Misjudged Widebeam Liveaboard Purchases?

[Witchword]

Clear as mud, thanks. So if C&RT like your face, you could just go up and down a short canal, but if they don't like you you could be told you're still too close to your last mooring even if you've gone through forty-nine locks and two rivers?

 

And if you have a home mooring you can leave it and pootle about if you want to, up and down a 10m stretch or whatever?

Edited March 2, 2016 by Witchword

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

And if you have a home mooring you can leave it and pootle about if you want to, up and down a 10m stretch or whatever?

 

You may find this court case of interest :

 

The judgement in the case of CaRT v Mayers states that repeated journeys between the same two places would be 'bona fide navigation' if the boater had specific reason for making repeated journeys over the same stretch of canal. HHJ Halbert also stated that any requirement by CaRT to use a substantial part of the canal network was not justified by Section 17(3)©(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 because the requirement to use the boat for bona fide navigation is 'temporal not geographical'.

 

 

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.

[Witchword]

Thanks, that is enlightening.

[magictime]

Can anyone actually explain the rules please?

 

Ha! The short answer is 'no'.

 

Every boater is required to move to a new place at least every 14 days if away from their home mooring. If you don't have a home mooring, you're also legally required to satisfy CRT that you're using your boat 'bona fide for navigation' throughout the period of your licence. But as Alan says, that requirement can't straightforwardly be translated into a requirement to cruise a certain number of miles, or in a certain pattern, during the year. It's deliberately 'woolly' and open to interpretation by the courts.

 

CRT have recently said they're unlikely to be satisfied that boaters spending most of the year on a sub-20-mile stretch of canal are using their boats 'bona fide for navigation' - but that doesn't mean either that you're definitely 'safe' from enforcement action if you cover at least 21 miles, or that CRT are on solid legal ground if they take action against someone only covering 19 miles. It would be for a court to decide whether in any given case, a boater was using his boat 'bona fide for navigation' or not.

 

Historically, CRT and their predecessors at BW have tried to interpret the 'bona fide' requirement as meaning boaters without home moorings have to undertake long, progressive journeys, but this has never stood up legally. On the other side of the argument, some people think the 'bona fide' requirement means nothing more nor less than the requirement to move to a new place every 14 days. Hence this shaky de facto compromise where boaters without home moorings ('continuous cruisers' or 'CCers') don't have to cover hundreds of miles a year, or perhaps even many tens of miles, but are likely to face enforcement action if they don't make an effort to cover, well, comfortably more than 20 miles, I guess.

[Witchword]

Hmm. So someone travelling to sell things like fuel, even limited to 20 miles, might be bona fide for navigation, but someone else who works in a fixed location and wants to be able to get to work would need to continuously cruise further, perhaps?

[Alan de Enfield]

Hmm. So someone travelling to sell things like fuel, even limited to 20 miles, might be bona fide for navigation, but someone else who works in a fixed location and wants to be able to get to work would need to continuously cruise further, perhaps?

 

It appears that you have already a good understanding - Exactly that.

[magictime]

Hmm. So someone travelling to sell things like fuel, even limited to 20 miles, might be bona fide for navigation, but someone else who works in a fixed location and wants to be able to get to work would need to continuously cruise further, perhaps?

 

Very plausibly.

[Witchword]

Ok, so it's not that hard to understand the theory but it must be a nightmare to implement and enforce in practice. Why don't they say that if you aren't using your boat itself for your livelihood you must cruise x miles every so often? That way you'd always know if you were in breach... and I have to ask, why are they tightening up on all this in the first place?

[WotEver]

Alan (or anyone else?), here's what I'm unsure about. It appears obvious to me that CaRT (and BW before them) have/had a simple rule in mind; namely that everyone must pay for a permanent mooring except for those folk who don't need one because they are making a 'continuous and progressive' journey around the system.

 

Assuming that the above assumption is correct, why was the 1995 act worded in such an ambiguous manner?

 

Tony

[Alan de Enfield]

Ok, so it's not that hard to understand the theory but it must be a nightmare to implement and enforce in practice. Why don't they say that if you aren't using your boat itself for your livelihood you must cruise x miles every so often? That way you'd always know if you were in breach... and I have to ask, why are they tightening up on all this in the first place?

 

Because if they did they would be breaking the law. They were not given that power by Parliament, and, despite what they are now trying to do with their 'new' T&Cs they cannot enforce what they do not have the power to implement.

 

Alan (or anyone else?), here's what I'm unsure about. It appears obvious to me that CaRT (and BW before them) have/had a simple rule in mind; namely that everyone must pay for a permanent mooring except for those folk who don't need one because they are making a 'continuous and progressive' journey around the system.

 

Assuming that the above assumption is correct, why was the 1995 act worded in such an ambiguous manner?

