BBC reports on CC

[Mike Todd]

What I find illogical is the man in the video from CRT saying:

 

'we can't actually specify how far is enough but we can tell you if you are not traveling far enough'

 

The two statements directly contradict themselves. They act as if 'to specify' means to voice the distance verbally yet the very fact they are saying that X is not enough must mean that they are specifying (albeit vaguely) a minimum distance - which they point out is not something they are legally entitled to do.

 

Whilst I think the issues raised by CRT need to be addressed I can't help thinking they are going about it the wrong way.

It is only illogical as a result of colloquial shorthand.

 

On the one hand they are correct that the legislation does not permit them to specify a particular distance that a boater without a home mooring must travel in a given time period.

 

On the other hand, they 'must be satisfied . . . bona fide navigation . . . etc'. In that sense they can tell you the sort of thinking that might convince them but cannot be certain. They also cannot tell you what will not convince them.

 

Anyone who is unhappy with their conclusion that they are 'not satisfied' then has the right to challenge that through a judicial review but in the meantime the Board's conclusion remains valid, unless and until a court deem s that they have been unreasonable or inconsistent in their application of the principle. (eg if they are easily convinced about boats coloured blue but never convinced by those that are red)

 

All of this may well be unsatisfactory (something widely asserted and equally widely accepted) but it is not illogical.

[Bod]

By an incredible coincidence Tony I had this email on 14th of April,

 

"With regards to the court order granted against you, it does not prevent you from applying for a licence, or prevent the Trust issuing a licence to you. However, the injunction does prevent you from bringing Tadworth onto the Trusts waterways without our prior consent i.e. obtaining a licence from us. Before that can happen though, we must first be satisfied that Tadworth meets all of the criteria for a licence, including (but not limited to) the appropriate safety standards. I accept that Tadworth has a valid BSS certification. "

 

You must have psychic powers?

 

How could a boat with a current BSS (and able to pass another without problem) not be up to "appropriate safety standard"?

Anybody have any ideas?

 

Bod

[Mike Todd]

So how are they defining a mooring? Presumably the Stinkhole is home to other boats who've declared it as their home mooring- and, if so, presumably you have or will point this out?

Just musing and Nigel may be able to help:

 

Boaters applying for a 'normal' licence have to convince the Board that they have a genuine home mooring. However, it would be interesting to know whether they can require that that mooring has to be on their system.

 

Equally, I wonder whether the moorings being specified in this instance are not part of CaRT waters.

 

If both (and it needs both) of these were true then it bis possible to see an argument that the boater is sans home mooring and therefore the licence, applied for on that basis, can be rejected.

 

Just thinking aloud, as it were.

[Horace42]

Dave-P #112. My insurance policies do not cover cruising at nights. But having said that, it was something I was told years ago, but in view of comments made, on checking my actual policy I cannot find any clause that says so. I will ask them tomorrow when they are back in the office.

 

I still think CRT say you should not cruise at night. Perhaps I am wrong here as well. I would appreciate a pointer to where I can read this up on the CRT website. My own search drew a blank.

 

I many respects I hope I am wrong about night time cruising. This means CC's need not stop at all and thus will not be a burden on the system for free moorings - there will be no need for rules or policing to move them on.

 

However, I have not picked this aspect of the 'rules' to have a go at CC's. They provide an essential contribution the waterways system and should be encouraged.

 

It is more an example to highlight big flaws in the CRT cruising/mooring pricing rules. Anyone who has read the 'old' BW document on pricing decision logic will realise it is a massive volume of obfuscating gobbledegook which basically says CRT can charge what they like and there is no way an individual can mount a challenge to any pricing decision.

 

The fact is, there is a shortage of mooring places and CRT should provide more. And CC's should pay a fair price to reflect their 365 day use of them. It would then not be necessary to hound them to move on.

[onionbargee]

The point is that without rules -- and fees -- to control who can moor where and for how long there wouldn't be "a place for everyone", the canals in London and other popular places would be lined with end-to-end static boats moored 3 abreast because a boat is still much cheaper than a grotty flat. Then try finding somewhere to moor when you're genuinely cruising...

Nowhere in my post did I mention or imply there should be no rules.

[NigelMoore]

. . . it would be interesting to know whether they can require that that mooring has to be on their system.

 

Equally, I wonder whether the moorings being specified in this instance are not part of CaRT waters.

