mooring question

[Dave Payne]

Do I have this correct?

 

You are on a mooring marked 7 days, you stay 7 days then move off the mooring about 100 yards onto a 14 day mooring, you can only stay there 7 days then must move on a reasonable distance to another mooring.

[Mike on the Wey]

On the basis of the information available, I agree - two moorings within 100 yards will inevitably be the same "place".

 

Unless you're in central London of course, where some people argue that a mooring at the end of the landing ABOVE a lock is a different "place" in the context of the act from a mooring at the end of the landing BELOW the same lock.

[magnetman]

Don't go there

[Martin Megson]

I was surprised when in London to find that Paddington Basin is considered, by CRT, to be a different "Place" to Little Venice despite being within a couple of hundred yards.

[MtB]

Depends if you have a home mooring, or not.

[Greylady2]

I was surprised when in London to find that Paddington Basin is considered, by CRT, to be a different "Place" to Little Venice despite being within a couple of hundred yards.

Maybe they were working on council and constabulary boundary's.

 

Op i think moving 100 yards off a seven day restriction and doing the 14 days might/could get you nagging email from crt.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Greylady2

[Geo]

Depends if you have a home mooring, or not.

 

Why does it depend if you have a home mooring?

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Why does it depend if you have a home mooring?

 

Because if you have a home mooring you do not need to move to a 'new place' every 14 days, ( you must move to a new 'location' which can be a couple of hundred yards away) but if you do not have a home mooring you must move to a new place.

 

Read the 1995 Waterways Act Section 17 (3) (c )

 

With C&RTs latest T&Cs they are trying to impose the same movement rules on HMers as CCers, but, I think they know that they would be on 'a loser' if they actually tried to enforce it.

 

During a Court case the Judge (HHJ Halbert) made the following comments :

 

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

 

 

 

A 'new place' is subject to much discussion and has been the subject of much quoting and amendment by various 'bodies' - it appears that C&RTs latest 'definition' for a new place is one that is 1km away from you last mooring.

[Geo]

 

Because if you have a home mooring you do not need to move to a 'new place' every 14 days, ( you must move to a new 'location' which can be a couple of hundred yards away) but if you do not have a home mooring you must move to a new place.

 

Read the 1995 Waterways Act Section 17 (3) (c )

 

With C&RTs latest T&Cs they are trying to impose the same movement rules on HMers as CCers, but, I think they know that they would be on 'a loser' if they actually tried to enforce it.

 

During a Court case the Judge (HHJ Halbert) made the following comments :

 

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

 

 

 

A 'new place' is subject to much discussion and has been the subject of much quoting and amendment by various 'bodies' - it appears that C&RTs latest 'definition' for a new place is one that is 1km away from you last mooring.

 

Oh I read the Act and several others many years ago and I have read the opinion of the learned Judge. What it really boils down to is are you willing to take on CRT in court to demand your rights or do you want a quiet life. If the latter you have to follow the T&Cs for the licence. If the former have you got the money or someone to fund you for a long court case?

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Oh I read the Act and several others many years ago and I have read the opinion of the learned Judge. What it really boils down to is are you willing to take on CRT in court to demand your rights or do you want a quiet life. If the latter you have to follow the T&Cs for the licence. If the former have you got the money or someone to fund you for a long court case?

 

The question you asked was 'why' - I answered that question.

 

If you already knew the answer why did you ask it ?

 

The subject of pursuing your 'rights' is another matter entirely.

[Arthur Marshall]

To be honest, if you move a short distance once in a while I suspect you wouldn't have any problems. If you claim to be on a continuous cruise and move 400 yards in a year, I suspect you will.

If you have a home mooring and hang around a 400 yard area for a year without ever going home, you may have problems too as you may get asked why you don't have a home mooring where you want to keep the boat.

Some of this hassle may be in accordance with the letter of the law and some may not, but it may well be morally justified. Or not, depending on your view of what the law is for or how much you want to get up the nose of other boaters.

It's an old argument and a pointless one. Best maybe just to do what you think is right, act in a way you would like other boaters to, and only get involved in a fight if the other side starts it and you think you can win.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Oh I read the Act and several others many years ago and I have read the opinion of the learned Judge. What it really boils down to is are you willing to take on CRT in court to demand your rights or do you want a quiet life. If the latter you have to follow the T&Cs for the licence. If the former have you got the money or someone to fund you for a long court case?

 

On the face of it that would seem to be so, but the reality is that you can retain control of both the situation and the process, and force C&RT to discontinue legal action just prior to trial without incurring any costs liabilities yourself.

The combination of C&RT's largely unenforceable Licence T&C's and their persistent misuse of inapplicable legislation results in every one of their contrived legal actions being on very dubious and shaky grounds.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

On the face of it that would seem to be so, but the reality is that you can retain control of both the situation and the process, and force C&RT to discontinue legal action just prior to trial without incurring any costs liabilities yourself.

The combination of C&RT's largely unenforceable Licence T&C's and their persistent misuse of inapplicable legislation results in every one of their contrived legal actions being on very dubious and shaky grounds.

 

But then C&RT say 'you have ruined the case',

(or whatever words they have used in the past)

 

 

Edit : only 18 words but a number of spooling mitooks to correct.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[Geo]

 

On the face of it that would seem to be so, but the reality is that you can retain control of both the situation and the process, and force C&RT to discontinue legal action just prior to trial without incurring any costs liabilities yourself.

