Jump to content

New T&C's - merged thread


Featured Posts

Told you all years ago that unless the question of whether boaters are bound by a the statutory licence conditions or contract terms and conditions invented by CRT is answered it will keep coming back to bite licence holders on the arse, as CRT carry on what is in my unqualified opinion a fraud.

 

That question comes down to their bogus interpretation of one paragraph of the 1962 Transport Act which BW until post 1995 never even claimed they had the power to add terms and conditions to the licence and their barrister told parliament that in the 1995 BW act bill . If they had such powers since 1962 the 1995 act would have been unnecessary to put before parliament they could have just set out a contract and avoid BW, parliamentary lawyers and all user groups wasting years of work and also cut through all legal red tape and cancel licence contracts when ever they liked. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CompairHolman said:

Told you all years ago that unless the question of whether boaters are bound by a the statutory licence conditions or contract terms and conditions invented by CRT is answered it will keep coming back to bite licence holders on the arse, as CRT carry on what is in my unqualified opinion a fraud.

 

That question comes down to their bogus interpretation of one paragraph of the 1962 Transport Act which BW until post 1995 never even claimed they had the power to add terms and conditions to the licence and their barrister told parliament that in the 1995 BW act bill . If they had such powers since 1962 the 1995 act would have been unnecessary to put before parliament they could have just set out a contract and avoid BW, parliamentary lawyers and all user groups wasting years of work and also cut through all legal red tape and cancel licence contracts when ever they liked. 

 

 

Who precisely is it biting in the arse? This is the crucial point, I think. Which boaters are going to come into conflict with any of the terms and conditions?

If it isn't the continuous cruisers who happily wander their way slowly round a significant part of the system, or the home moorers who either live on their mooring or use their bosts for leisure cruises, then who?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours 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? 

 

 

Just rooting thru' the library of saved old posts and came across this one from Nigel Moore (RIP) on the very subject :

 

(I had suggested that to allow the law to be met, C&RT could set the cost of the 'standard licence' at some ridiculously high figure (maybe £2000) and then offer the various reductions)

 

 

Nigel Moore 6/1/18

 

The 1971 Act has already been ‘changed’ twice: first in 1974 and then in 1983. The charging schedules of the 1971 Act, which specified charges for categories according to length, were eventually abolished, so that charges for a PBC are now merely pegged at 60% of whatever fees [according to whatever category] CaRT choose to charge for a PBL for the same vessel.

I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations.

 

British Waterways Act 1983

.....Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1971 or the Act
of 1974 or in any other enactment relating to the Board or their
inland waterways,
the Board may register pleasure boats and
houseboats under the Act of 1971 for such periods and on payment
of such charges as they may from time to time determine:

Provided that the charge payable for the registration of a
pleasure boat shall not at any time exceed 60 per centum of the
amount which would be payable to the Board for the licensing of
such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway
referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971 as that Schedule has
effect in accordance with any order made by the Secretary of
State under section 4 of that Act.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Just rooting thru' the library of saved old posts and came across this one from Nigel Moore (RIP) on the very subject :

 

(I had suggested that to allow the law to be met, C&RT could set the cost of the 'standard licence' at some ridiculously high figure (maybe £2000) and then offer the various reductions)

 

 

Nigel Moore 6/1/18

 

The 1971 Act has already been ‘changed’ twice: first in 1974 and then in 1983. The charging schedules of the 1971 Act, which specified charges for categories according to length, were eventually abolished, so that charges for a PBC are now merely pegged at 60% of whatever fees [according to whatever category] CaRT choose to charge for a PBL for the same vessel.

I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations.

 

British Waterways Act 1983

.....Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1971 or the Act
of 1974 or in any other enactment relating to the Board or their
inland waterways,
the Board may register pleasure boats and
houseboats under the Act of 1971 for such periods and on payment
of such charges as they may from time to time determine:

Provided that the charge payable for the registration of a
pleasure boat shall not at any time exceed 60 per centum of the
amount which would be payable to the Board for the licensing of
such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway
referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971 as that Schedule has
effect in accordance with any order made by the Secretary of
State under section 4 of that Act.

 


Nigel missed the fact that CaRT do not offer "licensing of such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway" .


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Who precisely is it biting in the arse? This is the crucial point, I think. Which boaters are going to come into conflict with any of the terms and conditions?

