"Permanent Mooring"

[MtB]

On 16/07/2017 at 14:41, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

I spat my tea out when I read that. 

Its a blatant lie, no one has made any declaration to use their mooring, only that it is available for use.

 

 

Yes but you spit your tea out at most things CRT write or say.

I have to agree with you on this point though. 

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Its a blatant lie, no one has made any declaration to use their mooring, only that it is available for use.

We have had our disagreements (Onions do give me frightful wind) in the past - but - frighteningly, I must 100% agree with you on this.

 

It gives me great pleasure to (once again) quote His Honour Justice Halbert :

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.

[Arthur Marshall]

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. 

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, OldGoat said:

Shows you how out of date I am. As more and more folks are taking to the water to live, I guess the marinas are tightening up their rules - again primarily to ward off the Local Authorities. Thanks for pointing that out.

Trying to find a mooring for this winter and finding that the one where we used to moor and others at a similar distance from central London are not accepting leisure moorings as they have reached an agreement (to collude in looking the other way?) with Local Authorities - and the mooring rates are much higher.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

57 minutes ago, 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. 

Its an invented argument .

 

Edited July 16, 2017 by Muddy Ditch Rich

[Bewildered]

5 hours ago, OldGoat said:

Many / most marinas prevent 365 days per year living aboard because of Council Tax liability. That's avoided by going out for "a couple of days". Others make it a bit more onerous by saying "xx weeks". What does your marina say in its Ts and Cs??

You don't actually have to take the boat out of the marina, ever. All you need do is not live on it 365days per year.

similar rules apply to holiday mobile home sites, you can't exactly take the mobile home off the park for "xx weeks" they may be mobile but they really don't move once on the park. 

I have no idea how long constitutes residential under the law though.

would perhaps two fortnight holidays a year mean you don't live in one place for a full year?

Edited July 16, 2017 by Bewildered

[Alan de Enfield]

15 minutes ago, Bewildered said:

I have no idea how long constitutes residential under the law though

A continuous use of 28 days (its on the VOA website) but there are all sorts of 'rules', conditions and exemptions.

 

22 minutes ago, Bewildered said:

would perhaps two fortnight holidays a year mean you don't live in one place for a full year?

From the VOA guidance :

As a general rule, where a dwelling boat or caravan occupies a mooring or pitch for a substantial period of time - such duration would usually be for 12 months or more - it should be included in the band value, even if it moves away for brief periods of say 2 to 4 weeks.

In this example not only is the value of the mooring taken into a account, but the value of the boat is added to be able to estimate the 'full Council Tax'.

 

In other circumstances : (again, from the VOA)

The question to be asked is whether the occupation can be characterised as that of a 'settler' or a 'wayfarer'. If the latter, then only the mooring or pitch should be valued.

 

If you are "away" from your mooring for a 'considerable time' then ONLY the value of the mooring is taken into account for the valuation - and - normally the VOA would then just take a total valuation of all of the residential moorings in the marina (a composite valuation) which the mooring provider will just divide by the number of residential moorings. Typically (in our marina) a residential mooring where you have to change mooring at least twice per annum has a 'Council Tax' of £100 per boat / berth.

The boats that do not move are subject to full band A Council tax at around £1200 per boat.

Is it worth arguing about changing berth twice a year to save £1100 per year  ? - some folks (in our marina) are refusing to change berths as they are 'next to friends' etc etc etc. They do not seem to understand that the marina owner is not being vindictive, all they are doing, in fact, is trying to save the boater money.

[Jerra]

7 hours ago, 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. 

An interesting and I suspect costly discussion would go on with lawyers.

Interesting because synonyms for available are given as:

obtainable, accessible, ready for use, at hand, to hand, at one's disposal, at one's fingertips, within easy reach, handy, convenient,

I suspect that those I have emboldened above could easily be used to say a mooring in Leeds is notavailable if you spend all your time in Oxford.  So not a made up argument as Mr Onion suggests.

[PhilAtterley]

23 minutes ago, Jerra said:

An interesting and I suspect costly discussion would go on with lawyers.

Interesting because synonyms for available are given as:

obtainable, accessible, ready for use, at hand, to hand, at one's disposal, at one's fingertips, within easy reach, handy, convenient,

I suspect that those I have emboldened above could easily be used to say a mooring in Leeds is notavailable if you spend all your time in Oxford.  So not a made up argument as Mr Onion suggests.

The literary gymnastics that C&RT and their lawyers would indulge in with the purpose of changing the sense in which the word "available" is used in S.17 of the 1995 Act have no real effect if you direct attention to the dictionary meaning of the word rather than focusing on synonyms - as in : -

                                                 available ;

                                                             = able to be used or obtained; at someone's disposal.

