RobertBrooks

There is also the 1983 act sect.7 where a boat that is a danger " to persons...or property" can be , after a long warning process, treated as a section 8. I'm not sure if that revokes a licence, but if your boat is seized you won't need a licence anyway. There is also the fact that CaRT now consider the licence a civil contract whether you like it or not,the senior enforcement supervisor has said in writing exactly that, anyone's licence can be cancelled at any time as a breach of contract, and while that is obviously illegal the boater will still have to fund a court case to get their licence back, the last illegal revocation of a licence i know about took 120+ days to get back, and that was without any CaRT lawyers involved, just the enforcement office.

Yes goodbye to him, not me. Probably explains why there is a whole thread about him on another boating forum that we dare not mention, that is less than complimentary.

Goodbye.

Can't a thread wander where it likes ?

There are no " terms and conditions" except three statutory conditions as set out in the 1995 BW act, please don't propagate CaRT's lie that the licence comes with a contract, it doesn't, the licence is statutory, and the rules of the waterways are the bylaws, nothing else is lawful.

You don't know what I'm doing about it, I am actually doing all I can about it, I have challenged CRT via freedom of information requests, and made some progress, but now my email is blacklisted by CaRT and is rerouted to one enforcement supervisor, so now I cannot contact any member of staff directly and discuss any issues I may have, every reply is filtered and they refuse to discuss legal issues, though all my correspondence has been polite and reasonable. What you are proposing is not as easy as you make out, a proper legal challenge requires a huge amount of work, I can only be honest that I don't have the skills, funds or time to lead a crowd funded judicial review. If you don't like my posts please block them. If you don't like legal issues please do not click on them and read them.

These reduced time limits are unlawful in the first place, 14 days was set by statute in 1995, and that has not changed, if it has please link me to the amendment to the 95 act ?, so while its good of them to follow the law in the winter, I'd rather they followed it all year personally.

I doubt anyone would give up a good long term mooring then expect to find it or one like it available again in the spring. Would you ? The CaRT moorings website currently has two, yes two ,residential mooring available for the entire system.

So you condone revenue if its illegal ? Strange. Why would you be bribing a marina owner, its not illegal, no idea what your point is there. You haven't thought through that the majority of the 30 k have moorings already. CC'ers are the minority. Giving someone with a mooring another mooring would be stupid, only a person who hasn't thought that through would suggest it.

Just thought that CaRT could make boaters lives easier, and give them a bit of slack in the winter. They already admit boating is harder in the winter and offer winter moorings for that reason, though it is illegal to pay a bribe to any organisation to ignore the law, and no civil ( winter mooring ) contract can override statute, it would be wrong to get involved in a CaRT fraud, free winter moorings would be a nice goodwill gesture ?

They are just ornaments nothing else .

Don't see why anyone who doesn't want to should have to move their boats in the severe part of the winter, any chance of freezing up, or of slipping off icy lock gates should be a genuine safely risk for older or more vunerable people. Those who can't manage should be given free winter moorings.

Its obviously ridiculous to claim that Parliament would give a public body statutory powers to do anything it sees fit in 1962. Tony Blair wasn't around then.

Could CaRT argue that both the 95 and 62 acts apply to licences now, and they are just applying the legislation as best they can ?

Thank you for the work you have put into this Nigel, I think this question is extremely important for our future, proving this in court one way or another may well decide whether licences are correctly issued under statutory conditions, with statutory rights, or a constantly changing arbitrary contract drawn up by CaRT wholly in their favour.

From the picture it looks to me like I could have fixed that stne work in a hour with a diamond disc on a Stihl saw.

Email CRT and see if they will stand by what they said ? I would guess they will claim it was BW who made the statement, and nothing to do with CaRT.

How binding on them now is that " undertaking" though ? And what are the consequences now they broken that "undertaking" ?

Dry rot doesn't affect the legal basis of the house does it.

I didn't mean it impeded it, I meant the investment of tens of thousands in a boat to live on with an aim of cruising the majority of the connected waterways which are manadged by CaRT has no secure legal basis if they claim it is mandatory that you sign a contract that they claim entitles them to do anything they want under sect.43, including the first paragraph of the contract which states "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." Which in effect removes any statutory rights the boater has, if such a clause could be enforced. This only matters to a boater when things go wrong, then they find they have been living on the water with no rights, in a legal void, the only way to enforce their rights is by a legal action to challenge CaRTs interpretation of the law, something not a viable option for the average person. Compared to owning a house it is a very insecure basis to live on.

As I see it, CaRT are determined to use sect.43 as permission to do anything they want, even override the boaters statutory rights. Some where, maybe not on here, I saw a post with an official letter from CRT saying if you break any of our terms and conditions we will revoke your licence, so until such time as the intent of sect.43 has been settled boaters have no rights, or security to their boats and their homes, they are just living in a legal no mans land hoping they are not the next victim of CaRT. Why would anyone invest money in a boat under these conditions ?

Putting every word under a microscope might fall down because who ever worded it might be a twit. We could be trying to analyse nonsense.

CRT being unsatisfied with the boaters constant cruising record only entitles them to refuse a licence without a home mooring. The fact that you need no proof of identity to apply for a licence or obtain a BSS or insurance means CRT have no idea who is applying for what.

The best scenario for CaRT is that if the licence is issued under the three statutory conditions of the 1995 act, which they do acknowledge, AND Parliament has made a huge error in forgetting about the 1962 act that gives CaRT the power to do anything it wants just by writing it into an arbitrary licence contract, a very special contract mind, one that can override statute contrary to the fundamental principle of English law ! The question is what are we going to do about it ? Because CaRT don't care what we or anyone else thinks, they have no one they have to answer to, Parliament don't want to know ,nor do the charities commission, the ombudsman was appointed by CaRT, and the trustees don't answer to correspondence.

Looks like CaRT's interpretation of this section 43 has a good amount of evidence against it, Nigel is not inventing reasons why its bogus, he is pointing out facts. I can't see any evidence that CaRT's version could be true. May I point to my freedom of information request's further questions which have not been answered yet ? https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/enforcement_officers_authority_t#outgoing-596561