nicknorman
Patron
-
Posts
21,902 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
119
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by nicknorman
-
-
5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
You are absolutely correct in that C&RT cannot refuse to issue a licence if the relevant criteria are met - however, both the 1995 Act, the byleaws and the T&Cs allow for the licence to be removed if certin actions (or inactions) are taken by the boater.
You can of course immmediately re-apply for the licence and if the 1995 Act, or Bylaws, reasons for having the licenced cancelled are still evident C&RT do not need to reissue the licence.
Just for example - if C&RT are not happy that you will CC as your previous records show you don't then they do not have to renew the licence.
You say “just for example” but that is pretty much the only example. In this case as far as we know CRT have not suggested that there is a failure to move the boat adequately - although by telling the OP not to move his boat, perhaps that is their agenda? If you have a satisfactory home mooring, insurance and a BSS there is no lawful means by which CRT can refuse or revoke a licence.
-
Just now, MtB said:
No it isn't.
CRT can attach conditions to the licence if the licencee agrees to them. Which most applicants do. I certainly did when I first applied on line for a licence. I had to tick a check box agreeing to the T&Cs or no licence.
Yes I could have done it the hard way, employed a solicitor to force CRT to issue a licence under the terms of the Act only, but frankly I was happy to accept the T&Cs as I considered them reasonable. So I took the path of least resistance and ticked the box and got my licence.
As I understand it from people much cleverer than me, one cannot attach conditions to something laid down in statute. So their attempt at applying Ts and Cs is illegal and therefore void.No doubt it would have to go to court by as we know, CRT have never allowed it to go to court, they have always backed down beforehand (at the last minute, when the claimant has had the maximum expenditure on legal fees). And that surely tells you all you need to know.
.
-
3
-
-
Just now, MtB said:
Thanks!
So the next question which flows from your info is, which body made the waterways byelaws? British Waterways Board one would imagine.
So can CRT also make bylaws?
(By the way is it "byelaw" or "bylaw"?)
BW made the bylaws relating to the canals, subject to being approved by parliament. As far as I know CRT have not made any new ones and they probably can’t. They also don’t attempt to enforce the existing ones, instead they smokescreen and bluster to give the impression that they can make up whatever rules they like.
One should bear in mind that BW was a quango, whereas CRT is a private company.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:
From a legal website :
"T&Cs can be used to protect your business, but they are not automatically legally binding. As T&Cs are not signed and accepted in the same manner as traditional contracts, their enforceability is often misunderstood.
For T&Cs to be deemed legally binding, they must have been accepted by customers or clients. If a customer or client did not need to accept your business’s T&Cs prior to engaging your services, then they are not bound to them. It is vital that your T&Cs are clearly presented so no case can be made to suggest the user was not previously aware of the T&Cs. For example, if your business’s T&Cs are hidden away on a webpage that is difficult to navigate to, then users will not be expected to find it of their own accord.
The content within the T&Cs also needs to be written in a clear, concise manner avoiding technical jargon and acronyms that your customers may not otherwise understand. Content which is deemed to be too technical will have a negative impact on its enforceability".
In other words, once you've accepted them, they are legally binding. I believe that if they are "unreasonable", you can challenge them in court. I'm not sure any of CRTs can be classified as unreasonable, including the ones about not abusing their staff (however annoying some of them are).
But you miss the point. Ts and Cs apply to some contract between parties. However obtaining a canal licence is a right enshrined in statute, provided that the terms of the 1995 Act are met - which in this case as far as we know they are. A private company such as CRT cannot add their own Ts and Cs to something that is set out in law as a right.
It is a completely different scenario to, say, employing a company to carry out some work, or making a purchase from some supplier. Any such company or supplier can, more or less on a whim, decide not to supply you with the service or the goods. Or they can have whatever terms and conditions they like- and it is up to you to agree or walk away.
However CRT are required by law to issue a licence if the terms of the Act are met. That is the end of it.
-
I would say this is one of the worst threads in recent times. So many people so desperate to pitch in their tuppence worth of judgement. It’s quite sad, though unfortunately not at all unexpected.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, PeterF said:
Section 10.16 of the current licensing T&Cs.
10.16. You will not behave in a way that causes Our employees or representatives to fear violence or feel harassed or distressed. This includes verbal abuse or threats. It includes harassment, aggressive behaviour, or physical assault. If others on your Boat behave this way, we may take action against Your Licence.
Bylaws are … laws! And therefore can be enforced in a court and have consequences. Ts and Cs are a recent CRT invention and have absolutely no clout outside CRT’s inflated sense of their own ego.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, junior said:
Only if you believe that force was absolutely necessary to protect yourself from harm, I.e you couldn't walk away etc...
I'd put it to you that if you got off your boat to go and have it out with somebody, then it wasn't absolutely necessary. Unless of course the bridge keeper got onto your boat and this '50/50' happened on your boat.
