stovepipe
-
Posts
27 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by stovepipe
-
-
Its a bit unfair when no one is sure what the legislation actually intended without funding a judicial review, why should ordinary people have to fork out for this to prevent being taken for a ride by a ( partly) public body ?
Crowd fund a judicial review ASAP and settle this once and for all, if they are permitted to create a licence contract they can then get on with it, while I sell my boat, because living on a boat would become a very expensive and micro managed chore.
-
A canal, or a river navigation, is not in itself a 'service' or a 'facility', but the USE of them by "any ship or boat" is defined as such by the 1962 Act.
It is important to note that only 'use' is so defined, and to 'keep' a boat on a canal or river navigation is NOT included as utilizing a 'service' or 'facility'.
Seems definitive enough to me, and certainly doesn't require any 'interpreting' in a attempt to make it appear to mean something different !
I cant read these acts without getting a headache, they read like Stanley Unwin wrote them to me.
Yes that's all accepted, the problem is CRTs interpretation of the applicability of the 1962 Act (when it comes to imposing charges such as the £25 overstay fee, or the terms and conditions of a licence) differs so wildly from yours. I believe CRT sought expert legal advice on this, why if its so wrong, was this type of advice given to them?
Who did they get this advice from ?
Their own legal team ?
-
What he said ^
-
What do you mean "correct interpretation has not been settled"?
Anyway, regarding its factual accuracy, here is the legislation:
"Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the Boards shall have power to demand, take and recover such charges for their services and facilities, and to make use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit."
I know I've read it. So what ?
There is a difference of opinion on what it means, the C&RT say it is a stand alone clause that allows then to do anything they want, others don't agree. I've read Nigels detailed explanation of it's context on here before, I think you have too, I can't add anything to that.
-
The difference between commercial craft annual licences and tolls, was significant - £25 as opposed to an average annual toll income of £150 per boat.
The difference in income from pleasure boats is unclear; the advantage to both parties would have been administrative more than financial I suspect. In 1964 the average combined licence and mooring income for a pleasure boat was £7.30. You could use that to pass through the river locks free of toll, or you could use a 6 month lock-pass, or pay as you went. It was proposed to reduce the lock pass by 10% and increase the lock charge by the same, but I don’t know whether they implemented that, nor do I know what the comparison between those and the licence would have been.
The best I can figure from memory, is that BW estimated an increase of income on the rivers of a bit over £3,000 per annum once the 1971 registration scheme became law, so in that respect the cost would have been disadvantageous to boaters limiting their use to the rivers.
Anyway – to answer your following query, any voluntary, non-statutory licence scheme would not, by definition have to have ANY statutory underpinning; consequently s.43 still would not enter into it.
There is nothing other than fear of public outrage to stop CaRT tripling the existing licence fee; the statutory provisions allow them to charge what they like for these, and the only constraint is that the PBC cannot be charged more than 60% of the PBL.
Could they now, offer an alternative, non-statutory licence at a cheaper price but subject to agreed conditions? My immediate reaction is to say no; they could not dispense with a licence once made mandatory – but I will not commit myself on that just yet; it is an interesting concept.
What they can do, is create different classes of pleasure boat licences, and the only constraint re: costs is that they cannot be greater than the standard, so, just maybe, your intriguing idea has possibilities.
It sounds like a public body deciding to privatise itself, basically mugging off Parliament, challenges to the power of Parliament don't usually go well ?
Many interviews without coffee at the house of commons for Richard Parry I would think ?
-
I can't see why you decided to introduce a ridiculous "must buy sandwiches for the police" argument into the debate. I'm sorry you can't see the link, I will explain it. The 1962 Act allows CRT to charge for services, and set terms and conditions on them. As well as these extra services, CRT have an overall role as a navigation authority. In a similar analogy, the police have an overall role as law enforcement, but their role extends beyond this, one of these areas is that they provide services eg presence of football match days.
"The 1962 Act allows CRT to charge for services, and set terms and conditions on them."
That is not a fact, the correct interpretation of section 43 (3) 1962 TA has not been settled.
-
A contract that claims to override the law is null and void whether agreed to or not.I don't get it.
I note that someone said they refused to accept the Terms & Conditions of their licence when they last renewed, however isn't there an "implied consent" once you have accepted the licence, no matter what was said previously?
Quote
"An illegal agreement, under the common law of contract, is one that the courts will not enforce because the purpose of the agreement is to achieve an illegal end. "
-
In your police analogy, let's take another example: Police provide their services to football clubs on match days, should this be provided free, or the football clubs charged for it?
I can't see the link to that question, its a specific question about policing, the police like C&RT should do whatever they see fit within the law. The T&C's document is illegal as would be the police attempting to create their own laws by tricking you into signing a civil contract.
-
There are only three statutory conditions for a licence, anything else is fiction. What you can and can't do on the canals is governed by bylaws.
Imagine the police commissioner asking you to sign a contract to abide by the law, but in there are some he has just made up. " you must buy sandwiches for police officers when asked to do so " you would not sign it, I hope ?
-
I don't get it.
There are people on here implying, but not proving, that the licencing system we have now is illegal. So how do they think the system is to be funded if no-one pays the licence?
I note that someone said they refused to accept the Terms & Conditions of their licence when they last renewed, however isn't there an "implied consent" once you have accepted the licence, no matter what was said previously?
You're right, you dont get it.
-
If anyone thinks its not illegal please set out your reasons.
-
How do you tell if they are being overcharged ?
