continuosly cruising....how far are you suppose to go..

[MtB]

So why not just take a home mooring in the first place and avoid all the legal conflict, if taking a home mooring is necessary to defeat crt?

Tony enjoys spending his time on such conflict. Normal boaters just find it an unnecessary and stressful distraction from their boating. 

[Athy]

6 minutes ago, Rickent said:

This is the bit I find strange, if you have a home mooring and use your boat for leisure purposes, as long as you don't stay in one place for more than 14 days or whatever length a vm states there is no obligation for bona fide navigation , as it is just a leisure activity. I am led to believe that CRT still expect said boats to move a certain distance. Not right surely.

It makes sense to me - boats with home moorings are not likely to occupy the most pleasant spaces for long periods of time whereas, if there were no obligation to navigate, CCers might be tempted to do so.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

8 minutes ago, Rickent said:

This is the bit I find strange, if you have a home mooring and use your boat for leisure purposes, as long as you don't stay in one place for more than 14 days or whatever length a vm states there is no obligation for bona fide navigation , as it is just a leisure activity. I am led to believe that CRT still expect said boats to move a certain distance. Not right surely.

Exactly as interpreted by a Judge :

(I posted earlier, but here it is again)

The judgement in the case of CaRT v Mayers states that repeated journeys between the same two places would be 'bona fide navigation' if the boater had specific reason for making repeated journeys over the same stretch of canal. HHJ Halbert also stated that any requirement by CaRT to use a substantial part of the canal network was not justified by Section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 because the requirement to use the boat for bona fide navigation is 'temporal not geographical'.

 

 

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, 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. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. 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.

[David Schweizer]

Unlike those who choose to criticise C&ART, I have some sympathy for them trying to manage what is some poorly phrased wording in in the 1995 Act. The continuous cruising clause was introduced after consultation with a number of boaters who felt that the (then) proposed requirement to have a permanent mooring was unfair to those who genuinely cruised around the system all year. At the time virtually all those who lobbyed for the continuouis cruising agreement were regularly moving around the system, so the phrases "bona fida navigation" and "from place to place" adequately described their cruising pattern. It was not envisaged that, at some time in the future, hundreds of people would want to live on a boat and not move very far from where they worked, or had children at School etc. but unfortunately for C&ART the present wording, which does not define the precise meaning of "place", makes it difficult for them to enforce the Act in a manner whuich reflects the oringinal purpose of the agreement, and until someone decides to get a defining ammendment to the Act passed by Government, it will continue to present significant difficulties.

 

Edited December 27, 2017 by David Schweizer

[NigelMoore]

On 21/11/2017 at 13:39, alan_fincher said:

There is no evidence to date of CRT taking further action against those who are invoiced, but simply don't pay.

I have answered the same statement before, but repeating myself – BW certainly DID sue for payment in the event of non-payment.

Early in 2009, while in the early throes of my court offensive against BW, they sent me a bill for £250 relating to the 10 day overstay of a boat on the Grand Union. I promptly rang the accounts department explaining that this was not my boat, and by August 2009 had supplied the requested documentation [having already sent them the details of the owner should they wish to pursue the matter against him].

I also rang the debt collecting firm who had written to me threatening legal action, informing them of what I had provided to BW. They continued nonetheless, and filed a suit against me. On receiving my Defence with relevant documentation, they claimed that BW claimed never to have seen those documents [despite the established fact that both they and their client HAD seen them prior to filing the action].

Even so, even having by then acknowledged receipt of the documentation, they continued to pursue the action against me for the money regardless. It was not until March 2010 [a week before the trial date] that they filed a Notice of Discontinuance, their client having very belatedly realised that the sum had been paid by his agent at the request of the boat owner many months previously, and “now recognises that this matter should not have continued. Our client sincerely apologises for this error.”

Note, however, that the law suit was only discontinued because the fine had actually been paid, albeit by someone else. It was bitterly disappointing to me that they discontinued; I had been going to invite the local press to the hearing, where I also hoped to argue against the validity of the charge anyway, additionally to the dishonesty of proceeding against someone they knew was not the appropriate party.

Had I known then what I now do, I would have filed a counterclaim, and even not having done so, would have sued for my costs on discontinuance. It could be that this was a one-off instance prompted solely by personal grudge against someone who was upsetting them, but it seems unlikely – so it would be unwise to rely on an impression that nobody has been sued for non-payment of the fine.

