Jump to content

Does a Mooring Reset the 14 Days Rule ?


Greylady2

Featured Posts

 

CRT must be satisfied of this. In theory its possible there's a mooring which does exist and is available, but that CRT deem unsatisfactory. In practice that scenario has not occurred (yet).

 

So what if they do ?

There's nothing in either statute or Byelaw that requires moorings to be 'satisfactory'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL

 

I took the time to do so. I think its worth copying and pasting it here:

 

 

 

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

 

My highlight in red. One can see that its not the boater that decides if the availability of the mooring is satisfactory. Its the board (ie CRT). So, my post above stands. There is a theoretical possibility that CRT deem a (the availability of) a mooring unsatisfactory. And of course, lawyers will happily argue the difference in interpretation between a boater's view and CRT's view at great cost.

 

I don't think its worth pursuing this line of debate much more, because we are dealing with a "theoretical" issue here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL

 

I took the time to do so. I think its worth copying and pasting it here:

 

 

 

 

My highlight in red. One can see that its not the boater that decides if the availability of the mooring is satisfactory. Its the board (ie CRT). So, my post above stands. There is a theoretical possibility that CRT deem a (the availability of) a mooring unsatisfactory. And of course, lawyers will happily argue the difference in interpretation between a boater's view and CRT's view at great cost.

 

I don't think its worth pursuing this line of debate much more, because we are dealing with a "theoretical" issue here.

 

That's a very common stance from those who know they're on the losing end of an argument, but no matter how much you may try to distort or misrepresent the wording of S.17(3), being 'satisfied' that a usable mooring exists somewhere on or around the UK mainland, and will be 'available' to use when the boat is not in use, is NOT the same as making a decision as to whether it is 'satisfactory' or 'unsatisfactory'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That is something nether realistic, nor even remotely achievable until the national disaster that is C&RT becomes part of the 'history' they pretend to be so concerned about.

Being left in peace to enjoy what you've paid for should not be a matter of hoping for the good fortune and luck to escape the attentions of the Milton Keynes knuckle-draggers.

Funny that the vast majority of licence holders can manage it.frusty.gif

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

CRT must be satisfied of this. In theory its possible there's a mooring which does exist and is available, but that CRT deem unsatisfactory. In practice that scenario has not occurred (yet).

 

Oh yes it has.

 

Years ago, BW teamed up with a local developer in Brentford who wanted to build a complex of luxury flats on the headland, with the idea of lining the river frontage with moorings, on which he could place houseboats selling for more than the flats [the concept boats were certainly interesting].

 

Unfortunately, the frontage was already occupied by large barges and assorted other craft, and legal wrangles ensued over getting rid of them [even though the developer did not own the actual frontage]. This was something BW actively assisted in.

 

Some at least of the barges had not only been previously licensed [unnecessarily] which licences were withdrawn, but also had Hounslow planning permission for the mooring of the named houseboats.

 

A couple of the boaters got a solicitor to apply for a renewed licence for their boats based on the LPA approved moorings, but the answer from the local Patrol Officer [Mr Farrow of dubious fame in my own later case], and more extensively from Greta O’Shea [bW’s Legal Executive] was that BW did not consider the site of the moorings as suitable, because access was dangerous and the boats would interfere with those attempting to navigate the turn into the Brent from the Thames.

 

BW%20deny%20mooring%20suitability_zpsq46

 

Needless to say, having evicted all the boats under threat of bailiff action following their successful s.8 court case against the boat owners, they rented the riverbed [which they did not own] to the developer, and supported his hard fought applications for a pontoon moorings scheme that BW’s own independent surveyor’s report had said was more dangerous than the existing boats moored to the wall.

 

[The appeal against the Council approval failed, because the developer employed the same surveyor to produce a new report saying the moorings were perfectly safe after all!]

 

In context of this topic, it may be of interest to note the letters from the boater’s solicitor, based on Counsel Opinion, that he sent to Greta O’Shea regarding the suitability of the mooring.

 

BW%20challenged%20over%20mooring%20suita

BW%20challenged%20over%20mooring%20suita

 

BW%20challenged%20over%20mooring%20suita

 

It does rather illustrate the difference between legality and practicality; the boaters in this instance fled the scene rather than get their boats seized, despite being in the legal right [as eventually established anyway]. You either have to fight all the way, or give in, when the authority digs their heels in and carries on regardless of the law. [They lost their s.8 case due to clever manipulation of the case management; I benefited from that 'heads-up' later]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many boaters will you accept being treated unlawfully, and being maliciously harassed by CRT as the price for the majority being left alone ?

