Paladin

That is the case of Broads Authority v Fry [2014]. The final judgement can be read here. Mr Fry's case did not rest on the Section 16, which was never even mentioned. If it had, he would still have lost, as his vessel was in use for residential purposes.

I have found this definition of 'carrying on a business' in Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary: "A routine and continuous involvement in an activity undertaken for the purpose of making profit." The Act doesn't define, and therefore doesn't limit, the nature of the business that is to be carried on, only that the vessel is moored "on waters occupied or customarily used by a person carrying on a business". So the business could be, and this list is not exhaustive, hiring boats, letting out moorings, providing boat repair services, fuel etc., or any combination of those activities.

Broads Authority Act 2009: Section 16(6)Nothing contained in or in force or done under the specified provisions shall apply to any vessel which— (a)is not for the time being in use for the purposes of navigation, or for residential or commercial purposes; (b)is moored on waters occupied or customarily used by a person carrying on a business; and (c)is so moored for the purposes of being serviced, repaired or stored by that person or of being sold or offered or exposed for sale by that person (whether acting as principal or agent).

Either it’s very poor reporting or it's a very disingenuous briefing by the BA. “The Broads Authority has asked the government to offer “urgent financial support” after it was forced to suspend hire boat tolls during the coronavirus outbreak.” It wasn’t forced to do anything of the sort. The BA has admitted being proactive in reminding the hire companies of the exemption contained in Section 16 of the 2009 Broads Act. It didn’t have to do that and the hire companies will still have to apply for the exemption. It’s not automatically applied. “The Broads Authority (BA), which is responsible for maintaining Norfolk’s network of waterways, has activated a clause in its legislation allowing hire boats out of use to be exempted from tolls.” They haven’t activated it. It’s been active in the legislation since 2009, and has been usually been applied when private boats go into a yard for work to be done or to be sold. "However, the BA confirmed that the same rule could not apply to private boaters…" Yes it can. The exemption clause doesn’t mention whether it applies to hire boats or private boats. As long as the conditions in the clause are met, it can apply to both.The exemption applies to tolls, insurance and Boat Safety Certificate. I doubt whether hire boats are individually insured, which gives considerable weight to the argument that the exemption can apply to a private boat.

There is no ban, on CaRT waters or the Broads, to prevent those who live on their boats from moving their boats. CaRT has simply made it easier for them not to have to.

I would imagine the boater on the canal lives on his boat. The journey he is making may well have been within the terms of the government's instruction, so why would anyone criticise, without knowing the details? An hour ago, on the HSC web cam, I saw a motor cruiser making its way downstream through Horning. I only mention it now, in response to your rather aggressive post. I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of some of your fellow forum members.

I just hope the Broads Authority take note of this comment.

Lots. See p.3 of attached pdf. Organisation-Chart-06.02.20.pdf

Short visit tolls are only for periods of up to a total of 28 days in any toll year, so pretty irrelevant to this discussion, I think. Perhaps to level the playing field, as there is a blanket ban on all unnecessary travel and all boats (other than those being used as residential accommodation and continuously cruising) are locked in, we could all be given a tolls holiday, until the lock is undone. Then we would all pay an annual toll. To those who say it would be too difficult, just remember the extraordinary efforts the BA went to when they created a whole new tolls system to hammer motor cruisers, and the huge consultation exercise for the re-branding. Where there's a will, there's a way. It's just so obvious that the 'will' bit is missing.

While I agree with your sentiment, it is not within the remit of the BA to get involved with financial support of this kind. That is down to central government. I think you should prepare yourself for being very, very unhappy, further down the line. The BA has a long track record of bending the rules to breaking point, when it suits them.

I have had a reply from Dr Packman elsewhere. In view of the serious implications, I'm reproducing it here, together with my response. "Yes you are correct in the fact that the waters are adjacent waters but Section 16 Exemption of certain vessels sub section (6) states: Nothing contained in or in force or done under the specified provisions shall apply to any vessel which— (a) is not for the time being in use for the purposes of navigation, or for residential or commercial purposes; (b) is moored on waters occupied or customarily used by a person carrying on a business; and (c) is so moored for the purposes of being serviced, repaired or stored by that person or of being sold or offered or exposed for sale by that person (whether acting as principal or agent). I hope that helps ." Thank you JP, but, no, that doesn't really help. Paragraph (a) applies to all the private boats as well, as they are effectively prohibited from being used for the purposes of navigation by government edict. Paragraphs (b) and (c) must be read together and have, historically, been interpreted as meaning, for example, if I can't toll my boat because it needs work to pass the BSS, I can put it into a yard for the work to be done without breaking any law. It all revolved around the service/repair/storage/sale etc being provided for a third party in the course of business. Are you now saying that that interpretation is being re-interpreted? I suggest that, if that is the case, you may well find that private boaters expect you to be similarly creative and apply Paragraph (a) to all those private boats which are moored in commercial premises, which are similarly prohibited from navigating, even to the extent of taking advantage of that section themselves and claiming exemption from their tolls until the embargo is lifted - which could conceivable be next year. I suggest that (a) could be used as a defence against any prosecution brought by the BA.

