Does a Mooring Reset the 14 Days Rule ?

[Greylady2]

I read that tony and i also read the T&C's today it was a bit like refer to 1.3 and 6.1 or the other, i myself struggle with following written information.

 

I appreciate law and terms and conditions are complecated and heavy to protect both partys crt/boaters but geesh.

 

A basic brochure from crt explaining stuff to the average jo bloggs in simpler terms would be better than someone clicking the terms and conditions box on a licence application because they cant be bothered or struggle to process overwhelming information and law.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Greylady2

[Tony Dunkley]

I read that tony and i also read the T&C's today it was a bit like refer to 1.3 and 6.1 or the other, i myself struggle with following written information.

 

I appreciate law and terms and conditions are complecated and heavy to protect both partys crt/boaters but geesh.

 

A basic brochure from crt explaining stuff to the average jo bloggs in simpler terms would be better than someone clicking the terms and conditions box on a licence application because they cant be bothered or struggle to process overwhelming information and law.

 

There isn't much point in trying to follow or understand anything that C&RT say or publish, because the factual and truthful content will be either non-existent, or minimal and obscured by drivel, and you certainly won't find anything in any C&RT publication that is genuinely intended to protect, or be in the interest of boaters.

 

It's well worth bearing in mind that ticking the box that says you agree to their T&C's doesn't in reality, or law, bind you to any such thing.

[Greylady2]

There isn't much point in trying to follow or understand anything that C&RT say or publish, because the factual and truthful content will be either non-existent, or minimal and obscured by drivel, and you certainly won't find anything in any C&RT publication that is genuinely intended to protect, or be in the interest of boaters.

 

It's well worth bearing in mind that ticking the box that says you agree to their T&C's doesn't in reality, or law, bind you to any such thing.

Its not working is it, dribble and confusion woffle.

 

Though we are fare players with good intent regarding boating we feel like were on a motorway with a speed limit but they dont tell us what it maybe.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Greylady2

[Jerra]

Its not working is it, dribble and confusion woffle.

 

Though we are fare players with good intent regarding boating we feel like were on a motorway with a speed limit but they dont tell us what it maybe.

Sorry but I find the guidance on the CRT website clear I know the likes of Tony and others will contest it as it doesn't conform to the law but I find it clear and not at all oppressive.

[Horace42]

 

I'm afraid it doesn't make any real sense at all, and the reason for that is simply that C&RT have become litigation junkies addicted to costly, inappropriate and pointless legal action in preference to the quicker, inexpensive, financially beneficial, and lawful remedies available to them to employ against genuine wrongdoers in both statute and byelaw.

 

Their much loved and misused Section 8 process makes no provision for the recovery of unpaid Licence/PBC fees, and nor did it go on to the statute books for that purpose, whereas S.5 of the 1983 BW Act and S.7(2) of the 1971 BW Act, both of which they studiously avoid the use of, were intended specifically for the recovery of unpaid charges/fees.

Hold on a minute! It was the comment by Alan that made sense to me, not the action by CRT.

That is why I asked why they took you to court.

Collecting money for licenses does not apply in this instance because CRT refused to issue one.

Well obviously they wouldn't if you hadn't sent off the money. But the example was of a boat not licensed being in breach of some rule that caused them to refuse a license.

My lack of knowledge of such procedure means I can't quite understand your answer. Why do you end up in court.

Is it where action was required by the boat owner to remedy the breach to obtain a license - and failed or refused or whatever - hence why is CRT taking the owner to court - what for.?

Edited July 5, 2016 by Horace42

[Greylady2]

Sorry but I find the guidance on the CRT website clear I know the likes of Tony and others will contest it as it doesn't conform to the law but I find it clear and not at all oppressive.

I dont Jerra i find it complecated.

 

Thus is why we only stay out for a week then bounce back into the the marina.

 

Confused.com

[Jerra]

I dont Jerra i find it complecated.

 

Thus is why we only stay out for a week then bounce back into the the marina.

