Unlicenced Boats

[Higgs]

Just now, Jerra said:

I take it you don't accept contract law, if you did you would realise to fulfil your contract it is a legal requirement otherwise you are breaking the contract.

 

I think I've already mentioned to you - no contracts haver been broken. 

 

 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

51 minutes ago, Jerra said:

However as has been frequently pointed out by some (you included I think) when in a marina you are not on CRT waters.   So you need to conform to the Marinas T&Cs.

How come CRT bother checking licenses on boats in marinas?

 

I assume, by following your reasoning, CRT are checking that the marina is complying with CRT, and only harbouring licensed boats? 

 

[Jerra]

3 minutes ago, Goliath said:

How come CRT bother checking licenses on boats in marinas?

 

I assume, by following your reasoning, CRT are checking that the marina is complying with CRT, and only harbouring licensed boats? 

 

It would seem so, I suppose it is also possible that such checks all round the system provide data about various things.

[Tracy D'arth]

1 minute ago, Goliath said:

How come CRT bother checking licenses on boats in marinas?

 

I assume, by following your reasoning, CRT are checking that the marina is complying with CRT, and only harbouring licensed boats? 

 

Its easier than catching them on the towpath. They do not take details of moving boats I am lead to believe.  So a real continuous cruiser who never stops will not need a licence, just a lot of diesel..

 

Have all you guys stopped arguing now?  its really not what the rest of us need to read!  Can we have pointless arguments as PMs instead?

   I accepted that I had to buy a licence when I first got a boat, never worried about in or out of marinas, it goes with the tiller and windlass as necessities. 

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Its easier than catching them on the towpath. They do not take details of moving boats I am lead to believe.  So a real continuous cruiser who never stops will not need a licence, just a lot of diesel..

 

Have all you guys stopped arguing now?  its really not what the rest of us need to read!  Can we have pointless arguments as PMs instead?

   I accepted that I had to buy a licence when I first got a boat, never worried about in or out of marinas, it goes with the tiller and windlass as necessities. 

 

Could you send your request as a PM. I might read it, then again, I'm not forced to. 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

4 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Its easier than catching them on the towpath. They do not take details of moving boats I am lead to believe.  So a real continuous cruiser who never stops will not need a licence, just a lot of diesel..

 

Have all you guys stopped arguing now?  its really not what the rest of us need to read!  Can we have pointless arguments as PMs instead?

   I accepted that I had to buy a licence when I first got a boat, never worried about in or out of marinas, it goes with the tiller and windlass as necessities. 

I was clocked on the move
Just the once as far as I’m aware

Probably going so slow I looked static 

 

[Rob-M]

Perhaps Higgs should get a mooring like this one, probably no need for a licence then.

 

[TheBiscuits]

36 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I was clocked on the move
Just the once as far as I’m aware

Probably going so slow I looked static 

 

 

I was logged four times in an hour one day.  A harassed spotter fighting his way through Skipton towpath carnage on a sunny summer day.

 

He logged me where I was moored, then the other side of the junction as he'd been up the branch while I was moving, then again on the water point and finally after I'd winded and was coming back the other way.

 

I asked him if he wanted to go for five sightings and he laughed.

[Kieron G]

On ‎04‎/‎10‎/‎2020 at 20:11, Baldy1976 said:

You can buy an Explorer licence for £170 that gives you 30 days to use per year on the CRT waters at your own leisure.

Might be cheaper than the 3 month licence you mention......I learned this from a CRT phone conversation earlier this year.

I'm moored on an EA river and run on one of these for CRT waters. I don't get a permanent number it changes each year. This last year I wrote the reference number on the boat in permanent marker. Twice on the same trip I was checked out by CRT. Once near Skipton and a week later at Selby. Both times the CRT inspector couldn't identify the boat from the number. Both times the boat was photo'd. The first inspector seemed to be able to tie the boat to my licence with my email and cycled off happy. The second inspector at Selby although pleasant enough recorded my boat as an 'unidentified vessel' or something similar. Apparently Skipton and Selby areas are completely separate areas for CRT so there was no record of the boat having been already checked out. 

[Ronaldo47]

Is #132 somewhere on the Southern Oxford? It looks like what we saw there a decade or so ago. I did wonder at the time if it was a cunning way to get a habitable dwelling in the countryside without having to apply for planning permission or pay rates or mooring fees.

