Reduction in River licence

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, Flyboy said:

It's what I was told over 10 years ago by a BW person.  Seemed very logical to me so have no reason to think anything has changed. There are some marinas where you don't have to have a licence, I don't know why that is but suspect it's some sort of grandfathers rights that go way back.

C&RT do not own the water (no one does) but they are responsible for the management of it.

 

Many 'old' marinas do not have to pay 'access rights' (NAA = National Access Agreement) as they were established before BW saw an opportunity for another income stream.

 

Here is a screen shot of a C&RT document (I cannot post it as the forum does not allow posting of PDF's.

 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[Higgs]

1 hour ago, ivan&alice said:

Is this an official position or the logical position? If it's the official reason then I can't argue. But logically I'm not sure I'd agree that floating on a couple of feet of water (already paid for through the access fee) above private land makes you on CaRT property and therefore subject to their license.

 

That said, an official position from CaRT declaring that in order to be granted water access all boats floating on said water must be in posession of a license would be their perogative when negotiating whether to grant a marina access. I wonder if this is what @Higgs means when he says this is an abuse of power?

 

---

 

I'm fairly sure (can't find where) that someone said some marinas don't require that you have a CaRT license. If that's the case, and it's on a per-marina basis, then rather than blame CaRT (that old hobby-horse scape-goat) either lobby the marina to change their rules or find a marina that is more amenable to your preferences?

 

You seem to be asking the same questions, and I can't offer another answer. I have missed out answering those parts of your post with repeated questions.

 

The water in the marina is not 'CRT water', not CRT domain, not requiring a licence for CRT waterways - inside a private marina. an Independent concern, not associated with having historic rights. 

 

You cannot be on a CRT waterway, without a valid licence. But, see the above line.

 

Some marinas have historic rights that allow non licenced boats. Even boats that moor in this type of marina will require a licence to move out of the marina and onto CRT waterways. 

 

That's me done. ?

 

 

 

[Higgs]

42 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

C&RT do not own the water (no one does) but they are responsible for the management of it.

 

Many 'old' marinas do not have to pay 'access rights' (NAA = National Access Agreement) as they were established before BW saw an opportunity for another income stream.

 

 

I've read it. CRT still have neither jurisdiction or obligation to maintain, inside a marina - a private one. Statute does not remove the private property status of a marina. 

 

 

My red emphasis, on a very commercialised opportunistic use of a position of power, to require an unnecessary licence. Write its requirement into a contract. The NAA.

 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2020 by Higgs

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, Higgs said:

That's me done

As you have posted after this, obviously not !!

[Higgs]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

As you have posted after this, obviously not !!

 

No. I hadn't seen your post, as I reached the other post first, on the previous page. I only noticed yours, when I posted the other - first. ?

 

Done now - again.

 

 

Edited April 25, 2020 by Higgs

[jetzi]

16 minutes ago, Higgs said:

You seem to be asking the same questions, and I can't offer another answer. I have missed out answering those parts of your post with repeated questions.

 

The water in the marina is not 'CRT water', not CRT domain, not requiring a licence for CRT waterways - inside a private marina. an Independent concern, not associated with having historic rights. 

 

You cannot be on a CRT waterway, without a valid licence. But, see the above line.

 

Some marinas have historic rights that allow non licenced boats. Even boats that moor in this type of marina will require a licence to move out of the marina and onto CRT waterways. 

 

That's me done. ?

I'm rephrasing the same questions hoping for a rephrasing of the answer because I didn't understand.

 

But I think I get it now - what you're saying is that

 

a) Marinas are compelled by CaRT to not allow unlicensed boats

b) The CaRT should not do this because the marina is not their jurisdiction

 

I'm not exactly sure what CaRT is doing wrong here - perhaps they are refusing to grant access to marinas who don't agree to (a). And, as a monopoly, marinas have no alternative but to listen to CaRT.