 

Confused.com

Perhaps here isn't the place to discuss it but if you would PM me with what is confusing I might have a better grasp of things.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

You are not at liberty to discuss why C&RT refused you a licence as that is not the court case - the court case is purely about not having a licence, nothing else is relevant.

 

Whilst that is unquestionably the intention, and the rationale behind C&RT/Shoosmiths habitual use of the CPR Part 8 procedure, anyone finding themselves subject to this abuse of process can negate this effect by filing [with the Court] an appropriately worded response to the Part 8 Claim for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief that will have been served on them.

 

Provided the response paperwork is completed appropriately and filed within the specified time limits, the Court will re-allocate the Claim [usually to something called the 'Multi-track'] and make an Order requiring the Defendant to file and serve a written Defence.

 

A well constructed Defence, coincidental with a valid and non-refuseable Application for a new Licence/PBC will leave C&RT with no viable option other than to back off and discontinue the proceedings.

[Greylady2]

Perhaps here isn't the place to discuss it but if you would PM me with what is confusing I might have a better grasp of things.

Jerra i really appreciate your help but it is a good place to duscuss openly with all the best respect to yourself and thank you.

 

 

The answer to my/our thread title has been answered but if i said we have 25 miles of canal and we start at one end and did 8 nights then moved 5 miles up and did another 8 night is that overstaying in the same area ?

 

To add we always hide in the marine for 3 nights after 8 nights out because we dont blinking know ?

 

Thats the truth.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Greylady2

[Tony Dunkley]

That is interesting, and makes sense. But what are they taking you to court for? it must be to obtain some legal powers to compel you take some sort of action, or for themselves to take action - and to claim damages to recover costs incurred. If the latter to sell your boat, or call in the bailiffs to obtain payment.

I can't say. I am not aware of any actual cases.

It all sounds a bit extreme if you could have done all this voluntarily in the first place.

 

Hold on a minute! It was the comment by Alan that made sense to me, not the action by CRT.

That is why I asked why they took you to court.

Collecting money for licenses does not apply in this instance because CRT refused to issue one.

Well obviously they wouldn't if you hadn't sent off the money. But the example was of a boat not licensed being in breach of some rule that caused them to refuse a license.

My lack of knowledge of such procedure means I can't quite understand your answer. Why do you end up in court.

Is it where action was required by the boat owner to remedy the breach to obtain a license - and failed or refused or whatever - hence why is CRT taking the owner to court - what for.?

 

C&RT take boaters to Court for the sole purpose of firstly, duping the Court into believing that the boater in question is a Licence dodger and must therefore be compelled to remove their boat from C&RT waters, and secondly to obtain an Injunction [C&RT's lawyers draft the Injunction] worded in such a way as to have the boater believe that they are, if C&RT so wish, exiled in perpetuity from all the waterways under C&RT control.

As to the question of why C&RT waste enormous quantities of money simply to deprive themselves of a source of [Licence/PBC] income, . . . God alone may have the answer to that one, but I don't, because like most things that C&RT do, it is totally beyond all sense and reason.

 

I know of no occasion when there has been any legitimate attempt by C&RT to recover unpaid charges/fees via legal action against any boater they are seeking to banish from their waters, and in fact their routine neglect of the powers that Parliament gave them specifically for the recovery of unpaid charges coupled with the habitual use of powers [1983 Act S.8 and 1971 Act S.13] which make no provision whatsoever for debt recovery, precludes this in any event.

 

C&RT's lawyers are only too well aware that in revoking or refusing boat Licences/PBC's on the pretext of non-compliance with Section 17(3)[c] of the 1995 Act they are doing something which is very difficult to argue for and justify to a Court, which is why they invariably avoid doing so, and elect instead to present the unfortunate boater to the Court as a Licence dodger.

 

I can't answer your question ~ " why is CRT taking the owner to court - what for.?", but I can state quite categorically that they are NOT taking boat owners to Court to recover unpaid charges/fees or to seek damages.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Whilst that is unquestionably the intention, and the rationale behind C&RT/Shoosmiths habitual use of the CPR Part 8 procedure, anyone finding themselves subject to this abuse of process can negate this effect by filing [with the Court] an appropriately worded response to the Part 8 Claim for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief that will have been served on them.

