Continuous Cruisers must continue
Moored Marsworth, Grand Union Canal
I was pleased to see this article in the K&A Times late this evening..
“..In a landmark decision today at Bristol County Court judgement was given in favour of British Waterways’ interpretation of Section 17 of the British Waterways Act 1995 relating to Continuous Cruising in the case of Kennet & Avon Canal boater, Paul Davies…
Judge O’Malley noted that Davies’ purpose in keeping the boat on the short stretch of canal between Bath and Bradford upon Avon was so that his home was within convenient distance of his place of work and his social circle, and that his purpose in moving the boat was to avoid the requirement to have a permanent mooring.
The Judge said, “What is clear to me is that the defendant who is clearly living on the boat cannot successfully claim that he is using it ‘bona fide for navigation’ by moving it every so often up and down a short stretch of canal.”
The real core of continuous cruisers do ‘move along please’ as we should, and we are proud to be one of those who do.
Having said that, I do feel that British Waterways should give more residential mooring space for these people to moor their boats for longer periods if that is what they need..
But then there is the question of paying for that privilege? Unfortunately, as in this case, the boater didn’t want to pay for a mooring or Council Tax.
Sue
Updated 24th April 2012
April 1st, 2011 at 12:52 am
If this case had been lost it could have meant the Marinas would empty out to towpath moorings
April 1st, 2011 at 7:19 am
Let’s hope B.W. have the nous to use the judgement, don’t hold your breath.
April 1st, 2011 at 1:23 pm
District judge O’Malley denied any continuous journey is required. Journey and navigation are two very different things. The judgment handed down in bristol is appealable, refers only to davies and sets no precedent (but may be referred to in future litigation). Online moorings do not reflect value for money where no additional services mr facilities such as water or electric exist.
April 1st, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Well I for one am glad someone has been hauled over the coals at last. Lets be honest here it seems he is one of the continuous moorers that bridge hop in the hope this will satisfy BW. They know and we know in our heart of hearts what going on. They want to live on a boat on the cheep. How can they even have the cheek to by a CC license.
People that do this are cheating the system and occupying moorings, denying others the opportunity to moor.
Hopefully this will start to make constant moorers think about what they do.
Perhaps BW should issue a CM (Constant Moorer) license for say £7500.00 for those that want to bridge hop or stay still.
Kevin
April 2nd, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Robin,
Yes, that may well have happened you know
Graham,
As far as I can see BW have lost control anyway..
Paul,
I don’t know if you are the chap that this refers to although you have the same name you didn’t say in your comment.
Continuous cruising is not mooring up for weeks on end or moving a very short distance and back. That is not in the continuous cruising terms and conditions. I am surprised at people who think they have a right just to stop cruising if they work or have children at school.
A continuous cruising licence is for those that move and shouldn’t be taken by those who do not intend to do so. Buying a boat to live on must be thought about, a mooring is needed if a boater wishes to remain static.
Paul Davies’ should argue for BW to provide a mooring for himself because of his circumstances as should all those who moor for weeks, but he should also know that he will have to pay for that. It is no excuse that online moorings are not good value for money. At the moment these people pay nothing!
Kevin,
I think it is a good idea to issue CM licences at a yearly cost…
I don’t think it will make CMers think about what they are doing.. oh only that they may well move out of their communities along the bank and occupy the visitor moorings swip swapping with their friends every 48 hours so other boaters cannot moor.. Remains to be seen this year.
Until BW get better control of the towpath situation we will not see an improvement, Court Case or not.
April 2nd, 2011 at 11:45 pm
“I think it is a good idea to issue CM licences at a yearly cost…
I don’t think it will make CMers think about what they are doing.. oh only that they may well move out of their communities along the bank and occupy the visitor moorings swip swapping with their friends every 48 hours so other boaters cannot moor.. Remains to be seen this year.
Until BW get better control of the towpath situation we will not see an improvement, Court Case or not.”
I think turning up in court and arguing that you have be in a certain location because of your other life COMMITMENTS drives a train right through your own defense! What an ass! I bet he was self represented as well.
A hefty fee CM license would:-
1. Deter CM’ers and put them in a marina where they belong
2. See that those that really love the mooring option of being on line are happy to pay for it.
3. The funds that the people that are happy to pay for lifestyle 2 can be re-invested in better facilities for those the don’t abuse the system.
Lets see more of this. Hopefully the new BW warden scheme will bring results and that its bonus driven incentive scheme!
I think there should be a snitch hotline.
Kevin
April 4th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
I think that was a response from Paul Davies who lost the case. He thinks he is a legal expert and often complains about the cost of mooring. (I doubt he has ever actually paid for a mooring) He did have legal representation. Apparently his parents paid for that. Its a shame he couldn’t have asked them to pay for his mooring. He says he will not appeal. The truth may well be is his parents will no longer foot the bill and Mr Davies is not used to paying for things out of his own money. He thinks its unfair that he has to pay for things, everybody else pays and he just stays kinda thing.
April 4th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
How many cases do BW need to bring (win) before it become “precedent” or is that a bigger legal thing?
Did the defendant have to pay costs? I do hope so, and if he is of insufficient funds his boat / home is ceased. An example has been set, some tough follow through is now needed to cement the deal!!!
Kevin
April 4th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
My parents are revised and suffering ill health
April 4th, 2011 at 11:07 pm
You do have question BW’s role in allowing all these boats to claim constant cruising staus in certain areas on the canal. Why didn’t they act sooner? I was on that stretch of canal last year and there are so many live aboard boats on it I couldn’t moor. I spoke to some boaters who thought they had some sort of right to do this. They pay no mooring, no council tax etc and don’t seem to understand that the contant cruiser status was not desiged for this usage.
Many seemed to argue that BW can’t stop them or don’t have the legal power to stop so therefore its ok to it. Its not a very moral defense of cheating the system and cheating the boaters who do pay.
April 4th, 2011 at 11:17 pm
I don’t know what your parents ill health or retirement has do with anything. Is that a pathetic attemp to make me feel bad? Are you Paul Davies who lost the court case?
April 4th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Paul
Whilst your parents ill health is out of your hands, their retirement is’nt a total shock.
The former is regrettable, the latter is inevitable assuming you live long enough.
I can’t see these are valid reasons to abuse the CC license. If you need a more permanent base and want to live on your boat, do like the rest of us do and BUY A MOORING and use it.
I think you are the tip of the iceberg, but now the seal has been broken I want to see more successful prosecutions. I am fed up with the few weeks a year I get to take my NB out having to moor in shite place or in the middle of nowhere because of constant moorers.
Kevin
BTW Paul I’m sure you are a nice enough bloke, but you are doing is wrong and you seem to be the test case which is tough. I’d be interested to know what you plan to do next.
Seems form the posts I have read all over the NB interest arena that BW is well supported.
April 5th, 2011 at 10:54 pm
It’s easy isn’t it.. Get a mooring or move your boat! Paul you can’t just moor up, go to work and live your life on a continuous cruiser licence for years on end.
