Jump to content

Hackney CMers want to have a "CC Licence" and to remain in one place.


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

 

Well, no doubt you would like that to be so. But that does not seem to be the legal position, nor have I heard any overriding principles which dictate that it must be the case.

 

 

That's because you haven't been listening carefully enough . . . . all your attention has been directed towards posting time-wasting rubbish instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Who are you and what have you done with the real Tony Dunkley? lol

 

I'm amazed at your patience here, Tony. You've tried to explain the same thing so many times to people who refuse to understand, I'm surprised you've maintained your composure. It would be one thing if people just told you you are wrong, but to refuse to acknowledge to understand such a simple concept is really insane.

 

Have you joined the Fluffy Bunny Appreciation Society while no one was looking?

 

ETA a missing word.

 

What Paul said, you have the patience of a saint Tony. Whether you're right is acceptably debateable, but to refuse to even understand this simple concept is plain weird.

Many thanks to both of you for jolting me out of my post Christmas goodwill hangover . . . . normal service will be resumed shortly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, no doubt you would like that to be so. But that does not seem to be the legal position, nor have I heard any overriding principles which dictate that it must be the case.

 

 

you really are not listening are you?

 

try a bit of your own research. you could start at riparian rights then examine the canals as a special case modified by the enabling acts.

 

then, if finally you have something intelligent to add rather than simple 'la la la you're wrong' you come back and discuss from a position of knowledge rather than your present ignorance.

Edited by Alf Roberts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted on this thread before about a person with land adjoining a canal. It's on the Stoke area, I'm saying no more. They saw off BW's demands for money to moor against their own land I've never met them. I do however use the same law firm. Some canals, not all, have a "ransom" strip which means that CRT own a small parcel of land next to the cut which means they can charge to moor against it. On canals where this does not exist any attempt by CRT to charge is underhanded to the point of simple theft.

 

I'll declare my hand to an extent. I plan to buy a plot of land next to a canal where no such ransom strip exists. My decision to purchase is dependent on the possibility of planning permission for a roadway and some buildings. Assuming this is successful and I purchase I will not be paying CRT a single penny to moor against my land and I'm proceeding on the basis that court action is likely to be threatened. I have what I believe to be the right lawyers and I have the resources.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted on this thread before about a person with land adjoining a canal. It's on the Stoke area, I'm saying no more. They saw off BW's demands for money to moor against their own land I've never met them. I do however use the same law firm. Some canals, not all, have a "ransom" strip which means that CRT own a small parcel of land next to the cut which means they can charge to moor against it. On canals where this does not exist any attempt by CRT to charge is underhanded to the point of simple theft.

 

I'll declare my hand to an extent. I plan to buy a plot of land next to a canal where no such ransom strip exists. My decision to purchase is dependent on the possibility of planning permission for a roadway and some buildings. Assuming this is successful and I purchase I will not be paying CRT a single penny to moor against my land and I'm proceeding on the basis that court action is likely to be threatened. I have what I believe to be the right lawyers and I have the resources.

 

Great forum name, Groundhog!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. To me its not blatantly obvious that the combination of having a garden adjacent to the canal / navigable river, and buying a boating license, gives somebody sole control of the right to moor in the part of the waterway next to the garden.

 

Especially given that the legal judgements, and the fact of the existence of EoG mooring charges by CRT, indicates that things cannot be quite so simple.

 

I guess from the claims that I am therefore "insane", "plain weird", "posting rubbish", that I have touched a sensitive spot for some people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. To me its not blatantly obvious that the combination of having a garden adjacent to the canal / navigable river, and buying a boating license, gives somebody sole control of the right to moor in the part of the waterway next to the garden.

 

Especially given that the legal judgements, and the fact of the existence of EoG mooring charges by CRT, indicates that things cannot be quite so simple.

 

I guess from the claims that I am therefore "insane", "plain weird", "posting rubbish", that I have touched a sensitive spot for some people.

 

It's a matter of common sense to be suspicious. Banks continually cheat everyone that they can - it's an accepted business practice (by them) as although they get fined, it's still profitable or they wouldn't do it.

A large elec company tried to steal £1500 from me - they have a dept specially to lie to people who phone. Each time you get through a different person claims they have no idea why the previous one told you what they did as it's wrong. I had to threaten them with the police in the end after which they managed to do all they previously claimed impossible in 10 minutes.

