Time limited moorings over the winter months

[Mike Todd]

A sign 'Trespassers will" is widely thought to have a deterrent effect even if it does not have a legal substance.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

5 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

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.

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?

The 14 day limit is not a maximum but a minimum. A boat without without a home mooring can stay longer if 'reasonable under the circumstances'. 

The legal power that C&RT has for dealing with this situation is not a power to deal with a craft that is overstaying but rather to deal with one that 'has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation'. 

Basically, the trust should give a minimum of 28 days for the boat to be moved. Failure to comply could lead to the licence being revoked. 

Edited November 19, 2017 by Allan(nb Albert)
Edited for clarity.

[NigelMoore]

On 11/17/2017 at 17:27, alan_fincher said:

 AFAIK, they have never pursued anybody through debt collection services or the courts for non-payment.
 

They certainly have done so, because they did it to me while we were involved in the long drawn out cases on other matters. I was sent an invoice for £250 respecting a 10 day 'overstay' of a boat I did not own. They employed a dishonest firm of debt collecting solicitors to file a case against me, even though I had presented the solicitors with evidence it was not my boat. They took it to the wire, and I was looking forward to arguing the illegality of the charge regardless, but they withdrew the claim a week before the hearing, having discovered that the owner of the boat had in fact paid the fine around 12 months previously!

Since then, as you say, they have admitted inability to levy such fines, which is why they now call them 'charges' instead. Whether they have filed claims in respect of non-payment of those, I do not know.

[alan_fincher]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

A sign 'Trespassers will" is widely thought to have a deterrent effect even if it does not have a legal substance.

Yes but such signs are intended to keep people out.  Sensible signs at a CRT short stay visitor mooring should make people want to use them, if local businesses are to benefit.  Putting up hostile notices undoubtedly deters, but, as I have said, I know for a fact it also deters some genuine visitors who would stick to the rules as well as those that have been classed "piss takers".

[Iain_S]

26 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The 14 day limit is not a maximum but a minimum. A boat without without a home mooring can stay longer if 'reasonable under the circumstances'. 

The legal power that C&RT has for dealing with this situation is not a power to deal with a craft that is overstaying but rather to deal with one that 'has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation'. 

Basically, the trust should give a minimum of 28 days for the boat to be moved. Failure to comply could lead to the licence being revoked. 

Really???? I cannot believe that you are saying that once moored, I cannot move for 14 days!

Who judges "reasonable in the circumstances"? It is certainly not a blanket permission to moor as long as takes the boater's fancy!  

 

 

[NigelMoore]

24 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

Who judges "reasonable in the circumstances"? It is certainly not a blanket permission to moor as long as takes the boater's fancy!  

Last Thursday I attended a meeting [purely as note taking observer] between a boater and half a dozen EA officials, over various disputes. The Thames Conservancy Acts also contain a right for the public to moor 'reasonably', and there was contention over whether such a period could vary according to circumstances. The EA position was that it was entirely their prerogative to determine what was reasonable [and they fixed that as 24 hours to such of the public towpath as was within their ownership].

I cannot accept that myself. Relevant as an example of the principle involved, prior to the Transport Act 1962, the levying of charges and conditions for use, of chargeable facilities on the British Waterways, was governed by the terms of the British Transport Commission Acts of the fifties. There, the requirement was laid down that these had to be reasonable, and in the event of any dispute, the reasonableness had to be adjudicated by an independent body.

To me, that provision is an essential component of any practical and enforceable application of the term; Parliament missed a trick, in the 1995 Act, in not making such a provision for independent adjudication as to what was "reasonable in the circumstances". The BTC Act, though, is a relevant precedent in my view, that where a condition of reasonableness is laid down, it is not for the statutory authority to be the final arbiter of what that is. Short of applying to the courts, I suppose the Waterways Ombudsman would be a suitable port of call in any dispute [though with the present incumbent of the office, chosen and paid by CaRT, I would expect a biased decision].

