Mooring away from home.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

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.

 

Now you are starting to understand the problem :

 

C&RT are writing their own 'rules' which are at odds with the Acts of Parliament (which is basically what HHJ Hilyard suggested)

[Geo]

 

Now you are starting to understand the problem :

 

C&RT are writing their own 'rules' which are at odds with the Acts of Parliament (which is basically what HHJ Hilyard suggested)

 

Oh I understand the problem very well and it has annoyed me for some considerable time. But basically by quoting HHJ Hilyard you are I believe giving others the idea that it is all cut and dried and they can apply the rules as per the act with impunity. Now if that person has the money spare to take on CRT in the High Court fine, if it is someone who is retired with no spare money they are in problems. I think a current case has racked up costs of £80,000 so far on the CRT side. Now are the members here going to crowd fund say 50 or 60K to support someone who goes up against them, I suspect not even though many would want to.

 

ETA I do not believe HHJ Hilyards suggested at all the CRT are writing their own rules, rather he notes in a case before these rules were issued the state of the legislation and the gaps he perceived and problems. Think as I write it is possible that those comments actually triggered CRT to attempt to do something about the gaps.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Geo

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Oh I understand the problem very well and it has annoyed me for some considerable time.

 

Then why ask the question ?

 

Are you a troll, or just trying to increase your 'post count' ?

[Geo]

 

 

Then why ask the question ?

 

Are you a troll, or just trying to increase your 'post count' ?

 

You apparently indicated in your post that the rules for CCer's and home mooring that CRT are trying to enforce are different in the content of the rules. I just asked what the difference was between the two sets of rules

 

 

 

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.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Geo

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Oh I understand the problem very well and it has annoyed me for some considerable time. But basically by quoting HHJ Hilyard you are I believe giving others the idea that it is all cut and dried and they can apply the rules as per the act with impunity. Now if that person has the money spare to take on CRT in the High Court fine, if it is someone who is retired with no spare money they are in problems. I think a current case has racked up costs of £80,000 so far on the CRT side. Now are the members here going to crowd fund say 50 or 60K to support someone who goes up against them, I suspect not even though many would want to.

 

Disputes about the wording and provisions of the 1995 Act don't have to be conducted through the Courts.

 

The only recourse open to C&RT with regard to any boater they accuse of not complying with their fanciful and warped interpretations of S.17 is to [illegally] revoke a boat Licence, or PBC, which they will then be obliged to renew on receipt of an application for a new one which complies with all three of the requirements set out in the Act.

If they are repeatedly manoeuvred into this situation with some regularity, then, with any sort of luck, they may eventually disappear up their own backsides.

 

The claim against C&RT you referred to above, was necessitated due to them illegally taking possession of a boat, or in other words, stealing it, and having done so, then extorting money from the owner as condition of returning it to him.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[magictime]

 

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 ?

 

I'm not. But nor am I lending support to your attempt to give the OP confidence that CRT won't take such action against him just because the law says they can't. As you know better than most, CRT could cause him significant problems, and he should go into things with his eyes open.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

You apparently indicated in your post that the rules for CCer's and home mooring that CRT are trying to enforce are different in the content of the rules. I just asked what the difference was between the two sets of rules

 

 

 

The various Acts make the difference quite clear

[Tony Dunkley]

 

As you know better than most, CRT could cause him significant problems, and he should go into things with his eyes open.

 

No, the reality is that as long as he retains a [home] mooring, C&RT cannot cause him, or anyone else in the same situation, any significant problems at all.

 

I really do wish that people would not be so easily intimidated by C&RT's threats and tactics. The very fact that C&RT are exceeding their powers and misusing legislation does leave them open and vulnerable to cost free but effective retaliation, simply by means of correct use of the legislation that they are misusing

 

At present C&RT are pursuing a County Court Section 8 action against me, which so far, which will have cost them in the region of £8 - 10,000 already, and they've got absolutely nowhere, and nor will they.

Control of the situation, including the question of whether or not the matter proceeds to trial, or even to or beyond the Directions hearing [ listed for 17 Oct ] , rests entirely with me.

