Monitoring cruising patterns

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

I have emailed CaRT for an explanation of why their guidance for overstaying is unlawful, if that's the right word. I doubt they will reply though.I will go for a formal complaint to highlight it if necessary.

 

A. The trust has no authority to authorise or not authorise an overstay,

B, No evidence HAS to be provided, it is voluntary.

C. CaRT has no authority to charge mooring fees for any overstay.

D. There is no time limit. Within reasonable bounds.

As you expect no reply, why not formulate your request as a request under the Freedom of Information Act via 'whatdotheyknow.com'. However, in doing this, you should not ask for an explanation but rather for any recorded information relating to A-D.

 

 

Edited February 10, 2016 by Allan(nb Albert)

[waterworks]

 

As you expect no reply, why not formulate your request as a request under the Freedom of Information Act via 'whatdotheyknow.com'. However, in doing this, you should not ask for an explanation but rather for any recorded information relating to A-D.

 

There isnt any information, the four points refer to unlawful reinterpretations of the legislation. ( I think)

[Paul C]

I have emailed CaRT for an explanation of why their guidance for overstaying is unlawful, if that's the right word. I doubt they will reply though.I will go for a formal complaint to highlight it if necessary.

 

A. The trust has no authority to authorise or not authorise an overstay,

B, No evidence HAS to be provided, it is voluntary.

C. CaRT has no authority to charge mooring fees for any overstay.

D. There is no time limit. Within reasonable bounds.

 

Is this another theoretical moan which doesn't actually apply to you? Or are you planning on falling ill or your boat having a mechanical breakdown soon, so you can stay in one place for months?

[waterworks]

 

Is this another theoretical moan which doesn't actually apply to you? Or are you planning on falling ill or your boat having a mechanical breakdown soon, so you can stay in one place for months?

Its not theoretical, either the four points I made are right or wrong. You really think its OK for CaRT to be issuing unlawful advice notes to people ?

[Paul C]

Its not theoretical, either the four points I made are right or wrong. You really think its OK for CaRT to be issuing unlawful advice notes to people ?

 

Who says it is unlawful? Has a judicial review been conducted and concluded and is the judgement publically available? Until such a judgement exists, I can't see your legitimate use of "unlawful" here. I'll respect a court's view, I respect that you have an opinion on it but I can't help its tainted with an anti-CRT stance or you have some particular circumstances which you have convinced yourself are reasonable but if put to a wider test, would fail.

[waterworks]

 

Who says it is unlawful? Has a judicial review been conducted and concluded and is the judgement publically available? Until such a judgement exists, I can't see your legitimate use of "unlawful" here. I'll respect a court's view, I respect that you have an opinion on it but I can't help its tainted with an anti-CRT stance or you have some particular circumstances which you have convinced yourself are reasonable but if put to a wider test, would fail.

Whether you think everyone's trying to scam CaRT or not, please tell me what's factually wrong with the points I made.

 

My personal situation has no effect on what's lawful or not.

[Paul C]

Whether you think everyone's trying to scam CaRT or not, please tell me what's factually wrong with the points I made.

 

My personal situation has no effect on what's lawful or not.

 

I really think you need to gather an amount of support, then properly legally challenge (as in, judicial review) the guidelines you're complaining about, to give it any merit. I appreciate the process incurs costs - maybe a boating organisation such as NBTA could support your cause.

[waterworks]

I would welcome Tony and Nigel to comment on these points i made...

 

A. The trust has no authority to authorise or not authorise an overstay,

B, No evidence HAS to be provided, it is voluntary.

C. CaRT has no authority to charge mooring fees for any overstay.

D. There is no time limit. Within reasonable bounds.

[Arthur Marshall]

You have the right in law to stay at a a place fot 14 days. If you stay longer you are in breach of your licence unless someone OKs it. You are suggesting that person is the overstayer, which is daft. You are also suggesting the only person who can define reasonable bounds is the person who may want to extend them , which is also daft. Most of us, however, live in the real world where by consensus we accept n overall authority who defines these things, overseen should we wish to challenge it, by the courts.

[NigelMoore]

I would welcome Tony and Nigel to comment on these points i made...

 

A. The trust has no authority to authorise or not authorise an overstay,

B, No evidence HAS to be provided, it is voluntary.

C. CaRT has no authority to charge mooring fees for any overstay.

D. There is no time limit. Within reasonable bounds.

 

There is a certain tension between your ‘A’ and ‘B’ – if there is no time limit, when could an overstay arise?

 

I agree with ‘A’, because if overstaying on the towpath is wrong [which I believe to be the case], then the authority is obliged to act against that in the interests of all, and is in no position to charge for or permit the offence.

 

Your ‘B’ is slightly obscure; evidence for what? that you have not overstayed, or have a reasonable reason for so doing? I would suggest that not only was it politic to provide evidence, the authority is entitled to be satisfied that you had not exceeded legitimate bounds to your use of the towpath; evidence would have to be produced anyway, if you were to have any chance of establishing your position as lawful if it came before a court.