If it isn't the continuous cruisers who happily wander their way slowly round a significant part of the system, or the home moorers who either live on their mooring or use their bosts for leisure cruises, then who?

Keep smiling very pleasantly at CRT volunteers and staff or you may lose your licence (10.17) or maybe have your phone on record for every interaction, just in case.

Any signwriting that names your boatbuilder (10.10) and for share boats (4.4.3)

Home moorers who nip to the pub and back staying overnight at weekends (5.1)

Helping out a stranded/broken down boat (10.11.1, 10.11.2)

Home moorers on CRT moorings/land who have storage sheds or anything at all outside their boats (11.6)

 

This is after a quick look, there's so much that is new and was not 'consulted' about. That's leaving aside the cost implications of separating the boat licence which was not mentioned at all in the 'consultation'.

Edited by wandering snail
  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, wandering snail said:

Home moorers who nip to the pub and back staying overnight at weekends (5.1)

 

 

5:2 could be read that you are only allowed to leave your home mooring for 14 days / night, after which you must return to your mooring to re-set the clock.

 

 

5.2. Whilst travelling Our Waterways when away from Your Home Mooring, You may only moor for periods of up to 14 days, or less where a local restriction applies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, wandering snail said:

Keep smiling very pleasantly at CRT volunteers and staff or you may lose your licence (10.17) or maybe have your phone on record for every interaction, just in case.

Any signwriting that names your boatbuilder (10.10) and for share boats (4.4.3)

Home moorers who nip to the pub and back staying overnight at weekends (5.1)

Helping out a stranded/broken down boat (10.11.1, 10.11.2)

Home moorers on CRT moorings/land who have storage sheds or anything at all outside their boats (11.6)

 

This is after a quick look, there's so much that is new and was not 'consulted' about. That's leaving aside the cost implications of separating the boat licence which was not mentioned at all in the 'consultation'.

5.1 allows those with a home mooring to go out and do the same journey as often as they want as long as they return to their home mooring so nipping to the same pub every weekend is absolutely fine.  What I see it is trying to prevent is having a home mooring that you never use and staying in a different area because that is where you work or your kids go to school but you can't afford a mooring or get one in that area.

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

5:2 could be read that you are only allowed to leave your home mooring for 14 days / night, after which you must return to your mooring to re-set the clock.

 

 

5.2. Whilst travelling Our Waterways when away from Your Home Mooring, You may only moor for periods of up to 14 days, or less where a local restriction applies

Only if you want to interpret that way, I read it that just because I have a home mooring doesn't allow me to over stay wherever I fancy.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rob-M said:

5.1 allows those with a home mooring to go out and do the same journey as often as they want as long as they return to their home mooring so nipping to the same pub every weekend is absolutely fine.  What I see it is trying to prevent is having a home mooring that you never use and staying in a different area because that is where you work or your kids go to school but you can't afford a mooring or get one in that area.

 

 

And that conflicts with ....................................

 

 

The judgement in the case of CaRT v Mayers states that repeated journeys between the same two places would be 'bona fide navigation' if the boater had specific reason for making repeated journeys over the same stretch of canal. HHJ Halbert also stated that any requirement by CaRT to use a substantial part of the canal network was not justified by Section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 because the requirement to use the boat for bona fide navigation is 'temporal not geographical'.

 

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). 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 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

5:2 could be read that you are only allowed to leave your home mooring for 14 days / night, after which you must return to your mooring to re-set the clock.

 

 

5.2. Whilst travelling Our Waterways when away from Your Home Mooring, You may only moor for periods of up to 14 days, or less where a local restriction applies

It just means the same as always, you can only moor somewhere for 14 days which is the same as a CCer .

 

Going to the pub and back 5.1 states you reset to a new journey each time you return to your home mooring so going out for a weekend and then back is one journey. Then it resets so you can do the same the weekend after should you so wish

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

Only if you want to interpret that way, I read it that just because I have a home mooring doesn't allow me to over stay wherever I fancy.

 

As a judge said in one of the cases involving the meaning of 'a space'. (words to the effect)

 

The law should be written so there is no interpretation and no use of a word or phase having two meanings in the same legislation.

 

C&RT should write their guidance so there is no ambiguity or possibility of alternative meaning.

There are enough problems with badly written rules.