The combination of C&RT's largely unenforceable Licence T&C's and their persistent misuse of inapplicable legislation results in every one of their contrived legal actions being on very dubious and shaky grounds.

 

While I do not disagree with you Tony , in order to follow that route requires an amount of hassle that some boaters find difficult to handle, thus my two options

Edited September 10, 2016 by Geo

[Tony Dunkley]

 

But then C&RT say 'you have ruined the case',

(or whatever words they have used in the past)

 

 

Yes, they complain to the Court that their intended victim's compliance with, what in reality are their unlawful demands, has rendered their Claim "worthless and academic", . . . but it doesn't get them out of the fairly expensive hole they've dug themselves into.

[MtB]

 

Why does it depend if you have a home mooring?

 

 

Why do you ask, given you know the answer?

 

I have a home mooring on the Oxford but for the last year I have been CCing on the K&A. A few months ago CRT wrote to me asking me to sign and return a document confirming my home mooring details. I did so and heard nothing more.

 

I wonder what would have happened had I not done so, or told them I'd given it up.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

While I do not disagree with you Tony , in order to follow that route requires an amount of hassle that some boaters find difficult to handle, thus my two options

 

I can understand why many would find the whole ridiculous process too stressful and would want to avoid it if possible by knuckling under to what I see as C&RT's unacceptable conduct and tactics, but whenever that happens it will only encourage them to inflict more of the same misery on others.

 

The option of complying with that which Parliament has set down in statute, and treating their 'customers' with a measure of decency and respect is always open to C&RT to take, but if they choose not to so do, then I, for one, am more than happy to piss them around as much as I possibly can. The remedy is entirely in their hands.

[MtB]

 

I can understand why many would find the whole ridiculous process too stressful and would want to avoid it if possible by knuckling under to what I see as C&RT's unacceptable conduct and tactics, but whenever that happens it will only encourage them to inflict more of the same misery on others.

 

The option of complying with that which Parliament has set down in statute, and treating their 'customers' with a measure of decency and respect is always open to C&RT to take, but if they choose not to so do, then I, for one, am more than happy to piss them around as much as I possibly can. The remedy is entirely in their hands.

 

 

And in so doing, you are causing them to shovel dozens of £k's of our licence money into the open coffers of Shoosmiths. Money which could otherwise be spent on maintenance.

[Geo]

 

I can understand why many would find the whole ridiculous process too stressful and would want to avoid it if possible by knuckling under to what I see as C&RT's unacceptable conduct and tactics, but whenever that happens it will only encourage them to inflict more of the same misery on others.

 

The option of complying with that which Parliament has set down in statute, and treating their 'customers' with a measure of decency and respect is always open to C&RT to take, but if they choose not to so do, then I, for one, am more than happy to piss them around as much as I possibly can. The remedy is entirely in their hands.

 

I do hope that you are not happy to piss them around, surely you are only protecting yourself to the best of your ability within the law

 

 

And in so doing, you are causing them to shovel dozens of £k's of our licence money into the open coffers of Shoosmiths. Money which could otherwise be spent on maintenance.

 

The money is not yours but is under the control of the Trustees so maybe you should be taking any grumbles in that respect up with the said Trustees

 

You can find a complete list here https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/our-structure/board-of-trustees

Edited September 10, 2016 by Geo

[MtB]

 

I do hope that you are not happy to piss them around, surely you are only protecting yourself to the best of your ability within the law

 

The money is not yours but is under the control of the Trustees so maybe you should be taking any grumbles in that respect up with the said Trustees

 

You can find a complete list here https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/our-structure/board-of-trustees

 

 

So if it is only under the control of the trustees, whose money is it?

[Tony Dunkley]

 

 

And in so doing, you are causing them to shovel dozens of £k's of our licence money into the open coffers of Shoosmiths. Money which could otherwise be spent on maintenance.

 

No, get it right, . . . . THEY, and they alone, are choosing to waste money by issuing Claims [instigating legal action] they know full well have no prospect of succeeding.

 

Indulging in such idiotic activities can be described in many different ways, but repeated with sufficient frequency, and with the same lack of any prospect of success, the Courts will eventually regard it as vexatious.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[dogless]

Do I have this correct?

You are on a mooring marked 7 days, you stay 7 days then move off the mooring about 100 yards onto a 14 day mooring, you can only stay there 7 days then must move on a reasonable distance to another mooring.

I think the context is relevant.

 

If you've travelled the system widely, and are then staying in one locality for a couple of weeks, I don't think you'll attract adverse attention. However if your entire cruising consists of shuffling along between every visitor mooring you come across, you may attract attention.

 

Rog

[Geo]

 

 

So if it is only under the control of the trustees, whose money is it?

 

The Charities not yours

[bottle]

Here we go lets discuss this infinitum the simple answer is

 

Do what you like.

 

Be prepared to prove to CRT and or the courts that you are complying.

[MtB]

 

The Charities not yours

 

 

Ok. Try this modified statement for size:

 

And in so doing, Tony is causing the charity to shovel dozens of £k's of its licence money into the open coffers of Shoosmiths. Money which could otherwise be spent on maintenance.