Noise pollution

[The Dreamer]

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

thinking of boarding a boat without permission and making available your personal details to anyone they think fit to have them

Having just re-read the T&C’s, both of the contradictions that you highlight relate to their ability to enforce licensing, which of course they are enacted to do via the 1995 act, thus a court, or the Information Commissioner, would have to take a balanced view if someone chose to make a complaint...

[Alan de Enfield]

13 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Which law are you holding that the "no gennies between 8pm and 8am" T&C contravenes? 

 

 

If there isn't one, then in what way is this 'part of the problem'?

 

Maybe time to give up.

 

I specifically said :

 

37 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The difference is that 'bona fide navigating for the duration of the licence" is a legal requirement in the 1995 Waterways Act of Parliament.

There is no Act of Parliament stating that engines / generators must not be run between 8:00am and 8:00pm

 

22 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Part of the problem is that some of C&RTs T&C's actually conflict with the laws of the land

 

[Alan de Enfield]

16 minutes ago, The Dreamer said:

Having just re-read the T&C’s, both of the contradictions that you highlight relate to their ability to enforce licensing, which of course they are enacted to do via the 1995 act, thus a court, or the Information Commissioner, would have to take a balanced view if someone chose to make a complaint...

You are incorrect.

I suggest you read the 1995 Act again.

 

By law BW/C&RT (in both the 83 and 95 Acts) have to give 28 days notice of the intent to enter to allow the owner time to issue a counter-notice.

[Jerra]

There may not be any specific canal related laws governing noise but surely for moorings the Environmental Protection Act could be applied at any time.

 

Councils must look into complaints about noise that could be a "statutory nuisance" (covered by the Environmental Protection Act 1990).

For the noise to count as a statutory nuisance it must do one of the following:

• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises
• injure health or be likely to injure health

My bold.

[Arthur Marshall]

8 minutes ago, Jerra said:

There may not be any specific canal related laws governing noise but surely for moorings the Environmental Protection Act could be applied at any time.

 

Councils must look into complaints about noise that could be a "statutory nuisance"

 

My original point applies.  You just try getting the council to do it, what with the resources they haven't got any more. Whether they "must" do it is irrelevant - there are loads of things they must do these days and don't, because they can't. Yes, it CAN be done, but you usually have to submit a diary that shows the nuisance has been of longstanding duration.  This is unlikely to apply for a boater, as the annoyance comes and goes as we do.

The only thing that ever works, in any society, is peer pressure.  If everyone agrees not to do something, like run a genny after 8pm, then there is pressure on the few antisocial buggers not to do it. If everyone thinks "I'll do it, just this once" then the whole thing falls apart, unless you're in Germany - where, if I recall correctly, there's a law against mowing your lawn outside certain hours, and everyone obeys it.  But if everyone decided it was silly, and they'd just ignore it, there would be nothing the state could do about it.

So, yes, if you can define what noise nuisance actually is (decibels, type, frequency, duration) it would be possible to legislate against it.  But it isn't ridiculous to ask who would then enforce it, and if you can't answer that question, the law is pointless.

However, reverting to the absolutely original question, someone mooring up and disturbing your peace on a pleasant sunday afternoon in the middle of the countryside is a pillock, and I'm afraid there is no legislation against them.

 

[Jerra]

17 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

My original point applies.  You just try getting the council to do it, what with the resources they haven't got any more. Whether they "must" do it is irrelevant - there are loads of things they must do these days and don't, because they can't. Yes, it CAN be done, but you usually have to submit a diary that shows the nuisance has been of longstanding duration.  This is unlikely to apply for a boater, as the annoyance comes and goes as we do.

The only thing that ever works, in any society, is peer pressure.  If everyone agrees not to do something, like run a genny after 8pm, then there is pressure on the few antisocial buggers not to do it. If everyone thinks "I'll do it, just this once" then the whole thing falls apart, unless you're in Germany - where, if I recall correctly, there's a law against mowing your lawn outside certain hours, and everyone obeys it.  But if everyone decided it was silly, and they'd just ignore it, there would be nothing the state could do about it.

So, yes, if you can define what noise nuisance actually is (decibels, type, frequency, duration) it would be possible to legislate against it.  But it isn't ridiculous to ask who would then enforce it, and if you can't answer that question, the law is pointless.

