enforcement of mooring charge

[Jerra]

9 minutes ago, aracer said:

????

This is just too good now! You do realise that CP has just pointed out you and WotEver are wrong in your interpretation of 7.10? Or are you struggling even to comprehend what he wrote?

But he did point out another clause covered it.

 

Incidentally would you be so kind as to answer the question I asked yesterday?

 

Are you as nit picking about the law in all parts of your life or just as it applies to your boating?

[WotEver]

11 minutes ago, aracer said:

????

This is just too good now! You do realise that CP has just pointed out you and WotEver are wrong in your interpretation of 7.10? Or are you struggling even to comprehend what he wrote?

Yes, he said that if 7.10 didn’t cover it, 7.11 did. So what? Either way it’s covered. 

[Jess--]

12 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

Utter rubbish!

This is NO different to DVLC releasing the names and address of a car's registered owner to the same Council for a parking infringement in one of their car parks.

 

12 hours ago, Ferd said:

In certain circumstances the registered owner/keeper is not obliged to name the driver.

 

12 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

And if they don't then the Registered Keeper gets the fine/charge.

Identifying the Owner / Keeper / User of the boat is irrelevant, from memory the CRT license is deemed to be held by the person legally responsible for the boat, they don't care who actually owns it

[aracer]

42 minutes ago, WotEver said:

I did that about 30 posts back. If you can’t be bothered to read what’s written...

Sorry, you're going to have to quote, because none of your posts has done anything other than misinterpret the T&Cs.

42 minutes ago, WotEver said:

One of which is that you must comply with any signage, is it not?

Yes, 7.2 as you mentioned earlier, CRT signage. Since this was such a fun game I'll try again "follow our lawful directions spoken or written (including signs)" - do keep digging ?

42 minutes ago, WotEver said:

Yes, quite possibly. It’s so poorly worded as to apply many different meanings to it. 

As I wrote before, only you seem to think it's poorly worded because it's so hard to interpret it in the way you want to. CP and I aren't finding any problem interpreting it - are you now telling CP he is wrong?

[aracer]

16 minutes ago, Jerra said:

But he did point out another clause covered it.

Which doesn't mean that the angry mob were right in attempting to use the terms they were - it's amusing that CP is now their saviour despite him having pointed out they were wrongly interpreting the terms (and continue to attempt to use those terms thinking they are justified because CP found a completely different part of the conditions where this issue was addressed). I already acknowledged CP's contribution and thanked him!

Quote

Are you as nit picking about the law in all parts of your life or just as it applies to your boating?

I nit pick about all parts of the law - as I've no doubt CP does also. It's the way the law works - if you think otherwise I suspect you don't have much experience of it. Right now I'm personally in the middle of sorting out something which is fundamentally all about nit picking over contract law and debts - such nit picking making a larger financial difference to the outcome than I paid for my boat.

15 minutes ago, WotEver said:

Yes, he said that if 7.10 didn’t cover it, 7.11 did. So what? Either way it’s covered. 

So what? So you were wrong, I was right! Yet you still continue to try and cite 7.10... ?

Edited February 25, 2019 by aracer

[WotEver]

1 minute ago, aracer said:

So what? So you were wrong, I was right!

Ooohh... does that make you feel all big and important... good for you son. 

[aracer]

Just now, WotEver said:

Ooohh... does that make you feel all big and important... good for you son. 

It makes me laugh when you treat CP as your saviour despite him having pointed out you were wrong - and then continue to ignore his advice over the term you were trying to use ?

[WotEver]

2 minutes ago, aracer said:

Right now I'm personally in the middle of sorting out something which is fundamentally all about nit picking over contract law and debts - such nit picking making a larger financial difference to the outcome than I paid for my boat.

You sound every bit as childish as a barrister acquaintance of mine. He literally giggles when he succeeds in a case that costs someone well into six figures. 

