Jump to content

New T&C's - merged thread


Featured Posts

6 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

Anyone spotted anything in the update which may be to the detriment of those of us who are not trying to push the edge of the envelope?

 

A share boat cannot be managed by anyone who doesn't own a share in the boat, otherwise it becomes a commercial operation and requires commercial licencing.

 

Unlike the canal licence, the River registration is 'carried over' (free of charge) to the new owner.

 

Never seen the above clauses before.

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

6 minutes ago, Bod said:

How under current statue law can the Trust revoke your licence?

Which Act takes precedent?  The 1962, or later 1968-1995 Acts.

 

Bod

You dont realy believe the old story of David and Goliath do you?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

Anyone spotted anything in the update which may be to the detriment of those of us who are not trying to push the edge of the envelope?

CRT's definition of competent in 10.8.  Boarding your boat in 10.12.2  Sharing personal info with others in 7.4 and 10.13

Edited by wandering snail
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Is it just me or do the 'i's look like 'l's?

This is still there for those with home moorings, even though it conflicts with the 1995 act:

 

5.1.You must travel on a journey when You are away from Your Home Mooring. Your journey should be a genuine journey. It should start and end at Your Home Mooring. It does not have to be over a certain duration, distance or range, or follow a single direction. It cannot contain short, repeated movement in a small part of the Waterway for an extended period, unless You return to the Home Mooring between repeated trips. Each time You leave Your Home Mooring You start a new journey.

 

 

 

See Post No8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Bod said:

How under current statue law can the Trust revoke your licence?

Which Act takes precedent?  The 1962, or later 1968-1995 Acts.

 

Bod

Better ask them, they do it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Bod said:

How under current statue law can the Trust revoke your licence?

Which Act takes precedent?  The 1962, or later 1968-1995 Acts.

 

Bod

 

 

Your licence is not revoked under any law, it is revoked because you failed to do what you signed to say you would do when you applied for a licence. (Agreed to the T&Cs)

 

Once your licence has been revoked for non-compliance, you are taken to court (and eventually your boat siezed) for illegally (against the law) being on C&RT waters without a licence. (as per the various waterway acts).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

A share boat cannot be managed by anyone who doesn't own a share in the boat, otherwise it becomes a commercial operation and requires commercial licencing.

 

Unlike the canal licence, the River registration is 'carried over' (free of charge) to the new owner.

 

Never seen the above clauses before.

Many years ago, When the Ombudsman forced BW to charge shared boats the same licence fee as other pleasure boats, they tried to include that shared boats managed by a management company should pay the larger (147%) licence and  they lost the argument. This is presumably them trying it again. 

 

haggis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At which point you apply for a licence, which if you have the licence fee, insurance, and BSC.  Plus either a Home mooring, or no home mooring declaration, C&RT cannot refuse.

 

Bod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bod said:

At which point you apply for a licence, which if you have the licence fee, insurance, and BSC.  Plus either a Home mooring, or no home mooring declaration, C&RT cannot refuse.

 

Bod.

 

Yes they can, (They say)

If they believe that you will not comply with the requirments they will refuse to issue a licence.

 

3.3. We only issue a Licence if We are satisfied that You either have a Home Mooring for the Boat or You will Use the Boat as a Continuous Cruiser

 

It has always been the case (as shown in the 1995 Act) that BW / C&RT must be 'satisfied'.

 

The 1995 Act :

 

 

otwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless—

(a)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;

(b)an insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence that it exists and is in force, has been produced to the Board; and

(c)either—

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

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

19 minutes ago, Bod said:

At which point you apply for a licence, which if you have the licence fee, insurance, and BSC.  Plus either a Home mooring, or no home mooring declaration, C&RT cannot refuse.

 

Bod.

Even if they do have to issue a new licence (which as Alan de Enfield says is debatable) in return for a new fee, if the behaviour that led to the revocation continues then 12.3 seems to allow them to suspend or terminate the new licence, with no notice and no refund.

 

If someone continually reapplied it could become a nice little earner to contribute to upkeep!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Midnight said:

5.1. You must travel on a journey when You are away from Your Home Mooring. Your journey should be a genuine journey. It should start and end at Your Home Mooring. It does not have to be over a certain duration, distance or range, or follow a single direction. It cannot contain short, repeated movement in a small part of the Waterway for an extended period, unless You return to the Home Mooring between repeated trips. Each time You leave Your Home Mooring You start a new journey.

 

Doesn't seem to me to be anything other than reasonable.

 

Am I correct in thinking T&C's aren't the law and therefore you can't be prosecuted for breaking them if you comply with the 1995 transport act?

I agree that this and the CART definition of what does and doesn't count as Continuous Cruising are reasonable, and the intention is clear in both cases -- if you want to stay in one "place" you need a Home Mooring (don't you just love their random use of Capitals?) there, and if you want to use a Continuous Cruising licence then you need to continuously cruise -- after all, the clue's in The Name in both cases ?

 

However I've no doubt that keyboard lawyers and those who have been taking advantage of the previous "loopholes"  to effectively stay in a small area where they don't have a home mooring (while obviously not CCing) will argue that either CART can't do this legally, or a judge said something else, or it's not fair because they're changing the rules, or what they're doing doesn't really break the rules, or it'll mean their children can't get to school, or... [insert excuse of your choice].

 

It's like people protesting when the government closes a tax loophole that they've been taking advantage of -- most people would say "pay your taxes like I do and stop moaning, they've got you bang to rights"...

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sea Dog said:

Anyone spotted anything in the update which may be to the detriment of those of us who are not trying to push the edge of the envelope?

