Charges or fines ?

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

9 hours ago, IanD said:

like a discussion on racism where somebody tries to hide the fact that their idea of a good time is going out with other fine upstanding similarly-minded fellows in white pointy hoods,

that really is a very very odd comparison to make. 
Likening a supporter of the NBTA to the KKK?

 

I know you didn’t ‘really’ mean that but it is revealing. 

 

 

[waterworks]

9 hours ago, IanD said:

I

 

Section 43 ( 3) of the 1962 Transport act out of any context says the following??

 

 

"Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is PART III 
mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the Boards shall 
have power to demand, take and recover such charges for their 
services and facilities, and to make the use of those services 
and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they see fit".

 

For that to be taken at face value makes the whole current licence system under the 1995 act unnecessary and BW could have just invented their own licence conditions in house without any need for legislation, we have to believe a public body , which legally work on the principle of their powers being limited  by statute, was given unlimited powers for charges and terms and conditions of licences in 1962 but them went on to seek an act of parliament to set out the terms and conditions of licences in 1995, this would mean a public body can add any condition to a statutory licence without recourse to parliament, which I think makes no sense to have a limited public body with unlimited powers. 

 

I posted previously Nigel Moore researched and debunked this claim, whether he was right or not his argument was quite reasonable and backed up with facts.

 

 

[IanD]

33 minutes ago, Goliath said:

that really is a very very odd comparison to make. 
Likening a supporter of the NBTA to the KKK?

 

I know you didn’t ‘really’ mean that but it is revealing. 
 

So you ignored the last line of my mail then? 😉

 

[which I put in deliberately to avoid being accused of this...]

Edited April 13, 2022 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

On 12/04/2022 at 17:42, waterworks said:

Bear in mind that these failures to provide correct interpretation of their laws do not arise from ignorance, or lack of talent – no-one knows the content better, if for no other reason than that they have the necessary library of relevant statutes inaccessible to the general public. They also enjoy the benefit of a full-time team of legally trained individuals, who themselves have access to outside solicitors and barristers trained and experienced in this specialist subject.

The warning I am sounding is that none of that guarantees the correctness of their assertions, as the series of my cases and some others have proven. The problem lies with their probity, given the remit handed them by their bosses.

This bit I understand. 
Nigel Moore’s words from waterworks post. 
And I put in bold Nigel’s warning. 

Edited April 13, 2022 by Goliath

[IanD]

40 minutes ago, waterworks said:

 

Section 43 ( 3) of the 1962 Transport act out of any context says the following??

 

 

"Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is PART III 
mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the Boards shall 
have power to demand, take and recover such charges for their 
services and facilities, and to make the use of those services 
and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they see fit".

 

For that to be taken at face value makes the whole current licence system under the 1995 act unnecessary and BW could have just invented their own licence conditions in house without any need for legislation, we have to believe a public body , which legally work on the principle of their powers being limited  by statute, was given unlimited powers for charges and terms and conditions of licences in 1962 but them went on to seek an act of parliament to set out the terms and conditions of licences in 1995, this would mean a public body can add any condition to a statutory licence without recourse to parliament, which I think makes no sense to have a limited public body with unlimited powers. 

 

I posted previously Nigel Moore researched and debunked this claim, whether he was right or not his argument was quite reasonable and backed up with facts.

 

 

Nope, that's not what the Act says, or what Nigel said -- once again you're confusing license terms with charges.

 

This part of the Act says nothing about boat licenses, the terms of them, or the conditions for granting or withholding them, which as you say are regulated by statute.

 

It says that if you want to use CART services or facilities they can charge you for them, and add terms and conditions to you for using those services or facilities -- meaning things like water, sewage, rubbish, mooring. So they can say that emptying your poo out will cost £x, they can bring in or change such charges, and if you abuse their facilities or refuse to pay they can refuse to allow you to do it again. Nothing to do with boat licensing.

 

They can't refuse to grant you a license to navigate on the canals or change why this is done. They can charge you additional fees if, while navigating on the canals, you want to use facilities they provide which are not specifically covered by the license fee -- which means most things, since the license terms don't say they have to provide any of these facilities, or that the license fee pays for them.

 

Do you see the difference?

Edited April 13, 2022 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

So you ignored the last line of my mail then? 😉

 

[which I put in deliberately to avoid being accused of this...]

Yes I did. 
But it was a very odd thing to say. 
 