JM, yes I can speak for myself and thought I had replied. Obviously forgot to press the 'Submit reply' button Second attempt... The BA will enforce it on me, won't they? In these circumstances? Sauce for the goose... It is not for the BA to provide respite or relief. That's down to the government, who have imposed these restrictions. Or perhaps the marinas taking our money for moorings for boats we can't use should be giving us a rebate. Oh yes, and some of those marinas will be the same ones that the BA is thinking about giving relief to. It's not that I'm unsympathetic - some of my friends are in dire straights, having lost their source of income overnight, but deliberately failing to collect a due toll could be regraded as spending that money, which should be going towards the navigation, on giving relief. I don't think that is something that comes with the Broads Acts. It used to be called the Bank of Mum and Dad. Now it appears to be the Bank of the Private Boater.

Not quite right, IMO. If the yards also have boats there that do not belong to the yard owner, for example they rent out moorings to private owners, the yard becomes 'adjacent waters' under the 2009 Broads Act and a toll is payable on ALL the boats kept in the water there.

I didn't intend to go too deeply into this, but, from the UK Government web site: You should only leave the house for one of four reasons. ● Shopping for basic necessities, for example food and medicine, which must be as infrequent as possible. ● One form of exercise a day, for example a run, walk, or cycle - alone or with members of your household. ● Any medical need, or to provide care or to help a vulnerable person. ● Travelling to and from work, but only where this absolutely cannot be done from home.

Posted on the Broads Authority FB page an hour ago: "We fully agree that travelling on the rivers constitutes non-essential travel, unless it is for supplies/fuel or is in exceptional individual circumstances." Just saying.

Ferry Marina are still doing pump-outs at the moment. Boulter's at Horning and Sutton Staithe Boatyard are still providing all their usual services, repairs/pump-outs/diesel, and will continue to do so, subject to government direction to the contrary.

If he doesn't, I will!

My local Tesco is setting aside an hour for the vulnerable, from 9 -10am. Guess what happens between 8 and 9am

For Mrs P and me, this could, quite literally, be a matter of life or death. but I can still retain a sense of humour

I wasn't directing my comment towards members. I'm certain the number of lurkers far exceeds the membership. People who might have booked, or are thinking of booking, holidays in the region often search for information and come across related forums like this one. You absolutely right, the message MUST be driven home.

I spoke to my neighbour this morning, who is an elf and safety consultant for a number of large food manufacturers. He said food manufacture has increased, there is no shortage, but the warehouses are already crammed. The issue is getting the stocks from the warehouses to the supermarkets to replenish the shelves cleared by THE STUPID IGNORANT BASTARDS who are stock piling for no good reason. Edited to add: Oh good. I thought the word filter would amend my post and neuter the strong feeling I have on this particular issue.

I've attached a copy of the Coronavirus Bill for anyone interested. Of course, there may be amendments to it as it passes through parliament. Schedule 21 is probably the part of most interest to us. Coronavirus Bill.pdf

Whoops! I forgot this one. BA Members and Chairman Letter 170320.docx

Having now received the author's express permission, I have attached the three documents they published. I have included the one already posted, to keep them all together. In the EDP article, the (anonymous!) BA spokesman is reported as saying the report was “produced by an anonymous individual and not from a credible source”. If the source is unknown, how can the credibility of that source be judged? Perhaps that judgement can be better made by looking at the information provided and the arguments made, which, I suggest, are very credible. “The author has selectively used information to suit the campaign aims of discrediting the status of the Broads as a member of the family of 15 National Parks." Poppycock! The only reference in the 'Broads National Park - Friend or Foe' document to the National Broads Family is made on page 9, where it is written "2002/3: Requests to call itself a NP submitted to Government by the BA, were rejected. As a compromise, it could call the Broads “a member of the NP family”." So far from "discrediting the status of the Broads as a member of the family of 15 National Parks", the author is highlighting why the Broads should be referred to as a member of the National Parks family. The copy of the document with active links provides a link to the John Kilner letter of 2006, which I have also attached. The links were disabled to prevent problems with spam filters. Broads National Park-Friend or Foe (disabled links)120320 .pdf Councillor letter 150320.pdf Kilner 2006.pdf

I don't understand the preoccupation with the author's wish to remain anonymous for the time being. Their report(s) should be judged on their content. If I revealed their name, you would be none wiser. Nearly all the correspondents on here, and on other forums I frequent, are anonymous to me. So what? Does that mean their posts should be regarded as snide or smelly? In the comments section of the EDP article, I also noted that all the people criticising the author for using a pseudonym used a pseudonym of their own. You couldn't make it up.