[NigelMoore]

On 22/11/2017 at 14:48, Arthur Marshall said:

And you can't trust judges to make their judgements on the way the law is rather than what they think it ought to be.  

Sound assessment. Someone with a track record of going to some extremes that way was the late [and otherwise much respected] Lord Denning.

On 21/11/2017 at 16:28, carlt said:

No they don't!

Correct. The 'track' is vested in the 'Waterways Infrastructure Trust' [as distinct from investment property vested in Cart], and CaRT are merely the [replaceable] trustees for that.

[alan_fincher]

6 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

I have answered the same statement before, but repeating myself – BW certainly DID sue for payment in the event of non-payment.

Early in 2009, while in the early throes of my court offensive against BW, they sent me a bill for £250 relating to the 10 day overstay of a boat on the Grand Union. I promptly rang the accounts department explaining that this was not my boat, and by August 2009 had supplied the requested documentation [having already sent them the details of the owner should they wish to pursue the matter against him].

And to be clear, in case I was not, I was referring specifically to the VM sites on South East Waterways that come within scope of the "South East Visitor moorings" (SEVM) "initiative".

For those (only) the last time I heard unpaid debts were not being pursued.

I can't speak for what has happened in other regions, or on dates that pre-date the coming of SEVM.
 

I'm sorry if what I have posted could have been interpreted otherwise.

[NigelMoore]

13 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think the problem with taking this as being of any use is that as it was a County Court judgement, it doesn't count as a precedent and therefore isn't a binding ruling on anyone else.  So another judge might decide very differently. I think that's what I remember Nigel saying, but please correct me if I'm wrong.  Also, I don't think that "having to take the kids to school and then go to work" would count as legitimate specific reasons!

You are not wrong. However, though not binding, such judgments are ‘persuasive’, and both the Davies case and Mayers have been referred to by other judges – though without anything conclusive being established.

The Davies case was amongst the more absurd swallowings of BW’s legalistic contortions; the distance and pattern of travelling was accepted as within the ‘rules’, it was only the REASON for the cruising pattern that was used to establish a violation of the law. It amounted [as a commentator of the time observed] to a decision that anybody complying with the law only in order to comply with law was NOT complying with the law.

[Jrtm]

If your around the tent lock area you can get away with nearly 5 months from trent lock to langly mill question is would you want to stop in the middle!

[Jrtm]

You cam get away with 2 weeks at trent lock 2 weeks at every village or just on outskirts of each town e.g. 2 weeks just out side 1 end of long eaton and 2 weeks other side outskirt. Then 2 weeks at Langley mill then back then another 2 at trent lock.

A-b-c-b-a can only be done if you can prove your end destination was at c e.g. you go down say aylesbury arm or market harbour ect as there dead ends so you have to come back

[dccruiser]

1 hour ago, TonyKD said:

It's a perfect example of what C&RT would describe as a 'ghost mooring', but what exactly does that ridiculous expression mean ? If a mooring is available, as the 1995 Act stipulates, then it's available and nothing and nobody can alter that simple fact.

In my opinion it is a shame as i have said so many times before on these threads that people choose to find loopholes ... such a shame the 1995 act wasnt written in such a watertight way people wouldnt be able to exploit it. 

As stated it was envisaged at the time the continuous cruiser status and license was introduced , the people who obtained one were going to legitimately cruise around the system and it would be pointless them having a mooring "ghost" or otherwise as they could be anywhere in the country, not just on one waterway in order to continue working or school their children in which case they would take a mooring in that specific area.

I fully understand people saying they cant afford a home mooring particularly in the greater London area, well if thats the case , dont live there ... I am sure there are those that live in shared rooms in London who would love to live in a Docklands flat, but if they havent got the money it isnt going to happen ...

Hopefully in the not to distant future it will go the same way as owning a car has, where the rules are crystal clear and if you dont abide by them you pay the price or dont own a car, simples!

Then all the revenue that is used to pay shoesmiths to fight all these ridiculous battles could be used to further upkeep and improve the system ... if i had a choice i know which one i would rather my licence fee was paying for.

My solution would be to fit any boat on a CC license with a tracker to show it was continually cruising around the system as in several different waterways around the country every year and if it isnt adhered to revoke the licence and pay for a legitimate home mooring in the area you actually live and have been found to regularly moor to hopefully put an end to the "ghost" mooring game.

