NBTA Challenge a Licence Refusal

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

July 27, 2019 nbtalondon

Andrzej from the boat commonly called ‘the Caravan Boat’, has been evicted by the Canal and River Trust (CRT). CRT sent over 10 enforcement bailiffs and CRT staff members with two RIBs and two police officers to evict Andrzej. Barring him from retrieving his belongings, including his work tools, CRT towed his boat and craned it out at Bulls Bridge (West London) before transporting it 200 miles to Cheshire.

 

It was 2 months before we were allowed to retrieve what remained of his possessions, and due to CRT’s legendary incompetence, some 80% of these had suffered water damage.

Andrzej had applied for a licence for his boat; he had up-to-date boat safety; insurance and he was using his boat for navigation and intending to carry on navigating. Therefore, we believe CRT has broken the British Waterways Act 1995 section 17 where it states our right to not be refused a licence. We have started the process of challenging CRT refusing Andrzej a licence.

[nicknorman]

Presuming the chap had no home mooring, a reason for refusal to issue a licence would be that the “board” (aka CRT) were not satisfied that the boat would be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period. If he had a history of failing to use the boat in this way (and to be fair, I don’t know if this is the case) then CRT are legally obliged not to issue the licence. Regardless of NBTA’s ranting.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, nicknorman said:

If he had a history of failing to use the boat in this way

The boat is a static caravan sat on a WW2 landing craft.

 

History :

The boat was declared unsafe.

Went to court

Judgement (2017) was to remove the boat from the waters.

 

 

The Andrzei enforcement case is said to be no longer being dealt with by the local enforcement officer and regional enforcement manager. This after Section 7 of the British Waterways act 1983, which lays out the process in which the Canal and River Trust (CRT) must do before claiming a boat is unsafe, was brought to their attention. Both CRT enforcement staff claim to have no knowledge of this section.

Andrzei’s case was then passed on to the CRT legal team for a internal ‘review’. At the end of this ‘review’, CRT is no longer saying his boat is unsafe; they are now just relying on a court judgement from 2017. The court order is to remove Andrzei’s boat from their waterways for being ‘unlawfully’ moored. For Andrzei, English is a second language and he didn’t make his case to the court. He put his licence in his girlfriend’s name and CRT was happy with movements of the boat, giving it a winter mooring. It was licensed until CRT revoked the licence, claiming the boat was ‘unsafe’.

Andrzei, with up to date insurance and Boat Safety Scheme Certificate, is able and willing to use his boat for navigation and has sent in a new licence application form. So far CRT is still saying they are going to evict.

[Chewbacka]

5 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Presuming the chap had no home mooring, a reason for refusal to issue a licence would be that the “board” (aka CRT) were not satisfied that the boat would be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period. If he had a history of failing to use the boat in this way (and to be fair, I don’t know if this is the case) then CRT are legally obliged not to issue the licence. Regardless of NBTA’s ranting.

Maybe a legal argument as to what constitutes bona fide for navigation is about to take place.................

[matty40s]

more interesting is that they granted it a Winter mooring, therefore shooting themselves in the foot head and every other office they hold.

I would say they will lose this one.

[TheBiscuits]

3 minutes ago, matty40s said:

I would say they will lose this one.

Bet you a tenner it's a settled out of court case ....

[peterboat]

8 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Bet you a tenner it's a settled out of court case ...

I only do safe bets and this one isnt safe!

More of our money wasted is what I think will happen

[matty40s]

13 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Bet you a tenner it's a settled out of court case ....

I bet you a tenner the NBTA DON'T settle out of court.

[MtB]

Just now, matty40s said:

I bet you a tenner the NBTA DON'T settle out of court.

 

So who is doing the challenging?

 

NBTA or Andrezei?

 

 

[matty40s]

5 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

So who is doing the challenging?

 

NBTA or Andrezei?

 

 

Unless I am mistaken in Alans title and the wording of the article, NBTA are pursuing this.

To be honest, its quite a gift for them if CRT have granted a winter mooring for the craft, as they have accepted it as a safe and eligible for one fee, so why have they decided that it is not eligible for a future fee.

[Jen-in-Wellies]

Moorings and licencing are two different departments in CaRT. Easy for the left hand not to know what the right is doing.

Jen

[carlt]

2 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Moorings and licencing are two different departments in CaRT. Easy for the left hand not to know what the right is doing.

Jen

Fortunately "We screwed someone's life up because we are completely incompetent." is not a good argument in court...

 

...hopefully. 

[MtB]

20 minutes ago, carlt said:

Fortunately "We screwed someone's life up because we are completely incompetent." is not a good argument in court...

 

...hopefully. 

 

On the other hand, "We screwed someone's life up because despite a dozen or more written and verbal warnings they failed to comply with a simple set of rules designed to stop the canals filling up with CMers", is a very good argument in court....

 

...hopefully. 

 

The thing is I just don't know the reason(s) for CRT's refusal to grant another licence, and not do you. I simply don't believe the NBT's claim that he met all the criteria for a licence, whereas you presumably do. There must be something going on here we are not being told. 

 

 

[carlt]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

On the other hand, "We screwed someone's life up because despite a dozen or more written and verbal warnings they failed to comply with a simple set of rules designed to stop the canals filling up with CMers", is a very good argument in court....

 

...hopefully. 

