Boat Safety and s.8

[MtB]

2 hours ago, WotEver said:

I believe that this was the point that Mike was making.

 

CRT say (for instance) “This boat is dangerously unstable”. How do you now prove that it isn’t?

 

Yers 'zactly.

 

A member of the Awkward Squad taking the monumental piss can now expect his (always a he) boat to be boarded and found 'unsafe' by CRT under their recent new powers, and to be lifted. An excellent strategy from CRT in my personal opinion...

 

 

[NigelMoore]

On 09/04/2019 at 22:45, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yers 'zactly.

 

A member of the Awkward Squad taking the monumental piss can now expect his (always a he) boat to be boarded and found 'unsafe' by CRT under their recent new powers, and to be lifted. An excellent strategy from CRT in my personal opinion...

 

 

Even I would not classify 36 year old powers as "recent new" ones.

 

Turns out, however, that they are not relying on these after all. Not that is has not been educational to have had one's attention drawn to them.

 

The safety aspect is but one of a few of the T&C's breaches they claim, and in that respect they have identified no specific issues; they simply claim that he misrepresented the vessel as having no appliances onboard, thus invalidating the certificate. The BSSC that I have seen does, however, record that heating and gas appliances are present, and that they pass.

 

A twist in the tale may be that the vessel has been successively registered under 3 different names, index numbers and owners, so there could be a possibility of game-playing on both sides, with CaRT taking dubious measures out of sheer frustration.

 

Perhaps the most potentially disturbing thing to arise from the mess is that CaRT appear to be threatening summary removal, based on an alleged court order dating back to 2017, on the argument that having once been authorised to remove the vessel in the absence of a 'relevant consent', they can revoke any subsequent licence and action s.8 without any further court action.

 

That may be considered contentious, but I have to admit that I see the point. The only challenge in that case would be to the reasons for revoking the licence now, having been happy to take his money for the previous 6 months of a winter mooring that has just run out.  Mere T&C's breaches cannot justify that; the misrepresentation angle is belied by (at least one of) the BSSC itself; the vessel has in fact since moved on past the bridges CaRT claimed it could not pass under (and has done so under its own steam - i.e. the outboard), so is cruising again having spent the previous 6 months stationary with permission. No question has arisen over insurance, so I cannot as yet see a justifiable basis for revocation.

[Paul C]

Yes indeed. However, it appears the situation has boiled down to the usual "the board is not satisfied......you're CCing". In that they've refused to issue a licence unless this boat/boater has a home mooring. They can do this - its reasonable in the circumstances to "not be satisfied" if 1) there is a history of non-movement in previous cases and 2) the boat is basically unsafe to actually do navigation stuff. Of course, a winter mooring IS a mooring, so they can happily take the boater's money for this - because it won't need to move as part of satisfying the licence in that period.

 

If the boater concerned is unhappy with not getting his licence, AND believes CRT are being unreasonable, he has the "judicial review" route to follow. Maybe NBTA can help him with that.

 

Also worth mentioning, thanks for Naughtyfox (you might know him as Emerald Fox) who took the time to actually do a bit of proper research into this. Unfortunately the answers from NBTA were somewhat opaque, but I guess that's part of life.

[MtB]

12 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

That may be considered contentious, but I have to admit that I see the point. The only challenge in that case would be to the reasons for revoking the licence now, having been happy to take his money for the previous 6 months of a winter mooring that has just run out.  Mere T&C's breaches cannot justify that; the misrepresentation angle is belied by (at least one of) the BSSC itself; the vessel has in fact since moved on past the bridges CaRT claimed it could not pass under (and has done so under its own steam - i.e. the outboard), so is cruising again having spent the previous 6 months stationary with permission. No question has arisen over insurance, so I cannot as yet see a justifiable basis for revocation.

 

So we have yet to get to firkle out the actual reason for CRT deciding to focus on this particular apparently BSS-compliant, insured, licensed and moving boat and expend considerable effort on getting rid of it. 

 

Could it be the boater rather than the boat that is the actual problem?

[NigelMoore]

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

So we have yet to get to firkle out the actual reason for CRT deciding to focus on this particular apparently BSS-compliant, insured, licensed and moving boat and expend considerable effort on getting rid of it. 

 

Could it be the boater rather than the boat that is the actual problem?

A natural suspicion. I daresay the boat's appearance enters the picture also.