When that boater has gone out of their way to avoid paying their licence fees I have no sympathy for them.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many boaters will you accept being treated unlawfully, and being maliciously harassed by CRT as the price for the majority being left alone ?

It isn't that we accept unlawful treatment, or harrassment of innocent parties, but it is a fact that the vast majority of us boaters, whether moorers or CCers, have no problems with CRT. I think we are just trying to reassure the OP that "they" aren't actually out to get them. It is also a fact that some of those claiming to be harrassed by CRT are not entirely innocent parties and have got themselves onto the CRT radar by antisocial behaviour of one sort or another. It is also a fact that sometimes CRT get things seriously wrong. Each case has to be taken on its merits, and as all the fact are never published, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.

The crucial bit is that most of us have a peaceful time and a good life mucking about on the water.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am wondering whether the following would be legal or satisfactory for CRT: when I first looked into living in London potentially as a CCer I thought I'd have no problem moving every 14 days, but the "different neighbourhood" requirement is not that easy. From this thread I understand that the 14 days limit applies to people with a home mooring, but not the distance requirement. Just wondering whether it'd be feasible to buy a home mooring somewhere cheap (e.g. up north) but never actually be there. Instead cruise in London, but avoid the distances requirements.

 

To be clear, I am not planning to do this, I did actually manage to find a mooring in London. But would this get you into trouble?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what?

 

If the mooring is legitimate then it merely needs to exist and be available.

 

You are not obliged to use it.

I think that there has been an attempt to include in the notion of available something in relation to where the normal cruising takes place. It is felt that it is not 'reasonable' to claim to have a home mooring on the Leeds and Liverpool, for example when the boat is always clocked on the K&A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wondering whether it'd be feasible to buy a home mooring somewhere cheap (e.g. up north) but never actually be there. Instead cruise in London, but avoid the distances requirements.

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

CRT would argue that if the home mooring is in the North, but the boat is always in London, it is not a place where the boat could reasonably be kept. And the onus is on you to satisfy them that it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am wondering whether the following would be legal or satisfactory for CRT: when I first looked into living in London potentially as a CCer I thought I'd have no problem moving every 14 days, but the "different neighbourhood" requirement is not that easy. From this thread I understand that the 14 days limit applies to people with a home mooring, but not the distance requirement. Just wondering whether it'd be feasible to buy a home mooring somewhere cheap (e.g. up north) but never actually be there. Instead cruise in London, but avoid the distances requirements.

 

To be clear, I am not planning to do this, I did actually manage to find a mooring in London. But would this get you into trouble?

 

CRT would argue that if the home mooring is in the North, but the boat is always in London, it is not a place where the boat could reasonably be kept. And the onus is on you to satisfy them that it is.

 

The comments by the Judge in the Mayers case may answer the question :

The judgement in the case of CaRT v Mayers states that repeated journeys between the same two places would be 'bona fide navigation' if the boater had specific reason for making repeated journeys over the same stretch of canal. HHJ Halbert also stated that any requirement by CaRT to use a substantial part of the canal network was not justified by Section 17(3)©(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 because the requirement to use the boat for bona fide navigation is 'temporal not geographical'.

 

 

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CRT would argue that if the home mooring is in the North, but the boat is always in London, it is not a place where the boat could reasonably be kept. And the onus is on you to satisfy them that it is.

 

That is undoubtedly what C&RT would wheel out as an argument to support their hanging the silly 'ghost' label on such a mooring, but the argument simply doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny, because it fails to take into account that a boat only has to be 'kept' or left on a mooring when it is not in use.

A 12-month boat Licence, or a PBC, entitles the holder to use the vessel on any or all of the 365 days it is valid for. A vessel in daily use, for any legitimate purpose, on every one of those 365 days, would never have need to return to the mooring because the need to have anywhere to leave and 'keep' it would not arise during the period of Licence/PBC validity.

As the vessel never needs to return to it's mooring, the distant location is of no consequence, or importance, whatsoever.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if there is in fact any direct connection with C&RT's headquarters being located where it is, but it would seem that there is a process for large scale bread production which may well have been adapted as a basis for administering our inland waterways :~

 

[PDF]The Milton Keynes Process - British Society of Baking

 

It's a rather ponderous and uninteresting document to get through, but essentially, it's a thesis on the mass production and output of half-baked material.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't that we accept unlawful treatment, or harrassment of innocent parties, but it is a fact that the vast majority of us boaters, whether moorers or CCers, have no problems with CRT. I think we are just trying to reassure the OP that "they" aren't actually out to get them. It is also a fact that some of those claiming to be harrassed by CRT are not entirely innocent parties and have got themselves onto the CRT radar by antisocial behaviour of one sort or another. It is also a fact that sometimes CRT get things seriously wrong. Each case has to be taken on its merits, and as all the fact are never published, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.

