private mooring fees?

[mayalld]

4 hours 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. 

 

4 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

 

And with every passing day, the utter bilge that you spout gets more ridiculous.

 

Let me correct your sentence for you;

 

It is the moorer's right to be able to moor the boat on private property, with the permission of the owner of that property, free of the enforcement of the licence requirements.

 

And I will add that it is the right of the owner to make that permission contingent upon anything that he damn well pleases, without having to justify why he imposes that condition to the moorer.

[mayalld]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

Not something I'm disputing. Is your business being forced by another business to impose those? 

 

 

 

Your contract is with the marina.

 

The content of contracts that you are not a party to is, frankly, none of your business.

 

It is a fundamental of contract law that if I impose a condition on you by contract, you must where necessary impose that condition in contracts with others.

 

Let us assume that you are a landlord, and you rent a property to me. In the lease (a contract), you prohibit smoking, but you allow subletting.

 

I sublet the property. I must impose the no smoking restriction. Not because I have decided to, but because it has been imposed on me by somebody else.

 

[Higgs]

3 minutes ago, mayalld said:

Let me correct your sentence for you;

 

It is the moorer's right to be able to moor the boat on private property, with the permission of the owner of that property, free of the enforcement of the licence requirements.

 

And I will add that it is the right of the owner to make that permission contingent upon anything that he damn well pleases, without having to justify why he imposes that condition to the moorer.

 

The permission of the owner has nothing to do with it. That choice was removed, when the marina owner signed the contract with CRT.  The business deal stipulates a non statutory requirement be forced on the moorers. What has the choice of the marina owner got to do with it. Their only other choice would have been to give up their business plans. Some choice. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, mayalld said:

 

Your contract is with the marina.

 

The content of contracts that you are not a party to is, frankly, none of your business.

 

It is a fundamental of contract law that if I impose a condition on you by contract, you must where necessary impose that condition in contracts with others.

 

Let us assume that you are a landlord, and you rent a property to me. In the lease (a contract), you prohibit smoking, but you allow subletting.

 

I sublet the property. I must impose the no smoking restriction. Not because I have decided to, but because it has been imposed on me by somebody else.

 

 

Balderdash!

 

 

[Stilllearning]

8 minutes ago, mayalld said:

 

 

And with every passing day, the utter bilge that you spout gets more ridiculous.

 

Let me correct your sentence for you;

 

It is the moorer's right to be able to moor the boat on private property, with the permission of the owner of that property, free of the enforcement of the licence requirements.

 

And I will add that it is the right of the owner to make that permission contingent upon anything that he damn well pleases, without having to justify why he imposes that condition to the moorer.

I do sometimes wonder where he moors his boat.

Having moored boats both on and off CRT waters and in non NAA marinas, there are benefits to both systems, but, and this is the important point, in every case I had to sign a contract which contained various clauses in order to keep the boat there. If I didn’t like it I had to move, it’s really not complicated except to Higgsy.

Oh and the marinas choice wasn’t removed old chap, the marina decided/chose to accept conditions, like we all do when we sign on the dotted line for something, you know, those pesky ts and cs apply bits. I don’t expect you to agree with any of this, btw.

[mayalld]

26 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

The permission of the owner has nothing to do with it. That choice was removed, when the marina owner signed the contract with CRT.  The business deal stipulates a non statutory requirement be forced on the moorers. What has the choice of the marina owner got to do with it. Their only other choice would have been to give up their business plans. Some choice. 

 

 

At the point he signed the contract, he was a landowner, not a marina owner.

 

He could have done many things with his land. He chose to build a marina, knowing that he would have to enter into this contract.

 

That is the way contracts work.

[Higgs]

10 minutes ago, mayalld said:

 

At the point he signed the contract, he was a landowner, not a marina owner.

 

He could have done many things with his land. He chose to build a marina, knowing that he would have to enter into this contract.

 

That is the way contracts work.

 

That doesn't make me responsible to the marina for a boat licence. 

 

Shutting shop at 4pm. But alas, not forever. ☺️

 

 

Edited March 20, 2020 by Higgs

[mayalld]

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

That doesn't make me responsible to the marina for a boat licence. 

 

 

Yes it does.

