Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill

[Scholar Gypsy]

I have just seen on the Fenland Council Facebook page they are looking to control overstaying on the moorings, Tried to go to their web site to look at the details but it was down http://www.fenland.gov.uk/article/12946/Council-seeks-views-on-moorings-management maybe suffering from overload?

 

Thank you. That link worked for me. A consultation open until Monday 26th February. 

Looks like a similar approach to that used in Ely (which seems to be working well) and Cambridge (I know less about that...).

Edited January 22, 2018 by Scholar Gypsy

[Athy]

I've noticed that very rakish cruiser moored on the offside a couple of times recently when I've been walking across the bridge to go to Lloyd's Bank. It looks abandoned - I have never seen anyone on it and I can't imagine why it would be tied on the offside. Is it possible that it has been stolen?

   It's evident from the tone of your post that these liveaboards are not your favourite species, but the story that some boaters have had to move on after being banned from some shops is a hard one to swallow; firstly, does this constitute grounds for having them moved on? Secondly, why can't they simply use other local shops?

   As for overstaying on the moorings: in winter, as you'll know, traffic on the ML is negligible and they aren't in anyone's way most of the time. In the "season", as these are ML waters, it is surely up to the MLC to send staff to move them on. If they are bothered by these moorers, why don't they do so? When we had a new landing stage built at the end of our garden some years ago, they were quick enough to send an official along to ensure that it complied with their regulations (which it does).

[ditchcrawler]

10 minutes ago, Athy said:

 

   As for overstaying on the moorings: in winter, as you'll know, traffic on the ML is negligible and they aren't in anyone's way most of the time. In the "season", as these are ML waters, it is surely up to the MLC to send staff to move them on. If they are bothered by these moorers, why don't they do so? When we had a new landing stage built at the end of our garden some years ago, they were quick enough to send an official along to ensure that it complied with their regulations (which it does).

But if someone comes and moors up on your moorings will you call the MLC to move them off. These are the councils moorings so surly its up to the council who moors there and for how long.

[Athy]

19 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

But if someone comes and moors up on your moorings will you call the MLC to move them off. These are the councils moorings so surely its up to the council who moors there and for how long.

I don't know exactly who owns them. i thought they belonged to the MLC. We have a staithe (as they are called in these parts) in Upwell but I'm not sure that it belongs to Upwell Council. But, if they are the councils', yes I agree, it's up to them.

[nbfiresprite]

3 hours ago, Athy said:

I've noticed that very rakish cruiser moored on the offside a couple of times recently when I've been walking across the bridge to go to Lloyd's Bank. It looks abandoned - I have never seen anyone on it and I can't imagine why it would be tied on the offside. Is it possible that it has been stolen?

   It's evident from the tone of your post that these liveaboards are not your favourite species, but the story that some boaters have had to move on after being banned from some shops is a hard one to swallow; firstly, does this constitute grounds for having them moved on? Secondly, why can't they simply use other local shops?

   As for overstaying on the moorings: in winter, as you'll know, traffic on the ML is negligible and they aren't in anyone's way most of the time. In the "season", as these are ML waters, it is surely up to the MLC to send staff to move them on. If they are bothered by these moorers, why don't they do so? When we had a new landing stage built at the end of our garden some years ago, they were quick enough to send an official along to ensure that it complied with their regulations (which it does).

The traveller in question had a banning order placed on him by the local members of Shopwatch after being napped shoplifting in Iceland, Heron and Sainsbury's. Therefore is not allowed to enter any of the retail areas and shopping malls containing the retail premises operated by the members of the Shopwatch group. And as his photograph has been circulated around the local group he has had to move on.

The moorings are owned by Fenland Council and these travellers have been on the town or West End moorings for over a year through out the summer as well taking up over half the spaces. It took over 18 months to move that 70th green narrowboat and then only when the council had grounds to serve a ASBO on him.

As to the cruiser, you will often find the owner begging in Fenland Walk.   

In Fenland we pay council tax on our moorings, And for many these traveller's squatting on the town moorings are seen as freeloaders. Hence the council is finally taking action.  

[Athy]

Thank you for clarifying the situation, FS.

Why did it take 18 months to move the narrowboat? That doesn't sound very efficient.