A continuous cruiser licence is for those that continually cruise, you don’t do you. You just moor, or you go to the next bridge and back maybe, I don’t know how far you travel.
What about all the boaters that moor their boat on residential moorings, marina moorings or BW Long Term moorings? They do that because they know they are not continuous cruisers in the spirit of that title, what gives you the right to abuse that?
The boaters in the last para PAY because they don’t/can’t continuously cruise.. It is no wonder there are so many comments not only here but on the canal forums/blogs around the internet.. You are making yourself, and those that do the same as you, very unpopular.
Not only that but continuous cruisers like us are getting tarred with your brush and we don’t like it!
April 5th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
Sue,
I completly agree with your last comment. I have paid £6500 for mooring in the last few years and some people had paid nothing. I think it is time for boaters to speak out against the people who don’t pay..
I am angry with the Kanda website people because they have been responsible for spreading the message that BW can’t do anything about people who claim CCer status to avoid mooring fees. The have said many times that BW does not have the power to enforce its own rules. Many boaters have been incouraged to claim CCer staus because of the advise from that site.They have completly failed the people they are supposed to fighting for and now look realy foolish because they got it so so wrong.
I am looking forward to kanda further statements and I am pleased that the judge said BW had acted properly in this whole process.
I
April 6th, 2011 at 10:09 am
Sue. A continuous journey is NOT required in law. The judgemet clearly stated this quite clearly. Kanda (not my website) is not arguing that people can do whatever they want – that would be silly – just that bw’s requirements are way way beyond the letter of the law and are therefore unlawful. The cc guidelines highlight bw’s immacility to properly interpret the law which is a job for the courts and not a public authority who simply need to adhere to the law. The court has not told me to get a HB roving mooring permit, a mooring AS A HB, pay more money because others are being ripped off, or extend my cruising pattern, but I have voluntarily agreed to do this.
April 6th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Paul,
BW have not told you to get a roving permit because they don’t exist!!!!
Do they exist?
Why are you saying a judge has not asked you to get something that doesn’t exist!!!!
I have reached the conclusion you are not coping with this situation and have lost the plot.
I think you should consider this. Many people maybe affected and even made homeless by this court case. The cost of mooring may now go up for people who have always paid moorings because demand will go up for moorings. I think you should be aware that people maybe really angry with you.
April 6th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Maybe. I certainly did not adhere to the terms and conditions requiring a continuous journey where, in truth, no journey was ever required. Yes, the ruling stated I was not navigating in good faith – although bfn has never previously been formally defined. Yes, the definition of bfn is intent. No, the ruling leaves only me vulnerable and only effects me but may be referred to in future litigation. Yes, I was correct to defend the claim of homelessness brought against me. No defence would automatically result in homelessness. Yes a roving mooring permit is only one option open to the board for future consideration and the roving mooring permit was widely consulted on by bw and shelved.
April 6th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Paul,
I’m a gongoozler at the moment but my boat will be built next year and I will be shelling out £2600 a year for my marina mooring like most of the folk above. I totally agree with everything they say. I’ve hired boats countless times in the past and the daily search for a mooring only to find people like you hogging the best moorings and then on the return trip 2 weeks later finding the same boat on those moorings makes my blood boil.
I don’t care what excuses you make Paul you are bucking the system which ever way you look at it plain and simple! Sure many of us struggle financilly and that is life but we pay up despite that. It’s not a case of definitions and what is or is not. Its about reasonable use of a valuable commodity that is expensive to maintain and people like you dodging costs does not help keep it usable for the rest of us.
You talk about defending being homeless. Had you lived in a house and not paid your morgage you soon would be so why because you own a boat should that be any differant.
No wonder BW is in the state it’s in. Its because of people like you!
April 6th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Steve. Double mooring is a common canal practice creating no obstruction, or stay in your marina or don’t bother buying a boat. Love ya lots, paul x
April 6th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Paul,
Once again your knowledge and wisdom are shown.
Breasting up is not common practice and not even possible on large parts of the network because the canal is too narrow. The K&A is a wide canal. You really should have cruised more with your boat and you would have known that and avoided yourself lots of problems in the process.
April 7th, 2011 at 12:21 am
I am one of those proper continous cruisers. I see Kanda have advised Paul Davies not to appeal in thier latest blog. Just incase it sets a precedent and becomes a quick and easy way of processing Section 8 notices through the courts.They also say in the blog that there are 150 to 200 boats doing the same as Paul between Devizes and Bath.
April 7th, 2011 at 1:29 am
If Paul cant afford the appeal then it might be a good idea if we club together and give him the money to do it
April 7th, 2011 at 8:45 am
In spite of what I’ve written elsewhere, I have every sympathy for Paul Davies, and the other 100+ boat residents on the western K&A. Clearly people have to live somewhere, and there’s nothing wrong in living on your boat. I accept that being in or around one place is often desirable, re family, work, schools etc.
My sole argument with Paul’s approach, and of many others in his part of the K&A, is that he is mooring on what is effectively a visitor mooring (it may not be marked as such, but it is, unless it is marked otherwise by BW). If he wants to stay in a particular area, he needs a “home” mooring, i.e. some piece of land which he owns, or a mooring/berth he has agreed to rent.
This has been the case ever since I started boating 45 years ago. The only real difference is that BW introduced the CC status in the 1990s, codifying what actually existed for decades before, but they clearly didn’t give it enough thought, with the result that Paul and others have spotted what they thought were loopholes.
Actually, as the recent case shows (and however Paul tries to explain it), there isn’t really a loophole. He also forgets perhaps that BW, as a statutory body, can rewrite its own legal regulations. Normally, of course, they consult first, but i suspect we will see enhanced rules fairly soon as a rewsult of the Bristol case. That case doesn’t create legal precedent, in fact no County Court judgment can, but it has persuasive authority, and I don’t think that any “no win, no fee” lawyers would take any similar case forward now.
Come on Paul – admit you were wrong, leave your boat and live elsewhere, or crawl to BW and apologise, pay up what you owe, and move forward.
April 7th, 2011 at 9:59 am
Peter,
Despite what I have said I too have some sympathy for Paul.
There has been an attitude of anger towards BW and I think he got caught up in this.
Parts on the canal have become hot spots for people living on their boats claiming CC status. The situation as become like a fee paying car park but no one actually polices it. You my pay or intend to pay at first but then you realise no one is paying why should you?
BW has watched more and more boats occupy the canal on CC status and not done enough. The problem is, unlike a car park where people can just move, people live on these boats.
The kanda website has done a lot to foster this anger towards BW. The Kanda site did have on its opening page
”Part of our resource section is to keep you up to date on the latest from British Waterways (tug forelocks) and their attempts to ethnically cleanse the Limpley Stoke Valley so that the hire boat companies can have it to themselves. simple, non-confrontational help to keep you out of trouble.”
