Jump to content

Now is the time to refuse your consent to the proposed new CRT Boat Licence Terms and Conditions


noone

Featured Posts

F.Y.I.

*Now is the time to refuse your consent to the proposed new CRT Boat Licence Terms and Conditions*

Now that the CRT consultation on changes to the Boat Licence Terms and Conditions has ended, please take part in the next stage of the campaign to stop CRT bringing in these unlawful, unreasonable and excessive changes. Please email CRT’s Chief Executive - richard.parry@canalrivertrust.org.uk and copy it to customer.feedback@canalrivertrust.org.uk - with the following message:

Dear Mr Parry, I do not understand, consent to or accept the proposed changes to the Canal & River Trust Boat Licence Terms and Conditions that were set out in the consultation held between September and December 2020. Yours sincerely …..

You can send a letter to Richard Parry, Chief Executive, Canal & River Trust, First Floor North,
Station House, 500 Elder Gate, Milton Keynes MK9 1BB.

Thank you. The NBTA has made a formal complaint objecting to the proposals and setting out the reasons why the proposals are unlawful, unreasonable or excessive, which we will publish shortly.

  • Unimpressed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

So refuse to accept the Conditions, CaRT don't issue a licence, and your boat is booted off the canals.
 

Not quite how it works.

The boat owner needs only to fill out a form 16, supply that with evidence to the local court in order to take out an injunction.

The licence is not a contract, and is issued under three conditions that are enshrined in law. T&C’s cannot override legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Graham Davis said:

So refuse to accept the Conditions, CaRT don't issue a licence, and your boat is booted off the canals.
 

 

Yup- thats about it.

 

I guess its been a bit quiet for the Baton-Twirlers recently so they are trying to stir things up a bit.

 

 

 

I once asked 'the girl' on the phone during my licence renewal what would happen if  I answered 'no' to the question 'do you accept / agree to the T&C's and was told "then I am instructed not to issue you a licence".

 

I renewed anyway safe in the knowledge that C&RT can only enforce legally included conditions, so it would never be a problem.

 

A couple of extracts of posts by Nigel Moore (RIP)

 

The law quite simply does NOT permit T&C’s to be attached to issue of the licence, therefore the asserted contrary statements and actions are indeed unlawful. When elements of these T&C’s specifically claim to over-ride express statutory protections and prohibitions, the legal affront is all the more objectionable.

 

 

Legality OF C&RT’s T&C’s

 

It should be clarified that much of the T&C's are a repeat of, or reference to, byelaw provisions, and enforceable in law by the method prescribed (not by unlawfully making them a contractual condition for issue of the licence). Those cannot be said to be foisted upon us via the T&C's, justly or unjustly.

 

Others are sensible guidelines without the force of law, which boaters would do well to adhere to. But yes, certain other morally and legally objectionable ones do purport to dispense with statutory protections – and consent to share one's personal information where that would conflict with the current law would be amongst them, as would the grant of permission to board boats regardless of the statutory constraints of the 1983 Act, as would also be the case with agreeing to pay the costs of CaRT moving your boat off from where it was obstructing (BW fought and lost at least one case in which they alleged such a right to charge for doing so).

Nigel Moore 2/3/19

 

 

Agreement to T&Cs Before Licence Can Be Issued :

 

Nigel Moore : 27/6/17

This harks back to the unfortunate London case in January this year.

I have added your insurance details to the online account, but you still need to accept the terms and Conditions of holding a licence before we can proceed.” Natalie Jones, Customer Service Advisor.

EO has been clear (following previous guidance on the matter) that he does not have to accept terms, but that means the boat won’t be able to remain on CRT waters and will be subject to enforcement action if it remains. The terms are the terms, they are published. We will make reasonable attempts to clear up any specific questions about meaning but if the customer wants to quibble on legalities then we won’t engage with that – it’s a voluntary contract which he can accept or not.” Simon Cadek, London Region Enforcement Supervisor.

you have been asked to accept the term and conditions of the licence, which is mandatory . . .” “If you are not happy with anything within the terms and conditions you can choose not to accept them, this will mean the craft would remain unlicensed and as such would have further letters of Enforcement served upon it . . .” Tony Smith, Enforcement Officer, London Region.

