BBC reports on CC

[Paul C]

Interesting which way this tread has developed. My opening question was do you think this article will help or hinder the family?

Imo CRT cannot now back down, as they have to be seen as following there enforcement procedures in this. As soon as they don't follow there enforcement procedures, it would be reported in the press and it would have a consequence for every other enforcement case.

 

Is there any way CRT could back down now it's in the national press?

 

Generally, people who break the law should be punished appropriately. In the worst cases (generalisation) this entails going to jail, which greatly hinders the criminal.

 

Its not up to us to decide if this guy and his family are criminals, but he's on a restricted licence and they have a process which earns you one of these. Also in cases I have heard CRT "create" a mooring on the towpath then charge appropriately for it. Or he could find his own moori ng - might be elsewhere in the country, might mean the kids have to change schools. In theory housing benefit will (part) pay for a mooring if he meets its criteria.

 

It does seem a bit like this guy is trying to "have his cake and eat it" - and part of the lifestyle choice seems to be not fully complying with the legislation. I don't think CRT are bothered about publicity, indeed it might be seen as positive publicity if it shows they are taking firm action against those who don't comply with the legislation properly.

[Claude]

I find it difficult to have too much sympathy for the family in the BBC article. The guy said he's been on the canals for 10 years. As far as I'm aware the rules on CCing haven't changed significantly over the last decade they're just being more strictly enforced now. So they've been aware of the rules but decided they can have a family and carry on regardless of the needs of their kids - and now it's all catching up with them.

 

Moorings are difficult, but not impossible to find and they don't necessarily have to be "residential". It's a bit of a grey area but if the moorings operator is reasonable and you're a good moorer it can work. Thousands of people are living on non-res long-term moorings and in terms of being settled it's got to be better than living on the side of the canal with no right to stay in that place and kids that need to go to school.

 

I really don't think the fact that they've got kids should make any difference in terms of the rules. They chose to have the kids after all and they now seem to be using them to support their case for not complying. If the rules are relaxed for people with kids it would discriminate against people who don't have kids.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Claude

[Paul C]

What about boarding school for the kids? Then he could cruise without the locality contraints. Oh....cost.

[jenlyn]

I find it difficult to have too much sympathy for the family in the BBC article. The guy said he's been on the canals for 10 years. As far as I'm aware the rules on CCing haven't changed significantly over the last decade they're just being more strictly enforced now. So they've been aware of the rules but decided they can have a family and carry on regardless of the needs of their kids - and now it's all catching up with them.

 

Moorings are difficult, but not impossible to find and they don't necessarily have to be "residential". It's a bit of a grey area but if the moorings operator is reasonable and you're a good moorer it can work. Thousands of people are living on non-res long-term moorings and in terms of being settled it's got to be better than living on the side of the canal with no right to stay in that place and kids that need to go to school.

 

I really don't think the fact that they've got kids should make any difference in terms of the rules. They chose to have the kids after all and they now seem to be using them to support their case for not complying. If the rules are relaxed for people with kids it would discriminate against people who don't have kids.

 

The rules have changed. That's the problem.

A lot of these folk were told specifically by BW and then CRT on what was expected of them. Two to three boroughs was the normal advice.

People adapted their lives to this, jobs, schools etc.

Then everything changed. Lets not be hasty in blaming the boat owner, CRT, and BW before them were, and are just as guilty.

[ditchcrawler]

The rules have changed. That's the problem.

A lot of these folk were told specifically by BW and then CRT on what was expected of them. Two to three boroughs was the normal advice.

People adapted their lives to this, jobs, schools etc.

Then everything changed. Lets not be hasty in blaming the boat owner, CRT, and BW before them were, and are just as guilty.

I thought change over the past 2 years had made things easier thinking back to the K&A trial when we were down there to the few Kilometres required today from what I have read.

[Dave_P]

The rules have changed. That's the problem.

A lot of these folk were told specifically by BW and then CRT on what was expected of them. Two to three boroughs was the normal advice.

People adapted their lives to this, jobs, schools etc.

Then everything changed. Lets not be hasty in blaming the boat owner, CRT, and BW before them were, and are just as guilty.

Are you sure? I started boating in 2010, pre-CRT and it was very much a hot potato then. People were arguing then about how far you needed to move, so I don't see how CRT have told people in the past that their movement requirements were less than they now demand. In fact, in earlier versions of the cc'ing guidance there was a requirement to be on a progressive journey around a significant portion of the system. Those sort of requirements have been scaled right back.

 

As I see it, CRT have consistently reduced the distance requirements for cc'ers whilst simulaneously toughening up their enforcement approach. This has been widely predicted since the change to CRT was first announced, so, as I said before, they must have seen this coming.

