Cruising the cut what's what ?

[John Holden]

So if you are a CCer you must not stay in one place for more than 14 days but if you have a home mooring you can stay anywhere you like for as long as you like!

 

Continue with that line of thinking and we will end up with regulations so tightly drawn that we may as well all join the army.

[Athy]

So if you are a CCer you must not stay in one place for more than 14 days but if you have a home mooring you can stay anywhere you like for as long as you like!

 

 

But, John, no one has claimed that - have they?

[John Holden]

But, John, no one has claimed that - have they?

 

See post #8

[Athy]

No, I don't think it says that at all.

[John Holden]

No, I don't think it says that at all.

.

"Next time they tell you that just ask them where in the legislation it states that you must abide by the same restrictions that boats without a home mooring must adhere to."

 

What does that say to you then?

[MtB]

Well the thing is, although home moorers are not obliged to move every 14 days (max) in the legislation, they ARE obliged to in the licence T&Cs.

 

So the argument actually hinges on whether CRT can cancel a home moorer's licence for breach of the T&Cs.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Mike the Boilerman

[Athy]

Certainly not that home-moorers can stay anywhere they like for as long as they like. That would be a most fanciful interpretation. They can, of course, stay on their home mooring for as long as they like, perhaps that is what caused your confusion.

[John Holden]

Certainly not that home-moorers can stay anywhere they like for as long as they like. That would be a most fanciful interpretation. They can, of course, stay on their home mooring for as long as they like, perhaps that is what caused your confusion.

 

Not my confusion.

[Athy]

Well, whoevers it was who made that post, then. Anyway, I haven't got a ticket for the Circle Line so I'm getting off here.

[Dave_P]

This thread has touched on something I've mentioned before. If we follow the 1995 act to the letter, I could have a home mooring and moor elsewhere on the towpath, never move and have my licence renewed each year. The 14 day rule only appies to cc'ers in the legislation. Strangely though, acceptance of the 14 day rule is widespread across all boaters, even though, to my knowledge it is only enforceable through the T&Cs. The contradiction is that when the requirement to move to a new place and follow an A-B-C cruising pattern pops up in the T&Cs for home moorers, everyone goes berserk about it! Can someone explain the difference? It seems to me that people form their own conclusions about what's reasonable and defends that position. Moving after 14 days is seen as ok, establishing a cruising pattern isn't. No wonder CRT end up feeling empowered to over-stretch their remit.

As far as I know, the only time a home moorer has received enforcement action is when CRT have pursued them as having a ghost mooring (i.e. not where the boat can be reasonably kept). Where a valid, accepted mooring exists for a moorer, have CRT ever pursued successful action against a boater for overstaying or not moving far enough?

Edited March 23, 2016 by Dave_P

[Alan de Enfield]

.

"Next time they tell you that just ask them where in the legislation it states that you must abide by the same restrictions that boats without a home mooring must adhere to."

 

What does that say to you then?

 

The legislation states that a 'CCer' must be in a new 'place' every 14 days, It Does NOT say that for boats with a home mooring. No one questions the 14 days as home moorers are required to move every 14 days (as per the T&Cs) but they do not have to move to a different 'place'.

 

Why are you finding it so difficult to read the legislation ?

[Gwydion]

 

The legislation states that a 'CCer' must be in a new 'place' every 14 days, It Does NOT say that for boats with a home mooring. No one questions the 14 days as home moorers are required to move every 14 days (as per the T&Cs) but they do not have to move to a different 'place'.

 

Why are you finding it so difficult to read the legislation ?

 

Does it stipulate that the home mooring has to be on CRT waters?

[Paul C]

 

Does it stipulate that the home mooring has to be on CRT waters?

 

The exact wording is on post #71, page 4 of this thread. Simple answer: no.

[Delta9]

It also doesn't have to be on water, it can be any where it is possible to store a boat.

[Gwydion]

So I could register the pond in my garden as my home mooring, and then moor wherever I like for however long I like?

[Paul C]

So I could register the pond in my garden as my home mooring, and then moor wherever I like for however long I like?

 

Did you read the wording of the legislation? CRT have to be satisfied and it needs to be somewhere the boat can reasonably be kept.

 

But essentially YES, they're unlikely to check your pond is big enough etc upon initial licence application. You will probably be stuck when they notice the boat is always on the canal other than on its home mooring, then look at your pond mooring more closely.

[Jerra]

So I could register the pond in my garden as my home mooring, and then moor wherever I like for however long I like?

AS I understand it it doesn't need to be a pond. Any large enough piece of land that the boat can be taken to and legally left seems to fit the requirements.

[David Mack]

So I could register the pond in my garden as my home mooring, and then moor wherever I like for however long I like?