However, reverting to the absolutely original question, someone mooring up and disturbing your peace on a pleasant sunday afternoon in the middle of the countryside is a pillock, and I'm afraid there is no legislation against them.

 

Two points.

 

Firstly the council do take action over noise nuisance.  The landlord of our village pub has been in court recently over noise.

 

Second.   I think basically we agree but it is the daft "its not law/ultra vires etc which undermines the peer pressure so that a growing number act anti socially on the grounds that "its not against the law therefore I can do as I like".

 

I really really can't understand why so many boaters seem determined to undermine CRT's efforts by constantly harping on "they can't do that it isn't in the law.

[The Dreamer]

8 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I really really can't understand why so many boaters seem determined to undermine CRT's efforts by constantly harping on "they can't do that it isn't in the law.

Here, here...

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, Jerra said:

Two points.

 

Firstly the council do take action over noise nuisance.  The landlord of our village pub has been in court recently over noise.

 

But the pub is in a fixed location, and presumably there have been complaints over a period of time before the council have taken action. The same can't be said about a passing noisy boater or even a local shuffler who moves his noise every few days.

 

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Part of the problem is that some of C&RTs T&C's actually conflict with the laws of the land (thinking of boarding a boat without permission and making available your personal details to anyone they think fit to have them)

 

It was highlighted by the Law Lords that T&Cs cannot override the law :

 

HOUSE OF LORDS

 

  Lord Slynn of Hadley   Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle   Lord Hoffmann
  Lord Hope of Craighead   Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough

 

OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE

 

BRUTON (A.P.)
(APPELLANT)

 

v.

 

 

 

LONDON AND QUADRANT HOUSING TRUST
(RESPONDENTS)

 

ON 24 JUNE 1999

 

 

 

 

There are 100's of pages but the relevant decision of the Law Lords was :

 

Mr. Bruton's agreement is irrelevant because one cannot contract out of the statute.

 

The T&Cs of a 'contract' cannot be implemented if they go against the law.

I suspect there us a difference between a condition that is counter to something explicitly stated in law and a condition that restricts what is otherwise unspecified.

2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

My original point applies.  You just try getting the council to do it, what with the resources they haven't got any more. Whether they "must" do it is irrelevant - there are loads of things they must do these days and don't, because they can't. Yes, it CAN be done, but you usually have to submit a diary that shows the nuisance has been of longstanding duration.  This is unlikely to apply for a boater, as the annoyance comes and goes as we do.

The only thing that ever works, in any society, is peer pressure.  If everyone agrees not to do something, like run a genny after 8pm, then there is pressure on the few antisocial buggers not to do it. If everyone thinks "I'll do it, just this once" then the whole thing falls apart, unless you're in Germany - where, if I recall correctly, there's a law against mowing your lawn outside certain hours, and everyone obeys it.  But if everyone decided it was silly, and they'd just ignore it, there would be nothing the state could do about it.

So, yes, if you can define what noise nuisance actually is (decibels, type, frequency, duration) it would be possible to legislate against it.  But it isn't ridiculous to ask who would then enforce it, and if you can't answer that question, the law is pointless.

However, reverting to the absolutely original question, someone mooring up and disturbing your peace on a pleasant sunday afternoon in the middle of the countryside is a pillock, and I'm afraid there is no legislation against them.

 

There us a difference between a power to do something and a duty to do it. Folk often confuse the two.

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, Jerra said:

Two points.

 

Firstly the council do take action over noise nuisance.  The landlord of our village pub has been in court recently over noise.

 

Second.   I think basically we agree but it is the daft "its not law/ultra vires etc which undermines the peer pressure so that a growing number act anti socially on the grounds that "its not against the law therefore I can do as I like".

 

I really really can't understand why so many boaters seem determined to undermine CRT's efforts by constantly harping on "they can't do that it isn't in the law.

The council do if there's enough long term grief, which is why householders can get boats banned from mooring near them if they run engines etc a lot. But I can't see how a boater could get council action, because we move about (most of us, anyway), and even if we don't, the noisy buggers do. 

And I agree wholeheartedly with point two. Section 8 removals can be contentious, but I can't see why much else CRT do is. 

Edited November 10, 2019 by Arthur Marshall

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

 

But the pub is in a fixed location, and presumably there have been complaints over a period of time before the council have taken action. The same can't be said about a passing noisy boater or even a local shuffler who moves his noise every few days.

