Mike Todd

Should have been that the law does not require . . .

Did I mention s8 there? I just said that it is up to them to choose which of the available remedies they use. If s8 is not available then an competent lawyer will succeed in thwarting any attempt to use it and the court will agree. Otherwise they are entitled to use it - even if, as other argue, it is not the 'best' way to proceed. The law dopes not require us to act wisely . . . (For some of us that's probably just as well)

I realise most of that but it is always helpful to 're state. However, my post was in the context that earlier postings were attempting to suggest that the issue if a licence could not be conditional on payment of fee. What happens when a boater refuses to pay is another matter and is clearly arguable but CRT are entitled to use whichever of several remedies are available. Of course, they could be challenged over not managing properly but us yet another matter - one I know is dear to your heart! But the start point has to be that they are entitled to insist on the paper exchange tgat some of us call paying for the licence.

I just wonder whether there is some complexity in the phrase 'issue a licence'. Does it necessarily imply 'without charge'? It could mean that they are required to go through the process of exchanging one piece of paper (money) for another (licence) but that they cannot impose additional constraints on to whom they will issue such licences? Has anyone successfully in recent times managed to persuade a court that licences should be without charge? I can see that a court could well interpret the clauses to which you refer as being consistent with the current practice of paper exchanges (albeit electronically these days!)

As far as I can see section 43 only relates to charges for services and facilities and not licences. On that basis they could waive a mooring charge but not the licence. A free mooring is not much help without a licence! However that power would have to be considered in the light of other duties, such as maintaining the waterway.

They could, of course, dispense with collecting licences and mooring charges if they found other ways of generating sufficient income - doing so otherwise would be delinquent on this duties. For example they could persuade Parliament to allow them to charge through a scheme of tools, perhaps collected electronically. Whether that is likely or sensible is for you to assess! But it would not be remotely illegal although doing so without obtaining the necessary legislation might be.

I don't think that the latter two paras require any great specialist insight. The first is almost a tautology. They apply to any body that is either a charity or a registered company (incidentally, some might be an Industrial and Provident Society - Company Limited by Guarantee, with slightly different regulatory context) The second is also much more widely true. Company directors are rarely subject to prosecution whether or not they are charities. In general, corporate and charitable oversight by the various regulators seeks to operate with other levers of influence - many of them have the power to impose fines which may still be infrequent but not quite so. That said, few Trustees of small and medium charities understand that they share a joint and several liability just what liability means!

You will need to distinguish between (a) doing something that is outwith the aims and powers of the charity (b) failure to meet one or more of the aims (c) something else that you disagree with The first step would be to establish that the action is non-trivially a violation of a law (not just a failure to meet the aims). This, of course, is a matter of dispute and as always can only really be resolved by a court of sufficient standing. But more importantly for the question as asked, it would then be necessary to decide whether such an action was directly controlled by the Trustees. For example, I was a Trustee of a medium sized charity that was prosecuted under health and safety legislation for a delinquent inaction by a member of staff which resulted in minor injury to another member of staff who had acted irresponsibly. The person in the dock, representing the charity, was the company secretary/chief executive. Although the charity was fined (in my view wrongly but it was a low level court so there was no motivation to challenge the principle which the judge used but was at least arguable) there was no suggestion that either the staff or the trustees would be held personally liable. This has been the case for very much more serious cases of accidents - there is now a corporate manslaughter option and a slightly greater possibility of charging an individual but the culpability bar seems to be set rather high. It is a greater risk for financial or governance irregularities - I do know a similar charity where the trustees were held personally liable for costs incurred ultra vires.

Some people also seem to be concerned about trading activities: many charities set up limited companies (that may have one of several legal structures) whose purpose to do what the charity itself cannot or, usually for tax reason, does not want to do, and those charities can mitigate corporation tax (eg) by covenanting all of their profit to the main charity. There may well be some independent trustees as well as those from the main board who act as the 'subsidiary's' board of directors, keeping a balance between maintaining compatibility with the main charity but also having some independent oversight or skills not otherwise significant to the charity.

