have in the Act was the result.

 

For much of the 20 years since the Act, BW turned a blind eye to those without a home mooring not complying with the requirements, but increasing numbers of towpath shufflers, first on the western K&A and later in London, have led to the more recent BW/CRT clampdown.

[NigelMoore]

. . . to the best of my knowledge C&RT's legal powers to control mooring to, or against, their land are no different from the same common law rights and powers to control moorings vested in any riparian landowner.

 

That is not quite true either Tony – they do not have the powers that an ordinary person enjoys by virtue of common law respecting ownership; the powers they have under the enabling Acts to control use of the offside property they own are almost, but not quite, the same that private owners enjoy. As providers of services to the public under the original Acts those services must be made available to all [at the same level of charge they see fit], whereas a private person could refuse to treat with a prospective customer.

 

A distinction needs to be drawn between the investment property offside [where the above applies], and the towpath property onside, which they have a duty to keep available for the use of all boaters – and discharging that duty would inevitably and properly include moving people on who were obstructing others from using that space.

 

The conceptual problem that so many [including CaRT] appear to have, is to do with the tools of control. It seems as though CaRT and most of its customers believe that refusing and revoking licences is the sole remedy wherewith to enforce ‘rules’. It is not only NOT the sole remedy, it is not a designed remedy for ANY of these infractions.

 

So - as Tony has clearly and correctly stated – the licensing issue is dependant solely on the conditions set down in the 1995 Act. It is not for CaRT to enforce statutory regulations by any means other than the specific remedies laid down. A mooring offence has to be dealt with AS a mooring offence not a licensing issue. There are very few such offences.

 

My own understanding is that those with home moorings have a right to moor up to 14 days in any one place on the towpath - not because they are expressly permitted [as CC’ers are] to stay that long in any one place by virtue of statute, but because BW/CaRT have expressly permitted that period when issuing the licences, and they cannot retract that permission. They never needed, in fact, to have allowed even that time.

 

But – the boater with a home mooring is not committing a punishable offence in staying beyond that time, if it is not obstructing the rights of others. If CaRT wish, and it is desirable to move a boat on for whatever reason after expiry of the 14 days, they may do so – at their own expense. They do not need to even give notice; they simply move it on themselves, so that others can enjoy the facilities affected.

If you overstay on, for example, designated visitor moorings, you could be charged with obstruction additionally if not instead of, simply moving the boat away. If you needed to leave the boat longer for some reason, then leaving it along the general unimproved towpath a bit outside the visitor mooring section is something CaRT need not be particularly bothered about, although even there they would be entitled to move you along if they felt the matter was deserving [under the particular circumstances], of expending the necessary resources.

[NigelMoore]

 

What happens if you don't?

 

What happens, or what can legally happen?

 

That depends upon whether you are an obstruction to others, are presenting a danger in so doing, or whether you are beyond the black stump.

 

Any overstay on the towpath can be considered an obstruction of others' rights to moor to that place; CaRT could legitimately move you on just to make the point [but would sensibly consider that rarely necessary if out in the middle of nowhere].

 

In specific locattions where facilities are provided for everyone to use such as water taps, rubbish disposal and sanitary facilities etc, to stay longer than need to avail yourself of the facility is a clear obstruction to the rights of others [and was the prime argument for everyone to have home moorings, when promoting the 1990 Bill] and CaRT could and should move you away physically.

 

If you endangered anything or anyone in so mooring, you could additionally be liable to a fine of up to £1,000 on summary conviction.

[NigelMoore]

Before the 1990 Bill nobody had a have a formal mooring at all.

 

It is always important to recognise the difference between what BW/CaRT have said is compulsory and what IS compulsory.

 

From their inception, for example, BW claimed that pleasure boat licences for the canals were obligatory – they were not. That could never have arisen prior to 1968, and did not take effect until the 1976 byelaw.

 

Both before and after the licence was made [legally] compulsory, BW used to insist upon people declaring where they kept their boat when not in use – again, that was their say-so, not the law, and as David Mack has succinctly explained [i was mid travel with only a phone the last couple of days, so grateful for his stepping in] it was with rising boat numbers and a need to get new legislation for a whole raft of new issues, that they took the opportunity to try making their previously asserted compulsion a legal compulsion.

 

It is because of the long history of bald assertions, that people who have been on the canals for more than the last quarter century retain the idea the home moorings were always compulsory. Most of us tend to believe authority [until personally exposed to its abuse].

[Tony Dunkley]

 

But – the boater with a home mooring is not committing a punishable offence in staying beyond that time, if it is not obstructing the rights of others. If CaRT wish, and it is desirable to move a boat on for whatever reason after expiry of the 14 days, they may do so – at their own expense. They do not need to even give notice; they simply move it on themselves, so that others can enjoy the facilities affected.

 

 

Not strictly relevant to this topic, but maybe this is something else that could, and should, have been included, or at the very least referred to, in the Defence that CLP should have submitted for Andy Wingfield's hearing on 8 October last.

The County Hall steps in Nottingham, where Andy was tied up too long for C&RT's liking, are not only land NOT owned by C&RT, but they are also on the non-towpath side of the River. The Trent towpath is on that side of the river from Holme Lock upstream to Nottingham, but changes sides a few hundred yards before the County Hall steps.

It's certainly worth bearing in mind if C&RT were ever to resort to basing legal action on statute and byelaws, rather than fiction, and submit an 'obstruction' argument for the same location on some future occasion.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[NigelMoore]

 

The County Hall steps in Nottingham, where Andy was tied up too long for C&RT's liking, are not only land NOT owned by C&RT, but they are also on the non-towpath side of the River. The Trent towpath is on that side of the river from Holme Lock upstream to Nottingham, but changes sides a few hundred yards before the County Hall steps.

 

It's certainly worth bearing in mind if C&RT were ever to resort to basing legal action on statute and byelaws, rather than fiction, and submit an 'obstruction' argument for the same location on some future occasion.

 

My comments respecting legitimate time limits re: mooring apply only to the towpath [the CaRT-owned offside premises being subject, as noted by us both previously, to whatever conditions they like].

 

In cases such as Andy Wingfield where the mooring is to private offside property on a river navigation, they have no legitimate claim to control whatsoever - and BW published their acknowledgement of that many years ago. That makes their pursuit of such cases knowingly criminal.