To accuse BW of ethnically cleansing is a prime example of helping to foster such an attitude of anger and hatred towards BW.
The judge said about BW and the Davies case
“BW behaved in an exemplary fashion throughout.”
I don’t agree that BW has behaved as well as they could and they have helped in creating this situation because they have know about all these boats claiming CC status
incorrectly.
It was just a matter of time before a Paul Davies came along to challenge BW and be a hero against the evil BW when we had Kanda going around accusing BW of ethnically cleansing.
I think Panda and Paul should now be quiet and hopefully some more sensible dialogue can take place.
April 7th, 2011 at 10:30 am
The same thing is going on on the River Lee. Reported in the Canal Boat several measures have been suggested, the best of which I like is the “parking” charge of £20 per day. Seeing as how there are reportedly many boats the cost of a warden should be adequately covered.
There is a brand new marina on the Lee which has 315 berths of which I believe only 17 have been taken since it opened in January so its not because of lack of marina places. It’s not residential but their terms state that a continuous stay of 28 days is the maximum. So you only need to move off 13 times a year and stay out a night on what would then be a freed up visitors mooring.
Kevin
April 7th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Most boaters are innocent and none guilty. Trouble is, some are also guilty and none innocent. Bad boy biddy
April 7th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Mike -
You’re right that BW haven’t done enough in the past to prevent the current situation escalating. They have, I believe, been very conscious that they are dealing with peoples’ homes, and therefore they want to act fairly and correctly. Actually, in so doing, they have probably been far slower to take action to evict people from particular bits of towpath than building societies or landlords of bricks and mortar homes would be to get people out of their houses.
I go back to my earlier point – there have ever only been two legally acceptable ways of living on your boat – either keep moving around the canals, or at least a substantial part (historically, working boaters would tend to operate along all of a canal, such as the K&A or the GU, moving every day), or rent a mooring (unless you are lucky enough to have canalside land, but you still have to pay BW to moor a boat against your land!).
Only genuine CCers can avoid paying a mooring fee. Paul Davies was never a CCer, so must pay or accept the consequences. I know many senior BW staff, and they are reasonable people. They do all they can to be fair and treat everyone fairly. But they have to apply the same rules to all. Why should Paul, and many of the other resident boaters on the K&A and Lee & Stort be different from people who live on their boats elsewhere on the canals, in that they won’t pay to moor?
Above, Paul Davies says “Most boaters are innocent and none guilty. Trouble is, some are also guilty and none innocent.” I’m not sure what that means, but I do add that on a recent trip along a 45 mile section of Midland/North West canals, I looked for the licence on all boats we passed or moored on-line. One in six were displaying no licence, or one that was at least a month out of date (i.e. allowing time for it to be in the post, or time to get to the boat to display it). And a similar proportion of on-line moorers were not displaying a current mooring permit.
Like most people, I pay my licence and to moor – why should some people get away without paying their contribution to canal management and maintenance?
April 7th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
A very interesting thread of comments, and Paul has also had an input which I have a lot of respect for as there has been some strong views.
Nobody wants to see anyone made homeless, and that is not what is on the agenda.
Peter you said “…BW introduced the CC status in the 1990s, codifying what actually existed for decades before, but they clearly didn’t give it enough thought, with the result that Paul and others have spotted what they thought were loopholes…”
I remember not that long ago that the ‘rules’ stated you had to do a certain number of miles, or was it lock miles? after every 14 days of mooring. I can’t quite remember what it was now. But this has changed and caused these problems. I am hoping that the new guidelines will be more clear on what the CCer licence will mean.
Kevin is quite correct, there is the same problem on the River Lea or is it Lee.. On the K&A is has been reported, that there are between 150 and 200 boats moored for the same reason as Paul Davies between Devizes and Bath, that is an awful lot of boats. Add that lot to all the other boaters throughout the system who are accused of being CMers and there is no way that BW can deal with the situation.
My own view is that British Waterways should build Residential Marinas in the most populated CMers locations so these boaters can settle. Of course they will have to pay just as boaters do who moor in marinas, plus pay Council Tax of course.
Would that satisfy you and your friends Paul? Would you move your boat to a Residential Marina berth and pay for that privilage if there was one near where you are now?
To be honest I can’t see any other solution to this problem!
I was astounded tonight when I read yet another blog post on the Kanda website that I had to read three times but still didn’t understand the words..
http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/wordpress/equality-officer-advises-mooring-strategy-steering-group/
Gosh there is a lot of money being spent by the authorities on this subject.. better spent elsewhere me thinks
April 8th, 2011 at 7:12 am
Sue. My plans are to look for a mooring, extend my navigational pattern and to avoid restricted moorings. For me, the frightening thing is that bw will not permit me to have a mooring if I live on my boat and have stated in court that bath to devizes is not acceptable! So, if I don’t ‘comply’ I’m shafted, and if I try to comply I’m also ‘shafted’. I think it would be useful if boating groups like nabo to begin negotiating a roving mooring permit and work with bw to tpossibly restrict the numbers of new licenced boats coming on to the k&a. Difficult option this as bw have, despite ‘congestion’ bw have more than doubled hire boats and continue to licence newly registered cruisers. Money from a roving mooring permit, along with extra money raised bw permitting double mooring on permit holder only areas (£m’s) would pay for new marinas – but who wants to live in a car park for boats?
April 8th, 2011 at 8:31 am
Sue -
You’re right in that there was some pre-1995 rule. I think the lock-miles bit was more folklore or unofficial comment. But there’s always, since the 19th century as I understand it, been a rule that (unless shorter periods are indicated), you can’t moor anywhere for more than 14 days. That’s great if you happen to be a CCer who moves regularly, but as there is no rule as to how far you have to go, Paul Davies and others on the western K&A might have been complying, even if they only moved a few boat lengths.
Clearly, the problem on the K&A and L&S is too much demand for available space. Picking up Paul’s point about there being too many hire boats, I would suggest that hire boats have almost a greater right to be on a particular stretch of water than private cruising or residential boats, in that the licence fee is much higher.
Whilst I don’t want to deny Paul’s right to live on his boat, there never has been a right to live on one at a place of your own choosing. You either CC (in the full meaning of this phrase, i.e. progress from canal to canal), or you get an authorised residential mooring. BW has quite a few online ones around the country, though I’d guess that they are mostly in use. Another option is a marina, as Sue suggests, but there’s a big problem there. Lot’s of people live on boats in marinas, but very few are doing this legally. Planning permission for marinas usually has restrictions on the number of residential boats – it’s often no more that 4 to 6. I know that around a third of boats in our local marina are lived on. However, a blind eye is usually turned.
BW or a private operator would almost certainly not get planning permission for a new marina aimed at providing residential moorings. For some reason, most local authorities seem to think that people should live in houses.
Back to the current issue …. Paul Davies thinks that he should be able to live on his boat more or less where he wants to. The rules have never allowed this, and you have to select a mooring from those that are authorised and available. It’s the same as buying or renting a house; you choose one from those on sale at the time.
