Definition of home mooring

[nicknorman]

You have no idea how much the OP cruises.

It's all hypothetical in case you hadn't noticed. The hypothetical person who wants to evade the law so spends hours looking for loopholes and ways to circumvent them, would IMO better spend that time using the cut for its intended purpose.

[Sabcat]

It's all hypothetical in case you hadn't noticed. The hypothetical person who wants to evade the law so spends hours looking for loopholes and ways to circumvent them, would IMO better spend that time using the cut for its intended purpose.

 

Do you get your butler to load the coal onto Telemachus?

[jenlyn]

It's all hypothetical in case you hadn't noticed. The hypothetical person who wants to evade the law so spends hours looking for loopholes and ways to circumvent them, would IMO better spend that time using the cut for its intended purpose.

I agree with you totally. It beggars belief that CRT behave in this manner. Shocking.

[nicknorman]

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.

 

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)

 

Yes clearly this is where the reasonableness test comes in. For a trailable boat the proposition is fine because it is reasonable. For a 20 tonne narrowboat it is not reasonable unless, for example, the intended storage facility has provision for getting a 20 tonne boat out of the water.

[waterworks]

It's all hypothetical in case you hadn't noticed. The hypothetical person who wants to evade the law so spends hours looking for loopholes and ways to circumvent them, would IMO better spend that time using the cut for its intended purpose.

Its not "evading the law" to find out what the law is exactly, and act accordingly is it ?

 

In the same way tax evasion is trying to reduce tax by fraudulent means. Tax minimisation is wholly lawful, as it should be.

Yes clearly this is where the reasonableness test comes in. For a trailable boat the proposition is fine because it is reasonable. For a 20 tonne narrowboat it is not reasonable unless, for example, the intended storage facility has provision for getting a 20 tonne boat out of the water.

That's called a crane, and can be hired any time anyone requires. Providing there is access ect.

[Guest]

That's called a crane, and can be hired any time anyone requires. Providing there is access ect.

 

Which of course was the exact point being made about 'reasonableness'.

[Bod]

Yes clearly this is where the reasonableness test comes in. For a trailable boat the proposition is fine because it is reasonable. For a 20 tonne narrowboat it is not reasonable unless, for example, the intended storage facility has provision for getting a 20 tonne boat out of the water.

Plenty of slipways now on the system, with this facility.

 

Bod

[Dave_P]

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 )

That doesn't make sense. The planning dispute would surely focus on the use as an office, not the existence of a boat. Do you have any more info/links?

[Mike Todd]

 

 

They may be in the new T&Cs but he is not bound by them.

If he signed them, then he is

[jenlyn]

If he signed them, then he is

I would say he is not. In fact, didn't nigel quote a case on here regarding the legality of t&c's?

[Tuscan]

If he signed them, then he is

CRTs T&C's do not take precedence over primary legislation I think you will find.

[alan_fincher]

You have no idea how much the OP cruises.

Other than he has told us?

 

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

 

Do you get your butler to load the coal onto Telemachus?

 

I seem to recall that Telemachus doesn't have a coal burning stove, so the only useful purpose of this might be to make sure the butler knows his place!

[waterworks]

Can anyone point me to the section of the canal act that states a licence application cannot be refused if all the conditions are met please.

[Sabcat]

I seem to recall that Telemachus doesn't have a coal burning stove, so the only useful purpose of this might be to make sure the butler knows his place!

 

When Nick said "better spend that time using the cut for its intended purpose." I took it to mean that's what he does and he loads his boat to the gunwales with coal or some such. Or the butler loads it.

[Mike Todd]

CRTs T&C's do not take precedence over primary legislation I think you will find.

Never suggested that. Only relevant here if other legislation directly forbids CaRT entering into such agreements with marina operators.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Mike Todd

[John V]

That doesn't make sense. The planning dispute would surely focus on the use as an office, not the existence of a boat. Do you have any more info/links?

 

As far as I know there are no links at all, I was told by a guy who was trying to buy the yard, a few years back and it was confirmed by a chap on this mooring that used to keep a boat there ..........river telegraph !

[Iain_S]

Never suggested that. Only relevant here is the other legislation directly forbids CaRT entering into such agreements with marina operators.

 

Which is?

[NigelMoore]

I would say he is not. In fact, didn't nigel quote a case on here regarding the legality of t&c's?

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=56277&p=1067465

 

The thing many boaters – and ostensibly CaRT - fail to realise is the vital distinction between conditions for issue of a boat licence, and conditions for use of that boat on the waterways. CaRT, as were all the original canal companies, are entitled to set Terms and Conditions of use of their waterways; the mechanism for which was provided in the power to create byelaws [within the limits set for those].

 

Breach of those conditions of use carries the fixed penalty provided, and is enforceable through the courts.

Can anyone point me to the section of the canal act that states a licence application cannot be refused if all the conditions are met please.

 

The relevant Act is 1995. Section 17 deals with “Conditions as to certificates and licences” [lumped together as “relevant consents”. Subsection (3) provides that “the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless - ” the ensuing 3 conditions are met.

