private mooring fees?

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Jim Riley said:

I have and it doesn't conflict. 

Perhaps you should set up a poll, democratically bring the issue to a close? 

 

You'll have to give me a 1000 quid, first.

 

 

[Jim Riley]

On the other channel, polls are free. Are you angling for us to pay your marina fees? Sooo unfair! ????

[TheBiscuits]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

You'll have to give me a 1000 quid, first.

 

 

As it's all about the money, why not insist that the marina pays for the licence that their mooring contract insists you have out of their mooring fees.

 

 

[Higgs]

28 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

As it's all about the money, why not insist that the marina pays for the licence that their mooring contract insists you have out of their mooring fees.

 

 

 

It isn't all about money. And, not a bad idea. But, it would be treated like an overhead and bunged onto the mooring fee.

 

 

Edited March 17, 2020 by Higgs

[Captain Pegg]

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

You're right. You've tried, but have never got your head around the fact that a licence isn't required in certain places. And that, a contract can somehow undermine what the law requires to serve its purpose.

 

The principle you forward is - a business contract has primacy over actual law governing the requirement of a licence.

 

 

 

 

That’s your interpretation and it isn’t correct. A contract may include anything other than;-

 

- that which is expressly prohibited by statute

 

- unfair clauses as per the law covering such (for which there is core statutory law but the day to day application is constructed through case law)

 

CRT’s powers do not preclude them from entering into commercial agreements with other parties for issues related to CRTs core business. Normal contract law applies to these arrangements so providing there is no statute that specifically prohibits CRT from requiring licences for boats that are connected to - rather than directly on - CRT waterways there is no bar on them requiring boats to be licensed through a contract. As things stand it must be assumed that marina owners believe this to be fair as there doesn’t appear to be any challenge.

 

In the event that were to happen the court would probably look at the following factors;-

 

- the connection agreement is principally a vehicle to support the marina’s business rather than CRTs. Without the right of access there is no real business case for a marina connected to a canal.

- it is reasonable to assume that boats moored in a marina will in general wish to use the network of waterways to which the marina concerned is connected
 

- because the contract gives a right of access to that network it gives rise to the possibility of unlicensed boats accessing the network in a way that would incur costs on CRT’s behalf if they could only enforce their powers once unlicensed boats had left the marina

 

- that risk is controlled by the clause in the contract requiring boats in connected marinas to be licensed and is a legitimate protection of CRT’s statutory business

- it follows that the requirement for boats in connected marinas to be licensed is not unfair and also not being barred by statute is therefore legal

 

 

JP

 

 

 

[Mike Todd]

In case anyone think that CaRT are the only navigation authority taking this view, MLC also agree - but at least offer a discount for those that never leave the marina. (see other thread on this for details)

 

Since ML licencing is new and has been subject to detailed scrutiny, I would doubt that they are doing anything that is at all suspect, legally. And what is more, they do not appear to depend on a NAA as a basis.

[mayalld]

3 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

You just can't decide which legal position to follow. I understand that laws are created in parliament, not the marina.

 

Nobody is suggesting that they need to decide which legal position to follow, or creating laws.

 

What is happening is that a private organisation (the marina) is imposing requirements for its customers. It is not illegal to have a boat licence but not to go cruising.

 

Companies can do things like that. They don't have to justify themselves to you, and it is not material to you that they do so as part of a contract they have entered into, or because they think all their customers should help fund the canals.

[Higgs]

20 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

A contract may include anything other than;-

- that which is expressly prohibited by statute

 

That's convenient, but I know a licence isn't required in the marina to satisfy the statutory powers.

 

 

[Jim Riley]

We all know that too.

I suppose the lesson to be learned from all this is "Life's a Bitch and then you Die!" 

Might as well stop Wittering on and go boating. 

Edited March 17, 2020 by Jim Riley

[TheBiscuits]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

That's convenient, but I know a licence isn't required in the marina to satisfy the statutory powers.

 

 

We all agree with you up to that point.  You are correct.  Well done.

 

It is your next conclusion we do not understand, because it does not follow logically from the previous arguments.

 

"a licence isn't required in the marina to satisfy the statutory powers" is a very different statement to "a licence isn't required in the marina"

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, mayalld said:

Nobody is suggesting that they need to decide which legal position to follow, or creating laws.

 

What is happening is that a private organisation (the marina) is imposing requirements for its customers. It is not illegal to have a boat licence but not to go cruising.

