Equality Commision Investigates C&RT

[Alan de Enfield]

Can anyone tell me please - if a new set of guidelines was written to apply to everyone, not just people with children, that solved this problem of getting the kids to school, would there be a problem be with that?

 

If it was for everyone - whether kids or not. No favourable treatment for anyone, but rules that made it possible to get kids to schools.. Would this be easier to accept than rules that are just for families?

 

Thanks

 

For me it would depend on what the new 'rules' were :

 

If, for example, it was "anyone, with a no-home mooring declaration can moor anywhere, for as long as they like"

 

It would not only destroy the marina / mooring providers business as everybody would become CCers - it would suddenly mean that 25,000 extra boats could just stay where ever they wanted, for as long as they wanted.

Chaos !!!

I'd be voting against it.

 

Maybe you would care to suggest 'rules' that would meet 'your' needs but did not destroy the nature of the canals for the other 25,000 boaters.

[Murflynn]

perhaps you should describe a few alternative solutions that would fulfil your criteria.

 

 

 

 

edit - crossed with Alan's post.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Murflynn

[Geo]

Can anyone tell me please - if a new set of guidelines was written to apply to everyone, not just people with children, that solved this problem of getting the kids to school, would there be a problem be with that?

 

If it was for everyone - whether kids or not. No favourable treatment for anyone, but rules that made it possible to get kids to schools.. Would this be easier to accept than rules that are just for families?

 

Thanks

 

 

Unfortunately I suspect it would be easier for most people on the canals to accept a special arrangement that had to be done because of the Equalities Act, rather than a change that would allow the families with children stay where they needed to be, but everyone could do it. Unfortunately I get the impression that a lot of people would like to see the rules tightened rather than loosened.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Geo

[Teasel]

Well actually the rules meet my personal needs fine - I have a mooring and no kids.

 

The rules I would suggest are that a boat can stay in one place for up to 14 days and then move to another place.

 

I'd leave out the distance requirements and the cruising patterns stuff, but I might specify a minimum of, say, 6 places overall that are at least 1 or 2 km apart. That means you'd be in one place every 3 months or so. This is a first attempt though. I'm open to amendments.

Oh but hang on - what is the 'nature of the canals' that we want to 'protect for other boaters' Alan? What is it exactly that's been so terribly ruined for everyone and how does it need to be to meet everyone's needs?

[Arthur Marshall]

The old parish system worked OK years ago. But there weren't many boaters doing it then, and BW more or less turned a blind eye anyway. The problems come when more and more people need more or less permanent residential moorings when there aren't any. No different really from those who once would have been in council houses now having to go private.

I don't think that freeing the whole system up would damage marinas too much - most people would still want the security & convenience they provide.

[Iain_S]

The old parish system worked OK years ago. But there weren't many boaters doing it then, and BW more or less turned a blind eye anyway. The problems come when more and more people need more or less permanent residential moorings when there aren't any. No different really from those who once would have been in council houses now having to go private.

I don't think that freeing the whole system up would damage marinas too much - most people would still want the security & convenience they provide.

 

I'd agree, but the second sentence is an important one.

 

The various discussions relating to the definition of "place", as in Sec.17 of the Waterways Act 1995 prompted a (very) little research as to what the word actually meant in legal terms. Conclusion was anything from city, town, village or district, parish, street or "spot", so not very useful!

 

However, I'm sure Shoosmiths could make an argument for "place" to mean "county" as that appears to be the minimum required to define the locus of a charge, so maybe it's maybe better not to go there

[Jerra]

If boats with families on board were allowed to use leisure moorings as residential (OK I know there are all sorts of legal problems etc) would there be enough moorings for them?

[Geo]

If boats with families on board were allowed to use leisure moorings as residential (OK I know there are all sorts of legal problems etc) would there be enough moorings for them?

 

Lets put it this way, as I understand it there are under 5000 boats licensed as CCers, of those about 1000 who, according the little information that I can be find or scraped out, who are in or on the edge of enforcement. i.e. not cruising sufficiently. How many involve families only a guess say 50%, 500, could be less.

 

I am wondering how many boats are actually cruising on the busiest day of the year. I know from a marina where I moored my NB a few years ago that I cannot ever remember more than 10% of the boats being out.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Lets put it this way, as I understand it there are under 5000 boats licensed as CCers, of those about 1000 who, according the little information that I can be find or scraped out, who are in or on the edge of enforcement. i.e. not cruising sufficiently. How many involve families only a guess say 50%, 500, could be less.

 

 

 

C&RT have published quite a lot of information about non-compliant CCers.

 

This year there have been 1130 boats (with no home mooring) that have become subject to enforcement & rather than continue with enforcement, and, to give them an opportunity to show an improvement in movement pattern, C&RT offered them a restricted short term licence.