 

It is the effect of the word UNLESS that makes it mandatory for the Board to issue the licence IF the 3 statutory conditions are met.

 

 

Edited January 30, 2016 by NigelMoore

[jenlyn]

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=56277&p=1067465

 

The thing many boaters – and ostensibly CaRT - fail to realise is the vital distinction between conditions for issue of a boat licence, and conditions for use of that boat on the waterways. CaRT, as were all the original canal companies, are entitled to set Terms and Conditions of use of their waterways; the mechanism for which was provided in the power to create byelaws [within the limits set for those].

 

Breach of those conditions of use carries the fixed penalty provided, and is enforceable through the courts.

 

The relevant Act is 1995. Section 17 deals with “Conditions as to certificates and licences” [lumped togather as “relevant consents”. Subsection (3) provides that “the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless - ” the ensuing 3 conditions are met.

 

It is the effect of the word UNLESS that makes it mandatory for the Board to issue the licence IF the 3 statutory conditions are met.

 

 

Thank you.

[Jim Riley]

I kept my first boat in my garden on a trailer, launched when I fancied a trip. The lass at the licencing office was satisfied, presume she cleared it with the board. Can you demonstrate the ready accessibility of your mates field, if so the board should be satisfied?

[waterworks]

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=56277&p=1067465

 

The thing many boaters and ostensibly CaRT - fail to realise is the vital distinction between conditions for issue of a boat licence, and conditions for use of that boat on the waterways. CaRT, as were all the original canal companies, are entitled to set Terms and Conditions of use of their waterways; the mechanism for which was provided in the power to create byelaws [within the limits set for those].

 

Breach of those conditions of use carries the fixed penalty provided, and is enforceable through the courts.

 

 

The relevant Act is 1995. Section 17 deals with Conditions as to certificates and licences [lumped together as relevant consents. Subsection (3) provides that the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless - the ensuing 3 conditions are met.

 

It is the effect of the word UNLESS that makes it mandatory for the Board to issue the licence IF the 3 statutory conditions are met.

 

 

Thanks Nigel.

[nicknorman]

I seem to recall that Telemachus doesn't have a coal burning stove,

It does. Not that it really matters!

Edited January 30, 2016 by nicknorman

[NigelMoore]

I kept my first boat in my garden on a trailer, launched when I fancied a trip. The lass at the licencing office was satisfied . . .

 

I kept a portable unpowered craft in its bag in a wardrobe when not in use. Still didn’t stop BW sending me a penalty notice of [i think] £150 on top of the £35 licence fee for renewal [i had not applied for renewal].

 

The lass at the licensing office could not be satisfied that I was not in breach of the licensing requirements despite my explaining things.

Edited January 30, 2016 by NigelMoore

[NigelMoore]

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.

 

 

I have made a start, without picking out relevant portions at this stage. These will be from the House of Commons minutes, in 1993, which contain most of the relevant material. I did not copy all the days, because the missing ones contained nothing I was interested in at the time.

 

One thing to bear in mind is that references to section numbers do not tally with the Act as passed, because not all clauses made it. So, for example, what is now s.17 was referred to as s.14.

 

Day 1 - https://www.scribd.com/doc/297239606/SC-Minutes-1990-Bill-Day-1-1993

 

Day 2 - https://www.scribd.com/doc/297239605/SC-Minutes-1990-Bill-Day-2-1993

 

Day 4 - https://www.scribd.com/doc/297239608/SC-Minutes-1990-Bill-Day-4-1993

 

Day 6 - https://www.scribd.com/doc/297239609/SC-Minutes-1990-Bill-Day-6-1993

 

Day 7 - https://www.scribd.com/doc/297239607/SC-Minutes-1990-Bill-Day-7-1993

 

There are still days 8; 9; 10; 12; 13; 14; 16 to come. There are also the House of Lords minutes and the Hansard debates.

 

[jenlyn]

 

I have made a start, without picking out relevant portions at this stage. These will be from the House of Commons minutes, in 1993, which contain most of the relevant material. I did not copy all the days, because the missing ones contained nothing I was interested in at the time.

 

One thing to bear in mind is that references to section numbers do not tally with the Act as passed, because not all clauses made it. So, for example, what is now s.17 was referred to as s.14.

 

Day 1 - https://www.scribd.com/doc/297239606/SC-Minutes-1990-Bill-Day-1-1993

 

Day 2 - https://www.scribd.com/doc/297239605/SC-Minutes-1990-Bill-Day-2-1993

 

Day 4 - https://www.scribd.com/doc/297239608/SC-Minutes-1990-Bill-Day-4-1993

 

Day 6 - https://www.scribd.com/doc/297239609/SC-Minutes-1990-Bill-Day-6-1993

 

Day 7 - https://www.scribd.com/doc/297239607/SC-Minutes-1990-Bill-Day-7-1993

 

There are still days 8; 9; 10; 12; 13; 14; 16 to come. There are also the House of Lords minutes and the Hansard debates.

 

Extremely grateful to you for putting this stuff up nigel.