NBTA protest

[Paul C]

As I understand it, NBTA (currently) don't have any funds to back anyone actually going to court to fight a theroretical case, all they can do is offer legal advice as-is.

 

 

 

The NBTA is not a law firm and we do not purport to be lawyers. Our legal resources are provided “as-is” and without warranty or liability.

 

It would be interesting indeed if CRT decided to press an NBTA member and take it to court so a proper legal judgement can be made on the issues of the day; I suspect NBTA's excellent publicity efforts, alongside other interested organisations and social media would be able to generate enough crowd-funding or other resources to mount a proper challenge. It would be good if this scenario could be avoided but listening to the language on both sides, it seems more distant than ever.

[Tam & Di]

But what is so evil about wanting to live as cheaply as you can? I wouldn't want to live in a flat and have a nine to five. I'm a lot poorer because of it, but its my choice.

 

That's fine and I have no problem with it. We did (and effectively still do) just the same. However we are not on our soapboxes saying C&RT are villains for making us move in accordance with the terms of our licence - saying we can't afford a flat and have no choice but to live on a boat. That is not the same thing at all, and is said just to get the sympathy vote. And no, they are not breaking the law, but they are certainly stretching any sensible definition of bona fide navigation to the extent that C&RT are almost forced into taking legal action if some sections of canal are not to become linear housing estates, making any other use difficult and unpleasant.

 

Edit to add that I am by no means a fervent supporter of C&RT in all their doings, and they are frequently very in the wrong. I just don't think this is the case here.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Tam & Di

[churchward]

But what is so evil about wanting to live as cheaply as you can? I wouldn't want to live in a flat and have a nine to five. I'm a lot poorer because of it, but its my choice. I don't want that life. I would be on six figures by now like some of my ex colleagues but I'd also be permanently on a plane and permanently knackered. My neighbour sold her flat and got the boat to have a fuller life. She now does freelance bookkeeping, has formed a band and written a novel. Good for her I say. Both me and him indoors stand to inherit property, so we know how priviledged we are. We won't be living in it, thats for sure. We don't want to and neither do a lot of NBTA members, some I know have never lived in property, were not born in property and neither were their kids. ETA as someone who is a trend forecaster (one of the things I do freelance), this is a worlwide trend, from Marie Kondo in Japan, to the tiny house movement in the USA. Own less, work less. There is even a billionaire who lives out of a carryon bag and doesn't own anything else.

I agree. There is some virtue in living modestly and simply. I suspect you are financially poorer perhaps in you lifestyle choice but not so in the richness of your day to day life.

 

I don't think you need to live on a boat to do this. My interests and take on life means a land based lifestyle living in a house is a practical solution. But where we are tucked out of the way and growing as much of our own food as possible allows us a comfortable but sustainable lifestyle.

 

The rat race is not the only way to be!

 

But I do agree with others that some of the people on the K&A and similar places stretch the spirit and technicality of the law to breaking point. I sympathise with anyone trying to life on a low wage but squatting on the towpath for free when you should be moving more is not the way to be if we are to share the canal; system. They are just taking what they want for themselves. Anyone in need should of course get help with living expenses just as someone would on dry land.

Edited May 12, 2016 by churchward

[MtB]

I agree. There is some virtue in living modestly and simply. I suspect you are financially poorer perhaps in you lifestyle choice but not so in the richness of your day to day life.

 

I don't think you need to live on a boat to do this. My interests and take on life means a land based lifestyle living in a house is a practical solution. But where we are tucked out of the way and growing as much of our own food as possible allows us a comfortable but sustainable lifestyle.

 

The rat race is not the only way to be!

 

 

\the trouble with the rat race is it's always the rats that win...!

[magnetman]

I'm all in favour of "living lightly" and being comfortable while spending as little money as possible. I wouldn't really be bothered if the whole canal system was one big housing estate where people paid for whatever services they get. I agree with things like council tax and paying for train fares etc.

I like to go boating but I also like boats - lots of different boats preferably ! I would not moan about lines of moored boats unless they were all the same and full of people opening the side door simply to say slow down. In the words of a good friend who was confronted by someone ordering him to slow down - "I'm afraid this is as good as it gets - if you don't like it buy a caravan and it won't happen" a bit part of the reason to be afloat is the boats going past !! I don't like people running generators or engines late at night though .