[Jerra]

8 hours ago, PhilAtterley said:

The literary gymnastics that C&RT and their lawyers would indulge in with the purpose of changing the sense in which the word "available" is used in S.17 of the 1995 Act have no real effect if you direct attention to the dictionary meaning of the word rather than focusing on synonyms - as in : -

                                                 available ;

                                                             = able to be used or obtained; at someone's disposal.

No lawyer addresses a problem as simply as that!   As I said I suspect if it ever gets to court there will be an interesting and costly discussion.

If the law worked as easily as you suggest we would have no need for lawyers.

[Horace42]

On 7/15/2017 at 17:03, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

How do you come to that conclusion? The hassle is because a small minority of boaters chose to abuse the basic and clearly understandable rules.

Plenty of visitors  moorings for any boat, anywhere you like, for as long as you like, would remove the need for CRT to operate a complicated and expensive time consuming legal system to move boats on.

The minority who abuse the system, and bring hassle on themselves, because there is no coherent pricing structure to ensure the cost of providing public moorings is born fairly by those who use them most.  Which by definition are those who have no home base and need to moor somewhere - usually to stay put for days on end, that for their convenience will be at prime spots.  

 

[PhilAtterley]

24 minutes ago, Jerra said:

No lawyer addresses a problem as simply as that!   As I said I suspect if it ever gets to court there will be an interesting and costly discussion.

If the law worked as easily as you suggest we would have no need for lawyers.

The Judge who heard C&RT's claim against Geoff Mayers did, and he went along with the dictionary definition of meaning, NOT synonym !

It would, however, be true to say that C&RT, or more accurately those within the Trust who dishonestly seek to subvert the intentions and wishes of Parliament, would never employ a lawyer who addresses a problem as simply as that.

[Dave_P]

On 7/15/2017 at 15:03, Alan de Enfield said:

The law says "YES" you can do as proposed  

A Judge said 'YES' you can do as proposed

C&RT says "NO" you cannot, you are subject to the same rules as CCers when away from your mooring.

 

You pays you money and makes your choice.

 

I don't think you're right here.  CRT have clearly stated that every time you return to your mooring, the clock re-sets.  So as long as the OP returns to their mooring at Cropredy as part of their regular cruising schedule, there shouldn't be an issue.

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, Dave_P said:

I don't think you're right here.  CRT have clearly stated that every time you return to your mooring, the clock re-sets.  So as long as the OP returns to their mooring at Cropredy as part of their regular cruising schedule, there shouldn't be an issue.

I don't think you read what I actually wrote.

C&RT have repeatedly said / written that when away from your home mooring you come under the exact same rules as a CCer - the law says you do not, HHJ Halbert says you do not.

Whatever you may wish it to say - the fact is boat with a home mooring does not need to bona-fide navigate.

[PhilAtterley]

15 minutes ago, Dave_P said:

I don't think you're right here.  CRT have clearly stated that every time you return to your mooring, the clock re-sets. 

. . . . . thereby restricting the extent of the HM'er's use of the C&RT controlled inland waterways by obliging them to return to their mooring every 14 days to "re-set the clock" - another stupid expression of C&RT's, which should be consigned to the same bin as "bridge-hopping".

Edited July 17, 2017 by PhilAtterley

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Horace42 said:

Plenty of visitors  moorings for any boat, anywhere you like, for as long as you like, would remove the need for CRT to operate a complicated and expensive time consuming legal system to move boats on.

 

Free moorings indefinitely for everyone, you mean?

What planet are you from, remind me?

[Athy]

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Free moorings indefinitely for everyone, you mean?

What planet are you from, remind me?

The planet Ideal World perhaps: a place where many of us would love to reside, were it not for the practical difficulties involved.

[Dave_P]

1 hour ago, PhilAtterley said:

. . . . . thereby restricting the extent of the HM'er's use of the C&RT controlled inland waterways by obliging them to return to their mooring every 14 days to "re-set the clock" - another stupid expression of C&RT's, which should be consigned to the same bin as "bridge-hopping".

No it doesn't.  I'm not saying CRT's stance is right but the OP's proposed cruising schedule is entirely inline with their guidelines, as others on here have pointed out.