It is surprising that there is still widespread misunderstanding - much wider than just the membership of this forum - about what it means to be a charity. A link to one of several very helpful and informative pages on the Charity Commission (CC) web site has already been posted - from that page you can locate others that look at specific aspects in detail. For the government, since granting charitable status (and with certain exceptions that can only be done by the CC) confers significant benefits, it is important that the definitions align reasonably well with public opinion. Hence the fact that the law is regularly updated - the last major change was, I think, in 2011. Most importantly, the Charitable Aims with which a charity is registered, are - like the Mem and arts for a limited company, permission rather than mandatory. The CC have to be satisfied that everything that a reg charity does falls within those aims but it has no powers if it fails to do any of them. If CaRT, say, decided to abandon its commitment to navigation but focus entirely on being a fishing, walking and cycling asset then that is not of concern to the CC. However, charities generally are reliant of donors, whether public, institutional or private and most of their arrangements require a CC registration number for starters (incidentally makes it sometimes a little complicated for those of us who are exempt or excepted charities). Generally, however, donors look at the actual work of the charity and will makes donations based on that, the most important document being their annual report. Further, donations will often be restricted and the charity may only spend them in line with those restrictions. The control of restricted funds is itself very much part of the charity governance regulatory environment. Charities cover a wide range of activities and it is up to donors (not beneficiaries) to determine whether they will support them. I personally shy well clear of animal charities but that is just my choice. What is not possible, within the regulatory context, is for those who might wish to benefit from a charity, to complain (formally) that the charity is not working for them - unless it is doing something outside its aims. Two important protections, beside the CC oversight: one is that the aims cannot be extended unilaterally by the charity unless the CC approves. This can be done but is a bit bureaucratic. This often happens when the charity finds that there is no longer a possibility of spending its money on the original aims. For example, if the charity was formed, may be over a century ago, to provide a recreational or educational building and that building no longer exists, perhaps it just fell down, then unless the charity has other aims approved the money cannot be used - not something that the CC likes. Secondly, the charity must be wholly governed by Trustees who are required to operate within quite demanding rules that generally prevent them from gaining any advantage from being a trustee. This can, for example, be quite complicated when a Trustee is the best person professional both to be a Trustee and also to provide a service to that charity. That situation requires extra care in squaring it with the CC. Much of the debate in the preceding posts seems to stem from people wanting to have a go at CaRT and their performance and that is their entitlement, here or anywhere else - although insult or libel is not, so care has to be taken. But most of this criticism has to be taken in an arena other than that controlled by CC (and somewhat separately HMRC). The most effective arena will be that of donors - so lobby your MP as the public purse is till the largest 'donor' to CaRT! Recourse to a dictionary (real or imagined) is most definitely not helpful. (You may care to infer that I have had quite a bit to do with the governance of charities . . .)

Try renovating or repairing a listed building! You will rarely find any builder who will do so for an entirely fixed price - much of the eventual cost will be in Provisional Cost items which only specify the formula for working out what will be charged once the work is known. They may quote a completion date and, if it is a commercial application, you may well need to make an assumption about when you can start trading. Even if you make a generous allowance between the two, you will almost certainly be a nervous wreck as opening date, for which you have committed customers) charges at you like a raging bull! That said, it would help to concentrate minds if a target end date were quoted, even if it has to be updated several times. As I understand it, the charge at Llangollen is only for mooring in the offline 'marina' area, including electricity. It does not apply to the on-line moorings, such as they are. I have yet to find a marina that normally allows people to moor in it for free - making money is what they are about.

Ta but the principle stays the same ie that CaRT are seeking to maximise the income from all non-boater sources, especially as the rate of licence fee increases have been pegged. I notice that they refer to the issue on their web site - I don't know how recently that has been updated but has it been going on for some while? I would also imagine that CaRT have a legitimate interest in the construction of the pad since they do not want a crane toppling in to their canal! Operating cranes commercially is not for the faint hearted . . .

That's a bit of a stretch - they are not really in a position to bargain that hard, especially when not the riparian owner. The link is a bit tenuous.

Would be interesting to know some of the detail. I assume that the space is leased from CaRT so this is a matter of the commercial arrangement between landlord and tenant. The second item is likely to be a result of a Risk Assessment in the context of H&S and could either be a new contract manager throwing his/her weight around or be the result of updating to current H&S expectations. The first item looks like (but it would be interesting to know) an example of CaRT seeking to get the best return on its leases which, in principle, is something that we ought to applaud, but sometimes one side of a commercial arrangement (esp one that thinks they hold all the shots) pushes its luck too far and then can be left with egg on face. Would not be the first time . . . In general I am aware that CaRT have been gradually trying to update their commercial practices - a couple of years ago they found that BW had not updated its charges to commercial operators for water in/out and that they could up the charges quite considerably. Given that some tenants that have been around for some time may well be working at the margins of either regulatory or commercial considerations this will always/often create issues for them. (Too many accident reports start with But we've always done it that way . . . )

Whilst I agree that the new Validation Scheme is 'interesting' (shall we say!) it does seem that as it stands you have over-stated the case: What the press release says is: (a) it has already been trialled with the cooperation of AWCC and British Marine. (b) CaRT provides info to the mooring operator who then reviews it - the scheme only applies to (1) boats seen in a marina but who have not declared it as a home mooring - this, of course, my well be entirely legitimate, say for short term visitor mooring (2) boats who have declared a home mooring there but are not present at the time of the CaRT check (which CaRT are already entitled to do) (c) it is an opt-in scheme at least at this stage (ie the operator is not obliged to receive the data (d) no suggestion that the operator has to report when a boat leaves a marina, in the sense of going out boating. There is an implication about what might happen if the boat leaves in the sense of giving up its home mooring. The scheme as described only applies after Cart have conducted an inspection of the boats in the marina.

