private mooring fees?

[mayalld]

25 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

So, the contract law overrules the statutory law?

 

No, it doesn't overrule the statute.

 

The statute says that to keep a boat on a CRT canal you must have a licence (actually it says "a relevant consent", but lets not confuse you)

 

The Marina doesn't attempt to overrule that. To overrule it, the marina would have to say "we say you don't have to have a licence on CRT waters"

 

The statute does not require holders of a licence to keep a boat on CRT waters, so no contradiction there.

 

We really are into the realms of logical fallacies here.

 

[MtB]

26 minutes ago, mayalld said:

The statute does not require holders of a licence to keep a boat on CRT waters, so no contradiction there.

 

 

AND...

 

The statute does not require boat owners to cancel their licence when their boat is off CRT waters. 

 

(Are there too many negatives in that? ?)

[WotEver]

58 minutes ago, Higgs said:

You define the legal authority that gives the marina that status in a Waterway's Act.

I don’t need to because it’s covered by contract law. No statutes involved. 

[Higgs]

39 minutes ago, mayalld said:

No, it doesn't overrule the statute.

 

The statute says that to keep a boat on a CRT canal you must have a licence (actually it says "a relevant consent", but lets not confuse you)

 

The Marina doesn't attempt to overrule that. To overrule it, the marina would have to say "we say you don't have to have a licence on CRT waters" 

 

The statute does not require holders of a licence to keep a boat on CRT waters, so no contradiction there.

 

We really are into the realms of logical fallacies here.

 

 

    "To overrule it, the marina would have to say "we say you don't have to have a licence on CRT waters" " 

 

The other version is - " we can't say, either way" And they wouldn't, What, scupper a business opportunity?

 

    "The statute does not require holders of a licence to keep a boat on CRT waters, so no contradiction there."

 

Oh, thanks. I'll park it on the roof of Buckingham Palace. 

 

 

 

[Higgs]

8 minutes ago, WotEver said:

I don’t need to because it’s covered by contract law. No statutes involved. 

 

So, all any company has to do is, write it into the T&Cs, and that suffices and covers all the laws. ? As in, Tescos. If they want to write it into the T&C's, it also carries the weight of CRT status. Never mind there not being any reason why they should. 

 

It's the principle people are using to justify their' arguments. 

 

 

[Chewbacka]

23 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

So, all any company has to do is, write it into the T&Cs, and that suffices and covers all the laws. ? As in, Tescos. If they want to write it into the T&C's, it also carries the weight of CRT status. Never mind there not being any reason why they should. 

 

It's the principle people are using to justify their' arguments. 

 

 

It is very simple, the marina states in its agreement with the boater that you must have a crt licence to moor here.  No licence and you have failed to keep to the agreement you have signed, in which case you must either rectify the omission (ie get a licence), or get out.  If you fail to do either then you are in breach and the marina can take steps to evict you.   
 

Added - during the court hearing to have you evicted you could try claiming that this is an unfair contract term and request for it to be removed, however I am not aware of anyone winning that argument, in which case (as others have found in battles with CRT) your costs associated with your futile fight just keep getting bigger.........

Edited March 19, 2020 by Chewbacka

[Captain Pegg]

8 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

So, all any company has to do is, write it into the T&Cs, and that suffices and covers all the laws. ? As in, Tescos. If they want to write it into the T&C's, it also carries the weight of CRT status. Never mind there not being any reason why they should. 

 

It's the principle people are using to justify their' arguments. 

 

 

Why not? Things do not explicitly have to be allowed in statute law to be able to exist in a contract. The opposite is generally true, that everything is permitted unless it is expressly forbidden. Statute law requires contracts to be fair and reasonable but the threshold for that is very high in view of the fact that contracts are mutually agreed arrangements.

 

I’ve previously explained to you that the marina has no choice but to include the requirement for its customers to hold a licence if they have a standard connection arrangement with CRT. Otherwise they would risk being in breach of their contract with CRT. CRT use the requirement in the connection arrangement as a legitimate means of control against unlicensed boats entering their waterways which in turn would be a breach of the statute law that they are empowered to enforce. It may be unfortunate for those who don’t wish to leave the marina but it’s not unfair or unreasonable in terms of the general purpose of boats, the marina’s business, or CRT’s legal duty.

 

It would be completely impractical for the written law to include every provision for every single condition that anyone would ever wish to put in a contract. I’m guessing you wouldn’t be in favour of a state where the Government is required to prescribe in great detail what is and isn’t allowed to be agreed between two independent parties. It’s the collateral to what you are arguing for in this case though.

