A Question To Ponder

[Alan de Enfield]

C&RT issue a 'licence' to allow us to have exclusive possession of a piece of water the size of our boat - should, in fact, this licence be more correctly called a tenancy agreement ?

In effect our boats are similar to leasehold property where we own the 'structure over the land', but another (the landlord) owns the actual 'ground'.

In Street v. Mountford [1985] A.C. 809 the House of Lords decided that where residential accommodation is granted for a term, at a rent with exclusive possession, the Landlord providing 'neither attention nor services,'* the grant is a tenancy notwithstanding the fact that the agreement professes an intention by both parties to create a mere licence, and in which case does this 'tenancy' bring into operation section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

*C&RT specifically make the point that having a licence confers no right of mooring and what 'attention' do they give to the actual piece of water you are residing in ?

[magictime]

16 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

C&RT issue a 'licence' to allow us to have exclusive possession of a piece of water the size of our boat

Sounds more like a mooring agreement than the CRT boat licence, which (surely?) just allows you to use your boat on CRT waterways.

18 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

In effect our boats are similar to leasehold property where we own the 'structure over the land', but another (the landlord) owns the actual 'ground'.

But the landlord of a leasehold property doesn't just own the ground it stands on - he owns the freehold of the 'structure over the land' too.

20 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

In Street v. Mountford [1985] A.C. 809 the House of Lords decided that where residential accommodation is granted for a term, at a rent with exclusive possession, the Landlord providing 'neither attention nor services,'* the grant is a tenancy notwithstanding the fact that the agreement professes an intention by both parties to create a mere licence, and in which case does this 'tenancy' bring into operation section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

But even if your licence did allow you 'exclusive possession of a piece of water the size of your boat', that wouldn't amount to a grant of residential accommodation, would it, any more than a lease on a garage or the title deed to an area of woodland amounts to a grant of residential accommodation?

[PhilAtterley]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

C&RT issue a 'licence' to allow us to have exclusive possession of a piece of water the size of our boat - should, in fact, this licence be more correctly called a tenancy agreement ?

In effect our boats are similar to leasehold property where we own the 'structure over the land', but another (the landlord) owns the actual 'ground'.

In Street v. Mountford [1985] A.C. 809 the House of Lords decided that where residential accommodation is granted for a term, at a rent with exclusive possession, the Landlord providing 'neither attention nor services,'* the grant is a tenancy notwithstanding the fact that the agreement professes an intention by both parties to create a mere licence, and in which case does this 'tenancy' bring into operation section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

*C&RT specifically make the point that having a licence confers no right of mooring and what 'attention' do they give to the actual piece of water you are residing in ?

It's an interesting thought, but not being an agreement to occupy something tangible such as a specific, and therefore, fixed piece of land, I don't think there's any mileage to be had out of it other than it's potential value as a argument against the ridiculous 'waterspace' over their land (ie. the bed of the canal) concept as used by C&RT to justify their 'End of Garden' mooring charges for extorting money out of the owners of boats kept moored to private land.

[NB Lola]

A good question.  Have you found any rulings which contradict the one referenced?

[rowland al]

35 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

In effect our boats are similar to leasehold property where we own the 'structure over the land', but another (the landlord) owns the actual 'ground'.

I can't see the parallel at all. For starters CRT don't own the ground or water. They are custodians on behalf of those who use it and pay for it (out of various revenue streams and tax payers money). 

It would be good if they remembered that from time to time!

[blackrose]

43 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

C&RT issue a 'licence' to allow us to have exclusive possession of a piece of water the size of our boat - should, in fact, this licence be more correctly called a tenancy agreement ?

Personally it makes no difference to me what a licence is called. Each to their own. Some people may have more time on their hands, but as far as I'm concerned it's not a question I want or need to spend my time pondering.

[Horace42]

1 hour ago, PhilAtterley said:

It's an interesting thought, but not being an agreement to occupy something tangible such as a specific, and therefore, fixed piece of land, I don't think there's any mileage to be had out of it other than it's potential value as a argument against the ridiculous 'waterspace' over their land (ie. the bed of the canal) concept as used by C&RT to justify their 'End of Garden' mooring charges for extorting money out of the owners of boats kept moored to private land.

