Jump to content

Time limited moorings over the winter months


Gareth E

Featured Posts

12 hours ago, nicknorman said:

But that would be unlawful. Statute requires the licence to be issued when the specified conditions are met. Paying off a debt for something else is not one of the conditions.

....but isn't it evidence of failure to comply with the T&C's that you accept when applying for a license ? (which from other threads I get the impression T&C's seem 'optional'.)

So it looks like those trying to observe the best principles of boating will not stay at a mooring beyond the allotted time - thus leaving room for the 'experts' in boating law who stay as long as they like - where if charges apply - comfortable in the knowledge that they can refuse to pay them - and there is nothing CRT can do about it.

But in the broader picture, it is only other boaters being denied the opportunity to moor at popular places that are inconvenienced by this practice. What does overstaying matter to CRT, apart from being an admin nuisance (that can be ignored  - who cares! -  so what!) with the admin cost to process the paperwork     having first call on the license fee (that we all pay)  - leaving less money for provision of extra moorings - leading to more overstaying - more paperwork ......and so on.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Horace42 said:

So it looks like those trying to observe the best principles of boating will not stay at a mooring beyond the allotted time - thus leaving room for the 'experts' in boating law who stay as long as they like - where if charges apply - comfortable in the knowledge that they can refuse to pay them - and there is nothing CRT can do about it.

You miss a very important point though.

CRT already have powers in law that allow them to enforce the 14 day limit - the moving on after 14 days is actually enshrined in the act.

In my view it would be far better if they used powers they already had more regularly and more consistently, and sought less to do things for which they do not have legal backing, (such as the £25 per day overstay charges).  It's not about 'experts' in boating law, as you cynically put it.  It is about what the law actually says, and you wishing the law gave CRT powers beyond those they actually have  isn't really "observing the best principles of boating" is it?  It is actually supporting a charitable trust exceeding its legal powers.

As this thread is about winter stay times, and it has been accepted by most I think that most shorter stay moorings revert to 14 days in winter, what is the perceived problem here?

CRT can still choose to enforce the 14 days, (at any time of year), if they want to.  The £25 is completely unrelated to that because at 14 days you hit the number enshrined in law, and paying a "facilities charge" to CRT doesn't suddenly make it legal.  It would mean you are paying the trust for the privilege of breaking the law.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the signs that say maximum mooring stay 14 days per calendar year?

i did wonder what would happen if you moored up on December the 18th and didn't move on until January the 14th? They are different calender years, so technically you would be compiling with the signage even if you were playing with the spirit of cruising :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

You miss a very important point though.

CRT already have powers in law that allow them to enforce the 14 day limit - the moving on after 14 days is actually enshrined in the act.

In my view it would be far better if they used powers they already had more regularly and more consistently, and sought less to do things for which they do not have legal backing, (such as the £25 per day overstay charges).  It's not about 'experts' in boating law, as you cynically put it.  It is about what the law actually says, and you wishing the law gave CRT powers beyond those they actually have  isn't really "observing the best principles of boating" is it?  It is actually supporting a charitable trust exceeding its legal powers.

As this thread is about winter stay times, and it has been accepted by most I think that most shorter stay moorings revert to 14 days in winter, what is the perceived problem here?

CRT can still choose to enforce the 14 days, (at any time of year), if they want to.  The £25 is completely unrelated to that because at 14 days you hit the number enshrined in law, and paying a "facilities charge" to CRT doesn't suddenly make it legal.  It would mean you are paying the trust for the privilege of breaking the law.

I bow to your superior knowledge, that's me put in my place. But you are right about my cynical view (an assessment technique that has carried me in good stead for most of my commercial life) but still in cynic mode, how is the stay limit 'enforced' 14 days or otherwise, if you can choose to ignore it.

I  don't have a problem with any of it. It is all academic to me, except if moorings are full of boats at popular spots for services. I am a fair weather boater myself, and in the summer we usually go somewhere for a couple of weeks on 'out-and-back' pleasure trips, so rarely ever stay moored more than one night - although I recall on one occasion we stayed two nights in a shady spot (because it was too hot to cruise during a particularly hot day in a heat wave)(...and with TV and fans on all the time whilst moored , we had to run our engine during the day to charge the batteries.)