 

 

They cannot require that the home mooring be on their own waterways; it would be pointless to have such a restriction anyway.

 

What they have done and may still do [as I have noted previously], is classify boats with off-system moorings as CC’ers – but they vehemently deny this under oath in court, so it is an unsustainable argument for them to utilise in court even if they were to attempt it.

 

The situation can be obfuscated by always thinking of boats as large heavy narrowboats, but the fact is that even portable unpowered craft need a boat licence under the same conditions, and these can easily be kept in a garage or back of a cupboard even. Mid-way between those extremes are the trailerable boats, which can be taken home and left in the driveway when not being used.

 

So for such boats the home “mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left” will always be off-system. CaRT have no discretion whatever to specify that the boat can only qualify for the licence if left on-system when not in use.

 

Tadworth’s home mooring will not qualify as within CaRT’s jurisdiction, and that is why it is able to stay there sans licence; it has been removed from their waterways to that spot as per the Order, and as CaRT accept. For the reasons stated above, however, that is irrelevant to the question of the boat qualifying as having a home mooring.

 

The last boat ‘standing’ in my own case was licensed throughout on the basis of having a valid home mooring within the PLA’s jurisdiction, not BW/CaRT’s, and the validity of that mooring itself as a qualifying one was never questioned once throughout the 6 years of litigation. They were forced to accept that they were mistaken in accusing the boat of being a non-compliant CC'er.

 

[onionbargee]

Just musing and Nigel may be able to help:

 

Boaters applying for a 'normal' licence have to convince the Board that they have a genuine home mooring. However, it would be interesting to know whether they can require that that mooring has to be on their system.

 

Equally, I wonder whether the moorings being specified in this instance are not part of CaRT waters.

 

If both (and it needs both) of these were true then it bis possible to see an argument that the boater is sans home mooring and therefore the licence, applied for on that basis, can be rejected.

 

Just thinking aloud, as it were.

If that were so all the boats moored there would not be granted a licence. And plenty of other non CRT marinas, basins, and arms too. It is not CRT waters which is why I had to move it there post the court order telling me to "do one" off CRT waters.

 

The mooring issue is a red herring, One fax of my mooring contract to CRT puts an end to it.

Edited April 17, 2016 by canon7578

[Tam & Di]

Dave-P #112. My insurance policies do not cover cruising at nights. But having said that, it was something I was told years ago, but in view of comments made, on checking my actual policy I cannot find any clause that says so. I will ask them tomorrow when they are back in the office.

 

I still think CRT say you should not cruise at night. Perhaps I am wrong here as well. I would appreciate a pointer to where I can read this up on the CRT website. My own search drew a blank.

 

It's not relevant to the thread, but to get it out of the way:

 

BW General Bye Laws 1965 are still the relevant words. 10 (1) defines lights for craft (other than a narrow canal boat). Then continues at 10 (2) A power driven vessel, being a narrow canal boat, underway at night shall display etc etc.

 

They would not need to specify the lights required if cruising at night was forbidden.

 

Tam

Edited April 17, 2016 by Tam & Di

[onionbargee]

 

How could a boat with a current BSS (and able to pass another without problem) not be up to "appropriate safety standard"?

Anybody have any ideas?

 

Bod

Yes, the canal and river trust are liars.

[NigelMoore]

 

Whilst Nigel and Tony's advice is good to have, remember they are not lawyers, and also they are not coming from a point of neutrality - both have had significant battles with CRT in the past. Also, they won't be doing the bird on your behalf either.

 

Good advice in itself; I would just add the disclaimer that any position taken by Tadworth’s owner on here, does not necessarily reflect either the strictly legal or the more general practical advice, given. He is free to make his own claims as the law’s meaning, and to judge what action to best pursue, in light of the advice received, which may or may not reflect that advice.

 

For the record, and for the benefit of ‘onlookers’ in particular, I would always as a generalisation recommend doing one’s level best to sort matters outside of the court process. In the event of matters reaching court regardless, the court also, will want to see that you have attempted alternative resolution. Sadly, the overweaning confidence of the CaRT legal team and executive most often means that such resolution is impossible.

 

[adam1uk]

How could a boat with a current BSS (and able to pass another without problem) not be up to "appropriate safety standard"?

Anybody have any ideas?