 

JP

 

[Jim Riley]

The Black Knight carries on regardless... 

How many years has @Higgs been banging on about this? 

[BillM]

4 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

If Tescos asked you for your boat licence, would that be a plausible reason for them to assume the legal status they don't have? More to the point - would you find that acceptable?

 

 

 

It would be perfectly lawful for Tesco’s to demand that before shoppers buy anything in a Tesco shop, they produce a valid CRT licence. Shoppers would be free to use Tesco on those terms or go to Aldi instead.  

 

To take the analogy further, if Tesco used CRT waterways to get  their stock, it would be  on terms set by CRT which could lawfully include an obligation on Tesco to demand to see a valid CRT licence from shoppers before concluding any sale.

[WotEver]

3 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

So, all any company has to do is, write it into the T&Cs, and that suffices and covers all the laws. ? As in, Tescos. If they want to write it into the T&C's, it also carries the weight of CRT status. Never mind there not being any reason why they should. 

Finally you get it

[David Mack]

6 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

If Tescos asked you for your boat licence, would that be a plausible reason for them to assume the legal status they don't have? More to the point - would you find that acceptable?

 

 

 

Tescos could, if they wished, require that anybody buying from their stores must possess a current CRT licence. That wouldn't give them any legal status in relation to that licence. And this is really no different from the edict they (or maybe one of the other supermarkets) issued a while ago that customers should not go shopping in their pyjamas.

[Arthur Marshall]

Tats has left the building.....

[MtB]

Just now, Arthur Marshall said:

Tats has left the building.....

 

Yes, got all the wrong answers so flounced orf....

 

 

[BilgePump]

The surface of the road does not flow back and forth into our driveways as the water in a canal does with a connected
marina. We choose tarmac, paving, grass, chippings, mud, whatever for our bit. The road surface doesn't mix with our
property and we are responsible for making sure that muck or gravel doesn't make its way from our gardens onto the
highway. There are also established penalties, things like ANPR, traffic patrols and charges for storing / driving an
untaxed vehicle on the road that combined are deemed sufficient to deter someone from having a trip out in a SORNed
vehicle. 

 

However, the water in the marina is managed by CaRT so even a boat sitting there is utilising CaRT managed
water without ever travelling out onto the cut. The water is both the thing that floats it and the surface of the
transport network. When a boat sits in a marina that is connected, these two are continuously and inextricably linked.

 

I once used to moor a small sailboat in a marina outside CaRT's remit. It was behind a tidal river lock and no licence or
BSS needed. If you weren't going out to sea though , it wasn't long before you were on waters managed by CaRT and needed
to be licensed. For a small boat able to make it onto the canal network for a peek around, this is where the short term
licences are very useful (aswell as for trail boat owners)

The only way it might be possible for a SORN style option to be
viable would be some form of fully isolated pond. Water and movements would be managed by the marina (although I'm not
sure I'd like to be on a pond with people putting stuff down sinks, showers etc into it). Boats would need to be licensed
again before the marina staff could lift/lock gate them back out into the canal or the open marina. However, once in the
pond the boat could be delicensed. Movements in and out could be communicated and confirmed by the marina to CaRT. But
that whole thing is massive infrasturcture investment and planning that I imagine most marinas and councils just would not
be interested in.  As for possible demand, I, as a mooring customer, would have no interest in such a place, even if the
boat hasn't been out for a trip for months and I might save the licence fee in such a place.

 

Edited March 19, 2020 by BilgePump

[Higgs]

 

27 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Tats has left the building.....

 

If you know by which door, maybe you could follow. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

26 minutes ago, BilgePump said:

I once used to moor a small sailboat in a marina outside CaRT's remit. It was behind a tidal river lock and no licence or
BSS needed. If you weren't going out to sea though

We had a mooring in BWML Newark marina and the T&Cs demanded that the boat had a C&RT licence and a BSSC

We moved our 2nd boat up to BWML Hull marina and they demanded a C&RT licence and BSSC

 

When I explained that we did not need either a C&RT licence or a BSS they insisted.

I explained that it was a sea-going boat and would probably not pass a BSSC, neither would many of the boats in the marina.

As the marina actually led directly out onto the River Humber and out to Sea (which is not within the control of C&RT) I suggested that they were wrong when they insisted that C&RT made it mandatory for boats in Hull marina to have a licence.