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, captain birdseye said:

Going to the pub and back 5.1 states you reset to a new journey each time you return to your home mooring so going out for a weekend and then back is one journey. Then it resets so you can do the same the weekend after should you so wish

 

That might what CART would like the law to say, but unfortunately it doesn't.

 

See post above with comments from HHJ Halbert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

And that conflicts with ....................................

 

 

The judgement in the case of CaRT v Mayers states that repeated journeys between the same two places would be 'bona fide navigation' if the boater had specific reason for making repeated journeys over the same stretch of canal. HHJ Halbert also stated that any requirement by CaRT to use a substantial part of the canal network was not justified by Section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 because the requirement to use the boat for bona fide navigation is 'temporal not geographical'.

 

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). 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 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.

This does keep getting brought up, even though I think most boaters (other than the few taking advantage of the loophole) would say that allowing home-moorers to "mooring-squat" like this is unfair even if the law appears to allow it according to this judgment. Was this a civil court judgement (which only applies to the case in question in that judge's opinion) or a criminal one (which sets a legal precedent and is binding on future cases)?

 

[I think those are the two possibilities but I might be wrong -- can anyone confirm this?]

 

In which case, why would (non-squatter) boaters object to the proposed change, if it makes the system fairer?

 

What CART can legally do to stop the practice is of course another matter -- maybe they can use the "satisfy the Board" criterion to grant a license (or not)?

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

This does keep getting brought up, even though I think most boaters (other than the few taking advantage of the loophole) would say that allowing home-moorers to "mooring-squat" like this is unfair even if the law appears to allow it according to this judgment.

 

In which case, why would (non-squatter) boaters object to the proposed change, if it makes the system fairer?

 

What CART can legally do to stop the practice is of course another matter...

 

 

How much is this a solution looking for a problem ?

Is there really 100s of boaters hopping backwards and forwards on a short length of towpath having paid £1000s for a mooring ?

 

If it is a problem then it needs adressing, but C&RT cannot implement, and presumambly enforce, T&Cs that overides the law (as suggested by a judge - not me !)

 

C&RT can only do what they were specifically allowed when they were created, anything else is illegal, unlike an individual, where anything not expressly illegal is legal.

 

 

 

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; ...' [my emphasis]

This was cited with approval by the same House in the 1991 judgment in McCarthy & Stone v Richmond LBC, with all 5 Law Lords in unanimous agreement on the point.

 

 

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1989/4.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/05/2021 at 14:51, Ray T said:



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

 

16866807486_72ba65dd30_o.jpg

 

 

Except they are hinged - and bolted on at the hinge. So do you consider it part of the length of the boat in its upright position, or its horizontal position, or detached from the boat? Upright it's within the arc of the rudder. Therefore it doesn't add to the permanent length of the boat and it's not a permanently fixed fender. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

How much is this a solution looking for a problem ?

Is there really 100s of boaters hopping backwards and forwards on a short length of towpath having paid £1000s for a mooring ?


probably just playing to the gallery, when asked recently to quantify the problem they were trying to solve CRT were unable to do so beyond admitting it was a small number implying 50 or less “but one would be one too many”. License evasion is said to be at an acceptable level when at 5% so 1750 or thereabouts but ghost moorings at 0.14% requires a change of the terms and conditions for all.

 

the current act has one license with two sub sections ie home mooring or not. The revised terms seem to have created two licences a continuous cruising license and a home mooring private boating license. Presumably this is a deliberate ploy to create a future twin pricing policy.

Edited by Tuscan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole issue regarding fenders is a mini minefield. A poster above suggested if tools were needed to remove a fender it could be considered "permanent."

 

The fenders on the Black Prince boats in the photo are held on by, as you said, bolts. I would consider the down position to be the normal working position.

 

Here is the conundrum, if the nut and bolt are only finger tight then tools are not needed to remove it.

If however the bolts are tightened using spanners beyond finger tight then tools will be needed to remove it.

 

The same also applies to "D" shackles holding conventional rope fenders with chains.

If the shackle is tightened using a shackle spanner  beyond finger tight to deter the fender from being stolen, then tools will be needed to remove it.

You could also argue as bolt croppers could be used to purloin the fender that is also a tool.

 

If you analise too deeply the whole thing gets "silly." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/05/2021 at 10:17, 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? :D 

Or am i reading too much into it?

