Jump to content

CRT and continuous cruising


DavidAN

Featured Posts

4 minutes ago, TheDuker said:

As CRT are not empowered to prosecute under anything other than the General Canal Byelaws, I presume that the prosecution referred to above was to be under those Byelaws. Can you direct me to the specific byelaw which proscribes mooring for more than 14 days in one place?

 

It's probably more a case of....

1. revoke license (for breaching terms and conditions)
2. threaten to prosecute for unlicensed boat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jess-- said:

It's probably more a case of....

1. revoke license (for breaching terms and conditions)
2. threaten to prosecute for unlicensed boat

That was it.

 

C&RT do not go to court to prosecute against any 'illegal acts', they remove your licence for any infringement that they wish, then prosecute you for being on their waterways without a licence (you couldn't make it up!!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

That was it.

 

C&RT do not go to court to prosecute against any 'illegal acts', they remove your licence for any infringement that they wish, then prosecute you for being on their waterways without a licence (you couldn't make it up!!)

Only if you let them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, TheDuker said:

Can you direct me to the specific byelaw which proscribes mooring for more than 14 days in one place?

 

Laws and bye-laws don't tend to prescribe what you can do.

They tend to prescribe what you are obliged to do, or must not do.

Nick is correct that the 1995 act places a maximum allowed stay time requirement for those not having a declared place the boat can be kept, but doesn't actually place the same requirement on those who do.

CRT, on the other hand seem to expect that all boats must move on after the same time interval, whether they have a home mooring or not, but it is actually only a legal requirement for those with no home mooring.

I suspect that most people who do have a home mooring, (actually legitimately used when the boat is not in active use), do not find a requirement to move on elsewhere after 14 days onerous, and hence accept CRT's line on it, even though not supported in law.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am puzzled, not a new sensation when trying to understand some of the things on CWDF.

My feeling is that the majority of posters do not want the waterways taken over by lines of static boats (probably all grabbing their lump of towpath for "storage) and never moving.  In other words having a home mooring at as cheap a price as possible somewhere and spending all the year at the same spot in London (or elsewhere, fill in the location of your choice).

Yet the majority of posters seem hell bent on finding ways to allow this and prevent CRT bringing in any system of reducing/limiting/preventing this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jerra said:

I am puzzled, not a new sensation when trying to understand some of the things on CWDF.

My feeling is that the majority of posters do not want the waterways taken over by lines of static boats (probably all grabbing their lump of towpath for "storage) and never moving.  In other words having a home mooring at as cheap a price as possible somewhere and spending all the year at the same spot in London (or elsewhere, fill in the location of your choice).

Yet the majority of posters seem hell bent on finding ways to allow this and prevent CRT bringing in any system of reducing/limiting/preventing this.

Not really. It is a dilemma for me. No, I don’t want uncontrolled static mooring, but equally I think CRT should operate within the law, not outside it. The real issue is that the law is not fit for the purpose of regulating the canals in the 21st century when there is a national crisis of lack of housing for ordinary folk, an extreme crisis in some areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Not really. It is a dilemma for me. No, I don’t want uncontrolled static mooring, but equally I think CRT should operate within the law, not outside it. The real issue is that the law is not fit for the purpose of regulating the canals in the 21st century when there is a national crisis of lack of housing for ordinary folk, an extreme crisis in some areas.

It seems unlikely that there will be a new act in the foreseeable future.  The T & Cs for most boaters don't seem to be a problem and IMO reasonable.  Why are so many so keen to publicise their lack of teeth and encourage (because that is what happens) the p*** takers to ignore them.

IMO it wouldn't harm anybody apart from the aforesaid P*** takers if the T & Cs were totally enforceable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I am puzzled, not a new sensation when trying to understand some of the things on CWDF.

My feeling is that the majority of posters do not want the waterways taken over by lines of static boats (probably all grabbing their lump of towpath for "storage) and never moving.  In other words having a home mooring at as cheap a price as possible somewhere and spending all the year at the same spot in London (or elsewhere, fill in the location of your choice).

