Jump to content

private mooring fees?


tats

Featured Posts

7 minutes ago, mayalld said:

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

 

 

Well, I can see an illogical situation. And, I'm not about to start thinking the statutory power entrusted to CRT, and the issuing of a licence, can simply be fobbed off with a business arrangement. 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, mayalld said:

Well, if you were to accuse a marina or CRT of theft, that would be defamatory, because they have not stolen anything

 

Appropriation of a right is classed under the theft act. 

 

 

downloadclosed.jpg

For the weekend.

 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Appropriation of a right is classed under the theft act. 

 

A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

 

Theft Act 1968

 

The moorer has no absolute right to moor. What right he has devolves upon him by virtue of a contract entered into with the Marina Owner and is contingent upon the terms of that contract.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

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. 

 

 

Because the marina pre-dated NAA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about when on a marina NO licence required, however you want to go out on the cut  you require a licence of 20% of yearly amount per week/month. Or maybe a barrier across the entrance that requires a smart card to open barrier on CRT side of entrance no licence no access, "Simples"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I think Higgsy is just having one big laugh winding up all the respondents here, including me!

 

He understands the position perfectly well, but is amusing himself pretending not to. 

 

 

I do wonder. Every time we seem to be getting to a point of understanding it suddenly backtracks to go back through the same arguments again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

I do wonder. Every time we seem to be getting to a point of understanding it suddenly backtracks to go back through the same arguments again.

 

Well yes, quite. He is determined not to understand no matter how clearly explained.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

I do wonder. Every time we seem to be getting to a point of understanding it suddenly backtracks to go back through the same arguments again.

 

Yes, just like in the film Groundhog Day ?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Yes, just like in the film Groundhog Day ?

 

Yes Higgsy appreciates once a joint understanding is reached, all the fun stops. So he loops back to an earlier point in the argument and we all start explaining it again!

 

Keep playing the game chaps, just don't back him too tightly into a corner with logic or this will spoil the never ending fun!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes Higgsy appreciates once a joint understanding is reached, all the fun stops. So he loops back to an earlier point in the argument and we all start explaining it again!

 

Keep playing the game chaps, just don't back him too tightly into a corner with logic or this will spoil the never ending fun!

 

 

 

Perhaps when we reach 500 posts, the admin team could copy and paste all of the earlier posts to the end of the thread to save us all from having to keep responding to him? ??

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes Higgsy appreciates once a joint understanding is reached, all the fun stops. So he loops back to an earlier point in the argument and we all start explaining it again!

 

Keep playing the game chaps, just don't back him too tightly into a corner with logic or this will spoil the never ending fun!

 

 

I'm not so sure, days ago he promised to block me for post #364, the pythons Black Knight sketch, totally apt in this situation. I must have touched a nerve! ????

Now don't wind him up quoting me or that post again so he can see it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story, so far...

 

Treated as independents, and outside of the NAA contract, as two serparate parties: Neither CRT or the marina have the statutory power to require the possesion of a licence within the private area of a marina.

 

A marina could always insist, in an officious and domineering way, and by right, on whatever it wanted in its T&Cs. However, to be able to do what it wants, it has to have full autonomy. In regards to the NAA, that autonomy is partially removed, and the marina is obliged to accept conditions. The contract removes rights of the marina to decide, and the marina signed away its right to a choice, by entering into a contractual arrangement with CRT.

 

The marina, in signing away its discretionary right to choose, also signed away the moorer's right. The right to have the support of law, which, implicit in its regulatory authority, does not make the licence compulsory on private property. The NAA seeks to make it compulsory. It can't (statutory law), but it tries. The contract (NAA) interfered with the rights of the marina, of course, by the marina's own choice. The choice of the marina to write its own T&Cs is no longer discretionary throughout. Therefore, the arguement that the marina can do what ever it chooses cannot be wholly accurate.

 

The contradiction of positions.

 

Statutory Law - Those, specific to which, CRT derives its authority.

 

Statutory Law. - Implicit in it is that you don't need a licence inside a marina, on private property. The licence is a permit with a relative legal value. It has value, only in designated and legally relevant areas. CRT waterways only.

 

And the NAA is, in effect, creating a nonsense of the statutory position...

 

NAA - Network Access Agreement

 

NAA. Contract Law. - Statutory or regulated practice is being circumvented, in part. What good is statutory law, if contract law can manipulate it. What use the legislature.

 

If it isn't being ignored, how else can you force people to have a licence, when a licence is not a requirement in a private place. Legislation does not require it. And yet, now by 'contract', a deal, it is a requirement. And, in my opinion, leading to an exploitation.

