Jump to content

"Permanent Mooring"


Heffalump

Featured Posts

On ‎15‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 17:07, Heffalump said:

I find the first point to be true.  There just aren't any residential moorings around me.

PS - if anyone can find a residential mooring within commuting distance to Brackley and Bicester, please let me know!

Hell o young man how ya doin. Remember its not what you know its who you know that counts. Come and see me for beer and advice ;)

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, mayalld said:

You may be disappointed! . . .  Pepper vs Hart has such restricted scope now.

 

It is certainly true that the admirable views expressed by at least one of the judges in Pepper v Hart have been relentlessly emasculated in successive judgments thereafter, but I am still unclear at the moment, as to the potential reversing of that trend.

There are quite a number of ‘Rules of Statutory Construction’ – more than you list – but a growing trend currently favours what is known as the ‘Purposive’ rule.

As Wikipedia summarises: “Purposive interpretation is a derivation of mischief rule set in Heydon's Case, and intended to replace the mischief rule, the plain meaning rule and the golden rule.[6] Purposive interpretation is used when the courts use extraneous materials from the pre-enactment phase of legislation, including early drafts, hansards, committee reports, and white papers. The purposive interpretation involves a rejection of the exclusionary rule.” [my bold]

The Judge in the Ravenscroft case has determined to use this approach, and it will be most interesting to see to what effect she applies it; there was any number of pre-enactment material exhibited in that case with the intent of demonstrating just how cautious BW were to minimise impact on the PRN, and CaRT as usual naturally objected to its use. Despite that, the material in the contested Bundle was in fact referred to [by CaRT even more than myself, oddly, during oral argument], so there is scope for the Judge to use it.

The relevant precedent offered by the Judge was the Judgment of Lady Justice Arden in 9 Cornwall Crescent London Ltd v Mayor & Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea [2006]. Quoting her explanation of the greater ‘liberality’ in allowing Courts to examine the context of disputed Statutory meanings: “By “context”, I mean the legislative context, and the policy context, as shown by any admissible material, such as Law Commission reports, explanatory notes accompanying legislation, travaux préparatoires and (in certain cases) Hansard.

While Leigh and I welcome so sensible an approach – which we have in fact advocated by use of such material - it would be not be right [in my opinion] to thereby dismiss the other rule of construction that applies only to private Acts, wherein any ambiguity must be resolved against the promoters of the Act. In that context, it must be remembered that ALL the BW Acts fall into that privately promoted category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

I don't quite see how asking a boat to return to its home mooring (I used 7 days as I thought that it was stated so in an earlier post) relates to an attempt to impose CCing rules on a boat with a home mooring.

In this context the only significant distinction between CC and nonCC is the requirement to satisfy the Board that the boat is being used bona fide to navigate a journey. Whilst the various laws are somewhat short on detail, what is clear and legal is that the Board must 'be satisfied'. No criteria are given for that satisfaction so any decision can only be challenged on a judicial review of unreasonableness.

One aspect of the 'return to base' demand is to see whether the boat in question can actually get to the declared mooring! (No use trying to claim Ripon for a 72 ft widebeam when shuffling about in the centre of Brum!)

 

To avoid the boat's PBC being revoked, there were just two options on offer from C&RT. The 'return to the mooring' option was the sole alternative to 'continuing [the boat's] journey' and 'mooring for short periods while cruising', cruising being variously defined, by C&RT at the time, as 'bona fide navigating' or ' cruising in compliance with the (2013-14) Condition 2.1 of the T&C's. In other words, if the boat is not on it's mooring it must comply with CC'ing rules !

As for the Board (C&RT) being 'satisfied', I can only repeat what I said in my earlier post. C&RT produced written (printed out) records of the boat having had an L6 Mooring, whatever that is supposed to mean, since 2003. What was there for them not to be 'satisfied' about ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

It is certainly true that the admirable views expressed by at least one of the judges in Pepper v Hart have been relentlessly emasculated in successive judgments thereafter, but I am still unclear at the moment, as to the potential reversing of that trend.

There are quite a number of ‘Rules of Statutory Construction’ – more than you list – but a growing trend currently favours what is known as the ‘Purposive’ rule.

