private mooring fees?

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, mayalld said:

 

Well, unless they made you a moderator, I think I will continue to point out the error of your ways.

 

Purely because I am fascinated that I might one day understand your compulsion to make yourself look silly here,

 

Well, I'm clearly about as interested in what you have to say, as you are of what I have to say. End of.

 

 

 

[Jim Riley]

Just may be, not that we aren't interested in what you have to say, rather, that what you have to say isn't interesting. Certainly not when we've heard it for the umpteenth time. Still, bee thankful, it keeps you buzzy. 

[alan_fincher]

50 minutes ago, Higgs said:

Well, I'm clearly about as interested in what you have to say, as you are of what I have to say. End of.

I have only dipped in and out of your continuous output on this topic, but the one thing I have not personally noted is any great support from anyone at all about your viewpoint, (assuming, of course they can actually make sense of it).

Perhaps you need to consider that if you are not getting through to anybody at all, and making even a single convert, that just maybe you might be wrong?

(You appear rather like a driver going the wrong way up a one way street yelling at everybody coming the other way, believing the error to be theirs.....)

[Higgs]

41 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

I have only dipped in and out of your continuous output on this topic, but the one thing I have not personally noted is any great support from anyone at all about your viewpoint, (assuming, of course they can actually make sense of it).

Perhaps you need to consider that if you are not getting through to anybody at all, and making even a single convert, that just maybe you might be wrong?

(You appear rather like a driver going the wrong way up a one way street yelling at everybody coming the other way, believing the error to be theirs.....)

 

The limit of interest is expected. I take that here as -  not a problem. The only counter argument that I see offered is  - CRT can do it, therefore that's the end of it.    Time will tell.

 

You can ignore the fact, as you choose, that CRT and the marina have no enforcement power that applies to the requirement of a licence, inside the marina. You can dress it up as you wish. I can't help with your assessment of what I think. I'm a long way off being woolly-headed. I am not looking for advice from any of the people who have contributed such poor counter arguments. Or basically - no argument. Thank you.

 

I'm sorry to be blunt but, is that clear?

 

 

Edited March 13, 2020 by Higgs

[Thinkingallowed]

Is this still going?

[Captain Pegg]

12 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

The limit of interest is expected. I take that here as -  not a problem. The only counter argument that I see offered is  - CRT can do it, therefore that's the end of it.    Time will tell.

 

You can ignore the fact, as you choose, that CRT and the marina have no enforcement power that applies to the requirement of a licence, inside the marina. You can dress it up as you wish. I can't help with your assessment of what I think. I'm a long way off being woolly-headed. I am not looking for advice from any of the people who have contributed such poor counter arguments. Or basically - no argument. Thank you.

 

I'm sorry to be blunt but, is that clear?

 

 

I don’t there’s any issue with accepting that CRT have no statutory power to enforce licensing of craft on private waters.

 

The issue is the premise that the connection agreement is illegal and that even if it didn’t apply that marinas would readily waive the requirement for boats to be licensed.

 

Connection agreements between statutory and private bodies are not unique to canals, nor is the payment of a fee by the private entity to the statutory body. Since CRT is under no obligation to enter into any agreement with any marina owner they are free to offer terms on which they wish to contract and the marina can choose to accept or otherwise. I see no obvious grounds on which the arrangement is anything but a fairly standard legally binding agreement.

 

As has been pointed out earlier the licensing of craft has benefits to the marina in terms of ensuring that craft have BSS and insurance but what struck me from the VED parallel is the critical difference that a vehicle sat on a drive subject to a SORN declaration is likely to be on the property of the owner and that should be of no consequence to anyone. In a marina all the boats are on private property to which the normal means of access and egress is via the connected navigation. Without licensing of boats the marina owner is denied an easy means of eviction should a moorer default on their contract. It has further secondary benefits for a marina that operates a brokerage.

 

So I rather think most if not all marina owners would still insist on boats being licensed even if the terms of their connection agreement didn’t require it. Do you categorically know of one that wouldn’t, or perhaps you are one?

 

JP

 

 

[alan_fincher]

35 minutes ago, Higgs said:

I'm sorry to be blunt but, is that clear?

As clear as it ever is! ?

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

So I rather think most if not all marina owners would still insist on boats being licensed even if the terms of their connection agreement didn’t require it. Do you categorically know of one that wouldn’t, or perhaps you are one?

 

There are dozens of Marinas connected to C&RT canals & rivers that do not require  a C&RT boat licence.

