Definition of home mooring

[magictime]

The law is quite clear on towpath mooring. You will have to move after 14 days.

 

So? The law doesn't say anything about a 'home mooring' having to be available for longer than 14 days at a time, does it?

[jenlyn]

 

So? The law doesn't say anything about a 'home mooring' having to be available for longer than 14 days at a time, does it?

I like your thinking. I'll have a sip of that tea your drinking if you don't mind

[nicknorman]

I think the catch is "may lawfully be kept". Can you cite the law that allows you to keep your boat on the towpath?

[jenlyn]

I think the catch is "may lawfully be kept". Can you cite the law that allows you to keep your boat on the towpath?

CRT found it.

[magictime]

I think the catch is "may lawfully be kept". Can you cite the law that allows you to keep your boat on the towpath?

 

Not of the top of my head, but I can't imagine CRT disputing the fact that a licensed boat may lawfully be left in any given place along the towpath for up to 14 days (unless signposted otherwise) before moving on. That's the basis of all their own guidance to boaters, after all.

 

(I do realise that what I'm proposing is completely bonkers, incidentally; I'm just pushing the OP's logic a step further to point out just how little sense the letter of the law seems to make.)

[NigelMoore]

CRT found it.

 

Actually, of course, they have found no such thing; they just take the money for allowing boats to stay longer than the 14 days, on their unilaterally assumed authority. It would be interesting to see if they could come up with any relevant law they found.

[jenlyn]

 

Actually, of course, they have found no such thing; they just take the money for allowing boats to stay longer than the 14 days, on their unilaterally assumed authority. It would be interesting to see if they could come up with any relevant law they found.

That top hat has many tricks, and continues to produce astounding magic.

[NigelMoore]

 

(I do realise that what I'm proposing is completely bonkers, incidentally; I'm just pushing the OP's logic a step further to point out just how little sense the letter of the law seems to make.)

 

It isn't actually 'bonkers' at all.

 

The law may be slightly messy, but not as much as one might suppose.

 

In deliberating this and other related minutiae of the law, it is always helpful to step back, and try to see the wood for the trees. One of the principles for determining the intent of the law is to ask what mischief the legislation was intended to remedy.

 

The answer in this case is clearly enunciated in the debates over the 1990 Bill. The stated purpose of s.17(3)( c ) was to obviate the possibility of boaters leaving their boats on the towpath [most especially blocking popular sites such as water points and visitor moorings] for lengthy periods when not actually using them.

 

So the upshot of the legislative effect is that boats that have to be left for whatever reason for longer than 14 days, must have somewhere they can do so without impeding the use of the navigation and towpath facilities by others [unless some reasonable excuse applies].

 

The option of HM’ing or CC’ing tends to obfuscate this simple principle for many [including CaRT, ostensibly], but it shouldn’t.

 

The variations on home mooring possibilities – such as was muted in the OP - were discussed during debates over this part of the Bill; I do keep saying so, but when I have time I will publish some of these online; the ‘problem’ is that the minutes run to well over 600 pages, and I have to find time to sit down and read through them for the relevant bits, scan them in and upload them.

 

In the meantime I have a rear deck to replace apart from other chores. Weather dictates whether I should be indoors or out, and just now I should be outside.

 

[valrene9600]

We seem to have veered away from the question I originally intended to ask. I'll try to clarify as I don't think I was very clear in the OP..

 

If a 'CC'er' is refused a licence for whatever reason, they can legally obtain a home mooring and then CRT can't refuse them a licence. Is that correct?

 

In that case, do they have to pay for a specific home mooring to be reserved for them year round, or does the owner of a suitable mooring saying "you can moor here any time, we always have space to fit you in" suffice?

If you know someone that would allow you go declare their site as your home mooring whenever you want one tell crt of your mooring address and see if it gets accepted.

[Delta9]

If you know someone that would allow you go declare their site as your home mooring whenever you want one tell crt of your mooring address and see if it gets accepted.

I have a permanent mooring in a marina and don't plan to go cruising any time soon.

[Guest]

This forum definitely needs a sub forum/section entitled -

 

'How to evade your responsibilities as a boater'.

 

..

Edited January 29, 2016 by MJG

[Tuscan]

This forum definitely needs a sub forum/section entitled -

 

'How to evade you responsibilities as a boater'.

Buy a caravan (:-

[Guest]

Buy a caravan (:-

 

I have, but what has that got to with anything?

 

I was making a (semi) serious suggestion though perhaps being a bit mischievous regarding what it should be called.

 

There are enough posts about how to to evade CRT catching up with somebody doing something they shouldn't to justify it.

[Arthur Marshall]

I have a permanent mooring in a marina and don't plan to go cruising any time soon.

I do enjoy these pointless discussions, especially when started by people who appear to have no real interest in the outcome.

Anyway, as I understand it, you can declare yourself to be a continuous cruiser in January and have fun bashing through the ice, then take up a mooring In June because you're swanning off to somewhere cold, ring CRT and tell them you've got a home mooring for a bit. Come November when the system shuts down, you come back because you like English winters and go cruising, having phoned CRT to tell them you don't need your mooring permit any more (assuming you needed one in the first place, which I do because I'm on an online mooring. No problem

The only thing that just might get you into trouble is if you're just trying to game the system, which is likely to pee everyone off. Much better to save your energy for a real fight, should one turn up, instead of trying to cause expensive hassle for everyone.

[Tuscan]

I have, but what has that got to with anything?

 

I was making a (semi) serious suggestion though perhaps being a bit mischievous regarding what it should be called.

 

There are enough posts about how to to evade CRT catching up with somebody doing something they shouldn't to justify it.