 

On 25/05/2021 at 10:43, IanD said:

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).

 

This business of not displaying a business name had me wondering:

 

I think as London Midland & Scottish Railways have ceased trading we should be safe but it did flag up to me that Python has the names of various companies that supported her restoration displayed when the engine room doors are open. Having brought this new rule to the attention of the boat manager last night he is already in reciept of an email from one of the local CRT managers giving permission. Not too difficult for him but who would a private boat owner ask permission of I wonder? This is the sort of thing I imagine a request would be batted from pillar to post before anyone took responsibilty for it.

 

On our last boat the boat painter had signed his work so is that allowed?

 

What about all the boat builders who have their name either painted on or in some cases cut into the steel, does that require permission?

 

All those people with one of those posh chimneys from The Little Chimney Company are very proudly displaying the name of the company - does that require permission?

 

I have seen various boats named after a particular beer - will they have to change their boats name?

 

As always it is just too vague.

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall some time back when the proposal to charge additional licence fees for boats without a home mooring, that one site, close to us had so many declared moorers that if they all came 'home' at once, then they would have stretched for over a mile probably 2 abreast. Enforcing such a regulation would be impossible.

A couple of years back, our club was sent a list of our declared 'moorers'. It was probably 3 times our actual number. If charges are now to be applied to boats without a home mooring, can we expect a biblical type census where everyone has to report to their home mooring on a particular day. 

That would be fun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

How much is this a solution looking for a problem ?

Is there really 100s of boaters hopping backwards and forwards on a short length of towpath having paid £1000s for a mooring ?

 

If it is a problem then it needs adressing, but C&RT cannot implement, and presumambly enforce, T&Cs that overides the law (as suggested by a judge - not me !)

 

C&RT can only do what they were specifically allowed when they were created, anything else is illegal, unlike an individual, where anything not expressly illegal is legal.

 

 

 

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; ...' [my emphasis]

This was cited with approval by the same House in the 1991 judgment in McCarthy & Stone v Richmond LBC, with all 5 Law Lords in unanimous agreement on the point.

 

 

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1989/4.html

 

As I asked, was this a civil or a criminal case?

 

AFAIK (waiting for input from somebody who actually knows...) the findings/opinion of a judge in a civil case apply only to that particular case; in another similar case a different judge could come to a different conclusion, and this often happens in the courts. In a criminal case the verdict sets a precedent which then becomes part of case law, which is what effectively defines the legal system in the UK since we don't have a written constitution.

 

If this is correct (and it was a civil case) then the bit that Alan keeps on quoting in red does not form part of the law, CART could easily bring somebody to court again on the same charge and the judge would have to make their own decision and findings -- which might be the same, or might be different and conclude that CART can enforce the "bona fide" condition on home moorers too.

 

Can somebody who actually knows about UK case law and legal precedents comment, not just guessing based on what they've read somewhere on the internet or this forum? ?

 

As to how big a problem this really is, that shouldn't matter -- if some people are abusing the system (or the intentions of it) that's unfair on everyone else. Just because the number of millionaires who do tax fiddles in offshore tax havens -- sorry, tax optimisation -- is small doesn't mean they shouldn't be stopped ?

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

If this is correct (and it was a civil case) then the bit that Alan keeps on quoting in red does not form part of the law, CART could easily bring somebody to court again on the same charge and the judge would have to make their own decision and findings -- which might be the same, or might be different and say that CART could enforce the "bona fide" condition on home moorers too.

 

 

I assume you actually mean this :

 

A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation 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.

 

Rather than the post you linked to regarding the powers of a corporation ?

 

 

If so, 

It was simply that judges interpretation of the law, and his conclusion that C&RT could not stop anyone from scuttling backwards and forwards as both the existing legislation, and C&RTs own guidleines allowed it.

 

C&RT could only apply the Bona-Fide requirement to HMers if it was specifically written in law, and it isn't, so they only way they could do it is to have an amendement to the 1995 Act. They do not have the powers to do it otherwise.

 

If it was the law-makers intention to include it for both HMers and CCers then they would have written it in under both types of boater instead of just under the CC section.

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

25 minutes ago, Ex Brummie said:

I recall some time back when the proposal to charge additional licence fees for boats without a home mooring, that one site, close to us had so many declared moorers that if they all came 'home' at once, then they would have stretched for over a mile probably 2 abreast. Enforcing such a regulation would be impossible.