 

It eventually got all the way up the 'chain' and it was eventually agreed that the BWML T&Cs were generic and had been written around 'inland waterways' not coastal marinas and that C&RT could not demand a C&RT licence be held for boats going out to Sea.

The instruction was passed to the local marina staff that neither a C&RT licence or a BSSC was required.

 

I had no issue where C&RT insist on a licence where they DO have control of the waters in the Marina, and / or outside of the marina (ie Newark)

[Higgs]

3 hours ago, David Mack said:

Tescos could, if they wished, require that anybody buying from their stores must possess a current CRT licence. That wouldn't give them any legal status in relation to that licence. And this is really no different from the edict they (or maybe one of the other supermarkets) issued a while ago that customers should not go shopping in their pyjamas.

 

That's pretty much how it works with the marina. No legal status, primarily because it doesn't have the power to enforce or demand you have a licence. It is not empowered by the government to act as CRT. And CRT cannot give it the power to act on its behalf. 

 

Are you thinking that because the marina can ask a boater to have a licence that that also qualifies the marina as a legal entity of the enforcement powers. It has no more significance than asking you not to hang washing out. The request that you have a licence is not supported by the law that requires you to have a licence. You are on private property and the rules do not require you have a licence.  

 

It's bollocks, and a means to secure a business deal. That's it. End of story. 

 

In fact, you're trying to say that a marina should be considered as an enforcement power - it ain't. And if it put itself forward as such, it would be fraudulent. 

 

I think we could probably look at defining what is -  gaining something through false pretences. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2020 by Higgs

[Higgs]

The appropriation of a right is classed as theft. 

 

Whilst it is within the right of the marina to write into its T&Cs that a boat should have a licence, it is is not within the right of the marina to apply the law of enforcement. This can only be done by CRT, and only when the boat is on a CRT waterway, which the marina is not. 

 

It is the moorer's right to be able to moor the boat on private property, free of the enforcement of the licence requirements. As they do not apply on private property. It is therefore theft of a right to make it compulsory to have a licence before mooring is allowed. The right would be, to be free of licence enforcement where licence enforcement is not a legal requirement. 

 

My words, my phrasing, but the classification exists in law. 

 

Even the threat of expulsion from the marina could be classed within the term - demand with menaces. As they demand a licence, not required, and threaten if it isn't adhered to. 

 

 

Edited March 20, 2020 by Higgs

[Mike Todd]

3 minutes ago, Higgs said:

The appropriation of a right is classed as theft. 

 

Whilst it is within the right of the marina to write into its T&Cs that a boat should have a licence, it is is not within the right of the marina to apply the law of enforcement. This can only be done by CRT, and only when the boat is on a CRT waterway, which the marina is not. 

 

It is the moorer's right to be able to moor the boat on private property, free of the enforcement of the licence requirements. As they do not apply on private property. It is therefore theft of a right to make it compulsory to have a licence before mooring is allowed. The right would be, to be free of licence enforcement where licence enforcement is not a legal requirement. 

 

My words, but the classification exists in law. 

 

Even the threat of expulsion from the marina could be classed within the term - demand with menaces. As they demand a licence, not required, and threaten if it isn't adhered to. 

 

 

At last we seem to come to the crux of your argument. The second para is just what most of us have been trying to tell you: requiring the moorer to have a licence does not take the marina into a realm of enforcement in terms of how the boater complies with the requirements of the licence. I guess marina owners would not begin to want to get into that arena.

 

However, you assert a right which most of us cannot see written into statute or common law. AFAIK, the only general intrusion into what had hitherto been seen as the right of a landowner to determine who may or may not come onto their private land has been the so-called Right to Roam legislation that opened up moorlands to walkers. It would take an exceptionally gifted lawyer to argue that this Act, or any other, should be construed as granting boaters a right to moor on private waters! The only right that they probably do have is to moor on their own land, provided that it does not connect to CaRT waters (which someone has proved to be the case!)

[Jim Riley]

19 minutes ago, Higgs said:

The appropriation of a right is classed as theft. 

 

Whilst it is within the right of the marina to write into its T&Cs that a boat should have a licence, it is is not within the right of the marina to apply the law of enforcement. This can only be done by CRT, and only when the boat is on a CRT waterway, which the marina is not. 

 

It is the moorer's right to be able to moor the boat on private property, free of the enforcement of the licence requirements. As they do not apply on private property. It is therefore theft of a right to make it compulsory to have a licence before mooring is allowed. The right would be, to be free of licence enforcement where licence enforcement is not a legal requirement. 

