Jump to content

Potential new legal development. Can CRT enforce cc'ing rules?


Dave_P
 Share

Featured Posts

2 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Why not call it 'perk' status then? What are CRT's charitable aims?

I have no intention of copying and pasting them from further up the thread.   They were also repeated in one answer.   Go on you can do it.  Find the scroll key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Some want this, some don't. If everyone (including CRT) stuck to the spirit of the law we'd be fine IMHO.

The spirit (and the letter) of the law requires bona fide navigation    Bona fide as in genuine or real  navigation as in passage of vessels.   So yes if everybody stuck to the spirit of the law all would be well.  Sadly there are some, those who declare no home mooring but want to remain in one place, who don't.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, rowland al said:

As I keep saying, it is only a view but it does seem as though CRT is run more like a pure business than a charity (where you would expect people's welfare and health to be regarded as a higher priority).

The problem CRT have got is that whether they like it or not, boats are homes to thousands of people. I'm sure there are certain pressures on CRT to focus on turning their waterways into nothing but a profit making leisure boater industry. However, that is speculation and I hope I am wrong as I like it's diversity.

 

Like the majority of other charitable organisations, CaRT does have to be run as a business. That is to say, it has to manage its income and expenditure, as well as its longer term capital investment, in order to ensure that they do not make a loss. Continued year-on-year losses can only lead to extinction. The only significant difference is that they are not a profit-distributing business. The main impact of this is that they do not have the pressure to maintain sufficient excess of income over expenditure in order to offer an adequate return on the capital employed.

In a period in which costs are rising significantly, despite a near zero rate of inflation, it is an ever more difficult problem of maintaining a balance - canals are not as easy to improve efficiency as for some other businesses, although it is clear that various attempts have been made, some more successful than others (but that's business for you). 

As it stands (and I know there are legal cases pending that may change this) CaRT does not have the provision of housing in its legitimate remit. Even the pending cases are only likely to change the reactive role of CaRT not a proactive one. That is, they may have to tolerate those whose boats are their homes rather than have a duty to provide them. Until then, CaRT have a clear duty to generate income from the system's available markets commensurate with its expenditure obligations. With the demise of freight traffic, save for a few trading boats, it is all but inevitable that CaRT have to treat the system as an income generating leisure boating industry. Unless it can be shown that CaRT have duties towards others then I cannot see housing as being an income generator. Even upmarket moorings are not the cash cow that they once appeared, whether or not owned by CaRT (BWML).

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rowland al said:

You mean, what do I think would be the best solution?

I believe we should accept that a small percentage of people want to live on the water and embrace it as part of our culture. Maybe provide more marinas or moorings in marinas for this purpose.

The law (1995 act) is fine as regards those who want to remain on the cut or river but it is up to those liveaboards to not abuse the law and for CRT not to misrepresent the law.

No, I don't mean what do you thinks is the best solution. I mean that when CaRT say "this guy has no licence and we want him off our water", given the absolute requirement in law to have a licence, taking into account the guy's human rights and the bigger picture what would be your judgement? And remember what is to be judged is not right and wrong or fairness in the judges moral opinion, it is the law and only the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

No, I don't mean what do you thinks is the best solution. I mean that when CaRT say "this guy has no licence and we want him off our water", given the absolute requirement in law to have a licence, taking into account the guy's human rights and the bigger picture what would be your judgement? And remember what is to be judged is not right and wrong or fairness in the judges moral opinion, it is the law and only the law.

I think any judgement should take into account any personal circumstances. That's where these 3 judges came in. I nor anyone else can make a fair judgement without knowing all the facts, these judges were privy to the facts unlike us.

It' s sweeping judgements and assumptions which cause much of the greif.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, rowland al said:

I think any judgement should take into account any personal circumstances. That's where these 3 judges came in. I nor anyone else can make a fair judgement without knowing all the facts, these judges were privy to the facts unlike us.

It' s sweeping judgements and assumptions which cause much of the greif.

An interesting idea.  So if I am caught doing 90 down the motorway my personal circumstances should be taken into account? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rowland al said:

I think any judgement should take into account any personal circumstances

O'h to live in your world - it must be utopia - the law only applies if it suits your 'circumstances'.

Sorry M'Lud, I cannot afford to tax or insure my car because I don't have enough money.

Sorry M'lud, I don't want to move my boat because if I do someone will come and moor in my place.

I m sure that you are aware of the 1000s of 'extended stays' that have been granted by C&RT (numbers easily found on their website) when people ask, and have extenuating circumstances they are normally granted. it is the folks that just 'take' that are the problem.

Example :

 1,291 individual boats have been recorded in between Bath and Foxhangers.   
On visitor moorings, 99 boats were sighted as having exceeded the free mooring period on a first occasion and were contacted to remind them about the plan.  22 boats were sighted as coming to the end of their free mooring period on a second occasion.  Of these, four boats have exceeded the free mooring period on more than one occasion and been issued with extended stay charges. 
In terms of moving between neighbourhoods, during the period six 14-day sighting reports have been completed.  147 boats have not moved since the last 14 day sighting.  They have been contacted by text, email or phone to remind them to move, or if there is a reason that they cannot move to contact the Trust.  93 have been contacted once, 36 have been contacted twice, 12 have been contacted three times and 6 have been contacted on four or more occasions.  As a result of receiving multiple 14 day reminders, 18 boats have been sent a letter reminding them that if they do not follow the Local Plan they may attract the attention of enforcement officers.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, rowland al said:

As I keep saying, it is only a view but it does seem as though CRT is run more like a pure business than a charity (where you would expect people's welfare and health to be regarded as a higher priority).

