private mooring fees?

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, Jim Riley said:

If my landlord had a contract with dvla then passed on the terms in the rent agreement then I'd either go elsewhere or just have to swallow it. Constantly whining and whinging would make diddley squat of a difference to owt! Apart from annoying my mates. ????

 

Fine, it's the norm is it?

 

 

[Jim Riley]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

Fine, it's the norm is it?

 

 

Apparently, with marinas, yes! It would be within the landlords right whatever. 

[Higgs]

17 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

What a good idea.  Yes I approve, because the driveway is connected to the public highway.

 

You could try volunteering. If it catches on, you could carrying on paying it when you decide not to own a car. Keep us posted.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Jim Riley said:

 It would be within the landlords right whatever. 

 

Don't think it'll catch on. It's quite daft. The landlord gains nothing. However, it's possible to make it part of planning permission. That should make the property desirable. All that extra expense for the end user. Makes you wonder, who's scratching whose back, for what.

 

 

Edited March 11, 2020 by Higgs

[Graham Davis]

5 hours ago, Higgs said:

But, until a boat passes the entrance of the marina and into the canal, the boat remains on private property. In a place that CRT are not authorised to apply its statutory powers. A place in which a CRT licence has no relevance.

 

4 hours ago, Higgs said:

Yes, it is contractual. The marina is contracted to force a purchase on people. The actual licence is not needed inside the marina, not even by law. If it was a licence required by law, it wouldn't be written into a contract to make it obligatory. The licence is for CRT waterway's. It has the law to substantiate that. It should be taken as read, that it is necessary where CRT have authority.

 

No need for a contract to force the issue. CRT simply do not have authority in the marina. CRT require the permission of the marina, and what CRT cannot enforce, it has to set in a contract - to force permission it doesn't naturally have.

Can you provide absolute legal references to confirm those suppositions?

 

3 hours ago, Higgs said:

It's about as enforceable as someone pushing your SORN car onto the public highway, and claiming you're breaking the law.

I suggest you read the Law about SORN.

But carry on acting like a barrack room lawyer

[Higgs]

6 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

 

Can you provide absolute legal references to confirm those suppositions?

 

I suggest you read the Law about SORN.

But carry on acting like a barrack room lawyer

 

Can you refute it?

 

I'm sorry, but if you cause a crime and hope to make it look as if someone else committed it, I'd suggest you get a lawyer.

 

 

Edited March 11, 2020 by Higgs

[TheBiscuits]

22 minutes ago, Higgs said:

You could try volunteering. If it catches on, you could carrying on paying it when you decide not to own a car. Keep us posted.

Now you have utterly lost the plot.  Take a tablet or a drink and sit down until it passes.

 

Neither marinas or CRT require you to have a boat licence when you don't have a boat.  If you think they do then please post evidence of this.

[TheBiscuits]

14 minutes ago, Higgs said:

if you cause a crime and hope to make it look as if someone else committed it,

You keep banging on about this SORN thing, but you keep missing the point entirely.

 

It is the registered keepers responsibility that the SORNed vehicle never goes on the public highway.

 

It doesn't matter how it gets there.  It could be a handbrake failure that lets it roll onto the road, it could be an earthquake that makes the garage topple onto the road spilling the car out as it goes or it could be the flying spaghetti monster wot dun it.

 

It still does not matter.  The registered keeper has committed an offence if the vehicle is on the public highway.

 

Have you been done for a SORN offence by any chance?

[Alan de Enfield]

3 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

I would not encourage you to create a legal problem for someone. I'm not sure that I'd find you innocent.

 

 

 

 

Would you also suggest that a Marina has no right to demand that all cars must be taxed 

 

From our Marina T&Cs :

 

 

23. Vehicle Parking

23.1  Subject always to the availability of parking spaces, the Owner, his crew, contractors and visitors are required to park their validly taxed motor vehicles in such a position and such a manner as directed by BWML.  Untaxed or SORN vehicles are not permitted to be parked on BWML property. 

[ditchcrawler]

40 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Would you also suggest that a Marina has no right to demand that all cars must be taxed 

 

From our Marina T&Cs :

 

 

23. Vehicle Parking

23.1  Subject always to the availability of parking spaces, the Owner, his crew, contractors and visitors are required to park their validly taxed motor vehicles in such a position and such a manner as directed by BWML.  Untaxed or SORN vehicles are not permitted to be parked on BWML property. 

