NBTA protest

[Alan de Enfield]

(3)Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless(a)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;(b)an insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence that it exists and is in force, has been produced to the Board; and©either(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

The last 7 words in the section are important - the word 'reasonable' is also important

 

Since you quoted my post :

Not quite sure what you are suggesting, are you suggesting that :

Location of employment

Kids schools

Local relatives / family

Long term medical requirements

 

are all acceptable 'reasonable' reasons to stay longer than 14 days, and, if so, how long is reasonable in those circumstances ?

[Hawkmoth]

 

Since you quoted my post :

Not quite sure what you are suggesting, are you suggesting that :

Location of employment

Kids schools

Local relatives / family

Long term medical requirements

are all acceptable 'reasonable' reasons to stay longer than 14 days, and, if so, how long is reasonable in those circumstances ?

My personal take on this would be:

1 Not sure, but you can change jobs.

2 if you know that you can't CC in the rules because of kids I don't think that "reasonable" within the terms because you knew about it.

3 if there is no illness then you can travel to them from afar at times convenient to you both. You don't have to stay in the area.

4 This is the only truly genuine reason for staying in one place.

 

On second thoughts there are others that I can think of though. That is breakdown, but don't take the p***. How long does it take to fix most faults? Stoppages that have not been notified in time.

Bob

[Alan de Enfield]

My personal take on this would be:

1 Not sure, but you can change jobs.

2 if you know that you can't CC in the rules because of kids I don't think that "reasonable" within the terms because you knew about it.

3 if there is no illness then you can travel to them from afar at times convenient to you both. You don't have to stay in the area.

4 This is the only truly genuine reason for staying in one place.

 

On second thoughts there are others that I can think of though. That is breakdown, but don't take the p***. How long does it take to fix most faults? Stoppages that have not been notified in time.

Bob

 

I am pretty much in agreement with those - except, that after (say) 6 months of visiting the hospital (say) every 2 months, would it not be reasonable to 'move' off and get a mooring ?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Why? I bought my boat principally for somewhere to live.

PS have not read the complete thread. I b

There is no real contradiction there. If you buy your boat principally as somewhere to live but don't intend to move much you get a mooring (which I believe you did). If you buy your boat as somewhere to live whilst you travel around then you don't need a mooring, however if you get your boat and tell CRT that you are going to travel in it when that is not your intention that is what fails the deception test.

[magictime]

There is no real contradiction there. If you buy your boat principally as somewhere to live but don't intend to move much you get a mooring (which I believe you did). If you buy your boat as somewhere to live whilst you travel around then you don't need a mooring, however if you get your boat and tell CRT that you are going to travel in it when that is not your intention that is what fails the deception test.

 

I assume the point John was making is that the law doesn't require you to use your boat principally for navigation, as your previous post had implied. It just requires you to use it bona fide for navigation. And you could use a boat bona fide for navigation completely regardless of whether you principally used it for something else, e.g. to live on or to run a business.

[Iain_S]

Proving the boaters intent would be practically impossible. There is no answer to this unless clear rules and distances are set in law. Interpretations by CRT who have no knowledge of boating will never be of much use. If the law is set in place, then intent, or bona fide navigating and such vaigue terms become irrelevant, as they should be.

 

If such a law was set in place, I think we'd all look back to "the good old days"

[Athy]

8 hr crushing days.

Aren't those the days on which CART deals with Section 8 boats?

[Steilsteven]

 

I assume the point John was making is that the law doesn't require you to use your boat principally for navigation, as your previous post had implied. It just requires you to use it bona fide for navigation. And you could use a boat bona fide for navigation completely regardless of whether you principally used it for something else, e.g. to live on or to run a business.

But the law doesn't suggest any other use of the boat either, so, to me, that implies principally for navigation.

When we apply for a pleasure boat license, we don't get asked if we have any other intended purpose for the boat.

Therefore a boat is allowed to have no home mooring provided that it is, genuinely used for navigating for pleasure for as long as the license is valid.

 

Keith

[Loafer]

 

Again, it may be worth pointing out that even in CaRT's own Guidelines, it's explicitly accepted that "bona fide" can just be used as lawyer-speak for "genuinely". So I'm not sure how much weight could really be placed on these "stronger" interpretations.

 

But in any case - and this crops up in the judgement Alan linked to - I don't see that there's anything in the legislation to suggest a boat without a home mooring must be used principally for navigation, rather than used (genuinely!) for navigation alongside other things (like living aboard, or making a living by trading, say).

