Jump to content

CRT and continuous cruising


DavidAN

Featured Posts

Just been reading http://www.canaljunction.com/boat/liveaboard1.htm and it says:

"If you don't comply CRT say they will be examining how far boats have moved over the course of their previous licence to see if they satisfy the requirement for continuous cruising. Regular reminders will be sent to all those boaters whose limited movement is causing a concern. On the expiry of their licence, those that have consistently failed to move in accordance with the Trust’s Guidance will be refused a new licence unless they take a home mooring."

What I don't see is what difference taking a home mooring would have on their cruising habits (and hence their impact on the network). If anything, as the home moorings are unlikely to be residential, it's more likely that cruising will then be done over even shorter distances. Is it just about the extra money generated? I'm not saying this is bad, I'm just asking what the actual reasoning behind it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose the logic is to maintain access rather than have boats “live” at a certain point indefinitely making buying a boat as a liveaboard more enticing, possibly, thus creating a change in the purpose of navigable waterways or reducing the same to a floating estate.  I have no view either way but I can understand the views of both camps. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original purpose of the "boats with no home mooring" in the 1995 Act was to allow boats which were not in the same area for long enough to enable them to make good use of a mooring to be licensed without one. Prior to that, a mooring was a licensing requirement, and a boat which moved around the system commonly had a mooring which was seldom, if ever, used. The purpose was never "If you move the boat every couple of weeks, you don't need a mooring."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

Prior to that, a mooring was a licensing requirement, and a boat which moved around the system commonly had a mooring which was seldom, if ever, used.

this reminds me of a mooring that my parents had, there was one unwritten condition attached to the mooring agreement.... that the boat would never make use of the mooring!

in fairness the boat never did visit that mooring but it could be found anywhere between birmingham and rickmansworth from one week to the next.

about the only time I know the boat stayed put for any period of time was in winter 1975 (I was expected) and summer of 1976 (drought summer / no water)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

The original purpose of the "boats with no home mooring" in the 1995 Act was to allow boats which were not in the same area for long enough to enable them to make good use of a mooring to be licensed without one.  Prior to that, a mooring was a licensing requirement, and a boat which moved around the system commonly had a mooring which was seldom, if ever, used.

That would imply that someone with a home mooring should be able to use the waterways frequently in the vicinity of their own mooring.

25 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

The purpose was never "If you move the boat every couple of weeks, you don't need a mooring."

But we do have continuous cruisers now and that is seen, if done correctly, as a valid way of living on the waterways. My point was asking what actual difference does the requirement of a mooring make to the 'problem' when having a mooring might not make a difference to the traveling frequency/pattern of the boater (offender) in question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a home mooring was available (in the right place and at the right price :D), the travelling frequency would probably be reduced, as many some "CC" boaters move the minimum required. If a boat only moves every 14 days, is the purpose "bona fide for navigation", or to avoid overstay notices, and the consequences thereof?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

If a home mooring was available (in the right place and at the right price :D), the travelling frequency would probably be reduced, as many some "CC" boaters move the minimum required. If a boat only moves every 14 days, is the purpose "bona fide for navigation", or to avoid overstay notices, and the consequences thereof?

But the boater would have to keep moving anyway to avoid being classed as resident on the mooring. The CRT mooring requirement for offenders seems to assume that the boater will reside on the leisure moorings which they do not allow for long periods and the boater would be taking up a mooring space anyway (albeit one that he/she has paid for).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DavidAN said:

But the boater would have to keep moving anyway to avoid being classed as resident on the mooring. The CRT mooring requirement for offenders seems to assume that the boater will reside on the leisure moorings which they do not allow for long periods and the boater would be taking up a mooring space anyway (albeit one that he/she has paid for).

It is my understanding that having a home mooring allows one to make short repeated trips in the same area, and each time the boat returns to the home mooring the 'clock is reset', thus satisfying the requirements of CRT, the boater, and the marina. So everyone is happy.  Is this not so?   Certainly many, many marina dwellers do this with no objection from anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/11/2017 at 23:29, Mac of Cygnet said:

It is my understanding that having a home mooring allows one to make short repeated trips in the same area, and each time the boat returns to the home mooring the 'clock is reset', thus satisfying the requirements of CRT, the boater, and the marina. So everyone is happy.  Is this not so?   Certainly many, many marina dwellers do this with no objection from anyone.

 

Nope. I'm not happy about this as there is no legal basis for this, unless you can show otherwise.

