Does a Mooring Reset the 14 Days Rule ?

[NigelMoore]

 

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.

 

Keeping within the 'rules', whether simply advisory or statutory requirement, is a desirable thing. Most do, some push the boundaries, some are downright disrespectful of other boaters - and giving everyone a fair go is what sensible rules are about.

 

Your question, however innocent though, could only be asked in the context of contrived confusion over the requirements for HM'ers contra CC'ers respecting the "14 day rule".

 

You have been given the correct CaRT approved answer - return to home mooring resets the clock. The rest of the discussion is essentially revolving around the issues thrown up by such artificial distinctions as gave rise to the question.

[Greylady2]

Keeping within the 'rules', whether simply advisory or statutory requirement, is a desirable thing. Most do, some push the boundaries, some are downright disrespectful of other boaters - and giving everyone a fair go is what sensible rules are about.

Your question, however innocent though, could only be asked in the context of contrived confusion over the requirements for HM'ers contra CC'ers respecting the "14 day rule".

You have been given the correct CaRT approved answer - return to home mooring resets the clock. The rest of the discussion is essentially revolving around the issues thrown up by such artificial distinctions as gave rise to the question.

I appreciate c'cers and home moorer's rule should be equally fair, as long as everyone plays fair. (Sadly many dont)

 

Thanks

[spadefoot]

I appreciate c'cers and home moorer's rule should be equally fair, as long as everyone plays fair. (Sadly many dont)

 

Thanks

Don't expect people in boats to behave all that differently from people in cars. Or in shops. Or anywhere.

[Greylady2]

Don't expect people in boats to behave all that differently from people in cars. Or in shops. Or anywhere.

That makes it all OK then. :-)

[Greylady2]

Just to add : I would like to become a constant Cruiser one day and I was actually sticking up for both home moorers and ccr's.

 

Thing is though I wonder how many genuine Ccr'r get annoyed when they see other Ccr's taking the mick for 2 months with exemption from health or breakdowns. (Understandable)

 

 

See where I am coming from.

 

I want to cc but bad Ccr's give everyone a bad name.

[spadefoot]

Just to add : I would like to become a constant Cruiser one day and I was actually sticking up for both home moorers and ccr's.

 

Thing is though I wonder how many genuine Ccr'r get annoyed when they see other Ccr's taking the mick for 2 months with exemption from health or breakdowns. (Understandable)

 

 

See where I am coming from.

 

I want to cc but bad Ccr's give everyone a bad name.

I really, really hope that you're joking with that last comment.

[Greylady2]

Nope

 

Add if someone does 14 days then make room for someone else move up a bit for another ccr's god knows hows much crt dont say.

 

Just about being fair to other ccr's

 

 

 

 

Not being funny with ya bad Ccr's give genuine ccr's a bad name. Truth

 

You probrably have me down as a numpty.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Greylady2

[spadefoot]

The correct answer was, "Sorry, I must have got the wrong end of the stick"

[Greylady2]

Cc'ing is what I want but I want to be able to stop at the nice places too.

 

That's all folks.

 

Fair dinkum.

[Alan Taylor]

It appears that you are prepared to get outraged about something that hasn't happened in case it affects something you don't do yet.

 

Seems like stirring it for no good reason to me.

[Athy]

Don't expect people in boats to behave all that differently from people in cars. Or in shops. Or anywhere.

I'll remember that, next time a boat overtakes us at 70 m.p.h.

[Guest User]

Folks, I've just hidden the last couple of posts. Please don't resort to name-calling. Thanks.

 

LC

[Greylady2]

Yes thanks but i was not the first to be rude and unsulting.

 

No need for that stuff.

No need for a warning point either just ban me.

[spadefoot]

Cc'ing is what I want but I want to be able to stop at the nice places too.

 

That's all folks.

 

Fair dinkum.

The two positions are not mutually exclusive. I feel you have a basic misunderstanding of boat licensing terms.

[mayalld]

It appears that you are prepared to get outraged about something that hasn't happened in case it affects something you don't do yet.

 

Seems like stirring it for no good reason to me.

 

That seems unfair and gratuitously dismissive.

