private mooring fees?

[TheBiscuits]

5 minutes ago, Oddjob said:

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

 

Would you happen to be a member of one or more of the associations that think they represent UK boating?  Do you usually attack random strangers like that? 

 

Plastic tubs, not tin, and more than one, and he thinks 20mph is more like it than 2mph with a good wind behind him.  His roof is very cluttered - there's a great big metal pole on it for starters,  the wires will probably stay there and solar panels.

 

There are other alternatives, but Alan will be delighted that you bit.  He has been sitting under his bridge waiting for the billy goats for a week on this one.

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, Oddjob said:

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

 

You obviously know my boat well - you just missed out that I am a NBTA member, suggesting that it is moored on the K&A and hasn't moved for years & the toilet is just emptied over the side.

Edited March 15, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[TheBiscuits]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

the toilet is just emptied over the side.

Damn!

 

I knew I had missed a bit ...

[ditchcrawler]

20 minutes ago, Oddjob said:

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

Hook, Line and sinker

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, ditchcrawler said:

Hook, Line and sinker

 

You even provide a picture of your boat but - 

 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The toilet is just emptied over the side.

But it is, isn't it? Sometimes anyway? Or doesn't that happen any more? Mind you, on the rare occasions I've been on lumpy water, it's me that's been emptied over the side more often than not.

[Higgs]

 

Ok, Monday morning, back at the 'office'.

[Higgs]

On ‎13‎/‎03‎/‎2020 at 21:18, Captain Pegg said:

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

 

CRT cannot transfer the power they have, it doesn't exist in the marina. Inside the marina, there is no direct legal relationship between the licence issuer and the marina moorer.

 

The 9% is another issue, but I'm not mixing that up with that of the licence...much.

 

 

On ‎14‎/‎03‎/‎2020 at 06:06, Ange said:

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

 

I'm willing to discuss anything, but it isn't necessary for me to agree on any particular opinion, for your sake, or your mate's.

 

 

Edited March 16, 2020 by Higgs

[Higgs]

On ‎14‎/‎03‎/‎2020 at 08:06, 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.

 

I never was under any illusion that effecting any change was ever going to be easy.

 

 

[Higgs]

On ‎14‎/‎03‎/‎2020 at 10:20, Mike Todd said:

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.

 

Forcing someone to purchase a 'product' that has no necessity in the marina must be for some other reason. It does not serve as a licence, inside the marina. The marina has no power to serve notice on a moorer for not having a licence, within the laws that require a licence. The marina itself is not flouting those laws, if they allow a unlicensed boat to moor inside the marina.

 

The licensing law does not apply to boats inside a marina. CRT have applied what seems to be undue influence to gain a contractual benefit. CRT hold the strings that enable a marina to have a business. The moorer is disadvantaged financially, to the mutual finacial benefit of business A and business B.

 

The benefits of paying all your marina bills are not enhanced in any way, by the purchase of a licence. Also, the payment of the 9% connection surcharge within the mooring fee still leaves the moorer inside private property. The area to be accessed (connected to), the area that CRT have authority over, lies outside of the marina. It is only in that area that the licence has any legal relevance.

 

 

Edited March 16, 2020 by Higgs

[Alan de Enfield]

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

Forcing someone to purchase a 'product' that has no necessity in the marina must be for some other reason. It does not serve as a licence, inside the marina. The marina has no power to serve notice on a moorer for not having a licence, within the laws that require a licence. The marina itself is not flouting those laws, if they allow a unlicensed boat to moor inside the marina.

 

The licensing law does not apply to boats inside a marina. CRT have applied what seems to be undue influence to gain a contractual benefit. CRT hold the strings that enable a marina to have a business. The moorer is disadvantaged financially, to the mutual finacial benefit of business A and business B.

 

You are absolutely 100% correct, under the 1995 Waterways Act (or any other waterways Acts) C&RT cannot demand that a marina only accepts 'licenced boats', and under the same Acts, the marina cannot apply that requirement to their moorers.

 

HOWEVER

 

Under contact law, when C&RT give a Marina permission to access C&RT managed waters, C&RT can make any conditions they wish, if the Marina does not agree with them, or declines to accept them then they don't get the NAA and cannot access C&RT controlled waters.

 

Under contract law, when the Marina offers a mooring to a boat owner, the Marina can make and conditions they wish, if the boat owner does not agree with them, or declines to accept them then they do not get a mooring at that Marina.

