Muddy Ditch Rich

In essence CaRT's enforcement process backed by the legal dept is a criminal extortion scheme.

Nope.

Put the stuff on Gumtree, no postage required.

Water capacity makes no difference, the thermostat blocks the outgoing flow of water from the engine until it reaches the correct tempreture. For instance a raw water cooled engine's coolant " capacity" is the entire canal.

Only a breach of bylaw if you obstruct the towpath, or use your boat as a clubhouse, shop, store, workshop, dwelling or houseboat without the permission of CaRT. Its only if you are selling as part of a business that CaRT will attempt to illegally, and fraudulently demand that you obtain a trading licence, you are not obliged to as there is no legislation that requires you to. CaRT have been asked to provide any such legislation and they cannot.

Thermostat.

The Trust has deliberately evaded answering the question of the legality of their claim that they can remove boats from the waterway for breach of their own terms or conditions. Which quite obviously means they have no such power. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/powers_under_the_1983_bw_act#incoming-972353

There is no reason why not. If the plumbing is right and you don't feed hot water between the two engines.

Its not strange at all, as there is no practical need to display a licence anymore, only a number, all CaRT's data gathering is digital. CaRT have told people that they don't need to display the licence, then changed their mind so no one is now sure what to do.

Its been pointed out loads of times but boaters continue to wave away their statutory rights. You deserve what you get if you now agree to it without protest.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha !!

Lie no. 1. methinks ?

Leaving open as a rule may inspire CaRT to fix the leaks rather than force boaters to cover for their lack of maintenance ? Now I'm dreaming !

Since closing gates was introduced by BW as an emergency measure to conserve water when the system was derelict and they had no intention of wasting any more money on it, CaRT cannot now claim both that it is well maintained and it is still necessary to close all gates. While it makes little difference to those with multiple crew members, traveling single handed a 60 or 70 ft boat becomes exasperating if you have to stop and return to the lock to close both gates of wide locks. ( narrow gates can be strapped shut so don't really apply to this discussion) That is very hard to justify when you realise its often for no reason, then as you leave you may see the gates swing back open anyway.

We already know what the Trust will say, they will just parrot " to conserve water". It is futile to ask them anything about boating or working locks, anyone who knew anything about such things left long ago when BW made their jobs impossible by their overbearing management.

Your impression must be wrong, the state of locks you arrive at can only be random. Those that shut gates are in fact the most selfish boaters, they are denying everyone the chance of a lock in their favor. They then get angry at other boaters trying to work locks correctly, and save them time and effort. Then they point to advise in a CaRT booklet written by people in an office block in Milton Keynes that have no knowledge of boating whatsoever.

some time No, you are assuming CaRT have a genuine reason to give that advice, and you are assuming anyone from CaRT knows anything about the subject. I admire your faith.

You have the wrong impression of what is being said then, no one is arguing that you should not be polite, or considerate.

Personally I see a charitable trust deliberately misrepresenting the law as quite serious . You would expect the trustees at least to act, I have written to the chairman of the trustees Alan Leighton, he is not interested.

Which is correct. No one is required by law to close gates. There are bylaws regarding the use of locks but nothing about closing gates because this was not originally standard practice. 1965 General canal bylaws Operation of locks 24. Any person operating a lock which is not operated by the Board’s staff shall do so in accordance with the following procedure:- (1) The gates and the sluices astern of a vessel in such a lock shall be closed before the sluices and the gates ahead of such vessel are opened. (2) When a lock which has a side pound is being filled the upper sluice of such lock shall not be opened or drawn until as much water as possible has been drawn from the side pound and the sluices thereof have been closed. (3) When a lock with a side pound is being emptied the lower sluices of such lock shall not be opened or drawn until as much water as possible has been drawn into the side pound and the sluices thereof have been closed. (4) Where one lock acts as a side pound to another lock every vessel passing up shall use and enter the lock with the less water in it and every vessel passing down shall use and enter the lock with the more water in it and such lock shall be operated as though the adjacent and unoccupied lock were a side pound to the lock through which the vessel is passing. Operation of locks 25. No person shall: (a) Open or close or attempt to open or close the gate of any lock except by the means provided for that purpose or before the water is level on both sides of the gate. (b) Draw or operate any sluices until the lock-gates are closed. (c) Operate or leave open any sluice so as to waste water. (d) Operate any sluice otherwise than by means of the handle or other device normally used for that purpose. (e) Fill or empty any lock of water for the admission of any vessel to the lock when there is another vessel approaching the lock from the opposite direction and within two hundred yards thereof and the level of the water in the lock is suitable for such approaching vessel to enter the lock. (f) Cause or allow any vessel to remain in a lock longer than is necessary for the convenient passage thereof.

Lots of issues are fought for on principle aren't they , before they turn into major problems ? In principle if further terms were added to the already unlawful ones you would have to explain to a court why you kept agreeing to it year after year in full knowledge that it was unlawful but have now changed your mind ? Do you think that by ignoring it it will go away, or the contract terms will never change ? The fact that CaRT is lying to you and illegally demanding agreement to this contract makes it obvious that they are not to be trusted. Every time someone agrees to it without dispute it gives CaRT the green light to pursue a false idea that the licence is a contract, something they are determined to push ahead with. Remember that a contractual licence can be cancelled at any time without notice, for any reason. If you don't fight for your statutory rights now it will be very difficult and expensive to defend yourself in court to get your licence back. The section 8 process has been engineered by Shoosmiths to attempt to exclude you from even speaking in court.

As has been said 101 times before, Its not selfish leaving open as a general rule it is in fact based on consideration for others, which was worked out long ago by the boat people as the best way to work locks for everyone, they knew what they were doing, and this was only changed by BW post the canal carrying era to put the responsibility of leaks on boaters and not themselves when the system was in decline, which according to CRT is no longer the case. Most of the time you will be closing gates where there are no leaks or water shortages just to force someone else to open them, wasting both yours, and their time, ensuring that noone ever arrives at a lock in their favour. Where there are leaks those locks and pounds should be exceptions to the leaving open rule until they are repaired.

Please do. As there is a FOI request reply by CaRT legal department stating they have no knowledge of such a thing.

Well done sparky.