Edited October 5, 2020 by Ronaldo47
Typos

[Arthur Marshall]

4 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

The licence is no benefit to me, if I don't wish to use the canal, don't want the option... 

 

 

Doesn't matter. The licence is a benefit to you because you want to live in the marina, and you can't without it. End of argument.

 

It makes no difference whether CRT insist on it, or the marina, or Joe Bloggs down the road who will hit you with a shovel every day if you haven't got one. If you want to live on a boat, in a marina, without being hit by a shovel, you benefit by having a licence. Nobody else benefits at all, though CRT get a tiny drop in the ocean of their cost of keeping the water level up so your boat wobbles instead of being a bungalow.

[Higgs]

6 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Doesn't matter. The licence is a benefit to you because you want to live in the marina, and you can't without it. End of argument.

 

It makes no difference whether CRT insist on it, or the marina, or Joe Bloggs down the road who will hit you with a shovel every day if you haven't got one. If you want to live on a boat, in a marina, without being hit by a shovel, you benefit by having a licence. Nobody else benefits at all, though CRT get a tiny drop in the ocean of their cost of keeping the water level up so your boat wobbles instead of being a bungalow.

 

Nobody buys a licence for the purpose of living in a marina or for having a mooring. Let's get that cleared up first. It's required to entitle a boat use of the canal. It's the fee paid to CRT. A mooring incurs its own specific charge; the mooring fee. For the canal, its charge is called a licence, for the marina, its levy is called a mooring fee. They each have their own type of payment. What's more, the requirement of a licence is specific to a legal entity - CRT, the waterway. This legality does not exist on private property. There is no law to make it so. Without a legal backing, the marina terms and conditions substitute, to oblige the moorer to have a licence.

 

CRT know it; CRT cannot use its own authority on private property, so forced the issue on the marina via a contract. CRT's leverage was in having the power to permit the marina's business, the boater, access to the marina, for the purpose of using the marina's business services. It is the boater that has the means, the vessel to access both bodies of water; the canal (CRT) and private property (not CRT). 

 

It must be very easy for anyone to understand that, if a person does not want a mooring, a mooring fee is not going to be made a demand; online or offline. You pay a licence fee and you can pass any number of moorings, and even enter a marina for a service, and no one thinks to ask you for a mooring fee. That specific need to moor has its own specific cost. Online moorings cannot be had without a licence, as a boat will always be on the water for which the boat needed a licence; this is not the case for a boat in a private marina. 

 

I understand the distinction between the law and when that law can be applied, in reference to the requirement of a licence, and a marina's terms and conditions. CRT understands it. 

 

Until you can show me that the licencing law is applied through the marina's terms and conditions, I should give up trying convince me of the error of my ways. 

 

Marina moorers' licence fees costs them the licence fee and 9% of their' mooring fee.  We are in the enviable position of having to buy a licence we don't need and also pay for the marina's privilege of having a business. The 9% is, of course, the access fee - calculated by CRT at 100% capacity use of the marina moorings. 

 

If you think I'm being screwy, all I can say is - there seems to be a lot here that must have the word mug stamped on their forehead, or expect me to want it stamped on my forehead. I think I'll decline. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Higgs

[Athy]

11 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

Is #132 somewhere on the Southern Oxford? It looks like what we saw there a decade or so ago. I did wonder at the time if it was a cunning way to get a habitable dwelling in the countryside without having to apply for planning permission or pay rates or mooring fees.

Yes it is - though I'm not sure that it's been there for ten years.

Apparently, someone dug a hole in the ground, then dug a gap in the offside bank, took the boat into the hole, and repaired the gap. As far as I know, the owner has never come forward and explained these actions, so the intent remains unclear. Though I've seen signs of life on and around the boat when we've passed, I've never seen an actual person there, but I assume it's still inhabited.

[Mike Todd]

4 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

Nobody buys a licence for the purpose of living in a marina or for having a mooring. Let's get that cleared up first. It's required to entitle a boat use of the canal. It's the fee paid to CRT. A mooring incurs its own specific charge; the mooring fee. For the canal, its charge is called a licence, for the marina, its levy is called a mooring fee. They each have their own type of payment. What's more, the requirement of a licence is specific to a legal entity - CRT, the waterway. This legality does not exist on private property. There is no law to make it so. Without a legal backing, the marina terms and conditions substitute, to oblige the moorer to have a licence.