 

Your ‘C’ is essentially the same as ‘A’, same principle applying.

 

I disagree with ‘D’. Adding ‘within reasonable bounds’ does not assist, as the statutory “or longer as may be reasonable in the circumstances” depends upon the fixed period to be “longer” than. That sounds clumsy English, but I hope it is understandable.

 

[Jerra]

I would welcome Tony and Nigel to comment on these points i made...

 

A. The trust has no authority to authorise or not authorise an overstay,

B, No evidence HAS to be provided, it is voluntary.

C. CaRT has no authority to charge mooring fees for any overstay.

D. There is no time limit. Within reasonable bounds.

If these are illegal do you really want the sort of waterways system which would result?

[Delta9]

You have the right in law to stay at a a place fot 14 days. If you stay longer you are in breach of your licence unless someone OKs it.

This isn't true. You have the right in law to stay longer than 14 days if there is a reasonable reason for you not being able to move on. Nobody needs to OK it.

If these are illegal do you really want the sort of waterways system which would result?

Yes.

[Jerra]

Yes.

A free for all with boats tied up at odd places all along the canal?

 

People choosing where to tie up and never moving leading to lots of linear housing estates etc?

 

I suspect you will be in the minority.

[waterworks]

You have the right in law to stay at a a place fot 14 days. If you stay longer you are in breach of your licence unless someone OKs it. You are suggesting that person is the overstayer, which is daft. You are also suggesting the only person who can define reasonable bounds is the person who may want to extend them , which is also daft. Most of us, however, live in the real world where by consensus we accept n overall authority who defines these things, overseen should we wish to challenge it, by the courts.

I'm not suggesting any of that rubbish.

[Delta9]

A free for all with boats tied up at odd places all along the canal?

 

People choosing where to tie up and never moving leading to lots of linear housing estates etc?

 

Don't be daft. What waterworks states is correct and has been for a long time and none of those things have resulted.

[waterworks]

A free for all with boats tied up at odd places all along the canal?

 

People choosing where to tie up and never moving leading to lots of linear housing estates etc?

 

I suspect you will be in the minority.

You have misunderstood the basic purpose of this, its nothing to do with everyone mooring where and when they want, and setting up a housing estate, and if my points are correct that doesn't follow either, it is about the actual law regarding overstaying when it is reasonable to do so. The actual legislation enables boaters to do this without begging CaRT for it to be "authorised" despite what CaRT want you to beleive. Someone who abuses this priveledge can be taken to court by CaRT unless they come to an agreement with CaRT and both parties act reasonably. In truth on this issue both the EO and the boater are equal under this part of the legislation I think. A nice bit of legislation that prevents EO's overstepping their authority.

 

Why is this important ? Because enforcement officers have already issued guidance on overstaying implying they decide who can and can't overstay and for how long, they can charge you for it, and you must provide evidence. If that's not overstepping their authority what is ?

[Jerra]

Don't be daft. What waterworks states is correct and has been for a long time and none of those things have resulted.

Because currently the majority of boaters are happy to abide by the rules and those that aren't are chivvied by CRT. Once CRT was stopped from chivvying those not prepared to abuse by reasonable rules people would start taking the P. The more that took the P then more who would think its cheaper I can do that as well.

 

Just because it doesn't happen now doesn't say things would remain the same if there was no pressure put on people. If for example somebody "got away" with pleading they had broken down and it took 12 months to fix on a 24 hour mooring do you think they would be the only ones to stay for weeks.

[waterworks]

 

There is a certain tension between your A and B if there is no time limit, when could an overstay arise?

 

I agree with A, because if overstaying on the towpath is wrong [which I believe to be the case], then the authority is obliged to act against that in the interests of all, and is in no position to charge for or permit the offence.

 

Your B is slightly obscure; evidence for what? that you have not overstayed, or have a reasonable reason for so doing? I would suggest that not only was it politic to provide evidence, the authority is entitled to be satisfied that you had not exceeded legitimate bounds to your use of the towpath; evidence would have to be produced anyway, if you were to have any chance of establishing your position as lawful if it came before a court.

 

Your C is essentially the same as A, same principle applying.

 

I disagree with D. Adding within reasonable bounds does not assist, as the statutory or longer as may be reasonable in the circumstances depends upon the fixed period to be longer than. That sounds clumsy English, but I hope it is understandable.

 

I agree that the 14 days in one place is an immovable fact.

 

The evidence is what CaRT request either medical or otherwise.

 

If you require a genuine overstay you will have the evidence or can get it. If you don't have it you have no defence should CaRT take you to court. You wouldn't achieve much by trying to fake the need to overstay.

[NigelMoore]

A brief comment in view of apparent confusion by some: the 14 days [or longer as reasonable under the circumstances] is a time limit applying only to the towpath. Most, if not all, offside moorings where the relevant landowner consent is given [and providing that using them comprises no obstruction to the main navigable channel] are the places where boats may reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left.