Should I elect to buy a Licence or PBC, at any time of my choosing, then they have no option but to immediately discontinue the action, entirely at their expense.

 

It is essential not to lose sight of the fact that any boater without a current Licence or PBC, for whatever reason, is free and entitled to apply for a new one at any time, and provided that the three requirements in S.17 of the 1995 Act are met, C&RT are obliged by law to issue it, thereby scuppering their own Section 8 proceedings in so doing.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[alan_fincher]

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

 

That may be the answer you think has been given.

 

I believe if you have a "ghost mooring" that you do not use, but stay in the Milton Keynes area that you will fairly quickly attract the interest of CRT, even if you move every 14 days.

 

Just because people tell you CRT do not have the powers to do this, doesn't mean it will not happen!

[Paul C]

 

The various Acts make the difference quite clear

 

For clarity, "the 14 day rule" is somewhat vague and open to interpretation because there are two separate instances where it is mentioned, one of which is written in legislation and the other within CRT's terms and conditions. So, there is not "the 14 day rule" but "a 14 day rule" depending on the situation.

 

For CCers: "the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances."

 

For home moorers: "The Licence does not allow you to moor the Boat in any Waterway whilst cruising away from your Home Mooring except for short periods of up to 14 days, or less where a local restriction applies."

[Alan de Enfield]

 

For clarity, "the 14 day rule" is somewhat vague and open to interpretation because there are two separate instances where it is mentioned, one of which is written in legislation and the other within CRT's terms and conditions. So, there is not "the 14 day rule" but "a 14 day rule" depending on the situation.

 

For CCers: "the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances."

 

For home moorers: "The Licence does not allow you to moor the Boat in any Waterway whilst cruising away from your Home Mooring except for short periods of up to 14 days, or less where a local restriction applies."

 

That clarifies the difference completely :

 

A CCer MUST be in a new 'place' after 14 days, whilst there is no such requirement for a HMer.

 

And - YES - the OP would be very misguided if the thought that complying with the law would protect him from C&RTs shenanigans.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[David Mack]

Mr Plod,

 

Why do you want to pay for a marina berth, but leave the boat on the towpath nearer home most of the time?

[Geo]

 

 

For home moorers: "The Licence does not allow you to moor the Boat in any Waterway whilst cruising away from your Home Mooring except for short periods of up to 14 days, or less where a local restriction applies."

 

So taking that as the absolute correct wording. It could be interpreted as saying that when away from the home mooring the boat may moor for a total maximum period of 14 days. i.e. 14 days in one place or 1 day in 14 places or using the word 'periods' as a lever 14 days every hundred yards down the canal. Now from information I have been given that is not what CRT are enforcing, they are trying to apply the CC rule to home moorers.

 

Off out, will be interested to see if anything really new pops out of this thread, will read with interest later

[Paul C]

 

So taking that as the absolute correct wording. It could be interpreted as saying that when away from the home mooring the boat may moor for a total maximum period of 14 days. i.e. 14 days in one place or 1 day in 14 places or using the word 'periods' as a lever 14 days every hundred yards down the canal. Now from information I have been given that is not what CRT are enforcing, they are trying to apply the CC rule to home moorers.

 

Off out, will be interested to see if anything really new pops out of this thread, will read with interest later

 

You're taking my post out of context, I was merely clarifying what "the 14 day rule" might mean. I selectively (and correctly, I believe) quoted one sentence out of the current CRT licence terms and conditions. There are other sentences in it - feel free to read it. Yes, they stuck some additional stuff in last time it was updated (3.1 for example) and there were many comments made in threads on this forum at the time. NABO also raised a number of key points with CRT on the matter.

 

Link here: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/5962.pdf

[Naughty Cal]

 

No, the reality is that as long as he retains a [home] mooring, C&RT cannot cause him, or anyone else in the same situation, any significant problems at all.

 

I really do wish that people would not be so easily intimidated by C&RT's threats and tactics. The very fact that C&RT are exceeding their powers and misusing legislation does leave them open and vulnerable to cost free but effective retaliation simply by means of correct use of the legislation that they are misusing

 

At present C&RT are pursuing a County Court Section 8 action against me, which so far, which will have cost them in the region of £8 - 10,000 already, and they've got absolutely nowhere, and nor will they.