The Enforcement Officer’s Witness Statement declared: “On 5th April 2015 I sent an email to the Defendant. The email confirmed that I was the enforcement officer for the area in which the Boat was moored. The email highlighted that acceptance of the T&Cs was mandatory to licensing the Boat and that if the Defendant was not happy with anything in the T&Cs and chose not to accept them then the Boat would remain unlicensed and enforcement action would continue.”

Best of all: -

CRT has the power to make the licence subject to such terms and conditions as it thinks fit by virtue of section 43(3) of the Transport Act 1962, section 14 of the British Waterways Act 1971 and section 16 of the British Waterways Act 1995.” Lucy Barry, Associate Solicitor-Advocate, Shoosmiths LLP.

That last is classic – the two latter sections she refers to apply only to houseboat certificates, not to licences [nor even to pleasure boat certificates]. They are two sections that would be totally redundant had the 1962 Act had the force she claims for it.

The power of BW to impose such conditions as they saw fit as a pre-condition for boats to use the canals – such that boats could be excluded unless they complied - could never have arisen from the 1962 Act as claimed. I have noted this in previous posts, but it bears repetition.

Not until 1975 were BW empowered to apply for relevant byelaws to this effect. As the preamble to that Act stated: “It is expedient that further powers should be conferred on the Board and that further provision should be made as in this Act provided for the control and regulation by the Board of the inland waterways owned or managed by them:” acknowledging para.(5) “The purposes of this Act cannot be effected without the authority of Parliament: 

So prior to 1975, the conferred powers therein could NOT have been legally applied. The conduit wherein such powers could be applied for was the introduction of relevant byelaws – therefore prior to 1975, no byelaw purporting to impose T&C’s as a pre-condition for boats to be brought onto the canals could be imposed. If byelaws could not be drafted to exclude non-compliant boats from the canals, certainly no unilateral non-Parliamentary edict could.

Section (5) of the BW 1975 Act extended the byelaw making powers of 1954, which from that point on “shall be construed to have effect as if the power thereby conferred to make byelaws for regulating the use of the canal included the express power to make byelaws for excluding any vessel from the canal, prohibiting the use by any vessel of the canal or prohibiting the use of the canal except in compliance with any such conditions as the Board may prescribe . . .”

The pleasure boat licence was a direct and immediate result of these new powers, but no further conditions were attached, non-compliance with which could exclude any boat. Instead of promoting such conditions to the licence through byelaws, BW instead pursued the perfectly legitimate route of primary legislation – hence s.17 of the 1995 Act, which still contain the only grounds upon which licences may be refused or revoked.

Arguably CaRT inherit to right to create enforceable terms and conditions to this licence therefore, through the medium of new byelaws – but only via that route. Perhaps, though, as I have wondered aloud before, it might be that the terms of the 1995 Act have actually closed that door for good; if so, then BW really shot themselves in the foot well and truly, overlooking essential protective wording in their zeal to introduce new enforceable powers over boaters.

Not that they nor their successor have ever bothered their heads about such niceties – they swiftly discovered that re-inventing the nature of the licence was something boaters and the County Courts would let them get away with.

28/6/17

The document itself is not "bogus and unlawful", it is a sensible code of conduct, containing within it reference to legitimate enforceable statutes and byelaws. What is bogus and unlawful is the representation that any of these other than the s.17 conditions, are enforceable conditions for issue and retention of the licence.

It might be appropriate to revisit the SC Minutes yet again, on this topic of the enforceability of licence T&C’s outwith the 1995 Act.

BW’s QC correctly informed the Committee that his advice was that the Licence T&C’s “is not a legally enforceable document. It is merely advice which we give to our boaters.”