 

Companies can do things like that. They don't have to justify themselves to you, and it is not material to you that they do so as part of a contract they have entered into, or because they think all their customers should help fund the canals.

 

It is clearly correct that two businesses are requiring something that, one; the marina has no power to control how the licence is used, two; CRT cannot grant its statutory powers to a marina. If the statutory powers have no effect in a marina, the marina cannot assume those powers. The licence is not a bargaining chip for business.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Jim Riley said:

We all know that too.

I suppose the lesson to be learned from all this is "Life's a Bitch and then you Die!" 

Might as well stop Wittering on and go boating. 

 

Possibly, for you.

 

 

7 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

We all agree with you up to that point.  You are correct.  Well done.

 

It is your next conclusion we do not understand, because it does not follow logically from the previous arguments.

 

"a licence isn't required in the marina to satisfy the statutory powers" is a very different statement to "a licence isn't required in the marina"

 

Well, when the marina have the necessary statutory powers, give me a bell.

 

 

[Jim Riley]

It's not "assuming" anyone else's powers.

Think of it like this, I own a marina, And hate green boats. So my contract with boaters says "no green boats". An uppity boater disagrees, paints his boat green, I chuck him out. Substitute whatever you want for "green boat" as long as its legal to comply. Job sorted, no conflict with anything else. No statutory powers required. 

Edited March 17, 2020 by Jim Riley

[Higgs]

14 minutes ago, Jim Riley said:

It's not "assuming" anyone else's powers.

Think of it like this, I own a marina, And hate green boats. So my contract with boaters says "no green boats". An uppity boater disagrees, paints his boat green, I chuck him out. Substitute water you want for "green boat" as long as its legal to comply. 

 

Marinas agree to do what they do, as is, the issue I mention, because it costs them nothing to do it. There is a penalty for not agreeing - no business. Focuses the business mind of someone wanting to make money.

 

Undue influence.

 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2020 by Higgs

[TheBiscuits]

51 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Well, when the marina have the necessary statutory powers, give me a bell.

 

Yes, that is the step that does not follow from your previous points and causes the confusion.

 

The marina does not have the statutory powers to enforce a licence.  We know.  You are correct.

 

Why do you think anyone is saying that they do?  They don't need to have the statutory powers to require you to have a licence as a condition of mooring there.   

 

How and why do you jump from the fact that private marinas are not a statutory navigation authority (and therefore don't have the powers or obligations of the British Waterways bills) to thinking that they need or would want them?

 

 

[BillM]

I’m not sure there is much point continually reaffirming the factual case that Mayalid and others have so clearly made,  when Higgs’ case is little more than the repetitive pseudo legal babble spouted by the likes of Freeman of the Land folk. 

Edited March 17, 2020 by BillM

[Higgs]

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

Yes, that is the step that does not follow from your previous points and causes the confusion.

 

The marina does not have the statutory powers to enforce a licence.  We know.  You are correct.

 

Why do you think anyone is saying that they do?  They don't need to have the statutory powers to require you to have a licence as a condition of mooring there.   

 

How and why do you jump from the fact that private marinas are not a statutory navigation authority (and therefore don't have the powers or obligations of the British Waterways bills) to thinking that they need or would want them?

 

 

 

They don't. The licence has no legal status on private property. It signifies nothing more than a requirement of a business deal. No more. The business deal does not validate the symbol of certification that pertains to the use of CRT waterways. It has as much significance in law, inside a marina, as the top of a jar of Marmite.

 

CRT do not have the right to kick you out of a marina. The marina cannot give authority for the use of a canal.

 

 

Edited March 17, 2020 by Higgs

[Captain Pegg]

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

That's convenient, but I know a licence isn't required in the marina to satisfy the statutory powers.

 

 

It’s hardly convenient that the law doesn’t make two parties coming to a mutually beneficial agreement difficult. Why should it?
 

You seem to think the connection agreement is foisted upon marinas but that’s not the case. Without it the marina has no business as you have identified. Do you think CRT should allow anyone to connect to the network with no control on what enters the network through that connection?

 

As @TheBiscuits has said the latter point is correct but not relevant to your relationship with the marina which is governed by your contract, as is theirs with CRT.

 

JP

[tree monkey]

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

They don't. The licence has no legal status on private property. It signifies nothing more than a requirement of business. No more. The business deal does not validate the symbol of certification that pertains to the use of CRT waterways. It has as much significance in law, inside a marina, as the top of a jar of Marmite.

