Jump to content

Freeman Illegally moored om my mooring ?


W+T

Featured Posts

You can register a boat before licensing as Alan says. Saw it on their site the other day along with the £20 charge. Numbers and plates are only issued automatically with new rigistration long term licences. Short term can be up to 56 days in a year iirc without need for BSS and index number. Intended for trail boats and big boats coming from non-CaRT waters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

Technically it's a breach of the bylaws, and carries a criminal conviction and a £100 fine.

 

It's not something CRT report the way they do Section 8 court cases and seizures.

They don’t report them, because there is nothing to report; CaRT have never prosecuted any byelaw breaches –

 

I have asked our Legal Team regarding this and they have confirmed that to the 
best of their knowledge no such prosecutions have taken place under the 
byelaws since the Trust’s creation.
” (as at December 2016)

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/prosecutions_for_breach_of_bylaw#incoming-907735

 

The reason is that the penalties are insufficiently dramatic for their taste; they prefer using s.8. They don’t put it in such terms of course. The official explanation is –

I hope that you find the following brief explanation on how the Trust exercises its statutory powers with regards to boat licensing helpful, the Trust frequently uses its statutory s.8 and s.13 powers where a boat is unlicensed and/or doesn’t have a Boat Safety Certificate and/or insurance because the only remedy under the byelaws is a fine and so doesn’t address the underlying issues associated with the boat where they may be unsafe and/or not have appropriate insurance, so we need to be able to remove the boat if necessary.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/general_canal_byelaws_1965#incoming-1157210

 

Patent nonsense, ignoring any breach of byelaws that does not involve licensing issues. Their argument before the courts (if & when the issue has been raised) has always been that they considered the level of fine to be inadequate. As agreed by His Honour Judge Denyer QC in BWB v Ward, 2012 – “Other than the removal of the boat the only sanction provided for in the legislation in respect of a contravention of the Rules by a person such as the Claimant is that of a derisory fine.”

 

Of course, where s.8 cannot apply, the fines are the ONLY sanction, so CaRT don’t bother. Other navigation authorities certainly do so, routinely, removing boats (where that sanction applies) only as a last resort - but the mind-set is different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back on topic.

The owner of the moorings is liable.

They are accepting OP's payment for a mooring but not ensuring it is available.

Regardless of whether OP wants to occupy it, they have paid and as such have right of tenure.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, zenataomm said:

Getting back on topic.

The owner of the moorings is liable.

They are accepting OP's payment for a mooring but not ensuring it is available.

Regardless of whether OP wants to occupy it, they have paid and as such have right of tenure.

 

Unless, as some do, the contract specifies that the owner may re-allocate spaces (perhaps to avoid doubt over planning) Only requires that space (any space) is available when the moorer turns up (with a boat)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Unless, as some do, the contract specifies that the owner may re-allocate spaces (perhaps to avoid doubt over planning) Only requires that space (any space) is available when the moorer turns up (with a boat)

Sure, but OP doesn't say that's the case.  In fact the owner doesn't seem to know anything about the current owner of this Freeman, or even seems to want to be involved apart from taking his money.  Along with ownership comes responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zenataomm said:

Sure, but OP doesn't say that's the case.  In fact the owner doesn't seem to know anything about the current owner of this Freeman, or even seems to want to be involved apart from taking his money.  Along with ownership comes responsibility.

well ....................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.