Jump to content

Does a Mooring Reset the 14 Days Rule ?


Greylady2

Featured Posts

A good point MtB. I didn't respond, I have no direct problems with CRT.

It would appear from this forum that there are people who are unhappy with CRT, no doubt some of them have good reason.

From my reading of things, Tony & Nigel have very good reason to be upset. OB also has reason. My understanding is that, he did wrong & was dealt with in the appropriate way. That should have been the end of it.

The fact that most people are not harassed by CRT does not justify the unnecessary (unlawful?) harassment of those who are. The best scenario would see no-one harassed, with miscreants dealt with through the proper channels & processes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good point MtB. I didn't respond, I have no direct problems with CRT.

It would appear from this forum that there are people who are unhappy with CRT, no doubt some of them have good reason.

From my reading of things, Tony & Nigel have very good reason to be upset. OB also has reason. My understanding is that, he did wrong & was dealt with in the appropriate way. That should have been the end of it.

The fact that most people are not harassed by CRT does not justify the unnecessary (unlawful?) harassment of those who are. The best scenario would see no-one harassed, with miscreants dealt with through the proper channels & processes.

But understandably, some people will consider being "dealt with through the proper channels & processes" as traumatic and harassing, especially if they believe they are in the right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good point MtB. I didn't respond, I have no direct problems with CRT.

It would appear from this forum that there are people who are unhappy with CRT, no doubt some of them have good reason.

From my reading of things, Tony & Nigel have very good reason to be upset. OB also has reason. My understanding is that, he did wrong & was dealt with in the appropriate way. That should have been the end of it.

The fact that most people are not harassed by CRT does not justify the unnecessary (unlawful?) harassment of those who are. The best scenario would see no-one harassed, with miscreants dealt with through the proper channels & processes.

I did not respond but I do have some problems with CaRT.

 

There is certainly a large fall in the number of people will to take part in boating surveys. Are you suggesting that a fall from 26% response rate to 9% indicates that boaters are CaRT advocates?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But understandably, some people will consider being "dealt with through the proper channels & processes" as traumatic and harassing, especially if they believe they are in the right.

 

That's probably true, but will only be shown to be so if and when C&RT do ever actually deal with an offending boater via an appropriate and correct legal process.

To the best of my knowledge, they never have done as yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But understandably, some people will consider being "dealt with through the proper channels & processes" as traumatic and harassing, especially if they believe they are in the right.

Fair point. Some people might find the whole thing too traumatic to deal with even if they are innocent. There may be those who have lost out because they can't cope with it & not because they are guilty of anything.

I did not respond but I do have some problems with CaRT.

 

There is certainly a large fall in the number of people will to take part in boating surveys. Are you suggesting that a fall from 26% response rate to 9% indicates that boaters are CaRT advocates?

 

 

No I'm not. It's probably more indicative of peoples' attitudes to surveys generally. I tend not to take part in such things as I believe that they can be weighted by clever questions, & the responses used to give whatever answer the surveyor desires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet you still fail to notice that there are people who are still genuinely happy and continue to go about their boating enjoying themselves.

 

Most people are not harrassed by CRT.

I don't think you read my post properly. I didn't say 'most people are harassed by CRT' did I? I said 'a few others' are directly.

 

The point I was trying to make is that much of the signage and rubbish logging system means a lot of boaters have to dance around them to reduce the chances of CRT directly harassing them with a notice or warning. Fear tactics have a negative affect on genuine boaters who don't want to fall out with CRT and who haven't done anything wrong in law. This is the bit maybe you fail to understand.

 

That is an annoyance not harassment. But as I said, it's probably not the case for those who are thick skinned, stubborn and don't care anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's probably true, but will only be shown to be so if and when C&RT do ever actually deal with an offending boater via an appropriate and correct legal process.

To the best of my knowledge, they never have done as yet.

Until the law is clear and unambiguous - which in the current situation will not change any time soon - then there will be a temptation to assume "might is right" by some....................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until the law is clear and unambiguous - which in the current situation will not change any time soon - then there will be a temptation to assume "might is right" by some....................

 

The law is clear and unambiguous with regard to both statutory and Byelaw powers for dealing with offenders, and you're correct in your 'might is right' reference, . . . that, and the Court's presumption of probity on their part, is all that C&RT have to back their actions, . . . the law most certainly does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate everyones help and good will, I guess Crt's unclarity and mislesding legislation brings up a heated debate.

 

I intend go boating respectfully but Crt if your reading this do me a favor ;

 

Make your rules clear and refined in a welcome pack to new and present boaters when they apply for a licence, blasting the average person with pages and pages of baffle and confusion just makes yourselves 'CRT' a lot of work and cost.

 

keep it basic and understandable please.

