Mike Todd

It is not particularly difficult but best to do first time in a situation where you can afford to turn around and go back the way you came, just in case. The bow and stern fenders do have to be lifted however. If you are up for it it is quite fun. Another thing to tick off a to-do list.

I did similar in a cupboard. I think the water arrived when a boatyard did some work on the water tank connections and probably let a load drop into the bilge which was not apparent at the time until the dampness - in the galley at the rear - started to make itself known. Once dried out we never had a recurrence but the access was always comforting to check especially when it was bone dry!. These are the times when you realise - and appreciate - what a hire operator is doing for their customers!

It bis also a business model based on squeezing the best return out of under utilised, or even disused, assets. I doubt if they make anything out of the canal on an indirect basis but it, together with several now redundant docks (inc a large swathe at Liverpool as well as in Manchester and Salford, was the basis on which they acquired that land, I suspect at a time when its latent value was not appreciated. It might be worth bearing in mind some of the tactics used by the railway companies when they decided that they wanted to take out the competition from the canals. It could be important to ensure that, when there is an extended closure, there is a sufficient clamour for re-opening in order to avoid the claim that navigation is no longer required.

Alas, that is what law is often about!

As I understand it - I have a teeny bit of experience but not enough to be sure - is that restrictive covenants can only be enforced by the 'beneficial owner'. The covenant with an estate development is with the developer in the first instance who then has to enforce it. Unless it is a planning condition then the LPA has no role. What I do know is that after the passage of time such covenants become increasingly hard to enforce, but some overage clauses can be quite valuable. (ie where the purchaser agrees to pay a proportion of any development gain in the event that the property is developed eg a new house is built in a large garden of the first house) However, more frequently these days such clauses get priced into the deal. The benefit to the developer quickly erodes as they are mainly concerned to enhance the value of the property during the time that the estate is being developed (which can be over several years in the case of multi phases works such as those at the former Nash Mills site on the lower Grand Union. Once the site is complete I would expect them to lose all interest! It would be interesting to hear a legal expert on who then can enforce the covenant in the event that eg the majority of residents on an estate feel aggrieved at the loss of an amenity that they think they paid for. The point of my example (and it may not be the best in context but it was what came to mind) was that where there are collective benefits it is necessary for there to be an 'authority' who can enforce them. This involves both powers and duties. It is not necessarily a perverse or autocratic authority that enforces conditions.

In general I would agree from libertarian principles but it is not quite that simple and I am not sure that the characterisation of an 'authority' as having an independent agenda is always correct. As an example, there seems to have been some press comment recently in the wake of a potential house purchaser discovering that the property he wanted comes with a covenant that bans him from parking a commercial vehicle outside overnight. Since he runs a business with a large van he claimed that this was unfair discrimination and such restrictions should not be allowed. He should be free to do as he likes. It is not up to a big developer to tell him what he can and cannot do with his property. Leaving aside the fact that parking on street (or, alas on pavement) outside your property has never been a right, only on the driveway, even the more sympathetic experts had to admit that such clauses are generally welcomed by most people since streets becoming filled up with lots of commercial vehicles, usually much larger than cars, is not what they want. Indeed, the protection of the value of their properties is often conditional on such restraints. They look to 'the authority' (because it is the developer as the beneficial owner) to enforce the rule. It is rare, if ever, that one person's freedom does not impact someone else's rights and broadly speaking civilised society hands to 'authority' both the right and the duty to ensure that agreed rules are kept. Liberty, as a concept, does not endow the right to trample over other people's rights.

OK so what I was responding to in Nigel's post was to do with what happens when a boater makes a subsequent application for a licence having previously been refused. It seemed in that part of the post that Nigel was implying that CaRT could not refuse such an application (at that stage did not mention meet all the mandatory conditions) and what I was attempting to say - as has been said by others in the meantime - that the situation is not as one-sided as it seemed to me to be suggested. CaRT still have the right to be satisfied on all the counts and it is their judgement that is absolute (save perhaps a judicial review). It is not enough to send off a form with a cheque and be able to guarantee that one gets a licence by return of post. In the end I think that all the contributions on this thread are broadly in agreement.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

I could also have mentioned not having BSS or insurance or having a boat that the Board believe to be a safety hazard.