 

My words, my phrasing, but the classification exists in law. 

 

Even the threat of expulsion from the marina could be classed within the term - demand with menaces. As they demand a licence, not required, and threaten if it isn't adhered to. 

 

 

Twaddle!

[Higgs]

17 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

At last we seem to come to the crux of your argument. The second para is just what most of us have been trying to tell you: requiring the moorer to have a licence does not take the marina into a realm of enforcement in terms of how the boater complies with the requirements of the licence. I guess marina owners would not begin to want to get into that arena.

 

However, you assert a right which most of us cannot see written into statute or common law. AFAIK, the only general intrusion into what had hitherto been seen as the right of a landowner to determine who may or may not come onto their private land has been the so-called Right to Roam legislation that opened up moorlands to walkers. It would take an exceptionally gifted lawyer to argue that this Act, or any other, should be construed as granting boaters a right to moor on private waters! The only right that they probably do have is to moor on their own land, provided that it does not connect to CaRT waters (which someone has proved to be the case!)

 

Moorers in a marina are mooring on private property. The marina is set up to allow people to moor there. There's no forcing some common rights issue. I can walk into a bar, in a similar way. The doors are open for customers looking for a particular service. The marina just cannot create a law around the service that they have no power over. 

 

Whatever the marina writes in its T&Cs, they cannot demand certain things. Some of the T&Cs, not worth the paper they're written on. The law governing the use of a licence will verify that they are not entitled to demand a licence. 

 

 

 

Edited March 20, 2020 by Higgs

[Captain Pegg]

35 minutes ago, Higgs said:

The appropriation of a right is classed as theft. 

 

Whilst it is within the right of the marina to write into its T&Cs that a boat should have a licence, it is is not within the right of the marina to apply the law of enforcement. This can only be done by CRT, and only when the boat is on a CRT waterway, which the marina is not. 

 

It is the moorer's right to be able to moor the boat on private property, free of the enforcement of the licence requirements. As they do not apply on private property. It is therefore theft of a right to make it compulsory to have a licence before mooring is allowed. The right would be, to be free of licence enforcement where licence enforcement is not a legal requirement. 

 

My words, my phrasing, but the classification exists in law. 

 

Even the threat of expulsion from the marina could be classed within the term - demand with menaces. As they demand a licence, not required, and threaten if it isn't adhered to. 

 

 

You’re half right here.

 

The requirements for licensing within a marina are not enforceable under statutory powers but a contract is legally binding. If one party breaches the terms the other can take enforcement action which if the party in breach will not adhere to by their own free will can be enforced through law. Typically such action would likely be eviction from the marina or recovery of money owed. That is enforcement for breach of contract and not breach of statutory law. CRTs statutory powers have nothing to do with this and they do not transfer with the clause in the connection agreement. I have no doubt that both CRT and marina owners understand this.

Your first sentence I don’t understand because I think it’s nonsense. Your last sentence is simply wrong. Eviction from the marina would be the correct contractual remedy for a moorer who still refuses to licence a boat after they have had reasonable notice from the marina owner to do so.

JP

Edited March 20, 2020 by Captain Pegg

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

The requirements for licensing within a marina are not enforceable under statutory powers but a contract is legally binding.

 

Even if it contravenes statutory requirements? 

 

I don't think CRT could get away with prosecuting the marina for allowing unlicensed boats into the marina. What are CRT going to say - "but, a licence is a statutory requirement in a marina".

 

Hardly. 

 

 

 

 

[tree monkey]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Even if it contravenes statutory requirements? 

 

I don't think CRT could get away with prosecuting the marina for allowing unlicensed boats into the marina. What are CRT going to say - "but, a licence is a statutory requirement in a marina".

 

Hardly. 

 

 

 

 

If the marina refuses to comply with its contractual obligations CRT can close off access to the canal.

[Cheese]

12 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

...Whatever the marina writes in its T&Cs, they cannot demand certain things. ..

They can write whatever they like in their T&Cs, and (given that their customers accept them) unless/until some terms are ruled "unfair" by a court, they are sustainable under contract law.  It is no different to saying things like "no dogs" (or "dogs mandatory").

 

Yes, those terms are primarily in pursuit of a business proposition.  But that is what business is all about - coming up with T&Cs that are of mutual business to both business and customer.  Potential customers who don't like the terms of a particular business go elsewhere.