 

I still feel sorry for them as I said before but my sympathy can only extend so far. I keep thinking about the mother's comment that the children have to come first. She means that she will prioritize her children over her requirement to move. That's not actually putting her children first though, is it? Seeing as it then risks leaving her children homeless. So in truth, her priority seems to be :

 

1. live on boat,

2. her children's welfare,

3. move sufficiently.

 

In that order.

 

That's where my sympathy starts to wear thin. If she really wants to put her children first, and she feels that moving further would be harmful to them, then she needs to find an alternative housing option.

[jenlyn]

Are you sure? I started boating in 2010, pre-CRT and it was very much a hot potato then. People were arguing then about how far you needed to move, so I don't see how CRT have told people in the past that their movement requirements were less than they now demand. In fact, in earlier versions of the cc'ing guidance there was a requirement to be on a progressive journey around a significant portion of the system. Those sort of requirements have been scaled right back.

 

As I see it, CRT have consistently reduced the distance requirements for cc'ers whilst simulaneously toughening up their enforcement approach. This has been widely predicted since the change to CRT was first announced, so, as I said before, they must have seen this coming.

 

I still feel sorry for them as I said before but my sympathy can only extend so far. I keep thinking about the mother's comment that the children have to come first. She means that she will prioritize her children over her requirement to move. That's not actually putting her children first though, is it? Seeing as it then risks leaving her children homeless. So in truth, her priority seems to be :

 

1. live on boat,

2. her children's welfare,

3. move sufficiently.

 

In that order.

 

That's where my sympathy starts to wear thin. If she really wants to put her children first, and she feels that moving further would be harmful to them, then she needs to find an alternative housing option.

I am sure. CRT even admitted it publicly, albeit blaming BW, who of course was run by the same people who run CRT.

[jenlyn]

Just one other little fact. CRT last year (after a certain tv programme) stated publicly that they had no issues on the K&A that were causing problems with overstaying etc.

 

I would suggest that most of the waterway issues relating to overstaying, discussed on this forum, are in fact developed by certain members of this forum, then exagerated profusely to extend the discussion (waffle).

Even some at CRT now recognise that.

Edited April 16, 2016 by jenlyn

[Richard Fairhurst]

 

(WW, May 2004.)

[jenlyn]

 

(WW, May 2004.)

A pity his enforcement team had their own ideas.

[Dave_P]

I am sure. CRT even admitted it publicly, albeit blaming BW, who of course was run by the same people who run CRT.

Do you have any evidence? The 'Guidance' was there in black and white and was stricter than it is now.

[Dave_P]

 

(WW, May 2004.)

Exactly! This is 12 years ago. People back then knew what the score was. The problem was never that people didn't know what they were legally required to do, it was that BW lacked the balls to back up their threats properly, leading to a lot of uncertainty. This is, I think, what Jenlyn is getting at. The enforcement officers were saying one thing when Robin Evans and the published guidance was saying something else. That seems to be still true to some extent, with an inconsistent enforcement approach around the country.

 

It's a bit rich for boaters to suggest that they're more uncertain now, when the opposite is true. It's just that now, they aren't getting it their way.

[jenlyn]

Do you have any evidence? The 'Guidance' was there in black and white and was stricter than it is now.

Been waiting for that :-D. Yeh, everything I have stated can be found in the search function of this forum. Go seek.

[jenlyn]

Exactly! This is 12 years ago. People back then knew what the score was. The problem was never that people didn't know what they were legally required to do, it was that BW lacked the balls to back up their threats properly, leading to a lot of uncertainty. This is, I think, what Jenlyn is getting at. The enforcement officers were saying one thing when Robin Evans and the published guidance was saying something else. That seems to be still true to some extent, with an inconsistent enforcement approach around the country.

 

It's a bit rich for boaters to suggest that they're more uncertain now, when the opposite is true. It's just that now, they aren't getting it their way.

 

Some of CRT's eo's are still suggesting cruising "areas", and I predict next year will see another statement along the lines of "we have problems in the area of xxxxxxxx, and are therefore implementing some new guidelines".

Another year, same old tactics.

I am totally amazed that people don't see it, or don't wish too.

[ditchcrawler]

Just one other little fact. CRT last year (after a certain tv programme) stated publicly that they had no issues on the K&A that were causing problems with overstaying etc.

 

I would suggest that most of the waterway issues relating to overstaying, discussed on this forum, are in fact developed by certain members of this forum, then exagerated profusely to extend the discussion (waffle).

Even some at CRT now recognise that.

Is that overstaying, ie. in one spot for more than 14 days, or not moving far enough over the time they are in the area?

[jenlyn]

Is that overstaying, ie. in one spot for more than 14 days, or not moving far enough over the time they are in the area?

Ask CRT. I'm only repeating what Crt said after the silent film on the K&A.