 

Apologies I forgot you were the only one allowed to be a bit mischievous , I have no problems with caravan owners commenting on this or any other post.

[Guest]

Apologies I forgot you were the only one allowed to be a bit mischievous , I have no problems with caravan owners commenting on this or any other post.

 

No idea what you are on about with that TBH.

 

Nor did I suggest the point you made in the latter part, I merely asked for it's relevance, and there is none. You may be surprised to know that I know of people who own BOTH boats and caravans, some even post on here.

 

Anyway going back to the thread subject - it is my recollection that when this has been discussed on here previously (and it has several times) that it has been suggested that CRT would not be satisfied with the concept of a 'possible' mooring that wasn't absolutely guaranteed (eg marina could be full) or one that had particular access difficulties (eg expensive and possibly impractical crane hire required each time). As to whether they are on a good legal footing perhaps somebody (Delta9) possibly would like to put themselves forward as a test case??

[BMC problems]

But for it to be a mooring it has to be adjacent to a connected waterway for which the owner has mooring rights. If you mean somewhere not on a waterway then you are into the realm of ghost mooring. CRT will say that your cruising pattern and/or the difficulty of getting your boat to the place it can be kept means that the place is not a reasonable one to keep the boat and thus not compliant with the terms of the law. A bit like if you had stated that your mooring was on the moon.

 

I am sorry but this is just not so. I have a 25 foot cabin cruiser for which I buy a yearly license. I keep it in the water around 8 months a year, the rest of the time it is stored in a yard, on a trailer. CRT know this - I told them - and are perfectly happy to issue a license on this basis.

 

So? The law doesn't say anything about a 'home mooring' having to be available for longer than 14 days at a time, does it?

 

It doesn't, but the 'satisfied' and "can be kept" part imply somewhere you could keep the boat if you decided not to cruise for a month (for instance)

 

 

There are enough posts about how to to evade CRT catching up with somebody doing something they shouldn't to justify it.

 

Who exactly is doing (or suggesting) something they shouldn't do?

[peterboat]

i would have thought a picture of the boat in a field would suffice for crt that and the address where it is. as delta says if he is away 6 months of the year it might be a cheaper option to lift it out. plus he could throw a coat of blacking on every time and it would last for years

[Guest]

Who exactly is doing (or suggesting) something they shouldn't do?

 

Oh I could provide you with a list of names...............but it would be far too inflammatory to do that.

[Chris Davidson]

Firstly, there is no requirement for me to be observed on my home mooring. If one is out cruising all year you don't have to keep popping back to get observed.

 

Secondly, it would be impossible for them to observe the boat in Dave's field. It is surrounded by trees.

How do you crane your boat out if Dave's field is surrounded by trees?

[jenlyn]

How do you crane your boat out if Dave's field is surrounded by trees?

Harvest all the wind blown about in here, and use it to fell said trees.

[Laurie Booth]

 

 

No, but it is possible to keep a boat on dry land, which is what the law requires.

 

Section 17©ii uses the the word 'keep', not 'moor', IIRC.

I thought so. So no mooring your boat on dry land.

[Hawthorn]

Regarding the OP, who 'fessed up to liking pointless discussions, does anyone know the answer to these questions:

- are CRT work boats licensed?

- do they have home moorings?

- are they allowed to moor on the towpath for more than 14 days (or is this a case of being reasonable in the circumstances, if they are carrying out work)?

 

And another angle on the boats with no home mooring:

-does CRT publish the numbers of boats who do not have a home mooring - does anyone on here know what the current position is?

 

Can some clever person do the sums and work out how much extra revenue would be raised if all these boats had a home mooring - either on CRT directly managed moorings or BWML. I realise there is no extra revenue to be had by them all going into Privately owned marinas, as they have to pay their 9% whether they are full or half empty.

 

And finally, I know CRT report how much they spend on fundraising, and show that this is money well spent, do they do the same for enforcement, or does this simply lose/use money. If this is the case, is enforcement simply used as a deterrent, to ensure that more of us don't choose not to have a home mooring?

 

[Mike Todd]

It's not a ruse though, or an attempt to evade the law. If I had to go away for six months to work abroad it would be cheaper for me to pay for a lift out and stick the boat in Dave's field than it would to pay for a marina mooring for that period. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. While I'm out cruising I have no use for the mooring so there seems no point in paying for a marina to keep a space open when Dave's field is just down the road.

During the six months when it is stored in your mate's field there is not need for a CaRT licence so the question does not arise.

We seem to have veered away from the question I originally intended to ask. I'll try to clarify as I don't think I was very clear in the OP..

 

If a 'CC'er' is refused a licence for whatever reason, they can legally obtain a home mooring and then CRT can't refuse them a licence. Is that correct?

 

In that case, do they have to pay for a specific home mooring to be reserved for them year round, or does the owner of a suitable mooring saying "you can moor here any time, we always have space to fit you in" suffice?

Most non-residential marina moorings do not give the right to a specified and permanent position within the marina.

[John V]

This is a much better thread, Delta9

 

It has occurred to me that Dave will probably need planning permission for change of use for his field. if he does get planning permission to use it for boat storage that would be more evidence to support a claim to CRT however I would imagine it will mean a change in the rates and therefore some cost would be incurred.

 

This is reminiscent of an argument that has been going on for 30 or more years between a council and a boatyard (coastal) that has a fishing boat as an office....lovely well maintained traditional wooden fishing boat chocked up neatly with a lovely flowerbed around it.
The council keep claiming that it is an office constructed without planning permission, he keeps counterclaiming that he is just waiting for a big enough tide.

(The last one big enough to get that high was 1953 )