I have a home mooring on CRT waters and I'm certainly not obliged to return to my mooring every 14 days.  Resetting the clock is not a CRT imposed obligation, they offer it as an additional benefit to home moorers.  Personally I don't agree with their stance on this but for the benefit of newcomers this is a precis of the situation:

The 1995 Waterways Act obliges CRT to issue a license for a boat if the application, has the required paperwork (insurance and Boat Safety) and either has a home mooring or continuously cruises.  So on that basis, they cannot refuse a license if you have a mooring no matter how you cruise.  However, the terms and conditions of your licence state that home moorers have similar cruising obligations to CC'ers when away from their moorings.  This means that the T&Cs conflict with the 1995 act.  CRT defend this position by pointing to the 1962 Transport Act which empowers them to set their own terms and conditions.  Whether this gives them the ability to over-ride the requirements of the 1995 act is something which has never been properly tested in court.  All we really have are the non-binding judge's comments made in the summing up of the Mayer's case which may indicate that CRT would fail in any legal action against a home moorer in this respect.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the 1995 act would over-ride the T&Cs in the view of a judge and CRT would be forced to change their T&Cs.  I suspect CRT think this too which is why they've never (to my knowledge) brought a case of this type against a home moorer.

 

 

[Jerra]

7 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Free moorings indefinitely for everyone, you mean?

What planet are you from, remind me?

I tend to agree all the boats would come out of marinas and you would have solid lines of boats for miles.  Also every mooring close to a town/shop/other amenity would be permanently in use by somebody who wanted a floating cottage near amenities.

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I tend to agree all the boats would come out of marinas and you would have solid lines of boats for miles.  Also every mooring close to a town/shop/other amenity would be permanently in use by somebody who wanted a floating cottage near amenities.

 

AND licence costs would have to double or CRT would go bust as everyone would stop paying for home moorings. Why would they pay for a home mooring when VMs are free of charge for years on end as that nice Mr Horace42 proposes?  

Edited July 17, 2017 by Mike the Boilerman

[Dave_P]

25 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I tend to agree all the boats would come out of marinas and you would have solid lines of boats for miles.  Also every mooring close to a town/shop/other amenity would be permanently in use by somebody who wanted a floating cottage near amenities.

I'd definitely be one of them.

[Alan de Enfield]

52 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Free moorings indefinitely for everyone, you mean?

What planet are you from, remind me?

That's exactly what you get if you go 'coastal'. No moorings to pay for, no insurance, no licence, no BSSC - just 'drop the hook' and take the tender in when you want shopping etc.

Simples !!!

[PhilAtterley]

44 minutes ago, Dave_P said:

No it doesn't. . . . . . . .

             ________________________________________

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the 1995 act would over-ride the T&Cs in the view of a judge and CRT would be forced to change their T&Cs.  I suspect CRT think this too which is why they've never (to my knowledge) brought a case of this type against a home moorer.

I didn't make myself completely clear about that, . . . . I should have said that, in effect, compliance with the unenforceable T&C's with regard to ''re-setting the clock'' is, in practice, a time limitation on the use of the C&RT controlled waterways to one weeks boating away from the (home) mooring before the HM'er is obliged to return and "reset the clock".

        ____________________________________________

C&RT did in fact revoke a PBC in January 2014 on the grounds of non-compliance with T&C's. The boat in question was, on pain of Licence (in reality a PBC) termination, instructed by the Trust to either comply with CC'ing Guidance or return to it's mooring. It did neither of those two things by the stated deadline date, the PBC was revoked, the boat was Section 8'd, and legal proceedings commenced for removal and an Injunction against returning. C&RT/Shoosmiths were obliged to discontinue after a Defence was filed and an application for a new PBC was submitted. To the best of my knowledge, they haven't yet tried again.

[Dave_P]

43 minutes ago, PhilAtterley said:

I didn't make myself completely clear about that, . . . . I should have said that, in effect, compliance with the unenforceable T&C's with regard to ''re-setting the clock'' is, in practice, a time limitation on the use of the C&RT controlled waterways to one weeks boating away from the (home) mooring before the HM'er is obliged to return and "reset the clock".

 

Sorry, I'm still unclear.  Why one week?  And why is the HM'er obliged to return?  Can they not simply continue the journey?

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

That's exactly what you get if you go 'coastal'. No moorings to pay for, no insurance, no licence, no BSSC - just 'drop the hook' and take the tender in when you want shopping etc.

Simples !!!

Eek!  Now you've let the secret out, all those London cc'ers will be taking their 25' Springers down to Southend-on-Sea.  It'll make the papers!

Something like this:  http://www.yachtingmonthly.com/news/motorboater-rescued-after-circling-sheppey-7217

 

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

The 95 act's bill was not promoted by BW on the principal that they could make their own licence conditions, but on the contrary, BWs management, and their QC spent four years in negotiations to create the 95 act that sets out the conditions for licences, and told Parliament that they had no powers to condition licences,  if that is now disputed by CaRT it means that BW promoted the bill and the act was created under false pretenses.