As Wikipedia summarises: “Purposive interpretation is a derivation of mischief rule set in Heydon's Case, and intended to replace the mischief rule, the plain meaning rule and the golden rule.[6] Purposive interpretation is used when the courts use extraneous materials from the pre-enactment phase of legislation, including early drafts, hansards, committee reports, and white papers. The purposive interpretation involves a rejection of the exclusionary rule.” [my bold]

The Judge in the Ravenscroft case has determined to use this approach, and it will be most interesting to see to what effect she applies it; there was any number of pre-enactment material exhibited in that case with the intent of demonstrating just how cautious BW were to minimise impact on the PRN, and CaRT as usual naturally objected to its use. Despite that, the material in the contested Bundle was in fact referred to [by CaRT even more than myself, oddly, during oral argument], so there is scope for the Judge to use it.

The relevant precedent offered by the Judge was the Judgment of Lady Justice Arden in 9 Cornwall Crescent London Ltd v Mayor & Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea [2006]. Quoting her explanation of the greater ‘liberality’ in allowing Courts to examine the context of disputed Statutory meanings: “By “context”, I mean the legislative context, and the policy context, as shown by any admissible material, such as Law Commission reports, explanatory notes accompanying legislation, travaux préparatoires and (in certain cases) Hansard.

While Leigh and I welcome so sensible an approach – which we have in fact advocated by use of such material - it would be not be right [in my opinion] to thereby dismiss the other rule of construction that applies only to private Acts, wherein any ambiguity must be resolved against the promoters of the Act. In that context, it must be remembered that ALL the BW Acts fall into that privately promoted category.

I knew that I could rely on you to expand on the subject!

As you say, purposive interpretation is derived from the mischief rule (interestingly named, because its meaning lies with the mischief that the law was designed to handle, but the rule leads to judicial mischief as it allows most flexibility to the judge), and incorporating the literal and golden rules.

Hovever, as the same Wikipedia article tells us;

The House of Lords held that courts could now take a purposive approach to interpreting legislation when the traditional methods of statutory construction are in doubt or result in an absurdity. (my bold).

Essentially, statutory interpretation isn't an a la carte menu that judges choose the method that matches what the answer they want.

So, is the section of the 1995 act regarding home moorings incapable of interpretation using the traditional methods? I would suggest that it is perfectly clear what the meaning is, and that to attempt to change the meaning of a clause that is neither ambiguous nor absurd by second guessing that parliament meant something else is a very dangerous assault on separation of powers.

The law says;

where the vessel can reasonably be kept

The sentence would have made perfect sense without the word "reasonably", so it is clear that the natural interpretation of the clause must be that the requirement is not simply that the boat could, theoretically, be kept there, although in practical terms it is so difficult to do so that it is effectively impossible, but that the place must meet some undefined level of reasonableness. The argument then is simply about where the line is drawn as to what is reasonable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, PhilAtterley said:

To avoid the boat's PBC being revoked, there were just two options on offer from C&RT. The 'return to the mooring' option was the sole alternative to 'continuing [the boat's] journey' and 'mooring for short periods while cruising', cruising being variously defined, by C&RT at the time, as 'bona fide navigating' or ' cruising in compliance with the (2013-14) Condition 2.1 of the T&C's. In other words, if the boat is not on it's mooring it must comply with CC'ing rules !

As for the Board (C&RT) being 'satisfied', I can only repeat what I said in my earlier post. C&RT produced written (printed out) records of the boat having had an L6 Mooring, whatever that is supposed to mean, since 2003. What was there for them not to be 'satisfied' about ?

I still don't see the logic:

If the aim of CaRT was to establish whether or not the boat did indeed have an available home mooring - and we are here discussing the matter without reference to the specific details - then your conclusion in the lasts sentence of para 1 does not follow. If the start point is that the home mooring claim is not valid then the CC rules apply. If their view (the Board not being satisfied) then of course the CC rules apply.

I suspect you are depending on the excluded middle - or something rather similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2017 at 17:05, Heffalump said:

I wasn't very clear on this, but I do intend on having a mooring which is used for two weeks every 10 weeks or so, depending on how many nice stops there are along the way

In REALITY there won't be enough elsan, water points along the route which will mean you will spend time hovering around those services...then dashing to a distant services point and hover around that.....All boaters spend as much time around the service points....it's just natural. Of course if CRT increased the number of services, then the number of boats on the system would spread out and there would be zero congestion...but then of course people wouldn't stay in marinas and CRT would lose the percentage they get from marina operators.

Did I miss anything.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was expecting Nigel to muddy the waters somewhat, however for the purposes of the original post(er), I refer him to my previous answer - which is post #2 on the thread.