In a way, a roving mooring permit does exist – we all have one. Our boat licence entitles us to moor almost anywhere for free, as long as we move frequently. There has never been a concept of roving within a restricted area, as Paul wants. A novel idea, and probably feasible in under-subscribed areas like perhaps the Wyrley & Essington, but not on the western K&A or L&S, where there are just too many boats for the system to absorb.
April 8th, 2011 at 9:29 am
Paul,
I completly agree that it is time NABO started talking with BW about roving permits and worked with BW on restrictions on new licenses in hotspots. I don’t have faith in Kanda to represent CCers on the K&A. I don’t think they have been through any kind of elected process, have any membership, as far as I can tell they are self appointed representatives of the CCer and that’s not good. I know lots of CCers who dislike them and we don’t hear their opinions much or at all.
BW have allowed this situation to happen. For years they have watched more and more boats claim CC status. This problem didn’t happen over night. I think the arguement that BW has been acting slowly because its a sensitive issue it tricky because BW have made it so much worse by acting so slowly. BW has known for YEARS that many people had been using a CC licence incorrectly.
I do think its time NABO did more in this situation.
April 8th, 2011 at 9:30 am
Sue. It’s not that I want to do whatever I want, that would be silly – just that bw willingly licence boats to be on the k&a and a licence / certificate does not deny the right to live on ones boat. Should bw provide moorings for boats to moor on? Well there’s no statutory requirement for the Board to do this (they’re not a housing authority) but this leaves unresolved anxieties, and homelessness is not necessarily the best option causing many more social problems than it solves.
April 8th, 2011 at 11:04 am
I am involved with housing. BW is not a housing association or indeed a residential landlord. But unless they stand firm and make it very clear by precedent that the abuse of the CC license will not be tolerated any longer they may find them selves very unwilling landlords.
IMO there is a severe danger that with the lack of affordable private rental sector housing and with the new housing benefit rate reduction the situation is going to get far worse. It’s going to be difficult for the courts to side with the BW rules and make people homeless. This is already happening on non residential static caravan sites where you should only live for part of the year. The councils won’t seek prosecution for breach of planning laws because they would have the cost of rehousing people, assuming there was somewhere to house them.
BTW am I wrong in thinking that to have a CC license you need to nominate a home mooring?
Lets all be honest here. Living on a boat on a CC license is a cheap form of housing for many hundreds. Its clear for the most part from my observations that those that are CC (CM’s) their boats are tatty and unkempt indicating to me at least that money is short and their boat is simply somewhere to live. Genuine CC’s boats are their pride and joy and it shows, as do, in the main, ones owned by weekend and holiday users. I would go even further to say that in some areas the CM’s are creating a ghetto.
I also wonder how many CM’s are lacking insurance or BSS? or are ever slipped and blacked etc?
The situation has been allowed to exist through weak enforcement by BW. If they don’t get it sorted out now then I feel it won’t be too long before everyone says well I just won’t bother getting a license of any sort. If we all did that BW wouldn’t have the resources to chase up everyone.
Paul you are saying that 2 of the marina choices are not good for you. Well unfortunately marinas are not on every street. If you need to live in a certain location for convenience then find a land based address, or do like the rest of us do. Commute to you activities. I can’t see how you can’t stand on the claim that marina locations are not workable for you.
Kevin
April 8th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Boaters are unable to abuse the CC Guidelines when the judgment stated a continuous journey is NOT required. There is no abuse here.
A Pleasure Boat licence (required under the 1976 byelaws) is indeed cheaper than marinas / houses that do indeed offer more security lacking a non-sedentary lifestyle. For example – boaters don’t have to empty out their toilet public while families with children walk by, or have sunday walkers looking in through your window or to worry about running out of water or the water taps being frozen for most of december, or bw threatening homelessness for breakng laws never previously defined…
The current situation on the k&a is a result of uncleaar interpretation – how can bw enforce legislation that no one previously understood?
My land based address is a post office box and bw do not accept this for having a mooring.
It is rumoured on the cut that the 14 day rules have their roots in the much amended vagrancy laws that serve to prevent travellers committing local crime and this law is not at all relevant to boating community.
April 8th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
” how can bw enforce legislation that no one previously understood?”
The clues are in the description. Continuous Cruiser. To say no one understands it is far off the mark. I think indeed most if not all understand it, some just choose not to accept it or simply ignore it.
“My land based address is a post office box and bw do not accept this for having a mooring.”
So is it right you need a permanent mooring for a CC application? If they don’t accept this as a proper address why did they issue a CC license.
“It is rumoured on the cut that the 14 day rules have their roots in the much amended vagrancy laws that serve to prevent travellers committing local crime and this law is not at all relevant to boating community.”
I would say it’s very relevant and very foresighted as clearly this is what’s happening. I not suggesting that all and sundry are criminals far form it but vagrancy seems to be a valid point.
I’m sorry Paul you are getting all the flack, and its good you are prepared to enter in to the debate.
I personally think that no matter what you say the CC rules are pretty clear to anyone. I just wish as much effort was put into doing even the required minimum to comply as there was trying to justify or find reasons not to.
I fear the flood gates are now open for those that “misunderstand” what a CC licence is for.
Kevin
April 8th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
Hi Kevin.
Bona fide navigation (bfn) and continuous cruising and are two very different things. The first is a legal requirement and the second is an invention, a myth, a 14 day lie.
For this reason, the CC guidelines clearly state they do not have the force of law, and for other reasons, the judgment denied any need to continually cruise at all and for these reasons I also deny any journey is required. It’s pretty clear to anyone familiar with law, terms and conditions and bw guidelines what is exactly required, and what is reasonably permitted. Tis the rub.
14 days or longer…. 14 days is therefore a minimum or an advise and not a statutory maximum.
April 8th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Paul,
You lost the case, deal with it.
April 8th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
As my request for confirmation on the need for a CC to have a home base mooring has now been twice ignored I decided that the answer must be yes.
So a quick Google and the first sentence on this page confirms it.
http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/license-it/boating-essentials/mooring-information
So Paul where did you put when you filled in your application?
Very interesting page! All seems pretty clear to me I especially like the summary.
Kevin
April 8th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Interesting kevin. Are you suggesting that ‘continuous cruisers’ (a non-existant and misleading term) are really houseboats with a home mooring incorrectly licenced as pleasure boats and told to bfn when, in reality, a boat with a home mooring is a houseboat that does not have to bfn or, as you put it (‘continuously cruise’?). Surely a boat with at home mooring may remain in that locality where the relevant consent permits it to… Perhaps the terms and conditions are ultra vires…
April 8th, 2011 at 11:37 pm
Paul,
The page that Kevin found I have not seen before.. not really had to look as I ticked the box which said I was a continous cruiser, I knew the rules.
Which box did you tick by the way? Did you tick home mooring or did you tick that you would abide by those points on the page that Kevin found?
