Mooring away from home.

[NbPlod]

I'm a new boater, she's still on hard standing, and I'm wondering what the rules area for mooring away from home mooring. I'm thinking of paying for a marina berth but spending most of the time moored on the tow path nearer to home. If I conform to the 14 day rule and move her about a bit will I fall foul of the CRT?

[Rob-M]

That is known as a ghost mooring and unless you live in the middle of a ring it is unlikely that you would be able to comply with the rules for moving your boat and stay close to home.

[Tony Dunkley]

I'm a new boater, she's still on hard standing, and I'm wondering what the rules area for mooring away from home mooring. I'm thinking of paying for a marina berth but spending most of the time moored on the tow path nearer to home. If I conform to the 14 day rule and move her about a bit will I fall foul of the CRT?

 

You may well do.

 

C&RT have been attempting to replace the law, as put on the Statute books by Parliament, with their own fanciful load of wished for twaddle since 2013.

 

The "rules for moving your boat" referred to in the post above are the 'wished for twaddle' !

 

If you do end up being harassed by C&RT, then just tell them to get lost. As long as you retain the marina mooring, wherever it is, there is, ultimately, nothing whatsoever that C&RT can do to prevent you from mooring your boat where it suits you best.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[alan_fincher]

If the MK i your profile means you intend to try keeping the boat moved around in just the Milton Keynes area, whilst paying for a permanent mooring elsewhere that you either never use, or at best only seldom use, then I would say you will fairly quickly attract the attention of the CRT enforcement team.

 

This practice is often known as a "paper mooring" or a "ghost mooring", and although it theoretically meets the requirement of somewhere the boat could be kept, then if you don't actually keep it there, CRT now seem to be treating it as if you don't have it, and applying the same conditions of movement as "boat without a home mooring".

 

Just shuffling around Milton Keynes, even if you move every 14 days, is unlikely to be acceptable to CRT under their increasingly more stringent enforcement.

 

I make no comment as to whether CRT are entitled in law to do this, as some will tell you they are not, but if you don't wish to start off boat ownership with the enforcement team interested in you, then find a mooring in the MK area, not where you will not be likely to ever use it much.

[Naughty Cal]

I'm a new boater, she's still on hard standing, and I'm wondering what the rules area for mooring away from home mooring. I'm thinking of paying for a marina berth but spending most of the time moored on the tow path nearer to home. If I conform to the 14 day rule and move her about a bit will I fall foul of the CRT?

The short answer to this is yes, you likely will be under scrutiny from CRT.

[johnnie1uk]

If you follow the rules as stated by the C&RT for continuous cruisers, then there cannot be a problem.

[Naughty Cal]

 

You may well do.

 

C&RT have been attempting to replace the law, as put on the Statute books by Parliament, with their own fanciful load of wished for twaddle since 2013.

 

The "rules for moving your boat" referred to in the post above are the 'wished for twaddle' !

 

If you do end up being harassed by C&RT, then just tell them to get lost. As long as you retain the marina mooring, wherever it is, there is, ultimately, nothing whatsoever that C&RT can do to prevent you from mooring your boat where it suits you best.

Which gets you where?

[Paul C]

If you follow the rules as stated by the C&RT for continuous cruisers, then there cannot be a problem.

 

If you followed the CCer rules, while being away from the home mooring that you never used, that home mooring would be somewhat redundant and a needless cost. Even if you did occasionally use it. The moorings market is somewhat fluid, one could rent/buy a shorter-than-year mooring with no real worries in some areas. If, however, you did need to use the mooring occasionally and it were difficult to obtain in your chosen area, then I suppose its fair enough to have one "just in case" but its still poor value-for-money out if it. The benefit for most, is that it relieves them from the "rules of CCing".

ETA one needs to be VERY careful regarding definitions - I believe posts #2 and #4 are wrong, having a genuine mooring but not using it is NOT a "paper mooring" and its moot whether its a "ghost mooring". A paper mooring, IMHO, is one that exists only on paper - ie some kind of agreement is there but the mooring isn't (it might be sold twice or multiple times). A ghost mooring is a similar idea but it may exist but probably won't be used ever.

 

Of course, its actually completely legal to have a mooring and never use it, and not be subject to the CCer movement requirements - it is a legal loophole, if you like.

[magictime]

If you do end up being harassed by C&RT, then just tell them to get lost. As long as you retain the marina mooring, wherever it is, there is, ultimately, nothing whatsoever that C&RT can do to prevent you from mooring your boat where it suits you best.

 

...apart from refusing to renew your licence, seizing your boat etc., and leaving you to decide whether to challenge them in court at your own expense. Whether the law is ultimately on their side isn't necessarily of much relevance to you in practical terms.