We seem to have wandered off into an imaginary situation where an imaginary boater has taken a mooring whose legitimacy is somewhat more fragile than the OPs intentions. And an imaginary court case where the (imaginary) boater has had their licence not renewed, then undertaken a judicial review rather than changing their behaviour. Notwithstanding, of course there is scope for various shades of grey in between having a "normal", used, returned-to-regularly etc home mooring and not having one at all. I think we all agree that the intention behind this is that (taking the whole text of the legislation, ie considering both the home mooring and CC requirements) there is a limited (in some areas) resource of towpath, transit moorings thus those with a home mooring would not impose such a demand on these, thus not be further constrained by a limited stay (14 days) and movement (bona fide navigation) requirement. In other words, you can have your cake OR eat something (but not the cake). Those having their cake and eating it are where it gets interesting.

In fact, the letter of the law allows a significant amount of freedom for the "home moorer" - more than the T&Cs would now suggest. In effect, its a "legal loophole" that you can take out a genuine mooring but basically never use it, all it has to do is remain available, not actually be used. I don't think the person who wishes to do this needs to rely on further interpretations or additional material or precedents, the law is fairly unambiguously written and its interpretation doesn't leave much variation.

Of course there is always an imaginary boater somewhere who can't be arsed to actually pay for the genuine mooring but wants its inherent benefits - hence the ghost mooring concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I still don't see the logic:

If the aim of CaRT was to establish whether or not the boat did indeed have an available home mooring - and we are here discussing the matter without reference to the specific details - then your conclusion in the lasts sentence of para 1 does not follow. If the start point is that the home mooring claim is not valid then the CC rules apply. If their view (the Board not being satisfied) then of course the CC rules apply.

 

They were NOT raising any queries or doubts about the mooring - they were insisting that using it was the only option to avoid being classed and treated as a CC'er

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2017 at 16:05, Arthur Marshall said:

CRT would probably argue that if your boat spent all its time  in Oxford, and your mooring was  in Leeds, it wasn't actually available for your use. In the same way that if I lived in Brighton, but my car was parked in Glasgow, it wasn't actually useful. Would be an interesting semantic argument, depending on a legal definition of "available" and "use". Lots of money for lawyers and almost certainly a waste of time for everyone else. Generally, the law is only bendable for those who own or make it. 

I like  the  logic of your comments - I think I will adapt it to my cruising license  - I will ask CRT to reduce my fees because although I am being charged at a rate that puts the whole network at my disposal, I cannot use it any way because the nature of my cruising lifestyle means that - although it is available to me - it is too far away to be of any practical for me to use it.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Horace42 said:

I like  the  logic of your comments - I think I will adapt it to my cruising license  - I will ask CRT to reduce my fees because although I am being charged at a rate that puts the whole network at my disposal, I cannot use it any way because the nature of my cruising lifestyle means that - although it is available to me - it is too far away to be of any practical for me to use it.

I don't like your logic though. The same mooring costs the same, no matter what distance the boat is from it at any given time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Paul C said:

We seem to have wandered off into an imaginary situation where an imaginary boater has taken a mooring whose legitimacy is somewhat more fragile than the OPs intentions

This all happened on my 'home patch' - it is not an imaginary situation:

I think that your misunderstanding ( lack of knowledge of the boat & boater in question) is that :

1) The boater had an L6 mooring for which C&RT had records going back many years and they happily took the money for every year.

2)There was no question about the boat having a "suitable & available" home mooring.

3) C&RT refused to renew the boat licence claiming that the boater was spending too much time away from his mooring, and was not bona-fide navigating whilst away from his mooring.

4) There was no question about 'overstaying' on visitors moorings - just 'not moving far enough' to comply with the CC 'rules'.

 

Phil does have personal knowledge of the boater concerned & may wish (or may not) to fill in some of the 'blanks'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Horace42 said:

I like  the  logic of your comments - I think I will adapt it to my cruising license  - I will ask CRT to reduce my fees because although I am being charged at a rate that puts the whole network at my disposal, I cannot use it any way because the nature of my cruising lifestyle means that - although it is available to me - it is too far away to be of any practical for me to use it.

Please let us know how you get on.

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

This all happened on my 'home patch' - it is not an imaginary situation:

I think that your misunderstanding ( lack of knowledge of the boat & boater in question) is that :

1) The boater had an L6 mooring for which C&RT had records going back many years and they happily took the money for every year.

2)There was no question about the boat having a "suitable & available" home mooring.

3) C&RT refused to renew the boat licence claiming that the boater was spending too much time away from his mooring, and was not bona-fide navigating whilst away from his mooring.

