mooring question

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

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.

 

Or - from post #21

 

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.

[Higgs]

 

 

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.

 

 

Actually, some of the money is money they shouldn't have in the first place. They've no statutory right to it and no moral right to it. So that others won't be confused about what I'm alluding to - it's the use of non statutory third party agent enforcement to collect licence fees on non Trust waterways. A marina's terms and conditions enforcement. Not law.

[MtB]

 

 

Actually, some of the money is money they shouldn't have in the first place. They've no statutory right to it and no moral right to it. So that others won't be confused about what I'm alluding to - it's the use of non statutory third party agent enforcement to collect licence fees on non Trust waterways. A marina's terms and conditions enforcement. Not law.

 

 

Twaddle!

[Higgs]

 

 

Twaddle!

 

 

It isn't.

[Geo]

 

 

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.

 

No Tony is not causing CRT to shovel money into Shoosmith's pockets. CRT decide to issue a claim not Tony. The person who issues the claim has to pay for the court costs and in CRT's case the charges of Shoosmiths and the wages of their staff involved.

 

NOw really for all the cases I have seen CRT's own legal staff are quite capable of dealing with all the legal work and papers, they might even have right of hearing. But if they don't then they can brief barristers to appear for them. Nothing in the process needs Shoosmiths.

[Tony Dunkley]

. Nothing in the process needs Shoosmiths.

 

Except that success is more likely in contrived and groundless actions if your lawyers have a well deserved reputation for bending the rules and indulging in dubious practices.

[Paul C]

 

 

Actually, some of the money is money they shouldn't have in the first place. They've no statutory right to it and no moral right to it. So that others won't be confused about what I'm alluding to - it's the use of non statutory third party agent enforcement to collect licence fees on non Trust waterways. A marina's terms and conditions enforcement. Not law.

 

Last time this was debated, after many posts it was revealed that you did occasionally go out onto the canals. Thus, a licence is needed.

[NigelMoore]

 

. . . 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.

 

It is worth noting that CaRT’s legal department are working the angles on this, with the evident goal of dispensing with such niceties altogether.

 

Effectively, reading their arguments over “houseboats” very carefully, they wish to arrive at a position where ANY boat not “bona fide used for navigation throughout the period of the licence” is no longer considered a pleasure boat at all.

 

So you will either be required to adhere to the “CC” demands when off your home mooring, or you will be treated with as an errant houseboater with the wrong, inapplicable licence/certificate, subject to s.13 [because it is guaranteed that none of the towpath moorings along the way to which you moor will have planning consent for residential use – upon which your [deemed] “houseboat” certificate is automatically invalidated.

 

[NigelMoore]

 

. . . CRT's own legal staff are quite capable of dealing with all the legal work and papers, they might even have right of hearing. But if they don't then they can brief barristers to appear for them. Nothing in the process needs Shoosmiths.

 

No “might” about it; Jackie Lewis is a qualified barrister who could represent CaRT in Court with no problems whatever.

 

Shoosmiths, as is within more modern rules, do not even always bother with a barrister either.

 

Come to that, as you say, with modern relaxation of the rules now permitting 'direct access' barristers, CaRT’s legal team could dispense with solicitors and instruct any of those themselves, should they lack confidence in the performance of Ms Lewis.

 

But these situations seem to grow organically and achieve a status of their own; this symbiotic relationship grew from the propinquitous friendship between the Shoosmiths' partner responsible for most of BW's litigation and Greta O'Shea, the now departed BW solicitor responsible for instructing her. The organisational relationship endures past dissolution of the personal.

 

[Mike Todd]

 

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.

I don't think that is what they have said. What they have said is the converse that anyone moving less than this (over a time) is unlikely to convince them that they are bona fide navigating - entirely within the (inadequate) wording of the Act. It is the Board that has to be convinced, with criteria unlegislated, possibly subject to a judicial review if a boater feels that the Board has acted unreasonably - a general test of public bodies.

 

Such a statement does not prevent them from refusing a licence for someone over the 1km limit not requires them to do so for anyone under it. It is a general observation about what is likely to convince them. A not unusual legal/regulatory position I believe. Still does not define 'place' - nor will it ever!

[Alan de Enfield]

I don't think that is what they have said. What they have said is the converse that anyone moving less than this (over a time) is unlikely to convince them that they are bona fide navigating - entirely within the (inadequate) wording of the Act.

 

You are absolutely correct - they have indicated anyone moving more than 1km is unlikely to come under enforcement.

[Graham Davis]

 

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.

 

So you expect respect when you refuse to offer any yourself?

Hypocrite!

[Mike Todd]

 

You are absolutely correct - they have indicated anyone moving more than 1km is unlikely to come under enforcement.