For those who want long stay moorings free of charge - and outstay their welcome - and clock up an optional charge - illegal as it might be as in ordinary commercial life - a 'fine' or 'penalty,' set as as a deterrent,  has no law to back it. You can only make a claim for reasonable costs applicable to the circumstances - and only if there is contract - . 

Although having forgotten about the original question, is the 14 day limit in force now ?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/11/2017 at 13:07, alan_fincher said:

To go back to my Stole Bruerne example, (which is rife with these signs), some bits like the "museum pound" have specific signs showing a relaxation from2  days to 4 days, in winter - I think, if they've not tinkered with it yet again!  The "long pound" relaxes, (I think again!) from 7 days to 14 days.  I would expect them to only try charging the £25 per day in winter if you exceeded these longer times. 

No Alan - the Museum Pound (actually the Stowe Hill pound but between the Museum Green and the Winding hole) are standard 14 day moorings during the winter.  Some of the Long Pound is designated ‘Winter Mooring’ with the remainder reverting to 14 day moorings.  And no they haven’t been ‘tinkered with’ in the last two years.

Edited by Leo No2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Leo No2 said:

No Alan - the Museum Pound (actually the Stowe Hill pound but between the Museum Green and the Winding hole) are standard 14 day moorings during the winter.  Some of the Long Pound is designated ‘Winter Mooring’ with the remainder reverting to 14 day moorings.  And no they haven’t been ‘tinkered with’ in the last two years.

I knew I should have looked up the latest situation(!)

Certainly at one stage the moorings at the top relaxed to more than 2 days, but less than 14.

It's good that they saw sense that there was no real need to place short limits in the winter months, because at one stage it became remarkably devoid of boats for any visitors to actually take a look at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

You miss a very important point though.

CRT already have powers in law that allow them to enforce the 14 day limit - the moving on after 14 days is actually enshrined in the act.

In my view it would be far better if they used powers they already had more regularly and more consistently, and sought less to do things for which they do not have legal backing, (such as the £25 per day overstay charges).  It's not about 'experts' in boating law, as you cynically put it.  It is about what the law actually says, and you wishing the law gave CRT powers beyond those they actually have  isn't really "observing the best principles of boating" is it?  It is actually supporting a charitable trust exceeding its legal powers.

As this thread is about winter stay times, and it has been accepted by most I think that most shorter stay moorings revert to 14 days in winter, what is the perceived problem here?

CRT can still choose to enforce the 14 days, (at any time of year), if they want to.  The £25 is completely unrelated to that because at 14 days you hit the number enshrined in law, and paying a "facilities charge" to CRT doesn't suddenly make it legal.  It would mean you are paying the trust for the privilege of breaking the law.

It is not enshrined in the Act. It is a popular misconception that the British Waterways 1995 allows C&RT to enforce the 14 day limit.

The Bill that became the '95 Act would have given BW the power to erect signs restricting mooring and courts power to impose fines for contravention. In the event, BW was unable to convince a select committee of an operational need and why existing powers regarding obstruction were insufficient.

The same Bill would have also made it a requirement for all boats to have a 'home mooring'. Again, BW were unable to convince of the need for this. The compromise was that boats being used bona fide for navigation would be exempt. BW told the committee that they wanted the test for this to be 'moving on' after 14 days. However they were unable to explain why this should not be, say, 28 days.

... which is why the '95 Act places no blanket mooring restriction and those without a home mooring can moor for more that 14 days if it is reasonable to do so.

C&RT now attempts to enforce a 14 day mooring limit for those with a home mooring via section 3.2 of its terms and conditions. In section 4.1, those without a home mooring are told that they should cruise in accordance with the '95 Act (which, in theory at least, allows  for a longer period!).

Section 2.3 attempts to restrict mooring further via signage.

... of course C&RT claims that Section 43(3) of the Transport Act 1962 allows them to do what parliament would not allow 30 years later.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Horace42 said:

....but isn't it evidence of failure to comply with the T&C's that you accept when applying for a license ? (which from other threads I get the impression T&C's seem 'optional'.)

So it looks like those trying to observe the best principles of boating will not stay at a mooring beyond the allotted time - thus leaving room for the 'experts' in boating law who stay as long as they like - where if charges apply - comfortable in the knowledge that they can refuse to pay them - and there is nothing CRT can do about it.

