Jump to content

Waterways Acts


cobaltcodd

Featured Posts

Whilst on the trip, licence contracts, Waterways Acts and ticking boxes never crossed my mind.

 

I think I see the point of that story. For so long as you were cruising, nothing in this topic crossed your mind, yet as soon as you stopped, you couldn't wait to get right back on site to it.

 

The moral is don’t stop cruising?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A hint perhaps of the level of legal advice sought can be discovered in the following:

 

Someone has put the direct question to CaRT over the use of s.43 vis-a-vis boat licences, and the applicability of the T&C’s as binding terms upon which holding a licence is subject. The question being made through the WhatDoTheyKnow website, CaRT initially responded: “We are not obliged to provide answers to questions when we do not already have the relevant information to answer the questions in a recorded form, such is the case here. The information you have requested in therefore not held by us.”

 

The requester then queried who in CaRT he should ask, and they had the courtesy to post a lengthy reply from one of their paralegals, some 2 months later. This contained much of the usual nonsense, and the requester replied on 28 August with a series of very pertinent questions relating to what had been published. No reply to that has yet been made; a polite query as to when an answer may be expected was posted today.

 

Based on the time delay over the previous CaRT response, this query is perhaps premature – another month or so would fit the previous time frame better. However, I somehow doubt that he will get any further response. I hope to be pleasantly surprised to be shown wrong.

 

It could well be helpful, though, to those interested, to read the Q&A session thus far - with the paralegal perspective laid out clearly - which can be found here :–

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/enforcement_officers_authority_t?nocache=incoming-845555#incoming-845555

 

 

I think that Mr Brooks has been reading this thread and, in his questions, has made a 'respectable summary' of the pertinent points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A hint perhaps of the level of legal advice sought can be discovered in the following:

 

Someone has put the direct question to CaRT over the use of s.43 vis-a-vis boat licences, and the applicability of the T&C’s as binding terms upon which holding a licence is subject. The question being made through the WhatDoTheyKnow website, CaRT initially responded: “We are not obliged to provide answers to questions when we do not already have the relevant information to answer the questions in a recorded form, such is the case here. The information you have requested in therefore not held by us.”

 

The requester then queried who in CaRT he should ask, and they had the courtesy to post a lengthy reply from one of their paralegals, some 2 months later. This contained much of the usual nonsense, and the requester replied on 28 August with a series of very pertinent questions relating to what had been published. No reply to that has yet been made; a polite query as to when an answer may be expected was posted today.

Based on the time delay over the previous CaRT response, this query is perhaps premature – another month or so would fit the previous time frame better. However, I somehow doubt that he will get any further response. I hope to be pleasantly surprised to be shown wrong.

It could well be helpful, though, to those interested, to read the Q&A session thus far - with the paralegal perspective laid out clearly - which can be found here :–

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/enforcement_officers_authority_t?nocache=incoming-845555#incoming-845555

 

I note the paralegal states

 

"The current General Terms and Conditions for Boat Licences (“the Ts & Cs”) took effect on May 2015 and are binding on all boaters when they purchase a boat licence. Under Paragraph 4 of the Ts and Cs, a licence holder must “continuously

cruise” in accordance with the British Waterways Act 1995 (the “Act”) and the Trust’s Guidance For Boats Without a Home Mooring, outlined in Schedule 2 of the Ts & Cs, which outlines a boater without a home mooring should not remain in any one place more than fourteen days, unless it is reasonable in the circumstances."

 

I am very confused where in the relevant Acts does it state that boats with a home mooring are required to 'continuously cruise' . Is their a legal definition ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note the paralegal states

 

"The current General Terms and Conditions for Boat Licences (“the Ts & Cs”) took effect on May 2015 and are binding on all boaters when they purchase a boat licence. Under Paragraph 4 of the Ts and Cs, a licence holder must “continuously

cruise” in accordance with the British Waterways Act 1995 (the “Act”) and the Trust’s Guidance For Boats Without a Home Mooring, outlined in Schedule 2 of the Ts & Cs, which outlines a boater without a home mooring should not remain in any one place more than fourteen days, unless it is reasonable in the circumstances."

 

I am very confused where in the relevant Acts does it state that boats with a home mooring are required to 'continuously cruise' . Is their a legal definition ?

There is no definition for 'cruising', according to CaRT. It takes its dictionary definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think I see the point of that story. For so long as you were cruising, nothing in this topic crossed your mind, yet as soon as you stopped, you couldn't wait to get right back on site to it.