[aracer]

12 minutes ago, Jess-- said:

Identifying the Owner / Keeper / User of the boat is irrelevant, from memory the CRT license is deemed to be held by the person legally responsible for the boat, they don't care who actually owns it

Interestingly (though completely irrelevantly) that is very analogous to motor vehicles where the registered keeper isn't necessarily the legal owner. However identifying the user of the boat isn't at all irrelevant, as only the person actually mooring can possibly enter into a contract with the landowner (which is exactly the same as the situation with parking, hence the necessity for parking companies to identify the driver rather than the registered keeper).

[WotEver]

1 minute ago, aracer said:

It makes me laugh when you treat CP as your saviour...

That doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. You’ve been filling up your posts with emoticons for a while now. 

 

Captain Pegg isn’t anyone’s ‘saviour’, he’s simply someone who pointed out that you were wrong, as we’ve all been saying since post #2. 

[aracer]

7 minutes ago, WotEver said:

You sound every bit as childish as a barrister acquaintance of mine. He literally giggles when he succeeds in a case that costs someone well into six figures. 

I have no idea why you think I'm giggling about that, and there is nothing at all childish about dealing with multi thousand pound contracts - I'm guessing from your wording that you think there is something wrong with a contract costing somebody large sums of money (when they've made even larger sums of money as a result of it - without the nitpicking legalese none of us would have been any richer).

4 minutes ago, WotEver said:

That doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. You’ve been filling up your posts with emoticons for a while now. 

 

Captain Pegg isn’t anyone’s ‘saviour’, he’s simply someone who pointed out that you were wrong, as we’ve all been saying since post #2. 

You really don't get it do you? He hasn't pointed out I was wrong at all regarding any of my replies to you. Try reading the exchange between me and CP and working out exactly what he has told me and exactly what claims I have made.

Edited February 25, 2019 by aracer

[Iain_S]

21 hours ago, Bod said:

Interesting.  The statute regarding what is needed for a licence to be issued is only 3 items, BSS, insurance, and money.

I was under the impression that as a "statute"  had been granted, there could be no contract.  Public right not business transaction.

This is where things get difficult, C&RT, as BW, and BWC, before them, are creatures of statute, created by Act of Parliament.  They can only do what is set out in their Acts.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Bod

Where is money mentioned? 

(Unless by way of the Transport Act 1962, s43, which opens a whole other can of worms regarding licence conditions!)

 

Additionally, the British Waterways Act 1995, s17(3)(c) also applies to the issue of a licence, although that isn't relevant to this discussion.

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, aracer said:

 

I nit pick about all parts of the law - as I've no doubt CP does also. It's the way the law works

Which implies but doesn't clearly state you are as "hot" on all aspects of the law in your life.   I find that exceedingly hard to believe as if you put as much time and energy into all the laws which govern your life as you are into this you wouldn't have time to eat, sleep,work etc.

 

You come over to me despite your assurances as merely trying to under mine CRT and its running of things.

[Arthur Marshall]

Going right back to the beginning, the only real argument seems to be about whether the Council has the right to ask CRT for the boat owner's details (which they obviously have, because anyone can do whatever they want) and whether CRT have the right under the Act to supply them.  It's an interesting but irrelevant academic question,  as are so many in the real world, because CRT obviously will supply them so it's not really worth getting het up about.  I would imagine if anyone actually got round to making a serious fuss, CRT would take yet more expensive legal advice at our expense, amend their T&Cs accordingly and just do a little less maintenance of the system to pay for it.

It's fairly unlikely anyone would be pursued for £4 unless there are serious advertised penalties for non-payment (which I don't think we know) , so it would be like dodging out of a car park before the traffic warden comes round - which is why most of them now have cameras and everything has got more complicated, expensive and irritating. It's the unforeseen consequences of trying to dodge obligations by legalistic nit-picking that you have to watch out for.

Which doesn't make it any less an interesting question in the first place... just a bit pointless.

