Unlicenced Boats

[big d]

16 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Then no doubt your full cranial capacity will mean you don't need a tiny bit of paper in the corner of the windscreen to remind you to renew.

Correct yet the same cranial capacity keeps tricking me into thinking my cratch board is 1ft higher than it is. My brain must be a masochist 

[jeddlad]

9 hours ago, Flyboy said:

After many years of seeing an increasing number of unlicenced boats we decided to do a survey on our trip in September up the Macclesfield, Upper Peak Forest & Caldon canals. These are the findings :-

No. of boats checked not showing a valid licence was 298, running these through Cart's licence checker 90 were unlicenced. A lot were showing licences that were 3 to 5 years out of date.

90 unlicenced boats in 50 miles of canal seems an awful lot to me. 

As CaRT is short of funds they need to get out and about more and catch these licence evaders or all the legitimate licence holders will soon be paying a lot more in the future.

Wow, that must have been an interesting trip! All the time effort to check 298 boats not displaying a licence......I'd rather enjoy my trip and worry about where my next beer is coming from, not who has or hasn't licenced their boat!

[Baldy1976]

7 hours ago, Pie Eater said:

I was told this year that CaRT don't issue 30 day explorer licences any more and ended up with a 3 month licence.

 

They gave me a 30 day Explorer licence this year , our boat is in a marina that doesn't require the full licence , we use the explorer licence for trips on to the Trent and Mersey canal system.

Ring them again and make sure you don't take no for an answer. 

[Paul Gwilliams]

7 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Why would a car that is fully taxed end up being clamped?

 

What is this belief based on?

 

You punch a car reg into the relevant web page and it comes up as taxed or not in a second.

A lot of cars that tax had run out were being clamped. "Honest" motorists that had previously always taxed their vehicles were seen to be unfairly penalised because they relied on looking at the little disc in the window despite the fact that they were mailed a reminder.

 

Also do not forget there are some people out there that are computer illiterate so the online world is alien to them

[roland elsdon]

What’s even more annoying is a ton of paper descending to fill in about a car that doesn’t attract ved. They know it’s insured and mot’d so why request ved When it’s free.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Paul Gwilliams said:

A lot of cars that tax had run out were being clamped. "Honest" motorists that had previously always taxed their vehicles were seen to be unfairly penalised because they relied on looking at the little disc in the window despite the fact that they were mailed a reminder.

 

Also do not forget there are some people out there that are computer illiterate so the online world is alien to them

Then they should use a paper based calender if they find such things to taxing Lol. I wonder how many use it as an excuse to 'forget' to tax their vehicle? I bet its a significant number. Not of course that that will cut any ice with the Dvla.

[Arthur Marshall]

10 hours ago, dmr said:

No, its not so much the shooting, its the line dancing that scares me ?

 

................Dave

I always assumed they went on at the same time, in the same room.

10 hours ago, Flyboy said:

I think that's called the Dolphin boatyard and the inlicenced boats belong to the them and have a trade licence arrangement with CaRT.

That's the one. If that's the agreement, they aren't doing much trading as some of those wrecks have been there for about fifteen years! 

[Paul Gwilliams]

7 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

It auto renews.

 

You dont have to remember.

 

Ps as you asked I have never ever seen a vehicle clamped or labeled as a result of evasion of ved, ever

If it auto renews then why do post offices still sell tax discs?

 

There are some people who cannot pay online, auto renewing, perhaps they shouldn't be allowed a motor vehicle. 

 

I've seen plenty, but they will disappear quickly as either the tax is paid or they are removed incurring more charges

 

Perhaps CRT could take a leaf out of the DVLA book. A nice big "You ain't licenced" sticker will at least make the licenced aware they are on the case

[Bod]

15 hours ago, Athy said:

CART stated some time ago that boats no longer needed to display their licence "discs". Them someone else at CART said oh yes they did. Arse, elbow.....

That's how I remember it anyway.

Yes, then the Bylaws were looked at, which require the boat number, and licence to be displayed.

C&RT being unwilling to change the Bylaws, had to reintroduce paper licences.

C&RT do have the power to do a lot of things in the Bylaws, BUT choose not to use those powers, but to keep changing the T&C's to suit their current purpose, although just how some of the "T&C's" could be enforced under Statute, will be interesting.

 

Bod

[Higgs]

12 hours ago, Paul Gwilliams said:

When we booked into our marina we were told we still have to license our boat "as it's CRT water" How does a licence free marina work or is my marina wrong?

 

That is not correct. The 'ownership' of water is based on the rights to the land, over which the water sits. If you wish to apply the term ownership, then, it applies only to that land which is managed by CRT. The marina's land is owned and managed by the marina. The water that sits over the marina's land is, if you wish to use the term 'owned', is owned by the marina.  The fact that you pay for a licence inside a marina has nothing to do with waterways law. It is based on a contract between the marina and CRT. 

 

While you are in a privately owned marina, there is no direct legal link between you and CRT. 

 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2020 by Higgs

[Alan de Enfield]

9 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

My sister did exactly this, she is disorganised, not a tax evader. They come round and clamp cars and stick massive public shaming notices on them - you must have seen it.

I don't think I have - I don't even know where she lives.

[WotEver]

39 minutes ago, Higgs said:

The 'ownership' of water is based on the rights to the land, over which the water sits.

I don’t believe that is correct. If CaRT drained the canal I think you’d find all the boats in the marina sitting on the mud. 

[Higgs]

53 minutes ago, WotEver said:

I don’t believe that is correct. If CaRT drained the canal I think you’d find all the boats in the marina sitting on the mud. 

 

That changes nothing in the status of 'ownership'; mud on one side of the entrance would belong to CRT, on the other side, to the marina. A marina could plank up its entrance, for no particular use to anyone, but they could do it. 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2020 by Higgs

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Paul Gwilliams said:

If it auto renews then why do post offices still sell tax discs?