 

The thing is I just don't know the reason(s) for CRT's refusal to grant another licence, and not do you. I simply don't believe the NBT's claim that he met all the criteria for a licence, whereas you presumably do. There must be something going on here we are not being told. 

 

 

Funnily enough I am aware that I don't know the details of the case but am happy to talk hypothetically without using language such as "I simply don't believe..." regarding either side. 

Perhaps you understand what I meant about "irony" in another thread now? 

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, carlt said:

Funnily enough I am aware that I don't know the details of the case but am happy to talk hypothetically without using language such as "I simply don't believe..." regarding either side. 

Perhaps you understand what I meant about "irony" in another thread now? 

 

Oh I see, we were discussing some imaginary hypothetical case, not the case described in the OP. Silly me.

 

I geddit now....

[carlt]

5 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Oh I see, we were discussing some imaginary hypothetical case, not the case described in the OP. Silly me.

 

I geddit now....

So despite you asserting that neither you nor I know the full details of the case you are happy to call the NBTA a liar? 

Yes... Silly you. 

It is usual for discussion about live cases to be hypothetical by the way. 

Edited July 31, 2019 by carlt

[MtB]

Just now, carlt said:

So despite you asserting that neither you nor I know the full details of the case you are happy to call the defendant a liar? 

Yes... Silly you. 

 

Silly escalation and a silly, childish tactic not worthy of you. I know you can do better than this.

 

 

[carlt]

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Silly escalation and a silly, childish tactic not worthy of you. I know you can do better than this.

 

 

No escalation from you calling someone a liar despite admitting you know nothing about the case. 

That is childish, confrontational and pretty sloppy. 

As I said... Most sub judice discussion has to be hypothetical. 

[NigelMoore]

8 hours ago, nicknorman said:

 If he had a history of failing to use the boat in this way (and to be fair, I don’t know if this is the case) then CRT are legally obliged not to issue the licence. 

Where do you find such a “legal obligation” to refuse a licence?

 

Section 17(3) states: “the Board MAY refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless—". If a legal obligation was intended, the word “SHALL” would have been used. Instead, refusal of a licence where a mandatory condition was not met, was to be at the Board’s discretion.

 

The mandatory term imposing an obligation was used in various of the following sections, for example (appropriate to the safety issue initially claimed), s.11 –

 

“( a ) The refusal or withdrawal by the Board of a relevant consent in respect of any vessel on the grounds that the vessel does not comply with the standards applicable to that vessel shall not preclude the movement or use of the vessel with the consent of the Board (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) and subject to such reasonable conditions (if any) as they may determine.

( b ) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) above, the Board shall not withhold their consent under this subsection to the movement or use of a vessel for the purpose of taking it to a place where it may be repaired or modified so as to comply with the standards applicable to it, or for the purpose of taking the vessel to be destroyed, unless such movement or use would give rise to the risk of obstruction or danger to navigation or to persons or property.

( c ) Nothing in this section shall affect the operation of section 7 (Control of unsafe vessels) of the Act of 1983.”

[Athy]

8 hours ago, matty40s said:

 

To be honest, its quite a gift for them if CRT have granted a winter mooring for the craft, as they have accepted it as a safe and eligible for one fee, so why have they decided that it is not eligible for a future fee.

Perhaps they felt that it was safe while static (as it would be on its winter mooring) but would fall to bits if it moved (as it would have to do to comply with non-home-mooring licensing stipulations).

[Jerra]

Thinking of the height of a static caravan and add some height for the boat.  I don't know London canals so will it actually fit under bridges?

[nicknorman]

1 hour ago, NigelMoore said:

Where do you find such a “legal obligation” to refuse a licence?

 

Section 17(3) states: “the Board MAY refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless—". If a legal obligation was intended, the word “SHALL” would have been used. Instead, refusal of a licence where a mandatory condition was not met, was to be at the Board’s discretion.

 

The mandatory term imposing an obligation was used in various of the following sections, for example (appropriate to the safety issue initially claimed), s.11 –

 

“( a ) The refusal or withdrawal by the Board of a relevant consent in respect of any vessel on the grounds that the vessel does not comply with the standards applicable to that vessel shall not preclude the movement or use of the vessel with the consent of the Board (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) and subject to such reasonable conditions (if any) as they may determine.

( b ) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) above, the Board shall not withhold their consent under this subsection to the movement or use of a vessel for the purpose of taking it to a place where it may be repaired or modified so as to comply with the standards applicable to it, or for the purpose of taking the vessel to be destroyed, unless such movement or use would give rise to the risk of obstruction or danger to navigation or to persons or property.

( c ) Nothing in this section shall affect the operation of section 7 (Control of unsafe vessels) of the Act of 1983.”

Ok fair enough but it is a minor point - the main point being that CRT are not legally required to issue a licence if they are not satisfied that the boat will be used bona fide ...etc. 

[alan_fincher]

55 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Thinking of the height of a static caravan and add some height for the boat.  I don't know London canals so will it actually fit under bridges?

Presumably it fitted any bridges from where they seized it until Bulls Bridge?

 

Quote

CRT towed his boat and craned it out at Bulls Bridge (West London)

 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

I simply don't believe the NBT's claim that he met all the criteria for a licence, whereas you presumably do. There must be something going on here we are not being told. 

There is a photo online of him holding an in-date BSSC (but it could be a forgery I suppose)

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

Presumably it fitted any bridges from where they seized it until Bulls Bridge?

Would that give it much of a cruising range?