Paul C
-
Posts
12,391 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Paul C
-
-
3 minutes ago, magnetman said:
If you look at the wording of 17(c) it actually says that all you have to do is satisfy the Board that a place (on water or elsewhere) 'will be available'.
Not that it 'is available'.
When will it be available?
One could say 'that field over there will be available once I have put in a hardstanding and bought a crane'.
Its not enough that it will be available. It needs to satisfy the board that it will be available.
-
1
-
-
The 14 days in the 1995 Act gives a maximum* amount of time CCers can stay in one place. It does not follow that there is a blanket permission of 14 days everywhere.
A good analogy would be the National Speed Limit, for example defined as 60mph on a single carriageway. That law does not override 30mph speed limits covered in other areas of the law. There is no conflict - it is not appropriate to apply it in its widest sense, only when there is no other limit in force.
*simplified (not mentioned "reasonable") otherwise I may as well have typed out the whole 1995 Act and some will have struggled to comprehend the thing.
-
3 minutes ago, kris88 said:
Not if it doesn’t abide by the equality act and the human rights act.
I think the law-makers (whoever actually pens these things) are aware it needs to either be compatible/sit alongside other laws, or specifically repeal them (or bits of them) so that there is no conflict. We will need to both wait and see what the suggesting wording is.
Regarding equality act - you do realise there's written protected characteristics? I don't think any of the canal legislation goes anywhere near conflicting with them. I know its often "tagged on" for consideration in a court case, but every one I've seen its been dismissed as irrelevant.
-
2 hours ago, kris88 said:
Enforcement is never going to be cheap.
Take the offence of speeding, for example. It is an absolute offence - if you are caught going over (say) 30mph, the offence is committed. It is relatively cheap to enforce with the advent of technology such as speed cameras. Compare to "driving without due care and attention". It requires a policeman to witness it, or evidence (for example dashcam footage after an accident, or several witness statements) and the attendance of police/witnesses in court. Much more expensive to enforce, but probably fairer than the somewhat arbitrary speeding offence.
2 hours ago, kris88 said:.................
What ever they change the wording of the legislation it still has to be legal...................If/when they change the law, it will de-facto BE legal because its now the law.
-
Just now, kris88 said:
There’s no need for new laws now. If they had been using section 8 correctly and the byelaws for the last 12years we wouldn’t be in the state we are now. ( not my original idea, but something Nigel Moore educated me on.)
They are a third sector quasi charity organisation, not a government body. People especially within crt seem to forget this.
True in theory but they need something easier/cheaper to enforce.
-
4 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
The fact is that BW tried to gain the legal powers to erect signs controling mooring in 1990. They failed to do so.
I would agree that it might be inconsiderate to ignore signs in certain circumstances but it is not a criminal offence.
maybe they failed because there was no need for a new law in 1990 because they already had the powers?AFAIK until a test case occurs, it’s untested. The best you could claim to, is it “might not be” a criminal offence.
-
5 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
Yes but the board must be satisfied if the boat has no previous history of not, in fact, being used bona fide for navigation.
The purpose of "satisfying the board" is to prevent those that have a factual history of non compliance from obtaining a licence.
Ultra vires is a matter of legal opinion. Some years ago NABO obtained legal opinion that CRT was acting ultra vires. CRT's own legal opinion was that it was not acting ultra vires.
CRT refused to engage with NABO on this matter and NABO did not have the financial resources to test the matter in court. Whilst neither party saw fit to publish the legal option obtained, I recall that NABO suggested that its membership might wish to add a caveat to licence fee applications. This was along the lines of only accepting CRT's terms and conditions to the extent that they are enforceable in law.
I deduce from the above that the legal opinion received by NABO was that CRT did not have legal powers under s.43(3) of the Transport Act 1962 to set conditions related to licencing in modifying or in addition to those set in the BW Acts and byelaws.
A prime example of modifying is CRT's conditions saying that a boat must move every 14 days whilst the law say 14 days is a minimum.
Well, I will challenge it! A boat only has to move when it is unreasonable to stay where it is moored.
... but you are right that it only has to move a boat length.
It is, of course, the reason why CRT are seeking change.
That's an incredibly fragile deduction. CRT could refuse to engage with anyone and it doesn't mean anything. The fact that they chose to not publish legal advice received is nothing special either. Based on that, the signage for a VM IS valid.
You'd need to be pretty inconsiderate to use the above "legal argument" to stay 14 days in a honeypot VM location.
-
52 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
What I find peculiar
........Must satisfy the board.......
-
I guess the phasing in of a new legal framework will depend on the amount different it is from now. I am surprised the debate so far (at least on here) has been low-level sniping, rather than some kind of co-ordinated agreement of what are the pertinent points the boaters groups could put forwards in their submissions to the Comission, and how to best represent those views.
1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:I don't see why. The rules have been there from day one. You don't get two years grace when the mortgage rate, council tax or your rent goes up. Why should those who have done their best to rip the system off get preferential treatment?
You normally get a reasonable notice period, and the option to FRO to a different (for example) mortgage provider.
-
I'd say the biggest two likely causes of a fire on a narrowboat are 1) the stove, 2) electrics.
Fortunately I dealt with it very quickly, so just the inverter was toast.
-
1 hour ago, IanD said:
Still only works above 68C, a boat electrical fire is unlikely to generate enough heat to reach this, especially in cold weather.