From an EOG moorer.... I agree the charges bear no relation to the cost incurred by CRT to provide moorings - which to be fair is considerable in terms of providing all facilities and maintaining public/visitors moorings - (which CC's get for absolutely no cost to themselves)- but that is not my point - my mooring license gives me a right to EXCLUSIVE and PERMANENT use of the water and canal bed to moor my boat at the end of my garden - to which I would add, a facility that costs CRT absolutely nothing to provide and maintain.

Apart from an 'emergency' situation that requires CRT to gain access to the canal at my EOG mooring - even if it means they have to move my boat to do so without explicit permission - something no doubt covered by the T&C's that I had to agree to.

Nothing has ever happened in 30 years to make me want to read the T&C's.

 

[magictime]

1 hour ago, PhilAtterley said:

the ridiculous 'waterspace' over their land (ie. the bed of the canal) concept as used by C&RT to justify their 'End of Garden' mooring charges for extorting money out of the owners of boats kept moored to private land.

Are you suggesting mooring charges should be applicable solely in relation to the land a boat is moored against, rather than the space it's actually occupying on the water? On what basis? Wouldn't this have the absurd consequence that a mooring for a 50ft boat with a 14ft beam (say) would have to be charged at the same rate as a mooring for a 50ft boat with a 7ft beam? (Or maybe you don't think that's absurd?)

[Jess--]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

C&RT issue a 'licence' to allow us to have exclusive possession of a piece of water the size of our boat

Surely the license allows us to displace a piece of water the size of our boats.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, magictime said:

Are you suggesting mooring charges should be applicable solely in relation to the land a boat is moored against, rather than the space it's actually occupying on the water? On what basis? Wouldn't this have the absurd consequence that a mooring for a 50ft boat with a 14ft beam (say) would have to be charged at the same rate as a mooring for a 50ft boat with a 7ft beam? (Or maybe you don't think that's absurd?)

Is it actually USING any more of C&RTs resources than the 7 foot wide boat is ?

By displacing more water, it is actually (fractionally) increasing the depth available to other boaters - maybe we should be grateful for the fatty's.

2 minutes ago, Jess-- said:

Surely the license allows us to displace a piece of water the size of our boats.

Good point - so they allow us possession of the hole that is left by the water displaced by our boat.

[magictime]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

Is it actually USING any more of C&RTs resources than the 7 foot wide boat is ?

Yes. The canal is a C&RT resource, and the widebeam is using twice as much of it.

[Drayke]

8 hours ago, magictime said:

Yes. The canal is a C&RT resource, and the widebeam is using twice as much of it.

Since when does a widebeam use twice the amount that a narrow boat uses, answer only when it is 14ft wide. How many widebeams on the canals are 14ft wide?

[1agos]

17 minutes ago, F DRAYKE said:

Since when does a widebeam use twice the amount that a narrow boat uses, answer only when it is 14ft wide. How many widebeams on the canals are 14ft wide?

Maybe every time it uses a lock.

[Drayke]

17 minutes ago, 1agos said:

Maybe every time it uses a lock.

How? Please explain. 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

13 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

C&RT issue a 'licence' to allow us to have exclusive possession of a piece of water the size of our boat - should, in fact, this licence be more correctly called a tenancy agreement ?

In effect our boats are similar to leasehold property where we own the 'structure over the land', but another (the landlord) owns the actual 'ground'.

In Street v. Mountford [1985] A.C. 809 the House of Lords decided that where residential accommodation is granted for a term, at a rent with exclusive possession, the Landlord providing 'neither attention nor services,'* the grant is a tenancy notwithstanding the fact that the agreement professes an intention by both parties to create a mere licence, and in which case does this 'tenancy' bring into operation section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

*C&RT specifically make the point that having a licence confers no right of mooring and what 'attention' do they give to the actual piece of water you are residing in ?