[nbfiresprite]

20 hours ago, Athy said:

Thank you for clarifying the situation, FS.

Why did it take 18 months to move the narrowboat? That doesn't sound very efficient.

Most of the time was taken, kicking the council's backside into action. Action only started to happen after the problem appeared on the front page of the Camb's Times. Councils don't like been shown to be doing nothing. So finally had to take action. In the case of the 70 footie, Him burning house coal and green wood actual helped in getting the ASBO.  

[NigelMoore]

I did say that I would post up details of the amendments affirmed by the Committee. This is the first, respecting the set-up of the "Navigation Advisory Committee" -

IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 17.01.18
SESSION 2017-2019
MIDDLE LEVEL BILL
"PAPER A" APART
AMENDMENT PROPOSED TO BE PUT BEFORE
THE OPPOSED BILL COMMITTEE

NEW CLAUSE

Page 4, line 28, at end, insert the following New Clause - "Navigation Advisory Committee"

(1) The Commissioners must establish a body, to be known as the Navigation Advisory Committee (in this section referred to as "the Committee"), to advise the Commissioners on the exercise of their functions in respect of navigation under the navigation Acts.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), the Committee is to consist of persons appointed by the Commissioners who appear to the Commissioners to be (taken together) representative of—
(a) recreational motor-boating interests in the waterways;
(b) the interests of individuals who use vessels on the waterways as their sole residence (including individuals who do not own or have access to a permanent mooring);
(c) other navigation interests in the waterways;
(d) other recreational users of the waterways and their banks;
(e) riparian owners in the Middle Level; and
(f) other local interests in the Middle Level.

(3) The Commissioners must, except in a case of urgency where it is not reasonably practicable to do so, consult the Committee on—
(a) proposals to provide facilities or services in respect of the waterways and their banks;
(b) proposals to impose or vary charges or fees relating to the waterways or their banks; and
(c) proposals to make navigation byelaws.

(4) In consulting the Committee pursuant to subsection (3) the Commissioners must allow a reasonable time (not being less than 28 days) for the Committee to meet and report back to them.

(5) The Committee may at any time make representations or recommendations in relation to, or refer to the Commissioners, any matter affecting the navigation or use of the waterways and their banks.

(6) The Commissioners must take into consideration any matter, recommendation or representation which may from time to time be referred or made to them by the Committee."

A good idea, but could certainly benefit from some judicious tweaking. That phrase - the Committee is to consist of persons "appointed by the Commissioners who appear to the Commissioners" to be representative, rather puts the full control over the membership of the proposed committee firmly within the MLC discretion. Plus, demanding that the MLC "must" take the committee's views into consideration, has limited use, if a cynical MLC wished to say - "yes, we have taken those views into consideration but found them to be of no value". The QC's view was that any such failure to take properly into account would be subject to Judicial Review - but that is, of course, an expensive and hugely unreliable recourse, with historical bias in favour of authorities. Still, it is a step in the right direction, and will allow direct input into drafting byelaws before even getting to public consultation stage.

This addition is rather less prone to side-stepping -

IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 17.01.18
SESSION 2017-2019
MIDDLE LEVEL BILL
"PAPER B" APART
AMENDMENT PROPOSED TO BE PUT BEFORE
THE OPPOSED BILL COMMITTEE

NEW CLAUSE

Page 13, line 2, at end, insert the following New Clause - "Commissioners' duties in relation to boat-dwellers

(1) In the exercise of their functions under and by virtue of this Act the Commissioners must have regard to -
(a) the interests of individuals who use vessels as their sole residence (including individuals who do not own or have access to a permanent mooring); and
(b) the desirability of safeguarding and facilitating public rights of navigation.

(2) In each calendar year the Commissioners must publish a report setting out what they have done in the previous calendar year to satisfy the duty under subsection (1)."

It is that second sub-clause that helps.

[Athy]

So, "talks about talks".

As a ML riparian landowner, I'll be interested to hear what they talk about on that subject.