Details :

 

Of the1130 restricted licences offered, .........................

 

The actual outcome of those renewal offers.

 

Restriction removed - 12 month licence issued 25

Restricted licence purchased 652

Home mooring declaration made 131

Boat has changed ownership 98

Subject to ongoing enforcement action 56

Boat removed from network by owner 40

Still unlicensed 47

 

Grand Total 1049

 

The 652 restricted licences issued to give 'non-compliant' boaters the opportunity to 'mend their ways' were dispersed around the country, but by far the vast majority (77%) were in the 'South' of the Country :

 

London 287

South East 114

South West 99

Central East 36

North Wales & Midlands 38

Rest of the Country (North) 78

 

Edit to add :

 

Between May 2015 & March 2016 a not insubstantial number of 'adjustments' have been made by C&RT.

 

 

Since May 2015 over 860 requests for extended stays or a longer term adjustment under the Equality Act from boaters without a home mooring were granted. We encourage boaters to get in touch with us if they encounter a problem.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[Jerra]

 

Lets put it this way, as I understand it there are under 5000 boats licensed as CCers, of those about 1000 who, according the little information that I can be find or scraped out, who are in or on the edge of enforcement. i.e. not cruising sufficiently. How many involve families only a guess say 50%, 500, could be less.

 

I am wondering how many boats are actually cruising on the busiest day of the year. I know from a marina where I moored my NB a few years ago that I cannot ever remember more than 10% of the boats being out.

What I was thinking was as the CCers who need to be static can't really be CCers would some form of allowing families who can't CC to use leisure moorings during the years the kids are at school solve some problems.

 

It would allow those who wanted to to continue to live on a boat, it would mean CRT didn't have to make any changes to rules and regulations. It would be up to the "authorities" to fins a way to allow it. It has to be better than consigning a family to a few years in a B&B. It should also be acceptable to those who don't want the canals lined by lots of static boats in honey pot areas, not to mention helping marina owners and their business.

 

However there would need to be enough moorings even if the legal/administrative problems could be overcome. Also assuming the marina was outside the 2 miles where transport isn't provided a school bus route could be "tweeked" to pick up at the marina.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

The old parish system worked OK years ago. But there weren't many boaters doing it then, and BW more or less turned a blind eye anyway. The problems come when more and more people need more or less permanent residential moorings when there aren't any. No different really from those who once would have been in council houses now having to go private.

I don't think that freeing the whole system up would damage marinas too much - most people would still want the security & convenience they provide.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that assessment. So people would be willing to pay what seems an average of £2,500 to £3,000 per year to leave their boats in a marina in preference to leaving them just outside of the marina for no charge? Or put another way, would you pay £3,000 pa for something you can otherwise have for nothing? If we were talking a couple of hundred quid, perhaps, but £3,000? I don't think so.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

I'd agree, but the second sentence is an important one.

 

The various discussions relating to the definition of "place", as in Sec.17 of the Waterways Act 1995 prompted a (very) little research as to what the word actually meant in legal terms. Conclusion was anything from city, town, village or district, parish, street or "spot", so not very useful!

 

However, I'm sure Shoosmiths could make an argument for "place" to mean "county" as that appears to be the minimum required to define the locus of a charge, so maybe it's maybe better not to go there

You seem to have missed out a meaning.

 

Currently, it would appear that CaRT take 'place' to mean a kilometre length of canal as this is what is used for sightings.

 

 

[Jerra]

You seem to have missed out a meaning.

 

Currently, it would appear that CaRT take 'place' to mean a kilometre length of canal as this is what is used for sightings.

 

 

So in theory if you are near the end of one of their 1Km stretches a move of 100m may put you in a different place?

[Alan de Enfield]

You seem to have missed out a meaning.

 

Currently, it would appear that CaRT take 'place' to mean a kilometre length of canal as this is what is used for sightings.

 

 

 

Don't forget that C&RT have several meanings of the word 'place' (as was mentioned by a Judge as he was confused by C&RT having the same word with several meanings, depending on their interpretation at the time),

 

"....without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days....."

 

Another example is :

 

"....a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept..."

 

(And they do not mean a Km length of canal)

[Mike Todd]

I'm not sure I'd agree with that assessment. So people would be willing to pay what seems an average of £2,500 to £3,000 per year to leave their boats in a marina in preference to leaving them just outside of the marina for no charge? Or put another way, would you pay £3,000 pa for something you can otherwise have for nothing? If we were talking a couple of hundred quid, perhaps, but £3,000? I don't think so.

Not to mention the dent in CaRT income from list online moorings.

[Alan de Enfield]

Not to mention the dent in CaRT income from list online moorings.

