NBTA protest

[MtB]

 

YDRC MtB [assuming from the post responded to, you related this to 'navigating'].

 

The only context in which the word ‘continuously’ appears is in respect of remaining in any one place – not in respect of cruising.

 

 

 

Yes you're quite right (as usual).

 

"(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."

 

 

It's intriguing how to me as a casual reader this means the licensee must use the boat bona fide for navigation continuously except when stopped for the occasional 14 day break.

 

But that isn't quite what it says.

 

 

 

(Edit out the typos.)

Edited May 14, 2016 by Mike the Boilerman

[Paul C]

The point is, that the 14 day stop IS part of the navigating.

 

If a boat mover wants to move a boat from (for example) Cheshire to Braunston, they won't be expected to keep that boat moving 24/7 but they'd certainly be on the move for 10-12 (possibly more) hours of the day. There would be short stops eg at locks, possibly a stop for lunch, stop for a cuppa (or to make a cuppa) in the afternoon; and an overnight stop. But you'd not analyse it retrospectively and say "hmmm, the boat has only been physically moving 11 1/2 hours per day, therefore on balance its not navigating". Its clearly navigating over that 5-6 day period it would take to get from A to B.

 

In the context of continuous cruisers, we all accept that they're not going to be doing 12 hours/day moving the boat, and that the stops are longer. In fact, the law has prescribed 14 days' stopping in any one place. So the navigating (including up to 14 days in one place) is done throughout the year.

 

It also means that distance must be put into context of how long the stops before and after were. If that distance was 1 mile and the stops before and after the maximum allowed, 14 days, the case for actually navigating bona fide is somewhat weak. If however they did 1 mile, stopped a day or two, then did 4-5 miles, then stopped for (say) 7 days, then did another 10 miles, etc etc nobody is going to argue its not navigating.

 

The "bona fide" test isn't simply distance; or the length of stops. It is a consideration of a number of factors, isn't easily defined and can only ultimately be decided upon by a court. In fact they've already done it - Davies vs BWB. I suspect they'll do it again too.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

The point is, that the 14 day stop IS part of the navigating.

 

If a boat mover wants to move a boat from (for example) Cheshire to Braunston, they won't be expected to keep that boat moving 24/7 but they'd certainly be on the move for 10-12 (possibly more) hours of the day. There would be short stops eg at locks, possibly a stop for lunch, stop for a cuppa (or to make a cuppa) in the afternoon; and an overnight stop. But you'd not analyse it retrospectively and say "hmmm, the boat has only been physically moving 11 1/2 hours per day, therefore on balance its not navigating". Its clearly navigating over that 5-6 day period it would take to get from A to B.

 

In the context of continuous cruisers, we all accept that they're not going to be doing 12 hours/day moving the boat, and that the stops are longer. In fact, the law has prescribed 14 days' stopping in any one place. So the navigating (including up to 14 days in one place) is done throughout the year.

 

It also means that distance must be put into context of how long the stops before and after were. If that distance was 1 mile and the stops before and after the maximum allowed, 14 days, the case for actually navigating bona fide is somewhat weak. If however they did 1 mile, stopped a day or two, then did 4-5 miles, then stopped for (say) 7 days, then did another 10 miles, etc etc nobody is going to argue its not navigating.

 

The "bona fide" test isn't simply distance; or the length of stops. It is a consideration of a number of factors, isn't easily defined and can only ultimately be decided upon by a court. In fact they've already done it - Davies vs BWB. I suspect they'll do it again too.

The court was not made aware that BW had already told a select committee what the test was. This is the reason the Act states that bona fide navigation is a matter of fact. Put simply, if the boat remains in place for more than 14 days then it is not navigating and CaRT can give notice of not less than 28 days to remedy the default.

 

I would suggest that the only reasonable grounds for refusing consent would be failure to comply with a notice or a history of notices being issued.

[Paul C]

The court was not made aware that BW had already told a select committee what the test was. This is the reason the Act states that bona fide navigation is a matter of fact. Put simply, if the boat remains in place for more than 14 days then it is not navigating and CaRT can give notice of not less than 28 days to remedy the default.

 

I would suggest that the only reasonable grounds for refusing consent would be failure to comply with a notice or a history of notices being issued.

 

The law is decided (almost always) upon what the actual legislation says, and (very rarely) on the underlying select committee comments which formed that law.

[onionbargee]

If I was the navigation authority I would be more than happy to have boats that only move the minimum required by law, in fact i would encourage it, one hours crusing per 14 days would cover that. Less wear and tear on the infrastructure equals less maintainance, and I can get more licence payers on the water with less congestion. Its a win win for me.

[magictime]

The point is, that the 14 day stop IS part of the navigating.