 

Go any buy your moorings from somebody who doesn't have a requirement for you to licence your boat

 

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, mayalld said:

Yes it does.

 

Go any buy your moorings from somebody who doesn't have a requirement for you to licence your boat

 

 

That'll be almost every marina that follows the statutory requirements of enforcement. The contract does not allow them to do that. 

 

 

[mayalld]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

That'll be almost every marina that follows the statutory requirements of enforcement. The contract does not allow them to do that. 

 

 

 

We have already established that licences are not a statutory requirement in marinas, but are a contractual requirement in some marinas. Enforcement is by the usal remedies for breach of contract, nit by means of statutory powers.

 

There are quite a lot of marinas where a licence is not required.

 

[Higgs]

9 minutes ago, mayalld said:

 

We have already established that licences are not a statutory requirement in marinas, but are a contractual requirement in some marinas. Enforcement is by the usal remedies for breach of contract, nit by means of statutory powers.

 

There are quite a lot of marinas where a licence is not required.

 

 

Well, someone is having to turn a blind eye. If it isn't required, what force of power in court would prosecute for non compliance of a rule that has no support in the law that actual does make up the legal framework for the requirement of a licence. 

 

 

Edited March 20, 2020 by Higgs

[mayalld]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

Well, someone is having to turn a blind. If it isn't required, what force of power in court would prosecute for non compliance of a rule that has no support in the law that actual does write the legal framework for the requirement of a licence. 

 

 

Nobody (except you) is suggesting that anybody can be prosecuted for not having a licence in a marina.

 

What can be done is that the marina owner can evict the boat from his marina, on the basis that the boat owner has breached his contract.

 

[Captain Pegg]

47 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

The permission of the owner has nothing to do with it. That choice was removed, when the marina owner signed the contract with CRT.  The business deal stipulates a non statutory requirement be forced on the moorers. What has the choice of the marina owner got to do with it. Their only other choice would have been to give up their business plans. Some choice. 

 

 

 

Balderdash!

 

 

The whole point of a contract is to set out non-statutory requirements. Parliament have already set out the statutory ones.

 

The point was that you can’t moor without permission, let alone have a right to do so. Further I don’t believe boaters have any right to moor anywhere including against the towpath on CRT waters even when licensed. That is also permissive.

 

Where rights do exist - for example to pass and repass along a public highway - there may still be requirements attached to that right such as the purchase of a road fund licence should you wish to exercise that right in a motor vehicle.

 

JP

[Higgs]

4 minutes ago, mayalld said:

Nobody (except you) is suggesting that anybody can be prosecuted for not having a licence in a marina.

 

What can be done is that the marina owner can evict the boat from his marina, on the basis that the boat owner has breached his contract.

 

 

So, in order for the marina rule to be proved right, the boat has to be forced out onto the canal. That's kind of arse about faced logic, to prove the only place the licence is valid is, out on the cut. 

 

If it had relevance in the marina, the marina owner should take the boater to court. This will only prove the marina and CRT are asses. 

 

 

 

Edited March 20, 2020 by Higgs

[mayalld]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

So, in order for the marina rule to be proved right, the boat has to be forced out onto the canal. That's kind of arse about faced logic, to prove the only place the licence is valid is, out on the cut. 

 

 

The boat owner can remove his boat in any way he sees fit, that could be by crane.

[Captain Pegg]

3 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

So, in order for the marina rule to be proved right, the boat has to be forced out onto the canal. That's kind of arse about faced logic, to prove the only place the licence is valid is, out on the cut. 

 

 

As you pointed out to me earlier there other ways to access (and therefore egress) a marina. Would you want to foot the bill for leaving via the back door or just go quietly as directed through the front door?

 

JP

[Higgs]

10 minutes ago, mayalld said:

The boat owner can remove his boat in any way he sees fit, that could be by crane.