As a boater WITH a home mooring I am not required to CC as far as I can determine, nor am I required by law to actually use my home mooring. It just has to be 'available' (which mine is). Legally I am permitted to flit around in the vicinity of my home mooring indefinitely as far as I can tell, but CRT sent me one of those courteously worded "you appear to have been is the same general area for more than 14 days" emails on Friday. 

Well yes CRT, but so what?

 

Edit to add:

Oh no I've just realised this probably makes me officially a piss-taker, despite having a legitimate CRT L2 class home mooring! 

 

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Nope. I'm not happy about this as there is no legal basis for this, unless you can show otherwise.

As a boater WITH a home mooring I am not required to CC as far as I can determine, nor am I required by law to actually use my home mooring. It just has to be 'available' (which mine is). Legally I am permitted to flit around in the vicinity of my home mooring indefinitely as far as I can tell, but CRT sent me one of those courteously worded "you appear to have been is the same general area for more than 14 days" emails on Friday. 

Well yes CRT, but so what?

 

Edit to add:

Oh no I've just realised this probably makes me officially a piss-taker, despite having a legitimate CRT L2 class home mooring! 

 

You are correct (in the eyes of the Judge in the Myers V C&RTcase)

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. 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. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Nope. I'm not happy about this as there is no legal basis for this, unless you can show otherwise.

As a boater WITH a home mooring I am not required to CC as far as I can determine, nor am I required by law to actually use my home mooring. It just has to be 'available' (which mine is). Legally I am permitted to flit around in the vicinity of my home mooring indefinitely as far as I can tell, but CRT sent me one of those courteously worded "you appear to have been is the same general area for more than 14 days" emails on Friday. 

Well yes CRT, but so what?

 

Edit to add:

Oh no I've just realised this probably makes me officially a piss-taker, despite having a legitimate CRT L2 class home mooring! 

 

I wasn't pronouncing on the legality or otherwise of the situation, just trying to explain to the OP why taking a home mooring would legitimise a pattern of behaviour, i.e. cruising in a very limited area, which would otherwise incur their sanctions.  So everyone IS happy, including the marina, presumably, as one would not be living full-time on a leisure mooring.  He seems concerned about the last point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, DavidAN said:

Just been reading http://www.canaljunction.com/boat/liveaboard1.htm and it says:

"If you don't comply CRT say they will be examining how far boats have moved over the course of their previous licence to see if they satisfy the requirement for continuous cruising. Regular reminders will be sent to all those boaters whose limited movement is causing a concern. On the expiry of their licence, those that have consistently failed to move in accordance with the Trust’s Guidance will be refused a new licence unless they take a home mooring."

What I don't see is what difference taking a home mooring would have on their cruising habits (and hence their impact on the network). If anything, as the home moorings are unlikely to be residential, it's more likely that cruising will then be done over even shorter distances. Is it just about the extra money generated? I'm not saying this is bad, I'm just asking what the actual reasoning behind it is.

Simply because it is enshrined in law. The law says no home mooring = have to move every 14 days max. But that only applies to boats without a home mooring. With a home mooring, you can do what you like although CRT try to persuade you otherwise in their unenforceable Ts and Cs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we may be in danger of letting the particulars of one piece of case law over ride the fundamental principles of law.

A couple of posts above seem to suggest that by having a home mooring contract with someone at some fixed location you have a right to moor to the towpath for an indefinite period anywhere. I can't believe that would ultimately stand scrutiny. It seems to breach the fundamentals of property ownership and trespass.

I must admit I thought the 14 days limit also applied to boats with a home mooring but that the requirement to use the boat 'bona fide for navigation' did not apply and therefore the cruising pattern was not a legal concern.

If I am wrong about that I suspect that in lieu of the 14 day rule there may in fact be no absolute right to moor at all for boats away from their home mooring. That would be a potential reason for there being no provision for enforcement of a fixed timescale. It should also be borne in mind that a right doesn't entitle free provision of the amenity to which that right entitles use.

Back in 1995 would anyone have thought it necessary to write rules for mooring away from a home mooring? The answer may lie in earlier legislation.

JP

Edited by Captain Pegg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

I think we may be in danger of letting the particulars of one piece of case law over ride the fundamental principles of law.

A couple of posts above seem to suggest that by having a home mooring contract with someone at some fixed location you have a right to moor to the towpath for an indefinite period anywhere. I can't believe that would ultimately stand scrutiny. It seems to breach the fundamentals of property ownership and trespass.