 

Provided the response paperwork is completed appropriately and filed within the specified time limits, the Court will re-allocate the Claim [usually to something called the 'Multi-track'] and make an Order requiring the Defendant to file and serve a written Defence.

 

A well constructed Defence, coincidental with a valid and non-refuseable Application for a new Licence/PBC will leave C&RT with no viable option other than to back off and discontinue the proceedings.

 

Absolutely - but for anyone not knowing the 'system' and expecting to turn up at court and say "I don't have a licence because C&RT cancelled it" will be a bit shocked to find out that they cannot, and that the only 'fact' taken into consideration is the fact that you do not have a licence.

That 'fact' cannot be argued so you have 'lost' before you have started.

 

As you correctly point out, if, before it gets to court (and within the agreed time limits) you file a 'counter claim' then you have the chance to explain things. I would, however. suggest that most 'man-in-the-street' type of non-confrontational people would just see the Court letter and think "O - poop" and panic and would not consider taking legal action against C&RT.

[Alan de Enfield]

Hold on a minute! It was the comment by Alan that made sense to me, not the action by CRT.

That is why I asked why they took you to court.

Collecting money for licenses does not apply in this instance because CRT refused to issue one.

Well obviously they wouldn't if you hadn't sent off the money. But the example was of a boat not licensed being in breach of some rule that caused them to refuse a license.

My lack of knowledge of such procedure means I can't quite understand your answer. Why do you end up in court.

Is it where action was required by the boat owner to remedy the breach to obtain a license - and failed or refused or whatever - hence why is CRT taking the owner to court - what for.?

 

C&RT always take 'you' to court for not having a licence.

 

They will remove / cancel / refuse to renew your licence for a myriad of reasons that they either have the legal power to enforce, or that they decide they have the power to enforce.

 

Examples :

If you are a CCer and do not move to a new place every 14 days - they remove your licence

If you overstay, they remove your licence

If you cause a navigation 'problem' (moor in the wrong place) they remove your licence

If as a boat with a Home Mooring you do not follow the same rules as a CCer they remove your licence (this is a rule C&RT have just made-up - no legal standing).

 

C&RT do not take you to court for any of the above, it is always that as a 'penalty' for the above they remove your licence, then take you to court for not having a licence.

Its unbelievable really.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Absolutely - but for anyone not knowing the 'system' and expecting to turn up at court and say "I don't have a licence because C&RT cancelled it" will be a bit shocked to find out that they cannot, and that the only 'fact' taken into consideration is the fact that you do not have a licence.

That 'fact' cannot be argued so you have 'lost' before you have started.

 

As you correctly point out, if, before it gets to court (and within the agreed time limits) you file a 'counter claim' then you have the chance to explain things. I would, however. suggest that most 'man-in-the-street' type of non-confrontational people would just see the Court letter and think "O - poop" and panic and would not consider taking legal action against C&RT.

 

That isn't how it works, Alan.

 

Anyone who is served with one of C&RT's Part 8 Claims can attend Court and argue against it provided the Acknowledgment of Service form has been filled in appropriately and returned to the Court within the given time limits.

It's mainly a box ticking exercise with an empty box for the Defendant to put in a few [handwritten] lines by way of a brief explanation of why the Claim will be disputed.

 

Putting in a Counter Claim is something which can be done in addition to returning the AoS papers, but it is not a prerequisite to disputing the original Claim.

 

I don't know how to make a link to it on here, but Nigel has published my AoS Part 8 Reply of July 2014 on Scribd.

The Court's reaction to it was to reallocate the Claim to the Multi-Track and give me three weeks to prepare and file/serve a written Defence.

 

If the Defendant doesn't fill in the AoS paperwork and return it within the time limits, then whether or not they are permitted to speak in their defence becomes a matter of the Judge's discretion. Worse still, if they don't attend the hearing either then CRT's Claim/Injunction draft is simply 'rubber stamped', and they walk out with their Court Order.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Jerra]

Jerra i really appreciate your help but it is a good place to duscuss openly with all the best respect to yourself and thank you.