Rick

[Jrtm]

43 minutes ago, dccruiser said:

In my opinion it is a shame as i have said so many times before on these threads that people choose to find loopholes ... such a shame the 1995 act wasnt written in such a watertight way people wouldnt be able to exploit it. 

As stated it was envisaged at the time the continuous cruiser status and license was introduced , the people who obtained one were going to legitimately cruise around the system and it would be pointless them having a mooring "ghost" or otherwise as they could be anywhere in the country, not just on one waterway in order to continue working or school their children in which case they would take a mooring in that specific area.

I fully understand people saying they cant afford a home mooring particularly in the greater London area, well if thats the case , dont live there ... I am sure there are those that live in shared rooms in London who would love to live in a Docklands flat, but if they havent got the money it isnt going to happen ...

Hopefully in the not to distant future it will go the same way as owning a car has, where the rules are crystal clear and if you dont abide by them you pay the price or dont own a car, simples!

Then all the revenue that is used to pay shoesmiths to fight all these ridiculous battles could be used to further upkeep and improve the system ... if i had a choice i know which one i would rather my licence fee was paying for.

My solution would be to fit any boat on a CC license with a tracker to show it was continually cruising around the system as in several different waterways around the country every year and if it isnt adhered to revoke the licence and pay for a legitimate home mooring in the area you actually live and have been found to regularly moor to hopefully put an end to the "ghost" mooring game.

Rick

I think you also need to take into consideration people circumstances as well. For instance we c.c we also leave our boat in some places for 2 weeks due to shows or trips were making between work, we do travel the system but at the same time sometimes dont travel far but others we travel full days trips. But in our circumstances if we had a mooring our boat wouldnt be our or floating as 3k is better spend on hull maintaining than in crt or a marinas pocket for a tiny bit of water not being used anyways.

If the c.c rules are kept to and people didnt make crt spend money on pointless court proceedings to avoid moving they system would work.

P.s. im not saying crt dont waist money in chacing other owners pointlessly or in other ways but by not sticking to the rules others dont help.

So a ghost mooring isnt exactly helping!

[dccruiser]

13 minutes ago, billybobbooth said:

I think you also need to take into consideration people circumstances as well. For instance we c.c we also leave our boat in some places for 2 weeks due to shows or trips were making between work, we do travel the system but at the same time sometimes dont travel far but others we travel full days trips. But in our circumstances if we had a mooring our boat wouldnt be our or floating as 3k is better spend on hull maintaining than in crt or a marinas pocket for a tiny bit of water not being used anyways.

If the c.c rules are kept to and people didnt make crt spend money on pointless court proceedings to avoid moving they system would work.

P.s. im not saying crt dont waist money in chacing other owners pointlessly or in other ways but by not sticking to the rules others dont help.

So a ghost mooring isnt exactly helping!

I dont presume to know anyone elses circumstances, i am just of the opinion a continual cruiser is someone who between march and october genuinely spends their time exploring the system the goal being to travel around all the connected waterways and not retracing their steps unless they are exploring an arm ... as of march this is what i will be doing although i do choose to keep a home mooring as it provides secure parking for my cars and motorhome and is there for me to come back to from time to time and leave my boat if i choose to take a road trip, I manage to do all of this on a pension and maintain my boat on top, but i choose this lifestyle as i love it and as such prioritise accordingly.

Rick

[Iain_S]

Has there been a bit of moderation on this thread?

 

Some posts I remember (including mine!) aren't displaying now ... (and I'd have liked to reply to TonyKD, whoever he is 

 

e.t.a. Post reported to generate response ...

Edited December 27, 2017 by Iain_S
additional text

[GUMPY]

18 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

Has there been a bit of moderation on this thread?

 

Some posts I remember (including mine!) aren't displaying now ... (and I'd have liked to reply to TonyKD, whoever he is 

 

e.t.a. Post reported to generate response ...

Yes Mr Dunkley's postings have gone as he is banned I believe.

As for how far do you have to move the answer is simple;

If you have to ask how far you are not moving enough

[Iain_S]

4 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Yes Mr Dunkley's postings have gone as he is banned I believe.

As for how far do you have to move the answer is simple;

If you have to ask how far you are not moving enough

I gathered that, and agree with your second sentence.