 

CRT know it; CRT cannot use its own authority on private property, so forced the issue on the marina via a contract. CRT's leverage was in having the power to permit the marina's business, the boater, access to the marina, for the purpose of using the marina's business services. It is the boater that has the means, the vessel to access both bodies of water; the canal (CRT) and private property (not CRT). 

 

It must be very easy for anyone to understand that, if a person does not want a mooring, a mooring fee is not going to be made a demand; online or offline. You pay a licence fee and you can pass any number of moorings, and even enter a marina for a service, and no one thinks to ask you for a mooring fee. That specific need to moor has its own specific cost. Online moorings cannot be had without a licence, as a boat will always be on the water for which the boat needed a licence; this is not the case for a boat in a private marina. 

 

I understand the distinction between the law and when that law can be applied, in reference to the requirement of a licence, and a marina's terms and conditions. CRT understands it. 

 

Until you can show me that the licencing law is applied through the marina's terms and conditions, I should give up trying convince me of the error of my ways. 

 

Marina moorers' licence fees costs them the licence fee and 9% of their' mooring fee.  We are in the enviable position of having to buy a licence we don't need and also pay for the marina's privilege of having a business. The 9% is, of course, the access fee - calculated by CRT at 100% capacity use of the marina moorings. 

 

If you think I'm being screwy, all I can say is - there seems to be a lot here that must have the word mug stamped on their forehead, or expect me to want it stamped on my forehead. I think I'll decline. 

 

 

 

 

 

You continue to insist on using the generic term 'law' when in fact you mean 'statute' or 'common' law. This is not helpful as you make the simple syllogistic error of showing that there are situations in which, say, statutory law does not apply and extrapolate that to 'prove' that there is no legal issue. It would help the debate if you wish to pursue it by being much more specific about what type of law you are referring to in each instance.

 

A large part of civilised society and life in general is based not on statute yet agreements made under, for example, contract law, are routinely enforced by the courts as are other regulatory environments. If you fail to abide by the initial court judgement then consequences may follow such as contempt or bailiff proceedings which up the ante more than somewhat.

 

In regard to mooring in a marina there is more than just the licence to consider. Even in marinas without a NAA and having a pre-existing right for moorers not to have a licence, the marina is still likely to insist on insurance and BSS/RCD and will refuse you a mooring if you do not comply. There is no statutory legal authority, in the form you talk about with CaRT and licences, for the marina to insist on the moorer contracting with an insurer for cover but the T&C's remain just as effective.

 

Less general but similar issues exist with regard to council tax or business rates. In this case, the local authority may have no specific statutory authority to require a moorer to contribute to their coffers (depending on the residency circumstances) but this does not prevent the marina from bundling the costs into the mooring fee as a result of their relationship with the LA being one in which they are compelled to pay up.

 

I really do doubt whether anyone else really believes that CaRT have a specific statutory authority to compel a moorer that never leaves the marina to buy a licence from them, not least because it makes no practical difference. Certainly I do not see anyone here contradicting you on this matter, unless you resent it in a way that appears to give credence to a refusal to buy the licence. What we do, however, assert, is that CaRT have full authority to impose the NAA with its consequences for the customers of the marina.

 

It is about time you came clean and gave us your real reasons for pursuing your argument which, on the evidence you present, is seriously flawed, Remember, as the well-versed Nigel Moore discovered, that it is a strong principle in the courts that you can only argue a specific case i which you have an interest - you cannot ask the courts to give a generalised answer as that denies the ancient principle that courts dispense justice not simply legal opinions and each case is always argued on its merits and details often matter which lead to apparently different judgements.

 

So, what is your real, but still covert, reason for arguing as you do? What is your interest?

[Jerra]

5 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

CRT know it; CRT cannot use its own authority on private property, so forced the issue on the marina via a contract.

 

Nobody forces a business to have a contract,  the business considers the contract on offer (possibly after negotiation) and either chooses to accept or goes looking for a different one.

 

CRT are not the only navigation authority you know potential marina developers could go elsewhere is they didn't like the contract.

[Bobbybass]

When they build a marina...there is no water.....get it ?

 

They have to ask CART for water...and agree to conditions in order the get water. They have to apply for connection to the canal.