 

Ok, granted. It will need floating in another marina that applies the same non enforceable rule. The boat doesn't matter, it's the non enforceable rule. Let the marina owner take the boat owner to court and try to evict that way. Because, no law would have been broken that the marina owner could cite. If one examines the rules for licence requirement. The marina contract is just a very poor contract for boaters. Pretty good money spinner for CRT. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 20, 2020 by Higgs

[tree monkey]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

Ok, granted. It will need floating in another marina that applies the same non enforceable rule. The boat doesn't matter, it's the non enforceable rule. Let the marina owner take the boat owner to court and try to evict that way. Because, no law would have been broken that the marina owner could to cite. If one examines the rules for licence requirement. The marina contract is just a very poor contract for boaters. Pretty good money spinner for CRT. 

 

 

 

 

No licence means you have broken the terms of the contract you signed, the statuary rules CRT use have bugger all to do with it, it's between you and the marina

[mayalld]

3 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Ok, granted. It will need floating in another marina that applies the same non enforceable rule. The boat doesn't matter, it's the non enforceable rule. Let the marina owner take the boat owner to court and try to evict that way. Because, no law would have been broken that the marina owner could cite. If one examines the rules for licence requirement. The marina contract is just a very poor contract for boaters. Pretty good money spinner for CRT. 

 

Courts evict people all the time who haven't broken any law.

 

No breach of the law is required, just a breach of the contract.

 

And (not that it is remotely relevant to whether the court would evict), the boat could be kept on hardstanding or floated in a marina that doesn't require a licence (and there are many of them)

 

[Alan de Enfield]

16 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

The point was that you can’t moor without permission, let alone have a right to do so. Further I don’t believe boaters have any right to moor anywhere including against the towpath on CRT waters even when licensed. That is also permissive.

Boat WITH a home mooring have no legal right to moor anywhere on the canal, it is simply permissive.

 

Boats WITHOUT a home mooring (CCers) have a legal right to moor on the canal for up to 14 days (unless etc etc etc)

 

An old post by Nigel Moore

 

Over the latter part of the 20th century, longer temporary use of the towpath for mooring became tolerated on a pragmatic basis, with 14 days fixed upon as a rough guideline for reasons lost in obscurity (for all that BW came up with postulated origins during the Select Committee hearings on the 1990 Bill).

 

Obstruction remains on the statute books as an offence, updated even in the 1995 Act, and overstaying stated times on selected sections has been used with County Court approval to qualify the boat – being thereby regarded as an obstruction - for being moved under s.8(5) of the 1983 Act. Anything longer than an overnight stay, as I see it, is simply permissive – with the exception of boats without home moorings, for whom only, the right to 14 days (or more if circumstances dictate) is enshrined in law.

 

For boats with home moorings when cruising away from those, the 14 day limit would apply only as a permissive one based on a fair-play comparison with the ‘continuous cruisers’. It is simply, in other words, that CaRT would find difficulty in justifying the application of differing standards based only on the nature of the boat licence application.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, tree monkey said:

No licence means you have broken the terms of the contract you signed, the statuary rules CRT use have bugger all to do with it, it's between you and the marina

 

I signed for what can justifiably be called valid. 

 

 

[mayalld]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

I signed for what can justifiably be called valid. 

 

 

Nope, you signed a contract in its totality.

 

You don't get to decide that you don't like some bits of it after the event.

 

Or rather you can, but the marina owner can then decide that he doesn't like the bit about you being allowed to moor there.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, mayalld said:

Courts evict people all the time who haven't broken any law.

 

No breach of the law is required, just a breach of the contract.

 

And (not that it is remotely relevant to whether the court would evict), the boat could be kept on hardstanding or floated in a marina that doesn't require a licence (and there are many of them)

 

 

Ok, a higher bar of testing will have to be used. 

 

But can the court approve eviction, if the contract is questionably rigged to disadvantage the customer and benefit the other party, seeking eviction. 

 

 

[mayalld]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

Ok, a higher bar of testing will have to be used. 

 

But can the court approve eviction, if the contract is questionably rigged to disadvantage the customer and benefit the other party, seeking eviction. 

 

Yes.

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, mayalld said:

Nope, you signed a contract in its totality.

 

You don't get to decide that you don't like some bits of it after the event.

 

Or rather you can, but the marina owner can then decide that he doesn't like the bit about you being allowed to moor there.

 

Well, I refer you to my previous post. 

 

 

[mayalld]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

Well, I refer you to my previous post. 

 

 

You have made many previous posts. None of them have made any sense.