 

[WotEver]

1 hour ago, aracer said:

You really don't get it do you? He hasn't pointed out I was wrong at all regarding any of my replies to you. Try reading the exchange between me and CP and working out exactly what he has told me and exactly what claims I have made.

Dear oh dear, you really do have comprehension problems, don’t you?

 

Captain Pegg pointed out quite clearly that your assertion that CRT were in breach of GDPR by passing on your details was wrong. As everyone else has been telling you since the beginning of this thread. Go on, be a big boy and admit you were wrong. 

[frahkn]

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Going right back to the beginning, the only real argument seems to be about whether the Council has the right to ask CRT for the boat owner's details (which they obviously have, because anyone can do whatever they want) and whether CRT have the right under the Act to supply them.  It's an interesting but irrelevant academic question,  as are so many in the real world, because CRT obviously will supply them so it's not really worth getting het up about.  I would imagine if anyone actually got round to making a serious fuss, CRT would take yet more expensive legal advice at our expense, amend their T&Cs accordingly and just do a little less maintenance of the system to pay for it.

It's fairly unlikely anyone would be pursued for £4 unless there are serious advertised penalties for non-payment (which I don't think we know) , so it would be like dodging out of a car park before the traffic warden comes round - which is why most of them now have cameras and everything has got more complicated, expensive and irritating. It's the unforeseen consequences of trying to dodge obligations by legalistic nit-picking that you have to watch out for.

Which doesn't make it any less an interesting question in the first place... just a bit pointless.

 

 

As far as I'm concerned nothing, absolutely nothing, could make it a less interesting question. It began as a profoundly un-interesting question and wading through 6 pages of posts has not improved it.

[aracer]

29 minutes ago, frahkn said:

 

As far as I'm concerned nothing, absolutely nothing, could make it a less interesting question. It began as a profoundly un-interesting question and wading through 6 pages of posts has not improved it.

Thank you for your ever so more interesting contribution ?

[aracer]

43 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Going right back to the beginning, the only real argument seems to be about whether the Council has the right to ask CRT for the boat owner's details (which they obviously have, because anyone can do whatever they want) and whether CRT have the right under the Act to supply them.  It's an interesting but irrelevant academic question,  as are so many in the real world, because CRT obviously will supply them so it's not really worth getting het up about.

IMHO it's well worth getting het up about organisations ignoring data protection laws - or should we just let them pass on our details to Nigerian princes? CRT certainly won't amend their T&Cs in a way which isn't allowed - there is no way in which them passing on details to whoever they feel like would be a reasonable contractual term.

 

I note that whilst it's the argument most have been addressing it's far from being the only argument - I've recently come back to the one about the user of the boat, rather than the licence holder being the only one entering into a contract with the landowner.

43 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It's fairly unlikely anyone would be pursued for £4 unless there are serious advertised penalties for non-payment (which I don't think we know)

There aren't - I've now been and checked (it seems they do realise the difference between mooring and parking) - so you're probably right that they wouldn't bother pursuing it.

43 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Which doesn't make it any less an interesting question in the first place... just a bit pointless.

It has been a purely academic question from very early on, as I realised before most of the angry people joined in. Though I've only just confirmed my assumptions about why it's an academic question even if you do want to moor in that vicinity.

[Naughty Cal]

2 hours ago, WotEver said:

That doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. You’ve been filling up your posts with emoticons for a while now. 

 

Captain Pegg isn’t anyone’s ‘saviour’, he’s simply someone who pointed out that you were wrong, as we’ve all been saying since post #2. 

I take it I don't need to read the whole of this topic it is just the OP not getting the answer he had hoped for and expected?

[aracer]

10 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

I take it I don't need to read the whole of this topic it is just the OP not getting the answer he had hoped for and expected?

Well if that is the impression you're getting from the angry mob's comments then I'm afraid you probably do need to read the whole thread.