 

There are several requirements which many Marinas impose on their moorers which are not required in a marina under 'Waterways Law' (or other laws)

 

One Marina I was in did not require a licence but did demand a BSSC and Insurance

One marina (as posted earlier) demanded that all vehicles were 'taxed' or would be removed at owners expense - that is not required by law on private property.

 

These are examples of items required by 'contract' and, if you want the mooring, are conditions which must be complied with, if you do not wish to comply, the choice is yours, you can go elsewhere.

 

Presumably you feel as strongly about the enforced requirement to have your vehicle 'taxed' or a BSSC in a Marina - if not, why not ?

 

No one is disagreeing with your premise and ………………..

 

You are absolutely 100% correct, under the 1995 Waterways Act (or any other waterways Acts) C&RT cannot demand that a marina only accepts 'licenced boats', and under the same Acts, the marina cannot apply the requirement to their moorers.

[mayalld]

On ‎13‎/‎03‎/‎2020 at 18:38, 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.

 

 

 

Of course they have enforcement powers.

 

Let me explain step by step!

 

1) CRT note an unlicenced boat

2) CRT say to marina owner "that boat is unlicenced. It is a condition of our agreement for etwork connection that only licenced boats are allowed in your marina.

3) Marina Owner tells boater to licence boat.

4) Boater fails to comply

5) CRT remind Marina Owner that if they allow unlicenced boat to remain moored, the stop planks will go in.

6) Marina Owner evicts boat

 

Looks like enforcement to me,

[MtB]

20 minutes ago, mayalld said:

 

Of course they have enforcement powers.

 

Let me explain step by step!

 

1) CRT note an unlicenced boat

2) CRT say to marina owner "that boat is unlicenced. It is a condition of our agreement for etwork connection that only licenced boats are allowed in your marina.

3) Marina Owner tells boater to licence boat.

4) Boater fails to comply

5) CRT remind Marina Owner that if they allow unlicenced boat to remain moored, the stop planks will go in.

6) Marina Owner evicts boat

 

Looks like enforcement to me,

 

Has this ever been tested? 

 

I suspect not, but if it were to be tested I suspect CRT would take years on end to get to the stage where stop planks go in. 

 

I'm just thinking of their complete failure to stop-plank Pillings in the face of far bigger breaches of the NAA.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

28 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Has this ever been tested? 

Probably not, but more likely because the marina owner is fearing the possibility of losing his total income, so just evicts the one boater and loses a 'couple of grand'.

 

BWML does certainly evict boaters for not following T&Cs.

One was evicted for re-fueling on their mooring pontoon instead of the fuel pontoon.

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Probably not, but more likely because the marina owner is fearing the possibility of losing his total income, so just evicts the one boater and loses a 'couple of grand'.

 

BWML does certainly evict boaters for not following T&Cs.

One was evicted for re-fueling on their mooring pontoon instead of the fuel pontoon.

 

No I meant has any marina ever ignored the CRT contract term to test what happens? 

 

As opposed to just complying with it as you describe?

 

 

 

 

Point being, we don't actually know the stop planks will go in, as asserted by Dave. I suspect they wouldn't. 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

I'm not surprised we haven't seen the OP for a bit...

[Higgs]

2 hours ago, mayalld said:

 

Of course they have enforcement powers.

 

Let me explain step by step!

 

1) CRT note an unlicenced boat

2) CRT say to marina owner "that boat is unlicenced. It is a condition of our agreement for etwork connection that only licenced boats are allowed in your marina.

3) Marina Owner tells boater to licence boat.

4) Boater fails to comply

5) CRT remind Marina Owner that if they allow unlicenced boat to remain moored, the stop planks will go in.

6) Marina Owner evicts boat

 

Looks like enforcement to me,

 

So, it doesn't have to make any legal sense to the boater, in this instance, in the requirement of a licence, it is a matter of what they (CRT) can get away with? Like the mafia, they can control the nature of what is 'legitimate'.

 

5) The clause in the NAA, made void, will sort that out.

 

And there's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

 

Edited March 16, 2020 by Higgs

[Higgs]

 

What, moral, ethical and philosophical point of view can condone forcing people to have something they don't need? Aren't required to have, even by law.