Really I suppose you shouldn’t have ticked any of the two boxes on the Licence Application, but then again you wouldn’t have been given a licence unless you had done.
I have to say that what you and your friends are doing is wrong, like I said before it gives people like me a bad name too.. I don’t like that.
You have lost the case Paul and I agree with those that have commented, you must find yourself some bricks and mortar if you wish to keep your social contacts and your job. It is the only way you can do that.
Your latest comment is seems somewhat desperate I am afraid.
April 8th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
Kevin -
If you read fully, you’ll see that CCers don’t need a home mooring. The two are not compatible. If you continually cruise, a home mooring is irrelevant. Some CCers do rent a winter mooring, reflecting that canals are closed for maintenance or ice.
Paul says that ‘continuous cruisers’ is a “non-existant and misleading term”. It isn’t – there are lots of boaters who do move all around the canals all the time. They don’t have a home mooring, but their boat is their home. Paul also says “surely a boat with a home mooring may remain in that locality where the relevant consent permits it to”. No, if you have a home mooring, you can moor every day on that mooring, but not in the locality. A major misunderstanding is that a home mooring permits you to live on your boat. It does not, unless your home mooring has local authority planning permission as a residential mooring. Having said that, a blind eye is usually turned.
Paul just doesn’t seem to accept that living on your boat anywhere (unless you genuinely CC around a substantial part of the system, i.e. bona fide navigation) normally requires local authority planning permission. This is exactly the same as living on the land. Why does he expect the canals to be different?
So please, Paul, don’t think that you can live on your boat where you will. You need permission, unless you move all the time.
I recognise that the present economic climate means that living on a boat is a relatively cheap option, but it is still subject to much the same rules as apply to living on land. And why shouldn’t it be?
April 9th, 2011 at 12:00 am
C’mon Paul, what is your home mooring? What did you declare?
Or……………………………………
Be honest. Did you lie to this question?
No response will be taken as you don’t have a home mooring.
With the publicity this case has attracted I would think living on land would be your only safe option now.
I really think the game is up for CM’s at last.
I do have a little inside knowledge of how the court system works. These things get listed and judges with a particular interest will get to preside. I bet you got one that is just as pissed off with the CM situation as the rest of us when he takes out his NB only to find the visitors mooring are taken up with CM’s. Either that or for once a very well briefed judge.
Paul you lost, and I suspect even though this case was not meant to be a precedent it will end up that way simply by the publicity it has attracted.
If I were a CM I would be seriously considering my position and wondering how long its gonna be until I get a tap on the shoulder.
Kevin
April 24th, 2011 at 7:20 am
Can a ask a vaguely relevant question please? Assuming the answer is yes I shall proceed.
As a leisure mooring occupier I have paid for my mooring to bw. I have no hook up just a canals long term site. The postman will not deliver to me. Now apparently the local council believe I need to pay council tax. And apparently sent me notices which obviously were not delivered. As I have not replied I am being taken to court for non payment. Does anyone have any advice for me.. I have 2 weeks till the big day.
April 24th, 2011 at 7:28 am
additional info. I checked valuation office and my leisure mooring is listed with a postcode. Stated at band A. Bw have informed me that leisure moorings do not attract council tax, only residential moorings with planning permission do. The council are demanding back dated tax from the date I took up mooring at a level that includes refuse collection (a service they don’t provide and for which I pay bw)
April 24th, 2011 at 8:11 am
Tim. My advise is inform the council that you only remain on the mooring for 9 months of the year.
Bw told me to cruise or bid online for moorings and when I did bw refused my bids because I live permanently on my boat and the terms and conditions imposed by bw for leisure moorings don’t permit this. (Bw also stated that extending my cruising from bath to devizes is not enough so I’m between a rock and a hard place!) Council tax is only required where full time residency on a mooring occurs. Where the usage of land is altered, planning permission is required. So a where a boat on a mooring is partially present / partially absent, the usage of the towing path remains unchanged and no planning permission or council tax is required. See kennet district council v bw, ladies bridge, pewsey jan 07. Bw do ignore most boaters who live on moorings but in court refused my bids. Looks like the local council have spotted you. I’ve asked bw how long a liveaboard may remain on a mooring before planning permission (and therefore council tax) is required. They will not answer. Some local marinas on the k&a only permit a boat to remain for 9 months out of 12 and the couch seem to be ok with this. Environment Agency moorings permit residency for 11 months out of 12 and no council tax is required.
April 24th, 2011 at 9:34 am
Thanks Paul. I shall throw myself at the mercy of the court. But I’ve put a for sale sign in porthole today, just in case it goes totally against me. We try to play by the rules mate and they move the goalposts. It’s just not fair.
April 24th, 2011 at 10:24 am
Difficult when a public authority’s out to get you. If your engines ok, cruise off asap or pole her to a different location for a while. Seek resolution with the council prior to court. Seek clarification from bw and ask them for a copy of the ladies bridge ruling 23rd jan 07 from bw (app/e3905/c/06/2019638 canal bank, west of ladies bridge, wilcot, pewsey, wiltshire) or e-mail enquiries@planning-inspectorate.gsi.gov.uk. If you’re not on the mooring continually throughout the year you may be lucky. Courts do tend to rule in favour of the PA and you are certainly vulnerable, but the ladies bridge case involved bw v wiltshire (both PA’s) and will certainly raise question marks over the whole process of planning and the potential effects of social displacement upon individuals.
April 24th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Thanks for pointers Paul. It does seem the whole scenario is repeated time and time again without a clear precise statement of time limits and definition of terms, so that individuals are put through the stress of being taken to court for trying to abide ny their understanding of the rules… without a rulebook. It really is time for clarity. The whole thing has shattered my illusion of a peaceful life on the canalside. I’m resigned to once again living among noisy inconsiderate neighbours…
April 28th, 2011 at 8:24 am
Having been involved in the past in moorings consultation with BW and other bodies, I agree that the picture is unclear. I would suggest that the extremes of the spectrum are (a) a boat moored on a home mooring on-line or in a marina, i.e. declared as such for licensing, but only used for holidays and occasional overnight stays, and (b) a residential boat moored on its home mooring. The first shouldn’t attract Council Tax, as local services aren’t being used as no-one lives there (and presumably the owner pays Council Tax on his house), whereas the second certainly should. Whilst genuine continuous cruisers do use local services as they move around the system, and so logically should expect to pay for using these services via Council Tax, there seems to be no administrative way to charge it, as it’s based on local authority areas. So CCers don’t pay the Tax, and in fact there’s no legal requirement that they should.
The problem comes with people within the extremes of the (a) and (b) spectrum. If you live on your boat (i.e. it’s your primary residence), you should pay Council Tax, as you use many of the services provided by the local authority, e.g. roads, police, education, libraries, open spaces, etc. Everyone should expect to pay Council Tax in that services are used and have to be paid for, but as stated above, genuine CCers don’t because, I suspect, there are not that many, and administratively it would just be too expensive to work out a system!