Yet the majority of posters seem hell bent on finding ways to allow this and prevent CRT bringing in any system of reducing/limiting/preventing this.

Remember it's a discussion forum. It is possible to debate the point at hand objectively irrespective of personal viewpoint. I didn't find myself defending the cruising limits of wide beams recently out of love for the things. It was the fact that the argument presented against them was flawed and worthy of challenge.

Equally, I don't think anyone here wants to prevent CRT regulating mooring, it's just they want to see it done within the law and are trying to understand what that means.

JP

Edited by Captain Pegg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheDuker said:

As CRT are not empowered to prosecute under anything other than the General Canal Byelaws, I presume that the prosecution referred to above was to be under those Byelaws. Can you direct me to the specific byelaw which proscribes mooring for more than 14 days in one place?

 

It seems rather unlikely that CRT can only prosecute under bye-laws.  This would mean, for example, that a supplier of sub-specification lock-gates could not be the subject of a civil action.  Or it would have no remedy against its tenants for non-payment of rent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jerra said:

It seems unlikely that there will be a new act in the foreseeable future.  The T & Cs for most boaters don't seem to be a problem and IMO reasonable.  Why are so many so keen to publicise their lack of teeth and encourage (because that is what happens) the p*** takers to ignore them.

IMO it wouldn't harm anybody apart from the aforesaid P*** takers if the T & Cs were totally enforceable.

The trouble is that the Ts and Cs are already widely disregarded. I am thinking of generator/engine running times for a start. As usual, most people will abide by the Ts and Cs simply because they want behave reasonably and considerately to others. The selfish minority will continue to do as they please and disregard the Ts and Cs. By pretending that the Ts and Cs are enforceable, CRT just inflict them on the considerate majority whilst not wanting to take formal action against the real pisstakers lest their toothlessness be revealed.

By contrast the occasional mooring for more than 14 days in some out of the way and reasonable place seems a fairly victimless crime to me.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tacet said:

It seems rather unlikely that CRT can only prosecute under bye-laws.  This would mean, for example, that a supplier of sub-specification lock-gates could not be the subject of a civil action.  Or it would have no remedy against its tenants for non-payment of rent. 

CRT is a navigation authority and typically only prosecute under a handful of relevant pieces of waterways legislation. It is part of their role as a navigation authority. In theory they could prosecute under different/additional laws, for example bring a prosecution of criminal damage, if someone criminally damaged their property, but other organisations (such as the CPS) have a responsibility to prosecute other legislation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tacet said:

It seems rather unlikely that CRT can only prosecute under bye-laws.  This would mean, for example, that a supplier of sub-specification lock-gates could not be the subject of a civil action.  Or it would have no remedy against its tenants for non-payment of rent. 

“Prosecute” is normally used in relation to a criminal matter and perused by the crown /cps. The cases you cite (bad supplier or tenant) are civil matters. You don’t prosecute, you sue in such matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, nicknorman said:

The Ts and Cs are a very new thing. 

That is not actually correct. Historically, pleasure boat licences were issued even by original canal companies, happy to receive at least a nominal assured annual payment for use of facilities that would otherwise be almost impossible to check up on and police on the basis of the statutory charges applicable. The British Transport Commission continued the practice, as did their successor BW. These licences all came with T&C's attached.

Being voluntary agreements on both sides, these amounted to straightforward contracts and were enforceable as such. This topic was the subject of some anxiety amongst BW and Parliamentary personnel when considered the abolition of PRN's in the proposed 1968 Transport Act. It had been suggested that with PRN's abolished, mandatory licences could be introduced, but as BW pointed out and the Transport Ministry agreed, this would have been a bad thing for them, because they would lose the benefit of the contractual clauses [exempting BW from liability for damage arising from badly maintained waterways] accompanying the then existing licence scheme.

They were narrowly focussed on how that would affect their liability to boaters for maintenance of course, rather than seeing T&C's then, as a means of enforcing other T&C's governing practices that could not – back then – have been visualised as arising; nonetheless, the principle was sound.