Asked: “what is the remedy for a breach of condition”?  he replied: “Ultimately we could do one of two things or possibly both things. One would be to revoke the licence as it would be, as the owner or the holder of the licence would be in breach of the pleasure boat conditions. The alternative would be to revert again to the section 8 powers, which we talked about earlier. In both those cases, the Board believes that this action would be inappropriate. We have no remedy for breach of the code conditions at all . . .” – hence, he explained, the perceived need for the mooring restriction powers they sought in the Bill – which did not pass scrutiny and which were consequently omitted from the 1995 Act.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/142106359/Dodd-on-Status-of-Licence-Conditions

Such of the T&C's as repeat statute and byelaws, are of course enforceable - but only as per the legislated routes, not via revocation of licence and/or s.8.

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jon johan said:

Not quite how it works.

The boat owner needs only to fill out a form 16, supply that with evidence to the local court in order to take out an injunction.

The licence is not a contract, and is issued under three conditions that are enshrined in law. T&C’s cannot override legislation.

Bollox!

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Leggers do it lying down said:

F.Y.I.

*Now is the time to refuse your consent to the proposed new CRT Boat Licence Terms and Conditions*

Now that the CRT consultation on changes to the Boat Licence Terms and Conditions has ended, please take part in the next stage of the campaign to stop CRT bringing in these unlawful, unreasonable and excessive changes. Please email CRT’s Chief Executive - richard.parry@canalrivertrust.org.uk and copy it to customer.feedback@canalrivertrust.org.uk - with the following message:

Dear Mr Parry, I do not understand, consent to or accept the proposed changes to the Canal & River Trust Boat Licence Terms and Conditions that were set out in the consultation held between September and December 2020. Yours sincerely …..

You can send a letter to Richard Parry, Chief Executive, Canal & River Trust, First Floor North,
Station House, 500 Elder Gate, Milton Keynes MK9 1BB.

Thank you. The NBTA has made a formal complaint objecting to the proposals and setting out the reasons why the proposals are unlawful, unreasonable or excessive, which we will publish shortly.

I think now is not the time as hopefully CRT will remove the illegal and also the unreasonable bits, then redraft the T&C before either another consultation or issuing them.  At that point is the time to object.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jon johan said:

How rude!
Typically Welsh...

 

However the , fact is that your post is not what happens in the real world see above for some of the conversations from C&RT staff, and C&RT's solicitors.

 

You say NO, and you don't get your licence, you are then on C&RT waters illegally and they section 8 your boat.

 

 

Best of all: -

CRT has the power to make the licence subject to such terms and conditions as it thinks fit by virtue of section 43(3) of the Transport Act 1962, section 14 of the British Waterways Act 1971 and section 16 of the British Waterways Act 1995.” Lucy Barry, Associate Solicitor-Advocate, Shoosmiths LLP.

That last is classic – the two latter sections she refers to apply only to houseboat certificates, not to licences [nor even to pleasure boat certificates]. They are two sections that would be totally redundant had the 1962 Act had the force she claims for it.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jon johan said:

How rude!
Typically Welsh...

Considering you've not been a member for very long, you have succeeded in defeating your own argument immediately by attacking the man and not the argument.
Congratulations, and I suggest you read and digest posts #4 and #8

Edited by Graham Davis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

However the , fact is that your post is not what happens in the real world see above for some of the conversations from C&RT staff, and C&RT's solicitors.

 

You say NO, and you don't get your licence, you are then on C&RT waters illegally and they section 8 your boat.

If you are refused a licence after fulfilling the three requirements, you can take an injunction out against canal and river trust. The real world, not canalworld.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jon johan said:

If you are refused a licence after fulfilling the three requirements, you can take an injunction out against canal and river trust. The real world, not canalworld.

Could you provide a link to that source of information ?

 

It is certainly not what happens in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jon johan said:

If you are refused a licence after fulfilling the three requirements, you can take an injunction out against canal and river trust. The real world, not canalworld.

Out of interest and assuming CRT vigorously oppose the request for an injunction, how much would the legal fees be if the injunction request were successful and how much if lost?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jon johan said:

If you are refused a licence after fulfilling the three requirements, you can take an injunction out against canal and river trust. The real world, not canalworld.