I must admit I thought the 14 days limit also applied to boats with a home mooring but that the requirement to use the boat 'bona fide for navigation' did not apply and therefore the cruising pattern was not a legal concern.

If I am wrong about that I suspect that in lieu of the 14 day rule there may in fact be no absolute right to moor at all for boats away from their home mooring. That would be a potential reason for there being no provision for enforcement of a fixed timescale. It should also be borne in mind that a right doesn't entitle free provision of the amenity to which that right entitles use.

Back in 1995 would anyone have thought it necessary to write rules for mooring away from a home mooring? The answer may lie in earlier legislation.

JP

I suggest that you have a look at the 1995 act. The only place that 14 days gets a mention is in the bit applying only to boats without a home mooring. What would not stand scrutiny is CRT inventing a rule that required folk to move every 14 days when there was no support in statute, and with the nature of English law being that you can do something unless it is specifically proscribed.

The fundamental crux of the matter is that in many people’s opinion including yours and mine, it is not reasonable to have a mooring that you never use, and plonk your boat down indefinitely in a location of your choice. But unfortunately our pragmatic opinion has no support in law. The same, for example, regarding running noisy generators at all hours etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

If I am wrong about that I suspect that in lieu of the 14 day rule there may in fact be no absolute right to moor at all for boats away from their home mooring. That would be a potential reason for there being no provision for enforcement of a fixed timescale. It should also be borne in mind that a right doesn't entitle free provision of the amenity to which that right entitles use.

For boats WITH a home mooring, my understanding is that there is no right of mooring for any period, the grant of 14 days is within C&RTs powers and is included in the T&Cs. The downside is (for the boater) is that there is no possible extension due to circumstances, and the downside for C&RT is that the boater does not have to move to another 'place', just a few yards complies.

For  boats WITHOUT a home mooring, they must move to another place every 14 days  (or less as posted), and be on a bona-fide navigation. The benefit for them is that the 14 days can be exceeded in certain circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

For boats WITH a home mooring, my understanding is that there is no right of mooring for any period, the grant of 14 days is within C&RTs powers and is included in the T&Cs. The downside is (for the boater) is that there is no possible extension due to circumstances, and the downside for C&RT is that the boater does not have to move to another 'place', just a few yards complies.

For  boats WITHOUT a home mooring, they must move to another place every 14 days  (or less as posted), and be on a bona-fide navigation. The benefit for them is that the 14 days can be exceeded in certain circumstances.

The Ts and Cs are a very new thing. Funny how it’s been possible to moor for the 200+ years prior to CRT inventing its Ts and Cs.  Unless there is a specific preclusion to moor, you can do it. There is for example no specific permission to use reverse gear, but we all do it. Anyway, the Ts and Cs are optional, they are not legally binding.

Edited by nicknorman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

The Ts and Cs are a very new thing. Funny how it’s been possible to moor for the 200+ years prior to CRT inventing its Ts and Cs.  Unless there is a specific preclusion to moor, you can do it. There is for example no specific permission to use reverse gear, but we all do it.

Anyway, the Ts and Cs are optional, they are not legally binding. Some are and some are not, as you know.

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.

 

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

33 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

I suggest that you have a look at the 1995 act. The only place that 14 days gets a mention is in the bit applying only to boats without a home mooring. What would not stand scrutiny is CRT inventing a rule that required folk to move every 14 days when there was no support in statute, and with the nature of English law being that you can do something unless it is specifically proscribed.

The fundamental crux of the matter is that in many people’s opinion including yours and mine, it is not reasonable to have a mooring that you never use, and plonk your boat down indefinitely in a location of your choice. But unfortunately our pragmatic opinion has no support in law. The same, for example, regarding running noisy generators at all hours etc.

I am happy to take your word in respect of the 1995 Act. I am not convinced though that our view has no basis in law.

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.

Likewise if indeed there is no right for a boat with a home mooring to moor anywhere other than on the home mooring itself the assertion that a boat moored away from its home mooring need only move a boat length every 14 days (or any other timescale) must also surely be invalid?

Like Alan I am thinking about how some the outcomes of recent discussions and cases might translate. In the case of the Bridgewater example, in spite of the conclusion to which the specific legislation appeared to lead, it always seemed fundamentally incorrect that the law could require a private company to provide a service free of charge. I think this example may be similar.