 

I can remember years ago, when a couple on the Ham Wharf residential moorings in Brentford had a purpose-built non-navigable 'proper' houseboat replace their old boat, and BW reacted (not retrospectively though) to bring in new conditions demanding that 'boats' there should at least look vaguely like boats. The Kew Steam Museum, who subsequently built a couple of further replacements for siting there, accordingly constructed 'pointy bits' at one end of them to suggest such a resemblance.

[MtB]

12 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

The Kew Steam Museum, who subsequently built a couple of further replacements for siting there, accordingly constructed 'pointy bits' at one end of them to suggest such a resemblance.

 

A GREAT place to while away an afternoon! They even have a small railway there. 

 

Never seen anything run along it though....

 

Edited April 13, 2019 by Mike the Boilerman
Remove lots of duplicate photos!

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

A GREAT place to while away an afternoon! They even have a small railway there. 

 

Never seen anything run along it though....

Similar to some of the Southern canals then.

[MtB]

Nice beam engine beam there too....

[NigelMoore]

23 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

A GREAT place to while away an afternoon! They even have a small railway there. 

 

Never seen anything run along it though....

 

 

 

I have. They only do so on certain days, though it is a long time since I last visited during the day, and cannot be sure what their schedule is nowadays.

[NigelMoore]

3 hours ago, Paul C said:

Yes indeed. However, it appears the situation has boiled down to the usual "the board is not satisfied......you're CCing". In that they've refused to issue a licence unless this boat/boater has a home mooring. They can do this - its reasonable in the circumstances to "not be satisfied" if 1) there is a history of non-movement in previous cases and 2) the boat is basically unsafe to actually do navigation stuff. Of course, a winter mooring IS a mooring, so they can happily take the boater's money for this - because it won't need to move as part of satisfying the licence in that period.

 

If the boater concerned is unhappy with not getting his licence, AND believes CRT are being unreasonable, he has the "judicial review" route to follow. Maybe NBTA can help him with that.

 

Also worth mentioning, thanks for Naughtyfox (you might know him as Emerald Fox) who took the time to actually do a bit of proper research into this. Unfortunately the answers from NBTA were somewhat opaque, but I guess that's part of life.

 

 

It is worse than that though. A further unsettling aspect, arising from the most recent communication to the NBTA from CaRT, is that they acknowledge that even should he get a mooring, and show BSSC and insurance - whereupon they would be compelled to issue a licence - they would immediately revoke it on the grounds of T&C 7.3 to wit, “that a boat must be fit for navigation on any waterways where it is intended to be used.”! As they claim it is unsuitable for the Grand Union, they regard the licence T&C's as effectively over-riding the 95 Act.

 

It is more than a little bizarre. It also calls into question their acceptance for so long as they were being paid for a mooring.

 

As to the NBTA, I do not read the responses as opaque. I think they were as candid as the person was enabled to give, considering the material they had.

[ditchcrawler]

39 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

A GREAT place to while away an afternoon! They even have a small railway there. 

 

Never seen anything run along it though....

 

I have

 

[Paul C]

14 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

 

 

It is worse than that though. A further unsettling aspect, arising from the most recent communication to the NBTA from CaRT, is that they acknowledge that even should he get a mooring, and show BSSC and insurance - whereupon they would be compelled to issue a licence - they would immediately revoke it on the grounds of T&C 7.3 to wit, “that a boat must be fit for navigation on any waterways where it is intended to be used.”! As they claim it is unsuitable for the Grand Union, they regard the licence T&C's as effectively over-riding the 95 Act.

 

It is more than a little bizarre. It also calls into question their acceptance for so long as they were being paid for a mooring.

 

As to the NBTA, I do not read the responses as opaque. I think they were as candid as the person was enabled to give, considering the material they had.

That's not my understanding - I thought they were happy enough if he had a home mooring. Just that they'd revoke it if he declared himself as a CCer.

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

they would immediately revoke it on the grounds of T&C 7.3 to wit, “that a boat must be fit for navigation on any waterways where it is intended to be used.”! As they claim it is unsuitable for the Grand Union, they regard the licence T&C's as effectively over-riding the 95 Act.

Is this not also covered in Bye Law No3 :

 

As to Vessels to be used on Canals
Fitness of Vessels
3. No person shall bring use or leave in any canal any vessel which
is not in every respect fit for navigation on the canal or part
thereof where it is intended to be used.