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

34 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Last Thursday I attended a meeting [purely as note taking observer] between a boater and half a dozen EA officials, over various disputes. The Thames Conservancy Acts also contain a right for the public to moor 'reasonably', and there was contention over whether such a period could vary according to circumstances. The EA position was that it was entirely their prerogative to determine what was reasonable [and they fixed that as 24 hours to such of the public towpath as was within their ownership].

I cannot accept that myself. Relevant as an example of the principle involved, prior to the Transport Act 1962, the levying of charges and conditions for use, of chargeable facilities on the British Waterways, was governed by the terms of the British Transport Commission Acts of the fifties. There, the requirement was laid down that these had to be reasonable, and in the event of any dispute, the reasonableness had to be adjudicated by an independent body.

To me, that provision is an essential component of any practical and enforceable application of the term; Parliament missed a trick, in the 1995 Act, in not making such a provision for independent adjudication as to what was "reasonable in the circumstances". The BTC Act, though, is a relevant precedent in my view, that where a condition of reasonableness is laid down, it is not for the statutory authority to be the final arbiter of what that is. Short of applying to the courts, I suppose the Waterways Ombudsman would be a suitable port of call in any dispute [though with the present incumbent of the office, chosen and paid by CaRT, I would expect a biased decision].

 

Certainly, when the WO committee was reconstituted in February 2015 (meeting for the first time in four years!), the trust was looking towards the Waterways Ombudsman to undertake work in this area -

Quote

7.1 Jackie Lewis stated that the Trust had recently reviewed its continuous cruising enforcement procedure which may impact the work of the Ombudsman. Jackie Lewis stated that a report on the legal issues around continuous cruising this will be will be presented at the next Committee meeting.

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

3 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

 

Certainly, when the WO committee was reconstituted in February 2015 (meeting for the first time in four years!), the trust was looking towards the Waterways Ombudsman to undertake work in this area -

 

Edited to add -

I don't want to derail this thread but would suggest that boater apathy and that of user groups is the reason why today we have a non-independent waterways ombudsman and committee appointed by C&RT.  

[Wanderer Vagabond]

6 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The 14 day limit is not a maximum but a minimum. A boat without without a home mooring can stay longer if 'reasonable under the circumstances'. 

The legal power that C&RT has for dealing with this situation is not a power to deal with a craft that is overstaying but rather to deal with one that 'has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation'. 

Basically, the trust should give a minimum of 28 days for the boat to be moved. Failure to comply could lead to the licence being revoked. 

Interestingly, following criticism of CRT for trying to exercise powers that they don't possess, you seem to be suggesting that they now create some new 28 day limit, also with no legal backing.

For my money the mainstay of 'reasonable under the circumstances' should involve communication between the boat owner and CRT. If I have a genuine reason for overstaying at a given location,I tell CRT from the outset what these circumstances are. As a CC'er I have overstayed at some locations for perfectly valid reasons and e-mailed CRT what those reasons are. I wasn't 'asking for permission' to stay where I was, I was advising them that I was staying where I was and x was the reason. Where a few disputes have arisen is when boats have been left (possibly with some dodgy note in the window) and only when CRT have started questioning why they haven't 'continued their journey' that is when the 'reasonable circumstances' first raise their head. It's a bit like being caught with stolen property on the street and when questioned about it answering that 'I am just taking it to the Police Station'. That may well have been the case but the perception isn't good. Likewise only telling CRT of your reasonable grounds to be overstaying after you have made an appearance on their enforcement list doesn't give a good perception.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

11 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Interestingly, following criticism of CRT for trying to exercise powers that they don't possess, you seem to be suggesting that they now create some new 28 day limit, also with no legal backing.

 

Not at all. C&RT have power under the 1995 Act.

If a boat is not being used 'bona fide for navigation' (i.e. it has remained in one place for more than 14 days when it is not reasonable to do so), then the 1995 Act allows C&RT to issue a notice compelling the 'default' to be remedied within a period of not less than 28 days. 

 

[Horace42]

23 hours ago, Robbo said:

You get put on the naughty step.  If you are on the naughty step a lot they look to expel you.

Right!.....we might be getting somewhere - so it seems there is some sort of enforcement action CRT can take that the naughty boater cannot ignore - but how do they expel you.