If your garden pond is a place where your boat can reasonably and may lawfully be left,then yes, you can declare it as your home mooring. If the boat in question is a canoe or a dinghy, then the boat can indeed be reasonably be left there. But if it is several tons of narrowboat that might be stetching credibility somewhat. As for th emooring wherever you like for as long as you like, that is subject to the restriction to 14 days in the Ts&Cs or such shorter time limit as is signed.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

As far as I know, the only time a home moorer has received enforcement action is when CRT have pursued them as having a ghost mooring (i.e. not where the boat can be reasonably kept). Where a valid, accepted mooring exists for a moorer, have CRT ever pursued successful action against a boater for overstaying or not moving far enough?

 

Yes, against Andy Wingfield on 8 October last year, and he had a C&RT 'home' mooring

 

They had also tried previously with another HM'er, but were obliged to discontinue prior to the Directions hearing after having sight of the HM'ers Defence, and after he renewed his revoked Pleasure Boat Certificate, thereby making C&RT's legal action, in Shoosmiths words on the Court papers, . . "worthless and academic".

 

Incidentally, at no time either prior to or during this abortive legal action was the term 'ghost' mooring mentioned by C&RT.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[onionbargee]

I wonder if the CaRT would accept hardstanding I.e any land next to the canal where the landowner agrees in writing that you can crane out at any time ?

 

I say next to the canal because a field in Cornwall would be stretching it a bit.

[Tony Dunkley]

I wonder if the CaRT would accept hardstanding I.e any land next to the canal where the landowner agrees in writing that you can crane out at any time ?

 

I say next to the canal because a field in Cornwall would be stretching it a bit.

 

I would expect them to argue strongly against accepting such an arrangement, but it seems to me to satisfy the stipulations in S.17 (3) [c] (i) of the '95 Act.

Whilst it could be argued that it would not be a practical arrangement for a boat in use only for weekends or other short periods during the period of the Licence, it would certainly be a workable and practical arrangement for a boat that is in constant use and would rarely, if ever, return to it's 'mooring', or in this case, 'other place'.

[onionbargee]

 

I would expect them to argue strongly against accepting such an arrangement, but it seems to me to satisfy the stipulations in S.17 (3) [c] (i) of the '95 Act.

Whilst it could be argued that it would not be a practical arrangement for a boat in use only for weekends or other short periods during the period of the Licence, it would certainly be a workable and practical arrangement for a boat that is in constant use and would rarely, if ever, return to it's 'mooring', or in this case, 'other place'.

Yes, but they seem to be a law unto themselves at present, if they say no, the boater will be looking at a long legal fight to get CaRT to abide by its own rules.

[Tony Dunkley]

Yes, but they seem to be a law unto themselves at present, if they say no, the boater will be looking at a long legal fight to get CaRT to abide by its own rules.

 

Not necessarily. As a potential 'litigant in person' there are courses of action and tactics open to you but not so readily, or properly, available to lawyers or those employing them.

Following on from the refusal of a Licence for a boat fulfilling the requirements of S.17 (3)[c](i) the fight would be to get C&RT to abide by Parliament's statutory 'rules' rather than their own dubious so-called rules.

My reaction to refusal would be to throw the ball very firmly back at C&RT.

 

Were I to once again find myself having to force them into issuing a new Licence or PBC only to be met with persistent unlawful refusal, I would simply resubmit the Licence/PBC Application/supporting documentation/remittance to C&RT together with a covering letter pointing out that they have no grounds upon which they can lawfully refuse the Licence/PBC, and that as I had met all the statutory requirements in full, it was my intention to resume what would otherwise be the lawful use of the vessel [which is the subject of the Application] had C&RT not knowingly declined to meet and fulfill their own statutory obligations with regard to the issuing of boat Licences or PBC's.

 

If the vessel was subject to one of C&RT's 'without prior consent' Injunctions at the time of the new Licence/PBC Application, then I would also take the precaution of writing to the Court, copying in all the correspondence with C&RT, and explaining the invidious position into which C&RT were putting you by virtue of their unlawful refusal to furnish the 'prior consent' stipulated in the Injunction.

This isn't strictly correct procedure with a Court and it isn't what a lawyer would or could do, but once it's done there is nothing that C&RT/Shoosmiths can do to undo it, and it would put them very much on the back foot in that if they were to subsequently attempt to persuade the Court that your actions were in contempt, then they would have some very difficult explaining to do with regard to their own actions in failing to grant the 'prior consent' provided for in the Injunction.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Loafer]

Thanks for keeping posting, Tony.

[David Mack]

I wonder if the CaRT would accept hardstanding I.e any land next to the canal where the landowner agrees in writing that you can crane out at any time ?

 

In principle that could satisfy the home mooring requirement, but CRT will tell you that craneage over their land (including their water) requires their permission, and as a minimum that would be conditional on proof of insurance, adequate risk assessments etc, all of which they would charge you to review and approve.