 

As legally enforceable it would surely be better for them than their questionable T&Cs  (although the penalties are probably not what they want to achieve)

[Paul C]

They don't need to worry about trying to enforce the T&Cs or byelaws. The wording of the 1995 act includes "the board is satisfied....".

 

If they're not satisfied, they don't need to issue the licence; and if someone tries to play the system (by, for example, registering the boat in his daughter's name, or re-applying for a brand new registration, etc etc) they should not be surprised if CRT take a hard line rather than (as they do with pretty much all others who apply for a CC licence) assume (in advance) they will cruise okay.

 

Once again, this is a plain old "CCer but not really moving much/at all" issue.

Edited April 13, 2019 by Paul C

[NigelMoore]

52 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Is this not also covered in Bye Law No3 :

 

As to Vessels to be used on Canals
Fitness of Vessels
3. No person shall bring use or leave in any canal any vessel which
is not in every respect fit for navigation on the canal or part
thereof where it is intended to be used.

 

As legally enforceable it would surely be better for them than their questionable T&Cs  (although the penalties are probably not what they want to achieve)

That is exactly right Alan. The point of relying on the T&C's is that, according to 8.3 of those, any breach entitles revocation of the licence as per your supposed contractual agreement to that, whereas the law as in the byelaw, allows only for prosecution of the breach with a fine. 

[NigelMoore]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

That's not my understanding - I thought they were happy enough if he had a home mooring. Just that they'd revoke it if he declared himself as a CCer.

Your understanding is correct as respects earlier stages of this game; it is incorrect respecting their latest position. They are now expressly NOT happy with giving him a licence EVEN IF he gets a home mooring. They recognise that they would have to give him a licence if he does, but would immediately revoke it under the terms of 8.3 of the T&C's.

 

 

edit to add the relevant email :-

 

 

“In the event that Mr Szymanski is now able to secure a valid home mooring, and he can show that he has both insurance and a boat safety certificate , then the Trust will be required to provide a licence for the boat upon payment of the licence fee. However, please note that in this instance, if the boat is intended to be used for navigation then this licence would be immediately terminated under clause 8.3 of the Terms and Conditions, citing a breach of clause 7.3 which states that a boat must be fit for navigation on any waterway where it is intended to be used.

Kind regards

Lucy Barry
Senior Solicitor-Advocate” [emphasis added]

Edited April 13, 2019 by NigelMoore

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

That is exactly right Alan. The point of relying on the T&C's is that, according to 8.3 of those, any breach entitles revocation of the licence as per your supposed contractual agreement to that, whereas the law as in the byelaw, allows only for prosecution of the breach with a fine. 

Just thinking - could they not repeat the 'fine' on a daily basis as the 'problem' would not be rectified until he removed it from their waters.

the fine may only be £100 but if repeated frequently enough (for each offence) surely it would eventually result in achieving their aims.

[NigelMoore]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Just thinking - could they not repeat the 'fine' on a daily basis as the 'problem' would not be rectified until he removed it from their waters.

the fine may only be £100 but if repeated frequently enough (for each offence) surely it would eventually result in achieving their aims.

It is an interesting question I have mulled over before, without coming up with a satisfactory answer.

 

I suspect that for that to work as you suggest, such wording as is present in more modern mooring byelaws would have to be present to expressly allow for it.

 

As it stands, I think they would have to prove the claim first, in a prosecution, and then if the offence continued, would have to prosecute again. However it would be usual for the magistrates to impose a ban on continuation of the offence, first time around, subjecting the offender to imprisonment for contempt of court if continued.

 

Proving that a vessel was NOT fit for the waterway in circumstances where navigation had been demonstrated and safety issues complied with, might prove tricky.

[Paul C]

19 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Your understanding is correct as respects earlier stages of this game; it is incorrect respecting their latest position. They are now expressly NOT happy with giving him a licence EVEN IF he gets a home mooring. They recognise that they would have to give him a licence if he does, but would immediately revoke it under the terms of 8.3 of the T&C's.

 

 

edit to add the relevant email :-

 

 

“In the event that Mr Szymanski is now able to secure a valid home mooring, and he can show that he has both insurance and a boat safety certificate , then the Trust will be required to provide a licence for the boat upon payment of the licence fee. However, please note that in this instance, if the boat is intended to be used for navigation then this licence would be immediately terminated under clause 8.3 of the Terms and Conditions, citing a breach of clause 7.3 which states that a boat must be fit for navigation on any waterway where it is intended to be used.