 

Which is why I was careful to say at moorings.  Moorings are fixed locations and are often (in the case of visitors moorings rather than online moorings which I was actually referring to) visited regularly by the same people.  Then checks can be made and action taken.

[bizzard]

Nose pollution, peculier to nosey people can cause sinus trouble, first signs of this is a symptom called stink nose, stuffing bits of rawe onion up your bugle should ease the stuffiness and make you breath better.

Edited November 11, 2019 by bizzard

[Machpoint005]

15 hours ago, Jerra said:

For the noise to count as a statutory nuisance it must do one of the following:

• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises
• injure health or be likely to injure health

 

Is a boat "premises"? I realise it can be a "home". Just asking.

[Athy]

5 hours ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

Is a boat "premises"? I realise it can be a "home". Just asking.

Why should it not be? I should imagine so, yes.

 

Pursuant to comments in an earlier post, today I noticed, as Mrs. Athy and I ordered our lunch from a hamburger van, that said van had a "frame generator" to provide it with power. Whilst our hamburgers and onions were a-sizzle, I stood next to this piece of kit and noted its behaviour. I must say that it was fairly loud, but not deafeningly so, especially if you have your boat's doors shut. But then I suppose generators come in different sizes, some of which bark louder than others.

[Jim Riley]

The nub of this fir me, is that CRat are saying we should agree to their guidelines, they claim they are ts & Cs, or we can't have a licence. Statute says we can have a licence if we have a BSC, insurance (and a boat). Nothing more, nothing less. So the t&cs have no force. 

Everyone should abide by the law and not push the boundaries, be it a cmer or big dick parry. 

[CompairHolman]

22 hours ago, Jerra said:

 

 

 

I really really can't understand why so many boaters seem determined to undermine CRT's efforts by constantly harping on "they can't do that it isn't in the law.

Because a pubic body is bound by the law and can only do that which the law specifically states it can do. ( as regards licencing CRT is still a public body )

 

The answer to this is to make clear in the licence terms and conditions which are the law and which are voluntary guidelines for behaviour. Unless you're arguing that deliberately deceiving people is a good way to get things done.

7 hours ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

Is a boat "premises"? I realise it can be a "home". Just asking.

Possibly those living on non residential moorings wouldn't want to push it to find out ? 

[Jerra]

6 minutes ago, CompairHolman said:

Because a pubic body is bound by the law and can only do that which the law specifically states it can do. ( as regards licencing CRT is still a public body )

 

The answer to this is to make clear in the licence terms and conditions which are the law and which are voluntary guidelines for behaviour. Unless you're arguing that deliberately deceiving people is a good way to get things done.

 

I am simply arguing (and a number agree with me) that we will never control the worst elements of modern anti social behaviour by continually telling all and sundry "never mind you don't have to follow this simple and reasonable code of conduct just do as you like".

 

To me those who continually push the fact the T&Cs aren't binding are doing the majority of reasonable sensible boaters a great disservice.

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, CompairHolman said:

Because a pubic body is bound by the law and can only do that which the law specifically states it can do. ( as regards licencing CRT is still a public body )

This was posted some time ago by Nigel Moore

 

Attorney-General v. Great Eastern Railway Co. (1880) 5 App.Cas. 473, Lord Blackburn said, at p. 481: 'where there is an Act of Parliament creating a corporation for a particular purpose, and giving it powers for that particular purpose, what it does not expressly or impliedly authorise is to be taken to be prohibited; ...' [my emphasis]

This was cited with approval by the same House in the 1991 judgment in McCarthy & Stone v Richmond LBC, with all 5 Law Lords in unanimous agreement on the point.

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

I am simply arguing (and a number agree with me) that we will never control the worst elements of modern anti social behaviour by continually telling all and sundry "never mind you don't have to follow this simple and reasonable code of conduct just do as you like".

 

To me those who continually push the fact the T&Cs aren't binding are doing the majority of reasonable sensible boaters a great disservice.

 

I understand, and have sympathy with, your point - however where do 'you' draw the line ?

When C&RT include conditions in the T&Cs that actually conflict with the law should we just accept them ?

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I understand, and have sympathy with, your point - however where do 'you' draw the line ?

When C&RT include conditions in the T&Cs that actually conflict with the law should we just accept them ?

Such as?

[Jim Riley]

12 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I am simply arguing (and a number agree with me) that we will never control the worst elements of modern anti social behaviour by continually telling all and sundry "never mind you don't have to follow this simple and reasonable code of conduct just do as you like".

