Alf Roberts

I totally agree, on this reading of the facts. My guess is that the owner will now need to take CRT to the County Court to regain his boat plus damages and costs.

in your dreams

he's right. the first step towards a judicial review would be going through the CRT complaints procedure up to the 'ombudsman' - puppet though he is. only after the internal procedures are exhausted can the judicial review be started. I understand that it will be necessary for someone to fall foul of the new terms and conditions before this is possible (NBTA case) but in order to allow enough time an injunction will probably be needed ( Nigel Moore) to halt the section 8 process while this happens.

if it is the case that CRT are claiming the navigation channel goes from bank to bank that is, to me, an important claim that should be justified as it certainly isn't the case on the river navigations I am aware of. does anyone know how it is determined on this part of the Trent? I am glad Tony has stopped teasing the self-righteous and laid down a few of the facts in the case. it is a shame the protagonist in the video is making such a fool of himself but the fact remains that CRT are continually trying to bend the law and, in the absence of any true accountability, public scrutiny is the only way. if Tony has any future information about this case, eg whether the owner takes CRT to court, I would be interested in following it. the owner vs CRT, instigated by the owner for the illegal seizure of his boat.

If he's Basic Boat, they'll pay for the salvage, they won't pay for any restitution. What he needs to do is get a whopping invoice from the salvers and get that met by the insurers. He can then use that to fund the refit. It's vital he gets his ducks in a row before talking to them.

Well, actually, we have a huge area of agreement. We all - that's every single one of us - want the canal system to work and maintenance doing and catching up with. Once we get started on that I think we'd find our differences were pretty small in the scheme of things. It is my firm opinion that CRT and lapdog IWA are the ones whipping up division. Answer one question: when you go out boating do you really see a bunch of people who can't agree with each other? Because I don't recognise that. With very few exceptions boaters I meet on the canal get on with each other.

Now that Lawrence is addressing CRT in suitable god-like terms ( though the ' are thy' in the thread title should really be ' art thou' ) perhaps our prayers will be answered and we will have the answer to the question "how do get CRT to listen" - get on your knees and pray.

I don't agree with this. The thing that is obvious from this forum is that there is a diversity of opinion and that none of those opinions is likely to disappear. So we would have to get on with it.

again not so. 7b is an BSS ( standards) holiday for older boats.

your 2. it does say that the only criteria for refusal to license is those conditions ie if those conditions are met a licence must be issued 'they may refuse if not these conditions' to paraphrase my guess is that the board has decided to be hard to satisfy ( insert sexist joke of choice)

as a solution? proportionate? sensible?

the new terms and conditions will certainly make sure that can't happen again.

why thank you very much, I shall go and sharpen my axe although my point remains ; CRT say 'do this' 'don't do that' but nowhere do they point to 'reasonable in the circumstances' which to me covers flooding, ice and broken legs. though I'll go a catch a bus in South London if you like and ask around.

yes, David, I know it's in the Act. though thank you very much for quoting it, but that's not what I said is it?

there is. it's called Section 8 ( yes, that section 8 ) drafted to deal with exactly this. it was never intended as an enforcement tool it was intended to provide a route to firstly get the owner to deal with and secondly to enable CRT to deal with 'sunk, stranded or abandoned boats' if the owner failed to. That it is now used as an eviction tool rather than the original intention is, to borrow Nigel's phrase, perverse. incidentally, all marine insurances contain a salvage provision as this is intrinsically 'third party'.

because they have to give 28 days notice to the owner? by law oh, I see, CRT don't do law any more I understand that they can move it if it's causing an obstruction - which, obviously, it is - but they can't charge for that.

thank you Bassplayer. can you tell where these extended times apply please?

hi Nigel. thank you for your clarity. a hypothetical case : I have a small boat. I have mooring, valid BSS and insurance. I attempt to license it but delete the part that says ' I accept the terms and conditions '. Presumably CRT refuse to license it. What next? my theory; I send them a letter demanding that, as I meet all statutory conditions, they license the boat when they again refuse I apply for judicial review.

so what about boaters who stay in one area in term time but go on long journeys in the school holidays? a common pattern.

NABO certainly do either on the website or in their magazine. They usually obtain and publish a response from CRT if the discussion document originates from NABO. CRT don't generally publish individual consultation responses so an audit is difficult and they have been found to lie a couple of times. I don't know about the others.

of course they do. when the consultations are managed properly and they're given time - as I understand was not the case with the changes in terms and conditions. Apart from this, position papers are regularly submitted on points of issue.

How quaintly naive.; http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/pressoffice/press_index/press_20130127-2.htm http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/04/bailiffs-reined-in-thuggery-bad-practice-regulation-debt

good post