Kind regards

Lucy Barry
Senior Solicitor-Advocate” [emphasis added]

I've de-emphasised your bit and emphasised my area, where I think they mean that "if you actually try to venture away from the home mooring, either by giving up (stop paying for) the home mooring, or pretend to get one but actually never moor there, instead on the towpath (AKA ghost mooring) we'll cancel the licence".

 

If the route of giving the licence then cancelling it is indeed their tactic then its going to be one of the very few cases where they are trying to cite non-compliance with the T&Cs as the reason - it will be interesting if it ever goes higher ie is fought in the courts.

 

I believe my previous assertion - that they can refuse to issue the licence on CCing basis, reasonably - still holds true.

 

I agree though, that its not crystal clear and could be interpreted in different ways.

Edited April 13, 2019 by Paul C

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, NigelMoore said:

 

 

It is worse than that though. A further unsettling aspect, arising from the most recent communication to the NBTA from CaRT, is that they acknowledge that even should he get a mooring, and show BSSC and insurance - whereupon they would be compelled to issue a licence - they would immediately revoke it on the grounds of T&C 7.3 to wit, “that a boat must be fit for navigation on any waterways where it is intended to be used.”! As they claim it is unsuitable for the Grand Union, they regard the licence T&C's as effectively over-riding the 95 Act.

 

It is more than a little bizarre. It also calls into question their acceptance for so long as they were being paid for a mooring.

 

As to the NBTA, I do not read the responses as opaque. I think they were as candid as the person was enabled to give, considering the material they had.

Are they using the same tack on the one in Manchester https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/inside-80000-house-boat-thats-15426220

[MtB]

7 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Are they using the same tack on the one in Manchester https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/inside-80000-house-boat-thats-15426220

 

Quote from Ben, the builder of this monster boat:

 

"Despite it not being completely finished, he says he will eventually spend around £80,000 on the 'houseboat' which is the same width as a traditional narrow boat and he says is only a couple of metres taller."

 

So this one is the thin end of one very thick wedge. Allow him to build 2m (already more than twice as high!) taller than a conventional boat, and the next bloke along will be saying "but my 5m high boat is only a couple of metres taller than Ben's..."

 

[NigelMoore]

13 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Are they using the same tack on the one in Manchester https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/inside-80000-house-boat-thats-15426220

Not the same tack, because not the same situation, mooring providers are entitled to reject boats that do not fit whatever criteria they impose - but the same distaste will doubtless be at work, and will be the reason marinas do not wish to house this boat.

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Not the same tack, because not the same situation, mooring providers are entitled to reject boats that do not fit whatever criteria they impose - but the same distaste will doubtless be at work, and will be the reason marinas do not wish to house this boat.

 

Nige, I dunno if you ever walked along the Basingstoke at Woodham in Surrey where the residential moorings run by Surrey Council are, but when I was a teenager they were all converted wooden narrow boats there. Had a walk along there a couple of years ago and was surprised to find proper big square steel Thames-style pontoon boats there mostly, some with two stories. 

 

I suspect CRT are putting up early resistance to the canal system getting populated with massive floating houses that only give a token nod to being boats. 

 

Whether this is a good thing or not, is up for debate...

[NigelMoore]

3 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Nige, I dunno if you ever walked along the Basingstoke at Woodham in Surrey where the residential moorings run by Surrey Council are, but when I was a teenager they were all converted wooden narrow boats there. Had a walk along there a couple of years ago and was surprised to find proper big square steel Thames-style pontoon boats there mostly, some with two stories. 

 

I suspect CRT are putting up early resistance to the canal system getting populated with massive floating houses that only give a token nod to being boats. 

 

Whether this is a good thing or not, is up for debate...

Closest I got to the Basingstoke was cruising the Wey, and reading 'Adelina', but I know the sort of thing you mean. You are probably correct that CaRT are concerned to prevent this.

 

In the right locations, I think such purpose-built houseboats - many of them on the Thames - add to the ambience of such places; I personally have no prejudice against immobile floating homes that do not pretend to be boats, it is all about location.

[NigelMoore]

3 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

. . .  the 'houseboat' which is the same width as a traditional narrow boat and he says is only a couple of metres taller."

 

 

 

Same width? I will have to 'fess up to having been wrong all this time as to how wide traditional narrowboats were. Looks to me as though it is a couple of metres wider as well as taller, but I'm no expert.