 

The water belongs to CART...just as in the canal transport days when individual companies owned their own water.  I seem to remember there were two companies at Fradley ...and as they emptied the lock they pumped their own water back...not because they were short of water...but because it belonged to them.

 

True a marina is private...but without water...it is a rather dry affair ...but then you know that ..and think it's funny to write c**p

[Flyboy]

16 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

This is your assessment of what a licence is? A tool to gain access to a marina?

 

 

You don't mention what marina you are in, perhaps you could put up a copy of the T&C's please ?

[Higgs]

57 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I really do doubt whether anyone else really believes that CaRT have a specific statutory authority to compel a moorer that never leaves the marina to buy a licence from them, not least because it makes no practical difference. Certainly I do not see anyone here contradicting you on this matter, unless you resent it in a way that appears to give credence to a refusal to buy the licence. What we do, however, assert, is that CaRT have full authority to impose the NAA with its consequences for the customers of the marina.

 

So, what is your real, but still covert, reason for arguing as you do? What is your interest?

 

If it is agreed that there is no licence needed in a private marina, it shouldn't be that difficult to have the clause in the terms and conditions removed, and also, for it to be removed from the NAA, as a condition of the marina business. 

 

 

43 minutes ago, Bobbybass said:

When they build a marina...there is no water.....get it ?

 

That is not so, with all marinas. It wouldn't even be a point, if it was to be the case. 

 

 

[MrsM]

44 minutes ago, Bobbybass said:

When they build a marina...there is no water.....get it ?

 

They have to ask CART for water...and agree to conditions in order the get water. They have to apply for connection to the canal.

 

The water belongs to CART...just as in the canal transport days when individual companies owned their own water.  I seem to remember there were two companies at Fradley ...and as they emptied the lock they pumped their own water back...not because they were short of water...but because it belonged to them.

 

True a marina is private...but without water...it is a rather dry affair ...but then you know that ..and think it's funny to write c**p

The T&M had a culvert under the pub and cottages to prevent their water going in to the Coventry canal according to the info board.

[Tracy D'arth]

1 hour ago, Athy said:

Yes it is - though I'm not sure that it's been there for ten years.

Apparently, someone dug a hole in the ground, then dug a gap in the offside bank, took the boat into the hole, and repaired the gap. As far as I know, the owner has never come forward and explained these actions, so the intent remains unclear. Though I've seen signs of life on and around the boat when we've passed, I've never seen an actual person there, but I assume it's still inhabited.

I have seen a woman hanging out washing there a couple of times. Blacking will be a problem. It would not suit me but we do not know the circumstances.

I am pleased to see that there is not a scatter of possessions and junk around the boat, live and let live.

[Higgs]

39 minutes ago, Flyboy said:

You don't mention what marina you are in, perhaps you could put up a copy of the T&C's please ?

 

The NAA causes the condition.

 

 

[furnessvale]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

If it is agreed that there is no licence needed in a private marina, it shouldn't be that difficult to have the clause in the terms and conditions removed, and also, for it to be removed from the NAA, as a condition of the marina business. 

 

 

The problem is that it IS in the T & Cs and NAA and CRT have no incentive to remove it.  Given the propensity for non licence holders to abuse the situation if it were removed, I can see no chance that it could legally be challenged as an "unfair" clause.

[Higgs]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

Nobody forces a business to have a contract,  the business considers the contract on offer (possibly after negotiation) and either chooses to accept or goes looking for a different one.

 

CRT are not the only navigation authority you know potential marina developers could go elsewhere is they didn't like the contract.

 

CRT are the dominant partner, they have the natural monopoly. Opportunities for a marina do not spring up on every mile of the canal. 

 

 

[furnessvale]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

CRT are the dominant partner, they have the natural monopoly. Opportunities for a marina do not spring up on every mile of the canal. 

 

 

Which is why the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 was introduced, to stop abuse.

 

As I inferred in #147, you are welcome to challenge that in court but I don't rate your chances.

[Higgs]

5 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

The problem is that it IS in the T & Cs and NAA and CRT have no incentive to remove it.  Given the propensity for non licence holders to abuse the situation if it were removed, I can see no chance that it could legally be challenged as an "unfair" clause.

 

It would not weaken a challenge, on the basis of how many non licence payers there might be. It would not be proposed that the need for a licence be scrapped on the waterwys of CRT. It is not my responsibility either, to worry about policing. Neither is it the responsibility of marinas.