Mike Todd

section 17 (11) of the 1995 Act indicates that CaRT can cancel a licence if on inspection they consider a boat to be unsafe. Subsection 6 immediately prior is a bit convoluted but seems to indicate that the BSS certificate is for a period of validity. But (11), based on powers in 7(3) of the 83 Act depends on an actual inspection at any time during the validity of the licence (mainly with 24 hours notice but immediately if serious). Most reasons for failing to comply with BSSC would probably constitute a safety matter.

The fact that this was written by the EO may or may not be absolutely binding on CaRT but if we assume that it is then it does seem to imply that obtaining a licence is evidence that prior consent has been obtained. However, that then brings us to the issue of whether a licence was obtained. It is possible that CaRT will argue that completing an on-line form does not constitute in all cases obtaining a licence - that is they reserve the right to cancel it if issued 'in error' or if some of the information supplied proves incorrect. Still some room to wriggle in this one I suspect.

I suspect you will find that he is entitle to apply for a licence.

You quite clearly have not met all of the conditions, one of which is to satisfy the Board etc etc. That is demonstrable in your cited correspondence. You, however, assert that they were unreasonable in not being satisfied that you would now comply. This is the point that you would to convince a court. The past actions are not an automatic bar but they may go some distance along the road of making their failure to be satisfied look reasonable. Reasonableness is a very useful legal tool buy may, in this case, make the OP's case more difficult.

I don't have the energy to trawl back in detail but I seem to recall that the boat is now some distance up the Grand Union, although not quite on it at the mo. Presumably at some point it got there via CaRT waters? Was that in the period when an automated licence had been issued and the time that it was cancelled?

In this context it is the boater not CaRT that are entitled to have the judge test it. If you look at some of the detail in the process of obtaining a new (rather than follow on) licence I suspect there is a little more to this than has so far met our collective eye.

Thank you for reminding me of that experience! Seriously, we do need to be vigilant but ideas do also have to be practical and to take into account the consequences. Recall that our burglary took place with four people on board, albeit asleep. I for one am more than reluctant to lock ourselves in, at least in ways that cannot be operated in an emergency. I certainly remove external locks from at least two exits whilst on board. That said, if the thief is reading this, there will be additional measures next time you visit!

They would have to resort to other legislation to obtain a remedy which would be other than the withdrawal of the licence. In the event that this resulted in damages then they would be able to pursue these by seeking to seize assets from the boater.

Newton's First Law? In your usual forthright way you have crystallised the debate - pushing for greater clarity in 'the rules' will almost inevitably lead to better 'radar' with the consequence that much that was tolerated as part of normal good neighbourliness will no longer be possible. Hence why for me the current ambiguity over what constitutes CCing is probably the better option not only for those who permanently CC but also others of us who do so intermittently. I am not sure of the current status, but at one time there were rules about the minimum standard for housing that a local authority provided (size, basic services, insulation etc etc). Regardless of what most people here might think, I suspect that narrowboats come nowhere near meeting such standards, largely because the standards were written with bricks and mortar (and tacky estates) in mind. Hence LAs may not be able to provide them.

Sometimes there is confusion between non-profit making (ie loss making!) and non-profit distributing. Many organisations registered with the Charity Commission (CC) have commercial arms (often separate for VAT reasons) but any profits go back to the main organisation to assist in its approved aims. To be registered does imply that at some point the CC were convinced that the aims of the charity were for the public benefit. The difficulty lies in the fact that, although there are tests to be applied to this consideration, most of us will disagree about what is a public benefit! see https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277353/cc4text.pdf

The local council think enough of the potential to provide a significant grant for exploratory work: http://www.daventryexpress.co.uk/news/community-news/daventry-narrow-boat-lift-plan-awarded-110k-by-council-1-7099594

eta OK now

I'm interested in where you found this Slough canal basin. Last time I went there, there was just a dead end - no basin, no nothing. But, of course, there is a plan to connect up with the Thames . . .