 

Tony

 

BW /C&RT wanted the act to enforce the 'everyone must have a home mooring', but after much argument a 'compromise' was reached.

 

Rather than waffle, I will let Nigel Moore explain it as he has chapter and verse with the documents and 'who said what' from the time.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[David Mack]

Hmm. So someone travelling to sell things like fuel, even limited to 20 miles, might be bona fide for navigation, but someone else who works in a fixed location and wants to be able to get to work would need to continuously cruise further, perhaps?

 

True, but someone who is selling from a boat will have a commercial licence which has different conditions anyway.

[David Mack]

Why don't they say that if you aren't using your boat itself for your livelihood you must cruise x miles every so often? That way you'd always know if you were in breach.

CRT and BW before them have tried this several times, but each time someone pops up whose boating doesn't comply with the latest guidelines and challenges their right to take action. And since the Act is so vaguely worded, they have to rewrite the guidelines each time. With the result that nobody knows what does or does not (in the words of the Act) "satisfy the Board".

[Alan de Enfield]

True, but someone who is selling from a boat will have a commercial licence which has different conditions anyway.

 

All true - but as Bona fide navigating is temporal, and as the Judge said "the Mersey ferry going from one side of the river and back again is bona fide navigating" (I precis).

 

The definition of bona fide navigating will not change for a commercial vessel (what you probably mean is that it may not necessarily be a condition of a commercial licence, but what about a trading boat with no home mooring ?)

[blackrose]

 

First off, good luck with the interview!

 

Just going by a map, I'd have thought CCing in a narrow boat while working in Northampton would be very doable. There are so many different waterways in the area, you could surely cover a lot of water-miles in a year without ever being more than an hour from Northampton by road.

 

You're certainly a lot more limited in a widebeam, but I don't know - would CRT really have an issue if you spent seven months of the year on (say) a 60-mile stretch of the GU, four months on a winter mooring near Northampton, and four weeks doing 'holiday' cruises further afield? I know enforcement has got tighter, but surely it's not that tight.

 

I must say, it looks like a frustrating spot to be in a widebeam - so many narrow waterways so close, and that annoying 'pinch point' at Northampton itself forcing you to choose a side!

 

Thanks for that, it sounds a bit more do-able.

The river Nene and its various marinas are your friend. Sod the canal system in that area it will be a pain.

 

Yes, that's what I was originally thinking. Looks like a lift out might be on the cards. I suppose it's not worth a 3 week cruise to the GU to get lifted out and a short trip by lorry. May as well do it from here.

 

Is the Nene CRT?

Edited March 2, 2016 by blackrose

[Lmcgrath87]

Well that is just stupid talking like that.

 

Surely one gets one's butler or footman to do all that?

 

Rob....

On our boat he's called 'husband'

[David Mack]

Is the Nene CRT?

 

No, EA.

[magictime]

I suppose it's not worth a 3 week cruise to the GU to get lifted out and a short trip by lorry.

 

What do you mean, 'worth' a 3 week cruise? It's supposed to be fun!

 

Mind you, maybe not if you have to do the sea journey to Bristol...

[blackrose]

 

What do you mean, 'worth' a 3 week cruise? It's supposed to be fun!

 

Mind you, maybe not if you have to do the sea journey to Bristol...

 

It's fun if you can travel at your own pace and can take your time to enjoy the different areas - not if you're moving a 32 tonne boat 12 hours a day on your own on a tight schedule because you need to get back to work. Try doing all the locks (all 4 gates open & closed) and swing bridges along the K&A on your own in a week and then tell me it's fun. I enjoyed the journey but it's bloody hard work if time is tight.

 

The journey across the Bristol channel was the best bit for me, but the pilot's not cheap.

Edited March 3, 2016 by blackrose

[magictime]

 

It's fun if you can travel at your own pace and can take your time to enjoy the different areas - not if you're moving a 32 tonne boat 12 hours a day on your own on a tight schedule because you need to get back to work.

 

The journey across the Bristol channel was the best bit for me, but the pilot's not cheap.

 

Yeah, I get that not many people are in a position to fit in a leisurely 3-week cruise in among other commitments. Just a shame when something that should be a pleasure becomes a chore.

 

You're a braver man that me with that sea crossing though... mind you, a bit of practice on tidal rivers, an experienced pilot... maybe one day.

[blackrose]

 

Yeah, I get that not many people are in a position to fit in a leisurely 3-week cruise in among other commitments. Just a shame when something that should be a pleasure becomes a chore.

 

You're a braver man that me with that sea crossing though... mind you, a bit of practice on tidal rivers, an experienced pilot... maybe one day.

 

Fortunately I had a nice calm day.

 

 

I have a bit of experience on other tidal waters too!