 

It seems to me that a number of people share the view that they want clear rules that they can work with, and that other people will work with as well.

 

Certainty about what is and isn't allowed being more valuable to them than the ability to argue the toss that a particular rule exceeds the powers etc., coupled with an assurance that they aren't about to be massively disadvantaged if they play by these rules.

[Greylady2]

The two positions are not mutually exclusive. I feel you have a basic misunderstanding of boat licensing terms.

Just to clarify i am brand new to boating hence 'this thread' asking for advice.

 

You seem to be very aggresive in your posts.

 

Maybe you could try getting out out of bed differently or snap an elastic band on your wrist before posting.

 

Their was no need for your post which was removed.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

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) -

Quote

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)!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have reposted an earlier post detailing CaRT's response to a request about 'correct legal process' because some new information has become available.

On June 1, I queried CaRT's response of 'zero' to part 4 of this request. I have twice chased CaRT due to lack of response. Today (1 July) they informed me that the actual figure is 32.

No explanation was given as to why they had previously provided an incorrect figure or why it took so long to provide the correct one.

The bottom line is that during the financial year 2015/16, CaRT refused or revoked licences on 32 occasions. Not once did they use the legal process provided under the 1995 British Waterways Act to do so.

[spadefoot]

Just to clarify i am brand new to boating hence 'this thread' asking for advice.

 

You seem to be very aggresive in your posts.

 

Maybe you could try getting out out of bed differently or snap an elastic band on your wrist before posting.

 

Their was no need for your post which was removed.

Right, first things first. I apologize for upsetting you. I realize that I sometimes come across as aggressive. It is really just mildly ascerbic bluntness. Either that or truculent sarcasm, I have limited emotions.

Anyway, I am aware that you are new to boating. Here's the thing; forget all that HM vs CC nonsense. It is just nonsense. There are good boaters, bad boaters, indifferent boaters, they are not defined by the license they hold.

If you see a boat on the cut, you cannot tell just by looking whether it is HM or CC. If you see a boat moored on VMs or on pins on the towpath, you cannot tell.

You cannot tell by the state of the boat, age of the boat, colour, stuff on roof or look of the occupants. The best you could do is guess or assume. With time your guesses & assumptions will become more accurate but hopefully, by then, you will realise that it is irrelevant.

Liveried hire-boats are an exception but not helpful. That bloke on the hire-boat may have been doing it for 20yrs. The old boy on the ex-working boat might be a relative beginner. The young girl with dreadlocks may have been born on a boat. The guy with the bush hat and windlass holder might only do it at weekends.

Enjoy your boating for what it is. Take people as you find them. Unless you want to upset people needlessly, maybe don't make crass generalisations on a public forum.

There you go, I managed a third emotion: patronising..

[Greylady2]

Right, first things first. I apologize for upsetting you. I realize that I sometimes come across as aggressive. It is really just mildly ascerbic bluntness. Either that or truculent sarcasm, I have limited emotions.

Anyway, I am aware that you are new to boating. Here's the thing; forget all that HM vs CC nonsense. It is just nonsense. There are good boaters, bad boaters, indifferent boaters, they are not defined by the license they hold.

If you see a boat on the cut, you cannot tell just by looking whether it is HM or CC. If you see a boat moored on VMs or on pins on the towpath, you cannot tell.

You cannot tell by the state of the boat, age of the boat, colour, stuff on roof or look of the occupants. The best you could do is guess or assume. With time your guesses & assumptions will become more accurate but hopefully, by then, you will realise that it is irrelevant.

Liveried hire-boats are an exception but not helpful. That bloke on the hire-boat may have been doing it for 20yrs. The old boy on the ex-working boat might be a relative beginner. The young girl with dreadlocks may have been born on a boat. The guy with the bush hat and windlass holder might only do it at weekends.

Enjoy your boating for what it is. Take people as you find them. Unless you want to upset people needlessly, maybe don't make crass generalisations on a public forum.

There you go, I managed a third emotion: patronising..

No worrys i appreciate straight talking and thanjs

 

Thats how i do it, though often with an over reaction.