But in the broader picture, it is only other boaters being denied the opportunity to moor at popular places that are inconvenienced by this practice. What does overstaying matter to CRT, apart from being an admin nuisance (that can be ignored  - who cares! -  so what!) with the admin cost to process the paperwork     having first call on the license fee (that we all pay)  - leaving less money for provision of extra moorings - leading to more overstaying - more paperwork ......and so on.....

 

For me there are two entirely different concepts. On the one hand we have the Ts and Cs, most of which I support because they are in the interests of keeping the peace, sharing nicely and being considerate. They are fine right up to the point that CRT try to pretend they are legally binding. Because they aren’t. Unfortunately the ends don’t justify the means.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

For me there are two entirely different concepts. On the one hand we have the Ts and Cs, most of which I support because they are in the interests of keeping the peace, sharing nicely and being considerate. They are fine right up to the point that CRT try to pretend they are legally binding. Because they aren’t. Unfortunately the ends don’t justify the means.

I think that BW had a non binding boating code about 12-15 years ago and it was this that was replaced by 'legally binding' terms and conditions. Can anyone else recall this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, nicknorman said:

For me there are two entirely different concepts. On the one hand we have the Ts and Cs, most of which I support because they are in the interests of keeping the peace, sharing nicely and being considerate. They are fine right up to the point that CRT try to pretend they are legally binding. Because they aren’t. Unfortunately the ends don’t justify the means.

...I am still puzzled by how the 14 day limit is enforced in practice.

I get the impression from  the various comments here that boaters (naive in boat law) try to comply with the T&C's, sometimes a nuisance to themselves, but to the best of their ability for the benefit of all boaters in general.

Whereas boaters ('experts' in boat law) it seems,  can pick and choose the T&C's they find convenient to themselves -  safe in the knowledge that CRT have no powers to enforce compliance.

I hope I am wrong, but that is the message I am getting here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Horace42 said:

Whereas boaters ('experts' in boat law) it seems,  can pick and choose the T&C's they find convenient to themselves -  safe in the knowledge that CRT have no powers to enforce compliance.I hope I am wrong, but that is the message I am getting here.

If a boat is declared as one with no home mooring, then CRT have the required legal powers to enforce maximum stay time of 14 days. (One of the powers they definitely do have).

I take on board Allan Richard's comments - I was trying to avoid the complexity that the act only places this commitment on boats without home moorings, but I rather feared if I said "actually if you have a home mooring there is no need to move after 14 days" that the thread would get completely diverted on that track. :P

How often and how effectively they choose to enforce the 14 days is another question of course.  However many of us have argued that it makes little sense to repeatedly concentrate on trying to make maximum stay times shorter, until they have demonstrated the ability to actually enforce the powers they do have.

Do you actually think it is OK for CRT to try doing things, and charging for things for which they have no legal powers? Would you accept that in other areas of your life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, alan_fincher said:

Do you actually think it is OK for CRT to try doing things, and charging for things for which they have no legal powers? Would you accept that in other areas of your life?

Do you actually think it is OK for a minority of boaters to take the piss even tho they may legal be able to do so?  Would you accept that in other areas of your life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Robbo said:

Do you actually think it is OK for a minority of boaters to take the piss even tho they may legal be able to do so?  Would you accept that in other areas of your life?

I don't actually like anybody taking the piss.

However if you are a private individual, "taking the piss" often goes with the territory, because in my opinion lots of private individuals do that, across most aspect of our daily lives.

A charitable trust, on the other hand, should operate within the law, and not seek to give itself powers it does not have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, alan_fincher said:

I don't actually like anybody taking the piss.

However if you are a private individual, "taking the piss" often goes with the territory, because in my opinion lots of private individuals do that, across most aspect of our daily lives.

A charitable trust, on the other hand, should operate within the law, and not seek to give itself powers it does not have.

What powers has it given it self that you don’t a actually agree with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Robbo said:

What powers has it given it self that you don’t a actually agree with?

It's not whether I, (or you, or anybody else), agrees with it that is relevant - it is whether it is legal.

They do not have the legal powers to issue fines for overstaying on a short stay visitor moorings, so the £25 per day is not legal.

You, (or I, or anybody else), may wish it was, but at the moment it is not.