Unless they do have one of the legitimate reasons for refusal. In particular, if the preceding dispute had been about non compliance with No Home Mooring requirements, then the Board may not 'be satisfied ' and hence be entitled not to issue a licence.

Maghull was fine for us. Great transit system.

But the NAA specifically bars the marina from taking water from the canal. If CRT determined that a marina was losing water significantly then it would object and no doubt extract a fee for amending the contract. (Yes I know there a matter of evaporation but that is a lesser factor)

I am not sure how you are parsing the section you cite. One way is: Paragraph ( b ) of the foregoing subsection shall not be read as exempting the British Waterways Board or Canal & River Trust from any local enactment so far as it expressly provides for (freedom from charges or otherwise prohibits the making of any charge) This is different from: Paragraph ( b ) of the foregoing subsection shall not be read as exempting the British Waterways Board or Canal & River Trust from (any local enactment so far as it expressly provides for freedom from charges ) or (otherwise prohibits the making of any charge) In the latter case it would be construed as universally prohibiting any charge whilst in the former case it would only do so insofar as an existing local enactment specifically prohibited it. This would require discovery of an enactment that, within the locality covered, a charge for connecting a marina was explicitly barred. Since marinas were not 'invented', such a bar would have to be inferred from something akin to a marina. If I understand your reasoning . . .

The NAA summary as published by CaRT states that it is derived from Section 43 Transport Act 1962 (I am aware via kanda that you have written here and elsewhere on this!) I cannot see anything explicit in that section that denies the right to make such a charge - but pleas ciet if you have the reference. As far as I can see, there is confusion in some quarters between what CaRT can charge boats/boaters and what it can charge for on matters quite separate from navigation (as a general business). The matter of water flow is covered in the NAA (legally or otherwise) : marina cannot take water from the canal (I recall that new marinas have to fill from elsewhere and to carry out the non-leakage testing before the final connection is opened up) Outflows of water into the canal have to be covered by a separate agreement. The NAA template was agreed with the trade federation - are you claiming that both they and all of the more recent marina owners have failed to spot that they do not need to pay NAA charges? I thought that this was what Pillings Lock were trying to assert but they eventually capitulated despite their complex corporate structure? The only questions I would have thought were: (a) does the NAA provide goods or services (in this case a permission to breach the canal bank) which CaRT have rights over and ( is the charge reasonable, so as not to make it an invalid contract? It does seem to me to be of interest that the licence enforcement comes within a contract for non navigation matters and hence not - at least directly - involving the making of charges for navigation. CaRT cannot force the boater to take out a licence under the circumstance of the time they are moored in a marina, but they can set reasonable terms to their NAA contract with the marina owner. The owner is not obliged to accept a boater unless it meets the marina's T&C's as marinas are not a public right. As far as I can see, Section 43 does not explicitly reference EA so there is a different legislative context for marinas connected to EA rivers - at least I understand. EA do not deal in licences (only registrations) and so have no direct interest in requiring CaRT licences for the boats in their marinas. As you say, the requirement for a registration is quite a different matter.

