Boat dwellers to be able to claim the £400 energy allowance.

[Momac]

 

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Is there a safety question here? 

 

A boat without a licence does not need a Boat Safety Certificate. 

 

You could have dangerous boats both in the marina and on the cut self declaring for visitor licences. 

 

A BSSC doesn't make a boat safe and the absence of a BSSC doesn't make a boat dangerous.

Remember boats on the coast are not required to have a BSSC.

 

 

[Paul C]

10 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

That's a rubbish reason. Why is it that everyone in society is not locked up, by the same logic? Just in case.

 

 

You'll have to explain your analogy why everyone in society is not locked up.

 

Its actually a pretty good reason, because it would be difficult to enforce otherwise.

[magnetman]

5 minutes ago, MartynG said:

 

A BSSC doesn't make a boat safe and the absence of a BSSC doesn't make a boat dangerous.

Remember boats on the coast are not required to have a BSSC.

 

 

I realise that. 

 

I still think a marina based on an inland waterway which does need BS certification for licensing may take the view that requiring the boats to have BS tickets would be wise. Easiest way is to require licensing. Not rocket science .

 

[Alan de Enfield]

16 minutes ago, Higgs said:

That's a rubbish reason.

 

It is a perfectly good reason and is simply a condition of the contract of having a mooring within the marina 'grounds' - much as every marina I've ever stayed in, insisted that cars not taxed or MOT'd or insured cannot be left on marina 'grounds'. That is not a legal requirement either !

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

I realise that. 

 

I still think a marina based on an inland waterway which does need BS certification for licensing may take the view that requiring the boats to have BS tickets would be wise. Easiest way is to require licensing. Not rocket science .

 

 

Not rocket science, but not necessary to make a licence a condition of BSS.

 

 

[magnetman]

Yes but can a marina operator insist on a BS? I thought it was only navigation authorities who could legally enforce this. 

When you get a BS ticket do you ask the man to forward it to the marina? I don't think the system allows this and you don't get a paper with hologram any more. 

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

Not rocket science, but not necessary to make a licence a condition of BSS.

 

 

 

It is not, but it is a condition of granting a licence that the boat has a BSS

[Higgs]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It is a perfectly good reason and is simply a condition of the contract of having a mooring within the marina 'grounds' - much as every marina I've ever stayed in, insisted that cars not taxed or MOT'd or insured cannot be left on marina 'grounds'. That is not a legal requirement either !

 

It isn't a good reason. It's a "what if" reason. An hypothetical - to suggest dishonesty. CRT are themselves being dishonest, in reality. The marina can do what it wants. CRT put it in a contract what it wants the marina to do. It does it, because CRT cannot demand it directly of the moorer. CRT cannot directly demand a moorer has a licence.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

Yes but can a marina operator insist on a BS? I thought it was only navigation authorities who could legally enforce this. 

When you get a BS ticket do you ask the man to forward it to the marina? I don't think the system allows this and you don't get a paper with hologram any more. 

 

 

Of course they can - as a condition in the mooring contract.

They could refuse you a mooring if your boat was painted Red, or was more than 45 feet if they wanted to. Their bat & ball and they can make the rules, so if you do not want to comply, move along and find somewhere whose T&Cs are not offensive to you.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It is not, but it is a condition of granting a licence that the boat has a BSS

 

Well, I'm not mixing the two requirements. A BSS can be done independently of the other.

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

It isn't a good reason. It's a "what if" reason. An hypothetical - to suggest dishonesty. CRT are themselves being dishonest, in reality. The marina can do what it wants. CRT put it in a contract what it wants the marina to do. It does it, because CRT cannot demand it directly of the moorer. CRT cannot directly demand a moorer has a licence.

 

 

CRT is a business. It cannot be dishonest. It just sets rules.

[Higgs]

Just now, Arthur Marshall said:

CRT is a business. It cannot be dishonest. It just sets rules.

 

It's dishonest to to force a payment that isn't required. 

 

 

[Paul C]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

It's dishonest to to force a payment that isn't required. 

 

 

But it is required.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

But it is required.

 

Not by law. In fact, the marina isn't being allowed to choose. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

But it is required.

 

All of us :

 

 

 

[Higgs]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

All of us :

 

You're in denial.