 

 

Well yes that's what everyone has been saying, it's part of the deal with CRT to allow a puddle in a field to be connected to their canal network 

[TheBiscuits]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

They don't. The licence has no legal status on private property. It signifies nothing more than a requirement of business. No more. The business deal does not validate the symbol of certification that pertains to the use of CRT waterways. It has as much significance in law, inside a marina, as the top of a jar of Marmite.

 

 

 

Yes we agree on that point.

 

The actual question I asked, edited for clarity is:

 

How and why do you jump ... to thinking that [marinas] need or would want [ the statutory power we all agree they do not have or need]

 

You have a disconnect in your explanations.  I don't know if everyone else is missing something that is obvious to you or if you are imagining something that does not exist.

 

I am willing to consider your theory if you would just once explain it in actual words.  Without skipping over the whole crux of the theory.

 

[Higgs]

3 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

It’s hardly convenient that the law doesn’t make two parties coming to a mutually beneficial agreement difficult. Why should it?
 

You seem to think the connection agreement is foisted upon marinas but that’s not the case. Without it the marina has no business as you have identified. Do you think CRT should allow anyone to connect to the network with no control on what enters the network through that connection?

 

As @TheBiscuits has said the latter point is correct but not relevant to your relationship with the marina which is governed by your contract, as is theirs with CRT.

 

JP

 

There is more than one way to enter a marina. CRT get paid for the connection. All moorers pay 9% surcharge. And if not, if the marina is empty, the marina owner pays.

 

 

[Captain Pegg]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

There is more than one way to enter a marina. CRT get paid for the connection. All moorers pay 9% surcharge. And if not, if the marina is empty, the marina owner pays.

 

 

Not sure the relevance of the first bit but it’s immaterial to my point if there is a connection to CRT waters. The second bit is how it works, because the legally binding contracts agreed between CRT and marina, and then marina and moorer say so. To not comply is a breach of contract and therefore a breach of law; just not the statute law that gives CRT power to licence boats. That isn’t the only law that applies to canals.

 

JP

[Higgs]

16 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Yes we agree on that point.

 

The actual question I asked, edited for clarity is:

 

How and why do you jump ... to thinking that [marinas] need or would want [ the statutory power we all agree they do not have or need]

 

You have a disconnect in your explanations.  I don't know if everyone else is missing something that is obvious to you or if you are imagining something that does not exist.

 

I am willing to consider your theory if you would just once explain it in actual words.  Without skipping over the whole crux of the theory.

 

 

Why should the marinas worry about requiring statutory power. The necessity to require boaters to have a licence is a simple function of their business operation. The purpose of requiring boaters to have a licence is not something of their, the marina's concern. The choice to the marina is simple - do something that is required for business. Make other people do something they don't need to do, but for which they have no option. They only need to do it under pressure. If that pressure had not been applied, there is no way they could ask for a licence requirement. The marinas don't have the powers.

 

There is a direct legal relationship between the boater and CRT. It is broken in the marina. Even through the T&Cs of the marina.

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Not sure the relevance of the first bit but it’s immaterial to my point if there is a connection to CRT waters.

 

CRT get paid a connection fee. What more do you want.

 

 

18 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Well yes that's what everyone has been saying, it's part of the deal with CRT to allow a puddle in a field to be connected to their canal network 

 

Give me £10,000. That's my terms and conditions to answer your question.

 

 

Edited March 17, 2020 by Higgs

[tree monkey]

7 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

 

 

 

Give me £10,000. That's my terms and conditions to answer your question.

 

 

I have no desire for that answer so I have no need to enter into that particular agreement.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, tree monkey said:

I have no desire for that answer so I have no need to enter into that particular agreement.

 

£11,000

 

 

[TheBiscuits]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

Why should the marinas worry about requiring statutory power. The necessity to require boaters to have a licence is a simple function of their business operation. The purpose of requiring boaters to have a licence is not something of their, the marina's concern. The choice to the marina is simple - do something that is required for business. 

Yes, that's what everybody - including you it seems - agree on.

 

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

Make other people do something they don't need to do, but for which they have no option. They only need to do it under pressure.

And that's where your argument falls down.  The boaters DO have several other options, as has been explained to you at length over the years.

 

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

If that pressure had not been applied, there is no way [the marina] could ask for a licence requirement.

And that's the other bit where you are wrong.  The marina can ask what they like of the boaters.  If the boaters don't like the terms offered then they are free not to moor in that particular marina.