 

Don't forget their 9% of turnover of all the marinas with a connection agreement

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Don't forget that C&RT have several meanings of the word 'place' (as was mentioned by a Judge as he was confused by C&RT having the same word with several meanings, depending on their interpretation at the time),

 

"....without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days....."

 

Another example is :

 

"....a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept..."

 

(And they do not mean a Km length of canal)

It does not appear to me that that place differs in the two examples given.

[Alan de Enfield]

It does not appear to me that that place differs in the two examples given.

 

C'mon you know the difference :

 

Place where a boat can be 'kept and lawfully left'...... (no time limit)

 

Place where a boat can only remain for a maximum of 14 days

[Geo]

CaRT to update enforcement policies wednesday, 16 november 2016 10:42

THE complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) by the National Bargee Travellers Association has brought a quick response from the Canal & River Trust.

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/9415-carts-reply-to-bargees

[Alan de Enfield]

CaRT to update enforcement policies wednesday, 16 november 2016 10:42

THE complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) by the National Bargee Travellers Association has brought a quick response from the Canal & River Trust.

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/9415-carts-reply-to-bargees

 

 

I realise it can be a bit of a chore to read thru' when a thread gets this long, but this was posted 57 posts ago.

[Geo]

 

I realise it can be a bit of a chore to read thru' when a thread gets this long, but this was posted 57 posts ago.

 

lol Well better posted twice than missed. Sorry if it upset anyone

[spadefoot]

 

Suitable moorings are available.

 

They may not always be available (or available at a price that the particular individual can afford) within range of the selected school.

 

In that respect, the NBTA members are in exactly the same boat as land-dwellers who may find it impossible to secure a house within range of a particular school.

 

Are their human rights being infringed as well?

 

As I see it, the only potential duty here falls on the Local Authority, which should be considering providing residential moorings for those who meet the legal definition of being a traveller, but who now seek to temporarily or permanently cease travelling for any of the legally recognised reasons

You appear to have widened the definition of "suitable" to include "not really suitable when all said & done".

I don't think it's helpful to bring in the words "particular & "selected" with regards to schools. Most land-based dwellings are in range of "a" school. I'm guessing that these particular NBTA members of which you speak, hope to be able to access "a" school.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that assessment. So people would be willing to pay what seems an average of £2,500 to £3,000 per year to leave their boats in a marina in preference to leaving them just outside of the marina for no charge? Or put another way, would you pay £3,000 pa for something you can otherwise have for nothing? If we were talking a couple of hundred quid, perhaps, but £3,000? I don't think so.

You're kidding right?

Do you think that someone who has spent maybe £150k on a posh shiny boat that they use half a dozen times a year, is going to leave it moored on the towpath?

So in theory if you are near the end of one of their 1Km stretches a move of 100m may put you in a different place?

Yes, but if they stuck to that definition of place, then the moves would average out to 1km over time.

[Mikexx]

You jest. My grandchildren will, in all probability, be, exactly like their parents, high-achievers in whatever field they choose to enter. It takes more than school to make an education but access to school is a basic human right.

 

Not my children but those of a friend, lived on a boat near to one location for their schooling, they both now study at Oxford, their parents, schooling done are now roaming far and wide over the system.

 

Your ignorance fails to see these facts. CRT doesn't prevent education, or schooling, it simply, in breach of the law, puts obstacles in its way.

 

I wasn't jesting where currently over 40% of those in work have a degree or equivalent, and the proportion is increasing each year. I'm sure your grandchildrens' parents were more than able to compensate, but each year it becomes more difficult for people without a good education to have a good job and income.

 

Or put it another way, your grandchildren could possibly have a better job and income if they didn't travel from town to town in different schools.

 

Your friend's children have done well but I wonder if that is precisely because they were schooled in the same school, rather than different schools through travelling.

 

I never said CaRT prevented education and wonder why you might think that?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

So in theory if you are near the end of one of their 1Km stretches a move of 100m may put you in a different place?

It's swings and roundabouts. If you moved in the other direction say 800m you would still be in the same place ...

[mayalld]

You appear to have widened the definition of "suitable" to include "not really suitable when all said & done".

I don't think it's helpful to bring in the words "particular & "selected" with regards to schools. Most land-based dwellings are in range of "a" school. I'm guessing that these particular NBTA members of which you speak, hope to be able to access "a" school.

 

And there are residential moorings available within easy range of a school.

 

I believe, for example, that residential moorings come up at New Mills fairly regularly, and that is a very easy walk to a primary school, and on a bus route to a secondary school.

 

You seem to want moorings available in a particular town. Given that there are many people who live ashore who couldn't secure a home in that town either, what is the difference?