The "ghost mooring" discussion might have been interesting, though 

 

[mrsmelly]

31 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

Has there been a bit of moderation on this thread?

 

Some posts I remember (including mine!) aren't displaying now ... (and I'd have liked to reply to TonyKD, whoever he is 

 

e.t.a. Post reported to generate response ...

Tis a shame Tony has been removed again, He may seem a beligerant old sod but in reality to speak to he is sound. Whilst forum owners can obviously do as they see fit the problem is with Tony gone we lose a great deal of real life Trent including tidal reaches knowledge which is a great loss to any forum whatever the reason. First hand extensive knowledge such as his is thin on the ground.

[Jrtm]

17 hours ago, dccruiser said:

I dont presume to know anyone elses circumstances, i am just of the opinion a continual cruiser is someone who between march and october genuinely spends their time exploring the system the goal being to travel around all the connected waterways and not retracing their steps unless they are exploring an arm ... as of march this is what i will be doing although i do choose to keep a home mooring as it provides secure parking for my cars and motorhome and is there for me to come back to from time to time and leave my boat if i choose to take a road trip, I manage to do all of this on a pension and maintain my boat on top, but i choose this lifestyle as i love it and as such prioritise accordingly.

Rick

Why between march and oct last year i went all year round.

[DavidAN]

On 11/21/2017 at 12:29, Arthur Marshall said:

a residential mooring (or a mooring where residence is allowed, which is not always the same thing).

It's good that you mention this point because what counts as a 'residential' mooring can vary a lot. Some marinas for example may set limits for the total amount of time you can spend living there in any one year and may even require proof that Council Tax is paid elsewhere. I'm presently confused by the terms and conditions for my own residential CRT mooring (Waterside Moorings). It (the standard agreement for all moorings) states that:

"6.4.3 not use the Mooring as your sole main residence without our prior written consent;"

No other mention of residence is made and none specifically about residential moorings.

[DavidAN]

18 hours ago, dccruiser said:

I fully understand people saying they cant afford a home mooring particularly in the greater London area, well if thats the case , dont live there ... I am sure there are those that live in shared rooms in London who would love to live in a Docklands flat, but if they havent got the money it isnt going to happen ...

You do realize that someone could say exactly the same thing about boaters - i.e., that if you don't want to boat on crowded canals, get a mooring somewhere less popular. I'm not having a go at you. I'm just saying that, as a logical argument, it doesn't really hold.

I personally think the canals should be concreted over and apartment blocks built on top of them. At least that way the canals would be put to functional use rather than just being used for rich people's leisure activities.   (I'm only joking, by the way)

[Chewbacka]

1 hour ago, DavidAN said:

It's good that you mention this point because what counts as a 'residential' mooring can vary a lot. Some marinas for example may set limits for the total amount of time you can spend living there in any one year and may even require proof that Council Tax is paid elsewhere. I'm presently confused by the terms and conditions for my own residential CRT mooring (Waterside Moorings). It (the standard agreement for all moorings) states that:

"6.4.3 not use the Mooring as your sole main residence without our prior written consent;"

No other mention of residence is made and none specifically about residential moorings.

Without seeing your agreement etc, but I would assume that because CRT have 'specified' your mooring as residential presumably in writing then you have their 'prior written consent'. 

[dccruiser]

5 hours ago, billybobbooth said:

Why between march and oct last year i went all year round.

Because if all goes to plan i will spend next winter touring Italy Spain or Portugal in my motorhome rather than here trying to work around stoppages, flooding, iced over canals, Keeping a boat warm and batteries charged with redundant solar panels... or just sitting in a marina waiting for spring!  

Rick

[LadyG]

53 minutes ago, dccruiser said:

Because if all goes to plan i will spend next winter touring Italy Spain or Portugal in my motorhome rather than here trying to work around stoppages, flooding, iced over canals, Keeping a boat warm and batteries charged with redundant solar panels... or just sitting in a marina waiting for spring!  

Rick

So, what licence do you have? [thnkng that sounds lke a plan.....]

Edited December 28, 2017 by LadyG

[Rob-M]

1 minute ago, LadyG said:

So, what licence do you have?

There is only one licence.

[Captain Pegg]

6 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

There is only one licence.

Cue link to CRT webpage showing more than one type of licence available 

Of course though you answered the question that was really being asked.

JP