Have they gone that far? I thought not - only about those under the limit. Not the same . . . but I understand why so many people misunderstand what they are saying. They have to comply with what they see as the law and that sometimes, given the problems with the legislation, can leave them able to say less than might be helpful, even if only guidance.

[spadefoot]

 

So you expect respect when you refuse to offer any yourself?

Hypocrite!

Ah Graham, you forgot to highlight some important words in Tony's post, "but if they choose not to so do".

Include those words & the context changes & I believe, your accusation becomes nonsense.

[Geo]

 

It is worth noting that CaRT’s legal department are working the angles on this, with the evident goal of dispensing with such niceties altogether.

 

Effectively, reading their arguments over “houseboats” very carefully, they wish to arrive at a position where ANY boat not “bona fide used for navigation throughout the period of the licence” is no longer considered a pleasure boat at all.

 

So you will either be required to adhere to the “CC” demands when off your home mooring, or you will be treated with as an errant houseboater with the wrong, inapplicable licence/certificate, subject to s.13 [because it is guaranteed that none of the towpath moorings along the way to which you moor will have planning consent for residential use – upon which your [deemed] “houseboat” certificate is automatically invalidated.

 

 

Oh the marina companies are going to love that, having to get planning permission for houseboats

 

No “might” about it; Jackie Lewis is a qualified barrister who could represent CaRT in Court with no problems whatever.

 

Shoosmiths, as is within more modern rules, do not even always bother with a barrister either.

 

Come to that, as you say, with modern relaxation of the rules now permitting 'direct access' barristers, CaRT’s legal team could dispense with solicitors and instruct any of those themselves, should they lack confidence in the performance of Ms Lewis.

 

But these situations seem to grow organically and achieve a status of their own; this symbiotic relationship grew from the propinquitous friendship between the Shoosmiths' partner responsible for most of BW's litigation and Greta O'Shea, the now departed BW solicitor responsible for instructing her. The organisational relationship endures past dissolution of the personal.

 

 

If I remember correctly even under the old rules a solicitor registered with the Law Society as being in practice albeit as an employee of a company could brief a barrister. I seem to remember getting our in house lawyer to do that many years ago. But under today's rules even I as a non-lawyer can instruct a public access barrister direct.

 

Except that success is more likely in contrived and groundless actions if your lawyers have a well deserved reputation for bending the rules and indulging in dubious practices.

 

And if it goes wrong you can always blames the acting solicitor with a we would not have allowed this if we had known.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Geo

[Tony Dunkley]

 

So you expect respect when you refuse to offer any yourself?

Hypocrite!

 

Here you are Graham, . . . if it's hypocrisy you're into today, have a look in a dictionary for what the word means, then read this :~

8 September 2016

 

Canal & River Trust to improve customer support for boaters

 

From early 2017 the Canal & River Trust’s Enforcement Team will become its Boat Licence Customer Support Team. This reflects the team’s ongoing focus and share of the time they spend supporting customers to meet the terms of a boat licence to stay on the water.

 

As Mike Grimes, head of boating at Canal & River Trust, explains: “As part of the evolution of becoming a charity, we’re highlighting the emphasis we’re putting on supporting boaters. That includes improving the ways in which we communicate and interact with boaters as well as being there to help facilitate the support that’s available from external agencies for those in need.

 

“For the vast majority of customers it’s about being there on the towpath or at the end of a phone to help them keep their licence rather than the minority where enforcement action is the unfortunate last resort.”

 

Ends

 

For further media requests please contact:

Fran Read, national press officer, Canal & River Trust

______________________________________

History isn't my strongest subject, but I'm fairly sure that during the French Revolution, the 'team' who were sending a considerable number of the population for rather extreme haircuts, did in fact call themselves something like the 'Committee for Public Safety'.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

 

Actually, some of the money is money they shouldn't have in the first place. They've no statutory right to it and no moral right to it. So that others won't be confused about what I'm alluding to - it's the use of non statutory third party agent enforcement to collect licence fees on non Trust waterways. A marina's terms and conditions enforcement. Not law.

In my travels I've found the perfect marina for you, Pyrford Marina on the River Wey. You don't have to buy any licence unless you venture out onto the river although being a river marina it can mean that, during winter floods you may not get the opportunity to get out onto the river for periods . A bit of a downside however is that you aren't allowed to live on the boat and the marina fees are in the order of £5000 pa but I'm sure you'd pay so that you don't have to give anything to CRT

[Geo]

In my travels I've found the perfect marina for you, Pyrford Marina on the River Wey. You don't have to buy any licence unless you venture out onto the river although being a river marina it can mean that, during winter floods you may not get the opportunity to get out onto the river for periods . A bit of a downside however is that you aren't allowed to live on the boat and the marina fees are in the order of £5000 pa but I'm sure you'd pay so that you don't have to give anything to CRT

 

Haven't they just increase their prices. Something about a rumour a boater from another river wants to come there

[NigelMoore]

 

This reflects the team’s ongoing focus and share of the time they spend supporting customers to meet the terms of a boat licence to stay on the water.