 

 

The answer to my/our thread title has been answered but if i said we have 25 miles of canal and we start at one end and did 8 nights then moved 5 miles up and did another 8 night is that overstaying in the same area ?

 

To add we always hide in the marine for 3 nights after 8 nights out because we dont blinking know ?

 

Thats the truth.

As I read the guidance that is perfectly acceptable. Again as I read it with a home mooring all you have to do is not have the home mooring at the other end of the country from where your boat spends the year or just exisitng on paper.

 

Even if you apply CCing rules to a home moorer CRT have said that it starts every time you leave the home mooring, so not being out for 14 days means you are well within the 14 day rule and returning to the home mooring has "restarted the clock".

 

I suspect the idea of trying to make home moorers follow CCing rules is an attempt to make people with "ghost moorings" or moorings at the other end of the country behave like CCers. I personally can understand why, they don't want somebody tied up in the same place 24/7/365 as this is likely to upset either the other boaters who are genuinely CCing or the local populous.

 

I know others will say if you are out in the middle of nowhere what does it matter, well if you really are out in the middle of nowhere it probably wouldn't matter apart from CRT having to be seen to apply the rules equally to all. Also most peoiple who want to stay in the same place 24/7/365 want to be near "civilisation" rather than out in the middle of nowhere.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

That isn't how it works, Alan.

 

Anyone who is served with one of C&RT's Part 8 Claims can attend Court and argue against it provided the Acknowledgment of Service form has been filled in appropriately and returned to the Court within the given time limits.

It's mainly a box ticking exercise with an empty box for the Defendant to put in a few [handwritten] lines by way of a brief explanation of why the Claim will be disputed.

 

Putting in a Counter Claim is something which can be done in addition to returning the AoS papers, but it is not a prerequisite to disputing the original Claim.

 

I don't know how to make a link to it on here, but Nigel has published my AoS Part 8 Reply of July 2014 on Scribd.

The Courts reaction to it was to reallocate the Claim to the Multi-Track and give me three weeks to prepare and file/serve a written Defence.

 

Ok - thanks.

You have 'real-life' experience of the 'system'.

 

Is there not an 'occasional mistake' where the Acknowledgement of Service papers do not arrive with the boater in time to do as you suggest ? I believe that also there is the 'occasional mistake' where the necessary page(s) may be omitted from the 'pack' the boater receives ?

 

Obviously just 'administrative' errors as C&RT / Shoosmiths would never intentionally wish the boater to be disadvantaged.

[NigelMoore]

. . . why is CRT taking the owner to court - what for.?

 

Adding to the contributions from Tony and Alan, there are a couple of points to be made:

 

Firstly, you need to recognise that in most cases CaRT do NOT take boaters to court over s.8 Notices; they simply seize the boat on lapse of the notice time of 28 days, without further ado.

 

Secondly, the only cases they do take to court are in known live-aboard instances. The reason for taking these into court is effectively to obtain the Court’s ruling that seizing the boat does not violate the Human Rights of the boat-dweller, in depriving them of their home. It is a way of side-stepping the responsibility involved and placing blame on the court system rather than on their unilateral decision [and a good thing too, in principle].

 

As to the future, it will be interesting to see whether - if any ruling in their favour is made in the pending Appeal case - they will continue to bother with such court cases, once they are declared immune from HR considerations.

 

[NigelMoore]

 

I don't know how to make a link to it on here, but Nigel has published my AoS Part 8 Reply of July 2014 on Scribd.

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/238237047/Dunkley-Part-8-Reply

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Is there not an 'occasional mistake' where the Acknowledgement of Service papers do not arrive with the boater in time to do as you suggest ? I believe that also there is the 'occasional mistake' where the necessary page(s) may be omitted from the 'pack' the boater receives ?

 

 

The AoS paperwork had been 'inadvertently' omitted from the Court papers [Claim] that C&RT served on me in July 2014 with only 2 days of the 14 day time limit remaining.

 

The Claim was issued on 13 June 2014 and Shoosmiths hung on to it until 30 June when they served it, minus the AoS form but with a covering letter dated 19 June and only 3 clear days before the hearing which was listed for 4 July.