[NigelMoore]

 

The next swathe of amendments/additions are of interest -

IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 17.01.18
SESSION 2017-2019
MIDDLE LEVEL BILL
"PAPER C" APART
AMENDMENTS PROPOSED TO BE PUT BEFORE
THE OPPOSED BILL COMMITTEE

Definition of "waterway"

Clause 2
Page 4, line 20, after "the waterways", insert—
"other than—
(i) any waters which are used, for mooring or navigation, only by the
owner of the land upon which those waters are situated; and
(ii) any waters which are used, for mooring or navigation, only by an occupier of an adjoining residential building;"

That was certainly a move in the right direction - and it has to be admitted, none of the commercial premises objected to being taken within the MLC powers of control, whether through timidity, ignorance or disregard. As to how far their clients can be protected, that will boil down to the consultation wrangle over the terms of charges and byelaws [which the new NAC will have to be consulted on]. My argument, for similar provision to those of the Broads Act, would enable boaters to declare a nautical 'SORN' while in such marinas.

Level of charge

Clause 3
Page 4, line 36, at end insert—
"(2) In exercising the power under subsection (1) the Commissioners must aim to
secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from charges under that subsection does not exceed the annualised costs incurred by the Commissioners in exercising their functions in respect of navigation under the navigation Acts."


That is actually a very useful curb on charge levels, but far more is required [such as no rises beyond inflation etc]. At least it ensures that all income from boats is spent for their benefit.

Offence of interfering with closed locks

Clause 6
Page 6, line 34, delete subsection (2), and insert—
"(2) Without prejudice to the effect of section 67 of the Middle Level Act 1874 (penalty
for unlawful passing through a sluice), a person who uses, interferes with, opens or closes any lock or its mechanism when the lock is closed to navigation under subsection (1) commits an offence, and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."

Then comes the Select Committee suggestion in response to my objections over the lack of any defining of the relevant term -

Definition of "moored without lawful authority"

Clause 8
Page 8, line 25, at end insert —
"(9) For the purposes of this section, a vessel is left or moored without lawful authority
if —
(a) navigation byelaws are in force requiring the vessel to be registered, and it is unregistered;
(b) the position or mooring of the vessel constitutes a trespass; or
(c) the vessel obstructs navigation in the waterways."

Is it not curious, that having denied that they had any intent to use these powers to enforce registration [only moorings], they now specifically extend it to registration? Just goes to show . . . It is still too simplistic; there is NO provision [as in the BWA 1983] for simply 'moving' as distinct from 'removing' a vessel. The other dire element is that 'trespass' clause - open to multiple argument and abuse - and, I would have to check the older legislation again, but I seem to recall that a pleasure boat CANNOT be considered to be trespassing simply by virtue of being on the waterways, so the definition of 'trespass' in this context would also need refining! 


Clause 10
Page 11, line 34, leave out "and" and insert "or".
Development of residential use of vessels in the Middle Level

Clause 12
Page 13, line 3, delete "Recreation on the waterways" and insert "Residential and recreational use of the waterways".
Page 13, line 6, after "places for", insert "the use of boats as dwellings, ".

Clause 15
Page 14, line 27, at end insert—
"(5A) When serving a notice or other document on an individual whom the Commissioners have reason to believe lives on a vessel, the Commissioners must serve by delivery to the vessel, unless -
(a) the individual has specified some other means of service; or
(b) the Commissioners are satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to serve by delivery to the vessel."


The above 3 clauses are a direct result of the SC responses to the submissions of the NBTA, March Cruising Club, and the 2 independent boat users and dwellers, to provide an extra level of protection to those living on their boats.

1 minute ago, Athy said:

So, "talks about talks".

As a ML riparian landowner, I'll be interested to hear what they talk about on that subject.

You would have a chance to do some of the talking, being qualified as a riparian owner to a seat on the new Committee. Depends on their selection process I suppose.

[NigelMoore]

On 22/01/2018 at 11:52, ditchcrawler said:

But if someone comes and moors up on your moorings will you call the MLC to move them off. These are the councils moorings so surly its up to the council who moors there and for how long.

I completely agree that it is [and ought to be] the riparian owner’s responsibility to take action against those using their moorings without consent. However, reading the MLC responses – and subject to the terms of whatever byelaws are passed, it seems as though the MLC are specifically desiring the power to act on behalf of others. So if somebody plonked themselves at the bottom of Athy’s garden, he could, then [if the Bill passes], successfully demand that the MLC remove them from the waterway altogether [the only current option]. Same goes for the Council moorings.