-
I didnt agree to the terms and conditions on my last licence renewal anyway, I made it very clear at the time, which sent the customer services phone operator into meltdown, but nothing has happened yet, the universe hasn't imploded, I'm guessing they just ticked the box anyway.
-
Agreed, the consultation process would slow it down – but enough?
The “abolish all private rights” clause survived it’s first passage through the Commons and subsequently through the Lords, only being dropped in the fourth year. That was despite considerable MP support for and engagement with, the boaters and their organisations in opposing the clause.
How much stomach do present day boaters and their organisations have, to work as hard to preserve their position? Not much, I fear. Add to that a groundswell of dissatisfaction within the boating community itself, over those perceived as causing problems, and the liklihood of sustained action seems unlikely.
Consider just how fast the 2012 Transition Order was pushed through, despite the consultations – and look at how very few consultation responses were received from boating organisations or individuals. There was so much at fault in that Bill that needed highlighting and redrafting, and yet only a couple of people took the time to make any protest; canvas the politicians, and meet with the law-makers in Parliament.
The result is what we see today: a system being run into the ground because the new legislation allows CaRT to do so; an executive immune from parliamentary censure so long as they keep their balance books tidy, and a legal and enforcement division enabled to ride rough-shod over their clientele to no financial profit but rather loss, and resulting in neither better administration nor benefit to the system.
The 2012 Order was shoved through the Parliamentary process in full and open recognition that the system would deteriorate for years as a result, and with complete understanding that abuse of legal process would run unchecked, and unmonitored by any government branch. Parliament has left it to individual members of the public to now bring the company to account, while simultaneously removing essential tools formerly provided for that purpose.
But CaRT would not pursue a new Act now, even if they could promote such - which they cannot [leaving one thankful for such small mercies]; they have realised from their BW days, since experiencing the traumas of the 1990 Bill, that they have no need of legislation when they can run their own unilaterally devised programs - relying on boaters to rise in arms against other boaters in support of the authority. Now that the company basks under the glow of charitable status, the moral superiority of the customer demand that 'everyone pay their way' over-rides every other concern.
It is all a bit Animal Farm somehow. The upshot being that BW/CaRT know they can do as they wish, without the need for a new Act. Had they thought otherwise, they would have acted accordingly many years ago, and promoted new legislation [as their barrister muttered darkly to the Select Committee, back in 1993].
But the C&RT are basing much of what they want to do on conning boaters that they have a contract with them, you won't hear any mention of the actual law now from any C&RT employees it seems they have all been breifed to promote the contract idea. Enforcement officers only talk of breaking the terms and conditions, and renewing a licence by phone you will be told your licence is issued under the 1962 transport act, this is like a house of cards, the minute this is challenged in court the whole thing will collapse, what are they going to do then ?
-
The 1962 Act was never repealed, thus it remains a relevant law that we must abide by. Is your interpretation that its nonsense based on the fact that you don't like it or a legal principle?
I didn't say the 1962 TA was nonsense.
-
I should have said "mandatory licences" my mistake. Or "licences as we know them" ?
Were the voluntary licences subject to statututory conditions like the ones we have now ?
-
Do you actually know what's wrong with what I posted Graham ? Or do you just feel it can't be true ?
Or do you wish it wasn't true ?
-
I went cruising last weekend, but I didn't really want to, but the wife insisted, I now feel guilty that I was not bona fide cruising, my heart wasn't in it and I wanted to watch the footy instead. I may have to attend confession with my local enforcement officer, I feel dirty now.
-
I miss the smell of freshly creosoted fences, a feature of my youth in the summer.
-
An illegal bribe which many CCers (and home moorers) seem happy to keep paying.
Wasn't there someone who was going to challenge the legality of it all? With the hope of a refund over all the years they've paid out?
Yes it probably a good idea for those who don't want to cruise in winter, we can't afford it, but its still illegal even if you did agree to it, it would be a civil contract, which being based on illegality would be null and void, and should be refunded. The C&RT should have refused to do it until the law was in place to allow it, like any sensible organisation would. In theory they would have to repay every winter mooring fee from day one, that's the down side of acting unlawfully, just like tax fraud for instance, the HMRC won't let you off because it was long ago, or you thought what you did was legal. Claiming everyone has "accepted" the idea doesn't make it legal either.
-
I have a temporary electrical system running while I refit my boat, just two 6v Trojan batteries coupled to a 120 w solar, and a cheap controller, there is a sound like a hungry stomach coming off the batteries sometimes, the controller states 14.0 volts, 2.8 amps today, which is bright but overcast. I only charge my tablet, phone, and run one led lamp, and a radio off it. Could I be "boiling" the batteries with just one solar panel ?
-
I think many problems would dissapear if C&RT were brought before Parliament and given a slapping down. Possibly installing proper independent oversight of their statutory functions, and getting a judicial panel to define the true meaning of the legislation especially the parts that C&RT are obviously lying about. I don't think its fair that boaters will have to fund multiple judicial reviews because the C&RT are deliberately taking the pee out of the legislation.
For instance claiming that the 1962 transport act allows them to make their own licence conditions, when licences were not invented until 1974 ! Why should boaters have to fund challenges to pure nonsense like that ?
-
I'm on th EE 50 GB a month offer, I haven't been able to use it all yet, I'm loving it.
-
Paying a bribe so that the trust overlooks the law, naughty naughty !
Totally illegal.
Just throwing that cat in amounst the pigeons !
Boater Sues C&RT for Section 8
in General Boating
Posted
http://www.lpc-law.co.uk/news/latest-news/2016/september/further-guidance-on-mckenzie-friends/