onionbargee

Take this example , the law allows an overstay when reasonable, but the terms and conditions state you must inform CRT immediatly, and possibly provide evidence, if you don't or they do not accept your evidence the overstay becomes "unauthorised" acording to CRT, and you have broken the licence conditions, in CRT speak " you will not be offered another licence". So you have a statutory right, but you still loose your licence ?

You think the 62 Act is the most relevant legislation to the T & C 's ? I don't.

No one needs to decide, it is or it isn't, the only part of the 62 transport act I know of that is relevant to boaters is section 43, the rest is mostly concerned with railways and docks, none of that is relevant to us.

I was thinking that, surely it is the 95 act, and the general bylaws that are the relevant legislation here ?

Ultimately CRT have to go to court to remove your boat, at that point there is a hearing where you have the opportunity to defend yourself, you would not need to initiate or fund legal action ? ( I have heard that Shoesmiths remove part of the court paperwork that is issued to the defendant in either a court order or section 8 case, without which no defence can be put forward.)

As far as I can see 1.3 of the T&C's is not true, or worded to confuse contract terms with statutes ? "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. Any breach of these Conditions would entitle the Trust to terminate your Licence which may result in the removal of your Boat from our Waterways. 1.3 conditions means these general terms and conditions."

Isnt the main canal network is managed by CRT, you referring to a sum total of scattered river, and unconnected navigation , most of which if actually connected, can only be reached by CRT canals, or road transport. If you can show a map of a large connected system of non CRT navigations, I will change my mind.

There would be no discussion, its take it or leave it, and CRT being a monopoly in canal terms there is no other options. What I don't understand is the relationship between legislation, and extra conditions added to it in t & c's. I have to ask what happens if a new outrageous condition is added ? There is no option for thousands of boat owners to just leave the canals, or sell up ?

Can anyone help me get a better understanding of the legal standing of the terms and conditions in the licence contract ? I know that the legislation, both statute and bylaw trumps any t & c 's, but I am not sure about the legality of extra conditions added on to statutes by CRT. For instance the t&c's require you to inform CRT "immediately" if you require to overstay, but the law does not. 1. Exactly how far can CRT add on its own interpretations, and conditions to the law ? 2. Are all the t & c's that are not a rewording of the legislstion, contract terms that if breeched would possibly end the contract ? 3. Can the cancellation of the contract prevent you from applying for another licence , or lead to CRT refusing to renew it ?

Things like this are one of the drawbacks of have the canal run by office staff, with just a skeleton staff on the ground, no one knows what needs doing until it causes a problem, whereas in olden times the local work crew would know that spot needed dredging regularly, and keep it cleared. Its a shame we can't have preventative maintainance anymore.

Balls, the army fire off hundreds of Shermully parachute flares all over the training areas, and they are not toys, they burn out long before they hit the ground. Just fire it you big Nancy !

They have Farcebook, and Twatter accounts so they already have someone doing that, on YouTube they can get away with putting out pure PR videos, that go unquestioned by the plebs.

If you sold the boat to your mate for a pound, post a court order, you would be in contempt of court if you set foot onboard it, so not a practical solution.

Proving the boaters intent would be practically impossible. There is no answer to this unless clear rules and distances are set in law. Interpretations by CRT who have no knowledge of boating will never be of much use. If the law is set in place, then intent, or bona fide navigating and such vaigue terms become irrelevant, as they should be.

Very reasonable that. It is the intention to stay as close to one place as possible that is not bona fide navigation. Having said that, this shouldn't bar boaters who want to navigate slowly, or don't have the health or capability to do 8 hr crushing days. One or two hours, say 5 miles every 14 days could be a reasonable minimum.

If the court order includes an order for the payment of costs, does the claimant ( CRT) have to pursue this if they are not paid ? Or is it the court who pursues the defendant for the payment ? Is there a time limit to costs being pursued ?

If I was the navigation authority I would be more than happy to have boats that only move the minimum required by law, in fact i would encourage it, one hours crusing per 14 days would cover that. Less wear and tear on the infrastructure equals less maintainance, and I can get more licence payers on the water with less congestion. Its a win win for me.

Speaking to a CRT man last year who told me that they no longer clean out the gate recesses on GU locks, so the gate mitres are constantly rubbed by boats however carefull you are. Getting a pair of boats breasted up into a wide lock is not garentee'd anymore.

Alternatively we could accept that a minority will want to just shuffle about, so what ? If you get a mooring you are paying to not have that agro. Owning a boat on 2000 miles of interesting and varied waterways and never moving it is never going to be a popular option. Let them shuffle I say, its their loss, as long as they don't hog visitor moorings.

Do CRT pursue the payment of owed licence fees in the section 8 process ? Do they even pursue the payment of the legal costs awarded by the court in the court order ? The section 8 process seems to be about moving as much public money over to Shoesmiths as possible ?

They need a bit of work.

Satisfy the board that they are "navigating" nothing else, which is vaigue and undefined, moving from a to b and back to a every 14 days covers that. Can an organisastion enforce its own interpretation of a bylaw ?

Having been at the protest and actually spoken to the NBTA, I think ( not 100% on this ) their concern is that the rules keep changing, and in fact are not actually the law, but an interpretation of it. As Mr Grimes put his foot in it by pointing out, its CRT's own interpretation, and the interveiwer pointed out the common sense of it that all they need to do is interpret it differently to solve the problem. Whereas my concern is more the illegality, lying, and unacountability of CRT.

A complete fantasy. That totally ignores the fact that we pay the EU the money they give to us in the first place. Unless you think the EU has a magic money tree ?

You are assuming that those unlicenced boats would all pay for a licence if caught, many are worthless old grp craft, when seized the owners abandon them, there is no large number of seized nice new narrowboats boats being sold off by the salvage company CRT uses ( name escapes me ) so the actual loss of income to CRT for 5% evasion is less than you might think. There will always be unlicenced craft on the canals, as no one can stop any craft entering the system, but the actual cost they incur to CRT individually is insignificant.