To take it as read that just because CaRT successfully charge for EOG moorings that it's correct is naive.

Every large body will systematically cheat you any time they can - insurance renewalls, impossible to compare pricing structures - they'll try anything. Why? Because it works.

Edited by boathunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. To me its not blatantly obvious that the combination of having a garden adjacent to the canal / navigable river, and buying a boating license, gives somebody sole control of the right to moor in the part of the waterway next to the garden.

 

Especially given that the legal judgements, and the fact of the existence of EoG mooring charges by CRT, indicates that things cannot be quite so simple.

 

I guess from the claims that I am therefore "insane", "plain weird", "posting rubbish", that I have touched a sensitive spot for some people.

 

 

 

 

It's far more likely that the rubbish you've been posting has led some to conclude that you may be weird or insane, personally I would not share that view.

I think you were just being argumentative and obtuse, and far from touching any sensitive spots, you've simply demonstrated why BW and now C&RT have been right to conclude that telling boat Licence holders that they must pay for something twice can be very worthwhile and rewarding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how about 'wrong' ?

 

as i said look up 'riparian rights'

 

I'm aware of riparian rights, and have indeed looked up some material on these. However what I have seen suggests that these do not straightforwardly apply on navigable waterways.

 

I should add that I am quite new to the boating world (bought my boat in July last year and have been CC'ing since then). I'm still forming my opinions about some of the issues. I have no problem with people thinking or saying that I'm wrong, and at the very least I have a lot to learn!

 

But the hostility which has been expressed to me in some recent posts on this thread has given me a bit of a jolt. It seems to suggest that there are some people or opinions which should not be questioned, in any depth, on this forum.

 

Perhaps there is an issue that I do not (at least so far) fit in to any of the (apparent) factions here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quote from T'internet, Guide to EOG Moorings, 2006:

 

In summary: .

  • There is no public right to keep or use a boat on BW's canals -such use is permissive only;

  • The beds and waterspace of BW's canals are in the ownership of BW and use without consent is trespass at common law;

  • A BW boat licence entitles use of a boat on a BW canal for cruising and casual mooring ancillary to cruising, but not long term mooring;

  • Long term mooring on a canal requires a separate mooring agreement that grants exclusive use of the BW waterspace at that site; and

  • The powers of BW to charge and impose terms for use of its services and facilities are derived from Section 43 of the 1962 Act, as supplemented and enlarged by subsequent legislation.

Has the above all changed then? I may have missed a lot somewhere, my attention span is not what it was. But the above seems to give the right for CRT to charge EOG fees almost anywhere, except where a private owner owns the canal bed.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

the rubbish you've been posting ... argumentative and obtuse...

 

 

Ok, I get it. You clearly don't like people being 'argumentative' with you. Anyone who doesn't share your view is obtuse and talking rubbish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm aware of riparian rights, and have indeed looked up some material on these. However what I have seen suggests that these do not straightforwardly apply on navigable waterways.

 

I should add that I am quite new to the boating world (bought my boat in July last year and have been CC'ing since then). I'm still forming my opinions about some of the issues. I have no problem with people thinking or saying that I'm wrong, and at the very least I have a lot to learn!

 

But the hostility which has been expressed to me in some recent posts on this thread has given me a bit of a jolt. It seems to suggest that there are some people or opinions which should not be questioned, in any depth, on this forum.

 

Perhaps there is an issue that I do not (at least so far) fit in to any of the (apparent) factions here.

I am sorry if you see it as hostility, as others have said Tony Dunkley has been uncharacteristically polite.

 

Riparian rights apply to all navigable waterways, with the exception of canals, they entitle the landowner, who owns the bed of the river to the centre of the waterway, to do what he likes with the waterway outside of the navigable channel with no need for a licence or charge for mooring.

 

on the canal, CRT own the bed of the canal so a riparian owner can do what he likes on his land but cannot build on CRT land - thre canal bed - or keep a boat over it, without charge.

 

given this background you should be able to make more sense of Tony's argument about EOG fees, ie the right to keep the boat on the water is already paid for. whether this is right or wrong, it is a special case and no such ambiguity exists in general.