 

 

The problem is that this is not what is going to happen. What is going to happen is that some shall we say 'militant' groups will eventually destroy what is quite a nice place and cause major change which will not help anyone other than maybe some capitalists.

 

That's my rather grim prediction anyway

Edited May 12, 2016 by magnetman

[bassplayer]

 

That's fine but it illustrates its a lifestyle choice - nothing wrong with that. HOWEVER if that lifestyle choice meant that laws were ignored/broken, then there is an element of wrongness.

As Lady Muck says, what laws are being broken?

 

Anyway, I'm guessing you have total faith in those who make law and enforce it. After all that's what we have been conditioned to believe.

 

Unfortunately as much as I believe in democracy, I don't think everyone has their heart in the right place.

[David Mack]

An interesting point that had not struck me before: the requirement to 'satisfy the board' is written in the future tense not the past.

 

Indeed. So when you first apply for a licence as a CCer, you state your intention to satisfy the requirements, and as CRT have no basis for thinking you won't, they issue the licence.

 

But when the licence comes up for renewal (which constitutes another application), if they take the view that you have not in fact met the requirements, then they can take your actual performance into account in coming to a view as to whether you will "satisfy the board" during the term of the new licence. And they are now saying that in cases where boaters have not met the requirements, they will only issue a 6 month licence, to give you an opportunity to demonstrate that you can meet the requirements. And at the end of that 6 months, its either a full 12 month licence or enforcement procedures.

[magnetman]

I thought the limited license duration experiment had ended ?

[bassplayer]

 

Indeed. So when you first apply for a licence as a CCer, you state your intention to satisfy the requirements, and as CRT have no basis for thinking you won't, they issue the licence.

 

But when the licence comes up for renewal (which constitutes another application), if they take the view that you have not in fact met the requirements, then they can take your actual performance into account in coming to a view as to whether you will "satisfy the board" during the term of the new licence. And they are now saying that in cases where boaters have not met the requirements, they will only issue a 6 month licence, to give you an opportunity to demonstrate that you can meet the requirements. And at the end of that 6 months, its either a full 12 month licence or enforcement procedures.

Oh dear...

 

Tried to find the relevant bit on the CRT web site but I don"t think they are doing the 'trail' licence anymore. Section 8 and that's it, regardless of whether you have broken a law or not.

 

The caring, touchy, feely CRT...not...

Edited May 12, 2016 by bassplayer

[MtB]

Oh dear...

 

 

Its OK, as noted by MM, this scheme has now been scrapped.

Ridiculously unreasonable, wasn't it!

[bassplayer]

 

 

Its OK, as noted by MM, this scheme has now been scrapped.

 

Ridiculously unreasonable, wasn't it!

Well clearly it turned out to be an unreasonable process for CRT...yes!

[Tuscan]

Oh dear...

Tried to find the relevant bit on the CRT web site but I don"t think they are doing the 'trail' licence anymore. Section 8 and that's it, regardless of whether you have broken a law or not.

The caring, touchy, feely CRT...not...

Indeed. So when you first apply for a licence as a CCer, you state your intention to satisfy the requirements, and as CRT have no basis for thinking you won't, they issue the licence.

 

But when the licence comes up for renewal (which constitutes another application), if they take the view that you have not in fact met the requirements, then they can take your actual performance into account in coming to a view as to whether you will "satisfy the board" during the term of the new licence. And they are now saying that in cases where boaters have not met the requirements, they will only issue a 6 month licence, to give you an opportunity to demonstrate that you can meet the requirements. And at the end of that 6 months, its either a full 12 month licence or enforcement procedures.

This is still the process. It's the 3 month licence that was stopped

Edited May 12, 2016 by Tuscan

[magnetman]

Maybe it has served it's purpose

 

Watch out for some court cases for those who were subjected to limited license duration and did not comply enough to be awarded a new license.

 

Is this a case of sorting out a few to be made examples of.

[Paul C]

As Lady Muck says, what laws are being broken?