 

I can see this point of view, so thank you for explaining. I'd say that if the marina is begrudgingly requiring licenses from their tenants, then I agree, this seems like an abuse on CaRT's part. But for the reasons I gave in an earlier post I'd imagine that it's a mutually beneficial arrangement from the marina's point of view, too.

 

Whether boats in a marina need a CaRT license seems like an incredibly niche issue though. Why on earth would someone have a boat in a marina if not to go boating, at least sometimes? Surely almost everyone in a marina does in fact need a license? Seems to me that the ideal solution for someone in this situation is to buy or rent a small plot of land and crane the boat onto hard standing - or even simpler - get rid of the boat?

[Higgs]

15 hours ago, ivan&alice said:

I can see this point of view, so thank you for explaining. I'd say that if the marina is begrudgingly requiring licenses from their tenants, then I agree, this seems like an abuse on CaRT's part. But for the reasons I gave in an earlier post I'd imagine that it's a mutually beneficial arrangement from the marina's point of view, too.

 

Whether boats in a marina need a CaRT license seems like an incredibly niche issue though. Why on earth would someone have a boat in a marina if not to go boating, at least sometimes? Surely almost everyone in a marina does in fact need a license? Seems to me that the ideal solution for someone in this situation is to buy or rent a small plot of land and crane the boat onto hard standing - or even simpler - get rid of the boat?

 

I will at some point have to put together, in a PDF, or in some other way, the two positions - mine and the objections. To have many scattered posts going over the same thing in different ways is not the best way to present, for clarity. And over 5 years. 

 

Here goes, for the two sections I have drawn attention to in bold. I will leave it at that.

 

The arrangement is mutually beneficial for both the marina and CRT. It is a business arrangement, that is what the contract (NAA) serves as. Neither side would agree, if it did not possess beneficial features for both. The contract is also used to circumvent a statutory law. It is by statutory law that a licence is required. That law applies only in the legal framework of boater and CRT, and, applies only in a very specific area: to the water over which CRT have management. 

 

CRT's management of its natural monopoly makes CRT the dominant partner, with the most power to orchestrate how the contract (NAA) is fashioned. It will be governed by contract law. 

 

The requirement of a licence is governed by Statutory law. The arrangement is - CRT direct to boater. 

 

The requirement of a licence in a marina is by means of a business contract. The arrangement is - CRT to Marina to Boater. At this point, statutory law is replaced with contract law. The contract law governs the marina. The boater has become a pawn in a business deal.

 

Moving onto the second point:

 

The element of choice has been removed from the boater. A boater could indeed wish to remain in a marina and not want to venture onto the canal. That is partly why the removal of the choice of buying a licence was seen as better business - forced. There is no statutory law that can require the licence on private property. The power of that direct law does not extend to non CRT administered areas. It is only the business contract that can apply. 

 

I have mentioned previously, the possession of a boat is not a necessary requirement of the argument - it is a prop. You allude to the possibility of someone wanting a stationary platform could look for an alternative to floating in a marina. This must imply having a choice. If choice is important, do you think removal of a choice is only acceptable, if it is convenient to an argument - to solve a problem of perspective. 

 

 

I could go on, but it becomes tiresome for all and sundry. Hope this will do for now. ?

 

 

Edited April 26, 2020 by Higgs

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

The arrangement is mutually beneficial for both the marina and CRT. It is a business arrangement, that is what the contract (NAA) serves as. Neither side would agree, if it did not possess beneficial features for both. The contract is also used to circumvent a statutory law. It is by statutory law that a licence is required. That law applies only in the legal framework of boater and CRT, and, applies only in a very specific area: to the water, over which, CRT have management. 

The 'statutory law' is totally irrelevant, the Marina can put any conditions it wishes in it mooring T&Cs.

