Muddy Ditch Rich

I have no idea to be honest. The bylaws state “master” means the person having for the time being the command, charge or management of a pleasure boat or commercial vessel" But the licence application is made by the owner of the vessel.

Naturally you would have to fight it , but CRT has refused perfectly valid licence applications in the past, they had to fight for theirs too. It depends on whether my previous argument holds water in court.

The various waterways legislation only applies to the " master of the vessel" ie the owner, which in this case is not the Tennant but the land lord. The land lord could obtain an agreement from the Tennant to abide by the relevant laws, which might stand as a satisfactory compliance with the relevant law.

Its a discussion not a competition.

CRT cannot impose conditions on mandatory licences ( not houseboat certificates ) without the consent of parliment. Right or wrong ?

Where is the legislation that permits CRT to set their own mandatory terms and conditions for sub categories of pleasure boat licences ?

Section 4 of that act states that part 2 only applies to the river waterways listed in the relevant schedule . I missed that one before as well. Though not relevant here, It also states that no sub classification can exceed the price of a pleasure boat licence.

you must be using CaRTs 'make it up as you go law generator'

You called ? Is it a mandatory statutory licence or a voluntary civil contract ?

Its not statutory, but is part of an act of parliment, a statute ? How does that work ? Like I said, I don't know what legislation limits the time those with a home mooring can moor whilst away from their mooring, and no one has yet come up with any. I would be very grateful if they would.

You don't know either then.

No I am arguing that what you cited is a CRT fiction and is not either statute or bylaw and therefore irrelevant. I don't know if permission needs to be granted , please link to the relevant legislation that says no one can moor without permission or unless they have declared to have no home mooring .

If you actually knew what they were you would have cited them.

There would have to be specific legislation authorizing long term moorings on the towpath I think, on the principle that an organisation like CRT can only do what they are specifically permitted to do by law, while an individual can do anything except what is not permitted by law. I believe the law states that if there is any doubt about the legislation there must be a bias toward the public good in the interpretation. Despite what CRT seem to think the change to a trust didn't hand over the waterways to them as private property, they are still public property. That doesn't prove that the moorings are lawful, just that they exist.

Yeah, but what you cited at 2.1 is from a fictional document, it has no relevance to anything.

Can CRT "lease" the towpath ? I doubt it ?

3 mm wont last long enough make the welding labour cost, cost effective. You don't over plate from the inside. Any over plate on the underwater hull will be the same as more ballast making the boat more stable not less.

Like you say there is no mooring time limit for boats with moorings . The legislation is completely clear and cant be reinterpreted on that. I would think it would be an impossible task to convince boaters of that now though, the lie has been accepted for so long. Either (i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or (ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances. Don't get what you mean by " permission" in your last paragraph though Alan, permission to do what ?

Moorings time limits on the towpath under 14 days are not lawful, irrespective of whether they are a good idea or not, the 14 day time limit is statutory, ie the law, there is absolutely nothing CaRT can do about that except petition parliment to change the law. Even IF the licence was a civil contract that you agreed to, no contract term can ( normally) override the law, any such term is void, and no one is bound by such a unlawful term. The reduced time limits are therefore purely voluntary. CRT are fully aware of this and do not pursue any further action if you "overstay" at these moorings, they may attempt to charge you but the charge is in legal terms a fine which is illegal, and they know this as well, and do not enforce any of these fines if you refuse to pay them, which you should rightly do.

Seeing as the Trust is presently fighting two major court cases both based on their possibly criminal enforcement behaviour, and spent the last four ? years fighting a boater in court to falsely claim they were not aware of the faults that sank his boat, they are falsely claiming that the licence is a civil contact, refusing to issue statutory licences unless the applicant agrees to sign away their statutory rights, falsely claiming that the 1962 Transport act applies to licences 12 ? years before licences were invented, deliberately misquoting that act so that it changes the meaning, attempting to implement illegal fines, charging for towpath moorings and winter moorings in breach of the law, advertising trading licences as mandatory when there is fact no legal requirement for any such thing, charging extra for it which is fraud by misrepresentation, their enforcement officers have been caught lying about the legislation, and making false statements to the court about holding boats as a lein over licence fee debts, they corrupted the ombudsman scheme by appointing him themselves without any due process, using contractors to remove section 8 boats as far away from the owners as possible to try to bankrupt the owner with costs ect ect... Other wise they are doing well.