Local councils use to tow cars parked on their land with no tax disc, don't know what they do now

[GUMPY]

3 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

It still does not matter.  The registered keeper has committed an offence if the vehicle is on the public highway.

 

 

Unless of course it is being driven to or from a pre-booked  MOT when there is no offence being committed 

 

[ditchcrawler]

30 minutes ago, Loddon said:

 

Unless of course it is being driven to or from a pre-booked  MOT when there is no offence being committed 

 

Can you still drive it away

[Arthur Marshall]

4 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

 

I am fully legal. So, you can get off your pompous high horse quick. That being said, it is not your busy how anyone uses their boat, unless you wish to buy them, to have that privilege. And, as things are as they stand, people who do not use their boats are not freeloaders. 

 

 

I'm not sure what you're whinging about here. I was agreeing that, if like you, people have a boat in a marina and never intend to leave it, having to pay the same licence as those who do seems unfair. You obviously think it isn't after all, which would appear to make your entire argument bollocks. 

I also don't think it's pompous to try to explain something rationally, but there again, you seem to be the expert on pomposity so I bow to your wisdom.

Why you think I suggested people who don't use their boats are freeloaders I have no idea. I thought you did actually use yours, but again obviously you don't, so I apologise for misunderstanding.

I assume that the chip on your shoulder has stopped you being actually able to read anything without you reinterpreting it as an attack, as nothing I have ever said implied you weren't complying with law. Be that as it may,. your ridiculous argument has been debunked so often on here that it's a waste of time continuing, so I won't. You can wallow in your own self pity, gloriously unpompous and in a minority of one, going out of your way to alienate anyone who might have the slightest sympathy with your untenable position.

 

[GUMPY]

30 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Can you still drive it away

I believe so provided there are no dangerous faults, but then you couldn't drive a non sorn car away in that state.

[Ianws]

Do people who never leave a marine never really leave a marina. If the marina provides all facilities then fine. If not, they have to access the mainline to get to people who do blacking etc.

[john6767]

7 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

It is true, the marina will not let you moor, without a licence. What, in the marina, does the licence do for you, apart from helping one business to help another business, and in turn, it allows itself to have a business.

 

Your boat licence is only an enabling device in the marina, for the marina. The licence itself carries no other meaning, in the marina.

 

 

 

 

Clearly there will be some that would let you, but for example last summer for a two week temp mooring in a specific marina I had to email them, the CRT letter with the licences, the insurance certificate, the BSC email, as well as their own form.  The licence does nothing more than satisfy their requirement if you want to moor in their marina.  They can ask for anything that they want, if you don’t like it then don’t use them.

[Graham Davis]

5 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

Can you refute it?

 

I'm sorry, but if you cause a crime and hope to make it look as if someone else committed it, I'd suggest you get a lawyer.

 

 

Refute what?
I'm asking you to provide evidence to support your "arguement".
It appears that you can't, and all you provide is pointless bluster.
As I said, you're a barrack room lawyer, and apparently a mis-informed one.

Edited March 11, 2020 by Graham Davis

[Higgs]

12 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Would you also suggest that a Marina has no right to demand that all cars must be taxed 

 

From our Marina T&Cs :

 

 

23. Vehicle Parking

23.1  Subject always to the availability of parking spaces, the Owner, his crew, contractors and visitors are required to park their validly taxed motor vehicles in such a position and such a manner as directed by BWML.  Untaxed or SORN vehicles are not permitted to be parked on BWML property. 

 

I'm not arguing that a marina can't impose its T&C. I'm arguing that the marina is a private space, CRT do not own water, and the licence as no effect in a marina. Well, except as a condition to have enabled the marina to set up its business in the first place. I'm quite aware of rules applying to road vehicles.

12 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

You keep banging on about this SORN thing, but you keep missing the point entirely.

 

It is the registered keepers responsibility that the SORNed vehicle never goes on the public highway.

 

It doesn't matter how it gets there.  It could be a handbrake failure that lets it roll onto the road, it could be an earthquake that makes the garage topple onto the road spilling the car out as it goes or it could be the flying spaghetti monster wot dun it.

 

It still does not matter.  The registered keeper has committed an offence if the vehicle is on the public highway.

 

Have you been done for a SORN offence by any chance?

 

Ok. If cameras show that you and Mr Davis pulled my SORN car onto the highway, I will use that evidence to form reason to have you prosecuted for being responsible. By the way, this is an hypothetical scenario.