[Athy]

26 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

 

You would have a chance to do some of the talking, being qualified as a riparian owner to a seat on the new Committee. Depends on their selection process I suppose.

Interesting - I wonder if they will circulate news of this qualification to all riparian owners.

[Mike Todd]

31 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

I completely agree that it is [and ought to be] the riparian owner’s responsibility to take action against those using their moorings without consent. However, reading the MLC responses – and subject to the terms of whatever byelaws are passed, it seems as though the MLC are specifically desiring the power to act on behalf of others. So if somebody plonked themselves at the bottom of Athy’s garden, he could, then [if the Bill passes], successfully demand that the MLC remove them from the waterway altogether [the only current option]. Same goes for the Council moorings.

Doe the amendments make it clear whether it is a power or a duty?

[erivers]

35 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

I completely agree that it is [and ought to be] the riparian owner’s responsibility to take action against those using their moorings without consent. However, reading the MLC responses – and subject to the terms of whatever byelaws are passed, it seems as though the MLC are specifically desiring the power to act on behalf of others. So if somebody plonked themselves at the bottom of Athy’s garden, he could, then [if the Bill passes], successfully demand that the MLC remove them from the waterway altogether [the only current option]. Same goes for the Council moorings.

1

When in 1993 the Cam Conservators sought a new byelaw, pursuant to their powers under the Cam Conservancy Act 1922, to prohibit trespassing upon the property of riparian owners by users of the river, they were told by the Home Office that "such a byelaw should not be created to protect individual landowners' interests because trespass is generally a matter for the civil law."

[NigelMoore]

13 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Doe the amendments make it clear whether it is a power or a duty?

Good point - answer is: definitely empowerment not obligation. Mt Thomas made clear that on areas they do not own, they could not care less, if a sunken or moored boat was not impeding navigation or polluting.

[NigelMoore]

10 minutes ago, erivers said:

When in 1993 the Cam Conservators sought a new byelaw, pursuant to their powers under the Cam Conservancy Act 1922, to prohibit trespassing upon the property of riparian owners by users of the river, they were told by the Home Office that "such a byelaw should not be created to protect individual landowners' interests because trespass is generally a matter for the civil law."

And quite right too. However this power is being sought through primary legislation rather than byelaws [in part, no doubt, for much the same reason].

The same debate was had over the terms of the British Waterways Act 1971; BW nonetheless acquired the power to remove houseboats from 3rd party land if the moorings owner withdrew consent. Part of their argument for such powers was precisely that in civil law they could not act on behalf of private landowners.

Edited January 24, 2018 by NigelMoore

[erivers]

59 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

And quite right too. However this power is being sought through primary legislation rather than byelaws [in part, no doubt, for much the same reason].

 

2

2

Yes, I agree.  But it's interesting to compare the relevant byelaw making powers of the Cam Conservators with those in the (current version of) Middle Level Bill.

The relevant Cam Conservators powers are at Section 25(1) of the Cam Conservancy Act 1922:

(a) For the regulation and management of the rivers and waters within the Cam Conservancy area and the navigation thereof and for the prevention of obstructions to such navigation.

(b) For the regulation of vessels boats and other craft on the said rivers and waters and of traffic on the towing paths both on ordinary and on special occasions.

The corresponding sections of the byelaw making powers in the Middle Level Bill are:

(a) Regulating the use of the waterways by vessels, and the use of the banks of the waterways and any works, water control structures, facilities or services in or adjoining the waterways, including rules prescribing which vessels may enter such waterways.

(b) Prescribing rules for navigation in the waterways .............

It is not clear (to me at least) how the primary legislation provisions in the Middle Level Bill differ significantly enough to over-ride the previously stated position that byelaws should not be created to protect individual landowners' interests ...

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by erivers

[NigelMoore]

23 minutes ago, erivers said:

It is not clear (to me at least) how the primary legislation provisions in the Middle Level Bill differ significantly enough to over-ride the previously stated position that byelaws should be created to protect individual landowners' interests ...

The byelaw making powers come under Clause 9 of the Bill. The power to remove boats whose mooring “constitutes a trespass” comes under Clause 8 of the Bill – the power is therefore granted under the primary, rather than any secondary legislation [i.e. byelaws], that might be created under Clause 9.