Do they withdraw your license or refuse to renew it...... unless you sign a declaration that you will comply with the T&C's - which has doubtful legal merit......

and so the argument goes on.

Meanwhile CRT must be happy it deflects the discussion away from the fact that they are failing to ensure that all boaters have somewhere to moor.  Partly solved by requiring a home mooring as a condition of issue of a license - but excusing CC's.

From which it becomes obvious (to me at least on a logistics basis) boats without a home mooring have to be accommodated somewhere - either randomly in marinas or private moorings (paid for probably) - but if not then by CRT (expected to be free of charge.)

And since the time limits discussed here imply a serious shortage of long-stay moorings - who is going to provide them  - and pay for them?

[Paul C]

32 minutes ago, Horace42 said:

Right!.....we might be getting somewhere - so it seems there is some sort of enforcement action CRT can take that the naughty boater cannot ignore - but how do they expel you.

Do they withdraw your license or refuse to renew it...... The legislation allows for both

 

 

unless you sign a declaration that you will comply with the T&C's - which has doubtful legal merit......nothing to do with T&Cs

and so the argument goes on.

Meanwhile CRT must be happy it deflects the discussion away from the fact that they are failing to ensure that all boaters have somewhere to moor. I'm not sure CRT has an obligation to supply moorings to, well anyone, really. (Apart from obviously the moorings they provide as a paid service). Partly solved by requiring a home mooring as a condition of issue of a license - but excusing CC's.

From which it becomes obvious (to me at least on a logistics basis) boats without a home mooring have to be accommodated somewhere - either randomly in marinas or private moorings (paid for probably) - but if not then by CRT (expected to be free of charge.) Its well understood that CCers could and would use the towpath, for which a 14 day limit applies. They may also choose to find a mooring for longer than 14 days (and pay for it) but then they'd have a mooring - so they'd not be CCers.

And since the time limits discussed here imply a serious shortage of long-stay moorings I'm not sure it does - who is going to provide them  - and pay for them? There might be shortages regionally but the licence is not a regional one, CCers are free to use the entire canal system.

Answers in red

[Horace42]

20 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Answers in red

Thanks for filling in the details. On the basis the towpath doubles as a mooring, I guess there is no shortage of space except at popular spots with good access and facilities - that I perceive from this thread as 14 days not being enough.  So why are moorings of 14 days or more required

Certainly not for me with a home mooring, where in reality I become a CC for a couple of weeks stopping only one night at a time in isolated spots (where weeds and silt are usually the problem, and during the day at popular spots for services  - sometimes occupied temporarily by 'passing' boats - but quite often a little further along the towpath by 'permanent' boats (judging by half the contents over-spilling onto the towpath).... then we cruise past the line of boats and moor, if we can, and then walk back, if desperate. 

What is the profile of the boater that needs to moor in one place weeks at a time?

 

 

[WotEver]

35 minutes ago, Horace42 said:

What is the profile of the boater that needs to moor in one place weeks at a time?

Soneone who wishes to stay in the same place but wants to cheat the system by not paying for a mooring. 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

On 20/11/2017 at 14:40, Horace42 said:

 

What is the profile of the boater that needs to moor in one place weeks at a time?

The typical profile would be someone with a home mooring ...

 

[NigelMoore]

Of interest, perhaps, to the topic, Nigel Johnson made certain pertinent statements in his Proof of Evidence in the Ladies Bridge Appeal against the LPA enforcement action against the home moorings established there.

Para. 19 – “Given the statutory requirement in the 1995 Act, BW has treated ‘home’ moorings as one of the key facilities that it has a duty, under section 10 Transport Act 1962, to provide on the Kennet and Avon Canal “to such extent as it thinks expedient”.”

