Waterways Acts

[Jerra]

Maybe it doesn't need preventing as it is self controlling given effective enforcement?

 

In theory.

If there are no powers to do anything to a boater with a mooring at the other end of the country how can it be enforced? To me that is the whole point of the T & Cs they are CRTs attempt to give themselves some powers to enforce. It would appear there currently isn't anything that is deemed legal that they can do so I can't see how it can be self controlling.

[NigelMoore]

 

Do you know specifically which one?

 

Yes.

 

Section 8(5) of the 1983 Act [as distinct from s.8(2)], given extra teeth by the SC in allowing passage of s.18 of the 1995 Act.

 

This was the power that led the Chairman of the committee to declare that "operationally you are Ok", when concluding that the extra powers Allan mentioned as being sought, were superfluous to requirements.

[Paul C]

 

Yes.

 

Section 8(5) of the 1983 Act [as distinct from s.8(2)], given extra teeth by the SC in allowing passage of s.18 of the 1995 Act.

 

This was the power that led the Chairman of the committee to declare that "operationally you are Ok", when concluding that the extra powers Allan mentioned as being sought, were superfluous to requirements.

 

Nigel, do you have your numbers right? Section 8(5) relates to being able to remove an unsafe vessel, Allan's post related to BW wanting to restrict overstaying and he claims they already have powers to do this.

[NigelMoore]

It does not relate to unsafe vessels only, Paul; it also relates to boats which are "an obstruction". The courts have found in BW's favour that overstaying designated mooring times constitutes "an obstruction" for the purposes of this sub-section.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Nigel, do you have your numbers right? Section 8(5) relates to being able to remove an unsafe vessel, Allan's post related to BW wanting to restrict overstaying and he claims they already have powers to do this.

Section 8(5) allows the board to move a boat causing an obstruction.

 

*** edited to say Nigel has already answered.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Paul C]

It does not relate to unsafe vessels only, Paul; it also relates to boats which are "an obstruction". The courts have found in BW's favour that overstaying designated mooring times constitutes "an obstruction" for the purposes of this sub-section.

 

 

Section 8(5) allows the board to move a boat causing an obstruction.

 

*** edited to say Nigel has already answered.

 

...Which brings us back to the original focus of this thread, and clearly counterpoints Allan's suggestion that "Those reasons hold just as true today as they did 20-25 years ago." Firstly, there's the practical aspect of if you move an overstaying boat simply because its an obstruction, where do you move it to? Logic says that the less distance the more efficient; and secondly, is moving such a boat to a new nearby mooring spot really a sufficient deterrent? Of course its debatable (and I would expect many to disagree) that simply overstaying is an issue in itself - certainly there is a case on both sides, and I think a lot depends on context of the situation. Many feel that congested areas such as inner London and areas of the K&A are becoming an issue and their popularity today contrasts sharply with their situation 20-25 years ago.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

 

 

...Which brings us back to the original focus of this thread, and clearly counterpoints Allan's suggestion that "Those reasons hold just as true today as they did 20-25 years ago." Firstly, there's the practical aspect of if you move an overstaying boat simply because its an obstruction, where do you move it to? Logic says that the less distance the more efficient; and secondly, is moving such a boat to a new nearby mooring spot really a sufficient deterrent? Of course its debatable (and I would expect many to disagree) that simply overstaying is an issue in itself - certainly there is a case on both sides, and I think a lot depends on context of the situation. Many feel that congested areas such as inner London and areas of the K&A are becoming an issue and their popularity today contrasts sharply with their situation 20-25 years ago.

I think you rather miss the point Paul. As I have already posted, BW asked for powers to prevent overstaying - that is, powers to erect notices controlling mooring with fines and a criminal record for contravention. However, they were unable to convince regarding the operational need for such measures.

 

If they asked for these powers again, then they would have to show the operational need for such measures and also show why the increased powers granted under the 1995 Act to control mooring times for those without home moorings were not working.

[Paul C]

I think you rather miss the point Paul. As I have already posted, BW asked for powers to prevent overstaying - that is, powers to erect notices controlling mooring with fines and a criminal record for contravention. However, they were unable to convince regarding the operational need for such measures.

 

If they asked for these powers again, then they would have to show the operational need for such measures and also show why the increased powers granted under the 1995 Act to control mooring times for those without home moorings were not working.

 

No worries, I know you did say the two things - no operational need & already have sufficient powers.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

No worries, I know you did say the two things - no operational need & already have sufficient powers.

It's also worth noting that both BW and CaRT have given themselves powers to fine (BW) or charge (CaRT) for overstaying. They would also have to convince that these were insufficient for operational needs.

[Paul C]

It's also worth noting that both BW and CaRT have given themselves powers to fine (BW) or charge (CaRT) for overstaying. They would also have to convince that these were insufficient for operational needs.

 

Possibly it might occur the other way round - as in, someone challenges their powers to charge for overstaying, is (partly) successfuly, then CRT ask for additional powers in a new Act.

 

But yes, if such a challenge occurred which brought about their asking for additional powers, they may use that opportunity to clarify/gain other additional powers in a different area where they've already assumed them by a broad interpretation of eg 1962 Act or something.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Possibly it might occur the other way round - as in, someone challenges their powers to charge for overstaying, is (partly) successfuly, then CRT ask for additional powers in a new Act.

 

But yes, if such a challenge occurred which brought about their asking for additional powers, they may use that opportunity to clarify/gain other additional powers in a different area where they've already assumed them by a broad interpretation of eg 1962 Act or something.

My understanding is that CaRT can no longer introduce a private Bill (hopefully Nigel will clarify my understanding). They have also rejected the idea of introducing the not so new draft 'waiting in the wings' bye-laws citing the EA merger.

 

I think the problem that they will have with either course of statutory action is that they will have to admit that imposition of licencing conditions, in full or in part, is ultra vires. They will also have to admit that their interpretation of the 1995 Act is not in accord with what the select committee were told 20+ years ago.

 

In the short term, I don't see anything happening regarding legislation. In the medium to longer term, should CaRT acquire EA waterways, there would be an opportunity for a new Act/bye-laws to 'simplify' legislation.

[Paul C]

Basically I agree, I can't see anything happening short term. The topic of this thread, although interesting in its own way, is more of a theoretical one rather than relating to actual events. Longer term.....who knows? Funny things could happen. Personally, I agree that the EA merger will be a chance to change/tweak legislation, but also a pragmatic way forwards might be to adopt regional/local rules on canals for particular hotspot areas, possibly via local authorities being given more powers in their areas. I don't know how or if it could work though.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Basically I agree, I can't see anything happening short term. The topic of this thread, although interesting in its own way, is more of a theoretical one rather than relating to actual events. Longer term.....who knows? Funny things could happen. Personally, I agree that the EA merger will be a chance to change/tweak legislation, but also a pragmatic way forwards might be to adopt regional/local rules on canals for particular hotspot areas, possibly via local authorities being given more powers in their areas. I don't know how or if it could work though.

I might be able to post some information regarding the proposed merger shortly. At the moment, I am being given the runaround by E. A. guy responsible.