If you have two bricks and mortar homes (main residence and holiday home), then you have to pay Council Tax on both, though there is a reduction of at least 50% on the lesser used property. Maybe in Tim’s case his Council is thinking along those lines – but I think wrongly if he only uses the boat for holidays and occasional overnight stays.
April 29th, 2011 at 7:59 am
Correction to my last posting, last paragraph – the reduction in Council Tax on a second home is between 10% and 50%, depending on the local authority ruling (they have discretion).
Final point – I just don’t understand why some boaters expect to live rent and/or Council Tax free. If you choose to live in a boat, house, caravan or even a hole in the ground, why should you not pay rent (or mooring fee, or mortgage or whatever it’s called), and also Council Tax to cover the local services you use. I can’t think of any reason why both should not apply.
May 2nd, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Tim, the best advice I can give is think carefully before you follow Paul’s advice or his example.
I think we all have a duty to pay our way but should not have to do it twice! If the boat was your sole residence then you should be paying Council Tax like everybody else does but it sounds like you are paying Council Tax elsewhere?
If that is right then the next best advice: If you are on a leisure mooring, pay Council Tax elsewhere and are not taking the pee then you have a very good case – I know this from personal experience as I have been through this. Have a look at the Valuation office guidance, particularly: http://www.voa.gov.uk/instructions/chapters/rating_manual/vol5/sect670/b-rat-man-vol5-s670.htm and http://www.voa.gov.uk/instructions/chapters/council_tax/council_tax_man_pn/p-ct-man-pn7.htm
Quote the relevant bits to the Local Authority, gently explain the rules to them, they are complex and boats are not a usual thing for them. My personal experience stems from having had the same issue, the above advice is what we did and our Council Tax demand was withdrawn but it took time.
May 2nd, 2011 at 5:54 pm
I meant to refer to Peter’s point about genuine continuous cruisers not paying council tax, quite correct – that is also covered quite well.
May 3rd, 2011 at 9:14 am
Sorry my comments are in backwards order, I think I did something wrong.
On Council Tax: First bit of advice is do not follow Paul’s example or advice.
Next advice: If you are living in one spot then it is right that you contribute to the local society’s needs and pay Council Tax like every householder does. Yes we can moan that it is too much etc but how else are schools and social services to be funded? The arguments and legal basis for genuine continuous cruisers not paying Council Tax are well defined – I remember googling this a while back but I don’t think that applies to you? I get the impression that you are paying Council Tax elsewhere and your boat is on a leisure mooring?
If that is the case then I can say from personal experience that you have a good case. Have a look at the Valuation Office guidance here: http://www.voa.gov.uk/instructions/chapters/rating_manual/vol5/sect670/frame.htm and http://www.voa.gov.uk/instructions/chapters/council_tax/council_tax_man_pn/Frame.htm When we had the same issue we gently pointed this out to the Local Authority, we got the impression that boats are not their thing, Council Tax law is complex and (not unreasonably) they simply are not familiar with the unusual cases. We got the demand withdrawn once we made a case based on the VOA guidance but it took time which could make life awkward as I see your Court date is very soon.
May 6th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
If you bridge hop and live on the towpath, which by the way the patrol wardens are generally happy with as long as you don’t rip the arse out of it, you have no security, no services, and no fixed address, in fact nothing, on an an off side mooring or marina you pay for all these things. Those who are paying 12-1500 for BW towpath moorings are paying for nothing, some don’t even have a mooring ring to use ! I can see how they are not happy.
I pay my licence which covers me for a nominal contribution to the upkeep of the waterways, which after all is a rescource for the nation, not just for boaters, i should be paying council tax, but there is no provision in the current system, which council would i pay it to ? Can you imagine a trip from London to Birmingham having to apply for council tax as you pass trough every county !
My income is a war pension, so i cant afford a mooring, and if i did get one the council would have to pay housing benefit, so in my case i can save the government money, and i can be free of the tie of a mooring.
May 7th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
Tadpole – I accept that you pay a bit through your licence for waterways upkeep, but the fact that you can’t afford to pay for a mooring is not valid. Unless you genuinely continuously cruise, you must have a home mooring, for which you pay. It’s the same as rent or mortgage on a house. Inability to pay is just not acceptable. Boating is no different from living on the bank; you (or somebody, perhaps the state) must your rent, i.e. mooring fee.
Not paying is not a valid option! Nor is bridge hopping, and hopefully after the Paul Davies case recently, BW rules will be reinforced to stop this blatantly unfair practice. Why should you be different from the majority who pay both licence and mooring fee to keep their boat in a certain part of the country, and who are aggrieved by people who get away without paying a fair contribution for their boat?
I’m sympathetic to your situation, but you chose to live on a boat, so please keep to the rules.
May 7th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Sorry, a further point – assuming that you already own the boat (i.e. not paying HP etc.), the licence fee and a typical marina mooring charge outside the London area for a 57 foot boat is only a little over £50 a week. That, compared with living anywhere else, is very low.
May 8th, 2011 at 6:52 am
The judgment clearly stated that a continuous journey is NOT required. Navigation can never be continual in this way! This is because the CC guidelines are simply that – advice without the force of law and the judgment did not define bfn. Cc guidelines are ultra vires.
Confusingly, bw patrol staff continue to enforce bfn in ignorance of its meaning and boaters attempt to comply with a law undefined.
Yes I lost and yes I an vulnerable, but the judgment does NOT set a precedent and a licence or certificate do not preclude living on a boat!
May 8th, 2011 at 7:58 am
Final point. To those bloggers who are pleased with the way bw and the court have address the issues at hand please note that, as a result of this ruling and subsequent enforcement, I am now fully socially displaced from my place of residence and have been forced into unemployment where no guarantee of a mooring is available. I may not be entitled to benefits as I had to purposefully give up my job with the deaf-blind. Bw are not legally required to provide a mooring and they don’t care. The following article supports previous discussions emphasising how each boater’s circumstances should be considered as individual and unique. No precedent is set.
narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/3154-bw-brought-over-the-coals
bw are soon to become a ‘charity’ and the board need to consider more carefully the full meaning of the term. There is nothing charitable in purposefully creating a poverty which causes many many more social problems than enforcement solves. From where I’m sitting, the ruling abuses self and home and seems a violence where other less draconian options are indeed available.
May 8th, 2011 at 8:21 am
I’m genuinely sorry for the predicament that Paul Davies now finds himself in as a result of the court case, and hope that he can find a way forward.
But this does not affect my view that boaters should pay their way like anyone living elsewhere. If you choose to live on a boat, then accept that you must pay for a licence (and a lot still don’t have a licence), AND a mooring fee for the right to stay where you want to. I know that bona fide navigation hasn’t been defined, nor should it be. English law works on the principle of “reasonable” conduct, specified a hundred years or so ago by reference to “the man on the Clapham omnibus”. I.e., think what he would do, and that’s probably an interpretation of what “reasonable” means. The court made it clear that intention, rather than actions, is the key to bfn. I, and most commentators on canal forums, interpret all that to mean that if you want to be in a particular locality because of job or family/school or social circle etc., then you need to pay a mooring fee. If you have no local ties, and are happy to wander as the mood takes you, then you don’t.