 

The moral is don’t stop cruising?

 

 

No, not that I couldn't wait to get back to the thread Nigel. When I was a young man striving for management glory in BT a mentor gave me a statement to consider, "Know thine enemy." Within a large company there is lot of politicing, hidden agenda's, ulterior motives, front and back stabbing taking place within the management spheres.

 

It was wise to know who was with you and who was against you. I am very glad I am retired and out of that world now.

 

It is, as I'm sure you would agree, wise to be aware of all facets of an argument regardless of which "side" you are on.

 

It is just when I go boating I am able to leave all my cares behind me, but I still have responsibilities on the land I am unable to shirk.

Edited by Ray T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note the paralegal states

 

"The current General Terms and Conditions for Boat Licences (“the Ts & Cs”) took effect on May 2015 and are binding on all boaters when they purchase a boat licence. Under Paragraph 4 of the Ts and Cs, a licence holder must “continuously

cruise” in accordance with the British Waterways Act 1995 (the “Act”) and the Trust’s Guidance For Boats Without a Home Mooring, outlined in Schedule 2 of the Ts & Cs, which outlines a boater without a home mooring should not remain in any one place more than fourteen days, unless it is reasonable in the circumstances."

 

I am very confused where in the relevant Acts does it state that boats with a home mooring are required to 'continuously cruise' . Is their a legal definition ?

I don't see that the reply suggests that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, not that I couldn't wait to get back to the thread Nigel. When I was a young man striving for management glory in BT a mentor gave me a statement to consider, "Know thine enemy." Within a large company there is lot of politicing, hidden agenda's, ulterior motives, front and back stabbing taking place within the management spheres.

 

It was wise to know who was with you and who was against you. I am very glad I am retired and out of that world now.

 

It, as I'm sure you would agree, wise to be aware of all facets of an argument regardless of which "side" you are on.

 

It is just when I go boating I am able to leave all my cares behind me, but I still have responsibilities on the land I am unable to shirk.

Was just playing Ray; cannot but agree with your penetrating observations.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no definition for 'cruising', according to CaRT. It takes its dictionary definition.

 

In their T&Cs C&RT define 'cruise' & 'cruising' as "using a boat bona fide for navigation" no problem with that for boats who have declared 'no home mooring' as that is completely in line with the 1995 requirements - however where it does get (shall we say) "questionable" is where C&RT say (again in their T&Cs)

 

3. Boats with a Home Mooring

3.1 You must cruise on the Waterways whilst you are away from the Home Mooring (save for any period when you leave the Waterways or when the Boat is lawfully moored at another mooring site)

 

4. Boats without a Home Mooring or ‘Continuous Cruisers’

4.1 You must cruise in accordance with the British Waterways Act 1995.......

 

C&RT (apparently) have decided that a boat with a declared Home Mooring is now expected to comply with the same legislation as those without a Home Mooring.

 

If the 'rules' are now the same, why is it that boats with a Home Mooring are required to :

 

3.4 You must tell us in writing if your Home Mooring changes or if you decide to no longer have a Home Mooring

 

Whilst boats without a Home Mooring have no such requirement if their status changes (ie take a mooring for Winter)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In their T&Cs C&RT define 'cruise' & 'cruising' as "using a boat bona fide for navigation" no problem with that for boats who have declared 'no home mooring' as that is completely in line with the 1995 requirements - however where it does get (shall we say) "questionable" is where C&RT say (again in their T&Cs)

 

3. Boats with a Home Mooring

3.1 You must cruise on the Waterways whilst you are away from the Home Mooring (save for any period when you leave the Waterways or when the Boat is lawfully moored at another mooring site)

 

4. Boats without a Home Mooring or ‘Continuous Cruisers’

4.1 You must cruise in accordance with the British Waterways Act 1995.......

 

C&RT (apparently) have decided that a boat with a declared Home Mooring is now expected to comply with the same legislation as those without a Home Mooring.

 

If the 'rules' are now the same, why is it that boats with a Home Mooring are required to :

 

3.4 You must tell us in writing if your Home Mooring changes or if you decide to no longer have a Home Mooring

 

Whilst boats without a Home Mooring have no such requirement if their status changes (ie take a mooring for Winter)

Isn't it fairly obviously an attempt to prevent somebody having a home mooring 200 miles away and staying for the next umpteen months/years in a very restricted area as a CMer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it fairly obviously an attempt to prevent somebody having a home mooring 200 miles away and staying for the next umpteen months/years in a very restricted area as a CMer?