JP

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

For boats WITH a home mooring, my understanding is that there is no right of mooring for any period, the grant of 14 days is within C&RTs powers and is included in the T&Cs. The downside is (for the boater) is that there is no possible extension due to circumstances, and the downside for C&RT is that the boater does not have to move to another 'place', just a few yards complies.

 

There is clearly an implied expectation that home moorers would, during a journey away from their mooring, moor for short periods of time. Let's call them, for the sake of argument, "transit moorings" - ie an interruption to the journey they are on. This might be for an hour for lunch; or an overnight stop (perfectly reasonable), or a couple of nights (getting wooly now....)......in fact CRT in their T&Cs imply 14 days, which is exceedingly generous. Bridgewater canal company allow 24 hours, as a comparison, except for signed moorings where it is longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

The Ts and Cs are a very new thing. Funny how it’s been possible to moor for the 200+ years prior to CRT inventing its Ts and Cs.  Unless there is a specific preclusion to moor, you can do it. There is for example no specific permission to use reverse gear, but we all do it. Anyway, the Ts and Cs are optional, they are not legally binding.

I wasn't aware that horses came with a reverse gear 200 years ago. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 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.

 

T’s and C’s are not legally binding. Some elements are a repeat of bylaws which of course are legally binding, some are inventions (mostly with the best of intentions) which are not. Thus the Ts and Cs bring nothing to the party from a legal point of view. Just refer to the bylaws.

30 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

My understanding, even back when I bought the boat thirty years ago (with a home mooring), was that you couldn't stay in one spot for more than 14 days and that seemed to be generally accepted, possibly because we didn't have the internet to blather about on. If you didn't have a home mooring, whenever that came in, it was because you were a continuous cruiser and therefore would be on a cruise rather than sat under a tree for ever, because those were the people the term was brought in for.  The difference appeared to be the assumption that if you were on a cruise, you were going somewhere so wouldn't hang about the same area, while if you had a home mooring you would, but not in the same spot for more than a fortnight (apart from your mooring, obviously).

Of course, back then there were a lot fewer boats (or so it seemed, anyway) and so nobody, including BW, cared much.  As you got more boats zooming about, it got a bit more fraught at the best moorings and the powers that be decided something had to be done about it and we all got a bit more regulated.  As we now have the joy of the internet, we now have the ability to argue amongst ourselves about what the legal words meant n years ago, although the courts don't actually care and nor do CRT, and, in fact, nor do I very much, as long as most of us pay some attention to the others out and about and behave with a certain amount of responsibility. Which most of us do, and you can generally ignore the others by untying your boat and buggering off somewhere quieter.  You can say, of course, why should you have to? But that's life, some people are just a pain in the arse and as you have an engine, be grateful that you have the ability to avoid them which you don't with your neighbours ashore.

What's actually laid down by law and what isn't is what makes lawyers rich and everybody else fed up to the back teeth with the endless meaningless discussions.  Generally, what gets you hassled is inconsiderate behaviour, whether it's legal or not, and quite right too.  CRT seem quite amenable to being put right when, for example, they issue overstaying notices when they shouldn't, and unless you want constant supervision it's bound to happen so isn't worth worrying about. Most of us have never had any trouble.

You will recall that CRT threatened to prosecute Tony Dunkley for mooring in one place for more than 14 days despite him having a home mooring. Well I think they revoked his licence at least, but he then applied for another one pointing out that he met the only 3 required criteria for the grant of a licence/registration and it would be unlawful for CRT not to grant the licence. He called their bluff and they backed down, because they knew they wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) win.

I’m not saying this is the best outcome for boating in general, but it is the one applicable in law. As to your general sentiment, I fully agree.

Edited by nicknorman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

T’s and C’s are not legally binding. Some elements are a repeat of bylaws which of course are legally binding, some are inventions (mostly with the best of intentions) which are not. Thus the Ts and Cs bring nothing to the party from a legal point of view. Just refer to the bylaws.

You will recall that CRT threatened to prosecute Tony Dunkley for mooring in one place for more than 14 days despite him having a home mooring. Well I think they revoked his licence at least, but he then applied for another one pointing out that he met the only 3 required criteria for the grant of a licence/registration and it would be unlawful for CRT not to grant the licence. He called their bluff and they backed down, because they knew they wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) win.

I’m not saying this is the best outcome for boating in general, but it is the one applicable in law. As to your general sentiment, I fully agree.

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?

 

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.