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

3 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

It's dishonest to to force a payment that isn't required. 

 

 

This is a discussion forum, not a  repetition forum. Unfortunately, saying the same thing over and over again for twenty years doesn't make it true. It just irritates everyone else. It's a dialogue with the deaf - no doubt you think exactly the same.

However, as you only ever seem to post this pointless stuff, and we do exactly the same, the best thing is to ignore the subject completely. Cheers.

[Paul C]

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Not by law. In fact, the marina isn't being allowed to choose. 

 

 

Yes it is, because the marina and the moorer have a contract, which is enforceable by civil law.

 

A marina; or a potential marina operator in the future, can choose to develop or not develop a marina connected to CRT waters, knowing the legal framework of the NAA well in advance.

 

The NAA was negotiated and agreed upon, a long time ago, by the trade body for marina operators.

Edited March 12, 2023 by Paul C

[Arthur Marshall]

What do you do with a pub bore?

[Higgs]

4 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

This is a discussion forum, not a  repetition forum. Unfortunately, saying the same thing over and over again for twenty years doesn't make it true. It just irritates everyone else. It's a dialogue with the deaf - no doubt you think exactly the same.

However, as you only ever seem to post this pointless stuff, and we do exactly the same, the best thing is to ignore the subject completely. Cheers.

 

A marina cannot issue a licence. CRT have no legal authority in a marina. By whose authority is this legal document issued? What makes the document legally valid, in a marina? Nothing. Regardless of what the NAA says the marina must do, the licence has no legal validity in a marina. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Yes it is, because the marina and the moorer have a contract, which is enforceable by civil law.

 

A marina; or a potential marina operator in the future, can choose to develop or not develop a marina connected to CRT waters, knowing the legal framework of the NAA well in advance.

 

The NAA was negotiated and agreed upon, a long time ago, by the trade body for marina operators.

 

The moorer has an agreement with the marina - not CRT.

 

 

Edited March 12, 2023 by Higgs

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

A marina cannot issue a licence. CRT have no legal authority in a marina. By whose authority is this legal document issued? What makes the document legally valid, in a marina. Regardless of what the NAA says the marina must do, the licence has no legal validity in a marina. 

 

 

That's getting into "Freeman of the Land" territory

 

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

The moorer has an agreement with the marina - not CRT.

 

 

 

Of that we agree.

[Higgs]

Just now, Paul C said:

Of that we agree.

 

And they are not a licencing authority.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, Higgs said:

The moorer has an agreement with the marina - not CRT.

 

 

We have a caravan park which requires me to be licenced with the Local Authority (in addition to having the relevant planning permissions).

The LA make various stipulations and conditions of what must be done to retain my licence, In order to comply I have to make similar conditions in my contract with the caravan owners. The local Authority has no direct control over the caravan owners actions, but I do.

[MtB]

14 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

We have a caravan park which requires me to be licenced with the Local Authority (in addition to having the relevant planning permissions).

The LA make various stipulations and conditions of what must be done to retain my licence, In order to comply I have to make similar conditions in my contract with the caravan owners. The local Authority has no direct control over the caravan owners actions, but I do.

 

This has been explained many times over to Higgs in various threads including this, but he chooses not to understand. 

 

It's like debating with a five-year-old isn't it? 

 

[Higgs]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

We have a caravan park which requires me to be licenced with the Local Authority (in addition to having the relevant planning permissions).

The LA make various stipulations and conditions of what must be done to retain my licence, In order to comply I have to make similar conditions in my contract with the caravan owners. The local Authority has no direct control over the caravan owners actions, but I do.

 

Marinas need LA planning permission, to turn moorings into residential moorings. These things are necessary, to comply in that business model. The legal authority has to be satisfied. However, what the NAA does is to force a licence in an area that does not need a licence. It is made a requirement, as a condition of the business contract. The licence is a contract between CRT and the boater. These two have no connection in a marina. The licence is not for the benefit of the moorer, it is for the benefit of the marina business and CRT. 

 

The licence is made a requirement, for a purpose for which the licence was not intended. The requirement is made to gain the marina a business. The licence was leverage, and had to be accepted as a condition, for the marina to gain its business opportunity. 

 

Only if the condition was removed from the NAA could the condition be deemed to be that made by the marina. It is forced on them, as it is forced on the moorer.