London boaters fight for moorings

[Paul C]

Sure, okay, the licence is a contract but its set out in law you only need to provide (or declare its in place, eg "I have insurance") the 3 things plus some money. You don't need to agree to anything more than that.

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

Moorers in a private marina do not have a contract with CRT. Even licenced, the boater in a private marina has no obligation to consider CRT's T&Cs. 

 

 

 

Being in a private marina, or keeping the boat on the moon, or keeping it on an online mooring or whatever is irrelevant and not the issue here!!!! FFS start your own thread (or continue on one more appropriate than this).

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

Sure, okay, the licence is a contract but its set out in law you only need to provide (or declare its in place, eg "I have insurance") the 3 things plus some money. You don't need to agree to anything more than that.

 

 

My understanding is one of those three things HAS to be a valid home mooring in order to have the statutory right to a licence. 

 

With no home mooring, then it is within the gift of the board to issue or decline based on whether you can 'satisfy' it that you won't be taking the piss. So that alone requires some 'agreement'. 

[Higgs]

5 minutes ago, MtB said:

My understanding is one of those three things HAS to be a valid home mooring in order to have the statutory right to a licence. 

 

That used to be the case. We now have a right to CC. The right not to need a home mooring.

 

 

Edited June 25, 2022 by Higgs

[Alan de Enfield]

20 minutes ago, Higgs said:

Moorers in a private marina do not have a contract with CRT. Even licenced, the boater in a private marina has no obligation to consider CRT's T&Cs. 

 

 

 

 

Agreed, but the boater must comply with the marina's T&C (which will often include the requirement to have a licence)

[Higgs]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Agreed, but the boater must comply with the marina's T&C (which will often include the requirement to have a licence)

 

That's true. But they do not have the statutory authority to demand that under law. And neither do CRT, in the marina.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

That's true. But they do not have the statutory authority to demand that under law. And neither do CRT, in the marina.

 

 

 

They (the marina) are not saying that it is a statutory requirement to have a licence in the marina, they are saying it is a condition of your commercial contract with the marina (T&Cs) that you do so.

If you do not wish to agree to the T&Cs you have the choice to go somewhere else.

 

If, (out of the dozens of marinas that don't require you to have a licence), non are the 'right price' or in the 'right place' for you you either decide to 'agree' or not and face the consequences.

[Higgs]

26 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

They (the marina) are not saying that it is a statutory requirement to have a licence in the marina, they are saying it is a condition of your commercial contract with the marina (T&Cs) that you do so.

If you do not wish to agree to the T&Cs you have the choice to go somewhere else.

 

If, (out of the dozens of marinas that don't require you to have a licence), non are the 'right price' or in the 'right place' for you you either decide to 'agree' or not and face the consequences.

 

I understand the commercial contract position. I do have a choice. The CRT and the marina do not have any statutory authority in the marina over licence requirements. The NAA is a business agreement between the marina and CRT, nothing connecting the boater to waterways regulations.

 

 

Edited June 25, 2022 by Higgs

[MtB]

14 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

They (the marina) are not saying that it is a statutory requirement to have a licence in the marina, they are saying it is a condition of your commercial contract with the marina (T&Cs) that you do so.

If you do not wish to agree to the T&Cs you have the choice to go somewhere else.

 

If, (out of the dozens of marinas that don't require you to have a licence), non are the 'right price' or in the 'right place' for you you either decide to 'agree' or not and face the consequences.

 

 

Oh look, you've gone and set him off again. Stand by for another 500 posts illustrating his dogged determination not to understand.

[waterworks]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

One of the problems of lay people reading legal documentation is that they tend to get rather wrapped up in their own comprehension of what the words literally mean whereas within legal circles the application will focus on context and purpose. For all his undoubted knowledge and well constructed arguments I sometimes felt that even Nigel Moore fell into this trap. There is a reason that legal professionals undertake years of training and gaining experience in order to practice.

 

The idea that buying a licence from CRT isn’t entering into a contract is utterly wrong. It clearly meets all the legal principles of forming a contract and if it were not a contract the buyer would have no legal protection.

 

The fact that CRT is a body that is both created by statute and limited in its powers by that statute doesn’t prevent them from freely entering into contracts, since that would prevent them from discharging their statutory duty.

 

A principle of any contract is that the party making an offer can apply conditions of their choosing providing they do not breach statute law and are reasonable. Those conditions don’t have to be enabled by any statute law.

 

You have to remember that the offer made by CRT has both a price and a set of conditions that apply in combination. If you don’t accept the conditions then you are making a counter offer and  CRT don’t have to sell you the licence at that price. If you have bought a licence for the price CRT offer then legally you have accepted the T&Cs, doesn’t matter if you think you’ve signed for them or not, they were part of the legally binding offer that you have accepted. Unless of course you can prove agreement to a revised set of terms.

 

The primary sanction for most if not all breaches is correctly a fine. Note that mooring restrictions now come with a threat of a fine for overstaying displayed on the signage. The fact that CRT have chosen to do this says to me that even if they have never executed a penalty in the past they are giving themselves the ability to do so in future.

