Anouncement made on canal and river trust fb page by Damian Kemp

[jenlyn]

 

 

Boaters without a Home Mooring: How far is far enough?

Following our recent communication, a number of boaters have asked for clarification of the legal requirement to cruise throughout the period of their licence and, in particular, what is the minimum distance that should be covered in order to comply with the Trusts Guidance for Boaters without a Home Mooring.

 

We recognise that boaters want clarity over this. However the BW Act 1995 does not stipulate a minimum distance. It does set out the requirement to use the boat bona fide for navigation, and the Trusts Guidance is our interpretation of this requirement.

Whilst this means that we cannot set a universal minimum distance for compliance, we can advise that it is very unlikely that someone would be able to satisfy us that they have been genuinely cruising if their range of movement is less than 15-20 miles over the period of their licence. In most cases we would expect it to be greater than this.

 

We will be advising those boaters without a home mooring whose range of movement falls short of this distance that their movement needs to increase or we may refuse to renew their licence. Our statutory right to refuse to renew a licence arises from section 17 of the BW Act 1995 which states that we can refuse to issue a licence if we are not satisfied that a boat either has a home mooring or intends to continuously cruise.

[Machpoint005]

I'm sure somebody will have sufficient time, inclination and righteous indignation to challenge this, but it all seems Fairy Nuff to me.

 

I maintain that those who have been taking the p1ss know it perfectly well.

[b0atman]

seems that to move one boat length and moor up again is ok ?

[Guest]

Boaters without a Home Mooring: How far is far enough?

Following our recent communication, a number of boaters have asked for clarification of the legal requirement to cruise throughout the period of their licence and, in particular, what is the minimum distance that should be covered in order to comply with the Trusts Guidance for Boaters without a Home Mooring.

We recognise that boaters want clarity over this. However the BW Act 1995 does not stipulate a minimum distance. It does set out the requirement to use the boat bona fide for navigation, and the Trusts Guidance is our interpretation of this requirement.

Whilst this means that we cannot set a universal minimum distance for compliance, we can advise that it is very unlikely that someone would be able to satisfy us that they have been genuinely cruising if their range of movement is less than 15-20 miles over the period of their licence. In most cases we would expect it to be greater than this.

We will be advising those boaters without a home mooring whose range of movement falls short of this distance that their movement needs to increase or we may refuse to renew their licence. Our statutory right to refuse to renew a licence arises from section 17 of the BW Act 1995 which states that we can refuse to issue a licence if we are not satisfied that a boat either has a home mooring or intends to continuously cruise.

How Does that fit with their statement that being a cc'er is incompatible with work and school commitments. That is easily achievable isn't it? Or has he missed a nought off do we think?

[GoodGurl]

you can read it all here - https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/boating/licensing/enforcement

[Arthur Marshall]

Interesting. That's about 600 boats in two areas contacted. If you put them end to end...

[Tony Dunkley]

Boaters without a Home Mooring: How far is far enough?

Following our recent communication, a number of boaters have asked for clarification of the legal requirement to cruise throughout the period of their licence and, in particular, what is the minimum distance that should be covered in order to comply with the Trusts Guidance for Boaters without a Home Mooring.

 

We recognise that boaters want clarity over this. However the BW Act 1995 does not stipulate a minimum distance. It does set out the requirement to use the boat bona fide for navigation, and the Trusts Guidance is our interpretation of this requirement.

Whilst this means that we cannot set a universal minimum distance for compliance, we can advise that it is very unlikely that someone would be able to satisfy us that they have been genuinely cruising if their range of movement is less than 15-20 miles over the period of their licence. In most cases we would expect it to be greater than this.

 

We will be advising those boaters without a home mooring whose range of movement falls short of this distance that their movement needs to increase or we may refuse to renew their licence. Our statutory right to refuse to renew a licence arises from section 17 of the BW Act 1995 which states that we can refuse to issue a licence if we are not satisfied that a boat either has a home mooring or intends to continuously cruise.

 

That isn't the wording used in the Act . . . . . 'home', 'continuously' and 'cruise' don't appear in it.

[jenlyn]

all seems Fairy Nuff to me.

 

 

That's better, don't you think?

I removed the nasties and irrelevant remarks for you.

Saves dragging the thread into silliness :-)

[madcat]

It's understandable that some people like to have a clear guideline to work to , there are people who find uncertainty hard to cope with. We don't all have the same temperament and outlook on life.

[cotswoldsman]

I think it is good that CRT have now indicated a minimum distance and I must say it is a very generous minimum distance and IMO anyone who finds that distance difficult would get no sympathy from me

[GoodGurl]

I think it is good that CRT have now indicated a minimum distance and I must say it is a very generous minimum distance and IMO anyone who finds that distance difficult would get no sympathy from me

no they haven't indicated a minimum distance.

 

if their range of movement is less than 15-20 miles over the period of their licence. In most cases we would expect it to be greater than this.

how can greater than 15 - 20 miles define a minimum?

[jenlyn]

no they haven't indicated a minimum distance.

 

how can greater than 15 - 20 miles define a minimum?

It's the nearest anyone is going to get.

I strongly advise people to be realistic about this, and accept it.

It does not leave that much room for interpretation and comes across to me clearly.

[Guest]

It's the nearest anyone is going to get.

I strongly advise people to be realistic about this, and accept it.

It does not leave that much room for interpretation and comes across to me clearly.

Absolutely.....

[Alan de Enfield]

From Narrowboatworld by Allan Richards

 

‘The notes of Boating Organisations Meeting with CaRT on 19th Jan 2015 include where ‘RP (Richard Parry, Chief Executive) and DY (Denise Yelland, Head of Enforcement) agreed that the Trust should develop a clear response to the question ‘How far should I travel to comply?', and this is being drafted'.