I really don’t think that this can be spun to comply with what Paul Davies wanted, and I believe that he and others in a similar position should move on – literally!
May 8th, 2011 at 9:01 am
The intention of s.17 was not to make socially displace, create unemployment or permit homelessness and the ruling, like all judgments remains appealable. Intention was clearly stated in the commons select committee report prior to the introduction of the bw 1995 act in relation of bfn (and also the regime set to discourage fines). Rather than simply move on and face unemployment and homelessness, every boater faced with a s.8 should defend in a court. No moorings are available. Supporting anything else shows a disregard for human need
May 9th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
In response to Paul’s points, I would say that British Waterways’ responsibility is to manage their canals and waterways, and as such, they have no real social responsibility for people who live on their canals, and you cannot expect them to be anything like a landlord of rented accommodation, or a housing association. If you want to live on a boat, you must take that responsibility on yourself. BW have no legal need to consider your needs, but having said that, they clearly do in practice, hence the consideration they give to live-aboards, and the time they take before they go to court.
I really don’t believe that BW want to evict people or seize boats, but sometimes they have no other option. If I understand the case, Paul lived on his boat, had no “intent” to CC the system or a significant part (my wording), but didn’t pay for a mooring.
It matters not whether a mooring was available where Paul wanted it; there are plenty available all over the country. This is no different from living on the bank; you can only live where accommodation is commercially available. If there’s no housing where you want it, you move and get a job elsewhere. With respect to Paul, “human need” is an attempt to garner sympathy. I’m now semi-retired, but during my working life, I moved around England to fit in with jobs and property prices. I was brought up near London, but couldn’t afford to live there when I left home. So I got a job in the Midlands, where I could better afford to live. What’s the problem?
Back to my earlier point – pay your licence and for a mooring, and, to repeat, if you can’t find a mooring, move to another area and get another job. Not easy, I know, but quite feasible. Harder if you’ve got children, but not impossible. Simply, take responsibility for your life, and don’t expect BW to be involved. It’s not their problem.
May 15th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Hi, is just like to provide an update. I managed to research this a little. Lots of terms like “combined hereditament” have arisen and I am doing my best to understand it all. The court case has been put on hold temporarily. My argument in my case would be that as I pay for relevant services comparable to council tax services such as landscape maintenance and rubbish removal to BW and the council now want to charge me for these services but not actually provide them… well it seems fraudulent. If I had been a traveller in a caravan then the council would ask me to move on, but as a boater it appears that the council have granted a leisure mooring a residential status where no change of use application was ever applied for or indeed would have been granted if a planning application had been applied for. As I said I have now given up the leisure mooring. Anyone want a nice 50ft tug?
May 15th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Peter.
I do agreed that bw don’t need to and don’t care about people. Me main gripe is that bw knowingly sell pleasure boat licences to liveboards who live in a specific location, and bw have been doing this for many many years. Liveabords provide well over £1m to bw yet receive nothing but abuse, and abuse it is. While s.17 of 1995 remains undefined, boaters are vulnerable to further abuse from bw and this is supported by other public authorities, and challenged by others who do have the means to provide emergency housing for the homeless and cater to the irresponsiblilities of mis-management.
May 16th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Paul -
BW will sell a pleasure boat licence to anyone who has a boat and uses it on their system. But, to get a licence, you have to declare either that you continually cruise, or give details of your “home” mooring, i.e. an authorised place where the boat is usually kept when not in use. Taking your point about liveaboards who live in a specific location (I presume you mean at an unpaid for mooring), they must be telling porkies on their application, either claiming to CC, but not, or giving a venue at which the boat isn’t kept. They should be moved on, as you were. I really don’t think that liveaboards who CC or have a paid for mooring get abuse – they’re acting correctly. I know many, and none has ever mentioned such a problem. The abuse, I suspect, is for liveaboards, possibly like yourself, who stay in roughly the same place but don’t pay to moor.
Public bodies can’t be expected to be very interested in people who make themselves homeless by voluntarily not complying with BW’s rules, by not paying for a mooring. I don’t know about the south, but you can rent a mooring in the midlands or further north for a 50 foot boat for under £30 a week on-line (no facilities) or under £40 a week with full marina facilities. Now, that’s cheap living, so what’s the problem with paying?
May 25th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
Richard,
I am so sorry your comments of 3rd of May were caught in pending waiting for approval. I missed that fact as it is only the spam program that hold comments not me!
I guess it was because of the links in the comment, although the same link is in a subsequent comment.
Sorry!
May 25th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
In truth, this conversation is becoming a taxation issue irrelevant to issues around licencing or moorings
June 10th, 2011 at 10:11 am
Sue,
An interesting feature on BBC1, The One Show, last night (Thurs 9th June 11). It was about the continuous cruisers on the Kennet & Avon. It’s worth watching on iPlayer if you didn’t see it live.
PS, love the blog and the pictures.
Jim
June 10th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
Jim,
Yes I did see that on the One Show last night. Like I said before I think BW have lost control of certain areas on the system and getting it back is seemingly impossible for them.
And thanks, glad you enjoy my ramblings..
June 17th, 2011 at 3:43 am
As I see it: The people who flout the spirit of the CC license also don’t want to pay for the upkeep of the waterways! I say, put the CCL cost up; to the same as the average perm mooring fee. Then BW could employ lots of ‘traffic’ wardens to catch the people who flout the CCL & those who damage the canals with their selfishness oh, and catch them without a TV license too!. One other point; when will there bo many boats on the canal?
Cheers, and my dog, Sid, says ‘hello’ Lobster Claws.
June 17th, 2011 at 3:46 am
Sorry, that’s meant to be ”when will there BE to many boats on the canals”.
June 29th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
hi sue.. and fellow boaters, the matter regarding council tax now seems resolved so i wont bore you with the details. now with reference to sue’s comment that boaters who flout the spirit of cc not wanting to pay for the upkeep of the waterway… Im not sure this is entirely true. i would imagine that most cc boaters love the waterways and endevour to abide by the letter of the “law” (if not the spirit) and pay the licence as and when it is due. BW have decided on a figure for licensing a vessel for use on the waterways and this would i assume contribute to the upkeep of the waterways. it really is time to clear up the grey areas and give the users of the canals what they want. this includes people who want to cruise a limited stretch through the network because of work commitments or whatever.. a simple solution would be a “parking attendent” or rather lots of them and every night spent would be chargeable. perhaps doubling after 14 days or no return within 30 days or something. just make a black and white statement and no grey area!
