A boater recently made this Freedom of Information request to BW and got the answer below which suggests that most of the pending legal action against boaters is about licence evasion rather than overstaying, and that BW may be carrying out unlawful enforcement action against 8 boats without home moorings.
The local mooring strategy steering group met again on 8 November. We are able to provide notes of most of the discussion, taken by a volunteer, which are at the end of this article.
The most significant point that emerged at this meeting was the fact that there is a strong consensus among the different interest groups – liveaboard and other boaters, the hire boat industry, local authorities and parish councillors – around the table on the following points:
Photo: Bob Naylor KAcanalTIMES.co.uk
The first two meetings of the Local Mooring Strategy Steering Group took place on 26 August and 21 September. Boaters attended both meetings, and there were also representatives from NABO and the RBOA. Much of the discussion in both meetings focused on whether BW had the legal powers to impose the restrictions they wish, which they have set out in their new policies (see our previous articles on BW’s new policies http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/wordpress/?p=1014 and http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/wordpress/?p=1001 ). The Local Mooring Strategy has a very limited remit, basically being about where geographically to impose the new restrictions between Bath and Foxhangers. According to BW, the new policies are not up for discussion. Despite attempts to convince BW that the restrictions they want to impose will be unenforceable if they are not legal, the Chair, BW’s Sally Ash, said at the last meeting that she was not concerned with the law.
The first meeting of the Local Mooring Strategy steering group for the western Kennet and Avon took place on 26 August in County Hall, Trowbridge. As you will see from the documents below which BW circulated before the meeting, most of the changes that BW want to make, that will have a big impact on our lives, will not be up for discussion in the local mooring strategy.
From correspondence below, obtained via Freedom of Information from Bath and NE Somerset Council, it looks like BW and BANES are paying jointly for an extra boat checker. This appears to be instigated partly by Councillor Ian Dewey of Bathampton, who has been a key mover in efforts to move liveaboard boaters off the canal.
The “concerns” expressed take no account of the fact that the Mooring Guidance for Continuous Cruisers is not a legal requirement and clearly states that it does not have the force of law. Unlike the 14-day rule in Section 17 of the British Waterways Act, BW does not have the legal power to enforce it. In one of the emails, David Lawrence, BANES Deputy Director for Heritage Services, says he does not think there is a problem. It is not clear whether this extra staff appointment is going ahead permanently, as the original contract seems to have been for this summer. However, we do wonder whether this is a good use of a cash-strapped Local Authority’s money, as responsibility for enforcement on the canal lies with BW.
The information in these emails seems to imply that BW is bypassing whatever the local mooring strategy would decide – this has gone ahead before the local mooring strategy inquiry panel has even started meeting.
The emails are here. Banes enforcement 1 Banes enforcement 2 Banes enforcement 3 Banes enforcement 4 Banes enforcement 5 Banes enforcement 6 Banes enforcement 7 Banes enforcement 8
A boater recently made a Freedom of Information request about the number of boats BW had either taken to court or removed following a CC3 letter. The CC3 is the letter which terminates the boat licence in what BW like to call the “Continuous cruising procedure”. The boater asked the following questions
In this section is given the procedure that British Waterways must follow if they wish to take away your licence (“withdrawing their consent”) – see section 17 (5) below
The important bit is that they must give you 28 days to “remedy the breach”
(4) If—
(a) (subject to subsection (6) below) the vessel does not comply with the standards applicable to the vessel on the date when the consent was granted; or
(b) an insurance policy is not in force in respect of the vessel; or
(c) either—
(i) (in the case of a vessel in respect of which a relevant consent is issued pursuant to subsection (3) (c) (i) above) it appears to the Board that a mooring or other place such as is referred to in subsection (3) (c) (i) above is not available for the vessel; or
(ii) (in the case of a vessel in respect of which a relevant consent is issued pursuant to subsection (3) (c) (ii) above) the vessel has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation in accordance with the said subsection (3) (c) (ii);
the Board may give notice requiring the holder of the relevant consent to remedy the default within such time as may be reasonable (not being less than 28 days).
(5) If the holder of the relevant consent does not comply with any notice served pursuant to subsection (4) above then the relevant consent shall determine on the date the notice expires.