 

 

 

My own experience might be relevant here. We had a home mooring when we first bought our boat (for leisure use, not living on), but found the boat was spending less and less time on that mooring as we got in the habit of leaving it on the towpath (so that we could do more cruising further afield). Obviously, while the boat was away from its mooring, we had to make sure we moved it at least once every 14 days.

 

After a while we gave up the home mooring, to avoid what we had come to see as an unnecessary expense. We carried on cruising in the same pattern, for the same reasons - i.e. many individual journeys were made mainly to comply with the 14 day rule, but our overall intent was to cover a lot of ground in a year rather than being stuck close to a home mooring most of the time.

 

By Alan's logic - and I can see where he's coming from in terms of the judgment he links to - while we had a home mooring, it was perfectly OK for us to make individual journeys just to comply with the 14 day rule; but once we gave up that mooring, we were required to have some other, "genuine" reason for making each of those journeys. But our cruising patterns hadn't changed, our intent overall hadn't changed, our reasons for making individual journeys hadn't changed. It makes no sense unless there's an unspoken and unjustified assumption that boats with home moorings will or must be kept on those moorings except while out moving around for "genuine" reasons. (In fact I think the judge touches on this point in the Mayers judgment - it's distinctly odd that the rules for boaters with home moorings make no mention of those moorings actually being used rather than just being available.)

 

That's bona fide and genuine. And moving it every 14 days is quite acceptable, innit? Your second boat is a continuous cruiser. You aren't breaking any rules and you should not come under the microscope!

Provided you don't overstay on VMs, for example.

[Hawthorn]

If you are compliant then the question of whether you are using the boat 'bona fide' for navigation will never arise. I suspect everyone knows exactly what 'bona fide' means, the big question they want answered, and which never will be, I hope, is 'how far must I travel in order to make sure no-one ever questions whether I am using the boat 'bona fide for navigation'

 

Here's a suggestion, its the boat that needs to move, not the people, so why don't all you peeps who just want to stay within a 5 mile range of where you are, form a network, cruise to your cruising limit and then swop your boat with someone else. Before you know where you are the boats can have travelled hundreds of miles and you have stayed put. Unless of course this wouldn't work because your boat is actually your home and you want your home to stay on the same small length of canal.

[Loafer]

Huh?

[magnetman]

Similar thing already being done in London I believe.

 

As soon as a boat comes under enforcement oops look its got a new owner. There is no way that crt could transfer the enforcement history* to the new owner. Just keep changing owners "among friends" and you -may- be able to get round the moving about problem. I haven't tried it - I have no friends

If you had three different people to shuffle ownership between I wonder if CRT would smell a rat?

 

*I don't know this for a fact but I can:t see how the new owner could be tarred with the same brush as the previous - just by buying the boat !!

Edited May 15, 2016 by magnetman

[Delta9]

 

Therefore a boat is allowed to have no home mooring provided that it is, genuinely used for navigating for pleasure for as long as the license is valid.

 

 

Does the law also specify that the navigation must be for pleasure?

[Hawthorn]

Similar thing already being done in London I believe.

 

As soon as a boat comes under enforcement oops look its got a new owner. There is no way that crt could transfer the enforcement history* to the new owner. Just keep changing owners "among friends" and you -may- be able to get round the moving about problem. I haven't tried it - I have no friends

If you had three different people to shuffle ownership between I wonder if CRT would smell a rat?

 

*I don't know this for a fact but I can:t see how the new owner could be tarred with the same brush as the previous - just by buying the boat !!

There we go! its the reason Im not rich, .... by the time I have a good idea, some-one else has already had it, patented it, spent a bloody fortune on r&d and then found it doesn't work, put the company in the wife's name and then gone bankrupt!

[magnetman]

Does the law also specify that the navigation must be for pleasure?

If so then judging by some people's expressions when out boating I'd say a lot of people are breaking the law

Edited May 15, 2016 by magnetman

[Tony Dunkley]

Under the terms of the Court Orders that C&RT get from these Section 8 actions, it is the boat that's exiled from their waters, and not the owner.

Taking legal action against an inanimate object has always struck me as rather an odd thing to do, . . . but that's C&RT for you !

Edited May 15, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[magnetman]

So if you sell the boat before it is removed does the new owner take on responsibility for your past non compliant behaviour??

[Loafer]

So if you sell the boat before it is removed does the new owner take on responsibility for your past non compliant behaviour??

 

Ring CRT and ask them. That would be quite interesting! Post it here!

[Tony Dunkley]

So if you sell the boat before it is removed does the new owner take on responsibility for your past non compliant behaviour??

 

The wording on the Orders [injunctions] specifically forbids the navigation, mooring or securing [on the canal] of the named vessel by "instructing or encouraging any other person".