 

Bod

The BSS can only ever be a snapshot of the boat on the day the test was done. I'm sure we all know people who take all manner of things out of their gas locker, for example, in order to pass the test, then as soon as the examiner has gone puts it all back in again. That means that for every subsequent day, the boat wouldn't pass. And things do change; plenty of boats pass one time and fail four years later -- and the owner would probably be hard pressed to pinpoint the day when it changed from one state to the other.

[Horace42]

 

It's not relevant to the thread, but to get it out of the way:

 

BW General Bye Laws 1965 are still the relevant words. 10 (1) defines lights for craft (other than a narrow canal boat). Then continues at 10 (2) A power driven vessel, being a narrow canal boat, underway at night shall display etc etc.

 

They would not need to specify the lights required if cruising at night was forbidden.

 

Tam

Thanks for that. But being cautious I assumed the lighting aspect was a requirement to allow for tunnels - but yes, it makes sense to be able to cruise at night. However, I recall a long time ago when we hired boats, the boatyard told us we must not cruise at night - I guess this was an in-house rule - these things linger in the memory - and taken as gospel. But not cruising at night has never been a problem for us though.

As mentioned in a reply I made elsewhere, this means CC's can keep going non-stop.

Sorry CC's it's not a dig at you. It's a criticism of CRT pricing policy.

[Murflynn]

Or alternatively welcome all kinds of lifestyles, seek to ensure there is a place for everyone, forget trying to micro manage moorings, and create rules that help boaters instead of make them enemies ?

 

Just a thought.

I wonder how many of those boats moored between Bath and BoA have ever passed through a lock in their current ownership?

 

Is a static boat dweller a 'boater'?

 

Should we be content to allow some people to treat our beautiful canals, that were restored with so much effort and dedication, with the intent that they could be navigated from end to end, as no more than perceived cheap housing estates?

[David Mack]

I still think CRT say you should not cruise at night. Perhaps I am wrong here as well. I would appreciate a pointer to where I can read this up on the CRT website. My own search drew a blank.

 

And that is because CRT don't say you can't boat at night.

 

But insurers and hire companies may take a different view.

[Tony Dunkley]

By an incredible coincidence Tony I had this email on 14th of April,

 

"With regards to the court order granted against you, it does not prevent you from applying for a licence, or prevent the Trust issuing a licence to you. However, the injunction does prevent you from bringing Tadworth onto the Trusts waterways without our prior consent i.e. obtaining a licence from us. Before that can happen though, we must first be satisfied that Tadworth meets all of the criteria for a licence, including (but not limited to) the appropriate safety standards. I accept that Tadworth has a valid BSS certification. "

 

You must have psychic powers?

 

It's good to see C&RT, once again, using their own feet for target practice.

 

As is usual with anything originating from either their 'in house' Solicitors or Enforcement, the wording is imprecise and sloppy, but they are confirming and agreeing that obtaining a Licence prior to bringing your boat back onto their waters satisfies the requirement in the standard form of words Orders/Injunctions for 'prior consent'.

 

Much credit is due to Enforcement Supervisor, Peter Palmer, for truthfully stating that the [invalid and unlawful] grounds upon which they were refusing [cancelling] your newly issued Licence were quite simply that ; quote ~ "Having gone through a lengthy process to get a court order for the removal of your craft from our waters," ~ they took the view that ~ "it is clearly not now appropriate that we issue you with another licence."

 

It is almost certainly too much to hope for from C&RT, but in future they would be well advised to give serious consideration as to the worth of these futile and so easily neutralized Orders they squander so much money and effort in obtaining.

 

There is no point whatsoever in obtaining Court Orders and Injunctions that can be rendered ineffective and worthless via the process of the named boater simply buying a new Licence for the named vessel.

The sheer folly of this much loved practice of C&RT's should have become apparent to them in 2014 when, finding themselves having no option but to discontinue legal action against me, they whinged to Nottingham County Court that I had rendered their Section 8 action "worthless and academic" by returning to my mooring and insisting that they renewed the [Rivers only] Licence they had revoked earlier in the year.

Edited April 17, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[onionbargee]

Wouldn't a small claims court process by more appropriate to recover unpaid licence fees ?

 

I realise Shoesmiths would make no money out of the £65 it costs to get an order. Perhaps that is why its never going to happen ?

[NigelMoore]

Wouldn't a small claims court process by more appropriate to recover unpaid licence fees ?

 

Of course; the 1983 Act specifically so provides that they may do this without prejudice to any magistrates court action, which is also available to them.