 

The service date [19 June] indicated on the covering letter enabled me to file my AoS Reply, within the 14 day time limit, but only a few minutes before the Court Office closed on 3 July, the day before the hearing, and far too late for it to be forwarded or notified to Shoosmiths.

 

When the C&RT/Shoosmiths contingent arrived at the Court the next morning, the 4th, they seemed to be under the impression that no AoS paperwork would have been returned to the Court and that the granting of the Order/Injunction was therefore, 'in the bag'.

 

Such was the level of confidence that they were about to wrap up another successful, unopposed 'rubber stamping' exercise the Shoosmiths Solicitor/Advocate spent a few moments waving the draft Order/Injunction form under my nose and rather patronizingly explaining that, . . "this is what's happening today".

All the sickening smugness quickly evaporated a few minutes later when the Judge asked if they had seen my AoS Reply, with the brief handwritten Statement/Submission attached, and handed them a copy of it.

[NigelMoore]

 

If the Defendant doesn't fill in the AoS paperwork and return it within the time limits, then whether or not they are permitted to speak in their defence becomes a matter of the Judge's discretion.

 

Andy Wingfield's last case being the classic example - and that was when represented by professional solicitors.

[Neil T]

Unfortunately it's probably the case that CRT will continue to push the law to the limit and beyond unless people like Nigel take them on in court. It's about stopping the tide of control freakery. But ignore me because I'm paranoid...

 

Don't think your're paranoid. I've had 3 run ins with CART in five years of both CCing and having a home mooring.

Each case resulted in an apology from personnel at the highest level of complaint , the National Boating Co-ordinator etc.

Each case began with the usual very heavy enforcement style letter.

Each case ended with a fulsome apology, the most recent being ' I can only apologise for our mistake. We are looking at further improvements in our processes to avoid this happening again.' The reason given for the mistake was that data 'wasn’t properly completed in an internal work flow and so was not updated correctly on the main computer system.'

Do I feel persecuted? Of course not.

Do I think that I am dealing with an incompetent computer system operated by a strange group of disconnected people half of whom don't know what the other half is doing? That the data checkers of individuals on the towpath don't interface properly with the main computer? Absolutely.

 

Once you are in the complaint process you enter a virtual world where automatic 'Thank you for you enquiry which is being dealt with' emails cross over with other people saying no, and yes, and maybe. Staff forward your email to someone else, and they then consider the forwarding to mean that the enquiry is 'dealt with.'

 

Many of the staff are decent people in a partly dysfunctional organisation not that different to many other organisations.

 

BUT what many of them still fail to understand, or don't care about, is that enforcement letters of the kind that they send out , when read on your boat which is your home, can feel extremely threatening. And cause endless distress.

And accountability is a real issue.

 

My own experience is that if you have the time and ability to make many phone-calls, a fast internet connection, can quickly photocopy and email documents, keep stringent records, particularly always keep CART emails however old they are, and be extremely polite fair and decent in the face of system incompetence then you stand a fighting chance.

Unless of course you haven't been 'properly completed in an internal workflow.' In which case having not been 'updated correctly' you are not who you know yourself to be but someone from the past , and if you act in your responses to the 'We want you to know that your email has arrived safely' emails as if you are the person you know you are, then you will be told in no uncertain terms that in fact what happened in the past was not what actually happened to you but what it says on that internal workflow. Woe betide you if you have no proof to the contrary because you are already in it up to your neck and the water is rising.......................

[Naughty Cal]

I dont Jerra i find it complecated.

 

Thus is why we only stay out for a week then bounce back into the the marina.

 

Confused.com

Which bits do you find complicated?

Jerra i really appreciate your help but it is a good place to duscuss openly with all the best respect to yourself and thank you.

 

 

The answer to my/our thread title has been answered but if i said we have 25 miles of canal and we start at one end and did 8 nights then moved 5 miles up and did another 8 night is that overstaying in the same area ?

 

To add we always hide in the marine for 3 nights after 8 nights out because we dont blinking know ?