 

I think that CRT would DEARLY love to do just this.

 

The problem that they have is that it isn't actually possible to do so, because everything that they would like to be clear about is something that somebody would choose to dispute that they have the right to lay that down as a rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that CRT would DEARLY love to do just this.

 

The problem that they have is that it isn't actually possible to do so, because everything that they would like to be clear about is something that somebody would choose to dispute that they have the right to lay that down as a rule.

Or another way to look at it is that CRT ARE making up clear rules and badly enforcing them. It's just that they are not in parity with the law (as people like Tony and OB are trying to show everyone).

 

If everyone let an organisation run rough shot over us who knows where it would lead? Letting certain bits of the system run down under the guise of lack of use maybe, then selling off the land for development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who knows where it would lead? Letting certain bits of the system run down under the guise of lack of use maybe, then selling off the land for development.

 

"Would lead"? That has been happening for decades. The first few Acts promoted by BW immediately following their birth, promoted just such abandonment of waterways; only the 1968 Act reined that process in.

 

The terms under which CaRT were set up, however, have effectively removed the 1968 safety net, and even the ‘track’ can be [and is being] sold off to private developers, needing only a Secretary of State approval.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's probably true, but will only be shown to be so if and when C&RT do ever actually deal with an offending boater via an appropriate and correct legal process.

To the best of my knowledge, they never have done as yet.

 

OK, it did not involve a legal process, but BW did on at least one occasion exercise the appropriate legal power of moving away an overstaying boat from visitor moorings.

 

On that occasion the matter ended up in court regardless, with the boater denying [amongst other claims] that they had that right, by virtue of the fact that he had paid the £25/day charge – which he interpreted as payment for the stays!

 

The judge upheld BW’s power to move the boat off the mooring as an obstruction to its use by others, identifying the charge as a fine, rather than as a charge permitting longer stays. What he went on to deny to BW, was any power to charge for the removal of the boat.

 

I strongly suspect that this is the true underlying reason for failure to take such action since [despite attempting to circumvent the judgment on the legislative limitation by incorporating a boater’s agreement to paying such costs, within new T&C’s].

 

As to appropriate enforcement through the legislated avenues respecting licence evasion, I too have heard of none. There must surely have been some [?], but CaRT would never agree to divulging this under FoI; they would recite their standard demurrer that they need disclose nothing concerning BW. One never knows, of course – anyone up for asking?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

OK, it did not involve a legal process, but BW did on at least one occasion exercise the appropriate legal power of moving away an overstaying boat from visitor moorings.

 

On that occasion the matter ended up in court regardless, with the boater denying [amongst other claims] that they had that right, by virtue of the fact that he had paid the £25/day charge – which he interpreted as payment for the stays!

 

The judge upheld BW’s power to move the boat off the mooring as an obstruction to its use by others, identifying the charge as a fine, rather than as a charge permitting longer stays. What he went on to deny to BW, was any power to charge for the removal of the boat.

 

I strongly suspect that this is the true underlying reason for failure to take such action since [despite attempting to circumvent the judgment on the legislative limitation by incorporating a boater’s agreement to paying such costs, within new T&C’s].

 

As to appropriate enforcement through the legislated avenues respecting licence evasion, I too have heard of none. There must surely have been some [?], but CaRT would never agree to divulging this under FoI; they would recite their standard demurrer that they need disclose nothing concerning BW. One never knows, of course – anyone up for asking?

 

With regard to using the correct legal process, here is the response to a request regarding the legal process available for dealing with boats that are not being used bona fide for navigation (CaRTs response in red) -

 

Dear Canal & River Trust,

I refer to the British Waterways Act 1995 Section 17(4)©(ii) which reads -

++++++++

(in the case of a vessel in respect of which a relevant consent is issued pursuant to subsection (3) © (ii) above) the vessel has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation in accordance with the said subsection (3) © (ii);

the Board may give notice requiring the holder of the relevant consent to remedy the default within such time as may be reasonable (not being less than 28 days).

++++++++

and subsection 5 which reads

++++++++

If the holder of the relevant consent does not comply with any notice served pursuant to subsection (4) above then the relevant consent shall determine on the date the notice expires.

++++++++

Please provide via whatdotheyknow.com for the financial year 2015/16 -

(1) The number of subsection 4 notices issued because 'the vessel has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation in accordance with subsection (3) © (ii)'.

0

(2) The number of vessels where consent has been withdrawn or withheld because the default was not remedied.

0

(3) The number of vessels where consent has been withheld due to a history of previous notices.

0

(4) The number of vessels where consent has been withdrawn or withheld but no 17(4)©(ii) notice issued.

0

(5) A copy of a notice issued under 17(4)©(ii).

This information is not held.