 

Not being funny, but just do some boating. It's fun. I don't see why you shouldn't be able to spend most of your time on the towpath close to home - on a 10-mile stretch, say - as long as you also took plenty of opportunities to cruise further afield on a weekends-and-holidays basis. The more often and more widely you cruise, the less likely CRT are to flag you as someone who's (in their terms) abusing the rules by staying basically in one place.

[Geo]

 

it is a legal loophole, if you like.

 

and legal loopholes are frequently the cause of antagonism between two parties, in this case CRT and some boat owners. I do not believe CRT have taken a properly defended case to court and won or leave to appeal has not been granted. However be aware it is CRT's declared intent to stop home moorers using the loophole. Thus if you are happy to take CRT on and have the aggravation then as you likely will in busy places then you know and do it with open eyes.

 

Personally as a leisure user I use the loophole but the majority of the time my boat is on its mooring. If you liveaboard I think you are much more open to aggravation.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

...apart from refusing to renew your licence, seizing your boat etc., and leaving you to decide whether to challenge them in court at your own expense.

 

C&RT's strategy for re-writing the law to suit themselves is entirely dependent on spreading this mistaken belief, and having it accepted by a sufficient number of boat owners.

 

Why are you lending support to C&RT's attempts to fool boaters into believing that they can refuse a Licence or seize a boat on the grounds that it's [home] mooring is not being used ?

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Of course, its actually completely legal to have a mooring and never use it, and not be subject to the CCer movement requirements - it is a legal loophole, if you like.

 

This is complete nonsense, . . . doing something that the law does not forbid, is NOT exploiting a 'loophole'.

[Alan de Enfield]

I'm afraid I must agree with Tony, and the Judge (HHJ Hilyard) in the C&RT Vs Mayers case who stated :

 

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. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

[Athy]

Quite right too - though would you trust a "learned" judge who splits an infinitive?

[NbPlod]

So the answer is suck it and see. Thanks to everyone who's contributed.

[Athy]

So the answer is suck it and see. Thanks to everyone who's contributed.

I think that a ruling by a judge, even one who splits an infinitive, may be taken as definitive. Cruise, moor and be happy.

[Paul C]

I think that a ruling by a judge, even one who splits an infinitive, may be taken as definitive. Cruise, moor and be happy.

[Geo]

I think that a ruling by a judge, even one who splits an infinitive, may be taken as definitive. Cruise, moor and be happy.

 

Not quite sure that is correct, it depends on whether his judgement was of the sort that sets a precedent or whether it was in the County Court and finally whether the judge made it plain if it was just an opinion. Of course even an opinion from a learned judge is a good start, but it is not total protection unless the remarks form part of a precedent.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Not quite sure that is correct, it depends on whether his judgement was of the sort that sets a precedent or whether it was in the County Court and finally whether the judge made it plain if it was just an opinion. Of course even an opinion from a learned judge is a good start, but it is not total protection unless the remarks form part of a precedent.

 

Your doubts are well founded. The Judges remarks did not form part of the Judgment, and even if they had, would not be binding on any other Court.

However, taken in context with the wording of the 1995 Act, which requires nothing more than the mooring to be "available", they are persuasive and influential.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Richard10002]

I'm a new boater, she's still on hard standing, and I'm wondering what the rules area for mooring away from home mooring. I'm thinking of paying for a marina berth but spending most of the time moored on the tow path nearer to home. If I conform to the 14 day rule and move her about a bit will I fall foul of the CRT?

 

Where is the home mooring? Would you use it from time to time?

[Naughty Cal]

 

Where is the home mooring? Would you use it from time to time?

Why bother with the mooring if the OP plans, as they state, to abide by the 14 day rule?

[Alan de Enfield]

Why bother with the mooring if the OP plans, as they state, to abide by the 14 day rule?

 

Maybe because the '14 day rule' for boats without a home mooring, is very different to the '14 day rule' for boats with a home mooring.

[Geo]

 

Your doubts are well founded. The Judges remarks did not form part of the Judgment, and even if they had, would not be binding on any other Court.

However, taken in context with the wording of the 1995 Act, which requires nothing more than the mooring to be "available", they are persuasive and influential.

 

Oh I appreciate the legislation but I did not want anyone running off and saying oh a judge has said it is OK type of things and finding that they still end up with aggravation.

 

Maybe because the '14 day rule' for boats without a home mooring, is very different to the '14 day rule' for boats with a home mooring

 

 

 

What is the difference according to what I have seen & read from CRT the 14 day rule operates as far as they are concerned exactly the same.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Geo

[RLWP]

 

Oh I appreciate the legislation but I did not want anyone running off and saying oh a judge has said it is OK type of things and finding that they still end up with aggravation.

 

What is the difference according to what I have seen & read from CRT the 14 day rule operates as far as they are concerned exactly the same.

 

You need to go back to the BW byelaws

 

Richard

[Trillian]

So the answer is suck it and see. Thanks to everyone who's contributed.

And let us know how you get on