 

I am sure you are correct - however (as I posted earlier in the thread) even the Judge HHJ Halbert, in his comments stated that C&RT do not have the 'authority' to make such demands :

 

, ......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.......

 

........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.

 

Whilst the comments are not binding on any court, I would suggest that they would be considered as quite persuasive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Whilst the comments are not binding on any court, I would suggest that they would be considered as quite persuasive.

The problem as I see it is that unless CRT try such methods there is no way they can prevent certain parts of the system becoming linear housing projects.

 

I know that won't go down well with those who have the attitude that everything CRT does is automatically wrong, but how would they suggest CRT prevent the linear housing effect.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I know that won't go down well with those who have the attitude that everything CRT does is automatically wrong, but how would they suggest CRT prevent the linear housing effect.

 

 

Plenty on here who see nothing wrong with the canals becoming linear housing estates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem as I see it is that unless CRT try such methods there is no way they can prevent certain parts of the system becoming linear housing projects.

 

I know that won't go down well with those who have the attitude that everything CRT does is automatically wrong, but how would they suggest CRT prevent the linear housing effect.

 

By no means is 'everything that C&RT do automatically wrong', but they already have sufficient powers to stop the development of' linear housing estates', if they enforced the existing legislation properly instead of making themselves look silly by inventing new laws and wasting time and money in frivolous court cases, then they could (relatively simply) sort out many of the problems.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

By no means is 'everything that C&RT do automatically wrong', but they already have sufficient powers to stop the development of' linear housing estates', if they enforced the existing legislation properly instead of making themselves look silly by inventing new laws and wasting time and money in frivolous court cases, then they could (relatively simply) sort out many of the problems.

So which part of the existing regulation can they use against somebody with a cheap home mooring on say the Lancaster canal who has spent 5 years within half a mile of a town centre?

 

And there are a few on here who do thing that if CRT has done it it is automatically wrong. at least that is how they come over to me and it would seem MtB as well.

 

EDIT: Just to make it clear a town centre someway south of Birmingham.

Edited by Jerra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So which part of the existing regulation can they use against somebody with a cheap home mooring on say the Lancaster canal who has spent 5 years within half a mile of a town centre?

 

And there are a few on here who do thing that if CRT has done it it is automatically wrong. at least that is how they come over to me and it would seem MtB as well.

 

EDIT: Just to make it clear a town centre someway south of Birmingham.

Well they could withdraw consent claiming he was not cruising as per the conditions of his licence ...

 

But that would be wrong.

 

I think everyone needs to remember that BW asked for permission to restrict mooring in the Bill that became the 1995 Act by the erection of signs with fines and a criminal record for contravention. The also asked for powers to compel all boats to have a home mooring. In the event they could not convince a select committee of the need for either.

 

To my mind, the reasons for this were -

 

They could give no operational reason why such measures were needed.

 

They were unable to show why existing powers were insufficient.

 

Those reasons hold just as true today as they did 20-25 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well they could withdraw consent claiming he was not cruising as per the conditions of his licence ...

 

But that would be wrong.

 

I think everyone needs to remember that BW asked for permission to restrict mooring in the Bill that became the 1995 Act by the erection of signs with fines and a criminal record for contravention. The also asked for powers to compel all boats to have a home mooring. In the event they could not convince a select committee of the need for either.

 

To my mind, the reasons for this were -

 

They could give no operational reason why such measures were needed.

 

They were unable to show why existing powers were insufficient.

 

Those reasons hold just as true today as they did 20-25 years ago.

SO what can they do to prevent the scenario I suggested above? Nothing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well they could withdraw consent claiming he was not cruising as per the conditions of his licence ...

 

But that would be wrong.

 

I think everyone needs to remember that BW asked for permission to restrict mooring in the Bill that became the 1995 Act by the erection of signs with fines and a criminal record for contravention. The also asked for powers to compel all boats to have a home mooring. In the event they could not convince a select committee of the need for either.

 

To my mind, the reasons for this were -

 

They could give no operational reason why such measures were needed.

 

They were unable to show why existing powers were insufficient.

 

Those reasons hold just as true today as they did 20-25 years ago.

 

Do you know specifically which one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.