June 29th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
oh and Richard… sorry my thank-you is a bit delayed.. but thank you very much for the voa link. the information from voa was very useful and perhaps resulted in a positive outcome, much as you said it would. cheers owe u one
June 29th, 2011 at 11:59 pm
Tim,
I have found these comments very interesting indeed, I have just let it run having had my say towards the front of the now 73 odd comments.
You say “with reference to sue’s comment that boaters who flout the spirit of cc not wanting to pay for the upkeep of the waterway” I would just like to point out that it was not your blog writer who said that but another Sue..
October 29th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
Has anyone thought about what would happen to the cost of mooring fees, if we all (cc’s of all types) suddenly decided we wanted a mooring. Moorings have doubled in price in 9 years and marinas extort extra money if you live on, without giving you any rights. This should not be about money, but about overstaying which is unfair to all other boaters.
November 6th, 2011 at 10:47 am
Update. Well, I saved my home by moving, but I’m unable to find employment… bw wisely requested I bid online for a mooring, then sold the mooring to another boater who lived on their boat.
Interesting thing is that the local housing benefit office ruled that boats with or without home moorings are movable dwellings and therefore not liable for council tax. They also agreed to pay insurance and boat safety – see the decision of the social security commissioner ch844 2002: 10 a-e. Even if a boat is static for 12 months, it is still capable of being moved and therefore not liable to Council Tax. Instead, liability is with the land owner who may pass the costs onto residents / customers – but housing benefit are unlikely to pay for the additional costs where liability is not with the boat owner… Difficulty with a continuous journey is that this restricts access to work AND social benefits where reliance upon employment or benefits are dependent upon living in a geographic area. A continuous journey denies life, and the bw act do not preclude living on your boat – quite the opposite. So, the answer may be a roving mooring permit that permits a restricted pattern of navigation similar to a river only licence. I’d therefore suggest that a roving mooring permit is equal in value to the discounted river only licence and should not be charged in excess to the relevant consent. It’s problematic, as any such Permit allows the boater to pay money to evade the legal requirements of s.17…The other option is a houseboat licence – and houseboats don’t have to bfn – they just need a mooring or ANY OTHER PLACE to moor up ie. an unrestricted bank.
November 29th, 2011 at 11:17 pm
Tyranny by majority
December 12th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Yes, agreed anon. I’m often asked what do i think is the fair and equal answer is to the imagined problem..? My answer is to always defend against eviction and social displacement, to defend the senior citizens constantly threatened with eviction, to double moor where space is limited, and to always place the needs of liveabords using their boat as their only home above those who use their boats as second homes or summer toys – no problem eh?
February 3rd, 2012 at 1:47 am
Paul Davies you’re a cunting grass
February 23rd, 2012 at 10:07 pm
Section 43 of the 1962 Transport Act: or The Imaginative Processes Through Which BW Create and Abuse Their Own Sense of Power in the World?
British Waterways rely heavily upon section 43 of the 1962 Transport Act as a way of regulating and managing the inland waterways of Britain. The 1962 Transport Act defines BW as a pubic authority (section 1) and the primary intention of this Act is stated in the title – the regulation of vessels used for transportation. Between 1962 and 1971, the canals (and BW) were maintained and funded through lock tolls and annual grants made by central government.
By 1971, freight traffic using the waterways was in sharp decline. The introduction of the 1971 British Waterways Act withdrew the system of lock tolls and introduced a licencing/certification system for Pleasure Boats and Houseboats. Section 13 of the 1971 Act required a Houseboat to obtain a certificate in order to navigate canals and rivers or face destruction, and also permitted Houseboats to have a mooring or any place other than a mooring where the Houseboat could be left. Moorings require planning permission only where the usage of the land changed. Most moorings are used occasionally, and where the usage of land is of a more permanent nature, the vessel using that place remains a movable vessel that may or may not be present at any given time. In this way, land usage remains constant (boats have always moored, navigated and moved on) and planning permission is therefore not a mandatory requirement in Law (Kennet District Council v Brutish Waterways APP/E3905/C/06/2019638). BW’s licencing terms and conditions for houseboats are therefore untrue – they are ultra vires. Neither is a vessel liable for Council Tax where the landowner is liable, although BW pass on their liability to boaters through the licence fee and this is a sham.
The licencing regime for Pleasure Boats (known as Canal and River Licences) is also worth mentioning. The 1971 Act required all Pleasure Boats navigating the riverways mentioned in Schedule 1 of the Act (for example the River Avon between Keynsham and Bath) to have Pleasure Boat licences and to navigate in good faith. A Pleasure Boat present on the canals did not have to pay a licence fee to BW until the introduction of the 1976 general canal Byelaws. In the absence of lock fees, BW demanded licence fees anyway between 1971 and 1976, although BW made little or no effort to enforce these demands. This is shameful.
In April 2004, BW introduced their controversial Licencing Terms and Conditions and Guidance for Continuous Cruisers (amended 2011), sold these to all liveaboard boaters navigating the waterways, and enforced this advice through section 8 of the 1983 BW Act (removal of boat) and section 13 of 1971 (destruction of home). The most important part of the Terms and Conditions are in the opening sentence where a licence is required under section 43 of 1962, and in disregard of the BW’s own 1976 Byelaws. BW’s requirement for vessels to be licenced under section 43 of 1962 may be quite incorrect. It could be argued that a licence is required under section 43 when used in conjunction with the 1976 Byelaws (although that is doubtful), but a licence demanded under section 43 of the 1962 Transport Act in isolation is almost certainly unlawful. Between 1971 and today, Pleasure Boaters have paid multi-£m’s to BW. As the primary intention of the 1962 Transport Act is to regulate vessels used for transportation, and where a licence is required under the 1976 Byelaws, questions of multi-£m fraudulent activity by BW have to be raised and investigated.
Finally, the Continuous Cruising Guidelines clearly state they do not have the force of Law – the Guidelines simply offer advice and nothing more. In 2011, Bristol County Court ruled that a continuous journey is not required, although BW disregard this ruling and continue to demand a journey. The court ruling is very important for Pleasure Boat owners, as the Guidelines try to rely upon s.43 of the Transport Act – incorrectly inferring they have the force of primary legislation. Shame on BW.
So, why do BW insist upon relying upon section 43 in isolation when its relevance to vessels used for pleasure or home is highly questionable? Given the primary intention of the Transport Act, section 43 and the ultra vires nature of BW’s boat licencing conditions, BW’s only hope is to now scratch through the whole waterways legislation and seek deeming provisions inferring relevance with a questionable licencing regime. It would be interesting to hear BW’s response to this, and if a response comes along, should we believe or trust them when that same institution seeks further legislative powers?
Lawful or not, it is quite clear that individual boaters are dispensable, whereas a public authority acting questionably in Law is not, and that’s where the pain of statutory abuse is most deeply felt.
Pleasure boaters certainly do NOT have to continue any journey and no journey can ever be continuouos
March 7th, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Does not all of the preceding arguments seem irrelevant in the face of forthcoming water shortages?