 

To me those who continually push the fact the T&Cs aren't binding are doing the majority of reasonable sensible boaters a great disservice.

Can't you see that CRT are one of the worst elements of modern society, doing as they like claiming t&cs are law and we must abide by them or not get a licence. They are doing the majority of reasonable sensible boaters a great disservice by not staying within their legal boundaries. 

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, Jim Riley said:

Can't you see that CRT are one of the worst elements of modern society, doing as they like claiming t&cs are law and we must abide by them or not get a licence. They are doing the majority of reasonable sensible boaters a great disservice by not staying within their legal boundaries. 

Please explain how the ordinary boater is suffering /being done a disservice by the T & C s

[Alan de Enfield]

13 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Such as?

I gave 2 examples earlier in the thread, there are others.

 

There are certain morally and legally objectionable ones which do purport to dispense with statutory protections – and consent to share one's personal information where that would conflict with the current law would be amongst them.

 

7.8 You agree that we may provide your relevant personal details including your contact details such as your name and address to any person (or the insurer of any person) who we believe has a reasonable interest in an incident or alleged incident involving the Boat which will generally be the case where for example personal injury or damage to property may have occurred.
7.9 You agree that where we believe you have failed to comply with the Conditions, we may exchange information relating to you and/ or the Boat with third parties who are assisting us in managing the situation such as contractors, mooring providers, individuals or organisations with a legitimate interest or duty in exchanging information about you.

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I gave 2 examples earlier in the thread, there are others.

 

There are certain morally and legally objectionable ones which do purport to dispense with statutory protections – and consent to share one's personal information where that would conflict with the current law would be amongst them.

 

7.8 You agree that we may provide your relevant personal details including your contact details such as your name and address to any person (or the insurer of any person) who we believe has a reasonable interest in an incident or alleged incident involving the Boat which will generally be the case where for example personal injury or damage to property may have occurred.
7.9 You agree that where we believe you have failed to comply with the Conditions, we may exchange information relating to you and/ or the Boat with third parties who are assisting us in managing the situation such as contractors, mooring providers, individuals or organisations with a legitimate interest or duty in exchanging information about you.

How would you propose to get the insurance and contact details from a "hit and run" boater if not from CRT.   If you can suggest any other method I would agree with your point but there has to be some way to get these details if needed.  How would you suggest it is done?

 

With regard to 7.9 again how do you suggest CRT can work with say external contractors if when details of say an boat which has damage equipment are requested, they reply sorry not telling you.   As above provide a sensible alternative method and I might concede the point but I can't as yet see one myself.

[Alan de Enfield]

13 minutes ago, Jerra said:

How would you propose to get the insurance and contact details from a "hit and run" boater if not from CRT.   If you can suggest any other method I would agree with your point but there has to be some way to get these details if needed.  How would you suggest it is done?

 

With regard to 7.9 again how do you suggest CRT can work with say external contractors if when details of say an boat which has damage equipment are requested, they reply sorry not telling you.   As above provide a sensible alternative method and I might concede the point but I can't as yet see one myself.

 

The GDPR stipulates how information can be used, the limitations for which it can be used for and to whom it can be released.

 

GDPR does not "allow us to release your information to any one we consider has an interest...……."

[Iain_S]

On 10/11/2019 at 17:59, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Part of the problem is that some of C&RTs T&C's actually conflict with the laws of the land (thinking of boarding a boat without permission and making available your personal details to anyone they think fit to have them)

 

It was highlighted by the Law Lords that T&Cs cannot override the law :

 

HOUSE OF LORDS

 

  Lord Slynn of Hadley   Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle   Lord Hoffmann
  Lord Hope of Craighead   Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough

 

OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE

 

BRUTON (A.P.)
(APPELLANT)

 

v.

 

 

 

LONDON AND QUADRANT HOUSING TRUST
(RESPONDENTS)

 

ON 24 JUNE 1999

 

 

 

 

There are 100's of pages but the relevant decision of the Law Lords was :

 

Mr. Bruton's agreement is irrelevant because one cannot contract out of the statute.

 

The T&Cs of a 'contract' cannot be implemented if they go against the law.

What statute expressly permits runnng a generator between 8pm and  8am?

T&Cs can impose conditions, provided these conditions are not unlawful. If that were not the case, no terms and conditions are enforceable, which blows the whole area of contract law out of the water.