So another "no", then...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bod said:

How under current statue law can the Trust revoke your licence?

Which Act takes precedent?  The 1962, or later 1968-1995 Acts.

 

Bod

Because you sign a contract that allows them to do so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ray T said:

I found this bit of interest.

 

1.5. ‘Boat’s Dimensions’ means the measurements of Your Boat, including Air Draught, Boat Beam, Boat Length and Boat Draught. 1.6. ‘Boat Draught’ means the distance from the surface of the water to the deepest part of the Boat. 1.7. ‘Boat Length’ means the length overall of the Boat. This includes permanently fixed fenders as reasonably needed to be Used when the Boat is moored or moving. It also includes any bowsprits, boarding ladders, davits including their loads, out drives, rudders, anchors, pulpits, push pits and any other extensions of the Boat.

 

It clears up the issue of "conventional" fenders, i.e. tipcats, button fenders etc., but includes the rudder.

I would take this example to be a "Permanently" fixed fender.

 

16866807486_72ba65dd30_o.jpg

 

 

Except these can be swivelled upwards to "shorten" the boat -- so are they "permanently fixed" or not?

 

I also don't think it's clear whether fenders like tipcats and buttons count or not -- surely they're not "permanently fixed" if you can move them out of the way by unscrewing a swivel, or rotating a long stern button 90 degrees so it's vertical not horizontal?

 

It also seems strange that rudders are included, since they too can swivel out of the way.

 

I'd have thought that the meaning of "length" would be related to (for example) whether the boat can fit into a lock or not, in which case you'd certainly think the rudder wouldn't be included, or any removable fenders -- of course if you don't remove the fenders and turn the rudder the boat is longer, but which definition of "length" do CART mean? My understanding was that it was previously taken to be the hull length (not waterline) without removable fenders, but I could be wrong...

 

Not just nit-picking here, but once CART start trying to define "allowable length" for some canals (like they're doing now with width) the difference could become crucial. If you want to take a 60-footer (hull length) up through Salterhebble -- which we know can be done with care and by removing any long fenders -- but the boat is (for example) 62' long with the fenders in place as normal, what do CART count as the "length" for purposes like allowing access?

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

I also don't think it's clear whether fenders like tipcats and buttons count or not -- surely they're not "permanently fixed" if you can move them out of the way by unscrewing a swivel, or rotating a long stern button 90 degrees so it's vertical not horizontal?

 

It also seems strange that rudders are included, since they too can swivel out of the way.

 

My suggestion would be "if it requires tools to lift it, or, remove it, it is permanent". It it is simply suspended 'on a bit of string' and can be lifted inboard then it is not permanent.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

My suggestion would be "if it requires tools to lift it, or, remove it, it is permanent". It it is simply suspended 'on a bit of string' and can be lifted inboard then it is not permanent.

I'm sure different people have different views of what counts as "permanent" -- I'd say it means non-removable, like the steel one in the photo would be if it wasn't capable of swivelling upwards. Otherwise you get into discussion about how easy it is to remove, how long it takes, and would you ever do it before going through a tight lock -- in which case rope tipcats and stern buttons are clearly not permanent since people can and do take them off for exactly that reason, and can also fit ones of different lengths or stack them -- does this change the length of the boat?

 

The only clear and unarguable definition I can see working is "the length of the hull plus any fixed extensions to the structure like bowsprits, pulpits..." -- fenders that can be removed are "optional extras" and shouldn't count, since you can easily have shorter or longer ones -- or none at all if you don't care about breaking stuff inside the boat when you hit something.

 

Anyway what matters isn't what we think but what CART says, since they're the ones who'll be making the rules about whether a given boat can go on a given canal or not...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to "muddy the waters" a little, there is also this type of fender.

Part removable part rigid. On further inspection it appears the rope fender is fixed at the bottom as well !! ( I think most of us will be aware of the pitfalls of this unless it has a "weak link.")

 

I seem to have it at the back of my mind somewhere that fenders fore and aft are a requirement to help protect the infrastructure?

 

Fender.JPG

 

Edited by Ray T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sea Dog said:

Anyone spotted anything in the update which may be to the detriment of those of us who are not trying to push the edge of the envelope?

One point that I'd not seen before is about the issue of short term licences which, if I've read it correctly, will not be available to boats in marinas or waterways adjacent to CaRT water that do not require a CaRT licence. 

I also see there is provision to enter a boat if they so choose to. In some of the instances they specify adequate notice, but this disappears in the last paragraph.

I am also unhappy that they want the right to inform 'interested parties' about your personal details, and the part about passing on information to your insurance company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ex Brummie said:

I also see there is provision to enter a boat if they so choose to. In some of the instances they specify adequate notice, but this disappears in the last paragraph.

I am also unhappy that they want the right to inform 'interested parties' about your personal details, and the part about passing on information to your insurance company.

 

Both of these points were in the last update and were subject to 'serious discussion', particularly by NABO who, if I remember correctly took ligal advice which suhgested both were in fact illegal acts,

 

The requirement to give notice of entry onto your boat is enshrined in Law (unless it is an emergency -sinking, death, etc)

 

The 'giving of personal information' to 3rd parties was shown to contravene the Data Protection Act 1998

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Ex Brummie said:

One point that I'd not seen before is about the issue of short term licences which, if I've read it correctly, will not be available to boats in marinas or waterways adjacent to CaRT water that do not require a CaRT licence. 

I was under the impression it has been like that for a while and those that managed to get a licence were lucky as it was only due to carts poor record keeping ;)

Edited by Loddon
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.