Posts Tagged ‘continuous cruiser’

Example Responses to Patrol Notices

Friday, October 16th, 2009
Summer evening near Horton Bridge

Summer evening near Horton Bridge

Here’s a couple of well researched and meticulously written responses to the two levels of patrol notice and letter affectionately known as CC1 and CC2. These should give you some ideas and the resources to write your own letters of reponse and complaint.

Remember, if you get a letter requiring you to respond in 28 days you must respond to deny BW automatic right to take your license away. We don’t believe that this constitutes legal notice as required by Section 17 (4) of the 1995 British Waterways Act but British Waterways (bless) do. So responding to these notices is vital to prevent them taking this step as they have taken with Ian.

Letter 1 – an example response to  a BW Patrol Notice

Letter 2 – a more lengthy response, including some legal points, with suggestions of people and bodies to copy in.

and an attendent complaint;

Complaint – A suggestion for an accompanying complaint to John Ward, acting manager of the SouthWest region, which includes the Kennet and Avon. This would invoke stage 1 of the British Waterways complaint process.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Letters to BW and others | 2 Comments »

Waste of Space

Monday, October 12th, 2009

Ever thought you were represented by an MP?

Think again.

We received this recent exchange;

Letter to Don Foster – Member of Parliament for Bath (though not, i believe Bathampton)

Hello Don something odd is going on in Bathampton.

Apart from a boat being torched and boat people’s tyres slashed it seems the parish council don’t feel the boaters children worthy of attending Bathampton Primary school .

here are the minutes of one Bathampton parish council meeting obtained under the FOI act. The question was asked by one of the members.

and this is the ‘reply’ he received

haven’t had anyone from a non-continuously cruising boat contact me about this issue. If you know anyone with a problem, please ask them to contact me directly and I will certainly take up the issue. ;

So the so-called representative of the people has decided he knows what a ‘continuously cruising boat’ is, and by implication that they don’t get representation.

If you are one of the boaters that, by implication, Don Foster has spoken to and decided he cannot help we would be interested to hear your experiences.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Demanding money with menaces

Monday, October 12th, 2009

Thought demanding money with menaces was a criminal offence? Well, not if perpetrated by British Waterways apparently.

It is not so long since the recent reception of 200 threatening letters to boaters from British Waterways and now the winter mooring shop is open.

How much you ask?

£218 per month …why £218? £200? 210?.. anyway… £218 per month for a 58 foot boat so the total for 6 months of not being hassled by the Enforcement Team (we need a theme tune) £1300.

That is nearly twice as much as the cost of a licence – a licence which includes the right to moor anywhere for 14 days including the now ‘pay for’ Dundas and Darlington Wharf, now imaginatively called ‘Walcot’ by BW.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

British Waterways Act 1995 Section 17 (3)

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

A simple piece of law that has caused endless discussion both before and after its inception.

Section 17 (3) is almost the only piece of legislation that is relevent to most discussion about liveaboards and overstaying and the much abused term ‘continuous cruiser’.

The 1995 Act was first introduced in 1989 when British Waterways proposed that all boats should have a mooring before they were granted a licence. Opposition to this was so vehement  by both bodies such as the IWA and NABO as well as dedicated individuals that the legislation was in Parliament for 6 years before being passed in it present form.

Hence, it is said, Section 17 (3) is a compromise and as such open to the various interpretations that have lead to such works of fiction as the ‘mooring guidance for continuous cruisers’ and the term ‘continuous cruiser’ itself as British Waterways have made successive attempts to dilute and subvert the application of this law. A law that allows most liveaboards to live the way they choose to.

So here it is;

(3) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse
a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless—
(a) the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the
standards applicable to that vessel;
(b) an insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence
that it exists and is in force, has been produced to the Board; and
(c) either—
(i) the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably
be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland
waterway or elsewhere; or
(ii) the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the
application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for
which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more
than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in The Law | 2 Comments »

Newer Entries »