CRTs latest review of license renewals, enforcement update etc

[onionbargee]

Can I just bring to everyone's attention that if you are disabled or consider yourself to be, you can apply to CaRT for "special adjustments" as a CC'er, ( which is not a scam for bridge hoppers, it requires medical evidence ) under the disabilities discrimination act, it should enable you to stay put when you are not well enough to move, within reasonable limits.

[Tony Dunkley]

Can I just bring to everyone's attention that if you are disabled or consider yourself to be, you can apply to CaRT for "special adjustments" as a CC'er, ( which is not a scam for bridge hoppers, it requires medical evidence ) under the disabilities discrimination act, it should enable you to stay put when you are not well enough to move, within reasonable limits.

 

Despite the proviso written into 1995 BW Act that a boat without a [home] mooring can remain in one place for an unspecified period of time if circumstances dictate that it is reasonable to do so, C&RT persist in attempting to perpetuate the myth they themselves have created that CC'ers need their approval to stay put in one place for more than 14 days.

The wording of the Act is clear and uncomplicated and simply requires that a boat without a mooring available for it to return to when not in use, must be in use throughout the period of it's Licence " without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.".

There is no way in which this wording reasonably can be interpreted as a hard and fast 14 day time limit which may be temporarily relaxed at the discretion of the navigation authority. The 14 days is no more than a nominal target figure for remaining in one place unless circumstances make a longer stay necessary.

 

C&RT do not have the authority or powers to make "adjustments" of any sort to that which is laid down in statute.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

Despite the proviso written into 1995 BW Act that a boat without a [home] mooring can remain in one place for an unspecified period of time if circumstances dictate that it is reasonable to do so, C&RT persist in attempting to perpetuate the myth they themselves have created that CC'ers need their approval to stay put in one place for more than 14 days.

The wording of the Act is clear and uncomplicated and simply requires that a boat without a mooring available for it to return to when not in use, must be in use throughout the period of it's Licence " without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.".

There is no way in which this wording reasonably can be interpreted as a hard and fast 14 day time limit which may be temporarily relaxed at the discretion of the navigation authority. The 14 days is no more than a nominal target figure for remaining in one place unless circumstances make a longer stay necessary.

 

C&RT do not have the authority or powers to make "adjustments" of any sort to that which is laid down in statute.

Once again you can't miss an opportunity to have a kick at CRT can you? On the occasions that I have had to remain at a position longer than the 14 days I have advised CRT that I cannot move for whatever reason (knackered alternator was the last one) and they have taken note, you seem to be implying that I have in some way sought permission which I haven't, I merely informed them that I couldn't move.

 

You also fail to give any clue as to who defines what is "...reasonable in the circumstances...", the boater? CRT? or a Court?

[onionbargee]

My view is...

 

In this aspect of the legislation CaRT and the boatowner are equals, CaRt have no authority to refuse an overstay request, they can refuse to what they call "authorise" it, which means it won't be on your sightings record as an agreed overstay, and neither the boater or CaRT can decide what is reasonable, only a court can. In practice it is fair all round, the boater is not under a cast iron 14 day rule where he or she has to move their boat when they are Ill or unable to do so, and CaRT cannot harass boaters and threaten them if they don't.

 

Every law is abused, and some boaters will try to put false overstay claims in to CaRT at every mooring they arrive at, but ultimately CaRT can collect evidence of this being unreasonable and take it to court.

 

I was harassed and lied to by enforcement officers when I got a serious illness, I had to find out the law, and enforce my rights, they don't try it on with me anymore, and we get along just fine in respect of me overstaying when I need to.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

My view is...

 

In this aspect of the legislation CaRT and the boatowner are equals, CaRt have no authority to refuse an overstay request, they can refuse to what they call "authorise" it, which means it won't be on your sightings record as an agreed overstay, and neither the boater or CaRT can decide what is reasonable, only a court can. In practice it is fair all round, the boater is not under a cast iron 14 day rule where he or she has to move their boat when they are Ill or unable to do so, and CaRT cannot harass boaters and threaten them if they don't.