See posts 4 and 8. 
I suggest that the late Nigel Moor was far better informed than you are.
 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Out of interest and assuming CRT vigorously oppose the request for an injunction, how much would the legal fees be if the injunction request were successful and how much if lost?

The initial cost will be in the region of £500. Your solicitor will advise as to whether you have half a chance of winning or not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chewbacka said:

Well it does show that you don’t even have much confidence in your own strategy.

 

I thought the usual strategy was to let random boaters take all the legal and financial risk while the organisation issues a couple of press releases with important facts missing ...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

What exactly is in these new terms that's so objectionable as to warrant such I'll feeling?

NABO have produced a good document that I suspect will answer your request. I quote it below for you.

 

 Re: The National Association of Boat Owners (NABO)'s comments arising from the Canal and River Trust (CRT) consultation on the proposed changes to the current licence Terms and Conditions.
In September 2015 when CRT last changed its Terms and Conditions NABO made the following comment: “As an underlying principle, whilst existing legislation gives CRT some standing it does not follow that the likes of Section 43 of the '62 Act can act as a catch-all to simply allow the CRT to proceed as it sees fit. The legislation is there to be followed, not adapted by CRT. We felt that the changes made warranted further investigation and have consulted further with our legal advisors who have commented that some of the changes introduced are of questionable legality.” Now in 2020 we find ourselves writing to you again and detailing our concerns on several areas of the proposed changes.
We observe that CRT now regards the issue of licences as solely a contractual matter rather than a duty to issue relevant consent to perpetuate the right of navigation with the Conditions of s17 of the 1995 BW Act alone. CRT is unilaterally imposing these T&Cs. Further that CRT is moving enforcement of Byelaws from criminal law to civil law by asserting contractual structure to licencing. We believe that CRT is again seeking powers to which it is not entitled under the 1995 Act.
Taking the consultation as a whole we find it extremely user unfriendly. It is estimated to take 40 minutes but there is no capacity to save your comments once you have started, so many prospective respondents will have no doubt exited the consultation and their views have not been recorded. Details of the consultation were not even on CRT’s website nearly two months after it was launched and three weeks before it closed.
In 2015 we drew the Trust’s attention to the readability of the Terms and Conditions. We said: The actual Terms and Conditions should be written in words that users can understand, otherwise it is an unfair contract and self-defeating. Since 2015 time has moved on and public opinion is now only too aware of organisations that create a fog of complicated contract documents written by lawyers in a way that most customers cannot understand. The existing and revised Terms and Conditions have much higher Flesch Ease of Reading and Understanding scores than is recommended. This could invariably lead to many of those at risk of any enforcement action as a result of non-compliance, being unable to understand the terms that they have been required to sign.
We also have concerns that CRT may be acting outside the terms of the General Data Protection Act (GDPR). We believe that the current documents and the changes proposed are currently non-compliant with GDPR as well as containing a mix of bad presentation and lack of clarity. Lack of clarity is in itself a non-compliance. In our view CRT should take immediate steps to ensure all its licensing documentation is GDPR compliant. It may be sensible to halt the current consultation on the proposed terms and conditions pending these changes. We have highlighted an example of our findings at the bottom of our
1

