C&RT returns seized boat after legal action taken against them

[Allan(nb Albert)]

9 hours ago, David Mack said:

I haven't checked, but I know that a 12 month Rivers Only licence is 60% of the cost of the equivalent Canals and Rivers licence. It also seemed to me very likely that a 6 month Canal and Rivers licence would be priced at 60% of the equivalent 12 month licence, meaning that a 6 month Canal and Rivers licence could indeed be priced the same as a 12 month Rivers Only licence for the same boat. Which would suggest that the licence issuing error alleged to have happened in this case is plausible.

I checked on receiving the NTBA press release and it is exactly as you suggest -

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/original/39214-boat-licence-fees-2019-20.pdf

 

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

54 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I checked on receiving the NTBA press release and it is exactly as you suggest -

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/original/39214-boat-licence-fees-2019-20.pdf

 

£688.25  for 6 month canal and river or 12 river only

 

 

[Bod]

If this had gone to Court, would the fact that a "Rivers Only" licence, is actually a "Pleasure Boat Certificate", and as a registration document, rather than a licence, not libel to VAT, have come out?

 

Bod.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

10 minutes ago, Bod said:

If this had gone to Court, would the fact that a "Rivers Only" licence, is actually a "Pleasure Boat Certificate", and as a registration document, rather than a licence, not libel to VAT, have come out?

 

Bod.

The judicial review would have been limited to the lawfulness of  CRT's decision to seize the boat, I think. 

 

Any judicial review on PBC would probably have to be on the basis of CRT refusing to issue a certificate and offering a rivers only licence instead.

 

I would add that the PBC VAT issue is just one of several including -

 

Definition of main navigable channel

Lack of bye-laws 

Dispute resolution

Price increases

 

 

[Athy]

32 minutes ago, Bod said:

 a "Rivers Only" licence, is actually a "Pleasure Boat Certificate", and as a registration document, rather than a licence, not libel 

 

Bod.

No, I'm sure that you're telling the truth.

[Arthur Marshall]

11 hours ago, David Mack said:

If CRT knows who owns the boat then they contact that person. If they don't, they post notices on the boat advising that the boat must display a name, index number and licence, and setting out the consequences of non-compliance. Repeat a couple of times at monthly intervals, and if the owner doesn't remedy the breaches, or even get in touch, then they are clear to remove the boat. A de E can quote chapter and verse but I'm pretty sure CRT already have the powers to do this.

Owner bins the notice, moves the boat. How can CRT prove they ever posted more than one notice? The only real solution would be to have a mass exercise one week and remove every boat not displaying a number, and if you think CRT could do that without hoicking oout a few perfectly legal boats in the process you think better of their systems than I do.

You could legitimately stop unlicensed boats going through manned locks or tunnels, but they don't - no-one wants the hassle (understandably). The only real way to tell if a boat is licensed is if it's displaying a licence, unforgeable and issued by the authority.

I believe that's why coppers carry warrant cards, rather than just telling you who they are, and saying you can look them up on the internet if you want!

[David Mack]

 

35 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Owner bins the notice, moves the boat. How can CRT prove they ever posted more than one notice?

 

Signed statement from the CRT staff member posting the notice. And these days probably also a timed and dated digital photograph of the notice attached to the boat. That would probably be sufficient evidence to satisfy a court.

Edited January 3, 2021 by David Mack

[Arthur Marshall]

52 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

 

Signed statement from the CRT staff member posting the notice. And these days probably also a timed and dated digital photograph of the notice attached to the boat. That would probably be sufficient evidence to satisfy a court.

But so much simpler just to issue a proper annual licence and insist on it being displayed, with a definite risk of the boat being impounded if in contravention. Worked for cars.

It's just another case of idiots thinking computers are automatically better and more efficient than bits of paper. In most cases, they're not, as well as being a hell of a lot more expensive!

[Guest]

At least when the licence checkers check me, than can tell by what is on their screen that they have at least put in the correct number (or I've fooled them by lying).

 

Bits of paper where fine when they were a bit more difficult to forge.

Edited January 3, 2021 by Guest