4) There was no question about 'overstaying' on visitors moorings - just 'not moving far enough' to comply with the CC 'rules'.

 

Phil does have personal knowledge of the boater concerned & may wish (or may not) to fill in some of the 'blanks'.

Partial information is about as useful as a fart in an astronaut suit - hence I thoroughly ignored it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mayalld said:

may lawfully be left

Fairly simple, even if somewhere is somewhere that you could leave a boat, if that somewhere requires permission and you don't have permission, then it doesn't meet the test. So, if you claim that you will move the boat to the Bridgewater Canal when not in use, but MSCC say you have no permission to be there, it doesn't work

can reasonably be kept

OK, here is the clincher. Reasonable is a question of degree, and as noted above CRT get to say what is reasonable in the first instance. Clearly, if I claim that I have a mooring in a Norwegian Fjord, it isn't somewhere that I can REASONABLY get the boat to when not in use. the test must be "if you need to stop moving for longer that casual mooring is available for, could you actually use the mooring that you claim"

 

12 minutes ago, mayalld said:

The law says;

where the vessel can reasonably be kept

The sentence would have made perfect sense without the word "reasonably", so it is clear that the natural interpretation of the clause must be that the requirement is not simply that the boat could, theoretically, be kept there, although in practical terms it is so difficult to do so that it is effectively impossible, but that the place must meet some undefined level of reasonableness. The argument then is simply about where the line is drawn as to what is reasonable.

How about giving some thought to the fact that a mooring is simply somewhere to leave a boat when it is not being used, instead of indulging in endless semantics on 'interpreting' the meaning of certain words in the relevant legislation ?

An annual Licence entitles a boat owner to use their boat on any part of the waterways covered by that Licence throughout every day of the year, and unlike commercial vessels, pleasure boats don't necessarily have to be on the move to be in use - a fact that both you and C&RT seem to find convenient to ignore. 

Using a pleasure boat can entail a variety of activities, including inactivity, anything in fact that the owner finds pleasurable. It follows therefore that the owners of Licensed pleasure boats are perfectly entitled to enjoy their boats in any way they so choose, and over whatever travelling distance they choose.

In demanding that boats 'cruise', ie move about, whilst away from their moorings, C&RT are effectively denying pleasure boaters enjoyment of some part of what they have paid for and are entitled to indulge in as and when they so choose. C&RT's stance on this matter is grounded in the ridiculous presumption that pleasure craft are not being 'used' unless they are underway on passage to another 'place'.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PhilAtterley said:

 

How about giving some thought to the fact that a mooring is simply somewhere to leave a boat when it is not being used, instead of indulging in endless semantics on 'interpreting' the meaning of certain words in the relevant legislation ?

An annual Licence entitles a boat owner to use their boat on any part of the waterways covered by that Licence throughout every day of the year, and unlike commercial vessels, pleasure boats don't necessarily have to be on the move to be in use - a fact that both you and C&RT seem to find convenient to ignore. 

Using a pleasure boat can entail a variety of activities, including inactivity, anything in fact that the owner finds pleasurable. It follows therefore that the owners of Licensed pleasure boats are perfectly entitled to enjoy their boats in any way they so choose, and over whatever travelling distance they choose.

In demanding that boats 'cruise', ie move about, whilst away from their moorings, C&RT are effectively denying pleasure boaters enjoyment of some part of what they have paid for and are entitled to indulge in as and when they so choose. C&RT's stance on this matter is grounded in the ridiculous presumption that pleasure craft are not being 'used' unless they are underway on passage to another 'place'.

I would accept that one can "use" a boat without moving it, but taken to its logical conclusion (and excluding particular cases of boaters who had a declared home mooring, but actually moored elsewhere but not on a public mooring), your argument would suggest that provided a boater has a home mooring, he can moor anywhere and never move again, provided he "uses" the boat.

I'm afraid that the mischief rule will have you there!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Horace42 said:

I like  the  logic of your comments - I think I will adapt it to my cruising license  - I will ask CRT to reduce my fees because although I am being charged at a rate that puts the whole network at my disposal, I cannot use it any way because the nature of my cruising lifestyle means that - although it is available to me - it is too far away to be of any practical for me to use it.

Very well said, sir, it's good to know that there are others who can see through all the nonsense that is perpetrated by the Trust in the name of "managing and conserving" our waterways !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/07/2017 at 15:31, Heffalump said:

That's interesting, in all honesty, I'd probably travel up as far as Braunston and perhaps even over to billing, as I work in Brackley.