response and a more detailed review of both Readability and GDPR has been sent to Tom Deards, Head of Governance.
Moving on to the specific areas in the consultation that cause us concern:
Section A. Home Mooring Requirement to Cruise
Proposed Change A1
CRT is proposing that the following is added to the end of clause 3.1 of the existing Terms and Conditions:
“The cruise must be a genuine cruise. Minimal or repetitive movement along a short part of the Waterway or Waterways without use of the Home Mooring (nominal use of which shall be disregarded for these purposes) will not be accepted as a genuine cruise.”
This change appears to be an attempt by CRT to extend its powers beyond the 1995 Act. There is no authority in the 1995 Act for CRT to decide how a boat must travel in order to comply with the requirement to be used for proper navigation. The requirement is simply as per s17 (3) (c) (ii) of the 1995 Act – the boat must not have remained continuously in one place for more than 14 days, unless reasonable in the particular circumstances. A boat remaining in a small area or not travelling a certain distance does not thus contravene the 1995 Act, which appears to be what CRT is driving at with the reasoning given for this change. NABO, supported by our legal advisers, believes that CRT should be required to act in accordance with current legislation and not require boaters to agree to Terms and Conditions that exceed those required under the 1995 British Waterways Act.
Quite apart from the legal aspect, there is the question of proportionality. CRT has been unable to quantify the size of the problem it is trying to address, nor provide a definition of ‘genuine cruise’ or ‘minimal’ or ‘repetitive’ in this context. The reasoning given is: “to ensure all boaters get fair access to the whole of their network, as presently some boaters with a home mooring remain in a small area, not returning to their home mooring, preventing others access to mooring space.” This could best be addressed by the provision of mooring spaces of varied durations in popular areas and the enforcement thereof, which is available under the existing legislation. To obtain a licence, a boater has no choice but to agree to CRT’s Terms and Conditions. NABO strongly believes that boaters should not be required to agree to terms that are not enforceable in law.
Since 2015 when the Terms and Conditions were revised for boats with a home mooring not one enforcement case has been made as a result of this change in the subsequent 5 years. We would refer CRT to two legal cases that highlight the difficulties they will have in enforcing this further change:
Attorney-General v. Great Eastern Railway Co. (1880) 5 App.Cas. 473, Lord Blackburn said, at p. 481: 'where there is an Act of Parliament creating a corporation for a particular purpose, and giving it powers for that particular purpose, what it does not expressly or impliedly authorise is to be taken to be prohibited; ...' This was cited with approval by the same House in the 1991 judgment in McCarthy & Stone v Richmond LBC, with all five Law Lords in unanimous agreement on the point.
The comments of Judge Halbert in Canal and River Trust v Mayers:
6.3 ‘However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation
 2

throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close
together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.
And 6.4 ‘....It was conceded on behalf of CRT in the course of argument that if GDM acquired a home mooring for Pearl, he would be left undisturbed provided he did not infringe the 14 day requirement....’
Section B. Insurance
We support the general requirement to declare insurance. We suggest there should be an option to submit documents by email. Confirmation that CRT maintain confidentiality of information passed to them and will maintain standards as required by the General Data Protection Regulations should be explicitly set out with any changes. In a similar way explicit provision that CRT will not sell or disclose any information held to commercial parties should also be included. Appropriate security provisions for data should be clear in this and other sections which ask for boaters' data.
Section C. Termination
At C2 a proposed change of 28 days for removal has been introduced and we consider that this is potentially unduly onerous. Perhaps ‘28 days or within such time as may be reasonable’ might better cover all circumstances. Any termination must take into account the licensing provisions of the British Waterways 1995 Act. A licence holder might not be in CRT’s view observing ‘genuine cruising’ however the termination could potentially be challenged as the boater might be cruising in line with the provisions of the 1995 Act.
Section D. Obligation of Refunds
The proposed first two sentences at D1 are not acceptable or boater friendly. We do not buy a licence to moor in a pond. “The Licence fee grants permission for the licensed boat to be present on Trust owned or managed Waterways. The licence is not a guarantee of access or availability of the Waterway.” Navigation was originally said to be the most important aspect of CRT’s obligations as confirmed in Clause 2.1.1. in your Articles of Association. The existing first sentence at 9.1 should be reinstated.
The proposed change seeks to widen refund policy in the CRT’s favour. There are issues with the existing wording that is carried through with the proposed changes – what for instance is an ‘unforeseen event’ or a circumstance beyond their ‘reasonable control’? An example of both would be useful for clarity. What happens for instance if a particular area of the waterways becomes blocked off? There is no right of challenge to refund as it stands or with the proposed revision. We suggest that change is needed to the existing wording to lay some further definition down against closures and emergencies and how these are to be dealt with. This would provide some balance of fairness to licence holders. We further suggest that the D3 proposal should be: “save for any damages arising from personal injury or death caused by our negligence, or any other damages arising from statute that are prohibited from exclusion.”
3