You can also get them online. What I have done with all of ours is drill a hole in the top end (the end with the cross bar) so that they can be attached to a key ring - may need some wire to link between the two as it can be quite hard to force a stnadard key ring onto the handcuff key given its size - and a cork float (although I have never tested the floatability in anger!) This means having both a handcuff key and a Watermate key together - make life easier. In my view a minimum of three sets on a boat is to be preferred.

I'm not sure about the evidence that the courts tend to agree with large institutions per se - ie that they are biased. Is it not more likely that such institutions have access to better lawyers and other advisers and so produce a more convincing case in areas that are always going to be contentious? This will lead to them winning more often but this does not, in itself, indicate the kind of bias that you impute. Whether that is fair is another matter but legal action does not always align with everyone's sense of justice!

Is that what has been posted? I though - and Nigel M will I'm sure correct me if I am wrong - but the main point that he and Leigh R have been pursuing is that the boat cannot be held as lien against removal debts for non-payment of a licence as the licence fee is a special kind of arrangement. It only becomes a debt that can be pursued in such a way after several other legal steps have been taken and, moreover, a court judgement obtained. This then turns the matter into a standard type of debt for which various remedies are available, including ultimately possession - but with extra care if it is a permanent residence. In other words, it is much more complicated that your short statement suggests - we would not want to lead anyone into an unwise course of action, thinking they can rely on that position!

If you attempt entry to a concert, football match, exhibition, train, plane etc where a ticket is required the ticket checkers at the door will surely refuse to admit you if you fail to show a valid ticket. If you refuse to go away quietly then you can expect some fairly determined response. They will also know that if you continue to try to get in and make a public order offence then it is time to call the police who are the ultimate enforcement agency. (Remember that trespass is a civil matter so it has to escalate to a criminal offence before the police can respond to a call) I'm unclear why canal licences are any different.

As with any kind of trade there are brokers and there are brokers. Some go for a 'mass' market and others are selective and I have no doubt that the fees reflect that difference. When we sold last year, we opted for a broker who was clearly in the latter category and we knowingly opted for his higher fee rate. However, he knew the market and his list of prospective customers and contacted one who lived some distance away on the basis that, having seen them turn down several boats after inspection, this was more likely to meet their needs. It officially went on the market on a Friday and by Sunday morning we had a phone call with an offer. It would be silly to over-generalise from a particular but, although it was seven years ago, our experience as a purchaser with a range of brokers showed the variation in approach. Some would simply say: here's a list of boats we have and they are moored over there. Go take a look and if you want to put down a deposit on one then we will take you through it. I suspect its popularity with sellers (judging just by the number they have on offer) that the fees are probably a lot to do with it.

That was not my observation: the lock keepers in that area are in frequent contact and generally at Selby they have a good idea when a boat arrives that is not registered. The first suspicion is when it arrives without having given notice - it may be lack of knowledge or experience but usually someone trying to keep under the radar. I did not actually see anyone being refused but the indication I was given was that this was a real option but, of course, depends on the state of the tide and the size of the vessel. In that location it is more likely to be a lumpy water boat and sending them back down again is not a safety issue.

When we were at Selby earlier this year the lockie was very clear what he can and cannot do regarding unlicensed boats - as a point of access onto the CaRT system this is clearly more likely than elsewhere. No licence no passage was very much the message and there is no boater only operation so it can be enforced. However, he was also clear that there are circumstances when he must admit a boat regardless - ie when there is a safety issue - but he will then prevent further passage. Being penned in Selby lock for a period of time is not really something to be relished! Overall, my impression is that the permanent staff are trained to minimise unnecessary fuss whilst still being very aware that there are limits to how far they should be pushed. My guess is that there will be cases (and one can think of one documented on another thread) where matters may get out of control for the boater before they have time to think through the consequences. But these will be rare and most will be put onto a slow track enforcement process unless, as at Selby, there is a more direct way. That sounds worryingly almost like commonsense to me!

Sorry for the garbled text in the last post - not sure what happened there! I was making the assumption that we are talking about locks where the normal location of a licence does not come above the lock side: How about the following, going by a quick look at my photo library (only a random selection): Aldwarke, Stoke Bardolph, Gunthorpe, West Haddlesey, Castleford, Ferrybridge, Broadreach, Rotherham - of course these days hardly any are actually manned anyway so the issue regarding lockies is somewhat academic.

I think there are some locks you have not experienced, e.g. rivers and larger northern xabslx where there can be s substantial host to stand to the locks sides from the normal upper level.