When mandatory pleasure boat licences were introduced under the aegis of the 1975 Act, BW did not take the opportunity to also draw up statutory conditions for issue of those, by the new byelaw making powers, and instead chose [later] to go the primary legislation route. Craft construction standards were introduced in the 1983 Act, but were subsequently abolished, so that the conditions for issue of these licences [and the river registrations] are what we now have in the 1995 Act.

There was a half-hearted suggestion by BW's lawyer to the Select Committee, that they could impose T&C's by 'virtue' of the 1962 Transport Act, s.43, but he admitted that the extent of that power was contentious, hence the need for s.17 of the 1995 At – and that is all we now have. One could say that the spectre of unenforceable unilaterally drafted T&C's, that was foreseen by BW back in the early sixties, has come back to haunt them – but they do not worry; they have learnt how effective confident promotion of the lie can be, and cannot even be bothered to now go the Byelaw route – too many accept their word as gospel. To paraphrase an oft-quoted Yankee, if you can fool enough of the people enough of the time, you have a basis for effective government.

That is not, of course, to decry the sensibility and utility of most of the T&C's [definitely NOT all of them]; it is only when CaRT abuse their power in revoking licences [or even just threatening to] for breach of non-statutory T&C's in order to activate a s.8 procedure, that the situation becomes truly objectionable.

In summary – prior to 1976, T&C's attached to licences certainly existed, and were enforceable. Since 1976, the T&C's have been – as once acknowledged – unenforceable guides to good conduct; only the conditions laid out in the 1995 Act's s.17 are enforceable law.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I had saved an old post from Nigel Moore where he explained the conditions under which the '14day rule' for HMers was introduced - unfortunately I can no longer find it and my post was 'from memory'. Hopefully he will come on and correct any errors that have been posted.

 

You were very largely correct Alan; I am not interested just now, in nit-picking the minutiae. It was not that long ago when I posted my comments on the real legal limitations to mooring to the towpath, suggesting that any towpath mooring at all, prior to the 1995 Act, could be considered entirely discretionary [albeit altogether necessary in the changing circumstances of the past half-century].

As to the current status of a 14 day permitted stay for everybody, that could be compellingly argued under the doctrine of 'legitimate expectations'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

My point is that the law of England & Wales specifically does preclude one party from taking occupation of another party's property without consent. Given there appears to be no specific legislation to deal with the particulars here if it came to a legal challenge against CRT for attempting to enforce a maximum stay it would surely be an absurd outcome to rule that they can't do so on their own property? Courts tend not to arrive at absurd outcomes.

It is important to differentiate, in the case of a statutory body such as CaRT, what they hold for public purposes constrained by their enabling statutes, and what they hold for their own private commercial purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

In summary – prior to 1976, T&C's attached to licences certainly existed, and were enforceable. Since 1976, the T&C's have been – as once acknowledged – unenforceable guides to good conduct; only the conditions laid out in the 1995  Act's s.17 are enforceable law.

Would you be good enough to comment on the 14 day moorings 'allowance'  introduced for boats with a Home Mooring.

I am sure I remember a suggestion from you that it was within their power to grant and enforce this within the T&Cs - am I mistaken?

 

Edit:

Thank you Nigel.

Cross posted with your reply above.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TheDuker said:

As CRT are not empowered to prosecute under anything other than the General Canal Byelaws, I presume that the prosecution referred to above was to be under those Byelaws. Can you direct me to the specific byelaw which proscribes mooring for more than 14 days in one place?

 

They are empowered to prosecute for more than just breach of byelaws. They can prosecute people like Tony, on the rivers, under the primary statute making it an offence to be in the main navigable channel without a PBC.

Nick is, however, while broadly accurate, 'misremembering' the details, insofar as the action against Tony was not a 'prosecution' [though it could and should - had they just cause - have been]. A prosecution takes place in the Magistrates Court; their claim against Tony was in the County Court system, for a declaration that he was deserving of an injunction banning him from CaRT waterways everywhere.

All such claims are never brought directly on the grounds of overstaying on moorings, or whatever; what they do - as they did with Tony - is revoke the licence and claim the boat is thenceforward left or moored within their jurisdiction without lawful authority, and hence subject to s.8.