However none of that is relevant to the issue at hand. None of us is empowered to be judge and jury to circumstances that we don’t actually have any solid evidence for.Even if the OP was “guilty” of being a bad person and causing the strife, that does not empower CRT to suspend or revoke his licence. It would be a police matter. They are trying to act outside their powers.
Do the ends justify the means? I would say not,
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:
I suggest you need to take a dozen steps backwards!
It appears from what you have said that a bridge keeper verbally assaulted (shouted at) you so you stopped your boat, tied it up, and then approached and assaulted that member of staff. I would also suggest that if that member of staff assaulted you once you were on the land that he was defending himself against someone approaching him "with intent".
You need to be apologising, and looking to your own anger management.
Then how come people are regularly prosecuted for Breach of Contract for breaking the T & C's of numerous contracts?Sorry I may not have been clear. Since the licence is a statutory right, any Ts and Cs are simply fraudulent and therefore not enforceable.
In some other transaction that is a contract, of course Ts and Cs can apply and if you breach them you are in breach of contract and the contract may become null and void. I would just say that a breach of contract is something that you can be sued for, not prosecuted for. The latter is for a breach of the law, not a breach of contract.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, David Mack said:
But if you 'voluntarily' tick the box saying you agree to the Ts and Cs, does that mean that both you (and CRT) are thereafter bound by those Ts and Cs, notwithstanding that CRT had no right to insist on them?
I would say no. Ts and Cs apply to contracts. They don’t apply to statute. And it you can’t get your statutory rights without ticking some superfluous box then those Ts and Cs have no value.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, MtB said:
Of course there is. It goes on for pages on end.
There is only 'no contract' if you are one of the Awkward Squad who goes out of their way to avoid entering into it. It would be more accurate to say there are generally no consequences to breaching the terms of the contract.
But I think if CRT were so minded, they could sue a boater for expenses incurred in enforcing a term a boater persistently breaches, e.g. sending an employee to tell the boater to turn the generator off after 8.00pm, repeatedly. The fact they don't do it doesn't mean they can't do it.
Well, CRT want you to think that, of course. But the hard facts are that the situation regarding a canal licence is set out in the 1995 act and CRT, for all they would like to be able to, can only comply with that statute and not add any bells and whistles of their choice.
9 minutes ago, Rob-M said:Is that the one that you signed up to agreeing you wouldn't abuse CRT staff.
I can’t ever remember signing up to any such Ts and Cs. Recently we flipped between a Canal licence , a gold licence, and back to a canal licence and at not point did I tick any boxes accepting any fictitious Ts and Cs
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, MtB said:
Not quite right AIUI.
In a contract (which we enter into when applying for a licence) either party can sue the other for their losses and/or expenses resulting from breach of contract.
There is no contract involved in obtaining a CRT licence. It is a statutory provision in the 1995 act. If the terms of the statute are complied with, CRT cannot refuse a licence. In the same way, you cannot be refused a TV licence just because OFCOM don’t like you.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, churchward said:
That is not true. Any contractual terms and conditions have a standing in law but that does not mean there are other legal standing/laws that may take precedence over them.
It is not a contract, it is a statutory provision. Contract law doesn’t enter into it.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Arthur Marshall said:
They choose to apply for a court order for liveaboard boats, but it seems there is no legal necessity for them to do so. I suspect it's partly due to them making someone homeless, and the CO then imposes obligations on other organisations to help. Possibly trying to equate with a landlord getting an eviction order and to avoid challenges under human rights legislation.
However I think the issue is that court order or not, CRT are not legally empowered to seize a boat that is licensed. They are only empowered to rescind a licence if one of the three terms of getting the licence is not present, and these of course are insurance, BSS, and in the case of a CCer, “satisfying the board that the boat will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period”. CRT are acting unlawfully if they rescind a licence because of one alleged inappropriate behaviour. There is no requirement in law to comply with any terms and conditions that CRT might like to make up, n order to have a licence.
Of course CRT will refute this and try to pretend that they do have such powers, right up until there is a risk it might go to court, at which point they will back down because they know they will lose.
-
1
-
-
Just now, churchward said:
I am sorry to hear of the incident. It is normal in many situations to suspend things while the incident is investigated. It is not necessarily a judgment to suspend your license but as has been said above they can under the license conditions act as they have done.
If you can get food, water, and fuel on foot it would be best if you can do that and not move the boat. If your location means you cannot access food or water without moving then if I were in your position I would do so but make sure the boat returns to the mooring where you are now. I would also inform CRT if you need to move the boat and your reasons why.
As for the rest of your questions, I can't help you as I do not know what could happen next or what they demand of you.
The licence conditions have no standing in law.
-
1
-
-
Are the bridge keepers on the G&S employees or volunteers?
Folk may remember that I was assaulted by a volunteer lock keeper - he hit me with his windlass - so I don’t have a lot of faith in CRT pitting officious poorly trained volunteers against boaters. It is a recipe for confrontation.
-
The CRT Ts and Cs have no legal standing.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
The OP came on here asking for advice about his current situation. I doubt he came on here so a bunch of sad old people could have an opportunity to say “Oooh, you shouldn’t have done that” to make themselves feel briefly superior.