 

Every law is abused, and some boaters will try to put false overstay claims in to CaRT at every mooring they arrive at, but ultimately CaRT can collect evidence of this being unreasonable and take it to court.

 

I was harassed and lied to by enforcement officers when I got a serious illness, I had to find out the law, and enforce my rights, they don't try it on with me anymore, and we get along just fine in respect of me overstaying when I need to.

It's not really a request though is it? On the occasions I haven't been able to move I have told CRT that was the case, the boat is immobile and what I am doing to correct it. I also gave them a rough estimate of when I would be able to move again (only a matter of a couple of days over the 14 day limit). I'm not sure about invoking the Disability Discrimination Act on the subject though. The need to remain somewhere is open to everyone who has a need to do so, disability doesn't really come into it. If we were to start invoking the DDA how would be get on with locks? Is it possible to make locks 'wheelchair friendly'? I would say probably not. CRT may be able to justify not doing so by quoting Section 21 (7) of the Act since the cost would be prohibitive.

 

I have always found that provided CRT are informed of the problem and it can be seen to be genuine they are quite reasonable. The response I'd give to any problem with an Enforcement Officer is,"... I have already notified your office of the problem, speak with them...", no point arguing with him/her. If one doesn't notify CRT of any problem and waits for an Enforcement officer to turn up on the scene then one is creating the problem in the first place.

 

I think that another poster on here (Valrene) has a lot of experience of the co-operation of CRT over this winter (having read his blog) and his experience seems to match what I have come across.

 

As you say it is unfortunate that some do abuse the overstay facility, whilst on the Kennet a couple of years ago one boat was permanently moored with a handwritten notice in the window 'Waiting for Engine part', I don't know what his engine was but you could get spares for a Rolls Royce Merlin quicker than he managed .

[Tony Dunkley]

My view is...

 

In this aspect of the legislation CaRT and the boatowner are equals, CaRt have no authority to refuse an overstay request, they can refuse to what they call "authorise" it, which means it won't be on your sightings record as an agreed overstay, and neither the boater or CaRT can decide what is reasonable, only a court can. In practice it is fair all round, the boater is not under a cast iron 14 day rule where he or she has to move their boat when they are Ill or unable to do so, and CaRT cannot harass boaters and threaten them if they don't.

 

Every law is abused, and some boaters will try to put false overstay claims in to CaRT at every mooring they arrive at, but ultimately CaRT can collect evidence of this being unreasonable and take it to court.

 

I was harassed and lied to by enforcement officers when I got a serious illness, I had to find out the law, and enforce my rights, they don't try it on with me anymore, and we get along just fine in respect of me overstaying when I need to.

 

That is a very well reasoned, correct and practical summary of the true situation with regard to time limits for CC'ers remaining in one place, but in one aspect is not strictly correct.

There is no such 'offence' as overstaying provided for in any waterways related legislation, or within the General Canal Byelaws, so in reality C&RT have nothing to 'take to court'. To get round this inconvenience [for them], they simply resort to the dishonest and underhanded tactic of turning the boater into a potential criminal offender by unlawfully revoking, or refusing, the Licence for the boat in question for the sole purpose of providing them with a plausible sounding argument to present to a Court in seeking what is in reality an unjustified and unwarranted Injunction.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[valrene9600]

 

That is a very well reasoned, correct and practical summary of the true situation with regard to time limits for CC'ers remaining in one place, but in one aspect is not strictly correct.

There is no such 'offence' as overstaying provided for in any waterways related legislation, or within the General Canal Byelaws, so in reality C&RT have nothing to 'take to court'. To get round this inconvenience [for them], they simply resort to the dishonest and underhanded tactic of turning the boater into a potential criminal offender by unlawfully revoking, or refusing, the Licence for the boat in question for the sole purpose of providing them with a plausible sounding argument to present to a Court in seeking what is in reality an unjustified and unwarranted Injunction.

Tony why do people get into the position of having their licence revoked. I have been boating 11 years and for the last two have had a few cancer surgeries and recently the wife has had a knee replacement all needing to stay or be in a very small area for longer than 14 days. We stayed 3 months in one place when I had bowel cancer surgery.