To directly answer your final query, there are only 2 byelaws creating a mooring offence, and time limits don't enter into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The licence is anything CRT say it is until you prove otherwise in court, the law only applies if you can enforce it. The faux ombudsman has already upheld that it is a contract, so you won't get any help there. You can wave the law at CRT but they don't care, you will have to fight one of the biggest corporate law firms in the UK first. 

All the warnings about what CRT were doing were ignored or rubbished by most boat owners, especially on this forum, so don't complain.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

All the warnings about what CRT were doing were ignored or rubbished by most boat owners, especially on this forum, so don't complain.

 

However, CRT is broadly supported in what they do by the average boater on the Clapham omniboat, rough though their methods may seem for those with a heightened sense of entitlement. It's mainly the envelope-pushers who object, along with those in that echo chamber called thunderboat. 

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

The licence is anything CRT say it is until you prove otherwise in court, the law only applies if you can enforce it. The faux ombudsman has already upheld that it is a contract, so you won't get any help there. You can wave the law at CRT but they don't care, you will have to fight one of the biggest corporate law firms in the UK first. 

All the warnings about what CRT were doing were ignored or rubbished by most boat owners, especially on this forum, so don't complain.

You would be far better served to start fighting the Provisional IWA from your pair-of-boats-castle.

They would like a dentists root and branch clean out along with an annual shut down of 6 months, triple fees for widebeams and no moorings when the senior IWA committee members want to moor outside a pub on August Bank Holiday weekend.

The fact that they have just appointed Ivor Caplan, the government have appointed a new Waterways Minister who quotes IWA stuff in his welcome brief, and the Waterways Ombudsman is paid by CRT should be ringing alarm bells somewhere soon.

  • Greenie 2
  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, matty40s said:

You would be far better served to start fighting the Provisional IWA from your pair-of-boats-castle.

They would like a dentists root and branch clean out along with an annual shut down of 6 months, triple fees for widebeams and no moorings when the senior IWA committee members want to moor outside a pub on August Bank Holiday weekend.

The fact that they have just appointed Ivor Caplan, the government have appointed a new Waterways Minister who quotes IWA stuff in his welcome brief, and the Waterways Ombudsman is paid by CRT should be ringing alarm bells somewhere soon.

If I could do double, treble or quadruple greenies, I would.

This is so spot on, that if I sat and thought about it for a week I couldn't come up with better.

I was shocked by Caplan's appointment, which as one single action says more about the divisiveness that the IWA bring to the table than anything else I could come up with.
 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anybody has mentioned that a home mooring can cost thousands... And would therefore be unaffordable to certain people that the Trust are targeting... You know the mouldy old lifeboat that never moves.... The rusty about to sink narrow boat with no engine..... Its a targeted action towards a certain few......

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rbrtcrowther said:

I don't think anybody has mentioned that a home mooring can cost thousands... And would therefore be unaffordable to certain people that the Trust are targeting... You know the mouldy old lifeboat that never moves.... The rusty about to sink narrow boat with no engine..... Its a targeted action towards a certain few......

 

Paranoid or what!

It's targetted against boats, not people. If the mouldy old lifeboat that never moves and the rusty narrowboat with no engine were allowed to claim their own personal length of towpath and never move, more would appear neighbours and eventually whole shanty towns of boats that never move would organically grow. Most (but not all) boaters don't like to see this happening. Hence the need to bear down on on non-moving boats.

  • Greenie 1
  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, rbrtcrowther said:

I don't think anybody has mentioned that a home mooring can cost thousands... And would therefore be unaffordable to certain people that the Trust are targeting... You know the mouldy old lifeboat that never moves.... The rusty about to sink narrow boat with no engine..... Its a targeted action towards a certain few......

I have every sympathy with those in such a position, however I can't think of a way CRT can target those who are in a better position and really should be moving while leaving alone those you mention.

What would happen is that somebody would notice a boat being left alone.  Great I moor beside them and when required to move I just point and say "I move when they do".

Can you suggest how one set of people can be "left alone while others are moved on?  Or are you really suggesting evrybody should be able to stay as long as they like where they like?

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.