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

[Graham.m]

 

 

Who? CRT or the boater?

 

Feet on the ground, the front end

[Higgs]

 

I once worked for a manager (the most incompetent person I have ever known) whos main objective was to re-organise the business to make it easier for him to manage. I think you are making the same error here.

We could have enforced visitor moorings, enforced routes, and enforced dates and times when a boat moves from one place to another. Marina based boats could be forced to only leave the marina on a pre booked date. We could make the whole waterway so regimented that nobody wants to use it, except for those who choose to ignore the rules of course.

 

(Incompetent manager caused business to collapse and I got early retirement at 51 so it worked out good for me!)

 

...............Dave

 

 

That is something that would never happen. As it stands now, CRT have no legal right to force the cost of a licence on boats in a private marina. CRT's legal link to boats stops once a boat enters a marina. From that point on, CRT rely on a contract between themselves and the marina operator. The legal link of CRT enforcement is broken. The marina has no statutory powers to enforce.

 

I know what you suggest is only hypothetical, and anyway, it would only draw attention to the fact that a marina's waters and CRT's are disconnected. It would also bring into question the position of the connection fee, which the moorer pays, and how CRT would like to organise its connection and disconnection and its ability to justify connection if, as you suggest hypothetically, CRT might see fit to work some booking arrangement for boats to leave a marina.

[Gordias]

Using a bit of common sense.

 

The original article doesn't show CaRT abandoning common sense. Their records showed that someone who was already on a restricted license still wasn't moving in an acceptable way, so they initiated the next stage in the enforcement process. They don't have a continuous record of boat locations though, so CaRT's records could have been wrong.

 

Quoting the article:

I had to request the data recorded by British Waterways which shows precisely the movement of my boat to prove they were wrong.

 

This is how the process is supposed to work: the boater satisfies the CaRT that they're doing the right thing, not the reverse. Fortunately the boater was able to do so, and the acute issue was resolved. It's "common sense" for a boater on a six-month license to understand the risks and requirements, and take steps to regain a standard 12-month license - for example they should record their mooring locations. If it was truly a difficult process to get a new license, the "lack of common sense" would be on the boater's side.

Edited December 25, 2015 by Gordias

[jenlyn]

 

The original article doesn't show CaRT abandoning common sense. Their records showed that someone who was already on a restricted license still wasn't moving in an acceptable way, so they initiated the next stage in the enforcement process. They don't have a continuous record of boat locations though, so CaRT's records could have been wrong.

 

Quoting the article:

 

This is how the process is supposed to work: the boater satisfies the CaRT that they're doing the right thing, not the reverse. Fortunately the boater was able to do so, and the acute issue was resolved. It's "common sense" for a boater on a six-month license to understand the risks and requirements, and take steps to regain a standard 12-month license - for example they should record their mooring locations. If it was truly a difficult process to get a new license, the "lack of common sense" would be on the boater's side.

[Arthur Marshall]

But the boater used CRT's own records to prove them wrong, so why did they act to put him into enforcement in the first place?

Edited December 25, 2015 by Arthur Marshall

[Gordias]

 

I don't understand why you use these icons to simulate the attitudes and actions and actions of young children.

 

If you don't understand a my post, ot you disagree, the adult response is to make a post yourself. Even making an empty comment and adding two or three of the "applauding my own imagined cleverness" icons would be better /lol.

Edited December 25, 2015 by Gordias

[Gordias]

But if you can use CRT's records to prove them wrong, why do they act to put you into enforcement in the first place?

 

The main source of recording error is that even in "hotspots" CaRT don't record a boat's "overnight" location every night. (Added later - my original answer didn't actually answer your question). A boater is allowed to complement CaRT's location records with their own data. The article strongly suggests that this happened, and after CaRT took account of the new data they issued another 6-month license.

 

It's interesting to consider how this particular problem could have occurred. If the issue was because the boater was recorded one or more times at a water point rather than the overnight location, how close was he to non-conformance? We can't know of course, but the limited data suggests he was within the requirements by a relatively small margin.

Edited December 25, 2015 by Gordias

[jenlyn]

 

The main source of recording error is that even in "hotspots" CaRT don't record a boat's "overnight" location every night.

 

They do actually. So your wrong..... Yet again....

[Gordias]

They do actually. So your wrong..... Yet again....

 

Do you have any evidence for this? It's a very unlikely claim, because it would imply that CaRT records location data late at night, and to be certain would would need to do so twice per night to be sure a boat didn't move after the first check. AFAIK CaRT don't claim to do this - I'm not going to check though - IMO this is a case of "extraordinary claims (yours) require extraordinary evidence".