 

Appologies

Edited July 1, 2016 by Greylady2

[Iain_S]

 

(snip)

The bottom line is that during the financial year 2015/16, CaRT refused or revoked licences on 32 occasions. Not once did they use the legal process provided under the 1995 British Waterways Act to do so.

 

 

How many were revoked, and how many were refused?

As far as I can see, refusal at renewal time (presumeably because "the Board" is not satisfied) is legal, but revocation without Sec.17(4) proceedure is not.

[NigelMoore]

 

How many were revoked, and how many were refused?

 

On the data supplied, and exercising a presumption of probity on their part, the answer would have to be that they have never revoked a CC based licence during its term; all 32 cases cited would have to have been refusals.

 

Not only that, but they never have revoked a currently valid CC based licence since their 2012 inception, nor do they have any immediate plans to start – given that no relevant Notices have ever been prepared, even as a template.

 

[MtB]

Right, first things first. I apologize for upsetting you. I realize that I sometimes come across as aggressive. It is really just mildly ascerbic bluntness. Either that or truculent sarcasm, I have limited emotions.

Anyway, I am aware that you are new to boating. Here's the thing; forget all that HM vs CC nonsense. It is just nonsense. There are good boaters, bad boaters, indifferent boaters, they are not defined by the license they hold.

If you see a boat on the cut, you cannot tell just by looking whether it is HM or CC. If you see a boat moored on VMs or on pins on the towpath, you cannot tell.

You cannot tell by the state of the boat, age of the boat, colour, stuff on roof or look of the occupants. The best you could do is guess or assume. With time your guesses & assumptions will become more accurate but hopefully, by then, you will realise that it is irrelevant.

Liveried hire-boats are an exception but not helpful. That bloke on the hire-boat may have been doing it for 20yrs. The old boy on the ex-working boat might be a relative beginner. The young girl with dreadlocks may have been born on a boat. The guy with the bush hat and windlass holder might only do it at weekends.

Enjoy your boating for what it is. Take people as you find them. Unless you want to upset people needlessly, maybe don't make crass generalisations on a public forum.

There you go, I managed a third emotion: patronising..

 

 

Virtual greenie for a kind apology and balanced, well thought out post.

 

Tow points of order M'Lud.

 

1) You CAN tell a Ccer from HMer by looking at the boat, so some on here say. The licence number for CCer begins with "007". A HMer licence begins with a code for their home mooring location. '007' means 'unallocated, apparently.

 

2) 'Patronising' is an attitude not an emotion!

(Mind you, I have an '007' licence and a home mooring so even that rule is not universal!)

[spadefoot]

I had heard of such things, but didn't want to complicate my post. Also of course, you have to get pretty close to read it. I have occasionally read someone's license but only to find out the boat name.

Yeah, I know. In my defence yer 'onour, I do suffer from emotional attitude syndrome, and occasional makeitupitis.

[NigelMoore]

 

How many were revoked, and how many were refused?

As far as I can see, refusal at renewal time (presumeably because "the Board" is not satisfied) is legal, but revocation without Sec.17(4) proceedure is not.

 

 

Actually, the figure of 32 was given as the number of boats issued with a “CC3” letter [which might be considered to qualify as a section 4 Notice?] The response is difficult to analyse properly, because it fails to say that those letters resulted in withdrawals mid-term, although the context would suggest they did.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bw_1995_act_174cii?nocache=incoming-832763#incoming-832763

 

The number of boats refused a further CC licence on renewal, was 68.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/24805-cc-monitoring-review-march-2016.pdf

 

[NigelMoore]

 

 

Actually, the figure of 32 was given as the number of boats issued with a “CC3” letter [which might be considered to qualify as a section 4 Notice?]

 

 

On a quick check, CC3 could not qualify, because it was a formal notice of revocation effective immediately. It would, however, have followed 3 prior letters, one or all of which could probably be interpreted as compliant with section 4 requirements. So the number IS for licences revoked, not refused, but only after preliminary warning letters. This is one of the many occasions when the weird reluctance to divulge information results in a warping of facts that could show them in a better light.

 

The table at the top of the 2015 K&A Local Plan Summary Report makes the process clear enough, with a break-down of numbers of the various responses to the letters.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/10685-k-and-a-local-plan-feb-apr-summary-report.pdf