 

If a boat mover wants to move a boat from (for example) Cheshire to Braunston, they won't be expected to keep that boat moving 24/7 but they'd certainly be on the move for 10-12 (possibly more) hours of the day. There would be short stops eg at locks, possibly a stop for lunch, stop for a cuppa (or to make a cuppa) in the afternoon; and an overnight stop. But you'd not analyse it retrospectively and say "hmmm, the boat has only been physically moving 11 1/2 hours per day, therefore on balance its not navigating". Its clearly navigating over that 5-6 day period it would take to get from A to B.

 

In the context of continuous cruisers, we all accept that they're not going to be doing 12 hours/day moving the boat, and that the stops are longer. In fact, the law has prescribed 14 days' stopping in any one place. So the navigating (including up to 14 days in one place) is done throughout the year.

 

It also means that distance must be put into context of how long the stops before and after were. If that distance was 1 mile and the stops before and after the maximum allowed, 14 days, the case for actually navigating bona fide is somewhat weak. If however they did 1 mile, stopped a day or two, then did 4-5 miles, then stopped for (say) 7 days, then did another 10 miles, etc etc nobody is going to argue its not navigating.

 

The "bona fide" test isn't simply distance; or the length of stops. It is a consideration of a number of factors, isn't easily defined and can only ultimately be decided upon by a court. In fact they've already done it - Davies vs BWB. I suspect they'll do it again too.

 

Genuine question: is there anything in law to back up this view that boats must be in the course of use bona fide for navigation when moored (for up to 14 days), rather than in between uses bona fide for navigation? If so, I think this is leg CaRT would have to stand on when arguing that boats aren't necessarily being used "bona fide for navigation throughout the period" even if they're making some sort of journey at least every 14 days.

[Paul C]

 

Genuine question: is there anything in law to back up this view that boats must be in the course of use bona fide for navigation when moored (for up to 14 days), rather than in between uses bona fide for navigation? If so, I think this is leg CaRT would have to stand on when arguing that boats aren't necessarily being used "bona fide for navigation throughout the period" even if they're making some sort of journey at least every 14 days.

 

Well yes obviously, its the way the law is written. As a reminder:

 

 

 

he 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.

[Graham Davis]

CBA

Edited May 14, 2016 by Graham Davis

[magnetman]

.

Edited May 14, 2016 by magnetman

[magictime]

 

Well yes obviously, its the way the law is written. As a reminder:

 

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.

 

But I don't think it's obvious at all that the wording you quote implies a single extended use bona fide for navigation, punctuated by stops of up to 14 days, rather than a series of uses bona fide for navigation, with no more than 14 days elapsing between them.

 

Isn't there a perfectly good sense in which someone who uses their for once every couple of weeks from January to December, uses their for throughout the year? (As I suggested to MtB a few posts back, try filling in the blanks with "tent" and "camping", "barbecue" and "cooking", "fishing rod" and "angling", etc. etc.)

Edited May 14, 2016 by magictime

[Paul C]

Well it says "throughout the period" and the period is how long the licence is, eg 12 months, 6 months, etc

[magnetman]

I've never heard of buying a license for a barbecue, or a tent, or a ____

 

I have heard of inappropriate use of a barbecue in public areas leading to prohibition of barbecue use (parks)

Angling is licensed and subject to controls in some circumstances. I don't know if Non Compliant continuous angling would lead to enforcement procedures and removal of the float from the waterway.

Edited May 14, 2016 by magnetman

[MtB]

I think the argument goes that in a navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid, stationary periods of up to 14 days can be part of the activity of navigation.

 

When the stationary periods are so frequent that they exceed the time spent moving the boat by a factor of 14 or more, a court may decide that doesn't constitute 'bona fide for navigation'.

 

 

 

(Edit to add a missing worm.)

Edited May 14, 2016 by Mike the Boilerman

[magictime]

Well it says "throughout the period" and the period is how long the licence is, eg 12 months, 6 months, etc

 

OK, so say the period is the 12 months starting 1st January and ending 31st December.

 

If I use my for twice in January, twice in February, three times in March, and so on right through to the end of December, isn't there a perfectly good sense in which I use my for "throughout the period"?

 

I've never heard of buying a license for a barbecue, or a tent, or a ____

 

I have heard of inappropriate use of a barbecue in public areas leading to prohibition of barbecue use (parks)

 

Sorry, I'm struggling to see the relevance to the point I was making (which was just about what it means, in general, to say that someone uses such-and-such to do so-and-so "throughout" some period of time).

Edited May 14, 2016 by magictime

[Paul C]

Another way to think of it is to call stops during navigation, "transit moorings". This is what they are sometimes referred to on the Bridgewater Canal. And their rules state that you're only alowed to stop for up to 24 hours at a time. Some moorings are signed longer - ie 48hrs, 72hrs.

[magnetman]

 

OK, so say the period is the 12 months starting 1st January and ending 31st December.