 

However in the situation of sustained breaches of the Ts & Cs I think CRT could legally terminate a licence for deliberate breach of contract but whether they could refuse to issue a new licence is debatable. They certainly can offer a more restrictive licence and if you continue to breach Ts & Cs you may only get to test whether they are legally bound to continue to offer you a licence after they’ve Section 8’ed your boat. At that stage no matter the outcome - which is 99% certain to favour CRT - you’ve lost anyway.

 

The legal protection for the PB licence is contained within the statute, you are protected against CRT revoking or refusing your licence for an arbitrary reason by the fact that the licencing legislation states what they are permitted to do and being a pubic body they are only permitted to do what legislation allows,  whereas a private person is permitted to do anything except what the law prohibits, there doesn't need to be a contract, you have statutory rights. 

 

The same applies to punishments for misbehaviour, those are contained in the bylaws, which are enforced by the courts independently of CRT to ensure justice .

[Higgs]

Just now, MtB said:

 

 

Oh look, you've gone and set him off again. Stand by for another 500 posts illustrating his dogged determination not to understand.

 

I understand there is a rule that doesn't require boaters to have a home mooring. Also.

 

 

[waterworks]

50 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

And for which they have to be able to enter into a contract with the purchaser. I was responding in general but referencing a poster who claimed the licence wasn’t a contract because issuing of licences is enshrined in statute. Those things aren’t mutually exclusive. I don’t think we’re disagreeing, it was just the way I phrased it.

You agree that a basic principle of law is that contracts cannot override statute ( the law ) right?

 

So the law says you must be issued a licence if you meet the three conditions in the 1995 BW act, so how do other terms and conditions added by CRT affect that since whatever they add you are still legally entitled to a licence, It makes them irrelevant doesn't it ?

[Alan de Enfield]

19 minutes ago, Higgs said:

the marina do no have any statutory authority in the marina over licence requirements.

 

Yes they do, it is private land and they can make whatever rules they wish - another similar rule I have had in every marina I've used is that your car (should you have one) must be 'taxed' whilst it is in the marina.

 

What's is the difference ?

 

1 minute ago, waterworks said:

So the law says you must be issued a licence if you meet the three conditions in the 1995 BW act, so how do other terms and conditions added by CRT affect that since whatever they add you are still legally entitled to a licence, It makes them irrelevant doesn't it ?

 

You are apparently happy to ignore the fact there are actually 4 conditions to the issuing of a licence, even tho, there are only 3 listed in your favourite clause of the 1995 Act.

Seeing as there are already conditions outside of the 1995 legislation - why not add another one ?

[waterworks]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Yes they do, it is private land and they can make whatever rules they wish - another similar rule I have had in every marina I've used is that your car (should you have one) must be 'taxed' whilst it is in the marina.

 

What's is the difference ?

 

That isn't " statutory authority" it's a customer contract. 

 

Unless you know of a law that requires cars to be taxed in Marinas ?

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Yes they do, it is private land and they can make whatever rules they wish - another similar rule I have had in every marina I've used is that your car (should you have one) must be 'taxed' whilst it is in the marina.

 

What's is the difference ?

 

 

Yes, they can make up whatever rules they wish. And they do. Those particular rules, pertaining to a licence, are not defined in law as within the authority of the marina to make it a statutory obligation on the boater, according to waterways law, which the licence would be an element of. 

 

 

[waterworks]

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Yes they do, it is private land and they can make whatever rules they wish - another similar rule I have had in every marina I've used is that your car (should you have one) must be 'taxed' whilst it is in the marina.

 

What's is the difference ?

 

 

You are apparently happy to ignore the fact there are actually 4 conditions to the issuing of a licence, even tho, there are only 3 listed in your favourite clause of the 1995 Act.

Seeing as there are already conditions outside of the 1995 legislation - why not add another one ?

What other conditions are you referring to that are not statutory ?

[TheBiscuits]

Just now, waterworks said:

What other conditions are you referring to that are not statutory ?

 

Think about it.  What do you need to do to get a licence beyond insurance, BSS and a mooring declaration?

 

Those three alone won't get you a licence.

 

 

[waterworks]

3 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Yes, they can make up whatever rules they wish. And they do. Those particular rules, pertaining to a licence, are not defined in law as within the authority of the marina to make it a statutory obligation on the boater, according to waterways law, which the licence would be an element of. 

 

 

A marina cannot make "statutory obligations " on anyone, unless they have declared themselves an independent nation and have their own legislation. ( don't give them ideas 😂)

[Higgs]

4 minutes ago, waterworks said:

A marina cannot make "statutory obligations " on anyone, unless they have declared themselves an independent nation and have their own legislation. ( don't give them ideas 😂)

 

That is what I said. They do not carry the authority of CRT. It is private property. CRT do not function on private property. What you have is a cosy business arrangement for the marina and CRT. 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2022 by Higgs

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Think about it.  What do you need to do to get a licence beyond insurance, BSS and a mooring declaration?

