Waterways Acts

[NigelMoore]

I understand what you are saying, but I maintain that the CC’ing debacle is not managing the waterways according to legislation or practical realities to begin with.

If a boat is causing a genuine problem, then the powers exist to deal with it promptly. The “complete dog’s breakfast” arises from efforts to achieve something never conceived of in the relevant legislation, with the only perceived means to enforce that being employment of a single, highly inappropriate and disproportionate power.

The solution lies more in re-education of the authority, not in the passage of yet more laws.

[Paul C]

The powers exist but the effort/cost to properly enforce it just aren't there. Basically laws need to be simple and easy to enforce otherwise they are useless or irrelevant.

Look at the number of speeding tickets vs driving without due care & attention charges brought in court. Or, the new laws on driving while using a mobile phone.

[MtB]

The powers exist but the effort/cost to properly enforce it just aren't there. Basically laws need to be simple and easy to enforce otherwise they are useless or irrelevant.

Look at the number of speeding tickets vs driving without due care & attention charges brought in court. Or, the new laws on driving while using a mobile phone.

 

 

What new law is that then Paul? I know it's been in the news yesterday but I thought they were just doubling the existing penalties.

[MtB]

As you so often point out to others , you don't have to read them and other forums are available , the threads to which you refer have done more to help and educate boaters about the rights they have than I have seen anywhere else , your description of people exerciseing their rights as taking advantage of loopholes is truly pathetic ,

 

 

Possibly true, but also completely accurate.

 

Mooring up for 14 days at a time then moving just over a km looks exactly like taking advantage of a loophole to me.

 

The law was drafted envisioning boats without a home mooring to be continuously moving except for occasional stops or breaks of up to 14 days.

 

Bad law-drafting has allowed a loophole where the law can be re-interpreted as boats without a home mooring being allowed to be kept stationary on the public towpath provided they are moved a token distance of just over one kilometre once every 14 days.

 

This was not parliament's intention as I understand it but turns out to be perfectly legal, therefore it fits the definition of a loophole as far as I can see, and any future legislation seems likely to close this loophole in my opinion so best not to wish for it.

Edited September 18, 2016 by Mike the Boilerman

[Alan de Enfield]

 

There would have been no great “order of magnitude larger” difficulty [in terms of draftsmanship anyway]; BW had that all worked out, with clause 27 of the 1990 Bill – abolish all private rights at a stroke.

 

It is frightening to see just how close that clause came to surviving passage through Parliament; it is only thanks to the efforts of boaters such as Tam & Di Murrell of this Forum, and Simon Greer and others, that sufficient organised opposition led to it being dropped before the final hurdle was faced.

 

 

 

 

Yes - we owe then a great vote of thanks - it is a good job that the current crop of boaters that seem to be saying "it doesn't mater what C&RT do, its not affecting me, lets just all get on with our boating & have a quiet life" were not the ones relied on in the '90s.

 

We are fortunate that we have the 'next generation' of fighters in Nigel, Tony and a few others.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

We are fortunate that we have the 'next generation' of fighters in Nigel, Tony and a few others.

 

Kind of you to say so Alan, but I don't really think I can be included as one of the 'next generation'. Having left school to live and work on commercial boats on the rivers and canals some 52 years ago, I'm more of a decaying remnant of the last one.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

 

Possibly true, but also completely accurate.

 

Mooring up for 14 days at a time then moving just over a km looks exactly like taking advantage of a loophole to me.

 

The law was drafted envisioning boats without a home mooring to be continuously moving except for occasional stops or breaks of up to 14 days.

 

Bad law-drafting has allowed a loophole where the law can be re-interpreted as boats without a home mooring being allowed to be kept stationary on the public towpath provided they are moved a token distance of just over one kilometre once every 14 days.

 

This was not parliament's intention as I understand it but turns out to be perfectly legal, therefore it fits the definition of a loophole as far as I can see, and any future legislation seems likely to close this loophole in my opinion so best not to wish for it.

I think you will find that the law allows any boater to moor for as long as is reasonable. The reason for this is that BW were unable to convince parliament that all boaters should have a home mooring and secondly were unable to convince that casual mooring should be limited to 14 days.

Edited September 18, 2016 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Jerra]

Isn't that against forum rules? Personal comments etc

 

Edit to add second sentence

Isn't the whole of the discussion being about laws and the government of necessity political and against forum rules?

 

 

Where is that tongue in cheek emoticon when you need it!

[MtB]

Isn't the whole of the discussion being about laws and the government of necessity political and against forum rules?

 

 

You havenlt read the Rules and Guidlines for a while have you?!

 

"Posting any material, anywhere on the site, that is deemed to have a primarily political theme that is not strictly related to inland waterways and/or boating is prohibited."...

 

[Jerra]

 

You havenlt read the Rules and Guidlines for a while have you?!

 

"Posting any material, anywhere on the site, that is deemed to have a primarily political theme that is not strictly related to inland waterways and/or boating is prohibited."...

 

Hence the tongue in cheek.

[MtB]

Hence the tongue in cheek.

 

I hadn't read them for a while either actually, unto the other day when I noticed a tiny link to them on every page of this site.