Like a power-cutoff temperature sensor, it's the wrong solution to something that isn't really a problem to begin with... 😉
Are you saying I DIDN'T have a "problem" when my inverter caught fire, and that its not a problem to have a cupboard packed with electrical devices, some of which are fused at 150-200A? I'd say, early detection of a "problem" in an electrics cupboard is definitely worth having. Mine was rearmost cupboard within the cabin so I was able to see the smoke from the driving position. Fancy detectors and suchlike are all well and good, but direct vision is better.
-
Having experienced an electrical fire on a boat (1500w inverter went up in smoke):
1 where ever the electrics cupboard vents to/from, you want to be able to see it while driving the boat
2 make sure the isolator switches are somewhere else and accessible (I had to moor then throw a stool and a duckboard onto the towpath to get to mine)
So, I’d say outside venting is better, and there’s plenty of engineering solutions to avoid water ingress.
Worth thinking about and planning properly
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Gybe Ho said:
I have a question about ducting to exhaust heat from the cabinet,
Personally, if I were designing a boat from scratch, I'd duct the air from the cabinet to the outside. The reason being, if there's a fire (which is more likely than other areas, since its full of electrics) it would minimise the spread.
-
6 minutes ago, IanD said:
The law and common sense do not always agree... 😉
If the RCR -- or your interpretation of it -- and the Consumer Rights Act disagree, which one takes precedence?
I think we are losing focus and becoming very muddled with these 2 pieces of legislation.
Put simply:
CRA2015 covers the contractual relationship between the BUYER and the SELLER
RCR covers the responsibilities of a DISTRIBUTOR in the SUPPLY CHAIN
Its not a case that they're contradictory, they cover different things. Its like going to a car dealer and the car you're buying doesn't have the correct Type Approval for the UK - that's an administrative thing which a car dealer may very well face a penalty for, but which doesn't directly relate to the physical characteristics of the thing they're selling. It might do, and it might be that its not "fit for purpose" because of it, but it can't be assumed that it automatically does. Its just an administrative step that's not been done, after all.
Its possible that a boat without RCR is also deficient to the point that its not fit for purpose, but that's just speculation or worry. The not having the admin in itself alone, is just like having a minor fault. For example on a secondhand car, if the rear wiper doesn't work, it doesn't mean its a fault serious enough to reject the car.
-
15 minutes ago, truckcab79 said:
Electrics is a tough one as there rarely seems to be a ‘right’ answer.
I think its definitely an area where there's a number of options, all valid. There are very simple setup, then you can gradually add complexity. But I'd say for each extra step of complexity, you need to decide if the extra effort and expense yields a benefit.
Things seem to have "settled" on a reasonably modern boat having twin alternators, a domestic bank of 3-4x 100Ah or thereabouts lead acid batteries and a mains hookup. Having a combi really helps the simplicity, because it combines charger/inverter/selection switch/consumer unit into one and eliminates some complexity. But then if it fails, you have to replace an expensive unit not just the failed component. But there's plenty of boats out there with separate charger and inverter too. And plenty older which don't have, or need, mains at all.
-
14 minutes ago, robtheplod said:
Im guessing peel will now lose revenue as boaters find alternative routes... maybe this will have an impact over how long its closed for?? Its proably small fry though....
I don't see how, because you never previously paid for transit. There was an agreement with CRT to allow free use, and I can't see that many Bridgewater licence holders moving off (and giving up their moorings). The various boatyards along the canal will struggle, for sure, though.
-
I'll stick with my previous suggestion - actually go boating, rather than sit at home planning things. Hire boats tend to be quite logically laid out and it doesn't take long to suss out what's what on their electrics systems. Private boats, especially older ones, tend to be more of a mess with "organic" additions over time, so it could be a good idea to try look at as many private boats to see what NOT to do.
-
1
-
-
You're getting mixed up with CRA2015 and RCR/RCD
-
So with that in mind:
If Marina A predominantly buys stock in, then sells it to punters, I think we both agree they're part of the supply chain and a "distributor" of boats.
If Marina B a couple of miles along the canal is in fact a brokerage and they simply sell on commission, are they off the hook?
A common sense approach would say as far as the punter is concerned, its a marina selling boats as a commercial venture, to which they ought to be offered the same protections.
-
2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
But the historical understanding of the MNC was as Ravenscroft and Nigel stated - the reason that Ravenscroft 'lost' was simply the Judge re-defined the limits of the MNC.
To come back onto topic - thats a good example of how the understanding of the RCD/RCR may be evolving from what was previously understood to what is now stated by the RCD/RCR.
That's one way of interpreting it (Are you saying Ravenscroft was right and the judge was wrong?)
Another way of interpreting it could be, one side (Ravenscroft) chose to argue about the definition of something, which the other side didn't even mention, and thought they found a loophole. The judge took a common sense approach instead of believing the long convoluted argument which was dreamt up. In other words, you can't evade a licence by mooring at the edge.
-
21 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
Yes and that backfired on C&RT, as if the MNC goes from bank to bank (the Judges' view') then C&RT should be maintaining the MNC depth from bank to bank.
It all then went quiet about dreging and maintenance of the MNC !
They cannot have it both ways.
It backfired on Ravenscroft much more, though!
-
We haven't heard from Higgs in a while.
-
Sorry, what was the solution there?
-
Does the water come out in a different place? Its quite possible you have two bilge pumps.
-
2
-
CRT Commission
in General Boating
Posted
Because they're not very good at drafting bills? I don't know. It doesn't really matter though, it doesn't mean they didn't have the powers already.