You could have compared me to an RAC memnber or a Villa fan, but you chose the KKK

[Alan de Enfield]

29 minutes ago, waterworks said:

I posted previously Nigel Moore researched and debunked this claim, whether he was right or not his argument was quite reasonable and backed up with facts.

 

Don't ignore the fact that Nigel also said that BW / C&RT can determine and set the licence fee at whatever they wish, they can also 'subdivide' the licence categories (by boat type if they so wish) the only 'legal fact' that they have to comply with is that the River Registration must be 60% of the equivalent category 'licence fee'.

 

A short extract of the thread where Nigel and I wre thrashing out the fee structures.

 

 

New Charging Bands For Boat Licence

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.

[IanD]

13 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Yes I did. 
But it was a very odd thing to say. 
 

You could have compared me to an RAC memnber or a Villa fan, but you chose the KKK

I simply chose two cases -- one racist and one Tory hypocrite -- where people put forward dishonest arguments and try to disguise them as honest ones, and which lead to blazing arguments and disagreements, which IMHO is pretty much a description of what the NBTA do (but not RAC members or Villa fans, as far as I'm aware).

 

In my opinion, of course -- no doubt as an NBTA supporter you disagree, and of course that's your right... 😉

Edited April 13, 2022 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

I chose two cases -- one racist and one hypocrite -- where people put forward dishonest arguments and try to disguise them as honest ones, and which lead to blazing arguments and disagreements. That's all that was intended.

Ok, I’ll stop my bickering, we both have a passion for the waterways 

Our answers to anything just don’t match up yet. 
 

 

Just remember: Boats are Homes 👍

[magnetman]

As long as everyone agrees that the CRT are the porn of the devil then it will all be okay. 

 

Division is no good. We should fight against the common enemy. And hire boaters obviously !

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

As long as everyone agrees that the CRT are the porn of the devil then it will all be okay. 

 

Division is no good. We should fight against the common enemy. And hire boaters obviously !

Yep the Devil’s Porn. 
 

 

[TheBiscuits]

23 minutes ago, IanD said:

where people put forward dishonest arguments and try to disguise them as honest ones, and which lead to blazing arguments and disagreements, which IMHO is pretty much a description of what the NBTA do (but not RAC members or Villa fans, as far as I'm aware).

 

I've heard Villa fans claim theirs is the best team ...

 

 

[magnetman]

Also bad grammar to include the same word twice in a sentence. 

 

"Arguments" used twice without a full stop. 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

42 minutes ago, IanD said:

I simply chose two cases -- one racist and one Tory hypocrite -- where people put forward dishonest arguments and try to disguise them as honest ones, and which lead to blazing arguments and disagreements, which IMHO is pretty much a description of what the NBTA do (but not RAC members or Villa fans, as far as I'm aware).

 

In my opinion, of course -- no doubt as an NBTA supporter you disagree, and of course that's your right... 😉

Whoops, as normal I didn’t read all you wrote. My apologies you obviously put a lot of time in. 
 

 “no doubt as an NBTA supporter you disagree, and of course that's your right... 😉 “

 

you see, I just can’t see why you’d just pop that in as a final remark?

but hey Ho that’s ok, 

the last words yours. 

[magnetman]

I disagree with the premise that boats are homes. 

 

They aren't really they are just a way of sheltering from the elements which is a fairly standard requirement for humans unless you are either unusually adaptable or in the shit badly. 

 

Homes are associated with somewhere a person "belongs" and this is basically impossible on a boat with no legal place to stay for more than about 13 days. 

 

It's just how it is. Nothing ever happens other than what happens and that's it. Confusing living on a boat with nowhere to be able to stay with having a home is a basic misunderstanding. 

 

Nothing wrong with being homeless. Best to be homeless with some comfort though otherwise it all goes tits up fast. 

 

 

Edited April 13, 2022 by magnetman
Edit to remove racist sex references

[IanD]

54 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Whoops, as normal I didn’t read all you wrote. My apologies you obviously put a lot of time in. 
 

 “no doubt as an NBTA supporter you disagree, and of course that's your right... 😉 “

 

you see, I just can’t see why you’d just pop that in as a final remark?

but hey Ho that’s ok, 

the last words yours. 