 

Anyway, I'm guessing you have total faith in those who make law and enforce it. After all that's what we have been conditioned to believe.

 

Unfortunately as much as I believe in democracy, I don't think everyone has their heart in the right place.

 

I'm not interested in guesses I'm keen to only focus on the facts of each case in turn. Its for this reason that I previously stated that, whilst not ideal for the boater concerned, some kind of clarity from an actual court case would carry much more weight than the opinions of a few interested parties. Effectively, it was done already back in 2010 (British Waterways vs Davies), respecting the fact that this was a county court judgement and can't set legal precedent; if NBTA feel that CRT are now extending their enforcement and progressing to deny licences/take further action beyond this case then there is validity in going through with a 'test' case.

[bassplayer]

This is still the process. It's the 3 month licence that was stopped

Ok, may have missed something. Can anyone point to a CRT reference on this? I struggled earlier...

 

I'm not interested in guesses I'm keen to only focus on the facts of each case in turn. Its for this reason that I previously stated that, whilst not ideal for the boater concerned, some kind of clarity from an actual court case would carry much more weight than the opinions of a few interested parties. Effectively, it was done already back in 2010 (British Waterways vs Davies), respecting the fact that this was a county court judgement and can't set legal precedent; if NBTA feel that CRT are now extending their enforcement and progressing to deny licences/take further action beyond this case then there is validity in going through with a 'test' case.

I'm looking forward to the test case on CRT charging extra for tow path moorings. Actually, maybe not, as we will all suffer the consequences...

Maybe it has served it's purpose

 

 

I do get that.

[Arthur Marshall]

If that was the case for some of them, would that be a problem for you?

Sorry for the late response but been out all day. Normally I wouldn't bother but I am sick of your implied insults.

Why the hell do you think that would cause me a problem? I do wish you would stop reading posts via your prejudices. How do you know I have never slept rough or been homeless? How do you know I haven't moved onto a boat because I had nothing else? All I said was that some people move onto boats because they have nowhere else to go. Why do you find that offensive? Because you may have had the choice of where and how you live, many don't.

They need to be thought about a bit too.

[bassplayer]

Sorry for the late response but been out all day. Normally I wouldn't bother but I am sick of your implied insults.

Why the hell do you think that would cause me a problem? I do wish you would stop reading posts via your prejudices. How do you know I have never slept rough or been homeless? How do you know I haven't moved onto a boat because I had nothing else? All I said was that some people move onto boats because they have nowhere else to go. Why do you find that offensive? Because you may have had the choice of where and how you live, many don't.

They need to be thought about a bit too.

It wasn't an insult, it was a genuine question. I'm not offended either BTW. Here are some more questions...

 

Have you ever been homeless?

 

Have you ever moved onto a boat because you had nothing else?

 

I am fortunate to have a choice of where I live and I am very grateful to my new wife for that. However, I still prefer to live on a boat so we compromise and seem to get on that way as we have for the last 4 years.

[Graham Davis]

Well said Arthur!!

Greenie

[bassplayer]

Well said Arthur!!

Greenie

Here here..

[dogless]

Sorry for the late response but been out all day. Normally I wouldn't bother but I am sick of your implied insults.

Why the hell do you think that would cause me a problem? I do wish you would stop reading posts via your prejudices. How do you know I have never slept rough or been homeless? How do you know I haven't moved onto a boat because I had nothing else? All I said was that some people move onto boats because they have nowhere else to go. Why do you find that offensive? Because you may have had the choice of where and how you live, many don't.

They need to be thought about a bit too.

Greenied cos I like your answer.

Isn't this the crux of the issue.

We need to find ways to accommodate people on the waterways. They are there already. The 'problem' exists and solutions need to be found. There seems little point just arguing over what's right or wrong, based on the past.

The geography of London is outside my knowledge, but there must be ways some form of pre-approved cruising plan could be agreed with C&RT, and then monitored and enforced. Individuals merely paying lip service would be providing evidence C&RT could use in court to demonstrate their lack of commitment to 'bona fide' cruising.

If we always do what we always did,

we'll always get what we always got.