 

There are some people who cannot pay online, auto renewing, perhaps they shouldn't be allowed a motor vehicle. 

 

I've seen plenty, but they will disappear quickly as either the tax is paid or they are removed incurring more charges

 

Perhaps CRT could take a leaf out of the DVLA book. A nice big "You ain't licenced" sticker will at least make the licenced aware they are on the case

It auto renews if you pay by DD. Do you think I am the only person in the country who's VED payment renews by itself? I get an email when it's going to renew and it just does without any further intervention from me.

 

One presumes the PO still allow people to pay for their VED (not buy tax discs) because of the very issues you yourself referred to. They are the people who should buy a calendar/paper diary and a pen and simply write in them when the VED falls due?. I can't see why this is a problem but of course somebody always will, just because they can.

 

PS - I believe CRT do attach a notice to boats they discover to be unlicensed. 

34 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I don't think I have - I don't even know where she lives.

How come you have attributed that quote to me?

Edited October 5, 2020 by The Happy Nomad

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

How come you have attributed that quote to me?

 

I have no idea - I 'quoted' Cas, maybe it felt sorry for you.

[Guest]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I have no idea - I 'quoted' Cas, maybe it felt sorry for you.

I see no need for anything to feel sorry for me.

 

What a pathetic comment.

 

I asked a simple question and you just couldn't resist coming back with some sort of smart Alec answer.

 

[furnessvale]

12 hours ago, Bobbybass said:

There's about 8 or 10 marinas that are fed by non CART waters.

 

I'm on a tiny river while in the marina...but canal when I leave.

 

They are like..gold dust ?

Rumour used to have it that such marinas had far more boats recorded as being moored there than they could possibly accommodate.

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

That is not correct. The 'ownership' of water is based on the rights to the land, over which the water sits. If you wish to apply the term ownership, then, it applies only to that land which is managed by CRT. The marina's land is owned and managed by the marina. The water that sits over the marina's land is, if you wish to use the term 'owned', is owned by the marina.  The fact that you pay for a licence inside a marina has nothing to do with waterways law. It is based on a contract between the marina and CRT. 

 

While you are in a privately owned marina, there is no direct legal link between you and CRT. 

 

 

 

I'm not sure why that matters much to the (non)boater. The contractual requirement to enforce the licence also ensures that the boat is insured and meets BSS/RCD requirements on safety. Whilst the boat remains in  the marina, I cannot see what (dis)benefit there might be.

 

Ownership of water is a more complex legal matter than you suggest as I am unaware of a marina that manufactures the water that fills it. Hence it has to come from somewhere (even rain) and so other legal (contractual and statutory) factors come into play.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Mike Todd said:

I'm not sure why that matters much to the (non)boater. The contractual requirement to enforce the licence also ensures that the boat is insured and meets BSS/RCD requirements on safety. Whilst the boat remains in  the marina, I cannot see what (dis)benefit there might be.

 

Ownership of water is a more complex legal matter than you suggest as I am unaware of a marina that manufactures the water that fills it. Hence it has to come from somewhere (even rain) and so other legal (contractual and statutory) factors come into play.

 

For a boater, in a marina, they are governed by the marina's terms and conditions. It is sensible to be insured and have a boat safety. 

 

The marina moorer has an obligation to abide by the marina's terms and conditions, and nothing else. 

 

 

[Mike Todd]

6 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

For a boater, in a marina, they are governed by the marina's terms and conditions. It is sensible to be insured and have a boat safety. 

 

The marina moorer has an obligation to abide by the marina's terms and conditions, and nothing else. 

 

 

You still don't answer the point about 'so what?'

 

In addition, the marina moorer is not just subject to the marina's T&C's - directly, yes, but in the marina has signed a NAA, then they have the contractual duty to enforce licensing and, further, to facilitate CaRT in also doing so. Thus, indirectly, the moorer is subject to CaRT's conditions. It may be by a different route than a statutory link, but so what?

[Higgs]

Just now, Mike Todd said:

You still don't answer the point about 'so what?'

 

In addition, the marina moorer is not just subject to the marina's T&C's - directly, yes, but in the marina has signed a NAA, then they have the contractual duty to enforce licensing and, further, to facilitate CaRT in also doing so. Thus, indirectly, the moorer is subject to CaRT's conditions. It may be by a different route than a statutory link, but so what?

 

The marina has an obligation to abide by the terms and conditions of its contract with CRT. The point being, there is no direct legal contact between CRT and the marina moorer. 

 

 

 

 

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

The marina has an obligation to abide by the terms and conditions of its contract with CRT. The point being, there is no direct legal contact between CRT and the marina moorer. 

 

 

 

 

So?

 

In any case, as soon as the moorer takes out the licence then a direct legal link is established.

Edited October 5, 2020 by Mike Todd

[Higgs]

36 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

So?

 

In any case, as soon as the moorer takes out the licence then a direct legal link is established.

 

The marina is contractually obliged to require the moorer to have a licence, they are not being authorised in a legal sense. Only CRT have the legal right, and they can't pass on that legal authority to a marina. CRT are bound by legislation, and that legal authority does not extend onto private property. 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2020 by Higgs

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

The marina is contractually obliged to require the moorer to have a licence, they are not being authorised in a legal sense. Only CRT have the legal right, and they can't pass on that legal authority to a marina. CRT are bound by legislation, and that legal authority does not extend onto private property. 

 

 

Nut I ask again as you have not answered: so what? What impact does this have on a marina moorer?

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Mike Todd said:

Nut I ask again as you have not answered: so what? What impact does this have on a marina moorer?

 

A marina moorer cannot officially be required to have a licence in a private marina. By official, I mean by law.