 

Look down in the bottom right hand corner for the link - immediate and easy access to the Forum Rules and Gidelines!

[stovepipe]

I think many problems would dissapear if C&RT were brought before Parliament and given a slapping down. Possibly installing proper independent oversight of their statutory functions, and getting a judicial panel to define the true meaning of the legislation especially the parts that C&RT are obviously lying about. I don't think its fair that boaters will have to fund multiple judicial reviews because the C&RT are deliberately taking the pee out of the legislation.

 

For instance claiming that the 1962 transport act allows them to make their own licence conditions, when licences were not invented until 1974 ! Why should boaters have to fund challenges to pure nonsense like that ?

[Graham Davis]

For instance claiming that the 1962 transport act allows them to make their own licence conditions, when licences were not invented until 1974 ! Why should boaters have to fund challenges to pure nonsense like that ?

 

What?

I'm sure someone will be along soon to deflate that.

[spadefoot]

The idea that someone in authority could be wrong, really bothers you, doesn't it Graham.

[Graham Davis]

The idea that someone in authority could be wrong, really bothers you, doesn't it Graham.

 

Not at all.

[stovepipe]

Do you actually know what's wrong with what I posted Graham ? Or do you just feel it can't be true ?

 

Or do you wish it wasn't true ?

[Mike Todd]

 

There would have been no great “order of magnitude larger” difficulty [in terms of draftsmanship anyway]; BW had that all worked out, with clause 27 of the 1990 Bill – abolish all private rights at a stroke.

 

It is frightening to see just how close that clause came to surviving passage through Parliament; it is only thanks to the efforts of boaters such as Tam & Di Murrell of this Forum, and Simon Greer and others, that sufficient organised opposition led to it being dropped before the final hurdle was faced.

 

In all truth – why should private rights be abolished? It would not make for better management of the system; it would only provide a potential for a private company to make more money than presently possible, from exploiting the interests of others involuntarily [whereas the major siren song of the old BW upper echelon promoted the illusion that volunteering for the new 'charity' was the lucrative and exciting way forward].

 

Then, too, the legislation already provides for efficient management of the system and enforcement of the requirements; it is simply that the legislated remedies do not suit the palate of the current enforcement and legal departments. They have a taste for stronger medicine than existing applicable legislation provides.

 

“Operationally” said the Chairman of the Commons Select Committee back in 1993 [speaking of then available legislation], “you are OK”. That remains as true today as it did back then.

 

I wasn't particularly thinking about the drafting process (as you say it could be just a one liner) more about the amount of consultation that would be needed - everyone and their grandmother would want to have their day about the loss of their rights etc etc. If it will take over four years to approve a Chinese reactor, why should a new comprehensive waterways act that solves all known problems take any less ):

[NigelMoore]

For instance claiming that the 1962 transport act allows them to make their own licence conditions, when licences were not invented until 1974 !

 

The principle addressed here is valid, so my response should be taken only as illustrative of my inclination to pedantry, not as detracting from the point.

 

The fact is that licences were a condition of use of the canals, the mandatory imposition of which was made possible only following the 1975 Act, so the date of 1974 is just that little bit off – and that power to pass byelaws requiring licences was only enacted in 1976.

 

As to the “invention” of licences, those, as a non-mandatory item, have been around for almost as long as the original canal companies. These were a voluntary scheme entered into by both company and boater as a matter of mutual benefit. The licence granted freedom to use the waterways without being subject to the various tolls in force.

 

It should be remembered in this context that the canal companies had always been entitled to charge for the use by boats of their waterways [with some exceptions], but whereas the tolls for commercial boats were relatively straightforward, and easy to keep track of due to the fixed destinations of the cargo being carried, the same never held true for pleasure boats.

 

Pleasure boats being entitled to be kept and used on the water free of charge, they nonetheless became due to pay tolls under certain circumstances, when passing through locks. Not having to go anywhere in particular, and maybe passing through locks or not, keeping track of where they had been and were intending to go was obviously impossible, and besides, the liability to lock tolls could be entirely dependant on the weather, so it was an administrative nightmare.

 

Issuing a licence to use the boat without having to pay the tolls, was sure income and nil hassle for the company, and both cheaper and more convenient for the boater.

 

An example of a pre-BTC licence –

 

 

[Graham Davis]

Do you actually know what's wrong with what I posted Graham ? Or do you just feel it can't be true ?

 

Or do you wish it wasn't true ?

 

See the comments from Nigel.

[stovepipe]

I should have said "mandatory licences" my mistake. Or "licences as we know them" ?

 

Were the voluntary licences subject to statututory conditions like the ones we have now ?

[Paul C]

The 1962 Act was never repealed, thus it remains a relevant law that we must abide by. Is your interpretation that its nonsense based on the fact that you don't like it or a legal principle?

[NigelMoore]

I wasn't particularly thinking about the drafting process (as you say it could be just a one liner) more about the amount of consultation that would be needed - everyone and their grandmother would want to have their day about the loss of their rights etc etc. If it will take over four years to approve a Chinese reactor, why should a new comprehensive waterways act that solves all known problems take any less ):

 

Agreed, the consultation process would slow it down – but enough?

