Posts Tagged ‘continuous cruiser’

BaNES make it easier for live-aboard pensioners to get bus passes

Monday, January 6th, 2014

Bath and NE Somerset Council (BaNES) has changed its requirements for the evidence needed to obtain the Diamond Travelcard that entitles pensioners and people with disabilities to travel free. A mooring licence for a site in BaNES; evidence of entitlement to vote in BaNES, or a letter to a PO Box or Poste Restante in BaNES addressed to the applicant from a government department or public body are now accepted as evidence of residence in the BaNES area.

Read more…

If you want to vote on May 2nd, register by April 17th

Saturday, April 13th, 2013

If you want to vote in the local council elections on May 2nd, you need to get your registration form to the relevant electoral registration office by next Wednesday April 17th. Boaters have delivered voter registration forms to boats on most stretches of the canal between Bath and Newbury. Forms have also been left at the Barge Inn, Honey Street and the Bridge Inn, Horton Bridge, for boaters to collect.

Read more…

NHS health survey in BaNES to include boaters

Monday, September 3rd, 2012

Article by Margaret Greenfields

Between September and December this year a team of trained Gypsy, Traveller, Boater and Showmen interviewers will be carrying out a study of the health needs of members of their communities living in the Bath and North East Somerset and North Somerset areas. The survey aims to interview 50 Boaters. If you are interested in taking part please contact one of the people listed at the end of this article. Three Boaters will be trained to act as interviewers.

Read more…

(o)limpit news headlines

Friday, July 20th, 2012

New Guidance for Continuous Cruisers published

Thursday, October 13th, 2011

BW have recently amended their Guidance for Continuous Cruisers

Announced here

and published here

BW’s covering statement in the press release;

“The existing 2004 ‘mooring guidance for continuous cruisers’ has been refined to be more easily understood and to reflect the Judgment in the case of British Waterways v Davies, in which the Court found that moving up and down within a 10 mile stretch of the Kennet & Avon Canal with no home mooring did not amount to bona fide navigation.”

Seems to be a malicious, though not unexpected, rewriting of Judge O’Malley’s judgement which specifically states that this is not the case.

Bedtime Reading – the new moorings guidance

Monday, May 16th, 2011

BW have issued “For discussion with representatives of national boating organisations” a revised version of the 2004 document “Moorings Guidance for Continuous Cruisers”.

Mooring Guidance Continuous Cruising Revision April 2011

The impact of the recent court judgement

Sunday, April 10th, 2011

Paul Davies has emailed us with his latest thoughts on the way that the recent court judgement will affect his lifestyle and cruising patterns.

Read more…

Satisfying the board – an analysis of the judgement

Thursday, April 7th, 2011

The original post

Minos describes his post “…this is only an attempt at an objective analysis by an interested amateur”.

It is reproduced here without comment, suffice that we think it important to examine all possible implications of this judgement.

From the judgement:
“in general terms section17 of the Act required all vessels used on the waterways either to have a permanent mooring site or to be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence. This was achieved by making the issue of licences conditional on the Board being satisfied either that the vessel would have a permanent mooring site or that it would be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence.”

From the text of the Act, subsection (3) (c) (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.”

I’d not looked closely at this before, but in legal terms it is explicit: the British Waterways Board are empowered by the Act to judge for themselves what constitutes ‘bona fide’ navigation and what doesn’t. Not only that, but by using the legal term ‘bona fide’ in the Act, the intention of the person is more important than their actions. This is explained in para. 13 of the judgement. In effect, it means that BW are entitled to refuse a licence because they don’t like the look of your application – and it is up to you to prove that they are being unreasonable.

On the detail:
From Bouvier, with referencing removed:

The law requires all persons in their transactions to act with good faith and a contract where the parties have not acted bona fide is void at the pleasure of the innocent party. If a contract be made with good faith, subsequent fraudulent acts will not vitiate it; although such acts may raise a presumption of antecedent fraud, and thus become a means of proving the want of good faith in making the contract. In the civil law these actions are called (actiones) bonae fidei, in which the judge has a. more unrestrained power (liberior potestas) of estimating how much one person ought to give to or do, for another; whereas, those actions are said to be stricti juris, in which the power of the judge is confined to the agreement of the parties.

(And before anyone complains that Bouvier is an American source, the US and the UK share a lot of common law, and this is one principle shared by both.)
This definition of ‘bona fide’ is the basis of the defence claim that ‘The defendant’s deliberate compliance with the law could not deprive his actions of good faith.’ It is also the justification for BW’s actions.

Anyway, back to the point. What this means is that the BW authority is legally entitled to judge for themselves whether they think that an applicant is acting “in good faith.” Given his misconduct described in para. 6 of the judgement, he clearly gave them every reason to believe he wasn’t – not least because of his navigational, professional and social ties to such a small geographical area. They also concluded that he did not act ‘in good faith’ in para. 10 of the judgement.

BW chose to concentrate on the definition of the word ‘navigation’ – and they are empowered Parliament to use that emphasis if they so choose.

The bit that I am really interested in is this part of para. 15 of the judgement:
“It is possible to envisage use of a vessel which fell short of the Board’s concept of continuous cruising but which still qualified the vessel for a licence under section 17(3)(c)(ii).” In effect, the Judge acknowledges that genuine continuous-cruisers may very easily fail to adhere to the letter of BW’s guidelines but still adhere to its spirit in good faith – bona fide.

Put it all together and it seems to me that the implication is that while the movement of your boat on the water matters, what you do on land seems to matter more.

The Judgement in ‘That Case’

Wednesday, April 6th, 2011

Well….can anyone else hear the delicate sound of the brown sticky stuff hitting the whirry whirry thing. Suddenly our game appears to have changed.

Read more…

Paul Davies v British Waterways

Sunday, April 3rd, 2011

Well the judgement is made, published on 31st March 2011.

We are still waiting to see the full judgement so our ability to make informed comment is limited to the two press releases in the two previous posts. The first is prepared by the National Bargee Traveller’s Association and edited by Paul, the second is from the British Waterways website.

Read more…