-
7
-
1
-
1
-
16 minutes ago, GUMPY said:
Boater assaults bridge keeper and wonders why he is in 💩
Should have stayed on your boat and just carried on.
I hear anger management courses are widely available 😉
He does say that he was assaulted first. Yes it would have been better not to be goaded into an argument, but we are not all perfect!
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, StephenA said:
G&S bridges are only open on certain days at this time of year and in some places the same person runs more than one bridge. River Severn is closed at the moment and you can't get to the lock without going through Llanthony Road Bridge. So just about impossible to get off the G&S and keep a low profile
Yes this is a concern! If it were summer, you could just tag along behind another boat going through the bridges.The thing is that if the OP has done something such as assaulted a bridge keeper (even if only in retaliation) then that is a matter for the police, not for CRT to apportion blame. Maybe there is history that we don’t know about?
And in fact if the OP was the one assaulted first, maybe he should report it to the police, although of course a couple of weeks has now passed.
-
Obviously we are only getting one side of the story, but as you describe it there are a few issues - one needs a licence to have a boat on the canals, not to move it. So if the boat is still on the canals, whether or not you move it is not relevant to the licence. CRT are not empowered to tell you you can keep your boat on the canals but you can’t move it, other than when there is a general stoppage affecting everyone. I am pretty sure there is no legal mechanism to suspend your licence, you either have a licence or you don’t.
If it were me I would continue to move my boat as I needed to (without telling them about it). What are they going to do, come and shoot you? However I suggest it would be advisable to keep a low profile and try not to get into any more arguments! I suppose you are on the part of the system that requires co-operation with land based people (bridge and lock operators) but whether or no CRT are efficient enough to send out an “arrest warrant” to their bridge and lock keepers to deny you passage, I somewhat doubt. I would aim to get off that part of the system and onto a part of the system where everything is self service (Worcs and Birmingham, etc)
I would also make a formal complaint to CRT that CRT are acting outside their powers and being unfair, vindictive and unreasonable. And as soon as possible, take the issue to the waterways ombudsman so that at least there is a public record of events.
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, cuthound said:
When we had shares the insurance companies were not interested in the nationality of each co-owner. However for a single ownership boat they are, presumably because the boat will spend long periods unattended unlike a shareboat which is in use all year round.
This seems to be something that has arisen in the last couple of years. However it could just relate to sole owners, not sure.
-
I’ll just mention one stupid issue which seems to be becoming problematic. Several people have reported that many insurance companies decline cover if any of the co-owners are not resident in the UK. Not quite sure why. Just something to check on before getting too deep into the purchase of a share.
-
2 hours ago, Gibbo said:
You meantioned 3D printers. I actually got one last year. Printed a Benchy, then a bigger one. I've not used it since. Most useless device I've had for a long time. Care to argue about that?
Like anything else, a 3D printer is only useful if you have a use for it. I've been doing a lot of hobby electronics recently (started during lockdown) as it is something to keep my 67 year old brain from freezing up. Used (free) RS DesignSpark PCB for the schematic and pcb layout. Learnt to programme in C using Microchip's (free) MPLAB X IDE (my projects tend to use PIC microcontrollers).
And the most astonishing thing is that a double sided pcb up to 100mm x 100mm with as many plated through holes as you like, silkscreen and solder mask on both sides, board outline whatever you like, really top quality with minimum track width and minimum track spacing of 0.005" can be obtained from China for ... ... £3.47 for 5 boards including shipping. Yes that is not a misprint, three pounds and fourty seven pence for five boards including shipping to UK. Less than the price of a pint these days. Or if you want 4 layer boards it is a hefty £11.30. I have never had a duff board.
One of my recent projects involved a 3D accelerometer chip that I browsed from the RS website, quite cheap at a couple of quid. But I hadn't quite noticed on the spec that the 10 pad device was 2mm x 2mm with pad width 0.2mm and pad spacing 0.2mm. That is never going to work!!! But it did, at first attempt to solder it on.
So having populated the board with mostly SM devices using solder paste and a hot air rework gun - £35 from ebay - I now need something to house it in.
Bring out the 3D printer. But first, design it with (free) Fusion 360 cad programme. That in itself takes a month to work out how to use even vaguely! Then slice with (free) Cura and then pop sd card into 3D printer Ender 3 (£200) and wait for it to print.
Here's one I prepared earlier, the angular position sensor using 2D magnetic flux sensor and diametrically magnetised spindle.
Still awaiting the pcb to come back from china but it is 25mm diamter and pops in between the two halves of the casing . The actual chip is shown there in its packaging awaiting soldering onto the pcb.
So is it useful? For me, yes.
-
On the other hand, fascinating that a multitude of fossilised lurkers have suddenly sprung to life! Must be something in the water at this time of year.
Incident with bridge keeper-Licence suspended
in General Boating
Posted · Edited by nicknorman
Ok fair point, but irrelevant to this thread.