Edited by Alf Roberts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quote from T'internet, Guide to EOG Moorings, 2006:

 

In summary: .

  • There is no public right to keep or use a boat on BW's canals -such use is permissive only;

  • The beds and waterspace of BW's canals are in the ownership of BW and use without consent is trespass at common law;

  • A BW boat licence entitles use of a boat on a BW canal for cruising and casual mooring ancillary to cruising, but not long term mooring;

  • Long term mooring on a canal requires a separate mooring agreement that grants exclusive use of the BW waterspace at that site; and

  • The powers of BW to charge and impose terms for use of its services and facilities are derived from Section 43 of the 1962 Act, as supplemented and enlarged by subsequent legislation.

Has the above all changed then? I may have missed a lot somewhere, my attention span is not what it was. But the above seems to give the right for CRT to charge EOG fees almost anywhere, except where a private owner owns the canal bed.

BW/C&RT propaganda being regurgitated on the Internet in the form of a Guide to EOG charges doesn't 'give the right' to C&RT do anything, that requires an Act of Parliament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as others have said Tony Dunkley has been uncharacteristically polite.

 

 

Ah, I should be grateful that for merely being repeatedly accused of being argumentative, obtuse and posting rubbish!

 

So, much worse would normally be expected for those that dare to question Mr Dunkley?

 

 

C'est la vie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

on the canal, CRT own the bed of the canal so a riparian owner can do what he likes on his land but cannot build on CRT land - thre canal bed - or keep a boat over it, without charge.

 

 

OK, so CRT does have a basis for EoG charges?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the have a basis to charge you for keeping a boat over the bed of the canal,yes. it's called a boat license.

 

Which license would presumably empower the holder to moor anywhere legal over the canal bed, including over the patch by the end of somebody else's garden.

 

Seems we are back to square one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Which license would presumably empower the holder to moor anywhere legal over the canal bed, including over the patch by the end of somebody else's garden.

 

Seems we are back to square one.

not quite; you're getting there. it gives you the right to keep your boat in the canal but the right to moor is with the land owner, often but not necessarily CRT

 

just to clarify; boats without home mooring have s legal right to moor on CRT land ( generally the towpath ) for 14 days, others have no such legal right but it is granted in the terms and conditions ( by the landowner, CRT)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Which license would presumably empower the holder to moor anywhere legal over the canal bed, including over the patch by the end of somebody else's garden.

 

Seems we are back to square one.

 

Only because you're deliberately missing the point.If I park a camper van on your drive way are you going to cry about whether I've got a tax disc? If you park a camper van on your drive would you pay the council if they sent you a parking charge? It's not at all complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not quite; you're getting there. it gives you the right to keep your boat in the canal but the right to moor is with the land owner, often but not necessarily CRT

 

just to clarify; boats without home mooring have s legal right to moor on CRT land ( generally the towpath ) for 14 days, others have no such legal right but it is granted in the terms and conditions ( by the landowner, CRT)

 

OK, but on canals and (most) navigable rivers, CRT 'owns' the bed of the waterway, hence having at least some control over mooring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

OK, but on canals and (most) navigable rivers, CRT 'owns' the bed of the waterway, hence having at least some control over mooring?

I can see why you're being called obtuse .....

 

no.

 

you don't moor to the bed you moor to the bank

 

and you're wrong about most navigable rivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Only because you're deliberately missing the point.If I park a camper van on your drive way are you going to cry about whether I've got a tax disc? If you park a camper van on your drive would you pay the council if they sent you a parking charge? It's not at all complicated.

 

If we are back to the road parking analogy, the canal or river is not the same as your driveway. At best it would be equivalent to the street outside your house.

 

In which case, anybody else would have the same rights as you to park there, unless you have obtained a local residents permit from your council.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see why you're being called obtuse .....

 

no.

 

you don't moor to the bed you moor to the bank

 

and you're wrong about most navigable rivers.

 

Oh well. There might come a time when I feel so assured as a member of this forum that I could feel comfortable labelling anyone who persists in disagreeing with me as 'insane', weird', 'obtuse' etc. Though perhaps I would decide not to.

 

Meanwhile. Presuming you are mooring on a CRT-controlled waterway and you are over a CRT-controlled river or canal bed. Hence CRT would have some say in the matter.

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.