NilesMI

That is certainly true... But if there are occasions where you don't follow the rules, should there be any limit at all on the action that can be taken against you?

I acknowledge that the court will have made allowance for consideration of all the matters and all parties will have prepared submissions which will be considered. So I can see that from your point of view it would seem like a waste for the court not to make a judgement on all the issues. I don't know what the points were where the court went beyond making a judgement on the claim, but I can see why this court on this occasion will not want to pass judgement on the proportionality of the actions of CRT having just made a judgement that however proportional or not they were, they had no legal basis, anyway. But we are getting ahead of ourselves and way off the subject of Article 1.

The first year I had my boat, my email address wasn't registered with CRT so I didn't get an email reminder to renew the licence. It was moored at Sawley marina at the time, which does require boats to have a (rivers only) CRT licence. My boat was spotted by a CRT boat logger and I got a letter from CRT that my boat was unlicensed. I renewed the licence and had to pay the late fee. I actually renewed the canal and river licence as I was planning to cruise all over the place. I have no idea what would have happened if I had not renewed the license but left the boat moored in the marina. In principle, the marina is not a CRT waterway, so CRT could not lawfully take enforcement action themselves. I guess that strictly it would be up to the marina to take action to remove an unlicensed boat from their marina. The point is that CRT boat loggers do check marinas which have an NAA for unlicensed boats and will write to inform you if you have no licence. My impression us that CRT would indeed take enforcement action against you if you refused to renew the licence whether or not they have the legal authority to do so. You could always start another thread on here to complain if/when they do that.

By "un-licenced", I'm assuming you mean a marina which does not have an NAA? If so, my understanding is that when you take your boat there, you inform CRT that you are removing your boat from their waterway. At that point you would claim back any remaining part of your licence. Then, when you return your boat to CRT's waterway, 6 months later, you would need to apply for a new CRT licence, commencing on the date you return. There is no late fee or need to pay for a licence for the period your boat has been absent. But you also asked, earlier, about mooring your boat at an NAA marina but failing to renew your CRT licence while moored there. In that situation, my understanding is that to comply with the marina contract, you would have to pay any late fee or back dating so that you have actually paid for a continuous licence for the time your boat was moored there.

No. I say that those who choose to moor in a marina with an NAA should pay the licence fee because that was the arrangement between the marina operator and CRT which allowed it to be connected to the canal. If you don't like it don't moor there. I don't like paying for things I don't use, so I tend not to stay in hotels which provide inclusive rounds of golf. My specifically choosing a golfing hotel and then moaning about the fact that I'm paying for the upkeep of the golf course would be as ridiculous as you complaining about having to pay for the upkeep of the canals you don't use. I'd expect the same amount of sympathy on a golfing forum as you are finding here.

You are just plain wrong on that point. I disagree that it's unfair that you have to pay for a licence. The reason being that you have chosen to moor in a marina which provides the opportunity for you to use the canals. You just choose not to. By suggesting you move elsewhere I'm proposing that you DON'T continue to pay for the licence you don't want to make use of. How that can be construed as me wanting you to pay for the upkeep of the canals is beyond me.

I don't object to you making the argument that the NAA is unfair on boaters who don't want to actually use the canals, yet choose to moor in an NAA connected marina. I just happen to disagree. What I do object to is your suggestion that those who disagree with you are only doing so because they want you and people like you to "subsidise" their boating.

But what if the costs racked up by CRT in seizing the boat, removing and storing it and repairing any damage which may have occurred in the process, approach or exceed the boat's pre-seizure value? It does make sense for the court not to venture into what it would see as extraneous issues once judgement has been made on the substance of the claim. What if the court did that and decided (perversely you might say) that if a licence had been required, use of s.8 in the circumstances was proportionate? Presumably you would like to see an appeal against that. How would that work?

That would be one likely consequence. But what about those who have online moorings? If those boats are still required to have an annual licence, even while at their moorings, it would tilt the economics in favour of marinas. It may encourage new marina moorings to be created or the cost of current marina moorings to increase relative to online moorings, which might become cheaper. And changes to licence fees would affect those who have no home mooring. Maybe they too, would change their boating habits by spending time in a marina, rather than purchasing an annual licence? Maybe CRT can second guess what might happen and re-jig such that they continue to receive the same combined income from moorings and licences. Some boaters would win, some would lose, some new boaters would be encouraged to buy-in, some existing boaters would be priced out and sell their boats. The overall change would be to make the amount a boater pays relate somewhat more closely to the amount they "use" the canals It is not even necessarily the case that following a change to the NAA, licence and mooring fees could be re-jigged such that CRT could expect to receive their current combined income. e.g. if continually increasing licence fees chases more and more boaters into marinas. That's why I suggest that predicting what would happen is a mug's game. You would expect things to settle down, but what that would mean for the number of boats using the system, where they would choose to moor, how much they would each have to pay for mooring and "using the canals" and what CRT's finances would look like is highly unpredictable.