Can you cite a source for this, please? Linky? :)

If that is your situation why bother to pay for a mooring?

You could easily comply with the cc declaration by travelling further but still being within reasonable commuting distance of Brackley.

Buy a canal map and see for yourself.

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

I was expecting Nigel to muddy the waters somewhat

Are you suggesting that I have, or that I have surprised you by not having done so?

I was not actually addressing any point specifically as it happens, just adding relevant expansion on the methods of Statutory interpretation in response to [not contradicting] mayalld’s post.

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mayalld said:

I would accept that one can "use" a boat without moving it, but taken to its logical conclusion (and excluding particular cases of boaters who had a declared home mooring, but actually moored elsewhere but not on a public mooring), your argument would suggest that provided a boater has a home mooring, he can moor anywhere and never move again, provided he "uses" the boat.

I'm afraid that the mischief rule will have you there!

Not so because the boat is only allowed to stay in one place for up to 14 days or less.

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mayalld said:

I would accept that one can "use" a boat without moving it, but taken to its logical conclusion (and excluding particular cases of boaters who had a declared home mooring, but actually moored elsewhere but not on a public mooring), your argument would suggest that provided a boater has a home mooring, he can moor anywhere and never move again, provided he "uses" the boat.

I'm afraid that the mischief rule will have you there!

 

I think that's where you and I differ. Of course, you have chosen the time period as "for ever" (ie never ever moving it again), however there isn't in fact a time period of 14 days specified anywhere except the T&Cs, that the home moorer must stay within to avoid breaking the law. Thus, technically, a home moorer could stay for longer than 14 days (but shorter than "for ever") and still remain within the law. Especially if we combine a logical interpretation with an interpretation of "place", this means a home moorer could stay within a "place" for a number of months AND STILL COMPLY with the 14 days as suggested in the T&Cs (which aren't law) by moving the actual precise mooring location for example shuffling around a little bit, or nipping off then returning soon afterwards etc.

I think somewhere in between 15+ days and "for ever" a reasonableness test must be done, hence I also accept that the upper bound (of infinite time) is quite clearly unreasonable but there's definitely a grey area in between (which would be judged, if it came to that, on the particular circumstances of each case).

4 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Are you suggesting that I have, or that I have surprised you by not having done so?

I was not actually addressing any point specifically as it happens, just adding relevant expansion on the methods of Statutory interpretation in response to [not contradicting] mayalld’s post.

 

I refer you to post #2.

Of course, we all love discussing hypothetical situations, hence why this thread is 5 pages long and growing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Paul C said:

I refer you to post #2.

Of course, we all love discussing hypothetical situations, hence why this thread is 5 pages long and growing.

I read your post #2. I agree with it. How does referring back to it answer the question over whether I muddied the waters in expanding on general principles of interpretation? Of course we enjoy discussing hypothetical situations, is that not what this Forum is largely about? It is not only how understanding is broadened, it is how the relevant clauses were arrived at in the first place. One hypothetical situation after another was put to BW by the Select Committee and vice versa, in order to hammer out and clarify the practical effect of seemingly simple clauses.

The value of using such material as the records of those debates is slowly being recognised – even if only in certain situations, as mayalld has observed – and discussing relevant portions here is conceivably one method of ensuring that CaRT’s legal department are properly reminded of the purpose of the legislation, as much as such discussion is for our own benefit.

You could have closed the topic down following your #2 response, and I for one would have been happy that the op query was satisfactorily answered – but that does not invalidate subsequent discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

I think that's where you and I differ. Of course, you have chosen the time period as "for ever" (ie never ever moving it again), however there isn't in fact a time period of 14 days specified anywhere except the T&Cs, that the home moorer must stay within to avoid breaking the law. Thus, technically, a home moorer could stay for longer than 14 days (but shorter than "for ever") and still remain within the law. Especially if we combine a logical interpretation with an interpretation of "place", this means a home moorer could stay within a "place" for a number of months AND STILL COMPLY with the 14 days as suggested in the T&Cs (which aren't law) by moving the actual precise mooring location for example shuffling around a little bit, or nipping off then returning soon afterwards etc.

I think somewhere in between 15+ days and "for ever" a reasonableness test must be done, hence I also accept that the upper bound (of infinite time) is quite clearly unreasonable but there's definitely a grey area in between (which would be judged, if it came to that, on the particular circumstances of each case).

