Jump to content

London boaters fight for moorings


Boaty Jo

Featured Posts

4 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

I seem to recall Tony Dunkley adopting a very similar stance.......

 

And got right Royaly shafted big style. So good luck with that.

You seem to be recommending rolling over and being a doormat in the face of an authority potentially treading all over your rights. 

Edited by waterworks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, waterworks said:

You seem to be recommending rolling over and being a doormat in the face of an authority potentially treading all over your rights. 

 

He used to say the same too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

Part of your issue will be, that over a year ago you (or a plaintiff) signed a mooring agreement with the "unreasonable" term in it, then enjoyed a year of mooring at that marina without raising the issue in that time. Much like, say, paying for car tax then a year elapsing. While you might claim its an unfair term, they could say that you could have used the canal. So the passage of time weakens the case considerably.

 

The passage of time makes no difference to the issue. And coming to some personal arrangement with marina management may be your way, but it isn't mine. It is also not necessary to own a boat, or to ever have owned a boat, or to have ever used a marina. The practice being applied is unethical. It will be unethical tomorrow, as it has been in the past. I will do things in my own time, as I see fit. I employ patience. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, waterworks said:

You can accept unlawful terms and conditions by hiding under the radar if you want, that's your choice . 


 I won't be.

 

Wow you are the one aren't you. Let's know how you get on you could be a bloody hero.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

Amusingly he overstayed in Banbury (or his boat did) back around april-May-ish. 

 

Unless of course he cruised away multiple times then came back each time I was there over the 3-4 week period I had occasion to visit repeatedly by road! 

 

He could, of course, have asked permission . . . 

32 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

The passage of time makes no difference to the issue. And coming to some personal arrangement with marina management may be your way, but it isn't mine. It is also not necessary to own a boat, or to ever have owned a boat, or to have ever used a marina. The practice being applied is unethical. It will be unethical tomorrow, as it has been in the past. I will do things in my own time, as I see fit. I employ patience. 

 

 

Are you shifting your argument from 'not statutory' to 'unethical'? If you want to pursue the latter then there might well be a more productive debate (although I am sceptical) as it is definitely more arguable than the claims about not legal. (NB not all law is statutory!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The t&c in the canal licenses are perfectly reasonable to the average boat owner. 

 

The situation has changed since the 1995 act and CRT do actually have to make attempts to keep up with everything otherwise it cause a problem at some stage which would be difficult to solve. 

 

Can anyone point to any of the t&c which arrr not reasonable? 

 

It seems to me that if CRT are stifled too much then they or other authorities will look for alternative ways to sort it all out and that could be detrimental to everyone. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Can anyone point to any of the t&c which arrr not reasonable? 

 

arrrrr - it must be 'bring a pirate to the forum day' !

 

 

There are some of the T&Cs that are actually contravening the Laws of the Land (should they be enforced)

 

Legality OF C&RT’s T&C’s

 

It should be clarified that much of the T&C's are a repeat of, or reference to, byelaw provisions, and enforceable in law by the method prescribed (not by unlawfully making them a contractual condition for issue of the licence). Those cannot be said to be foisted upon us via the T&C's, justly or unjustly.

 

Others are sensible guidelines without the force of law, which boaters would do well to adhere to. But yes, certain other morally and legally objectionable ones do purport to dispense with statutory protections – and consent to share one's personal information where that would conflict with the current law would be amongst them, as would the grant of permission to board boats regardless of the statutory constraints of the 1983 Act, as would also be the case with agreeing to pay the costs of CaRT moving your boat off from where it was obstructing (BW fought and lost at least one case in which they alleged such a right to charge for doing so).

 

 

Source Nigel Moore 2/3/19

 

 

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

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

He could, of course, have asked permission . . . 

 

 

C'mon! 

 

Given his grotesquely enhanced sense of entitlement illustrated in the boat-ramming video, can you really imagine Mr Haywood asking permission for anything

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, magnetman said:

The t&c in the canal licenses are perfectly reasonable to the average boat owner. 


 

The PB licence terms and conditions were set out in legislation so that the boat owner would have statutory rights to a fair and accountable public licencing system, what you are doing is enabling CRT to take away your own statutory rights by acquiescing to a terms and conditions contract outside of the legislation. 

 

Here is what you are enabling CRT to unlawfully do in their own words..

 

" If You breach any of these Conditions the Trust can terminate Your Licence, which may result in the removal of Your boat from our waterways" 

 

Your tactic of ignoring this will only work until the terms and conditions change and it affects you, by which time people will say " well you went along with it for the last 20 years why are you complaining now " ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

No. The two can run concurrently. 