I did not think that s.8 removal would generate a cash income for CRT to spend on infrastructure maintenance in the public interest. Rather I was imagining maintenance of the waterway for navigation by removal of sunk, abandoned, etc, boats. My suggestion was that disproportionate action might tip over into an infringement of Article 1, where there was a disparity of incurred cost versus the value of the boat. A de-facto forfeit of property which s.8 does not intend. I presume that if Ravenscroft wins on the issue of main navigable channel, the court will not have to consider the proportionality of the s.8 action?

I would suggest that estimating what the comparative revenues would be is a mug's game. Apart from obtaining the figure on boat numbers, you would have to make rather sweeping assumptions about what boat owners would chose to do, if the rules were changed. e.g. would it necessarily be the case that a boat which moored in a marina, but only used the canal occasionaly, would have to pay for a full, annual licence. The question really is whether charging by use, rather than a flat rate* is a more equitable way of extracting the necessary readies from canal users? Even if it generates less total revenue and requires CRT to get more cash from elsewhere? I can see arguments for and against, but the difficulty, always, is defining "use". *OK, it's based on length of boat, but isn't that in itself, quite arbitrary?

Whether the issuing of an s.8 notice and subsequent seizure of a boat is proportionate, in the circumstances, is not necessarily a question of infringement of Article 1. In consideration of that, the question of proportionality would be a different one, namely; that of whether the seizure was proportionate to the maintenance of the waterway in the public interest. It could be that in a particular case, the seizure of a boat was disproportionate in its effect and consequences for the boat's owner, while being proportionate to the maintaining of the general or public interest, or indeed, vice-versa. You have to keep the two tests of proportionality quite separate. But I agree that in general, the fact that s.8 can deprive someone of their property means that you have to consider whether a Convention right could be infringed. So the first thing to look at is whether s.8 itself is compatible with Article 1. Article 1 does not confer the absolute right to own and enjoy property and s.8 is not intended to permanently deprive someone of their property. In principle it allows a boat to be seized and removed from the waterway, but that the boat owner becomes liable for the consequential costs. Where the owner pays those costs and can satisfy CRT that he is the rightful owner of the boat, he can retrieve it. Given the fairly wide appreciation the ECtHR gives to states to make laws where there is a general or public interest, it would seem unlikely that s.8 itself would be found to be incompatible with Article 1. Loss of property may arise where an owner cannot pay the consequential costs of removal of the boat, so you would have to turn your attention to a particular case to see whether each test of proportionality had been met. Where CRT deliberately choose to incur high costs in removal and storage of a seized boat, there would be a case to be made that their actions were disproportionate in their effect and maybe made it unavoidable that the property would be lost - e.g. where those costs approached or exceeded the value of the boat. You may also be able to make a case that by incurring a disproportionate cost, CRT had used the process of s.8 to effectively impose a punitive charge on the boat's owner and that Article 6 had been infringed.

CRT owns something valuable - the right to allow a marina to be connected to its waterway - and I defend CRT in charging for that, just as I defend and encourage them to generate income from the other assets they own, as it contributes to the upkeep and improvement of the system. I appreciate that paying for the upkeep of the system my not be uppermost in the priorities of boat owners who don't use the canals, but if they moor in a marina which has an NAA they are making a conscious choice to do just that. I really can't explain why a boat owner who is so vehemently opposed to paying anything to CRT because they don't actually use the canals would make that choice, but to suggest that it's all a plot, supported by canal users to get others to subsidise their boating, is ridiculous. If you don't want to pay CRT for something you don't actually use or need, take your boat elsewhere. It really is that simple. On the other hand, I recently bought a huge toolkit and then realised that although it cost me £££ I have no use or need for most of the tools in it. I thought that was just my stupid mistake, but now I see it was actually a cunning plot by DIY geeks to get me to subsidise their home improvements. The b*****s!

If the marina were landlocked, there would be no question of CRT being able to stipulate that boats moored there had to be licensed, but for boats to use the canal it would require cranage and/or other means to move them to and fro, which would be somewhat costly and rather inconvenient. You are paying for a boat licence, but what you are actually purchasing is the ability to use that convenient connection along with use of the canal network itself. How much use you actually make of those things is up to you. It's very unfair to describe people who use their boat on the canals more than you do as "takers" and that they want others (you) to subsidise them. You could keep your boat in a place where it does not require a licence and transport it to the canal and just obtain a short term licence if/when you wanted to go boating. Perhaps you don't do that because it's more convenient (and maybe even overall cheaper) for you to moor in a connected marina? If that's the case, at least recognise it's that convenience that you are paying for through the boat licence and that choice is yours.

The HRA makes it unlawful for a public body to act in a way which infringes a persons rights under the ECHR. So is CRT a public body or not? In some respects it must be, as it carries out the statutory functions of a navigation authority, on behalf of the state. In other respects it acts as a private company and in yet other respects, as a charitable organisation. Article 1 (of Protocol 1) of the ECHR concerns the right of the individual, versus the state, to own and enjoy property without hindrance, e.g. arbitrary confiscation. It is not an absolute right. The state can deprive someone of ownership or use of their property where necessary in the general interest and specifically to secure the payment of taxes, contributions or penalties. If an agent of the state deprived someone of their property, it would prima facie be an infringement of that person's Convention right and it would be justiciable under the HRA. If a private company or an individual deprived someone of their property, it would prima facie be theft. In what respects to you think CRT should be considering their actions under Article 1?