The problem CRT have got is that whether they like it or not, boats are homes to thousands of people. I'm sure there are certain pressures on CRT to focus on turning their waterways into nothing but a profit making leisure boater industry. However, that is speculation and I hope I am wrong as I like it's diversity.

 

I suggest that you have a very narrow view of what a "charity" is and what it has to do

Edited by Graham Davis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, rowland al said:

I'd suggest that many of you have a very narrow view full stop. Which I shall leave you all to.

People are not picking on you but surely you must realise that a pee taker is a pee taker?  The ccing rules have been around for many years and are extremely easy to understand and abide by. The inland waterways system is precisely that......a waterways system it is not linear social housing. Boating is not a cheap pass time it has its costs that must be met or you have to pack it in, one of those costs is a mooring. I think many people would love to swan around in a Bentley, ferrari or Tesla but they are beyond the financial reach of many so we dont all have them this is how things are. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, rowland al said:

I'd suggest that many of you have a very narrow view full stop. Which I shall leave you all to.

 

This place is no longer the hard left echo chamber you were hoping for, I suspect.

Leaving because no-one here is re-inforcing your views.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rowland al said:

Do you really believe this? Then why is the word 'charity' used in these instances? I'm sure other words could be found rather than mix up tax avoidance up with genuine charities.

You'd better tell the government then.  They make the definitions, not CRT or you or me. A genuine charity, as has been pointed out to you several times, is one that has charitable objectives. Doesn't mean being nice. If you don't want to believe this, then you have a bit of trouble with the truth, but most of us want to live in the real world, not one we make up because we'd like it better.

Making more residential moorings won't work because most of the people who seem to want them either don't want to or can't afford to pay for them.  They just want to sit, unmoving, in a nice spot.  The point remains, they live in boats.  Boats are generally supposed to move, that's the main reason they float.  Providing free housing land is NOT CRT's remit and never will be.

ETA and lizards are just as likely to be part of the great conspiracy that runs the world as CRT, and they'd probably be a damn sight more efficient at it, too.  CRT can't even seem to run a waterway system properly...

Edited by Arthur Marshall
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple solution:-

All C&RT need to do is say "of course you have a right to live in your home down, however your boat doesn't, due to the fact that boats don't have rights and it is the boat that is subject to the terms and conditions, not the owner."

If the plaintif then wants to argue that the boat does have human rights then this could become a very interesting case.

Edited by Bewildered
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rowland al said:

I think any judgement should take into account any personal circumstances. That's where these 3 judges came in. I nor anyone else can make a fair judgement without knowing all the facts, these judges were privy to the facts unlike us.

It' s sweeping judgements and assumptions which cause much of the greif.

Well all that says is that you wish things were different. You still give no indication what you think would be a proper outcome in this case. Let me help.

If, as seems to be the case this boater is unable to satisfy the board then he CANNOT be issued a CC licence and the judge CANNOT order it's issue in contravention with the law. Neither can the judge order a blind eye. There are two possibilities, the boat is removed from CaRT water or he takes a mooring. It can be argued that the movement requirement is unreasonable but that is highly doubtful. I would predict that the judge will ask CaRT to offer a mooring and when the boater gets the message that it's that or the crane he will take it. Anything else is not a reasonable adaptation for disability, it's exempting an individual from the law and no court in the land can do that.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bewildered said:

Simple solution:-

All C&RT need to do is say "of course you have a right to live in your home down, however your boat doesn't, due to the fact that boats don't have rights and it is the boat that is subject to the terms and conditions, not the owner."

If the plaintif then wants to argue that the boat does have human rights then this could become a very interesting case.

 

That's a neat line of thinking and bang on except for one important detail. It is the owner not the boat that signs the licence application and enters into the contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

That's a neat line of thinking and bang on except for one important detail. It is the owner not the boat that signs the licence application and enters into the contract.

Fair enough, but when for example you insure a house it is the house that is insured not the owner and I'm pretty sure the house doesn't sign the paperwork

also it is the boat that is taken out of the water for non compliance of the rules, the owner can stay in the water as long as he likes :lol:

Edited by Bewildered
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bewildered said:

Fair enough, but when for example you insure a house it is the house that is insured not the owner and I'm pretty sure the house doesn't sign the paperwork

 

But it's the owner that enters into the insurance contract and gets paid in the event of a claim. And conversely CRT wouldn't try to sue the boat for breach of the license T&Cs, it would be the licence holder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rowland al said:

I think any judgement should take into account any personal circumstances. That's where these 3 judges came in. I nor anyone else can make a fair judgement without knowing all the facts, these judges were privy to the facts unlike us.

It' s sweeping judgements and assumptions which cause much of the greif.

But does the judgement explicitly take into account the appellants personal circumstances? My understanding is that they felt that CaRT had not been entitled to dismiss the HRA aspect summarily (ie without detailed reasons) even though, in time, this may be possible but as it stands, each case needs to be considered on its merits until there is a sufficient body of opinion. The case is therefore sent back for the lower court to do just that. Whether there are sufficient grounds for HRA to affect the actions of CaRT is yet to be seen. IANAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As one of CRT's charitable aims is to maintain the heritage of our waterway system, and as, historically, boats would move regularly, surely requiring boats to move on after 14 days is actually maintaining the heritage of waterways, and thus addressing part of CRT's charitable aims.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Pluto said:

As one of CRT's charitable aims is to maintain the heritage of our waterway system, and as, historically, boats would move regularly, surely requiring boats to move on after 14 days is actually maintaining the heritage of waterways, and thus addressing part of CRT's charitable aims.

I like the idea.  Not one I have heard before but surely the heritage of those living on the canals was moving quite a lot and much more frequently than every 14 days.

  • Greenie 1
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
 Share

  • 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.