A couple of years back, our club was sent a list of our declared 'moorers'. It was probably 3 times our actual number. If charges are now to be applied to boats without a home mooring, can we expect a biblical type census where everyone has to report to their home mooring on a particular day. 

That would be fun

 

Marinas and moorings providers already have to report to C&RT the names and numbers of all of their moorers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

I assume you actually mean this :

 

A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation 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.

 

Rather than the post you linked to regarding the powers of a corporation ?

 

 

If so, 

It was simply that judges interpretation of the law, and his conclusion that C&RT could not stop anyone from scuttling backwards and forwards as both the existing legislation, and C&RTs own guidleines allowed it.

Correct, it was that bit.

 

People keep saying that because that's what the judge said it's now a legal fact and binding on CART. I'm asking whether that is the case or not, which I believe depends on whether it's a civil or criminal case.

 

Civil case : judges finding/opinion only, a different judge in another case could come to a different decision (happens all the time) ==> precedent doesn't apply ==> not binding on CART

Criminal case : judges finding/opinion becomes part of case law and sets a precedent ==> legally the case until/unless it's challenged/overthrown (and there are limited legal/factual grounds for doing this) ==> binding on CART

 

Before arguing further, we need an opinion on this from somebody who understands this, preferably legally qualified -- a real lawyer, not an armchair one ?

38 minutes ago, Ex Brummie said:

I recall some time back when the proposal to charge additional licence fees for boats without a home mooring, that one site, close to us had so many declared moorers that if they all came 'home' at once, then they would have stretched for over a mile probably 2 abreast. Enforcing such a regulation would be impossible.

A couple of years back, our club was sent a list of our declared 'moorers'. It was probably 3 times our actual number. If charges are now to be applied to boats without a home mooring, can we expect a biblical type census where everyone has to report to their home mooring on a particular day. 

That would be fun

Why would they all have to come back on a particular day? As you point out, we're talking canals here, not the Bible...

 

If you club has 3x the number of declared "home moorers" than moorings, aren't they (club and moorers) fiddling the system? CART rules don't allow one "home mooring" to be shared between multiple boats, otherwise all 30000 boats could share a single one and use their home mooring status to "bridge-hop"...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cheshire~rose said:

 

I think as London Midland & Scottish Railways have ceased trading we should be safe

You might think they are long gone officially, but a newer organisation with the registered company name London Midland and Scottish Railway Limited existed until a couple of months ago.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/01844178

 

And Fellows Morton and Clayton still exists, and the Grand Union Canal Carrying Company Ltd is owned by a forum member.

Edited by David Mack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

 

If you club has 3x the number of declared "home moorers" than moorings, aren't they (club and moorers) fiddling the system? CART rules don't allow one "home mooring" to be shared between multiple boats, otherwise all 30000 boats could share a single one and use their home mooring status to "bridge-hop"...

These were people who declared thus without our knowledge. If CaRT do not check up, how are we to know? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cheshire~rose said:

 

 

This business of not displaying a business name had me wondering:

 

.

 

On our last boat the boat painter had signed his work so is that allowed?

 

What about all the boat builders who have their name either painted on or in some cases cut into the steel, does that require permission?

 

 

 

I have seen various boats named after a particular beer - will they have to change their boats name?

 

As always it is just too vague.

 

 

You raise good points - largely in jest I know, and I hope the fun-loving CARTsters will see them that way too.

The builder's name should surely be O.K: otherwise it would be akin to cars not being allowed to have a badge proclaiming that they are a Ford, Vauxhall or whatever.

In theory I should be worried about our boat, as it displays the logo of a record company which is still trading. In practice I'm not worried at all. Anyone requesting that we change it will be invited to go and whistle.

Edited by Athy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, IanD said:

People keep saying that because that's what the judge said it's now a legal fact and binding on CART.

 

Though he did not need to do so for the purposes of the judgment, HHJ Halbert did give some views about the guidelines and about the phrase “bona fide for navigation”.  It should be stressed that these views are not authoritative but they may be useful and persuasive in other cases and they are certainly very interesting

 

http://www.communitylawpartnership.co.uk/gypsy-and-traveller-cases/boat-cases/canal-and-river-trust-v-geoffrey-douglas-mayers

 

 

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.