New T&C's - merged thread

[wandering snail]

24 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 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.

These are just some of the parts that boaters should be concerned about, if not for themselves, for others.

[matty40s]

46 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. 

What this has meant is a loss of revenue on the canals and rivers. Boats moored in marinas which dont require a licence used to buy short term and weekend passes (especially on the rivers). Now they just go out without one....no checkers out at the weekends, and only places like Cromwell on the Trent and Brentford on the Thames check licence before passage.

[Arthur Marshall]

3 hours ago, matty40s said:

What this has meant is a loss of revenue on the canals and rivers. Boats moored in marinas which dont require a licence used to buy short term and weekend passes (especially on the rivers). Now they just go out without one....no checkers out at the weekends, and only places like Cromwell on the Trent and Brentford on the Thames check licence before passage.

Money will be more than made up if they really are issuing different licences for CC and home moorers, because the former will be going up soon to equate with the mooring fees HMers pay, though what CRT will use as a comparison is anyone's guess.

[Mike Todd]

13 hours ago, AndrewIC said:

It a contract valid which purports to permit someone to do something which the law does not permit them to do? 
 

I think you will find that 'the law does not give permission ' is not the same as 'the law forbids '

[AndrewIC]

15 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I think you will find that 'the law does not give permission ' is not the same as 'the law forbids '

I seem to recall somewhere in previous discussions a distinction being made between natural persons, who could do anything the law did not forbid, and bodies created by statute, who could do only what their statutes permitted. But I could be wrong.

[Alan de Enfield]

9 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Money will be more than made up if they really are issuing different licences for CC and home moorers, because the former will be going up soon to equate with the mooring fees HMers pay, though what CRT will use as a comparison is anyone's guess.

 

 

This was proposed some years ago and was based on the fact that "user pays" and a CCer will use the facilities and infrastructure much more than a boat with a home mooring.

I'm sure that there are many on the forum that were around at the time, and maybe even party to the dicussions.

 

It was proposed, reviewed and discussed here (The full document makes interesting reading)

 

"A fresh look at BW’s craft licensing structure Consultation paper for presentation & discussion with Boating User Groups, 16th May 2002"

 

A table was produced of the conclusions.

The concept was that a "normal leisure licence for a boat with a home mooring" would be the base line, and other licences would be issued as a multiplier of this, so, for example the CC,licence  would be 2.5 times that of a boat with a home mooring.

 

If the baseline licence cost £800, then a CC licence would cost £2,000.

 

It looks as if, long delayed, C&RT might be at the 2nd stage of applying BW plans. 

The 1st stage discussed in 2002 was the introduction of licence fees being based on BEAM as well as length - well, we now already have that being phased in don't we !

 

From 2003 document :

 

"Initially we would recommend adoption of just 6 length categories, perhaps using the existing short term licence structure, plus a premium factor for craft with a beam over 2.13 m"

 

 

Thin end of the wedge.

 

"Loyalty" discounts were proposed for those who had held held a boat licence (continuously) for 10 + years, and / or for those over 60 years old

 

 

Edited May 25, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[Tuscan]

OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE

BRUTON (A.P.)
(APPELLANT)

 

Where Lord Hoffmann stated (during a long, long statement) regarding the fact that the whilst the T&Cs of a 'contract' had been signed and 'agreed' :

 

"......Mr. Bruton's agreement is irrelevant because one cannot contract out of the statute..."

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE

BRUTON (A.P.)
(APPELLANT)

 

Where Lord Hoffmann stated (during a long, long statement) regarding the fact that the whilst the T&Cs of a 'contract' had been signed and 'agreed' :

 

"......Mr. Bruton's agreement is irrelevant because one cannot contract out of the statute..."

 

 

 

Very true, and certainly applies to some of C&RTs T&Cs, but it could be an interesting discussion.

Which particular part of the statute / T&Cs are you refering to ?

 

The 1995 Act states that C&RT can refuse to issue a licence if they are not 'satisfied' so, that is within 'statute'.

 

C&RT cancel a licence because they are not satisfied that the boater is complying with the 1995 Act (by not travelling "enough" to satisfy them), so, again that would appear to be  within 'statute'.