I did the Walsall earlier in October and it was fine. Certainly uncluttered by boats. I passed a couple of hire boats on the Curley Wurley, but that was it. Enjoyed mooring at Walsall. Apart from the spiffy gallery, very handy for exploring other Black Country spots on the bus. Coming down the Walsall flight (I was hopping about and shinning down the ladders, being single-handed) a chap rushed up to ask if he could photograph my boat. He said although he'd been cycling along the towpath by the locks for more than 10 years, mine was the only boat he'd ever seen using them and wanted to capture the rare moment. I suggested he got my handbrake turn into the Town Arm on film, too. Ryders Green wasn't too bad. I had done that part of the Walsall in the other direction a couple of years ago and things had improved since then. Only collected one propfull of mixed flex and overalls in the bottom lock. I wouldn't hesitate to return, but shame I won't be nearby for the Spring Cruise.

It depends on the "rights". e.g. the Data Protection Act says that your personal data cannot be disclosed without your consent. It follows that you can consent to your data being disclosed, thus "signing away" your rights. You probably do this regularly, by ticking a box labelled "I have read and agree to the terms...". Lots of other so-called "rights" are not absolute, but are qualified with terms such as "reasonable", necessary", "practicable" and so on. The Gas Safety Certification is not a particularly good example of statutory "rights", rather it is a statutory "duty" placed on landlords. The courts would argue that a landlord making certification by the tennant a condition of the tennancy, had not complied with their statutory duty. That the owner of "Planet" failed to get an injunction against the sale of the vessel does not read across to a statement such as; "crt can add terms and conditions that override statutory law". Unless the judge actually said that (and we wait to see whether he did) you would have to conclude, simply, that he found there was nothing in law which prevents CRT selling the vessel in the way they intend and that the owners rights do not extend to restricting CRT from doing so.

You want some thermal sealing tape, mentioned in #45, to seat the new glass into the recess in the door. It's possible some other material has been used to seal the old glass in your door, but as you say, it goes brittle and that may be one reason why your glass has cracked. The tape makes more of a cushioned seal. You just buy the required length to cut to size. Lay it in the recess, place the glass on top then the clips will squash the glass against the tape, forming a seal. Your stove door looks similar to mine, so you may then need to trim any excess tape from the outer side of the door. I would imagine any place selling the glass would almost certainly sell you some suitable tape. Check what width of recess your door has, so you know what width of tape to look for.

When you pick up the replacement glass, you should ask for the thermal sealing tape. It goes between the glass and the door to make a tight seal.

I do understand that during charging of batterie/banks in parallel, providing the voltage is regulated all the batteries/banks will charge by drawing current according to their internal resistance. So a single alternator/split charging set up, where two banks of batteries are connected together in parallel during charging isn't detrimental to the batteries. But, batteries with different internal resistances and/or at different states of charge will become charged at different rates. So when charging stops, for whatever reason, they may have different states of charge at that point. Connecting two such banks of batteries together while there is no charging current will mean some current will flow between the banks discharging one, charging the other and wasting some energy in the process. Discharging a fully charged starter battery into a less than fully charged bank of domestic batteries probably isn't what you would want. That's why the split charge relay or diode only connects the two banks together during charging. So, while there should be no problem of paralleling-up batteries of different ages/types during charging, there are reasons why it might not be optimal to have them connected permanently in the same battery bank. But they are second order considerations and it's not battery killer. Redundancy. A single failed alternator won't cripple the boat. Reliability. With separate charging sources, a failed cell in one or other battery bank won't stop the other from charging. Simplicity. Keeping the banks permanently isolated instead of relying on a split charge relay, diode or switch.

Please could you elaborate on that point? In what way(s) do the charging requirements for a Trojan battery differ from the charging requirements for other lead acid batteries?

Having seen the deal flagged-up here I went to purchase and found it very confusing to determine whether the deal was half price or not. So I called EE and they confirmed it was £14.50 until cancelled. They must have had similar confusions in billing that Edders found because having gone ahead and purchased online with the discount, I was called by EE sales and talked through the entire process where the sales rep emphasised that although the billing may show £29/month, this was before the discount and I would actually only be paying £14.50.

On the other hand where footpaths/bridleways cross the railway, users have to be given adequate warning of approaching trains to able them to cross safely. Where line of sight and speed of trains is not sufficient that means provision of warning lights, audible warnings or telephones to call the signalman to get permission to cross. Also, footpath/bridleway crossings are protected by gates or stiles and have warning signs and instruction notices posted. There aren't many pedestrian road crossings (as opposed to signalled pedestrian crossings) which would meet those standards.

So that would be "no", then?

Have CaRT actually said that the reason there is no sign is because of the cost?