 

 

But not necessarily coterminus.

 

That is, you main well fail (and indeed most here that you do) on a statutory line but still be able to pursue an ethical one.

Edited by Mike Todd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

But not necessarily coterminus.

 

That is, you main well fail (and indeed most here that you do) on a statutory line but still be able to pursue an ethical one.

 

It's unethical on one count, and has no basis in waterways law, on another. It's anti-customer, or consumer protection. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, waterworks said:

The PB licence terms and conditions were set out in legislation so that the boat owner would have statutory rights to a fair and accountable public licencing system, what you are doing is enabling CRT to take away your own statutory rights by acquiescing to a terms and conditions contract outside of the legislation. 

 

Here is what you are enabling CRT to unlawfully do in their own words..

 

" If You breach any of these Conditions the Trust can terminate Your Licence, which may result in the removal of Your boat from our waterways" 

 

Your tactic of ignoring this will only work until the terms and conditions change and it affects you, by which time people will say " well you went along with it for the last 20 years why are you complaining now " ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you think the alternative is? 

 

Things have changed since 1995 (coincidentally the first full year I lived on a boat). Other than primary legislation, which I don't think crt are allowed to apply for, how would you suggest matters are handled going forwards in such a way as to avoid parts of the system descending into full scale pikey like slums? 

 

This is happening in some places. It's not a made up story. 

 

The t&c, while being fairly severe, are a way of dealing with "problems". 

 

It's quite easy to see why this is necessary if you think about it. 

 

Your suggestion that eventually the canals will be rid of all boaters is nonsense. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, waterworks said:

Grow up.

Midnight could have put it better.  The fact is, if you can get C&RT to use their legal powers properly then you will have done the Inland boating community a very great service.

If the Bylaws were used, then the "T&C's" would not be required.

In a nutshell Tony Dunkley's problems started when he asked for a Rivers only Pleasure Boat Certificate, which he was fully entitled to.  The Trust would only issue a Rivers only licence.  The difference being a Certificate does not attract V.A.T., which a licence does.  C&RT would not adjust the cost, nor issue a certificate. (indeed most of the staff he had dealing with didn't know the difference.)

 

Bod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, magnetman said:

What do you think the alternative is? 

 

Things have changed since 1995 (coincidentally the first full year I lived on a boat). Other than primary legislation, which I don't think crt are allowed to apply for, how would you suggest matters are handled going forwards in such a way as to avoid parts of the system descending into full scale pikey like slums? 

 

This is happening in some places. It's not a made up story. 

 

The t&c, while being fairly severe, are a way of dealing with "problems". 

 

It's quite easy to see why this is necessary if you think about it. 

 

Your suggestion that eventually the canals will be rid of all boaters is nonsense. 

 

 

CRT could promote a private Bill to change the 1994 Act, but a) it's a very expensive and long-winded procedure b) the outcome may not be what they (indeed anyone else) expected.  The recent Middle Level Act is an example of such private legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Bod said:

 

In a nutshell Tony Dunkley's problems started when he asked for a Rivers only Pleasure Boat Certificate, which he was fully entitled to.  

Bod

That's not accurate. 

 

He also was attempting to use the BS exception form with a degree of devilment. Basically an attempt to circumvent the requirement to have a boat safety certificate. 

 

If he had obtained a BS ticket for the craft the pleasure boat certificate would have been issued. CRT do (for obvious reasons) need to retain the right to inspect where they believe someone is attempting to circumvent the requirement for BS ticket. Otherwise it would be rather a popular option ;)

 

The VAT story is a red herring. 

 

10 minutes ago, Scholar Gypsy said:

CRT could promote a private Bill to change the 1994 Act, but a) it's a very expensive and long-winded procedure b) the outcome may not be what they (indeed anyone else) expected.  The recent Middle Level Act is an example of such private legislation.

1995. 

 

That could turn out interesting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, magnetman said:

That's not accurate. 

 

He also was attempting to use the BS exception form with a degree of devilment. Basically an attempt to circumvent the requirement to have a boat safety certificate. 

 

If he had obtained a BS ticket for the craft the pleasure boat certificate would have been issued. CRT do (for obvious reasons) need to retain the right to inspect where they believe someone is attempting to circumvent the requirement for BS ticket. Otherwise it would be rather a popular option ;)

 

The VAT story is a red herring. 

 

1995. 

 

That could turn out interesting. 

Being in a "nut shell" the story was just bare bones of the start.