 

Every occasion we informed CRT and out of courtesy, although NEVER requested we on some occasions supplied evidence (admission letter or similar). We have never had any problem with CRT in fact the opposite with EO`s and their managers popping by while in the area to ask how we are, never mention of are we moving soon just checking our welfare.

 

Soon, hopefully in a week or so we will be on the move and will over the summer be a great distance from where we are now and that is why we have no problems with long stays, we get spotted all over the country and are regarded as Cont. cruisers. ie on an ongoing continuous journey. I have been told that we will have no future problems to genuinely stay longer because of our cruising record.

 

Now you, and i respect you as a knowledgeable boater, can come back and quote the act and I agree it can be read different ways BUT i and probably a lot of others work on the principal of it aint broke so don`t try and fix it. A small courteous communication solves so much and that will be the way I will live my life.

 

Respect to you and anyone else determined to fight CRT.

 

 

edit to add; we do not feel any fight with CRT is needed.

Edited March 19, 2016 by valrene9600

[onionbargee]

I wonder if the people who wrote the legislation intended those without a home mooring to be under a strictly enforced 14 day rule, or just to drift about and stay at places for a reasonable time ?

[MtB]

I wonder if the people who wrote the legislation intended those without a home mooring to be under a strictly enforced 14 day rule, or just to drift about and stay at places for a reasonable time ?

 

 

The former. Or the law would say the latter.

[Paul C]

 

 

The former. Or the law would say the latter.

 

The law does say the latter, albeit qualified:

 

" without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.".

[MtB]

Oh yeah!!!

 

That's incredibly generous isn't it?

[jenlyn]

I wonder if the people who wrote the legislation intended those without a home mooring to be under a strictly enforced 14 day rule, or just to drift about and stay at places for a reasonable time ?

I think they just didn't have enough foresight, or information, to suggest the waterways would end up being managed badly by people who struggle to deal with anything outside of their box.

[MtB]

Were BWB not considered by boaters just as incompetent as CRT are these days?

[jenlyn]

Were BWB not considered by boaters just as incompetent as CRT are these days?

They only changed the branding.

[churchward]

Were BWB not considered by boaters just as incompetent as CRT are these days?

Yes, but many folk have short memories and besides it is not so much fun eh?

[cuthound]

I think they just didn't have enough foresight, or information, to suggest the waterways would end up being managed badly by people who struggle to deal with anything outside of their box.

No, I don't think they foresaw the huge increase in those wanting to live on a boat, but not have a home mooring.

 

When I first started boating in the early 70's, the number of boats being lived on was very few compared to now, although some of those didn't move at all.

[MtB]

They only changed the branding.

 

Exactly my point. So the all the incompetence was there to be seen by the legislators wasn't it? So how could you think they just didn't have enough foresight, or information, to suggest the waterways would end up being managed badly by people who struggle to deal with anything outside of their box. ?

[jenlyn]

 

Exactly my point. So the all the incompetence was there to be seen by the legislators wasn't it? So how could you think they just didn't have enough foresight, or information, to suggest the waterways would end up being managed badly by people who struggle to deal with anything outside of their box. ?

You missed my "information" comment.

[OldGoat]

cuthound, on 20 Mar 2016 - 1:53 PM, said:

No, I don't think they foresaw the huge increase in those wanting to live on a boat, but not have a home mooring.

 

When I first started boating in the early 70's, the number of boats being lived on was very few compared to now, although some of those didn't move at all.

You've said it all - thanks!

The legislation was drawn up in gentler times. Such CCers that there were pottered around the system, plying their wares, doing odd jobs or whatever - but not creating log jams at popular moorings.

In those days BW had lengthsmen - who probably were in tune with the CCers.

You could even find a mooring in London.

 

Now it's all push and shove ; Me, Me, Me. How can I bend the rules to suit Me and Devil take the hindmost.

 

BW and CaRT moved away from the man on the ground (who set his own rules within limits) to and office based environment with little affinity for their specific environment - and lost control.

 

In order to attract funds, CaRT must make the canals a pleasant place for the public to visit and support - You can't do that if the whole system is blocked up by folks whose main aim to live inexpensively and have little interest in the system.