 

If it is true, the boater would in fact not have conformed to the CaRT's requirements, and presumably "got off on a technicality" (the article mentions that CaRT's three-month warning was delayed by six weeks, which might be enough).

[jenlyn]

 

Do you have any evidence for this? It's a very unlikely claim, because it would imply that CaRT records location data late at night, and to be certain would would need to do so twice per night to be sure a boat didn't move after the first check. AFAIK CaRT don't claim to do this - I'm not going to check though - IMO this is a case of "extraordinary claims (yours) require extraordinary evidence".

 

If it is true, the boater would in fact not have conformed to the CaRT's requirements, and presumably "got off on a technicality" (the article mentions that CaRT's three-month warning was delayed by six weeks, which might be enough).

Your talking nonsense, and I'll leave you to it. Happy feet is on tv , it's a lot more entertaining than reading your twaddle. Have a nice Xmas

[Gordias]

Your talking nonsense, and I'll leave you to it. Happy feet is on tv , it's a lot more entertaining than reading your twaddle. Have a nice Xmas

 

This is evidence of a sort, but only for your penchant for covering up your errors with "ad hominem" attacks. Let's hope "Happy Feet" will provide inspiration to help you improve your "forum footwork".

 

 

A little more on topic:

 

My impression of the article and the event it describes is that it's a minor event in a "long game".

• The boater wishes to move within CaRT's guidelines, but not much more. This is ok of course, but increases the possible consequences of boater errors or incomplete/imperfect CaRT location recording.
• CaRT followed their own process, which could lead to a (very) bad outcome for the boater. Plenty of people dislike CaRT's process, but that's not relevant to the event described in the article
• The boater found a way to change CaRT's behavior. The boater is quoted claiming that CaRT's location records were wrong, and we have no reason to believe otherwise.
• The article includes some "political" quotes from NBTA and CaRT - I'd rate as a PR draw overall

The article was interesting enough, but I doubt this event in isolation will have a significant long-term effect.

Edited December 25, 2015 by Gordias

[Graham.m]

Peace gentlemen it's Christmas day

[NigelMoore]

 

 

So do you think shuffling back and forth between two bridges is ok behaviour for a CCer?

 

If not, how should CRT differentiate . . .

 

Selectively quoting to make a point about whether CaRT should differentiate between CC’ers and HM’ers, so that the question is “what is ok behavior for a CC’er as opposed to an HM’er?” – what is ok for one is ok for both.

 

If ‘bridge shuffling’ was in fact to be considered not ok, then it is not ok for either. Why should the basis of the licence issue make a difference in that respect?

 

The sole difference for CC’ers is that they are vulnerable to revocation/refusal of their licence for not moving from a mooring after 14 days spent on the towpath on the same spot; the HM’ers are not. But HM’ers are no more entitled to more than 14 days, even as CC’ers are no more liable to the additional finessing of the rules, as suggested by ‘bridge hopping’ etc.

 

In neither case, however, should s.8 powers be deployed as a sanction for an overstay or for breach of suggested patterns of movement and such supernumery conditions; the appropriate remedies I have discussed before - which should apply equally to both 'classes'.

 

[blackrose]

 

So do you think shuffling back and forth between two bridges is ok behaviour for a CCer?

 

If not, how should CRT differentiate between the bridge hoppers and boaters who need to turn back to get fuel/water/ empty their toilet etc ?

I don't really think CRT needs to differentiate between the two unless there's a problem in the area. As someone who's been paying for a mooring for the last 10 years, bridge-hopping is actually fine by me as long as those who do it don't hog popular mooring sites.

 

If CRT do need to differentiate between troublesome and persistent bridge-hoppers and someone simply turning back to use facilities then presumably they could do it on the basis of frequency of the offending behavior? There's no need to hassle someone because on one occasion they were seen twice in the same area over a 3 or 4 week period for example. That would just be officious enforcement in my opinion.

Edited December 26, 2015 by blackrose

[Graham.m]

 

Selectively quoting to make a point about whether CaRT should differentiate between CC’ers and HM’ers, so that the question is “what is ok behavior for a CC’er as opposed to an HM’er?” – what is ok for one is ok for both.

 

Not sure I agree, bearing in mind we all look at things from a personal point of view and the majority of this has been about 14 day moorings. If this was just looking at what the Acts say it would not be difficult but with two cases recently CRT appears to be moving the goal posts and targeting those with home moorings for various reasons outside of legislation requirements.