 

Did not exist

Within minutes of the article's publication the Trust admitted that the document it claimed was being drafted did not exist—‘In response to your request last week for "A copy of your clear response to the question 'how far should I travel to comply?'" I can confirm that there is no such document in existence'.

Bearing in mind its failure to gain acceptance from boating organisations regarding ‘how far should I travel' and its subsequent assertion that it would provide its own ‘clear response' this represents a spectacular U-turn for CaRT.

[GoodGurl]

It's the nearest anyone is going to get.

I strongly advise people to be realistic about this, and accept it.

It does not leave that much room for interpretation and comes across to me clearly.

yes i agree it is a good move but will it stand up in court as gospel?

[Nightwatch]

It is my belief that this is far too lenient. Surely if you are continuously navigating the system in a progressive journey this amount of miles in a year is seriously taking the pee. Less than two miles a month???

 

A boat is either continuously moving or it ain't. In my opinion, this has confirmed that there really is a loophole in the CC guidelines.

 

Here's me worried that I may have over stayed in the Braunston-Calcutt area over Christmas.

 

Beggars belief.

 

Martyn, a continuous leisure boater.

[jenlyn]

yes i agree it is a good move but will it stand up in court as gospel?

I am no legal, but I would suggest any judge would see this as a pragmatic solution.

[kris88]

It's the nearest anyone is going to get.

I strongly advise people to be realistic about this, and accept it.

It does not leave that much room for interpretation and comes across to me clearly.

I agree and anybody who can't manage this needs to get a mooring.

Regards kris

[Paul C]

It is my belief that this is far too lenient. Surely if you are continuously navigating the system in a progressive journey this amount of miles in a year is seriously taking the pee. Less than two miles a month???

 

A boat is either continuously moving or it ain't. In my opinion, this has confirmed that there really is a loophole in the CC guidelines.

 

Here's me worried that I may have over stayed in the Braunston-Calcutt area over Christmas.

 

Beggars belief.

 

Martyn, a continuous leisure boater.

 

Its not a miles in distance covered figure. Its a size of cruising range, which is a completely different thing.

[cotswoldsman]

From Narrowboatworld by Allan Richards

 

The notes of Boating Organisations Meeting with CaRT on 19th Jan 2015 include where RP (Richard Parry, Chief Executive) and DY (Denise Yelland, Head of Enforcement) agreed that the Trust should develop a clear response to the question How far should I travel to comply?', and this is being drafted'.

Did not exist

Within minutes of the article's publication the Trust admitted that the document it claimed was being drafted did not existIn response to your request last week for "A copy of your clear response to the question 'how far should I travel to comply?'" I can confirm that there is no such document in existence'.

Bearing in mind its failure to gain acceptance from boating organisations regarding how far should I travel' and its subsequent assertion that it would provide its own clear response' this represents a spectacular U-turn for CaRT.

Just to clarify it is my understanding that the associations felt it was CRT that should set a minimum distance and not the associations

no they haven't indicated a minimum distance.

how can greater than 15 - 20 miles define a minimum?

I give up

 

Its not a miles in distance covered figure. Its a size of cruising range, which is a completely different thing.

Yup

[gaggle]

It is my belief that this is far too lenient. Surely if you are continuously navigating the system in a progressive journey this amount of miles in a year is seriously taking the pee. Less than two miles a month???

 

A boat is either continuously moving or it ain't. In my opinion, this has confirmed that there really is a loophole in the CC guidelines.

 

Here's me worried that I may have over stayed in the Braunston-Calcutt area over Christmas.

 

Beggars belief.

 

Martyn, a continuous leisure boater.

Well from now on you can worry a bit less cant you.

[Alan de Enfield]

Just to clarify it is my understanding that the associations felt it was CRT that should set a minimum distance and not the associations

 

 

 

That is what the quotation said and C&RT agree it was their responsibility, and, in fact they were already working on the document.

 

"RP (Richard Parry, Chief Executive) and DY (Denise Yelland, Head of Enforcement) agreed that the Trust should develop a clear response to the question How far should I travel to comply?', and this is being drafted'.

 

On requesting sight of the completed document, C&RT then admitted that there was no such document.

 

" I can confirm that there is no such document in existence"

[boathunter]

It is my belief that this is far too lenient. Surely if you are continuously navigating the system in a progressive journey this amount of miles in a year is seriously taking the pee. Less than two miles a month???

 

A boat is either continuously moving or it ain't. In my opinion, this has confirmed that there really is a loophole in the CC guidelines.

 

Here's me worried that I may have over stayed in the Braunston-Calcutt area over Christmas.

 

Beggars belief.

 

Martyn, a continuous leisure boater.

What if you're not? Your phrase paints a picture of a ride that you can't get off, for if you dare slow down your boat will be seized. A game where only marinas are safe havens.

[John Williamson 1955]

yes i agree it is a good move but will it stand up in court as gospel?

It'll never get to court unless a boater starts a test case after a licence renewal has been refused by CRT. It's just a public acknowledgement of the guidelines that CRT are already using internally (According to the e-mails that have been published following an FOI request) to decide whether to start the enforcement process in any particular boater's case. It is, however, a clear enough statement of what will satisfy the board when a boater asks for a licence without declaring a home mooring.

 

And, purely in my imagination of course, there's the response of a judge who's expected to believe that travelling an average of less than half a mile per week in a boat is too far to cruise for someone who's stated their intention to be engaged in bona fide navigation for a year or so. Are they allowed to roll on the floor laughing their @rse off?

[Thorfast]

So if you move 75 yards a day you are ok./