There appears to be genuine families, and individuals out there who need this chance. It can't be that difficult surely.

Rog

[NigelMoore]

I earlier posted the articles of association of C&RT - this part may be considered relevant :

 

. . .

 

Section 3:3 may be of interest to those amongst us who have decided that C&RT cannot charge for use of services and facilities

 

 

We have traversed this argument before. The Articles of Association of CaRT as a private limited company do not possess the power to supersede the restrictions placed upon statutory bodies by Parliamentary statute. Insofar as CaRT manages the waterways in exercise of the functions of their predecessor British Waterways, they remain bound by all the relevant elements of the applicable statutes both public and private under the terms of the 2012 Transfer.

 

The statutes that continue to bind CaRT under those terms specifically include the chapter of the 1962 Transport Act dealing with Transport Charges and Facilities, section 43 being amended appropriately [by way of the 2012 Transfer] to insert CaRT’s name as “subject to” the same freedoms and restrictions that governed BW.

 

I am confident that Johnson intended the generality of people to read the Articles as supplanting the statute, but of course they cannot. The quoted part is NOT relevant therefore.

 

Having said which – have any of us in fact “decided that C&RT cannot charge for services and facilities”? I certainly have not; I have merely pointed out the limitations on what they can charge for, and they can levy charges for any services and facilities that the original companies, and the BTC, & then BW were empowered to charge for.

 

[bassplayer]

 

We have traversed this argument before. The Articles of Association of CaRT as a private limited company do not possess the power to supersede the restrictions placed upon statutory bodies by Parliamentary statute. Insofar as CaRT manages the waterways in exercise of the functions of their predecessor British Waterways, they remain bound by all the relevant elements of the applicable statutes both public and private under the terms of the 2012 Transfer.

 

The statutes that continue to bind CaRT under those terms specifically include the chapter of the 1962 Transport Act dealing with Transport Charges and Facilities, section 43 being amended appropriately [by way of the 2012 Transfer] to insert CaRTs name as subject to the same freedoms and restrictions that governed BW.

 

I am confident that Johnson intended the generality of people to read the Articles as supplanting the statute, but of course they cannot. The quoted part is NOT relevant therefore.

 

Having said which have any of us in fact decided that C&RT cannot charge for services and facilities? I certainly have not; I have merely pointed out the limitations on what they can charge for, and they can levy charges for any services and facilities that the original companies, and the BTC, & then BW were empowered to charge for.

 

Did any of these original companies charge for winter moorings, long term moorings and for overstaying 48 hour moorings on the tow path side?

[Arthur Marshall]

It wasn't an insult, it was a genuine question. I'm not offended either BTW. Here are some more questions...

 

Have you ever been homeless?

 

Have you ever moved onto a boat because you had nothing else?

 

I am fortunate to have a choice of where I live and I am very grateful to my new wife for that. However, I still prefer to live on a boat so we compromise and seem to get on that way as we have for the last 4 years.

Yes and yes. Now shut up and bugger off.

[NigelMoore]

Did any of these original companies charge for winter moorings, long term moorings and for overstaying 48 hour moorings on the tow path side?

 

Not to my knowledge. I would be surprised if any of them ever considered that needful or desirable – the towpaths were to be kept clear at all times for the commercial vessels to make the best time they could in getting from a to b. The very idea that they would want to countenance allowing anyone to block towpath use seems unbelievable; charging for such use would be commercially counter-productive; they made their income from the efficient carriage of goods.

 

Overnight towpath mooring during long passages would have been inevitable, anything else would have been unthinkable - in fact, as I have noted previously, on the Grand Junction Canal pleasure boats were very swiftly banned from using the towpath at all!

 

Nothing is impossible of course; I would be most curious to learn of any such provisions anywhere.

 

[onionbargee]

As i see it the overstay charge would come down to the question of whether it is reasonable for a visitor mooring to be a "facility" , if it is CRT can charge for it as per the transport act, that leads to the question of the charge of £25 per day, which is obviously meant to scare people off, and 2 or 3 times the going rate for such a mooring, someone has to decide if it is a charge or a fine.

 

This would be so much easier if CRT just told the truth, as far as I can see they are institutionally liars.