Yours faithfully,

Allan Richards

 

Note the response to (4)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think that CRT would DEARLY love to do just this.

 

The problem that they have is that it isn't actually possible to do so, because everything that they would like to be clear about is something that somebody would choose to dispute that they have the right to lay that down as a rule.

I guess the confusion will continue then.

 

:-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regard to using the correct legal process, here is the response to a request regarding the legal process available . . .

 

I was keeping tabs on that query. The responses may just be worth bringing up in Leigh's case.

I guess the confusion will continue then.

 

:-(

Any confusion is on the boaters side only; CaRT's legal department have an excellent grasp of the legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was keeping tabs on that query. The responses may just be worth bringing up in Leigh's case.

 

It seems that CaRT's justification for not using 1995 Act is that the law says 'the Board may give notice requiring the holder of the relevant consent to remedy the default'. They appear to interpret that as meaning that it is optional for them to do so before withdrawing or refusing a licence.

 

I think it is more to do with the law saying that bona fide navigation is a 'fact' and thus not open to CaRT's interpretation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Would lead"? That has been happening for decades. The first few Acts promoted by BW immediately following their birth, promoted just such abandonment of waterways; only the 1968 Act reined that process in.

 

The terms under which CaRT were set up, however, have effectively removed the 1968 safety net, and even the ‘track’ can be [and is being] sold off to private developers, needing only a Secretary of State approval.

 

I think you will find that it was the railway companies that started it . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was keeping tabs on that query. The responses may just be worth bringing up in Leigh's case.

 

Any confusion is on the boaters side only; CaRT's legal department have an excellent grasp of the legislation.

Well they should make it clearer to the boaters, most of us are not proficient in law or reading vast amounts of confusing waffle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you will find that it was the railway companies that started it . . .

A bit of a popular canard. True for some companies, yet major lines actually boosted canal income for a time.

 

Contemporary evidence suggests that erstwhile successful canals failed more by reason of the greed and inflexibility of their own management, combined with contempt for what they saw as a captive customer base, rather than for reasons of genuine competition.

 

Deja vue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Would lead"? That has been happening for decades. The first few Acts promoted by BW immediately following their birth, promoted just such abandonment of waterways; only the 1968 Act reined that process in.

 

The terms under which CaRT were set up, however, have effectively removed the 1968 safety net, and even the track can be [and is being] sold off to private developers, needing only a Secretary of State approval.

 

I wouldn't have got away with saying something like that though :)

 

Well anyway, I'm glad there are still a few people left prepared to fight the gradual loss of what we have enjoyed for so many years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit of a popular canard. True for some companies, yet major lines actually boosted canal income for a time.

 

Contemporary evidence suggests that erstwhile successful canals failed more by reason of the greed and inflexibility of their own management, combined with contempt for what they saw as a captive customer base, rather than for reasons of genuine competition.

 

Deja vue

I was not aiming to be historically balanced! I do recall that at least one canal was kept closed following a breach and later closed for want of use. I was not suggesting that all railways companies acted this way but that the disposal of canal assets - at least in some cases - goes back a long time. After all, many canals that folk have hardly heard of lasted only a short time.

 

I used to live in Loughborough where a canal was constructed (Charnwood, not the Soar Navigation) which was beset by technical difficulties, opened well after its predicted date and closed almost immediately. Most of the land is under something or other (although in the 1960's this did create some technical issues form house builders as a I recall - it does not take long for a canal construction to alter watercourses but a long time to eradicate!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well they should make it clearer to the boaters, most of us are not proficient in law or reading vast amounts of confusing waffle.

Why on earth would they want to make the legislation clearer to their customers? They rely on trust and lack of legal proficiency to promote an appearance of legality for the powers asserted instead of asked for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not aiming to be historically balanced!

That was understood - there were numerous reasons for canal failures and closures, but I always like to take the opportunity of redressing the unbalanced view that railways were the principal nemesis of canals.

 

You will have noticed that I took care to aim at viable canals, not those predestined to failure.

 

I find it gruesomely fascinating to observe so enduring a style and character of waterways administration over the centuries - must be something in the water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why on earth would they want to make the legislation clearer to their customers? They rely on trust and lack of legal proficiency to promote an appearance of legality for the powers asserted instead of asked for.

Trust ?, I see trust being taken the mick out of and I've only been boating 2 months.

 

My original question was 'does going back into a marina reset the 14 day rule', I ask this because I want to keep within the rules.

 

When some boaters don't care if they stay parked next to a water point for 2 months.

 

Trust is abused, set clear rules such as how many miles do people have to move to satisfy crt.

 

Their is no 'trust' not even good fairness from some boaters who could not give a poo about moving 'anywhere'

Edited by Greylady2
  • Greenie 1
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.