 

Example (from Marina T&Cs) :

 

Although there is no legal requirement to have a BSS in a 'Private Marina' :

 

2.4 The Owner shall maintain for the duration of the Contract a RCD (Recreational Craft Directive) or Boat Safety Scheme Certificate for the Vessel which shall evidence that the Vessel has passed a Boat Safety Scheme examination. The Owner shall produce the Boat Safety Scheme Certificate to BWML within 7 days of any request 

 

Although there is no legal requirement to have your vehicle 'taxed' in a 'Private marina'

 

23.1.  Subject always to the availability of parking spaces, the Owner, his crew, contractors and visitors are required to park their validly taxed motor vehicles in such a position and such a manner as directed by BWML.  Untaxed or SORN vehicles are not permitted to be parked on BWML property. 
 
 Many, many other examples.

 

Why not 'tilt at windmills' on some of the other "illegally required" rules ?

 

[jetzi]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

I will at some point have to put together, in a PDF, or in some other way, the two positions - mine and the objections. To have many scattered posts going over the same thing in different ways is not the best way to present, for clarity. And over 5 years.

I do hope that you do get to doing that. If you do have a valid objection, and I think that you might, I would be happy to add my name to any petition calling for a change. I'll reply to the points that I still don't understand as that might help to show you which bits are unclear to the layman, but please don't feel that you have to answer me in this thread.

 

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

The contract is also used to circumvent the law. It is by law that a licence is required. That law applies only in the legal framework of boater and CRT, and, applies only in a very specific area: to the water, over which, CRT have management. 

I don't see how this is a circumvention, as long as the marina is also in favour of the CaRT licence requirement If as a condition of renting a mooring the marina required you to have a valid TV licence, say, regardless of whether or not you had a TV, this would be an irksome condition for those who don't watch TV. But surely the marina, as a private entity, may stipulate whatever conditions it likes for whatever reasons it likes?

 

 

8 minutes ago, Higgs said:

There is no statutory law that can require the licence on private property. The power of that direct law does not extend to non CRT administered areas. It is only the business contract that can apply. 

But so what? The rental agreement you have with the marina is itself a busines contract, one which you can choose to enter into or not. Why is it relevant whether it's a "law" that requires you to have a licence in a marina or a "contract" that does?

 

 

10 minutes ago, Higgs said:

I have mentioned previously, the possession of a boat is not a necessary requirement of the argument - it is a prop. You allude to the possibility of someone wanting a stationary platform could look for an alternative to floating in a marina. This must imply having a choice. If choice is important, do you think removal of a choice is only acceptable, if it is convenient to an argument - to solve a problem of perspective. 

This part went completely over my head so I am not sure if I am getting this correctly. Choice is of course important. When negotiating conditions of a rental with a marina owner, both you and the owner have the choice to agree or not to agree to the conditions. It is just as important that the marina owner has a choice to walk away from a deal that doesn't include a CaRT licence, as for you to have the choice to walk away from one that does.


P.S. I have just realised I have spelt "licence" wrong this whole thread... it's "licence" as a noun and "license" as a verb so "I went to license my boat so I now have a new licence". Sorry grammar nazis!

[BilgePump]

3 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

P.S. I have just realised I have spelt "licence" wrong this whole thread... it's "licence" as a noun and "license" as a verb so "I went to license my boat so I now have a new licence". Sorry grammar nazis!

I wouldn't worry. It's possibly one of the most common spelling errors. Not helped by the fact that in the US you do have a driving license or a boat license.

As a bit of trivia, misspell is another word that often catches people out.

[churchward]

Personally I do not think a refund of the CRT licence is a good idea.  I would like the canal system to still be there when this pandemic is over and want it to continue to be maintained.  As a non liveaboard I pay my licence whether I use the boat or not and do not expect to get a refund in the present circumstances.  

 

For a liveaboard the boat is still on the canal system that the licence is for and one assumes is till using CRT facilities when going to fill up with water, dump rubbish and empty the loo, especially if a continuous cruiser out on the cut all the time.

 

However, there may well be people who are facing some financial hardship in these times but there are mechanisms to help with that situation. It is best that the people who may need help ask for it early rather than wait until it is critical and discuss with any body if the have a difficulty making payments.