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

Good point - answer is: definitely empowerment not obligation. Mt Thomas made clear that on areas they do not own, they could not care less, if a sunken or moored boat was not impeding navigation or polluting.

Ta - of course this means that, in general, a riparian owner cannot compel anyone else to act on their behalf.

In any event, taking your immediately prior post, civil trespass requires a claim for a remedy for real damages. A trespasser can be asked to leave when the act is pointed out to them but cannot be sued unless they do something like damage. Just by being on the water is - I would have thought - unlikely to justify a claim for damages, other than peppercorn, at which point the costs would outweigh the benefit. As I think you pointed out somewhere else, criminal trespass was introduced to plug this gap but only in restricted circumstances. (You cannot make a civil claim on behalf of someone else, I think)

As a result, it really is only the riparian owner who can work out what damages they have suffered - in this case neither the MLC nor the local council are likely to have suffered damages other than where they are the riparian owner. 

As a result, action to tackle persistent over-stayers depends on some other basis for action (I suspect this may be why one case led to an ASBO which is both criminal and enforceable if disobeyed)

You will know a lot more about it, but I assume that, unlike a 'normal' property owner who can take reasonable steps to prevent trespass, a riparian owner here cannot do that when there is a statutory right to navigation. Perhaps they could concrete over the immediate verge so that it is not possible to attach a mooring rope but, as some on the Regent's Canal have discovered, where there is a will there's a way - unless you hammer your spike through the tarmac into a high voltage cable! However, a landowner could not legally install harmful electric fences as a deliberate act (I believe this was once tried by attaching a mains cable to a door handle!)

As an aside, I watched chunks of the proceedings - I skipped some bits - and I was impressed all round, although the lawyer for the MLC was a bit stilted, I suspect this is his technique for taking time to think through his replies. The petitioners generally got their points across even if not all were accepted but both from the Committee and the Commissioners there was a general atmosphere of seeking common ground and compromises where possible.

What it did show, however, is the significance of actually petitioning and being there - even if in support. The Committee reacted to the complaints much more than supporting the position of all those who were presumably quite satisfied. As a result I think you, collectively, got more concessions than if all interested parties had been there.

[NigelMoore]

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

Ta - of course this means that, in general, a riparian owner cannot compel anyone else to act on their behalf.

In any event, taking your immediately prior post, civil trespass requires a claim for a remedy for real damages. A trespasser can be asked to leave when the act is pointed out to them but cannot be sued unless they do something like damage. Just by being on the water is - I would have thought - unlikely to justify a claim for damages, other than peppercorn, at which point the costs would outweigh the benefit. As I think you pointed out somewhere else, criminal trespass was introduced to plug this gap but only in restricted circumstances. (You cannot make a civil claim on behalf of someone else, I think)

As a result, it really is only the riparian owner who can work out what damages they have suffered - in this case neither the MLC nor the local council are likely to have suffered damages other than where they are the riparian owner. 

As a result, action to tackle persistent over-stayers depends on some other basis for action (I suspect this may be why one case led to an ASBO which is both criminal and enforceable if disobeyed)

You are correct that a private [or Council] riparian owner could not, as the Bill stands at present, oblige the MLC to evict their trespassers [though perhaps an argument could be made as to the point of the power if not exercised].

However it is not that action on trespass demands demonstrable damage; it does not. The act itself justifies action [even if that could be said to be reliant, in some attenuated sense, on damage to rights of exclusive enjoyment].

Leaving to one side dispute over the ability of statutory bodies to exercise the same freedom of action over property as is enjoyed by natural persons, the usual procedure would be to enter a Claim for trespass with an application for an injunction against the defendant from continuing/repeating the offence.

At County Court level, few if any judges have ever countenanced the statutory bodies argument in trespass cases, and the EA have enjoyed conspicuous success in getting injunctions against boats from ever returning to certain areas of the Thames, while the MLC have been touting their success in the case of the MLC v Marner, as establishing their right to bring trespass action for merely having mooring ropes cross their part of a bank.

[NigelMoore]

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

. . . but I assume that, unlike a 'normal' property owner who can take reasonable steps to prevent trespass, a riparian owner here cannot do that when there is a statutory right to navigation.