Not only are the two 'sides' of the junction line different places but also the circumstances under discussion are derived from different pieces of legislation. What is not in dispute, I believe: 1) CaRT have a right in legislation to require boats on its canals (not rivers where it is different) to obtain a licence and CaRT are, subject to some restraint, able to charge for that licence. Lack of a licence also gives them powers (albeit that this is debate about the best way to do this) to 'deal' with boats that are not licensed, either because the owner does not apply for one or because CaRT (the 'Board') are not satisfied that the boat will be used in a manner consistent with the legislative framework. 2) CaRT also have a right to enter into a contract with a third party to allow then to connect their property, ie a marina, to their canal. That contract is subject to the general legislative requirements for commercial contracts. In particular they can set reasonable conditions which the third party must meet in order for the contract to continue to be in force and for the marina to enjoy the benefits for which they contracted and paid suitable considerations. This contract may or may not deal with the issue of water - some marinas actually have their own flow of water but CaRT enforce through the contract, checks that the marina is not through (eg) lack of maintenance, losing abnormal amounts of water which are, be default, supplied by CaRT from the canal. This contract does not directly involve marina users. 3) Whilst not universally, but generally, it is agreed that it is reasonable of CaRT to impose on the marina owner certain conditions regarding the boats allowed into the marina. These conditions have much to do with licence revenue, health and safety, compliance with various statutory regulations etc etc. (But only insofar as they impact on CaRT's rights. For example, the matter of allowing permanent residential use of a boat whilst in a marina is principally a matter between the marina owner and the local planning authorities) One of these conditions is that the marina owner will only allow boats to remain on the water in the marina whilst in possession of a valid CaRT licence. Some marinas do offer a separate facility to the boat owner to have the boat removed from the water and stored on their land. Indeed some advertise this as a way of not having to licence the boat for that time. They will, in general, make a charge for this service. They will in all likelihood charge for this separately but they could bundle it into the mooring charges if they felt that this was a good market ploy. It is then up to the boat owner to decide whether the additional cost is less that the avoided licence fee. 4) Some marinas were first opened a long(ish) time ago when a different contractual context existed - and, as far as I can see - probably devised on a case-by-case basis. It is well known that those contracts, some of which remain valid, do not include the requirement on the marina owner to allow only licensed boats on the water. It would appear that those contracts are indefinite so that CaRT are unable to impose the requirement retrospectively. (Or they may choose not to but that I doubt) It is well known that for the foreseeable future, CaRT will insist on the terms of the NAA with any new marina constructed adjacent to a canal and seeking to connect with it. 5) If a marina owner fails to honour the terms of the contract then they forfeit the rights along with it. A well known case concerned what happens when a marina owner fails to pay the charges which are agreed under the contract (NAA) and there is little doubt that such charges are entirely valid and enforceable by CaRT. The difficulty, as always in contractual disputes, lies in enforcement. There is little doubt that the moment a marina owner defaults on any material element of the contract, then CaRT are entitled to remove the assets which they supplied, ie the connection between the marina and the canal, in the same way that any business can reclaim an asset if the customer fails to pay rental for it (although the method of enforcement may not only be subject to some legal framework, see Planet Lightship), but also CaRT will have to assess the PR implications of their actions, which in any event must be proportionate. In this context it is is unreasonable to incite anyone, especially those with limited experience of the canal system, to hold out the hope that they can hide in a marina and get away with failing to licence their boat, unless they lay up the boat out of the water. Apart from anything else, it is encouraging such people to put the marina owner's business at risk. But is that not dependent on the fact the the PRN means that boats are not required to obtain a licence for using the river anyway? Registration, which is different, is - and this is where perhaps the nub of the argument lies - based on ensuring the safety of the rivers and other users by ensuring that boats meet minimum standards. What seems to me to be unclear is why EA cannot (at least for new marinas) make the same arrangements as CaRT. Is it because CaRT own the canal bank, up to the point at which it ceases to retain water (so they can charge a third party for modifications to it) whilst EA do not own the river bank?

That is not, I think, the point: this case is about the implications of a failure to meet the conditions of a berthing agreement which was agreed between two parties, one of whom happened to be in a position similar to a marina owner. Incidentally, why does http://www.merseyplanet.co.uk/history.phpsay that ownership passed to Mr Gary Anderton in 2016?

2012 it was, according to Ms Google

I agree - I was not trying to imply otherwise.