 

 

They just cannot help themselves. Even the positive spin speaks of getting boaters to meet terms imposed outwith legislation, with NO indication that any proper enforcement actions against genuine offenders in breach of the byelaws have been lost in the mists of time.

 

Still - I am happy that they have come to the belated realisation of just how unpleasantly accurate the department's description has been. All we need now, is to have reality catch up with the new nomenclature.

[Mike Todd]

 

Oh the marina companies are going to love that, having to get planning permission for houseboats

 

If I remember correctly even under the old rules a solicitor registered with the Law Society as being in practice albeit as an employee of a company could brief a barrister. I seem to remember getting our in house lawyer to do that many years ago. But under today's rules even I as a non-lawyer can instruct a public access barrister direct.

 

And if it goes wrong you can always blames the acting solicitor with a we would not have allowed this if we had known.

Organisations may opt to establish a contractual relationship with a specific company for the provision of legal services. Individual cases may have to be briefed individually and estimated as such, but the long term relationship may lead to better rates and also the provision of services such as holding legal documents. Such arrangements should, under good charity governance, be reviewed at pre-determined intervals - eg five years.

 

If such an arrangement is set up - and I have absolutely no knowledge as to whether CaRT have done this - then there would be an inhibition about briefing someone else unless a conflict of interest arose. That would probably mean that they have a bigger client to whom they give preference.

[Dave Payne]

Just to confirm, I move a lot, have covered a lot more than this minimum distance that gets qouted, I always move every 7-14 days depending on where I am.

 

I just wondered if I move from a 7 day to a 14 day in the same area and only spend 14 days combined on the two areas would crt get funny, I might ask them, or I might just move off the 7 day to a different area....

[Arthur Marshall]

Just to confirm, I move a lot, have covered a lot more than this minimum distance that gets qouted, I always move every 7-14 days depending on where I am.

 

I just wondered if I move from a 7 day to a 14 day in the same area and only spend 14 days combined on the two areas would crt get funny, I might ask them, or I might just move off the 7 day to a different area....

Can't see how they could. Defining area is so vague you might actually be crossing a CRT defined area boundary anyway. But you're still only in a "place" for 14 days, just shifted for convenience, no different from moving up on your original mooring to let someone in.

[Geo]

Organisations may opt to establish a contractual relationship with a specific company for the provision of legal services. Individual cases may have to be briefed individually and estimated as such, but the long term relationship may lead to better rates and also the provision of services such as holding legal documents. Such arrangements should, under good charity governance, be reviewed at pre-determined intervals - eg five years.

 

If such an arrangement is set up - and I have absolutely no knowledge as to whether CaRT have done this - then there would be an inhibition about briefing someone else unless a conflict of interest arose. That would probably mean that they have a bigger client to whom they give preference.

 

 

Maybe the change to a Charity was the time to review all of its relationships such as these. Also I know from business that long term relationships such as these can be relied on for the wrong reason and the cost relationship could go askew.

[NigelMoore]

 

 

Maybe the change to a Charity was the time to review all of its relationships such as these. Also I know from business that long term relationships such as these can be relied on for the wrong reason and the cost relationship could go askew.

 

In fairness, speaking to Mike Todd’s point, there are strong indications that CaRT get [in effect] a ‘bulk discount’.

 

Certainly Mr Stoner QC, who as he puts it, is almost on a ‘retainer’ to CaRT as he had been with BW, has not infrequently represented them at hearings which would not ordinarily call for a silk of his stature, but which he was prepared to attend in the interests of saving costs by reason of his long familiarity with the legislation in question – and in such instances he charged out only at the rate which would be paid for the lower class of barrister ordinarily considered suitable for such cases.

 

CaRT sometimes, in other words, get the services of a top-flight QC for a bargain basement price. It has happened already in the initial skirmishes in Leigh's case.

[MtB]

CaRT sometimes, in other words, get the services of a top-flight QC for a bargain basement price. It has happened already in the initial skirmishes in Leigh's case.

 

 

Point of order M'Nigelness...

 

Are all QCs not 'top-flight'? Presuming 'top-flight QC' is not tautology may we infer there is a hierachy of QCs? That there are 'intermediate-flight', 'bottom-flight' and completely rubbish QCs as well as top flight variants?