Section E. Boat Safety Scheme
CRT should state the authority by which they can enter a boat without a police warrant or court order. There needs to be evidence of immediate safety concern to warrant entering a boat. Any inspection needs to be undertaken by a qualified Boat Safety Examiner.
Section F. Wider or larger dimensioned boats
F2 More and more widebeams are being built with straight sides and damage is being caused to bridge arches. Maximum widths have to be reduced to take this into account or the angle of tumblehome perhaps needs to be specified.
F3 It should be made clear that navigational dimensions will not change but required craft dimensions may do from time to time.
F4 This clause needs to be rewritten to the effect that all wide beam boats should have bow and stern fenders. In addition fenders should be available to be deployed where there is a risk of collision with any boat or canal infrastructure. Boats should not cruise with fenders down.
Section G. Change of Ownership
Boaters should be able to submit confirmation of the requested details by email.
Section H. False Declarations
If a boater knowingly makes a false declaration then the usual route is litigation which if successful would normally lead to the licence being declared invalid. We are concerned that CRT will use any ambiguity to its advantage. Any ambiguity should in fact be interpreted in favour of the party that would suffer from it.
We believe that this proposed inclusion might ultimately lead CRT to say it has rights under the licence terms to act as it sees fit where a false declaration has been determined. This action would bypass some provisions in the Acts (see for instance our concerns regarding point A1 above). In fact false representations can be quite properly dealt with under general civil procedure rules via standard litigation practice. There is also no distinction as to seriousness of false representation i.e. a ‘minor’ error or a flagrant safety disregard are potentially very different. If CRT introduces such provision we feel it would be better put in a guideline or separate paper as to how they would expect to deal with any false declarations found, rather than incorporating this into the Terms & Conditions of the licence itself.
Section I. Behaviour towards Trust colleagues
Judging by the issue explained by CRT, the motivation here is to give another route to licence termination as that is specifically mentioned in the issue section. We do not believe the potential loss of a licence is an appropriate penalty for accusations of this nature. If the situation was reversed the boater would expect it to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities as well as CRT.
We suspect this may be motivated by the desire to bring in the ability to perform ‘spot-checks’ where there may be safety concerns with certain boats. We would question why this addition is necessary. Genuine abuse whether by a boater to a Trust colleague or vice versa is properly a matter for the police. It is also covered under the current existing byelaws. We are concerned there is no right of appeal or
4

indeed appeal process which should be independent of CRT. This clause regrettably is one sided and gives scope for it to be used for CRT’s own ends.
Readability
The Data Protection Act requires, under data protection principles, that information is used fairly, lawfully and transparently. It also requires under the ‘right to be informed’ that the information the Trust provides to people must be concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible. It must also use clear and plain language. We believe that none of the current licensing documents or the changes proposed meet a simple test for ease of reading.
NABO also notes that the proposed new wording for the 2020 Terms is not an improvement. Below is just one example taken from the current consultation of what could be done to make this document comply with plain English requirements. This approach would engage respondents from the outset and would also achieve the added bonus of shortening the consultation document.
CRT wording is in the left hand column, NABO’s suggested wording in the right hand column.
    Insurance
You must have in force an insurance policy for the Boat, provided by a company that is authorised and regulated by the UK Financial Conduct Authority, which covers third-party liabilities of at least two million pounds per event.
The insurance cover must:
• be maintained for the full duration of
the Licence;
• be appropriate for the intended use of
the Boat;
• insure the licence applicant, the owner
of the [vessel/ boat] and such other person, persons or classes of persons (if any) as is or as authorised by the owner [and or licence applicant] to have control of the vessel, in respect of any liability which may be incurred by the owner or any such other person resulting from the presence of the vessel on any inland waterway in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or any damage to property.
When applying for the Licence, you are asked to declare the following details of the Boat’s insurance:
• the name of your insurance provider;
• the policy number;
    Insurance
You must have valid boat insurance, provided by a company authorised and regulated by the UK Financial Conduct Authority.
The insurance must:
• Cover the Licence holder, boat owner
and all people allowed to helm the
Boat.
• Be suitable for the intended use of the
Boat.
• Be in place for the full period of the
Licence when the Boat is on any inland
waterway.
• Cover any liability, which results in
damage to any property or the death
or injury of any person.
• Cover third party liability of at least £2
million per event.
When you apply for a Licence you must provide:
• The name of your insurance company.
• The policy number.
• The expiry date of the policy.
 5