The status of Planet immediately prior to CaRT taking action could well be one of the less easy matters to establish as the basis of a court judgement: When Mr Roberts and others bought the ship in 2008 (see http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/mersey-bar-lightship-planet-saved-3472771)they stated that they did so with the intention of operating it as a tourist attraction. Whether or not this was meant to make a profit, at that stage it was clearly intended as a business. I do not now when the web site www.merseyplanet.co.uk was last updated but in its current state it clearly advertises itself as 'museum and cafe' as well as being available for hire as an even venue. It also says that it serves alcohol and states that it is licensed so to do. Many small business owners find that they have to sign contracts in their personal identity, especially if there is significant money involved and the other party is not prepared to allow them potentially to shelter behind a limited liability. I know personally that sometimes one even has to put one's home on the line in order to fulfill an ambition. Whilst the copy of the agreement which is exhibited above is only for 2014, it is reasonable to assume that there were previous agreements in which the owners' status was considered. Has Mr Roberts shared all of these for scrutiny? Mr Roberts may well also need to choose between a rock and a hard place. If he says that he was not a business then witnesses attesting to the fact that he sold alcohol may not be helpful! Also, if he did have a licence then I assume that the licensing authority will have on record something about the status of the business - as I recall you had to show something about being a fit and proper person. None of this supports anyone taking disproportionate action nor flouting proper protections afforded to individuals or to businesses, but care needs to be taken that the claimed protection actually applies in the specific context. No use saying that x had that protection when x was in a different situation from y. If this case does go further then, given the complexities, it is likely to be a field day for lawyers (always is when there are complicated surrounding issues) and thus extremely costly for all concerned. Most businesses have an insurance policy that includes some protection for legal costs but (a) one does have to have kept the premiums up to date and (b ) satisfy the insurer that there is a reasonable chance of success. (I have tried to make this into two posts as what follows is a different line but the system keeps conflating the two!) From here there do seem to be two quite distinct sets of interests: (a) those who want to use this case to explore the finer details of what CaRT can and cannot do and (b ) those who want to see the lightship restored to the heritage of Liverpool waterside. It may well be that these two act against each other and some folk may have to decide on which side they stand. Clearly (a) is very much of interest to Mr Roberts and associates whilst (b ) has a good number of local people behind it. If it were shown that to have the lightship restored for public access would require Mr Roberts to accept the initial decision of the court, where might the pressures lie? The last thing they would want is for CaRT to 'fire sale' the vessel in order to be shot of the problem! Such a sale is unlikely to save the vessel for Liverpool. I know just how long such heritage projects take to bring to fruition, they often involve a lot of distinct public bodies, and CaRT's patience during this period will be an important prerequisite.

I suspect you will find that being a business does not wholly align with carrying on of a trade. The former describes the status of the person/organisation whilst the latter refers to an activity, in this case in a specific place. In any event, was there ever any separate written consent regarding trading? Absent it all that remains is that a business person had contracted for the berthing of a vessel from which any trading activity was unauthorised. That unauthorised act cannot itself confer additional rights, surely? Such a principle would mean that we all would do something unauthorised just to get benefit . . . The issue might be that by failing to act against the unauthorised activity (if it were so) then CaRT have by default given their consent. But I suspect that you then will get mired in quite deep debates about when such consent can be deemed - never an easy one to resolve I suspect. Just so - a business can legitimately obtain a berth for a vessel even if it does not intend to use it for trading.

I agree - many small business are what is known as a Sole Trader usually in the name of the proprietor (who may also employ staff) The significant difference is between Sole Trader and a Limited Company as the former retains a personal liability.

They will have to improve the mobile phone signals . . . as we discovered earlier this year (and confirmed by local phone shops) there is very little coverage in the town! (Or for much of the Llangollen for that matter)

see http://www.gabyhardwicke.co.uk/images/library/files/briefingnotes/Costs_in_Litigation.pdf(just the first I found on Google) Liability of non-parties In exceptional cases, costs orders can be made against people who are not parties to the litigation. This is relevant to both the winner and the loser. If the winner finds that the loser cannot pay, there still might be circumstances justifying an award of costs against someone else altogether. This is possible where the non-party not only funds the proceedings, but substantially also controls or at any rate is to benefit from them (Other sections of this note are also helpful to understanding the foregoing discussion)

Given that a number of people have signed a petition or otherwise locally declared their concern that the symbolic ship is not longer part of the waterside vista, perhaps the best hope is that they form a local 'museum' charitable trust and seek to run it on that basis. (Provided they can construct a viable business plan that is) I cannot imagine that Mr Roberts has any chance of resuming his former business as the first thing he would have to do in order to get a (new) business/trading licence from CaRT, let alone a berthing contract, would be to submit a viable business plan and the history of the past few years would suggest that this is one thing that has long been absent. Anyone setting up there now would have to invest considerably as all interested authorities would be hawk-eyed about compliance with every known regulation going - and and a few more besides no doubt! As I understand it from earlier in this thread there are several very similar ships on the market which suggests that there is not a great value to be had from them at the moment. The only think going for Mr Roberts would seem to be the uniqueness to its former location and a certain amount of local goodwill.

I would have disappointed by the quality of the work if it were for a GCSE course!