 

Statute allows C&RT to charge for facilities.

 

Statute allows C&RT to charge different prices for different licences.

Edited May 25, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[PD1964]

9 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Money will be more than made up if they really are issuing different licences for CC and home moorers, because the former will be going up soon to equate with the mooring fees HMers pay, though what CRT will use as a comparison is anyone's guess.

Good point. Maybe a CC license should be a lot more, as they uses CaRT facilities more then a HM, as HM’s use the Marina facilities more then CaRT’s which they obviously pay to the Marina operator not CaRT. With all the CC’s coming onto the canal especially around London and the South East it could be a lot of extra revenue for them.

   Then they may be able to fix the Elsen disposal points and invest in Compost toilet disposal facilities they all complain about being closed or not having on here.

  Maybe it’s time the CC’s paid for what they use more.

[The Welsh Cruiser]

I'm wondering what the thinking is behind the new 'continuous cruiser' licence. There must be some thinking and therefore some purpose, right? Could this be to 'soften up' continuous cruisers, make them realise that their licence is different to that of those who have a mooring? And then, in due course, like they very nearly did a couple of years ago, increase the cost of the 'continuous cruiser' licence? 

[TheBiscuits]

Just now, PD1964 said:

Maybe a CC license should be a lot more, as they uses CaRT facilities more then a HM, as HM’s use the Marina facilities more then CaRT’s which they obviously pay to the Marina operator not CaRT.

 

So what happens with boats that have a home mooring with no facilities provided, like on many farm moorings?

[matty40s]

Just now, TheBiscuits said:

 

So what happens with boats that have a home mooring with no facilities provided, like on many farm moorings?

Fancy trying to muddy the waters with inconsequential that nobody at CRT has thought of details like that.....

[Alan de Enfield]

33 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

So what happens with boats that have a home mooring with no facilities provided, like on many farm moorings?

 

For consideration :

 

Boaters who have a paid for 'home mooring' are unlikely to have anywhere as much use of C&RTs facilities (locks, bridges, visitors moorings, sanitary stations etc) as a CCer does.

A home moorer will often / usually be a 'leisure boater', maybe of working age, who cannot get  more than weekends and holidays to use their boat.

 

This was BW's rationale for the difference in Licence costs between a hire boat and a private boat.

The other option that was considered was a 'pay by use'

Licence cost to be based on :

 

"Extent of geographical access. Under the current system, we offer limited choice of access levels – just rivers only, and the EA Gold option. From the user perspective, there is a compelling argument for a ‘pay as you go’ system. In its purest form, this would involve some form of payment per trip related to distance travelled or duration. It would require heavy investment in technology to implement. It would also represent an unacceptably high level of risk to revenue generation since we have no experience of the relevant trip price-demand elasticities. This isn’t considered to be a serious option for the present review. However, we should perhaps not rule out a gradual extension of the current options, with lower charges for waterways disconnected from the main network, or even a zoning system involving lower charges for usage within a single zone. This could be particularly effective in encouraging new entry to inland boating for people who already own small or portable boats".

Edited May 25, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[PD1964]

22 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

So what happens with boats that have a home mooring with no facilities provided, like on many farm moorings?

I image that’s a very small percentage, a simple solution is they increase the fee they charge the farmer and if he has no facilities it increases, or if he has facilities he gets a reduction.

  There are thousands of boats in Marina‘a that very rarely or never leave and there are hundreds of CC’s coming onto the system every year for that cheap lifestyle, so why should they not pay extra for the increased use of CaRT facilities?

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

This was proposed some years ago and was based on the fact that "user pays" and a CCer will use the facilities and infrastructure much more than a boat with a home mooring.

I'm sure that there are many on the forum that were around at the time, and maybe even party to the dicussions.

 

It was proposed, reviewed and discussed here (The full document makes interesting reading)

 

"A fresh look at BW’s craft licensing structure Consultation paper for presentation & discussion with Boating User Groups, 16th May 2002"

 

A table was produced of the conclusions.

The concept was that a "normal leisure licence for a boat with a home mooring" would be the base line, and other licences would be issued as a multiplier of this, so, for example the CC,licence  would be 2.5 times that of a boat with a home mooring.