Para. 22 “The need to provide facilities for the mooring of boats when not used for navigation is an inevitable consequence of the creation of a manmade canal navigation – in practical terms, they cannot go anywhere else.”  [my bold]

Para. 23 “Historically . . . the main waterspace available for the ‘parking’ of boats when not being navigated on a canal was along the sides of the canal itself . . . in most cases, vessels awaiting cargos; workboats when not in use; vessels laid up during periods of downturn in trade; and pleasure boats when not in use, were predominantly moored in the canal when not in use.”  [my bold]

Para. 24 “The 1827 byelaws of the Kennet and Avon Canal provided, at byelaw 16: ‘That every boatman or other person having the conduct of any boat, barge, or other vessel shall, when the same is not navigating upon the Canal, moor and fasten the same at both ends, close to the bank on the side of the Canal opposite to the towing path, but not under a bridge, upon an aqueduct, or in a lock or stopgate, not within a hundred yards of the same, under penalty of twenty shillings’.”

Not everything he claimed in this statement was equally valid, but the above is a valuable insight into the administrative thinking [and the BW appeal against the Planning Decision was successful].

[Horace42]

14 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The typical profile would be someone with a home mooring ...

 

Good answer. I wish I had thought of that!  My brain was stuck in CC mode when I asked the question.

[rowland al]

On 17/11/2017 at 10:51, Robbo said:

It’s in the winter moorings FAQ on CRT’s site, page 5.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/boating/mooring/winter-moorings

direct link; 

 

Seems this notice and link has been removed for this winter (unless I’ve missed it somewhere else).

 

I did wonder when C&RT would eventually remove this relaxation notice in favour of pushing for paid winter moorings. Although it could be argued that legally all moorings are 14 days anyway.  

[Robbo]

12 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Seems this notice and link has been removed for this winter (unless I’ve missed it somewhere else).

 

I did wonder when C&RT would eventually remove this relaxation notice in favour of pushing for paid winter moorings. Although it could be argued that legally all moorings are 14 days anyway.  

Its still in this years FAQ’s at the link above.

[Jennifer McM]

Just asked the question on CRT's website chat: 

 

Quote

 

Hello, thank you for visiting. Can I help you in any way?

Natalie

Hi, yes please.

Me

 

Good Morning

Natalie

I'm wondering if/when does the winter moorings start? Last year during winter, we could stay 14 days on 24 hour moorings. Is this still correct?

Me

 

The winter moorings begin on the 1st of November. I need to check if the visitor moorings are being relaxed, one moment please.

Natalie

thank you

Me

 

Yes, Visitor moorings will revert to 14 days, unless signposted "All Year".

Natalie

Much appreciated Natalie.... have a good weekend!

Me

 

You're welcome, is there anything else I can help you with today?

Natalie

no that's it thank you!

Me

 

 

[rowland al]

9 minutes ago, Jennifer McM said:

Just asked the question on CRT's website chat: 

 

 

 

Thanks, yes that’s the sort of information I was after but I haven’t found it in any C&RT official notice (unlike previous years!). It's another thing C&RT need to be open about so boaters can stay within the made up rules. ?

 

The other notice and web page link is about paid long term winter moorings for those who want to moor for longer than 14 days on the tow path side.

[Robbo]

1 minute ago, rowland al said:

 

Thanks, yes that’s the sort of information I was after but I haven’t found it in any C&RT official notice (unlike previous years!). It's another thing C&RT need to be open about so boaters can stay within the made up rules. ?

 

The other notice and web page link is about paid long term winter moorings for those who want to moor for longer than 14 days on the tow path side.

It’s in the FAQ file and still on page 5.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Robbo

[rowland al]

4 minutes ago, Robbo said:

It’s in the FAQ file.

Yes, good to see the link now work with the wording I was looking for (the link definitely wasn’t working earlier this morning!).

 

The only strange thing is that I thought in previous years it started in October?

[rowland al]

On 17/11/2017 at 12:29, Dave_P said:

Here's the actual link:

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/31571-winter-mooring-faq.pdf

Maybe they can fix this link too.

[Robbo]

5 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Maybe they can fix this link too.

It’s a different document per year so the name is different.

10 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Yes, good to see the link now work with the wording I was looking for (the link definitely wasn’t working earlier this morning!).

 

The only strange thing is that I thought in previous years it started in October?

Always November as far as I’m aware, last year it finished early due to Easter.