In my view, (and from discussions I have been involved in), CRT know this, which is why they issue invoices, and if someone pays up they bank the money, but if they do not, they do not attempt to pursue the debt.

It is effectively a "voluntary fine" - pay it if you wish to, but not if you don't.

The signs are there as a deterrent, but the fines are unenforcible.  They always said the aim was to deter overstays, and not to collect money - "we will be happy if it results in not one single charge being issued". It may mean that people are less likely to overstay, and you may well view that as a good thing, but they still lack legal backing.

The counter argument, (and fairly moderate people have in the past expressed it), is that "I don't feel welcome somewhere that puts the fine for overstaying in bigger letters than any sign that actually tells me how long I can stay", and I know some people are now less likely to spend their money in businesses at Stoke Bruerne, Foxton. Thrupp, etc, because they would rather tie up somewhere else without the large signs displaying potential fines.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

It's not whether I, (or you, or anybody else), agrees with it that is relevant - it is whether it is legal.

They do not have the legal powers to issue fines for overstaying on a short stay visitor moorings, so the £25 per day is not legal.
 

But I presume you agree with the limited time on visitor moorings as they do make sense in busy areas.

So how would you suggest CRT deal with the over stayers for the boaters that are not playing fair?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

Not taking it to court could be taken as an indication you know you are on dodgy ground though.

So is your wording "it is not legal" or "it could be illegal"? Because there is a big difference. If you're claiming it is illegal, I think its fair you substantiate your claim. If you believe its illegal - respecting the fact that anything you type into a forum, is simply your opinion or view on things - that's fine but its worth making the distinction that its simply a belief, not a provable fact.

Anyway, I don't think we're actually in disagreement here - I also believe its a bit dodgy - but I would not use the phraseology "it is not legal" without at least something substantive (like a concluded court case). We're all guessing, a bit, here. CRT - I am led to believe - sought legal advice on it. Even the best of this forum, in terms of being able to interpret a legal situation, have had some spectacular failures recently, hence I am hesitant to take anything at face value, especially extrapolations of ponderings on CRT's motivation for not doing something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

So is your wording "it is not legal" or "it could be illegal"? Because there is a big difference. If you're claiming it is illegal, I think its fair you substantiate your claim. If you believe its illegal - respecting the fact that anything you type into a forum, is simply your opinion or view on things - that's fine but its worth making the distinction that its simply a belief, not a provable fact.

Anyway, I don't think we're actually in disagreement here - I also believe its a bit dodgy - but I would not use the phraseology "it is not legal" without at least something substantive (like a concluded court case). We're all guessing, a bit, here. CRT - I am led to believe - sought legal advice on it. Even the best of this forum, in terms of being able to interpret a legal situation, have had some spectacular failures recently, hence I am hesitant to take anything at face value, especially extrapolations of ponderings on CRT's motivation for not doing something.

We could go on for ever.

OK, I have studied the arguments quite closely, and my belief is that it is not legal.

Certainly last time I heard NABO felt the same.  (I believe after taking legal advice, but I am no longer a NABO member, so have not followed their interest in the matter recently).  Perhaps "Tuscan" is around to comment?

Incidentally it is by CRT's own admission that they cannot refuse a licence if you do not pay one of these charges.  They firmly accept that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yes, the argument could go on for ever if one selected particular things to argue over! BUT I think we can all agree, that at the moment:

1) CRT have a position that the £25 overstay charge is legal
2) The position is not widely accepted in the boating community
3) The issue remains unresolved since there is no overriding proof one way or another, for example a concluded court case.
 

Regarding a possible court case, it would be interesting if none have occurred simply because CRT believe that none is needed due to their current stance being an effective (enough) deterrent; or whether they have actively avoided taking it to court even when a clear case existed to do so (I know there's instances where they have not collected the £25, but not the background reason as to why they didn't, eg because the boater moved on anyway (possibly interpreted as a success?), or converted from CC to home mooring, or were prosecuted for another misdemeanor  etc etc)

Edited by Paul C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Well yes, the argument could go on for ever if one selected particular things to argue over! BUT I think we can all agree, that at the moment:

1) CRT have a position that the £25 overstay charge is legal

Only in a public facing way - try a private conversation with relevant CRT staff and the story changes.


But, yes, we could continue to argue for arguments sake, (except my dogs need walking!....)

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.