 

 

Edited March 12, 2020 by Higgs

[Higgs]

9 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I'm not sure what you're whinging about here. I was agreeing that, if like you, people have a boat in a marina and never intend to leave it, having to pay the same licence as those who do seems unfair. You obviously think it isn't after all, which would appear to make your entire argument bollocks. 

I also don't think it's pompous to try to explain something rationally, but there again, you seem to be the expert on pomposity so I bow to your wisdom.

Why you think I suggested people who don't use their boats are freeloaders I have no idea. I thought you did actually use yours, but again obviously you don't, so I apologise for misunderstanding.

I assume that the chip on your shoulder has stopped you being actually able to read anything without you reinterpreting it as an attack, as nothing I have ever said implied you weren't complying with law. Be that as it may,. your ridiculous argument has been debunked so often on here that it's a waste of time continuing, so I won't. You can wallow in your own self pity, gloriously unpompous and in a minority of one, going out of your way to alienate anyone who might have the slightest sympathy with your untenable position.

 

 

I should not have been so indignant. It's what happens when you come between dogs that are fighting.

 

 

 

9 hours ago, Ianws said:

Do people who never leave a marine never really leave a marina. If the marina provides all facilities then fine. If not, they have to access the mainline to get to people who do blacking etc.

 

Yes, it is possible to never leave the marina. And, the mooring fees already include a connection surcharge. It is also possible to reach a marina by other means than using the canal. It is also theoretically possible to have a boat moored in a marina that is too wide to leave the marina or too wide to use the canal outside of the marina. As sometimes crops up in this debate - how would it be possible to stop people flouting the rules and nipping out for a quick cruise? I personally don't think it is necessary to feel the need to make myself responsible. In a similar way, I do not keep tabs on people or feel like a vigilante.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, john6767 said:

Clearly there will be some that would let you, but for example last summer for a two week temp mooring in a specific marina I had to email them, the CRT letter with the licences, the insurance certificate, the BSC email, as well as their own form.  The licence does nothing more than satisfy their requirement if you want to moor in their marina.  They can ask for anything that they want, if you don’t like it then don’t use them.

 

Yes, all that documentation is needed. And, yes, they could ask you to paint your boat pink, in order to comply with those terms, if they existed in the marina's T&Cs.

 

 

Edited March 12, 2020 by Higgs

[Higgs]

8 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

Refute what?
I'm asking you to provide evidence to support your "arguement".
It appears that you can't, and all you provide is pointless bluster.
As I said, you're a barrack room lawyer, and apparently a mis-informed one.

 

If you claim it's bluster, you have the choice to do more than hope to get by on that assertion.

 

 

Edited March 12, 2020 by Higgs

[Graham Davis]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

If you claim it's bluster, you have the choice to do more than hope to get by on that assertion.

 

 

It is nothing but bluster when you don't back up your argument with facts.

As I said you're a barrack room lawyer.

[Thinkingallowed]

That's ten minutes of my life that I won't be getting back.

[alan_fincher]

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

If you claim it's bluster, you have the choice to do more than hope to get by on that assertion.

Your posts leave me increasingly confused at the best of times, but I really do have absolutely no idea of your intended meaning here!

[Higgs]

22 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

Your posts leave me increasingly confused at the best of times, but I really do have absolutely no idea of your intended meaning here!

 

You tell me, how valid a boat licence is in a marina. It serves no statutory purpose. If CRT had stipulated that a marina had to force the moorers to have their boats painted pink, because they could, would that make it valid. CRT cannot impose its statutory powers of enforcement inside a marina. It has to ask it to be enforced, through a third party, which in itself has no statutory powers of enforcement.

 

 

52 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

It is nothing but bluster when you don't back up your argument with facts.

As I said you're a barrack room lawyer.

 

Has the marina got statutory powers of enforcement that apply to the requirement of a licence? Do CRT have any statutory powers of enforcement on private property?

 

The purpose of a licence in a marina is for only one purpose - so that two organisations can work together to create an income stream. For each others mutual benefit.

 

 

Edited March 12, 2020 by Higgs

[Mike Todd]

11 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

Refute what?
I'm asking you to provide evidence to support your "arguement".
It appears that you can't, and all you provide is pointless bluster.
As I said, you're a barrack room lawyer, and apparently a mis-informed one.

And nigel m will be along ere long to remind us - again - that what is not expressly forbidden is permitted. 

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

And nigel m will be along ere long to remind us - again - that what is not expressly forbidden is permitted. 

 

For people, that is. 

 

The opposite applies for corporate/legal entities that are not human beans, IIRC.