Just musing and Nigel may be able to help: Boaters applying for a 'normal' licence have to convince the Board that they have a genuine home mooring. However, it would be interesting to know whether they can require that that mooring has to be on their system. Equally, I wonder whether the moorings being specified in this instance are not part of CaRT waters. If both (and it needs both) of these were true then it bis possible to see an argument that the boater is sans home mooring and therefore the licence, applied for on that basis, can be rejected. Just thinking aloud, as it were.

It is only illogical as a result of colloquial shorthand. On the one hand they are correct that the legislation does not permit them to specify a particular distance that a boater without a home mooring must travel in a given time period. On the other hand, they 'must be satisfied . . . bona fide navigation . . . etc'. In that sense they can tell you the sort of thinking that might convince them but cannot be certain. They also cannot tell you what will not convince them. Anyone who is unhappy with their conclusion that they are 'not satisfied' then has the right to challenge that through a judicial review but in the meantime the Board's conclusion remains valid, unless and until a court deem s that they have been unreasonable or inconsistent in their application of the principle. (eg if they are easily convinced about boats coloured blue but never convinced by those that are red) All of this may well be unsatisfactory (something widely asserted and equally widely accepted) but it is not illogical.

You may well be correct but, of course, given the inability of the law to support a clear distinction between compliant and non-compliant, it is bound to be a bit of an estimate. I may also have erred on the side of generosity but I was rather going on the basis of the figures recently released by CaRT on enforcement. (Of course, that is bound to give a lower bound rather than an upper bound) but 'greater part' was only intended to imply >50%. I did not say, nor intended to imply something like 'very much the greater part' which would indicate >>50%

It would helped even further if they had distinguished between the greater part of that 5K who are either retired or (possibly) single who quite happily tootle around the system in a way that even the most hard-nosed shiny boater would be hard pushed to deny as entirely within the spirit of the legislation.

and that CaRT, if they could, would probably rather like not to be running a mooring scheme but to leave it to those who do it better. (ie can provide at least basic facilities - come of these

Women teachers on Tyneside used (at least when we lived there in 70's) were often called 'Hey, miss, man"

Only as an apprentice There is always someone behind you - only a question of how far

That only works if you are really paranoid, but not if you just think that you are.

just 15 mins or so walk along towpath to station. Trains frequent, will be more so with Crossrail. Most of the time taken getting from boat out of marina to either the road or the towpath! Quiet marina. Not a lot of social interaction (vide Off the Cut thread) but pretty safe.

I canonly wish that bringing court cases were this simple . . .

There are a number of canals that were originally constructed with a shallow edge - they were meant for moving not stationary boats! Just one example: a lot of the Northern Oxford has a sloping underwater edge made from stones and there are many places where anything but a paper boat would struggle to get close enough to use a plank! But that is not a matter of maintenance, it is what they were designed as.

The lady also said that having sold her boat she was going to move into a van. (Which might have been the one shown) I wonder where she will find to park it permanently without having a permit that costs money? Or whether the local highways authority, or whoever owns the land on which the van is parked, will allow this indefinitely. As another poster has said, none of the people shown contested the fact that they were non-compliant. What they want is not clearly something that is itself within the legal structure, however imprecise that is. All in all it shows just how difficult it is for all concerned to cope with a very inadequate legal framework and how unfortunate it was that the government at the time failed to use the opportunity of creating CaRT to update the legislation. Sadly, they wanted to do the transfer as cheaply as they could (in all senses of cheap). But it also has to borne in mind that any such clarification would have no guarantee that it would yield the context that the people in the film seek. Sadly, people wishing to operate at the margins of what is legal will always find that they are continually fighting to determine whether they are right or wrong. Were these boaters to move,say, a mile a week, not just up to the water tap and back, then they would be in a much better position regarding a defence against enforcement. Of course, they may well be right that in time the rules, whether law or not, will change and that they will affect the way of life of someone. But this is not unique to boaters.