 

We bought a boat from one on the T&M (Shobnall Marina)

I used to be in one at Newark. (Newark Marina)

Whilton Marina is another

 

 

The argument that having a licence shows the boat has a BSS and insurance is really a red-herring.

The marina I was in simply asked for proof that you have a BSS and Insurance.

 

There was a thread started a few years ago where all the known 'non-licence' marinas were listed.

Edited March 13, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[Captain Pegg]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

There are dozens of Marinas connected to C&RT canals & rivers that do not require  a C&RT boat licence.

 

We bought a boat from one on the T&M (Shobnall Marina)

I used to be in one at Newark. (Newark Marina)

Whilton Marina is another

 

 

The argument that having a licence shows the boat has a BSS and insurance is really a red-herring.

The marina I was in simply asked for proof that you have a BSS and Insurance.

 

There was a thread started a few years ago where all the known 'non-licence' marinas were listed.

If that’s the case it isn’t an issue at all then. I figured Higgs was arguing a personal point not one of principle.
 

It was your argument about the BSS and insurance. Are all your posts red herrings?

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

It was your argument about the BSS and insurance. Are all your posts red herrings

Sorry, I'm not understanding that.

 

 

 

Where BW / C&RT have an 'access agreement' with a marina that access agreement states that the marina must pay 9% of the mooring fees, working on 100% capacity, and, one of the conditions is also that the marina wuill only allow licenced boats in the marina. This is a contractual condition, not a statutory requirement.

 

The marina in turn, makes it a condition of mooring that the boat is licenced, again a contractual condition not a statutory requirement.

 

Higgs 'problem' is that he maintains that C&RT cannot make such a condition, and, have no right to enforce such a condition.

 

I have the full NAA but cannot post it because it is a Pdf.

 

here is a screen shot of the relevant conditions :

 

 

 

 

 

[Higgs]

3 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

If that’s the case it isn’t an issue at all then. I figured Higgs was arguing a personal point not one of principl

 

I'm not interested in pursuing something for my sole benefit. There is a principle. An agent (CRT) acting on behalf of the law cannot offer its status in law through a business agreement, or grant its power to a third party (the marina). The terms and conditions of the marina are not given the legal status of the legal agent, CRT.

 

Would you have a police officer enter into a business arrangement and grant his or her legal standing to a business. For one, it isn't in the officer's gift.

 

 

[David Mack]

16 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Would you have a police officer enter into a business arrangement and grant his or her legal standing to a business. For one, it isn't in the officer's gift.

 

An individual police officer cannot enter into a business arrangement which in some way binds the police force, but police forces can certainly enter into contractual business arrangements with others, providing it is done within the rules applicable to police forces. 

And so can CRT.

[cuthound]

Are we nearly there yet? ??

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

I'm not interested in pursuing something for my sole benefit. There is a principle. An agent (CRT) acting on behalf of the law cannot offer its status in law through a business agreement, or grant its power to a third party (the marina). The terms and conditions of the marina are not given the legal status of the legal agent, CRT.

 

Would you have a police officer enter into a business arrangement and grant his or her legal standing to a business. For one, it isn't in the officer's gift.

 

 

That’s not what is happening because it still CRT that issue the licence. Transferring powers would be CRT insisting through the contract that the marina owner issue licences on their behalf and conduct follow up enforcement.

 

Of course the issue of licensing and the 9% fee aren’t mutually inclusive, you could still have one without the other. They’re just products of the same contract. It doesn’t follow that the fee wouldn’t apply even if the licensing requirements weren’t valid.

 

Personally from my own experience I can’t see a problem with it but I’m an engineer not a lawyer and when I want to know about such the minutae of such things I take proper professional advice. That’s exactly what CRT will have done when they drew up the connection agreement so it’d be foolhardy to take them on without first establishing there are good grounds to do so through impartial legal advice.

 

JP

Edited March 13, 2020 by Captain Pegg

[Captain Pegg]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Sorry, I'm not understanding that.

 

 

When I posted and referred to a point made earlier in the thread I had believed it was you who made the point. However checking back it was David Mack.

 

JP

[Alan de Enfield]

15 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

When I posted and referred to a point made earlier in the thread I had believed it was you who made the point. However checking back it was David Mack.

 

JP

Ah - that explains it - apology accepted.

[Ange]

Lol Higgs appears such a decent individual if you meet him. Then you find he can't countenance opinions that diverge from his. Discussion isn't in his vocabulary

Let's remember what the D stands for in cwdf. Please

It's a shame - he lets him self down

Edited March 14, 2020 by Ange

[Arthur Marshall]

Taking the risk of bring accused of being pompous again, I reiterate that, if you live on your boat in a marina and have no desire or need to take it out, it's a perfectly justifiable thing to do because living on a boat is nicer than living in a house. And, morally speaking, you don't need a licence.