 

If I use my for twice in January, twice in February, three times in March, and so on right through to the end of December, isn't there a perfectly good sense in which I use my for "throughout the period"?

 

 

Sorry, I'm struggling to see the relevance to the point I was making (which was just about what it means, in general, to say that someone uses such-and-such to do so-and-so "throughout" some period of time).

That's ok.

[Paul C]

 

OK, so say the period is the 12 months starting 1st January and ending 31st December.

 

If I use my for twice in January, twice in February, three times in March, and so on right through to the end of December, isn't there a perfectly good sense in which I use my for "throughout the period"?

 

I think you'd need to provide the blanks, because its not just about doing something once every 14 days, its they way you do what you do (which you've blanked out) in the times you are doing it. In other words, the intent.

[magictime]

I think the argument goes that in a navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid, stationary periods of up to 14 days can be part of the activity of navigation.

 

When the stationary periods are so frequent that they exceed the time spent moving the boat by a factor of 14 or more, a court may decide that doesn't constitute 'bona fide for navigation'.

 

And if there's any good reason to think that a single extended navigation lasting all year (punctuated by stops of up to 14 days) is what's required, I can see how that argument might get off the ground. But I still don't see why the legal requirements as written are incompatible with a series of shorter navigations, with no more than 14 days elapsing between them.

[magnetman]

So basically the 95 act is no longer fit for the purpose of regulating the use of inland waterways? Times change

[Paul C]

 

And if there's any good reason to think that a single extended navigation lasting all year (punctuated by stops of up to 14 days) is what's required, I can see how that argument might get off the ground. But I still don't see why the legal requirements as written are incompatible with a series of shorter navigations, with no more than 14 days elapsing between them.

 

Essentially I agree, but each case needs to be evaluated on its own merits, and ultimately this can only be done in court. Guidelines, by all means, can be published by CRT (or anyone else for that matter) but there is more to it than simply distance of those "shorter navigations".

[MtB]

 

And if there's any good reason to think that a single extended navigation lasting all year (punctuated by stops of up to 14 days) is what's required, I can see how that argument might get off the ground. But I still don't see why the legal requirements as written are incompatible with a series of shorter navigations, with no more than 14 days elapsing between them.

 

 

But the law doesn't say a series of short navigations, it says used bona fide for navigation "throughout the period for which the consent is valid".

 

For your scenario to be valid it would need to say used bona fide for navigation "once a fortnight throughout the period for which the consent is valid"

[magictime]

 

I think you'd need to provide the blanks, because its not just about doing something once every 14 days, its they way you do what you do (which you've blanked out) in the times you are doing it. In other words, the intent.

 

I don't see why. If you're worried about the "bona fide" (which, after all, only means "genuinely") just put it in:

 

If I use my bona fide for twice in January, twice in February, three times in March, and so on right through to the end of December, isn't there a perfectly good sense in which I use my bona fide for "throughout the period"?

 

I could play "fill in the blanks" all day:

 

If I use my projector bona fide for movie viewing twice in January, twice in February, three times in March, and so on right through to the end of December, isn't there a perfectly good sense in which I use my projector bona fide for movie viewing "throughout the period"?

 

If I use my skateboard bona fide for racing twice in January, twice in February, three times in March, and so on right through to the end of December, isn't there a perfectly good sense in which I use my skateboard bona fide for racing "throughout the period"?

 

...but I'm still not sure if and why you think the answer is different in this particular case:

 

If I use my boat bona fide for navigation twice in January, twice in February, three times in March, and so on right through to the end of December, isn't there a perfectly good sense in which I use my boat bona fide for navigation "throughout the period"?

[Paul C]

 

 

 

If I use my boat bona fide for navigation twice in January, twice in February, three times in March, and so on right through to the end of December, isn't there a perfectly good sense in which I use my boat bona fide for navigation "throughout the period"?

 

I'll ignore the other examples and concentrate on this one. May I ask, if you're using it bona fide for navigation twice, how long do they two periods last, and how long are the gaps in between?

 

The requirement is for bona fide navigation throughout the period (see post 361).

[Alan de Enfield]

 

. In other words, the intent.

 

It may be relevant, and, of interest to read the attached sections 7:11 to 7:13 (particularly the last paragraph in 7:13)

CRT_v_Mayers_Judgment_22-11-13.pdf

[dmr]

Its a very complicated situation and that's why it would be very sad if CaRT had to specify an exact cruising pattern to satisfy bone fide navigation.

 

A boater who has a full time job but wants to explore the system may well leave his boat moored on the towpath and use it for one day once every 7 or 14 days. I would say this is bone fide navigation.

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.

A liveaboard who moves his boat backwards and forwards once every two weeks and resents that move is not bone fide, but a liveaboard who moves over a 30 mile range and enjoys boating probably is.

 

.............Dave