I put it in to make it clear that that was my opinion (not a fact), and that as an NBTA supporter you were therefore perfectly entitled to disagree with it -- free speech and all that 😉

Edited April 13, 2022 by IanD

[Iain_S]

2 hours ago, waterworks said:

 

Section 43 ( 3) of the 1962 Transport act out of any context says the following??

 

 

"Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is PART III 
mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the Boards shall 
have power to demand, take and recover such charges for their 
services and facilities, and to make the use of those services 
and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they see fit".

 

For that to be taken at face value makes the whole current licence system under the 1995 act unnecessary and BW could have just invented their own licence conditions in house without any need for legislation, we have to believe a public body , which legally work on the principle of their powers being limited  by statute, was given unlimited powers for charges and terms and conditions of licences in 1962 but them went on to seek an act of parliament to set out the terms and conditions of licences in 1995, this would mean a public body can add any condition to a statutory licence without recourse to parliament, which I think makes no sense to have a limited public body with unlimited powers. 

 

I posted previously Nigel Moore researched and debunked this claim, whether he was right or not his argument was quite reasonable and backed up with facts.

 

 

Actually, it doesn’t.

 

43(2) 2)Paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection shall not be read as exempting the [F1British Waterways Board [F4or Canal & River Trust] F3...] from any local enactment so far as it expressly provides for freedom from charges or otherwise prohibits the making of any charge.

 

All it takes is one Canal Enabling Act to permit pleasure vessels to use the canal without charge ( there are many that do) and the requirement for a licence for these canals is illegal. That is why the  1971 and 1983 Acts were necessary.

 

 With regard to S17(3) of the 1995 Act, there is one unstated condition: the applicant has to pay for it. This raises the question of what the “grant” of a licence actually means. Does it mean the offer, subject to additional conditions?

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

With regard to S17(3) of the 1995 Act, there is one unstated condition: the applicant has to pay for it. This raises the question of what the “grant” of a licence actually means. Does it mean the offer, subject to additional conditions?

 

To quote Nigel Moore (again)

 

 

My understanding is that CaRT are fully entitled to charge for the licence, and to refuse to issue one if the sum due is not paid up front.

To accept or refuse an application for a licence requires that an application for one is first submitted, and the payment is integral to the application; without payment, there is an invalid application – hence nothing to accept or refuse.

The principle is illustrated by the first statutory obligation for ‘relevant consents’: BWA 1971, s.6 (1) “The Board, on payment to them for the registration of any pleasure boat of the prescribed charge and delivery to them on a form to be supplied by the Board of the particulars which are set out in Schedule 2 to this Act . . . shall – . . . ( c ) issue to the applicant a pleasure boat certificate . . .”

The relevant charges were fixed by the statute as anything the Board determined “not exceeding the appropriate charge in that behalf specified in Part 1 of Schedule 3 to this Act.”

Once pleasure boat licences became mandatory following the 1976 Byelaws issued under authority of the BWA 1975, the 1971 fee schedules were abolished, and the pleasure boat certificates were instead, to be pegged at 60% of that charged for the now mandatory pleasure boat licences – as per the BWA 1983 s.4(1).

That rather compellingly, to my mind, suggests that up front payment for the pleasure boat licence [along with the specified particulars] is integral to a valid application for a pleasure boat licence, in exactly the same way the 1971 Act sets out what is necessary for any valid applications for the pleasure boat certificate.

[Iain_S]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

To quote Nigel Moore (again)

 

 

My understanding is that CaRT are fully entitled to charge for the licence, and to refuse to issue one if the sum due is not paid up front.

To accept or refuse an application for a licence requires that an application for one is first submitted, and the payment is integral to the application; without payment, there is an invalid application – hence nothing to accept or refuse.

The principle is illustrated by the first statutory obligation for ‘relevant consents’: BWA 1971, s.6 (1) “The Board, on payment to them for the registration of any pleasure boat of the prescribed charge and delivery to them on a form to be supplied by the Board of the particulars which are set out in Schedule 2 to this Act . . . shall – . . . ( c ) issue to the applicant a pleasure boat certificate . . .”

The relevant charges were fixed by the statute as anything the Board determined “not exceeding the appropriate charge in that behalf specified in Part 1 of Schedule 3 to this Act.”

Once pleasure boat licences became mandatory following the 1976 Byelaws issued under authority of the BWA 1975, the 1971 fee schedules were abolished, and the pleasure boat certificates were instead, to be pegged at 60% of that charged for the now mandatory pleasure boat licences – as per the BWA 1983 s.4(1).