 

I refer you to post #2.

Of course, we all love discussing hypothetical situations, hence why this thread is 5 pages long and growing.

Again, a question of what is reasonable.

Given that the same act contained provisions to make those without a home mooring move after 14 days;

1) By the golden rule, allowing those with a home mooring to remain longer is absurd, so there is scope there.

2) By the mischief rule, it was clearly the intent that boats that were not being "used" should not be moored hither and thither. The act clearly provides for boats to either be engaged in navigation throughout or to have a place to be kept.

Now, the drafting of the act is crap, but the intent is clear, and it would be open to a judge to decide that if a boat didn't move for a protracted period (and 14 days is an interesting starting point), it isn't actually being used and ought to be on its mooring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

This all happened on my 'home patch' - it is not an imaginary situation:

I think that your misunderstanding ( lack of knowledge of the boat & boater in question) is that :

1) The boater had an L6 mooring for which C&RT had records going back many years and they happily took the money for every year.

2)There was no question about the boat having a "suitable & available" home mooring.

3) C&RT refused to renew the boat licence claiming that the boater was spending too much time away from his mooring, and was not bona-fide navigating whilst away from his mooring.

4) There was no question about 'overstaying' on visitors moorings - just 'not moving far enough' to comply with the CC 'rules'.

 

Phil does have personal knowledge of the boater concerned & may wish (or may not) to fill in some of the 'blanks'.

Not really any blanks to fill in there, Alan, although the details re. the L6 mooring are not quite right.

C&RT did produce print-out records showing that since 2003 they had been paid for an L6 mooring (I'm still unsure as to what that is) a matter of only a few miles away from where they objected to his daily use of his boat, but in common with most of the rest of the written material they produced as evidence for the Court, it was a total fabrication. BW/C&RT didn't have, and at no time previously had, control of the moorings that the records showed them as in receipt of payment for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using the Select Committee minutes of 1993, day 6, to directly answer the OP in affirmation of #2, it was BW’s position [respecting 17(3)( c )(ii)] that: -

This clause would not bite on somebody who has a home mooring, whatever the pattern of use of their boat might be.”

It is not that simple, mind you; BW’s QC kept on for some time about at least occasional use being required for a pleasure boat to retain that status on peril of being re-classified as a houseboat, but he muddied the waters too much with that line of argument in my opinion.

So far as I am concerned though, respecting use patterns, I see no distinction between requirements for boats licensed through either pathway – the reasons for which I have elaborated on previously [and won’t repeat here]. I agree with the suggestions in  #122 that the 14 day limit applies to all boats, including those off from home moorings [with the proviso that any of them are entitled to remain longer at any other legitimate long stay moorings elsewhere].

The only confusion arises from treating “bona fide navigating” as something distinct from and extra to, the 14 day limit. The latter IS the definition of the former for the purposes of the Act.

From the Select Committee minutes of 1993, day 6: “I would be happy to have no period mentioned at all and rely upon the expression “bona fide used for navigation”. This [the 14 day limit] is an attempt to clarify in the interests of boaters just what we reasonably mean by “bona fide used for navigation”, what are the parameters, that it appears to be either necessary or helpful to put some indication of what genuinely “on the move” means.”

 With respect to the period, we were trying to respond to the test for “bona fide navigation” to give some measure of protection to a boater in those circumstances, so that he or she would be clear in their mind as to the point at which he would begin not to be regarded by British Waterways as using the boat for bona fide navigation.”  [my bold]

The 14 days comes, as I see it, essentially as a guidance of definition of what is meant by bona fide navigation. [my bold]

Committee: “The impression I get . . . is that whoever has been involved with the drafting . . . have decided that the 14 day criteria is the one that is the benchmark for deciding whether people are or are not bona fide travellers.”  [my bold]  BW answer: “That is true.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mayalld said:

 

2) By the mischief rule, it was clearly the intent that boats that were not being "used" should not be moored hither and thither. The act clearly provides for boats to either be engaged in navigation throughout or to have a place to be kept.

 

Leaving aside the fact that, in the practical sense, no vessel of any type can be "engaged in navigation throughout" (presumably of the period of validity of it's Licence), you're again ignoring the fundamental differences in the ways pleasure craft and commercial vessels are "used". Are you seriously suggesting that the SC and the MP's who voted the Bill through to become the 1995 BW Act intended that pleasure craft leaving their (home) moorings must adopt similar running/operating schedules to those of cargo carrying commercials ?

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
  • 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.