Control of the situation, including the question of whether or not the matter proceeds to trial, or even to or beyond the Directions hearing [ listed for 17 Oct ] , rests entirely with me.

Should I elect to buy a Licence or PBC, at any time of my choosing, then they have no option but to immediately discontinue the action, entirely at their expense.

Why would you do that if you are so insistent that you are in the right?

[Alan de Enfield]

Why would you do that if you are so insistent that you are in the right?

 

Keep up at the back.

 

He doesn't need it unless he moves the boat into the MNC (Main Navigation Channel) - at which point no-one argues that a licence certificate is not needed.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[Naughty Cal]

 

Keep up at the back.

 

He doesn't need it unless he moves the boat into the MNC (Main Navigation Channel) - at which point no-one argues that a licence certificate is not needed.

And let me guess he will need to move into the MNC on say the 16th October?

 

The day before his hearing no less.

[valrene9600]

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?

If you pay for a marina berth, as you say "away from home" then want to keep the boat on a towpath NEAR to home, my question is WHY?

If you save your mooring fee you only have to travel short distances to regularly move the boat and comply with CRT guidelines.

Something seems not quite right with your intentions.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

He doesn't need it unless he moves the boat into the MNC (Main Navigation Channel) - at which point no-one argues that a licence certificate is not needed.

 

That would be one reason for buying a PBC, but an alternative, and an equally likely one would be to demonstrate to C&RT the futility of misusing statutory powers that they were given for purposes other than to intimidate boaters into complying with unlawful and otherwise unenforceable demands and Licence T&C's.

They are unbelievably slow learners, but the penny may drop eventually.

[Naughty Cal]

 

That would be one reason for buying a PBC, but an alternative, and an equally likely one would be to demonstrate to C&RT the futility of misusing statutory powers that they were given for purposes other than to intimidate boaters into complying with unlawful and otherwise unenforceable demands and Licence T&C's.

They are unbelievably slow learners, but the penny may drop eventually.

would be realising that you are not going to get the result you want in court and buying a licence to stop proceedings?

[billS]

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

 

Perhaps he finds it difficult to never use a split infinitive.

[Richard10002]

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

 

Presumably because, with a home mooring, you only need to move from a mooring after 14 days, but not necessarily to another place, and you dont have to be on a bona fide navigation.

 

My reading was that he plans to move every 14 days, but remain within the Milton Keynes area/place, thus not complying with CC rules, (and not needing to??)

[Greylady2]

 

Presumably because, with a home mooring, you only need to move from a mooring after 14 days, but not necessarily to another place, and you dont have to be on a bona fide navigation.

 

My reading was that he plans to move every 14 days, but remain within the Milton Keynes area/place, thus not complying with CC rules, (and not needing to??)

I spoke to a Crt boat spotter/logger and he said you dont need to move far because you have a home mooring.

 

From the horses mouth but how far is not too far ?

 

The plot thickens.

[Naughty Cal]

 

Presumably because, with a home mooring, you only need to move from a mooring after 14 days, but not necessarily to another place, and you dont have to be on a bona fide navigation.

 

My reading was that he plans to move every 14 days, but remain within the Milton Keynes area/place, thus not complying with CC rules, (and not needing to??)

I don't know the MK area but would it not be feasible to move every 14 days, be within a reasonable commute of MK and stay within the CCing guidelines given the small distances that CRT have previously indicated would be acceptable?

[Geo]

Maybe it would be better to concentrate on what the rules are as far as CRT are concerned and what they mean and not spend pages saying whatever CRT say they are wrong but the only way you can prove it is by take CRT to court or wait for them to take you to court. That on the whole achieves nothing for the guys&gals who just want to be able to use the canals as peacefully as possible without hassle or aggravation.

 

For those who are happy to take on CRT that is OK and they will have my support. But in the meantime we need to remember people who want a quiet gentle life on the canals be they home moorers or CCers.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Geo