[Mike Todd]

You have misunderstood the basic purpose of this, its nothing to do with everyone mooring where and when they want, and setting up a housing estate, and if my points are correct that doesn't follow either, it is about the actual law regarding overstaying when it is reasonable to do so. The actual legislation enables boaters to do this without begging CaRT for it to be "authorised" despite what CaRT want you to beleive. Someone who abuses this priveledge can be taken to court by CaRT unless they come to an agreement with CaRT and both parties act reasonably. In truth on this issue both the EO and the boater are equal under this part of the legislation I think. A nice bit of legislation that prevents EO's overstepping their authority.

Why is this important ? Because enforcement officers have already issued guidance on overstaying implying they decide who can and can't overstay and for how long, they can charge you for it, and you must provide evidence. If that's not overstepping their authority what is ?

Can you show where your last para occurs in official CaRT documents? In any organisation there are jobsworths and they need to be challenged. But it does not help to conflate that with the official position and, indeed, how the great majority of CaRT staff operate. Casting all of them in the same light will not encourage the many who go out of their way to be helpful.

[Iain_S]

A brief comment in view of apparent confusion by some: the 14 days [or longer as reasonable under the circumstances] is a time limit applying only to the towpath. Most, if not all, offside moorings where the relevant landowner consent is given [and providing that using them comprises no obstruction to the main navigable channel] are the places where boats may reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left.

 

If a passing boat is expected to slow down, could the boat moored to the offside not be said to be causing an obstruction?

[waterworks]

Can you show where your last para occurs in official CaRT documents? In any organisation there are jobsworths and they need to be challenged. But it does not help to conflate that with the official position and, indeed, how the great majority of CaRT staff operate. Casting all of them in the same light will not encourage the many who go out of their way to be helpful.

The guidance the enforcement office give boaters is this...

 

 

"14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances

Circumstances where it is reasonable to stay in one neighbourhood or locality for longer than 14 days are where further movement is prevented by causes outside the reasonable control of the boater.

Examples include temporary mechanical breakdown preventing cruising until repairs are complete, emergency navigation stoppage, impassable ice or serious illness (for which medical evidence may be required).

Such reasons should be made known immediately to local Trust enforcement staff with a request to authorise a longer stay at the mooring site or nearby. The circumstances will be reviewed regularly and reasonable steps (where possible) must be taken to remedy the cause of the longer stay e.g. repairs put in hand where breakdown is the cause.

Where difficulties persist and the boater is unable to continue the cruise, the Trust reserves the right to charge mooring fees and to require the boat to be moved away from popular temporary or visitor moorings until the cruise can recommence."

 

Edited February 13, 2016 by waterworks

[Paul C]

The guidance the enforcement office give boaters is this...

 

 

14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances

Circumstances where it is reasonable to stay in one neighbourhood or locality for longer than 14 days are where further movement is prevented by causes outside the reasonable control of the boater.

Examples include temporary mechanical breakdown preventing cruising until repairs are complete, emergency navigation stoppage, impassable ice or serious illness (for which medical evidence may be required).

Such reasons should be made known immediately to local Trust enforcement staff with a request to authorise a longer stay at the mooring site or nearby. The circumstances will be reviewed regularly and reasonable steps (where possible) must be taken to remedy the cause of the longer stay e.g. repairs put in hand where breakdown is the cause.

Where difficulties persist and the boater is unable to continue the cruise, the Trust reserves the right to charge mooring fees and to require the boat to be moved away from popular temporary or visitor moorings until the cruise can recommence.

 

 

IF they'd said "is" and "must" you'd have a point. But it looks like you've sensationalised your stance on this; and thus devalued its worthiness.

[NigelMoore]

 

If a passing boat is expected to slow down, could the boat moored to the offside not be said to be causing an obstruction?

 

In my opinion? Yes. Every bit as much as those moored on the towpath; the byelaws demand that all boats are moored securely fore and aft.

 

Whereas those mooring to the towpath will often have little option as to the manner of securing mooring pins in often soft earth, there is no excuse whatsoever for ‘permanent’ offside moorings to be slack; they should be so constructed and used as to be capable of coping with whatever through-traffic threw up.

 

[waterworks]

 

IF they'd said "is" and "must" you'd have a point. But it looks like you've sensationalised your stance on this; and thus devalued its worthiness.

That is exactly the point, some EO's in my experience are trying to make boaters believe they have the authority to demand these things, you might argue with them that these things are not mandatory, but in the end your licence will not be renewed.

On a related issue i came across this CaRT document online...

 

"Under what powers are you setting the charge and conditions for extended stays at visitor moorings?

 

"The Trust (and formerly BW) is the legal owner of the waterways, holding them in trust for the nation. Section 43 (3) of the 1962 Transport Act gave BW (and subsequently the Trust) power to demand, take and recover such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit. This is the basis on which we can set time limits, return times (such as no more than x days at a given location in a calendar month) and an extended stay charge. The aim in doing this is not to collect revenue but rather to give a boost to compliance with the spirit of mooring rules by providing a credible deterrent to overstaying. "