 

 

 

Edited March 16, 2020 by Higgs

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

What, moral, ethical and philosophical point of view can condone forcing people to have something they don't need? Aren't required to have, even by law.

 

 

 

 

Eh?

 

The law is the tool by which it is being enforced, so the ARE required to have it, "by law" (a sloppy and near-meaningless term). 

 

 

[Higgs]

7 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Eh?

 

The law is the tool by which it is being enforced, so the ARE required to have it, "by law" (a sloppy and near-meaningless term). 

 

 

 

Excuse me, if it hasn't become clear yet, but there is no law of CRT that relates to the boater in a marina. It is only a contract between the marina and CRT. It is not a contract between the boater and CRT. The marina is not CRT. The boat licence is not in itself subject to the terms and conditions of the marina for validity.

 

The validity of the licence is controlled under statutory powers, and the marina has none applicable.

 

 

Edited March 16, 2020 by Higgs

[MtB]

32 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Excuse me, if it hasn't become clear yet, but there is no law of CRT that relates to the boater in a marina. It is only a contract between the marina and CRT. It is not a contract between the boater and CRT. The marina is not CRT. The boat licence is not in itself subject to the terms and conditions of the marina for validity.

 

The validity of the licence is controlled under statutory powers, and the marina has none applicable.

 

 

 

Keep taking the tablets...

 

 

[Mike Todd]

7 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

Forcing someone to purchase a 'product' that has no necessity in the marina must be for some other reason. It does not serve as a licence, inside the marina. The marina has no power to serve notice on a moorer for not having a licence, within the laws that require a licence. The marina itself is not flouting those laws, if they allow a unlicensed boat to moor inside the marina.

 

The licensing law does not apply to boats inside a marina. CRT have applied what seems to be undue influence to gain a contractual benefit. CRT hold the strings that enable a marina to have a business. The moorer is disadvantaged financially, to the mutual finacial benefit of business A and business B.

 

The benefits of paying all your marina bills are not enhanced in any way, by the purchase of a licence. Also, the payment of the 9% connection surcharge within the mooring fee still leaves the moorer inside private property. The area to be accessed (connected to), the area that CRT have authority over, lies outside of the marina. It is only in that area that the licence has any legal relevance.

 

 

Neither I nor anyone else who has commented has suggested differently. However, you are on your own regarding the significance of contract law which, as you imply, requires two willing partners. There is nothing to require a marina owner to allow any boat admittance to the marina - and nothing that prevents them from stating a priori what conditions the boater must maintain in order to continue to stay there. This is perfectly lawful. 

[Higgs]

 

2 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

Neither I nor anyone else who has commented has suggested differently. However, you are on your own regarding the significance of contract law which, as you imply, requires two willing partners. There is nothing to require a marina owner to allow any boat admittance to the marina - and nothing that prevents them from stating a priori what conditions the boater must maintain in order to continue to stay there. This is perfectly lawful. 

 

I think I've alluded to the conditions laid down in contract. The marina can write its terms and conditions. It can't, however, make up the law requiring a boat licence, and neither can CRT. That's also a reality.

 

Law defines where the licence is a legal necessity. The laws governing the use of a licence are not defined in the contract the marina has with CRT. The conditions of the contract are laid down in the contract. A marina can determine what its requirements are. Nothing I've said suggests they can't. All I'm saying is - boaters are not actually committing an offence against CRT, by not having a licence in a marina. Boaters are only legally obliged to have a licence that's use is specific to a particular waterway, and only when on that waterway.

 

Marinas write into their' T&Cs the requirement of a licence. They could also quite accurately write that - "they have no statutory powers of enforcement, and even though we know this and CRT know this, we have to satisfy the terms of our contract with CRT."  The law pertaining to the use of a licence has become almost academic.

 

Except, it isn't academic. It isn't, for those who are forced to comply with a condition of a marina, and not a condition of the law that requires a boat licence., for which a licence is intended - as evidence to the compliance of a law.   

 

It's a business stitch-up of the mooring customers. That's as elegant as it is.

 

 

 

Edited March 16, 2020 by Higgs

[Stilllearning]

There’s is such a nasty scratch on this record that the OP is in danger of giving himself RSI.

[Higgs]

3 minutes ago, Stilllearning said:

There’s is such a nasty scratch on this record that the OP is in danger of giving himself RSI.

 

Not likely to happen to your grey cells.