    • the expiry date of the policy.
You must provide a copy of your insurance certificate and/or policy Schedule to Us at the point of licensing via our online portal or by sending a copy by post within 14 days of licensing your boat. You agree to provide a copy of your insurance certificate, policy terms and conditions and policy Schedule upon request.
You agree that we may contact your insurer and/or broker to check the validity of your policy, and you consent to the insurer and/or broker giving us such information as we may reasonably require.
You agree to us providing information that we hold about the use, apparent structure and construction of your boat to your insurer and/ or broker.
If your current insurance certificate expires during the Licence (including any renewal), you must provide evidence of the renewed (or new) insurance and the Conditions of B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, B.5 and B.6 apply.
    • Within 14 days of Licencing your Boat, a copy of your insurance certificate or policy schedule, via our online portal or by post.
You agree that
• We may check with your insurance
company that the policy is valid.
• We may give information we hold about your Boat to your insurance
company.
• Your insurance company gives us any
information we may require.
• You will give us a new insurance
certificate if your insurance period runs out during the Licence period.
 NABO is sure that a poor response rate was not CRT’s intended outcome for what is an important consultation, bearing in mind the possible lifestyle changing consequences for a licence holder who is regarded as failing to comply in the future. It is not too late for remedial action to be taken. By resetting the consultation using plain English and reducing the length of the document, potential respondents will be more able and inclined to take an active and informed role. Adequate publicising that this has been recognised as a problem and rectified, inviting further engagement with this consultation would reflect very positively on CRT’s reputation with their customers.
GDPR
NABO has undertaken a review of the privacy documents that form part of the private licence relationship. We find shortcomings that are a mix of bad presentation, lack of clarity and non- compliance with GDPR. In NABO’s view the Trusts documents do not provide the necessary justification and explanation of the ‘necessary’ data processing.
It is clear that the Trust has asked for data that is not covered under Public Task. By way of example, the in the Licence application form, the Trust asks for agreement to: “share your details with our subsidiaries and other affiliated companies”. No justification is offered as to why this is ‘necessary’ for the Public Task. In NABO’s view this is not part of the Public Task. This requires other defined ‘consent’.
There are a number of items in the Privacy documents that are unclear and lack an explanation of how they apply specifically to licensing. This in NABO’s view is not a satisfactory justification for ‘Public Task’. If it is not clear to users, it is not satisfactory.
6

The text for privacy issues for the Equality Act is divided and incomplete. There is no place for specific consent, which is required.
We are not content with the language used in the Privacy documents. By way of example, we draw your attention to the last bullet point of the ‘Privacy Schedule for Customers’. This comprises a sentence of 77 words. It is self-evident that this is not an appropriate wording. Privacy laws require that the information provided to people must be concise, transparent, intelligible, easily accessible, and it must use clear and plain language.
NABO concludes that the current documents are not fit for purpose and are non-compliant.
Conclusion
NABO concludes that significant improvements on readability and GDPR compliance can be made with very limited effort and without impact on legal meaning.
We are keen for the Trust to see the comments above as constructive criticism of the proposed changes to the current license terms and conditions.
We hope to hear from you shortly on the action that you propose to take.
End of document. 7.12.20
7
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pete.i said:

How racist. Not that the mods on here will do anything about it.

???

 

Nonsense.

 

The Welsh are not a race.

 

I know some claim they are are but that comment is no more racist than saying 'typically French'. who also are not a race.

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.