 

The “abolish all private rights” clause survived it’s first passage through the Commons and subsequently through the Lords, only being dropped in the fourth year. That was despite considerable MP support for and engagement with, the boaters and their organisations in opposing the clause.

 

How much stomach do present day boaters and their organisations have, to work as hard to preserve their position? Not much, I fear. Add to that a groundswell of dissatisfaction within the boating community itself, over those perceived as causing problems, and the liklihood of sustained action seems unlikely.

 

Consider just how fast the 2012 Transition Order was pushed through, despite the consultations – and look at how very few consultation responses were received from boating organisations or individuals. There was so much at fault in that Bill that needed highlighting and redrafting, and yet only a couple of people took the time to make any protest; canvas the politicians, and meet with the law-makers in Parliament.

 

The result is what we see today: a system being run into the ground because the new legislation allows CaRT to do so; an executive immune from parliamentary censure so long as they keep their balance books tidy, and a legal and enforcement division enabled to ride rough-shod over their clientele to no financial profit but rather loss, and resulting in neither better administration nor benefit to the system.

 

The 2012 Order was shoved through the Parliamentary process in full and open recognition that the system would deteriorate for years as a result, and with complete understanding that abuse of legal process would run unchecked, and unmonitored by any government branch. Parliament has left it to individual members of the public to now bring the company to account, while simultaneously removing essential tools formerly provided for that purpose.

 

But CaRT would not pursue a new Act now, even if they could promote such - which they cannot [leaving one thankful for such small mercies]; they have realised from their BW days, since experiencing the traumas of the 1990 Bill, that they have no need of legislation when they can run their own unilaterally devised programs - relying on boaters to rise in arms against other boaters in support of the authority. Now that the company basks under the glow of charitable status, the moral superiority of the customer demand that 'everyone pay their way' over-rides every other concern.

 

It is all a bit Animal Farm somehow. The upshot being that BW/CaRT know they can do as they wish, without the need for a new Act. Had they thought otherwise, they would have acted accordingly many years ago, and promoted new legislation [as their barrister muttered darkly to the Select Committee, back in 1993].

 

[stovepipe]

The 1962 Act was never repealed, thus it remains a relevant law that we must abide by. Is your interpretation that its nonsense based on the fact that you don't like it or a legal principle?

I didn't say the 1962 TA was nonsense.

[stovepipe]

Agreed, the consultation process would slow it down – but enough?

The “abolish all private rights” clause survived it’s first passage through the Commons and subsequently through the Lords, only being dropped in the fourth year. That was despite considerable MP support for and engagement with, the boaters and their organisations in opposing the clause.

How much stomach do present day boaters and their organisations have, to work as hard to preserve their position? Not much, I fear. Add to that a groundswell of dissatisfaction within the boating community itself, over those perceived as causing problems, and the liklihood of sustained action seems unlikely.

Consider just how fast the 2012 Transition Order was pushed through, despite the consultations – and look at how very few consultation responses were received from boating organisations or individuals. There was so much at fault in that Bill that needed highlighting and redrafting, and yet only a couple of people took the time to make any protest; canvas the politicians, and meet with the law-makers in Parliament.

The result is what we see today: a system being run into the ground because the new legislation allows CaRT to do so; an executive immune from parliamentary censure so long as they keep their balance books tidy, and a legal and enforcement division enabled to ride rough-shod over their clientele to no financial profit but rather loss, and resulting in neither better administration nor benefit to the system.

The 2012 Order was shoved through the Parliamentary process in full and open recognition that the system would deteriorate for years as a result, and with complete understanding that abuse of legal process would run unchecked, and unmonitored by any government branch. Parliament has left it to individual members of the public to now bring the company to account, while simultaneously removing essential tools formerly provided for that purpose.

But CaRT would not pursue a new Act now, even if they could promote such - which they cannot [leaving one thankful for such small mercies]; they have realised from their BW days, since experiencing the traumas of the 1990 Bill, that they have no need of legislation when they can run their own unilaterally devised programs - relying on boaters to rise in arms against other boaters in support of the authority. Now that the company basks under the glow of charitable status, the moral superiority of the customer demand that 'everyone pay their way' over-rides every other concern.

It is all a bit Animal Farm somehow. The upshot being that BW/CaRT know they can do as they wish, without the need for a new Act. Had they thought otherwise, they would have acted accordingly many years ago, and promoted new legislation [as their barrister muttered darkly to the Select Committee, back in 1993].

 

But the C&RT are basing much of what they want to do on conning boaters that they have a contract with them, you won't hear any mention of the actual law now from any C&RT employees it seems they have all been breifed to promote the contract idea. Enforcement officers only talk of breaking the terms and conditions, and renewing a licence by phone you will be told your licence is issued under the 1962 transport act, this is like a house of cards, the minute this is challenged in court the whole thing will collapse, what are they going to do then ?

[Paul C]

the minute this is challenged in court the whole thing will collapse

 

You seem to have made your mind up already on the issue at hand, despite no court case to validate your position. I shall remain more cautious and await a court ruling.