The BS ticket, was another example of Tony trying to use C&RT's own requirements in a correct and proper way, only to have the goal posts moved without reason.

C&RT do have a method of BS ticket exemption, it is published on their web-site, Tony filled in the correct form, correctly.  The Trust then required photograph evidence of the state of the boat.  This evidence was not, and is still not required on the exemption form.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/733.pdf

Tony did accept he could of handled that part better, but he was only trying to do exactly as the Trust required.

Why is the VAT story a red herring?

Do certificates, which say you are doing something have the same VAT rate as a licence, which is permission to do something?

This VAT position is an uncomfortable place for the Trust, if they have taken it from the boaters incorrectly, who repays it? Trust or HMRC?

 

Bod

Ps this exemption is useful for project boats, or boats being taken for scrap.

pps If I recall correctly, Tony did allow photos taken by a 3rd party, but C&RT wouldn't accept them.

Edited by Bod
add ps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We reserve the right to arrange for an independent inspection in case of doubt."

 

It really isn't rocket science to work out what is being said here. 

 

The 3rd party must be of CRT's choosing otherwise it is completely pointless. 

 

The VAT is a red herring because is not a reason for the refusal to issue the "relevant consent".

 

I know Tony was banging on about "licenses" and "registrations" and the PRN. He has a very good point here.

However the reality is that the boat was S8'd and removed due to not having the "relevant consent" in other words illegally kept on CRT water. 

 

This "relevant consent" could have been issued had the boat had a BS ticket or been subjected -by CRT- to an independent inspection and found to comply with the exemption requirements. 

 

It says inspection. There is no mention of photos anywhere in the document ;)

 

 

He took the piss of what is a handy exemption in some circumstances and lost the gamble. 

 

Simple really. 

 

Get the relevant consent THEN argue about the VAT. Otherwise the VAT is categorically a red herring in the real world. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by magnetman
Edit for Freudian slip
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Bod said:

Why is the VAT story a red herring?

Do certificates, which say you are doing something have the same VAT rate as a licence, which is permission to do something?

This VAT position is an uncomfortable place for the Trust, if they have taken it from the boaters incorrectly, who repays it? Trust or HMRC?

 

 

It certainly is an embarrasment for C&RT and they acknowledge that the EA do not charge VAT becauseregistrations are 'VAT free'.

There was a series of internal emails going back and forth on the subject where they were trying to do a  'fiddle' to allow canoe club members not to have to pay the VAT.

 

Extract from one of the internal emails :

 

 

"We hope this is the VAT loophole we need"

 

 

VAT None on Boat Certificate.jpg

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

4 hours ago, Tracy D'arth said:

With global warming and the inadequacy of the Thames Barrier the mooring problem in London will soon be solved.

 

 

 

 

 

Plenty of moorings when it is mostly under water.

 

 

 

Only if you listen to ridiculous propaganda from environmental organisations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, magnetman said:

"We reserve the right to arrange for an independent inspection in case of doubt."

 

It really isn't rocket science to work out what is being said here. 

 

The 3rd party must be of CRT's choosing otherwise it is completely pointless. 

 

The VAT is a red herring because is not a reason for the refusal to issue the "relevant consent".

 

I know Tony was banging on about "licenses" and "registrations" and the PRN. He has a very good point here.

However the reality is that the boat was S8'd and removed due to not having the "relevant consent" in other words illegally kept on CRT water. 

 

This "relevant consent" could have been issued had the boat had a BS ticket or been subjected -by CRT- to an independent inspection and found to comply with the exemption requirements. 

 

It says inspection. There is no mention of photos anywhere in the document ;)

 

 

He took the piss of what is a handy exemption in some circumstances and lost the gamble. 

 

Simple really. 

 

Get the relevant consent THEN argue about the VAT. Otherwise the VAT is categorically a red herring in the real world. 

 

 

 

 

 

That's a pretty accurate representation of what happened, IIRC. The sticking point was that he basically, didn't allow CRT to do an independent inspection, to confirm the BSS exemption he thought he was entitled to, applied in this case.

 

He never went into much more detail about which exact exemption route it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/06/2022 at 17:36, Bod said:

Over-staying on visitor moorings, your boat becomes an "obstruction" which is an offence under the Bylaws.  All the Trust has to do is tell it to the Magistrate, you get a Fine, and a criminal record.

C&RT do have the powers they need, but choose not to use them.

 

Bod.

 

 

Bylaw 28 ( I don't have a cut and pasteable copy ) says obstruction of navigation not mooring, that's open to interpretation what the exact definition of " navigation" is,  certainly what you claimed is an interpretation. 

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.