The riparian owner cannot prevent boats from traversing public navigable water alongside his land, nor prevent the boat from temporarily anchoring to the bed in front of his land [even if he owns the riverbed] – but he can most certainly bring trespass against connection to his riverbank, because the law in this country denies that the PRN extends to any right to access the bank, even momentarily.

[NigelMoore]

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

What it did show, however, is the significance of actually petitioning and being there - even if in support. The Committee reacted to the complaints much more than supporting the position of all those who were presumably quite satisfied. As a result I think you, collectively, got more concessions than if all interested parties had been there.

That is, of course, absolutely correct; I did attempt to encourage contribution and engagement for anyone interested, whatever their stance.

It does have to be recognised also, though, that the MLC were relying heavily on the [mostly positive] responses to consultation; supporters of the Bill were many, and the MLC could have called upon more than the one witness had they chosen. As it was, Mr Cameron Qc pointed out in questioning "that a number of the people who responded represented organisations. Starting from the top of the list, there is the Association of Nene River Clubs and the Association of Waterway Cruising Clubs, then some individual boaters, then some public organisations, and then one comes down to the Middle Level Watermen’s Club and the National Association of Boat Owners. A lot of the responses reflected the views of more than one person." And as he said at the beginning of his final presentation -

"The other point I would like to make in relation to the desirability of the legislation is that, inevitably, in this type of process you hear from those who are aggrieved by the provisions, so there tends to be concentration on their concerns and needs. That is quite right and proper, but I ask you to bear in mind the wider public interest and the interests of all those who have not appeared before you, as represented in part by Mr Howes and his Inland Waterways Association. He did appear; there will be other boat dwellers who did not appear. There is a whole range of boating and other interests that need to be taken into account when you are determining what is right in the public interest." 

In a way, that was using the same argument the other way around - he was claiming in effect that everybody not having protested, were in agreement; the IWA rep being but one example of those representing thousands of the other boaters.

 

[David Mack]

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

As an aside, I watched chunks of the proceedings - I skipped some bits - and I was impressed all round, although the lawyer for the MLC was a bit stilted, I suspect this is his technique for taking time to think through his replies. The petitioners generally got their points across even if not all were accepted but both from the Committee and the Commissioners there was a general atmosphere of seeking common ground and compromises where possible.

What it did show, however, is the significance of actually petitioning and being there - even if in support. The Committee reacted to the complaints much more than supporting the position of all those who were presumably quite satisfied. As a result I think you, collectively, got more concessions than if all interested parties had been there.

Having been involved, in a professional capacity, in a number of Parliamentary Bill hearings and Public Inquiries, my experience is that Committees and Inquiry Inspectors are generally keen to allow objectors to a scheme to have their say, and they are usually very lenient with amateur objectors who may not understand the procedural requirements, or who may not be very adept at marshalling their arguments effectively, or who may ramble or wander off the point. They generally help objectors with gentle questioning to better understand the point being made.  On the other hand they can be quite harsh with professionals who appear in front of them who do not have a full grasp of the issues. They will also encourage promoters and objectors to have side discussions outside the room if that is the easiest way to resolve issues, without taking up time in the hearing.

Their role is that of an independent assessor and they will weigh the evidence, for and against, in front of them and make their recommendations. And inevitably, not all parties are always happy with the outcome.

[erivers]

19 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

The byelaw making powers come under Clause 9 of the Bill. The power to remove boats whose mooring “constitutes a trespass” comes under Clause 8 of the Bill – the power is therefore granted under the primary, rather than any secondary legislation [i.e. byelaws], that might be created under Clause 9.

Thanks Nigel for making clear that the power to remove vessels whose mooring constitutes a trespass is in now the Primary Legislation and thus a byelaw will not be needed.  However, in the important  clarification of the definition of "without lawful authority" within the Bill, have they not just created a further potential ambiguity over the "trespass" issue?  Am I right that in civil law an action for trespass can only be taken by the owner or occupier of the land where the alleged trespass takes place?  Does that not therefore inform the general meaning of "trespass"? Without the word being further defined with the Act, i.e. to include trespass to land not owned by the Commissioners, would not the MLC be unwise to rely on a much broader and unusual definition of "trespass" to remove vessels moored to land in private riparian ownership?

[ditchcrawler]

Interesting post just come up on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/narrowboatusers/permalink/10160196753575352/