I don't doubt that Shoosmiths would be able to concoct an impressive sounding argument intended to convince a Court that selling a boat to someone does in fact amount to 'encouraging' them to use it.

[Loafer]

 

The wording on the Orders [injunctions] specifically forbids the navigation, mooring or securing [on the canal] of the named vessel by "instructing or encouraging any other person".

I don't doubt that Shoosmiths would be able to concoct an impressive sounding argument intended to convince a Court that selling a boat to someone does in fact amount to 'encouraging' them to use it.

 

Now if I was a judge (Loafer J!!) I would HAVE to allow a new-ownership 're-set'. That'll protect the innocent. The scallies, doing a scam, might get away with it for a while.

[MtB]

A boater who takes his boat out of a marina only to save money and leaves it on the towpath (a dumper) and moves it once every 14 days is not using his boat for bone fide navigation.

 

 

This is possibly a very illuminating comment. Was the 1995 act not introduced to deal with a persistent problem of 'dumping'?

 

Boaters saw no reason to pay for a mooring when they could just dump their boats on the towpath for free, so 17(3)(c ) i came about:

 

the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

 

Dumpers nowadays are abusing the intention behind this clause by exploiting the loophole and moving their boats once a fortnight, so eventually the law is bound to be revised and the underlying intention of the 1995 Act redefined but more tightly.

 

When this happens this option to not have a home mooring will be redrafted to make the exemption fit bona fide CCers only, not dumpers or any other 'once a fortnight' movers including faux CCers.

 

All in my opinion.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Now if I was a judge (Loafer J!!) I would HAVE to allow a new-ownership 're-set'. That'll protect the innocent. The scallies, doing a scam, might get away with it for a while.

 

You really would have to consider the feelings of the poor old boat as well. Just imagine how it's going to feel, endlessly going back and forth along the same few miles of canal, burdened by the stigma of a County Court Injunction and crewed by people demonstrating their intent by sporting inane grins in an attempt to appear to be deriving some sort of pleasure from it all.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Loafer]

 

You really would have to consider the feelings of the poor old boat as well. Just imagine how it's going to feel, endlessly going back and forth along the same few miles of canal, burdened by the stigma of a County Court Injunction and crewed by people demonstrating their intent by sporting inane grins in an attempt to appear to be deriving some sort of pleasure from it all.

 

I would really like you to explain that, for the hard of understanding. Really! (I'm a fan, by the way)

[magictime]

But the law doesn't suggest any other use of the boat either, so, to me, that implies principally for navigation.

When we apply for a pleasure boat license, we don't get asked if we have any other intended purpose for the boat.

Therefore a boat is allowed to have no home mooring provided that it is, genuinely used for navigating for pleasure for as long as the license is valid.

 

To me, the implication of not being asked if you have any other intended purpose for the boat is that CaRT don't care what else you use the boat for, as long as you also use it (bona fide/genuinely) for navigating (throughout the period of your licence). I don't see any reason to think "navigation" somehow has to rank above whatever other uses you make of your boat - which is just as well in the case of liveaboard CCers, because I think anyone would struggle to convince a court that even though they use their boat as somewhere to cook/eat, somewhere to sleep, somewhere to keep warm in winter etc., they principally use it to chug around looking at the scenery!

 

 

That's bona fide and genuine. And moving it every 14 days is quite acceptable, innit? Your second boat is a continuous cruiser. You aren't breaking any rules and you should not come under the microscope!

Provided you don't overstay on VMs, for example.

 

As I said to Jerra, that seems right to me, but the view of the judge in the Mayers case (shared by Alan, I think) seems to be that it's not good enough for boaters without home moorings to have genuine reasons for cruising in general; rather, they must have a genuine reason (other than wanting to comply with the 14 day rule, that is) for making every individual journey they make. And I couldn't honestly say that none of the journeys we made, we made just because we wanted to comply with that rule (rather than for pleasure, say). Quite a few of them were made just to comply with that rule, I suppose, especially over the winter. Which to me seems like a reason to wonder if that interpretation of the "bona fide" requirement is too strong.

 

And I never had a second boat - not sure where that came from!

 

Does the law also specify that the navigation must be for pleasure?

 

Nope. Sometimes people seem to talk as if using your boat "bona fide for navigation" means something like navigating "for its own sake," or "just for the pleasure of navigating". But that can't be right, because it would mean you weren't "bona fide" navigating if you navigated for the purpose of visiting such-and-such a town, or attending such-and-such a festival, or eating at such-and-such a pub, or whatever, which is silly.

[peterboat]

I thought the license wasnt transferable anymore? so when you sell the boat you cash it in, and the new owner buys a new license so CRT will get its pound of flesh.