 

Those three alone won't get you a licence.

 

 

 

He appears to be unable to consider anything else and just parrot fashion keeps repeating the section of the 1995 Act.

5 minutes ago, waterworks said:

A marina cannot make "statutory obligations " on anyone, unless they have declared themselves an independent nation and have their own legislation. ( don't give them ideas 😂)

 

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

That is what I said. They do not carry the authority of CRT. It is private property. CRT do not function on private property. What you have is a cosy business arrangement for the marina and CRT. 

 

 

 

 

Jesus - you two are hard work.

 

You are repeating exactly what I said.

 

The marina requirement to be licensed is NOT a statutory requirement is is a requirement within a commercial contract.

[waterworks]

11 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Think about it.  What do you need to do to get a licence beyond insurance, BSS and a mooring declaration?

 

Those three alone won't get you a licence.

 

 

I already know, payment for licences is set out in other legislation, so it's statutory, I would have thought everyone knows payment is necessary for the issue of a licence and it doesn't need to be said.  

Edited June 25, 2022 by waterworks

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, waterworks said:

I already know, payment for licences is set out in other legislation, not the 95 act, I would have thought everyone knows payment is necessary for the issue of a licence and it doesn't need to be said. 

 

 

You said that if the three requirement of the 1995 act are met then a licence must be issued.

 

If you are going to take the 'legal high ground' I suggest that you ensure that your facts are correct.

[waterworks]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

You said that if the three requirement of the 1995 act are met then a licence must be issued.

 

If you are going to take the 'legal high ground' I suggest that you ensure that your facts are correct.

You are right, I considered payment as a separate issue since it's covered by separate legislation and took it for granted no one would nit pick. Let's take it for granted payment is necessary before a licence can be issued. 

 

 

[Paul C]

19 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Yes, they can make up whatever rules they wish. And they do. Those particular rules, pertaining to a licence, are not defined in law as within the authority of the marina to make it a statutory obligation on the boater, according to waterways law, which the licence would be an element of. 

 

 

 

100% correct.............HOWEVER they can choose to provide their services subject to (civil) contract, which can be challenged if you feel they are unreasonable. (Number of posts made on an internet forum won't have any weight on the validity of the challenge). Have you started the legal challenge against the marina you're in, claiming that its unfair that they insist your boat has a CRT licence, even if you don't go out onto the canals? No? Why not? Is it possibly because the marina could simply choose not to want your custom any more, then you'd ironically HAVE to go onto the actual canals, in an actual boat (I hope you remember which way to push the tiller!!! And how to do other stuff that every other boater does). Does this part-explain why you've chosen a somewhat vacuous echo-chamber to voice your lone voice on these matters? 

 

As a reminder, ooooh maybe 5+ years ago, I was perfectly able to look at my mooring contract, read it through in front of the mooring manager, and go "hmm, I don't agree with that bit". I got a pen, crossed it out, signed the bottom and he said "fair enough". Maybe the marina manager at your place actually likes you and would do the same, putting his ass on the line for breach of NAA contract and let you not have a licence? Worth a try? It would save wearing out your keyboard, and other posters' too.

[Higgs]

10 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

100% correct.............HOWEVER they can choose to provide their services subject to (civil) contract, which can be challenged if you feel they are unreasonable. (Number of posts made on an internet forum won't have any weight on the validity of the challenge). Have you started the legal challenge against the marina you're in, claiming that its unfair that they insist your boat has a CRT licence, even if you don't go out onto the canals? No? Why not? Is it possibly because the marina could simply choose not to want your custom any more, then you'd ironically HAVE to go onto the actual canals, in an actual boat (I hope you remember which way to push the tiller!!! And how to do other stuff that every other boater does). Does this part-explain why you've chosen a somewhat vacuous echo-chamber to voice your lone voice on these matters? 

 

As a reminder, ooooh maybe 5+ years ago, I was perfectly able to look at my mooring contract, read it through in front of the mooring manager, and go "hmm, I don't agree with that bit". I got a pen, crossed it out, signed the bottom and he said "fair enough". Maybe the marina manager at your place actually likes you and would do the same, putting his ass on the line for breach of NAA contract and let you not have a licence? Worth a try? It would save wearing out your keyboard, and other posters' too.

 

You don't need to have or own a boat for this argument. It obviously would be a bit closer to home, if there was some ownership of a boat in a marina. I do not work to someone else's idea of a timetable of action. And, I'm not interested in making an individual deal.  

 

 

Edited June 25, 2022 by Higgs

[Paul C]

Aaaaah so you don't even own a boat???!?!?!?!?!? You're being offended on behalf of others..........well nobody else actually, it seems. Its an entirely theoretical argument! Might I suggest you stop being offended on behalf of others and actually go out and enjoy the sunshine, or the rainy British summer, maybe even spend the day next to a canal!!! You might even get to talk to boaters!!?!?!?