 

So, , up and down the canal, which groups can ignore statutory law with apparent impunity? Two groups presume to have that right - CRT, and the marinas. And why is that the case, if not for gain. It has done nothing for the rule of law. That's clear. An element of the contract (NAA) is not in step with the statutory law that governs CRT: This is the basis of the problem, as I interpret it.

 

My words, my phrasing, my conclusions: With or without a boat.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Higgs said:

The story, so far...

 

Treated as independents, and outside of the NAA contract, as two serparate parties: Neither CRT or the marina have the statutory power to require the possesion of a licence within the private area of a marina.

 

A marina could always insist, in an officious and domineering way, and by right, on whatever it wanted in its T&Cs. However, to be able to do what it wants, it has to have full autonomy. In regards to the NAA, that autonomy is partially removed, and the marina is obliged to accept conditions. The contract removes rights of the marina to decide, and the marina signed away its right to a choice, by entering into a contractual arrangement with CRT.

 

The marina, in signing away its discretionary right to choose, also signed away the moorer's right. The right to have the support of law, which, implicit in its regulatory authority, does not make the licence compulsory on private property. The NAA seeks to make it compulsory. It can't (statutory law), but it tries. The contract (NAA) interfered with the rights of the marina, of course, by the marina's own choice. The choice of the marina to write its own T&Cs is no longer discretionary throughout. Therefore, the arguement that the marina can do what ever it chooses cannot be wholly accurate.

 

The contradiction of positions.

 

Statutory Law - Those, specific to which, CRT derives its authority.

 

Statutory Law. - Implicit in it is that you don't need a licence inside a marina, on private property. The licence is a permit with a relative legal value. It has value, only in designated and legally relevant areas. CRT waterways only.

 

And the NAA is, in effect, creating a nonsense of the statutory position...

 

NAA - Network Access Agreement

 

NAA. Contract Law. - Statutory or regulated practice is being circumvented, in part. What good is statutory law, if contract law can manipulate it. What use the legislature.

 

If it isn't being ignored, how else can you force people to have a licence, when a licence is not a requirement in a private place. Legislation does not require it. And yet, now by 'contract', a deal, it is a requirement. And, in my opinion, leading to an exploitation.

 

So, , up and down the canal, which groups can ignore statutory law with apparent impunity? Two groups presume to have that right - CRT, and the marinas. And why is that the case, if not for gain. It has done nothing for the rule of law. That's clear. An element of the contract (NAA) is not in step with the statutory law that governs CRT: This is the basis of the problem, as I interpret it.

 

My words, my phrasing, my conclusions: With or without a boat.

 

 

 

 

Show us a clause in the NAA and a clause in a statute that are contradictory.

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

If you seem to think I'm wrong, take the time to prove it.

It doesn’t work that way. You have made an assertion so the onus is on YOU to prove that claim. 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may have a compelling argument (I don’t think you do) but the only way to clarify is to go through the courts.  If you choose that route, I hope you have a lot a lot of spare money to pay all the costs you will be responsible for.  Based on others futile fights I have read about, £50k might cover it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, WotEver said:

It doesn’t work that way. You have made an assertion so the onus is on YOU to prove that claim. 

 

I've given everyone ample opportunity to say more than - they do it, because they can. I made a statement and, that, as far as I am concerned, is that.

 

Isn't it slightly obvious that, if CRT are regulated, that regulation doesn't stop, because of a business deal. It's statutory regulation. CRT can only operate where that regulation permits. Private property is not part of the permit.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

If you seem to think I'm wrong, take the time to prove it.

 

 

Nothing to prove. I understand the situation and while I can see it’s unfortunate if you don’t ever leave a marina it’s not unlawful. You still ask questions that have been answered at length but to which you have claimed you don’t have the capacity to read the full answers. That’s your problem.

 

14 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

You may have a compelling argument (I don’t think you do) but the only way to clarify is to go through the courts.  If you choose that route, I hope you have a lot a lot of spare money to pay all the costs you will be responsible for.  Based on others futile fights I have read about, £50k might cover it. 

Or he could just demonstrate his point with an excerpt from the NAA and a excerpt from a statute that he believes to be contradictory.

 

JP

Edited by Captain Pegg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Captain Pegg said:

Nothing to prove. I understand the situation and while I can see it’s unfortunate if you don’t ever leave a marina it’s not unlawful. You still ask questions that have been answered at length but to which you have claimed you don’t have the capacity to read the full answers. That’s your problem.

 

JP

 

My argument does not rely on the possession of a boat, or the need of a marina.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

My argument does not rely on the possession of a boat, or the need of a marina.  

 

 

Surely it needs a marina? As I said earlier I don’t think you really understand your own argument. Either that or it shifts as it gets unpicked.

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.