The crucial bit is that most of us have a peaceful time and a good life mucking about on the water.

 

It's certainly true that C&RT strive to conceal or misrepresent as many 'facts' as they possibly can, but surely, this in itself speaks volumes as to the rights and wrongs with regard to their actions and conduct.

 

Did you really mean what you've said in the last sentence of your post ? If so, I think your attitude stinks.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 12-month boat Licence, or a PBC, entitles the holder to use the vessel on any or all of the 365 days it is valid for. A vessel in daily use, for any legitimate purpose, on every one of those 365 days, would never have need to return to the mooring because the need to have anywhere to leave and 'keep' it would not arise during the period of Licence/PBC validity.

As the vessel never needs to return to it's mooring, the distant location is of no consequence, or importance, whatsoever.

i agree, and I'm sure CRTs legal team must do as well or they would not have been desperate to rewrite the terms and conditions to insist that boats with a home mooring must cruise in exactly the same pattern of movement as those without. This despite the law making a clear distinction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree, and I'm sure CRTs legal team must do as well or they would not have been desperate to rewrite the terms and conditions to insist that boats with a home mooring must cruise in exactly the same pattern of movement as those without. This despite the law making a clear distinction.

I don't believe the law requires any pattern of movement whatsoever. It simply requires that, if you don't have a home mooring, you do not remain in one place for more than 14 days unless it is reasonable under the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That is undoubtedly what C&RT would wheel out as an argument to support their hanging the silly 'ghost' label on such a mooring, but the argument simply doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny, because it fails to take into account that a boat only has to be 'kept' or left on a mooring when it is not in use.

A 12-month boat Licence, or a PBC, entitles the holder to use the vessel on any or all of the 365 days it is valid for. A vessel in daily use, for any legitimate purpose, on every one of those 365 days, would never have need to return to the mooring because the need to have anywhere to leave and 'keep' it would not arise during the period of Licence/PBC validity.

As the vessel never needs to return to it's mooring, the distant location is of no consequence, or importance, whatsoever.

Surely that argument would only apply to boat that is being lived aboard. If you use the boat at weekends and moor to the towpath during the week the boat isn't in use at least IMO it isn't.

 

Yes I can see it is acceptable to occasionally leave a boat moored in an area away from a home mooring. Alternatively if the boat is lived on and has to move every 14 days why does it need a mooring it can be a CCer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely that argument would only apply to boat that is being lived aboard. If you use the boat at weekends and moor to the towpath during the week the boat isn't in use at least IMO it isn't.

 

Yes I can see it is acceptable to occasionally leave a boat moored in an area away from a home mooring. Alternatively if the boat is lived on and has to move every 14 days why does it need a mooring it can be a CCer.

 

Not all CCers are liveaboards

Not all liveaboards are CCers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not all CCers are liveaboards

Not all liveaboards are CCers

CCing when not a live aboard fair enough you don't need a mooring strictly speaking but the boat is not in use for much of the time and so CRT have a point for possible argument.

Living aboard when not a CCer you need a mooring.

 

Incidentally I was aware of the facts but as it is a discussion forum I tried to simplify my statement.

 

Incidentally I am well aware of

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe the law requires any pattern of movement whatsoever. It simply requires that, if you don't have a home mooring, you do not remain in one place for more than 14 days unless it is reasonable under the circumstances.

 

Allan is correct; no real ‘pattern of movement’ applies to either ‘class’ of boat, but there is more to it than that.

 

Looked at with the appropriate simple overview as to the original desired objective of s.17(3)( c ) - even without the clear explanation within the Select Committee minutes - there is no distinction between any ‘class’ of pleasure boat as to use of the waterways. The sole objective is to prevent boats being left on the towpath in any one place for longer than 14 days. Nothing in law stops a boat licensed as a CC’er from being left anywhere that a boat may lawfully be left for longer periods, any more than a boat licensed as an HM’er is obliged to be kept at one particular such mooring when not in use.

 

Neither ‘class’ of boat should be left on the towpath longer than 14 days in any one place; either may be left for longer wherever an appropriate and lawful place to do so exists.

 

Everything beyond that is utterly pointless wrangling over artificially distinguished minutiae; it is a classic case of failing to see the wood for the trees.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.