 

Edited March 3, 2016 by blackrose

[RLWP]

Hmm. So someone travelling to sell things like fuel

 

Would have a commercial license

 

Richard

[Dave_P]

CRT and BW before them have tried this several times, but each time someone pops up whose boating doesn't comply with the latest guidelines and challenges their right to take action. And since the Act is so vaguely worded, they have to rewrite the guidelines each time. With the result that nobody knows what does or does not (in the words of the Act) "satisfy the Board".

It's not really anything like as difficult as you think. If you move two miles every two weeks (avoiding visitor moorings), making 26 moves a year, half the year in one direction and half the year in the other, you will cover a range of 26 miles and not stay in one place for more than 2 weeks. I can pretty much guarantee that you'll have satisfied the board. For a bit of extra security, keep a log to show your movements.

 

It's not really too hard is it? Whether or not the law, and the application of it, is sensible is a different question of course...

 

As an example, I'm currently moored near a boat which has been on a 24 hour mooring since last August, when he was kicked off a permanent online mooring for running his engine until 11.00pm. He simply moved over to the towpath and is now in enforcement and will probably lose his license. This, I suppose, makes him a pisstaker. The rest of the story is that boat life hasn't really agreed with him, he seems genuinely scared of moving his boat, he is suffering from depression and has become increasingly isolated and has taken to the bottle. I wouldn't say that this is purely CRTs responsibility to solve but they do (in my opinion) have a duty to work with relevant local agencies and authorities to find a good outcome for this man, which doesn't involve police and bailiffs and a very distressed man left homeless on the towpath. Some folk will simply look down on people like this with no sympathy but I always think 'there but for the grace of god...'

Edited March 3, 2016 by Dave_P

[Witchword]

It's not really anything like as difficult as you think. If you move two miles every two weeks (avoiding visitor moorings), making 26 moves a year, half the year in one direction and half the year in the other, you will cover a range of 26 miles and not stay in one place for more than 2 weeks. I can pretty much guarantee that you'll have satisfied the board. For a bit of extra security, keep a log to show your movements.

 

It's not really too hard is it? Whether or not the law, and the application of it, is sensible is a different question of course...

 

As an example, I'm currently moored near a boat which has been on a 24 hour mooring since last August, when he was kicked off a permanent online mooring for running his engine until 11.00pm. He simply moved over to the towpath and is now in enforcement and will probably lose his license. This, I suppose, makes him a pisstaker. The rest of the story is that boat life hasn't really agreed with him, he seems genuinely scared of moving his boat, he is suffering from depression and has become increasingly isolated and has taken to the bottle. I wouldn't say that this is purely CRTs responsibility to solve but they do (in my opinion) have a duty to work with relevant local agencies and authorities to find a good outcome for this man, which doesn't involve police and bailiffs and a very distressed man left homeless on the towpath. Some folk will simply look down on people like this with no sympathy but I always think 'there but for the grace of god...'

Being very new I'm not arguing with you here, but is that 2-mile limit acceptable? If it is, why are so many people up in arms about it?

 

ITA with your secondary point about something of a duty of care- even if this chap sold his boat now rather than allow it to be confiscated, he'd have some money to live on rather than losing what is likely to be his only asset.

[magictime]

It's not really anything like as difficult as you think. If you move two miles every two weeks (avoiding visitor moorings), making 26 moves a year, half the year in one direction and half the year in the other, you will cover a range of 26 miles and not stay in one place for more than 2 weeks. I can pretty much guarantee that you'll have satisfied the board. For a bit of extra security, keep a log to show your movements.

 

It's not really too hard is it? Whether or not the law, and the application of it, is sensible is a different question of course...

 

As an example, I'm currently moored near a boat which has been on a 24 hour mooring since last August, when he was kicked off a permanent online mooring for running his engine until 11.00pm. He simply moved over to the towpath and is now in enforcement and will probably lose his license. This, I suppose, makes him a pisstaker. The rest of the story is that boat life hasn't really agreed with him, he seems genuinely scared of moving his boat, he is suffering from depression and has become increasingly isolated and has taken to the bottle. I wouldn't say that this is purely CRTs responsibility to solve but they do (in my opinion) have a duty to work with relevant local agencies and authorities to find a good outcome for this man, which doesn't involve police and bailiffs and a very distressed man left homeless on the towpath. Some folk will simply look down on people like this with no sympathy but I always think 'there but for the grace of god...'

 

Reasonable, balanced and compassionate. If that's not worth a greeno as a model of forum discussion, I don't know what is.

[RufusR]

Being very new I'm not arguing with you here, but is that 2-mile limit acceptable? If it is, why are so many people up in arms about it?

 

ITA with your secondary point about something of a duty of care- even if this chap sold his boat now rather than allow it to be confiscated, he'd have some money to live on rather than losing what is likely to be his only asset.

 

was chatting to a CRT employee t other day and he indicated that you should move to the next parish . I am guessing this would be about 2 miles on the open canal not sure what constitues the next parish in urban canals though maybe next district or area of town .