Comments were made about boats seen moored in the film, and CRT sought to clarify.

[Dave_P]

Been waiting for that :-D. Yeh, everything I have stated can be found in the search function of this forum. Go seek.

Huh? Someone stating something on forum doesn't really qualify as evidence. I'm not saying I disbelieve you, I'm just interested. Not so interested that I fancy spending the next few hours trawling through the forum search results for a needle in a haystack. Which will probably just turn up someone reporting a conversation they had.

Some of CRT's eo's are still suggesting cruising "areas", and I predict next year will see another statement along the lines of "we have problems in the area of xxxxxxxx, and are therefore implementing some new guidelines".

Another year, same old tactics.

I am totally amazed that people don't see it, or don't wish too.

'Tactics' implies a level of coordination and thought.

[jenlyn]

Not so interested that I fancy spending the next few hours trawling through the forum search results for a needle in a haystack. Which will probably just turn up someone reporting a conversation they had.

 

Likewise.

 

As for the "conversation they had" remark, I have learned to expect that sort of reply from some on here.

Makes no difference to me anymore, but I suggest you get some facts in future before posting your assumptions that in the main are just that, assumption.

[onionbargee]

 

And they doubtless count many owners moored on towpaths among their customers. However it is not really relevant here, and if they gave up their trading licence they would be subject to exactly the same licensing conditions as other pleasure boaters.

 

Tam

As far as I know, and I did used to have a trading licence, it gives you no right to any deviation from the licence conditions.

 

( I have to admit I am still a learner on this legal stuff, having been forced into it, but Im not sure how many, if any of the licence conditions are legally valid )

[Paul C]

 

( I have to admit I am still a learner on this legal stuff, having been forced into it, but Im not sure how many, if any of the licence conditions are legally valid )

 

The terms and conditions aren't too bad in that they do cite the relevant legislation for some of the paragraphs. However they do mix what are essentially, paraphrasing of the legally-worded legislation (in one paragraph) with another paragraph which is their own condition (ie doesn't have underlying legislation). I can assure you, definitely some of the conditions ARE legally enforceable but some aren't in themselves (only by virtue of Section 43(3) of the 1962 Transport Act).

 

It will be interesting if/when they further pursue your case, whether they do it based upon a term which has underlying clear legislation (for example, the boat has no valid BSS, or the mooring does not satisfy them, or you don't have insurance) or on a term where they're relying on S.43(3). If its the latter and you lose, it has massive consequences for the a large section of the boating community.

[MankySteve]

It sounds like a the legislation need tearing up and rewriting after consultation with all side to the provide a more specific bit of legislation. That would avoid all the mess.

It sounds like a the legislation need tearing up and rewriting after consultation with all side to the provide a more specific bit of legislation. That would avoid all the mess.

[Claude]

The rules have changed. That's the problem.

A lot of these folk were told specifically by BW and then CRT on what was expected of them. Two to three boroughs was the normal advice.

People adapted their lives to this, jobs, schools etc.

Then everything changed. Lets not be hasty in blaming the boat owner, CRT, and BW before them were, and are just as guilty.

 

Ok, I didn't know the rules had changed, I just thought they'd been clarified. I last CCd 15 years ago on BW canals and back then the rules were to move on every two weeks, although it wasn't clear exactly how far you had to move. That aspect has now been more clearly defined, but if you're blaming CRT / BW then it sounds like you're doing so because previously they didn't properly define or enforce the rules whereas now they have done and are doing so?

 

Personally I think it's a bit foolish to base one's lifestyle on previously undefined rules, and when children are involved it seems completely irresponsible. However, I'd also like to know how often and how far the family in the BBC article are actually moving.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Claude

[Alan de Enfield]

It sounds like a the legislation need tearing up and rewriting after consultation with all side to the provide a more specific bit of legislation. That would avoid all the mess.

It sounds like a the legislation need tearing up and rewriting after consultation with all side to the provide a more specific bit of legislation. That would avoid all the mess.

 

But - the vast majority of boat owners have no conflict or problems with 'the authorities', it is just the minority who appear to want to push the boundaries of legality, or, even worse, want the law changing to suit their circumstances.

[MankySteve]

 

But - the vast majority of boat owners have no conflict or problems with 'the authorities', it is just the minority who appear to want to push the boundaries of legality, or, even worse, want the law changing to suit their circumstances.

I think I te

 

But - the vast majority of boat owners have no conflict or problems with 'the authorities', it is just the minority who appear to want to push the boundaries of legality, or, even worse, want the law changing to suit their circumstances.

I think I tend to agree, but if legislation was clearer then they wouldn't be able to moan about being hard done by.

[peterboat]

I have trawled through this thread and at the end find myself in agreement with a lot of posters there has to be rules we know the rules obey the rules and their is no hassle.