waterworks

The PB licence terms and conditions were set out in legislation so that the boat owner would have statutory rights to a fair and accountable public licencing system, what you are doing is enabling CRT to take away your own statutory rights by acquiescing to a terms and conditions contract outside of the legislation. Here is what you are enabling CRT to unlawfully do in their own words.. " If You breach any of these Conditions the Trust can terminate Your Licence, which may result in the removal of Your boat from our waterways" Your tactic of ignoring this will only work until the terms and conditions change and it affects you, by which time people will say " well you went along with it for the last 20 years why are you complaining now " ?

Grow up.

You seem to be recommending rolling over and being a doormat in the face of an authority potentially treading all over your rights.

You can accept unlawful terms and conditions by hiding under the radar if you want, that's your choice . I won't be.

How are CRT going to enforce the reduced time visitor moorings since they have no power to issue fines and no infrastructure to collect fees on visitor moorings, if they charge they have to be able to prove you were there if they want to demand the fee, no different to parking enforcement companies. Your PB licence cannot be revoked or refused for non payment of any charge, fee or fine for any other matter, that is an undesputable legal fact unless it says otherwise in any legislation ( which it doesn't) Making anyone pay these fees would have to be in the end via the courts. There's also the question of what legally defines a charge versus a fee? I remember Nigel Moore once looked into this, not sure what his conclusion was ?

Begone troll.

Pointless ranting and playing the race card, grow up.

They want to use the London canals as cheap housing and I can't see what basis they are protesting on, since CRT is under no obligation to provide moorings for housing boaters within London. They are righty concerned about the shortage of housing in London which has been caused by an increase over a million to the population since 1950 when the population growth in London was 0 %, they shouldn't be campaigning to use canals as housing they should be campaigning to stop mass immigration. 1950 - 8361,000 2022 - 9541,000 Continued population growth in London is 1.2 to 1.5 % per year .

A Marina with lock gates who's water level doesn't rely on the canal feeding it maybe could claim they have nothing to do with CRT waters. Though you can't build a marina onto CRT waters without their say so and I presume various legally binding agreements, CRT of course own the banks on both sides for maintenance reasons, on private property it's about a meter or so.

You are right, I considered payment as a separate issue since it's covered by separate legislation and took it for granted no one would nit pick. Let's take it for granted payment is necessary before a licence can be issued.

I already know, payment for licences is set out in other legislation, so it's statutory, I would have thought everyone knows payment is necessary for the issue of a licence and it doesn't need to be said.

A marina cannot make "statutory obligations " on anyone, unless they have declared themselves an independent nation and have their own legislation. ( don't give them ideas 😂)

What other conditions are you referring to that are not statutory ?

That isn't " statutory authority" it's a customer contract. Unless you know of a law that requires cars to be taxed in Marinas ?

You agree that a basic principle of law is that contracts cannot override statute ( the law ) right? So the law says you must be issued a licence if you meet the three conditions in the 1995 BW act, so how do other terms and conditions added by CRT affect that since whatever they add you are still legally entitled to a licence, It makes them irrelevant doesn't it ?

The legal protection for the PB licence is contained within the statute, you are protected against CRT revoking or refusing your licence for an arbitrary reason by the fact that the licencing legislation states what they are permitted to do and being a pubic body they are only permitted to do what legislation allows, whereas a private person is permitted to do anything except what the law prohibits, there doesn't need to be a contract, you have statutory rights. The same applies to punishments for misbehaviour, those are contained in the bylaws, which are enforced by the courts independently of CRT to ensure justice .

Go troll for arguments somewhere else.

I would suggest a theory that CRT do not want to get involved with any bylaws because they are attempting to deceive people into accepting the pleasure boat licence is a civil contract that they can cancel at any time if you misbehave ? I don't find it likely that a big organisation like CRT with 2000 miles of infrastructure has never had anyone breach it's bylaws, one boat owner set fire to a 100 metres of hedge a few years ago by building a pallet bonfire, he was not prosecuted, no one has been.

It sounds quite reasonable, the problem is that the word of one patrol officer cannot be taken as CRT's official position.

I think if you want to go down the mooring pin rabbit hole CRT's own advice states to use them so they would have trouble claiming otherwise. https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/original/41331-the-boaters-handbook.pdf?v=658e2f What constitutes damage to the towpath I suppose would fall under the legal principle of what is reasonable under the circumstances, bylaws have to be taken through a court CRT has no powers to decide who is guilty of an offence. In any case FOI proved that CRT doesn't enforce any of the bylaws and never have, ask any Patrol officer and they will refuse to get involved in any breach of them ( if they could even name any of them ) and point you towards the council.

No one forces anyone to read any threads.

Like I said before bylaws have set punishments written into the legislation, in this case fines, a pleasure boat licence cannot lawfully be revoked or refused for breech of any bylaws. CRT would have to claim their own terms and conditions override the bylaws, which is nonsense. When CRT ask you if you agree to the licence terms and conditions it's meaningless and carries no legal weight, if you had £50,000 to spare you could in theory take it to court and be issued a licence without signing the terms and conditions, however it's much easier to just agree since an unlawful contract is void even if you agree to it.

I only stated what to my best knowledge is the law, whether or not CRT abide by it in practice is another matter, I think most sane people would agree that they should be held accountable to stick to the law. The matter of " satisfying the board" about your movements is not a mystery, it doesn't mean CRT can refuse your licence on a whim, CRT have stated what is acceptable to them, unless you fall foul of that your licence cannot be refused. Keep a record if you think CRT will falsely claim you haven't moved far enough.

This is the first para of the standard licence agreement, the red part is a lie. "GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR BOAT LICENCES (EXCLUDING BUSINESS LICENCES) Introduction In accordance with s.43(3) of the Transport Act 1962, boat licences are subject to the conditions which apply to the Use of a boat on any Waterway which We own or manage. These are necessary to protect third parties and to help Us manage the Waterways well for the benefit of all Our users. If You breach any of these Conditions the Trust can terminate Your Licence, which may result in the removal of Your boat from Our Waterways."

Basic principle of UK law Contracts that contravene: a statute is illegal for a simple reason: the legislature said that the type of contract is not permitted The statute in question here is the 1995 BW act section 17 which states the three conditions to be met for issue of a standard licence and they are also the three conditions that if breached allow CRT to revoke a licence. So if CRT revoke your licence for breach of it's own non statutory terms and conditions there is nothing in the law to stop you applying for and be granted another one, contract terms do not override statute. even if you agreed to it. If you research into the BW past you will find some of the current " terms and conditions" were started as boating guidelines and BW's own lawyer stated on record in 1995 to parliament they had no power to enforce them, over the years since then CRT have been conning new boaters into believing the licence is a contract by mixing up statutory conditions with their own invented conditions, claiming they can cancel it at any time for any reason as a civil contract, the standard licence is statutory not a contract and you have statutory rights , those rights are why parliament set out the 95 act in law, the licencing part of CRT is in fact still a public body. Another basic principle of law applies, " a statutory body has only those powers which are endowed by statute" which means CRT cannot change licence terms or conditions without changing the law.