That rather compellingly, to my mind, suggests that up front payment for the pleasure boat licence [along with the specified particulars] is integral to a valid application for a pleasure boat licence, in exactly the same way the 1971 Act sets out what is necessary for any valid applications for the pleasure boat certificate.

And would a refusal to tick the box agreeing to the terms and conditions also lead to an invalid application?

 

(I’m in wooden spoon stirring mode tonight!  

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, Iain_S said:

And would a refusal to tick the box agreeing to the terms and conditions also lead to an invalid application?

 

(I’m in wooden spoon stirring mode tonight!  

 

I tried that and was told they would then refuse to process my application.

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I tried that and was told they would then refuse to process my application.

 

You could have applied for a judicial review of their decision, Shirley! 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

17 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

You could have applied for a judicial review of their decision, Shirley! 

 

 

 

I discussed it with Nigel and he (sensibly) said "just agree, they can only enforce what they are legally allowed to enforce and cannot enforce their 'made up rules' that are not within their powers to implement".

 

28/6/17

The document itself is not "bogus and unlawful", it is a sensible code of conduct, containing within it reference to legitimate enforceable statutes and byelaws. What is bogus and unlawful is the representation that any of these other than the s.17 conditions, are enforceable conditions for issue and retention of the licence.

It might be appropriate to revisit the SC Minutes yet again, on this topic of the enforceability of licence T&C’s outwith the 1995 Act.

BW’s QC correctly informed the Committee that his advice was that the Licence T&C’s “is not a legally enforceable document. It is merely advice which we give to our boaters.”

Asked: “what is the remedy for a breach of condition”?  he replied: “Ultimately we could do one of two things or possibly both things. One would be to revoke the licence as it would be, as the owner or the holder of the licence would be in breach of the pleasure boat conditions. The alternative would be to revert again to the section 8 powers, which we talked about earlier. In both those cases, the Board believes that this action would be inappropriate. We have no remedy for breach of the code conditions at all . . .” – hence, he explained, the perceived need for the mooring restriction powers they sought in the Bill – which did not pass scrutiny and which were consequently omitted from the 1995 Act.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/142106359/Dodd-on-Status-of-Licence-Conditions

Such of the T&C's as repeat statute and byelaws, are of course enforceable - but only as per the legislated routes, not via revocation of licence and/or s.8.

Edited April 13, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[Allan(nb Albert)]

In the context of the o/p and the last post, it is worth remembering that BW's bill, that became the 1995 Act, specifically asked for powers to erect signage to limit mooring and impose fines for contravention.

BW failed to convince parliament that existing powers were insufficient.

Furthermore, CRT failed to convince parliament that all craft needed a mooring as proposed under the bill. It was BW's Kenneth Dodd (I kid you not), as mentioned above, that then suggested that boats that were being used bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence should not require a home mooring. He suggested that the test that BW would apply would simply be that if a boat had not moved for 14 days BW might start to consider that it was not being used bona fide for navigation.

Challenged as to why that 14 should not be 28 days he was unable to provide a convincing answer.

... which is why the 1995 Act is so loosely worded. 

Edited April 13, 2022 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Allan(nb Albert)]

On 10/04/2022 at 15:33, waterworks said:

What ever these are i would not pay them, they are not new, the £25 a day thing has been around decades and in those days they were issued by Patrol Wardens, torn up and ignored.  The fact is that they cannot be added to your statutory licence fee and certainly your licence cannot be revoked or the renewal refused for not paying them. This is a civil court matter if they want to recover these "charges". 

An added twist to CRT's attempts to impose fines/charges is that, whilst many of the functions of the British Waterways Board (in England and Wales) were transfered to it on 2 July 2012, ministers failed to transfer properties, rights and liabilities via statutory instrument. The statutory instrument known as "The British Waterways Board Transfer Scheme 2012" would transfered property, rights and liabilities other than those to be retained by BWB in Scotland (i.e. Scottish Canals). The transfer would have been devided between CRT's Community Interest Company and CRT be held in trust for the benefit of the nation.

Whilst drafts of this legislation exist it never came into force.

Perhaps CRT should be asked if they are acting as agents for the owner - Scottish Canals!

Edited April 14, 2022 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Rambling Boater]

The bottom line is that if everyone tried not to take the piss (all walks of life) we wouldn't need all these laws or rules.