But there are thousands of things the law or the powers that be compel us to do which have no moral validity or practical use, but that someone further up the food chain finds advantageous and has managed to impose on the rest of us. This is just one of them - the problem with being in a minority position is that you get discriminated against. Whether it's worth the time and energy fighting a battle that is almost certainly unwinnable is a matter for the individual, but it's still not a bad thing to do, in my opinion.

[Chewbacka]

55 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Taking the risk of bring accused of being pompous again, I reiterate that, if you live on your boat in a marina and have no desire or need to take it out, it's a perfectly justifiable thing to do because living on a boat is nicer than living in a house. And, morally speaking, you don't need a licence.

But there are thousands of things the law or the powers that be compel us to do which have no moral validity or practical use, but that someone further up the food chain finds advantageous and has managed to impose on the rest of us. This is just one of them - the problem with being in a minority position is that you get discriminated against. Whether it's worth the time and energy fighting a battle that is almost certainly unwinnable is a matter for the individual, but it's still not a bad thing to do, in my opinion.

But it’s sad if you have nothing better to do than fight battles that can not be won.  The cost both financial and mental health should not be under estimated.

[Mike Todd]

15 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

The limit of interest is expected. I take that here as -  not a problem. The only counter argument that I see offered is  - CRT can do it, therefore that's the end of it.    Time will tell.

 

You can ignore the fact, as you choose, that CRT and the marina have no enforcement power that applies to the requirement of a licence, inside the marina. You can dress it up as you wish. I can't help with your assessment of what I think. I'm a long way off being woolly-headed. I am not looking for advice from any of the people who have contributed such poor counter arguments. Or basically - no argument. Thank you.

 

I'm sorry to be blunt but, is that clear?

 

 

Contract law - except that you are correct in that the marina cannot force a boater to take out a licence but they can take enforcement action by way of expelling the boat from their marina. Equally, CaRT cannot force a boater to take out a licence and can only take enforcement action when the boat is on their waters, nut, for example if on EA waters, or even, on dry land. Some marinas offer a deal to take a boat out the water and park it the marina grounds so that a licence is not required. The cost saving must be quite small unless you are planning on taking the boat anyway for maintenance.

 

I suspect that the problem for many here is not the very narrow technicality in which you might be right but that, in what you also say, especially your footnote/signature line, you clearly what to persuade people of a further conclusion that the evidence does not support.

[Thinkingallowed]

1 hour ago, Chewbacka said:

But it’s sad if you have nothing better to do than fight battles that can not be won.  The cost both financial and mental health should not be under estimated.

To be fair there are several people on this thread you could have posted that reply to. It is a shame, I used to enjoy fora on several subjects but they have all become spoiled in the same way. I just pop in and out of them now and leave the pedants and trolls to their "fun."

[MtB]

33 minutes ago, Thinkingallowed said:

To be fair there are several people on this thread you could have posted that reply to. It is a shame, I used to enjoy fora on several subjects but they have all become spoiled in the same way. I just pop in and out of them now and leave the pedants and trolls to their "fun."

 

Yes and even more poignantly, the posters you refer to actually have no idea what you are talking about. 

 

 

 

[Mike Todd]

22 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes and even more poignantly, the posters you refer to actually have no idea what you are talking about. 

 

 

 

Strictly, he was not 'talking' but 'typing' . . . 

[Captain Pegg]

34 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes and even more poignantly, the posters you refer to actually have no idea what you are talking about. 

 

 

 

I’m sure they do Mike. And I suspect they are secure in the knowledge that no matter how sad engaging in long winded futile discussions on the internet may be it’s still one step above complaining about people who engage in long winded futile discussions on the internet.

 

JP

[Oddjob]

On 08/03/2020 at 08:09, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Just do what I have done, 

Don't pay for a C&RT licence

Don't pay for C&RT for a mooring

Don't bother with a BSS

 

Life is simple.

So please take your tin tub and park it on a hard standing as you have NO right to keep on the canal as you are not paying for it and no doubt have no insurance as well so when your boat goes up in smoke and takes other boats with it are you going to pay us out, no thought not and you are the one who shouts SLOW down all the time too when I go past at 2mph when you shouldn't even be on the water.

 

I bet also the roof of your boat looks like Steptoe's yard full of wood, coal and junk.

 

rant over