nicknorman

Since we have a Travelpower which is centre tapped, we have double pole breakers and it would be sensible for all boats to have them, bearing in mind the trivial extra cost. Maybe most do, I don’t know. There is no BSS requirement for a reverse polarity light.

I am not sure I agree with some of this, but of course both your and my views are simply our opinions based on what we have read elsewhere. As I understand it, having a Li cell at close to 100% or close to 0% puts mechanical stress on the relevant electrode because the Li ions of course all go to one or other electrode at the extremes of SoC, cramming into the electrode, and so the battery is happiest at a mid state of charge where everything is evenly distributed. There is no difference in stress between 100% and 0% other than if at 0% (2.5v), any slight additional discharge is going to be bad. This seems plausible to me. I have CALB cells and they recommend 30% SoC for long term storage. Not sure why not 50% but I suspect this is perhaps mingled with a desire to keep SoC at the lower end for transportation. IMO what the BMS manufacturer recommends is not really relevant, it is what the cell manufacturer recommends that is important and since all LiFePO4 cells are pretty much the same, you would think that all cell manufacturer's recommendations would be the same in this sort of respect. As to the BMS and cell monitoring, I would have though that any vaguely self-respecting BMS monitors individual cell voltages, although it is true that some on here have batteries from which they can't extract the BMS information. Those do at least have inbuilt balancing. But on the subject of balancing, my experience after a couple of years is that the cells never go out of balance. I don't normally fully charge but when I do, every month or so, it is at 14.3v ie 3.575v/cell. My balancing algorithm kicks in if any cell exceeds 3.6v, and this is indicated on the display by an asterisk next to the cell voltage, but that just never happens. And as you know, the difference in Ah between a cell at 3.575v and one at 3.6v is minimal. So I can't see any advantage in keeping the cells at 100% just so some balancing could take place. It will never be needed! Of course these cells have very long lives and so whether or not keeping cells at 100% for long periods is going to reduce life, firstly is very hard to determine, and secondly may not matter too much. Nordkyn Design chappie seemed to think that holding cells at 100% was bad. He probably knows more about it than I do. So all that is why I keep the batteries at a mid state of charge, around 50%, when we are away from the boat for long periods. Well IMO it is all about the charge voltage. Keep it down at around 13.3v if on shore power for a long time, and everything will be fine.

All our boating is on the mainland! Normally we only use shore power in the marina, which as far as I know is wired correctly. Our Travelpower is of course centre tap, but that is not a problem as we have a double pole breaker. In fact if you have double pole breakers, is there actually any issue with having L and N reversed? And following on, if you did have such a light, what would you do if it came on to show LN reversed? Panic?

Do you know what this "good reason" is - and care to share? All the manufacturer's blurb seems to say that for long term storage, around 30-50% is best. And if you are in a marina on shore power not actually using the batteries to supply power, surely that is effectively the same as being in storage?

Normally it would relate to shore power only, not when powered from the inverter. It would indicate a swap between live and neutral. As you say, this would be a consequence of a wiring fault either in the shore power lead or the wiring inside the shore bollard. I would presume that in the event of reversed polarity in the incoming shore power, the green light would be replaced by a red light. I’ve never really seem much point in these lights - we don’t have one.

We've recently started using Winterblaze. It is massively better than anything else we have tried, very little ash.

??? Of course there is a statute compelling you to obtain a licence before putting a boat on CRT waters, and the same statute requires CRT to issue the licence when requested (and paid for) if the 3 required conditions in the statute are met. With that being your bestest and most rational response, I think we can see the extent of your knowledge and capabilities.

Yes it is quite clear. CRT can set terms and conditions regarding the use of waterways. For example, they can close waterways for maintenance, they can set opening times for the likes of Watford, Foxton, Anderson lift, Harecastle tunnel etc. But none of that has anything to do the licensing process which is created and enshrined in a separate and later Act. And I would question whether this clause allows for user specific “use permissions” such as “you, you and you can navigate on the canal, but you other chap can’t because we don’t like you”. I think that would certainly have to be challenged in court, but in general the law does not like to assign the power of judge and jury to a non-judicial body, much less a private company like CRT. I see a problem in that having told the OP he can’t move his boat, they can then revoke his licence for not moving his boat enough. Sounds unreasonable, and it is, but I wouldn’t put it past them.

Ah yes the much vaunted 1962 act s. 43, which according to CRT gives them powers to do whatever they like, and meaning that all the thousands of hours of government and parliamentary time taken up created subsequent BW acts was completely pointless. Let’s have a look at what it actually says: 3)Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the [F5British Waterways Board [F6and Canal & River Trust] F7...] shall [F8each] have power to demand, take and recover [F9or waive] such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit. The key words that this section applies to are “Services and facilities”. However a licence is neither a service nor a facility, it is a statutory right assuming the conditions are met. It does for example allow CRT to attach conditions and charges to eg the use of a water point or elsan. It might stretch to the use of a lock. But it certainly doesn’t encompass the licensing process which arises out of statute and is not a service or facility. It simply doesn’t make sense to say that a licence falls under this clause because as you know, subsequent to this Act there were several other Acts that related to the licensing process. If CRT always (since 1962) had Carte Blanche to create whatever terms and conditions they like for a licence, why on earth was so much time wasted on subsequent Acts? That position is completely irrational.

I disagree, because any “Ts and Cs” falsely attached to a statutory process are valueless. You cannot reasonably have a private company who are responsible for enacting statutory processes, adding in their own little bits that have not been approved by parliament.

Ok fair point, but irrelevant to this thread.

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.

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. .

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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. 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

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.

It is not a contract, it is a statutory provision. Contract law doesn’t enter into it.

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.

The licence conditions have no standing in law.