[jenlyn]

You've said it all - thanks!

The legislation was drawn up in gentler times. Such CCers that there were pottered around the system, plying their wares, doing odd jobs or whatever - but not creating log jams at popular moorings.

In those days BW had lengthsmen - who probably were in tune with the CCers.

You could even find a mooring in London.

 

Now it's all push and shove ; Me, Me, Me. How can I bend the rules to suit Me and Devil take the hindmost.

 

BW and CaRT moved away from the man on the ground (who set his own rules within limits) to and office based environment with little affinity for their specific environment - and lost control.

 

In order to attract funds, CaRT must make the canals a pleasant place for the public to visit and support - You can't do that if the whole system is blocked up by folks whose main aim to live inexpensively and have little interest in the system.

Not seen or had any problems during the winter. Perhaps some of what you say is a feature most noticeable during the boating season.

[Tony Dunkley]

Tony why do people get into the position of having their licence revoked. I have been boating 11 years and for the last two have had a few cancer surgeries and recently the wife has had a knee replacement all needing to stay or be in a very small area for longer than 14 days. We stayed 3 months in one place when I had bowel cancer surgery.

 

Every occasion we informed CRT and out of courtesy, although NEVER requested we on some occasions supplied evidence (admission letter or similar). We have never had any problem with CRT in fact the opposite with EO`s and their managers popping by while in the area to ask how we are, never mention of are we moving soon just checking our welfare.

 

Soon, hopefully in a week or so we will be on the move and will over the summer be a great distance from where we are now and that is why we have no problems with long stays, we get spotted all over the country and are regarded as Cont. cruisers. ie on an ongoing continuous journey. I have been told that we will have no future problems to genuinely stay longer because of our cruising record.

 

Now you, and i respect you as a knowledgeable boater, can come back and quote the act and I agree it can be read different ways BUT i and probably a lot of others work on the principal of it aint broke so don`t try and fix it. A small courteous communication solves so much and that will be the way I will live my life.

 

Respect to you and anyone else determined to fight CRT.

 

 

edit to add; we do not feel any fight with CRT is needed.

 

I think that the character and decency of individual EO's, and therefore by association, the location where you may just happen to have to stay put for longer than 14 days, has a very great influence on whether or not the so-called 'overstayer' comes into conflict with C&RT.

There seems to be a widely held belief that those who get a lot of grief from particular EO's have either brought it upon themselves by "taking the piss", and "getting themselves on the C&RT radar", whatever all that may mean, and/or they have simply been unlucky in encountering a rogue or over zealous EO.

Were that so, then it would be something that could be far more easily remedied than the awful reality behind the draconian, disproportionate and illegal measures that are dished out to alleged wrongdoers.

Far from it being the 'rogue' EO's who are deviating from C&RT management's intentions and wishes, the EO's who are not toeing the C&RT line are the decent and reasonable ones, such as those you have been fortunate enough to meet.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[spadefoot]

_{I do find it disappointing that there are still people on this forum who think that a CCer & a live-aboard are one and the same, even when others point out that the majority of boats on a CC licence are not lived on.}

[Alan de Enfield]

_{I do find it disappointing that there are still people on this forum who think that a CCer & a live-aboard are one and the same, even when others point out that the majority of boats on a CC licence are not lived on.}

 

Why does it matter ?

People who have a boat in a marina can be liveaboards or not, as the fancy takes them.

Is someone who doesn't live aboard any 'better' than someone who does ?

We are all boaters.

 

Pigeon holing people just divides and that is what C&RT would love us to be - Divided.

[spadefoot]

Well exactly. Why does it matter if a boat is lived on or not, CC or HomeMooring. A boat is either moored or cruising. It's status & that of it's operator makes no difference as to how much space it takes up. So it would be nice if the pigeonholers stopped doing it.

[MtB]

_{I do find it disappointing that there are still people on this forum who think that a CCer & a live-aboard are one and the same, even when others point out that the majority of boats on a CC licence are not lived on.}

 

 

Not only that but my gut feeling is the majority of liveaboards are home moorers, not CCers.