 

If the baseline licence cost £800, then a CC licence would cost £2,000.

 

It looks as if, long delayed, C&RT might be at the 2nd stage of applying BW plans. 

The 1st stage discussed in 2002 was the introduction of licence fees being based on BEAM as well as length - well, we now already have that being phased in don't we !

 

From 2003 document :

 

"Initially we would recommend adoption of just 6 length categories, perhaps using the existing short term licence structure, plus a premium factor for craft with a beam over 2.13 m"

 

 

Thin end of the wedge.

 

"Loyalty" discounts were proposed for those who had held held a boat licence (continuously) for 10 + years, and / or for those over 60 years old

 

 

Remember it well

[doratheexplorer]

18 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

See Post No8

What does that mean?

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, doratheexplorer said:

What does that mean?

 

Not a lot now the threads have been merged.

 

 

[doratheexplorer]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Not a lot now the threads have been merged.

 

 

Helpful.  Thanks.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

duplicate

 

 

Edited May 25, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[magpie patrick]

11 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Money will be more than made up if they really are issuing different licences for CC and home moorers, because the former will be going up soon to equate with the mooring fees HMers pay, though what CRT will use as a comparison is anyone's guess.

 

IIRC correctly CRT tried this, or rather BW did, and found they had no statutory basis to do so - there is one licence, a pleasure boat licence, and you must comply with one or the other condition to have one. Do they have the powers to determine that there is a different type of licence? 

[Hudds Lad]

10.10.The Boat must not display an association with, or advertise, any company, business or service without Our express consent in writing.

 

Wonder if this covers the growing number of boats that advertise their channel, Instagram, Facebook etc. on the side of the boat?  

Or am i reading too much into it?

[PD1964]

34 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 

IIRC correctly CRT tried this, or rather BW did, and found they had no statutory basis to do so - there is one licence, a pleasure boat licence, and you must comply with one or the other condition to have one. Do they have the powers to determine that there is a different type of licence? 

According to the first page of the new T&C’s there is more then one licence, six if I read it right. A pleasure boat licence is for boats with a home mooring, there is also a different CC licence for boats without a home mooring. So obviously the powers have determined they are different licences and you must comply with the licence conditions as you say or as I say I’m I misreading it. 

Edited May 25, 2021 by PD1964

[Alan de Enfield]

17 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 

IIRC correctly CRT tried this, or rather BW did, and found they had no statutory basis to do so - there is one licence, a pleasure boat licence, and you must comply with one or the other condition to have one. Do they have the powers to determine that there is a different type of licence? 

 

 

I think C&RT are relying on Section 10 of the 1971 Act where they are alowed to 'sub divide' the boat licence and charge different rates for each category (hence the increased charges introduced for wide-beams)

 

 

 

 

 

And / or section 4 of the 1983 Act 

 

 

 

Edited May 25, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[dmr]

CRT will not significantly change the licence cost structure because as soon as they try there will be protests and they will back down, like they always do.

 

The extra premium for CCers has been debated extensively on this forum in the past. There are too many problems. Some CCers make a very small demand on CRT facilities. What about shared ownership boats? Some informally shared boats (family and friends) are out every weekend, should they pay more? and how? A very big stress on the system is that most marina boats all go out together in August....how about a congestion charge?

If the extra charge for CCing reflects the cost of a mooring charge do you base that on the Midland, the North, or London prices?

CCers should pay more but its just very difficult to implement it in a fair way.

 

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

[IanD]

20 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

10.10.The Boat must not display an association with, or advertise, any company, business or service without Our express consent in writing.

 

Wonder if this covers the growing number of boats that advertise their channel, Instagram, Facebook etc. on the side of the boat?  

Or am i reading too much into it?

The rules are obviously intended to make people who are running businesses pay the higher license fees, as opposed to the lower ones available to private individuals.

 

If anything on the side of your boat doesn't make you any money, then you should be OK. When it gets tricky is if you (as a private individual) use these to generate a source of income -- does this make you a business?

 

What does HMRC think? (I suspect CART would have to follow their lead, since they define what counts as what kind of income).