 

 

I am thinking about the seven day and two day moorings. An HM'er who is on a long bonafide navigation may need to stop for longer than the seven or two day mooring limit; needing to stop because of a variety of reasons. For me it is that I need to rest and recuperate, that means I need to be very close to transport etc. I am not sure what the answer is so long as CRT seems to be attacking both CC'ers and HM'ers. Too early on a Boxing Day morning.

[jenlyn]

 

I am thinking about the seven day and two day moorings. An HM'er who is on a long bonafide navigation may need to stop for longer than the seven or two day mooring limit; needing to stop because of a variety of reasons. For me it is that I need to rest and recuperate, that means I need to be very close to transport etc. I am not sure what the answer is so long as CRT seems to be attacking both CC'ers and HM'ers. Too early on a Boxing Day morning.

 

Just ring CRT or the local enforcement officer, informing them of the issues, and suggest the remedy.

 

Nigel has it about right in my view.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Selectively quoting to make a point about whether CaRT should differentiate between CC’ers and HM’ers, so that the question is “what is ok behavior for a CC’er as opposed to an HM’er?” – what is ok for one is ok for both.

 

If ‘bridge shuffling’ was in fact to be considered not ok, then it is not ok for either. Why should the basis of the licence issue make a difference in that respect?

 

The sole difference for CC’ers is that they are vulnerable to revocation/refusal of their licence for not moving from a mooring after 14 days spent on the towpath on the same spot; the HM’ers are not. But HM’ers are no more entitled to more than 14 days, even as CC’ers are no more liable to the additional finessing of the rules, as suggested by ‘bridge hopping’ etc.

 

In neither case, however, should s.8 powers be deployed as a sanction for an overstay or for breach of suggested patterns of movement and such supernumery conditions; the appropriate remedies I have discussed before - which should apply equally to both 'classes'.

 

 

I believe that MtBs statement was referring to 'shuffling between two bridges' rather than overstaying on 14 day moorings.

 

My understanding ( but welcome your views as you generally have a better understanding of these things) is that a CCer must be bona fide navigating, but a HMer does not need to be, and as noted by HHJ Halbert :

 

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

[Graham.m]

 

I believe that MtBs statement was referring to 'shuffling between two bridges' rather than overstaying on 14 day moorings.

 

My understanding ( but welcome your views as you generally have a better understanding of these things) is that a CCer must be bona fide navigating, but a HMer does not need to be, and as noted by HHJ Halbert :

 

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

 

I think there by lays the problem. I can find no authority for CRT to impose 14 days on HM'ers and I can find no authority for CRT trying to impose revocation of licences on HM'ers. I have written to Mr Parry so we will see what that brings.

 

 

Just ring CRT or the local enforcement officer, informing them of the issues, and suggest the remedy.

 

Nigel has it about right in my view.

 

Having been around the block a few times I do not accept verbal assurances about such things and enforcement are loath to confirm in writing. Under the Equalities Act there should be no need for me to advise them, Trust is something that CRT have lost certainly in my case after being threatened by an enforcement bod when he was totally out of order. He was told to leave my boat and tried to stay saying he had the right. He left.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Graham.m

[Steilsteven]

 

 

So do you think shuffling back and forth between two bridges is ok behaviour for a CCer?

 

If not, how should CRT differentiate between the bridge hoppers and boaters who need to turn back to get fuel/water/ empty their toilet etc ?

I'm not sure why bridges have to be involved but no I don't think that's ok and it should apply to all boaters.

 

It is very easy to tell when someone is '' bridge hopping'' as they tend to do it month in month out, if they're not doing it long term, I can't see it as any sort of problem.

 

Keith

[Higgs]

 

I think there by lays the problem. I can find no authority for CRT to impose 14 days on HM'ers and I can find no authority for CRT trying to impose revocation of licences on HM'ers. I have written to Mr Parry so we will see what that brings.

 

 

 

 

It would make for an interesting situation, if the boat was moored in a private marina.

[MtB]

I'm not sure why bridges have to be involved but no I don't think that's ok and it should apply to all boaters.

 

It is very easy to tell when someone is '' bridge hopping'' as they tend to do it month in month out, if they're not doing it long term, I can't see it as any sort of problem.

 

Keith

 

 

I was just responding to your opinion stated earlier that overstaying is the only type of offending that should be subject to enforcement. An opinion subsequently supported by Blackrose.

 

I was trying to clarify, and therefore asked if this meant you supported another type of offending (bridge hopping).

 

Here's your post I should also have quoted.

 

 

I don't disagree that there needs to be enforcement but only for over staying. If someone is to be denied a licence because they've had to turn back to get fuel/water/ empty their toilet etc. that is something of a ridiculous line that's being drawn, don't you think Mike?