 

I've decided I can't be bothered replying to WotEver and his mates any more, but just to indirectly address the point he makes, Captain Pegg is the only person on this thread who has provided any correct information to make me re-evaluate my assumptions (actually I'll edit that to point out that several others have made useful and accurate posts, it's just that CP was the one who identified the relevant terms in the conditions).

Edited February 25, 2019 by aracer

[WotEver]

20 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

I take it I don't need to read the whole of this topic it is just the OP not getting the answer he had hoped for and expected?

Correct. OP asserted that CRT were in breach of GDPR by supplying mooring providers with the details of a non-paying moorer. Everyone said he was wrong, several of us pointed to T&C clauses that may have covered it, Cap’n Pegg identified a clause that definitely covered it. OP’s assertion was wrong. 

 

That’s it really. Nothing to see here. 

[Paul C]

25 minutes ago, aracer said:

IMHO it's well worth getting het up about organisations ignoring data protection laws - or should we just let them pass on our details to Nigerian princes? CRT certainly won't amend their T&Cs in a way which isn't allowed - there is no way in which them passing on details to whoever they feel like would be a reasonable contractual term.

 

I note that whilst it's the argument most have been addressing it's far from being the only argument - I've recently come back to the one about the user of the boat, rather than the licence holder being the only one entering into a contract with the landowner.

There aren't - I've now been and checked (it seems they do realise the difference between mooring and parking) - so you're probably right that they wouldn't bother pursuing it.

It has been a purely academic question from very early on, as I realised before most of the angry people joined in. Though I've only just confirmed my assumptions about why it's an academic question even if you do want to moor in that vicinity.

I don't think CRT are ignoring them though. They're vaguely aware of their duties under GDPR and other data protection regulations (in fact the T&Cs were changed not so long ago, this is one of the areas of change) and they added in the sections which have been cited. Yes - I dare say its not 100% right, BUT pragmatically, I don't think any judge in the land will side with a boater here who finds the tiniest loophole to avoid paying their charge. Neither do I think ICO would take any action in this instance. They might in others, eg if CRT were passing boaters details on to private individuals or firms without due diligence - eg your "Nigerian Prince" examples but this clearly isn't the case here and it remains a hypothetical example.

 

User of boat vs owner - I don't think this will be a barrier either. It would probably be interpreted as the owner of the boat is deemed to have accepted into mooring 'contracts' etc if the user at the time does so - they'll pursue the owner, and then they'd need to either burden the responsibility or pass it onto the user at the time. Its exactly like this with parking (do some research on it - you can't get away with "prove I was the driver.....I'm not telling you who the driver was.....you can't force me" any more - that loophole was closed a while ago!)

 

And of course, an area you've not touched upon (apologies if you have, and I've missed your reply) is that even if you did find some loophole or caveat, the wider picture is either CRT or the local council would amend their procedures/wording/etc, or the mooring would be lost as "not worth the bother" - thus not being for the greater good of the boating community and costing an amount of money in admin. Recent court cases suggest that even if there were loopholes etc, the judge is far more likely to rule "absurdity" - the legislation couldn't have meant that - and take a common sense approach anyway.

[Graham Davis]

3 hours ago, WotEver said:

Yes, he said that if 7.10 didn’t cover it, 7.11 did. So what? Either way it’s covered. 

And 7.11 still applies to the statement I have now made twice.

[Graham Davis]

3 hours ago, aracer said:

It makes me laugh when you treat CP as your saviour despite him having pointed out you were wrong - and then continue to ignore his advice over the term you were trying to use ?

I can't find anywhere that Captain Pegg hasn't actually stated that any of us were totally wrong.

[frahkn]

41 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

I take it I don't need to read the whole of this topic it is just the OP not getting the answer he had hoped for and expected?

I don't know how old you are  but even if you are still a zygote, I assure you that you don't have enough life left to waste any on this thread. Just thump your own chest in an echo chamber and you'll get the gist of it.