 

Thats the truth.

You are worrying too much. Just go out and enjoy boating.

[Greylady2]

Which bits do you find complicated?

You are worrying too much. Just go out and enjoy boating.

Hi NC, weĺl if i wanted to stay in one place for 10 nights can i go back in the marina for 4 days and go back to the previous spot i spent 10 days on?

 

I do lurve boating very much i am just trying to find out whats what.

 

:-) its not that i want to bend or break any rules but more to understand what i is allowed, i know its been said YES but its not written on the Crt Stone.

 

 

 

Edit : i stayed away from the thread it went too difficult for me to understand.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Greylady2

[Jerra]

Hi NC, weĺl if i wanted to stay in one place for 10 nights can i go back in the marina for 4 days and go back to the previous spot i spent 10 days on?

 

I do lurve boating very much i am just trying to find out whats what.

 

:-) its not that i want to bend or break any rules but more to understand what i is allowed, i know its been said YES but its not written on the Crt Stone.

 

 

 

Edit : i stayed away from the thread it went too difficult for me to understand.

In theory (as I understand it) yes because CRT have said the clock restarts every time you return to the home mooring.

 

However the problem might arise when an enforcement officer spotted you in the same place on a number of occasions and presumed you hadn't moved.

 

Again I have never been in this position but it appears CRT contact you and tell you you have been a naughty girl and you prove to them you haven't.

 

Now we get to the discussion what is acceptable as proof. Some say take a date stamped photo but I am not sure if that is necessary. Personally I would keep a simple log.

 

For example

 

Left home mooring 1st Jan 2017 9:30

Had lunch just above Lock X 1:00

Tied up between Bridge X & Y 3:30

 

Left mooring between Bridge X & Y 10th Jan 2017 10:00

Turned at winding hole at "Somewhere" 10:30

Arrived Home mooring at XYZ Marina 4:30

 

I am sure others will have different ideas. Also I am sure people in the marina will remember seeing you particularly as you seem to do things very regularly.

 

I suspect that it would also be easier to prove if as you suggested earlier you turned left out of the marina on one trip and right on another.

[Greylady2]

In theory (as I understand it) yes because CRT have said the clock restarts every time you return to the home mooring.

 

However the problem might arise when an enforcement officer spotted you in the same place on a number of occasions and presumed you hadn't moved.

 

Again I have never been in this position but it appears CRT contact you and tell you you have been a naughty girl and you prove to them you haven't.

 

Now we get to the discussion what is acceptable as proof. Some say take a date stamped photo but I am not sure if that is necessary. Personally I would keep a simple log.

 

For example

 

Left home mooring 1st Jan 2017 9:30

Had lunch just above Lock X 1:00

Tied up between Bridge X & Y 3:30

 

Left mooring between Bridge X & Y 10th Jan 2017 10:00

Turned at winding hole at "Somewhere" 10:30

Arrived Home mooring at XYZ Marina 4:30

 

I am sure others will have different ideas. Also I am sure people in the marina will remember seeing you particularly as you seem to do things very regularly.

 

I suspect that it would also be easier to prove if as you suggested earlier you turned left out of the marina on one trip and right on another.

Good stuff Jerra,

 

Thats the problem crt come around every week but dont always look on the marinas to see 'whos home' i.e. resetting the clock. < hopefully

 

I do a log every day with time on and off all mooring points.

 

I need to chill out jerra and stop over thinking stuff i realise that.

 

Its quite frustrating when some people just park up for 3 months on a popular spots and dont give a shoot.

 

 

Gonna leave this thread with a thanks to all and get boating tomorrow. :-)

Edited July 7, 2016 by Greylady2

[Horace42]

Gonna leave this thread with a thanks to all and get boating tomorrow. :-)

Good luck. Enjoy yourself. You stated a good thread. I hope you got the answer you wanted.

Now you are wiser and forearmed, and if you have a mischievous nature, why not moor somewhere for 10 days, leave it for a week, then go back for a week to the same spot to see if you can get booked - just to wind CRT up - but make sure you have a good alibi.

Then come back anon to tell us what happened.