 

Keith

Edited December 26, 2015 by Mike the Boilerman

[NigelMoore]

Understanding is more clearly reached when the whole situation is viewed ‘globally’ as the judiciary like to put it.

 

The Annual Report for 1964 revealed a new approach BW took over licensing of pleasure boats and moorings. At their inception, BW had issued a combined licence “for cruising and mooring”. That changed from April Fool’s, 1965.

 

Bearing in mind that – contrary to assertion - the boat licence could NOT be any more compulsory than BW’s identical [and abandoned after 2 years] scheme for commercial craft, BW proposed to control the use of their own moorings by making payment for those entirely separate [as was right] from the issue of permitting cruising of the waterways [which they were not then in fact entitled to refuse].

 

BW moorings were identified as “mooring against directly controlled Board property, including towpaths etc. but excluding property leased or rented to anyone else” [and necessarily, of course, owned by anyone else]. A boat licensed under the new scheme was to be “entitled to use any of the Board’s waterways (including the river navigations) available for pleasure craft.

 

“By contrast, the use of the Board’s moorings will be – naturally – a voluntary matter. Owners will pay mooring charges when they choose to moor against Board property (as defined above) and it is only the mooring they have paid for at a stated place which they will be entitled to use.

 

“To facilitate cruising however, boats away from their base area may make short stops at Board moorings for a period of up to 14 days without charge. This last mentioned facility will be available to all craft, whether normally based at Board moorings or not.”

 

Those early days reveal a familiar cavalier and unilateral approach to statutory underpinnings of authority, but at least they recognised that [the final paragraph in that section of the Report concluding: “the underlying statutory situation is not in all respects satisfactory"].

 

The essential point however, is that licensed boats could all use Board moorings up to 14 days at a time, whether ‘permanently’ moored with BW or not, and that having such a ‘home mooring’ or not was independent of the licensing issue.

 

If away from your “base area”, you could choose to moor to BW moorings or to private moorings in the course of your cruise.

 

The 1995 Act did not really change things that much; the new factor it introduced [boat licences on the canals having been since made compulsory] was to finally condition issue of the licence to having somewhere the boat could be legitimately left when not in use [beyond the 14 days at Board moorings]. The alternative was that if no such place for the boat to be legitimately left longer was available, then they could carry on using Board moorings for up to the 14 days at any one place, given they HAD no “base area”.

 

Nothing, either in that first licensing scheme or the 1995 Act, precluded boats from being left at non-BW moorings for whatever length of time the relevant owner agreed to – and that applied/applies to those with a home mooring [whether BW or private] or not.

 

Finally – for all the fruitless and uninformed dispute over the interpretation of “bona fide used for navigation”, the 14 day limit was, as used historically for the last 50 years, the defining characteristic for that use, that was chosen by BW when laying down these new conditions now sanctioned by Parliament.

[jenlyn]

 

Having been around the block a few times I do not accept verbal assurances about such things and enforcement are loath to confirm in writing. Under the Equalities Act there should be no need for me to advise them, Trust is something that CRT have lost certainly in my case after being threatened by an enforcement bod when he was totally out of order. He was told to leave my boat and tried to stay saying he had the right. He left.

In my opinion, you should "advise" them of any need to overstay, even as a courtesy. Its no hardship to ring or email and give your intentions. Attempting to abuse the use of the equality act merely to suit "your" agenda is ridiculous.

If your having issues with an EO, file a complaint.

[NigelMoore]

 

He was told to leave my boat and tried to stay saying he had the right. He left.

 

It may repay you to plough through the relevant paragraphs of my main trial Skeleton Argument, paragraphs 93, and 504 to 516, which deal with the limitations to the rights of Board officers to board boats.

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/139279773/Moore-v-BW-Main-Trial-NM-Skeleton

 

As paragraphs 517 onwards proposed, my contention is that any such officer acting as you describe falls foul of the MSA 1995, so that had he not left your boat, you would have been entitled to place him under arrest and detain him until the police could collect him.

 

The importance of holding individual officers accountable in this way, I dealt with in paragraphs 534 to 543.

 

Sadly, in the event, Hildyard J felt it unnecessary to make any findings in these respects, so the matter has yet to be judicially determined.

In my opinion, you should "advise" them of any need to overstay, even as a courtesy.

 

Agreed; not only is it both courteous and sensible, if it came to any judicial dispute it would weigh in your favour that you so acted beyond the demands of perceived necessity.

[valrene9600]

you would have been entitled to place him under arrest and detain him until the police could collect him.

 

I'm sure the police would just release him. Isn't trespass a civil matter not a criminal offence.