Having pondered your question whilst sitting on a visitor mooring at Barnby Dun, how exactly do I get 'exclusive possession' of a piece of water? As I pondered your question a boat went by and the piece of water that I had only just had exclusive possession of drifted away downstream and was replaced by another piece of water. When on the River Don the whole lot of water was on the move, how do I know which piece I have 'exclusive possession' of? and how do I just keep to the bit that I 'own'? All sounds a bit fluid to me!

[Martin Megson]

I simply pay my money and enjoy my wonderful life afloat. 

[PhilAtterley]

11 hours ago, Jess-- said:

Surely the license allows us to displace a piece of water the size of our boats.

Displacement of water is a factor in Archimedes Law, . . . not Parry's law, or any of other self-conferred pseudo law that C&RT like to peddle.

[Arthur Marshall]

I remember the furore when mooring permits were introduced.  I know various attempts were made to circumvent the charges, some of them pretty creative, and as far as I know they all failed in court.  Most of us i think just shrugged and saw it as a way of BW increasing licence fees without it looking as if they were doing so (much like the Govt pretends it isn't increasing taxation rates when it puts up National Insurance).  I know some on here have claimed they are illegal, but, again as far as I know, no-one has managed to set a precedent in court, so i suppose I'll keep paying mine. The law is generally not on the side of the underdog if it can find a way to avoid it.

Edited July 1, 2017 by Arthur Marshall

[PhilAtterley]

11 hours ago, Horace42 said:

From an EOG moorer.... I agree the charges bear no relation to the cost incurred by CRT to provide moorings - which to be fair is considerable in terms of providing all facilities and maintaining public/visitors moorings - (which CC's get for absolutely no cost to themselves)- but that is not my point - my mooring license gives me a right to EXCLUSIVE and PERMANENT use of the water and canal bed to moor my boat at the end of my garden - to which I would add, a facility that costs CRT absolutely nothing to provide and maintain.

Apart from an 'emergency' situation that requires CRT to gain access to the canal at my EOG mooring - even if it means they have to move my boat to do so without explicit permission - something no doubt covered by the T&C's that I had to agree to.

Nothing has ever happened in 30 years to make me want to read the T&C's.

 

I assume you have a boat Licence, which covers using your boat on the canals, and not a Pleasure Boat Certificate (registration). 

However you want to see things - as the Licence entitling you to occupy an area of 'waterspace' above the C&RT controlled, not owned, canal bed or allowing you to occupy a boat shaped 'hole' in the water that no-one owns, or the reality, which is that you are buying a years worth of entitlement to keep and use your boat on the C&RT controlled canals, there is no getting away from the fact that when you bought your Licence you paid for the right to occupy that hole in the water or the infinitely moveable bit of 'waterspace' above a boat-sized bit of the canal bed - why are you so happy about being conned into paying for the same thing twice because it sometimes happens to remain stationary at the bottom of your garden for a while ?

[PhilAtterley]

1 hour ago, Martin Megson said:

I simply pay my money and enjoy my wonderful life afloat. 

Enjoy it while you can, . . . . it won't last very much longer under the stewardship of the collection of navigational Luddites that are presently in charge of our inland waterways !

[MtB]

On 01/07/2017 at 09:18, Alan de Enfield said:

 

*C&RT specifically make the point that having a licence confers no right of mooring and what 'attention' do they give to the actual piece of water you are residing in ?

 

Shockingly shortsighted. 

CRT actually provide the water and the channel containing it. Close down CRT and how long do you think there will be water for your boat to float in? I'd give it a few months.

[mark99]

10 hours ago, F DRAYKE said:

How? Please explain. 

Naughty.

[WotEver]

22 minutes ago, mark99 said:

Naughty.

But ''twas a fun thread

[magictime]

11 hours ago, F DRAYKE said:

Since when does a widebeam use twice the amount that a narrow boat uses, answer only when it is 14ft wide. How many widebeams on the canals are 14ft wide?

Alan and I were talking about the wide and narrow boats described in post 8 of this thread as having a length of 50ft and beams of 14ft and 7ft respectively, for the sake of making a point neatly. There was no suggestion that a typical widebeam boat is 14ft wide.

[mark99]

3 minutes ago, WotEver said:

But ''twas a fun thread

Archie Meads is ready, sitting and awaiting the phone calls.  Lol.