The National Bargee Travellers Association has slammed plans to raise licence fees on canals like the Kennet and Avon

[Higgs]

 

3 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Basically correct, but if the marina wishes to connect to the canal then crt require that the marina must agree to only allow boats with a crt licence to stay.   So if an unlicensed boat is in the marina crt can not take action against the boat/boater but the marina would be in breach of it’s agreement with crt, so crt can take action against the marina, for example by closing the marina access to the canal.

To avoid this situation the marina requires in it’s agreement with boaters that boats are licensed, if a boat is unlicensed then it’s the responsibility of the marina to enforce it’s agreement with the boater.

 

Yes, it is stipulated in the NAA. It doesn't make it a legal requirement, only an addition to the marina's T&Cs, with no more significance than any common or garden other rule the marina may wish to add. 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by Higgs

[magnetman]

It makes a lot of sense to do this but I think the other poster is suggesting that the CRT do not have the power to do so from a legal point of view and they are acting ultra vires.

 

I think somewhere in the acts there will be something to allow the navigation authority to do this if they own the land on the side of the canal where the marina entrance is cut.

 

 

Speculation but could the marinas which are not subject to NAA have been opened into land that the navigation authority did not own a strip of?

Edited March 19, 2023 by magnetman

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It makes a lot of sense to do this but I think the other poster is suggesting that the CRT do not have the power to do so from a legal point of view and they are acting ultra vires.

 

I think somewhere in the acts there will be the authority to allow the navigation authority to do this if they own the land on the side of the canal where the marina entrance is cut.

 

 

 

CRT do have the authority to control the contract the marina signs up to. It wouldn't matter which side of the cut the marina is on, CRT's legal authority to act as a legal entity remains outside of the marina, as far as the boaters are concerned.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by Higgs

[Paul C]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

 

Yes, it is stipulated in the NAA. It doesn't make it a legal requirement, only an addition to the marina's T&Cs, with no more significance than any common or garden other rule the marina may wish to add. 

 

 

It would depend on how significant the possibility of being asked to leave the marina was to you. They might not even let you bring a truck and crane in......then what would you do? 

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

CRT do have the authority to control the contract the marina signs up to. 

 

 

Indeed they do.

[Chewbacka]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

CRT do have the authority to control the contract the marina signs up to. 

 

 

And one of the conditions is to only allow licensed boats to use the marina.

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

It would depend on how significant the possibility of being asked to leave the marina was to you. They might not even let you bring a truck and crane in......then what would you do? 

Indeed they do.

 

That is menace - as in, obtaining a payment, not strictly required.

 

 

 

 

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

That is menace - as in, obtaining a payment, not strictly required.

 

 

 

 

Which law is broken? Because I need to sue Morrison's, because I bought a bag of flumps last month and it wasn't strictly required.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Paul C

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Chewbacka said:

And one of the conditions is to only allow licensed boats to use the marina.

 

It is. That doesn't turn the marina into a CRT authority, with the backing of those laws.

 

 

[Paul C]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

It is. That doesn't turn the marina into a CRT authority, with the backing of those laws.

 

 

Are the marina claiming to be a CRT authority? Or a moorings provider?

[Chewbacka]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

It is. That doesn't turn the marina into a CRT authority, with the backing of those laws.

 

 

I didn’t say it did.  As I said, an unlicensed boat in the marina is the marina’s problem to sort out if they don’t wish to break their (the marina) agreement with CRT.  

[Higgs]

Just now, Chewbacka said:

I didn’t say it did.  As I said, an unlicensed boat in the marina is the marina’s problem to sort out if they don’t wish to break their (the marina) agreement with CRT.  

 

Yes, it is the marina's problem. If it was CRT's problem, they could use their enforcement powers, but they can't.

 

 

[Paul C]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

 If it was CRT's problem, they could use their enforcement powers, but they can't.

 

 

They don't need to......!

[magnetman]

It would be quite clever for the CRT to enable policies which caused most of the boats to end up in marinas.

 

People have always theorised that this was the aim. It would put the onus of licence enforcement on the marina and save the CRT quite a lot of money.

 

Maybe they should just say if you don't moor in a marina then your licence is going up by £3,500 a year.

 

Get 'em off the cut !

 

 

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

They don't need to......!

 

They can't.

 

 

[Chewbacka]

3 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Yes, it is the marina's problem. If it was CRT's problem, they could use their enforcement powers, but they can't.

 

 

Correct in that they can not take action against the boat but they will take action against the marina if the marina doesn’t take action against the boat.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Chewbacka said:

Correct in that they can not take action against the boat but they will take action against the marina if the marina doesn’t take action against the boat.

 

That's the idea. It's all menace. To obtain a payment that is not due.

 

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by Higgs

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

That's the idea. It's all menace. To obtain a payment that is not due.

 

 

 

Its due because its in the T&C of the marina contract though.

[Higgs]

Just now, Paul C said:

 

Its due because its in the T&C of the marina contract though.

 

And you'd put your head in a gas oven, to make your point, if it was in the marina T&Cs?

 

 

[Chewbacka]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

That's the idea. It's all menace. To obtain a payment that is not due.

 

 

By payment I assume you mean the licence, in which case it is ‘due’ if you wish to keep your boat in that marina as it is a contractual requirement in the agreement between the boater and the marina.

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

By payment I assume you mean the licence, in which case it is ‘due’ if you wish to keep your boat in that marina as it is a contractual requirement in the agreement between the boater and the marina.

 

It isn't legally due, for the purpose it is intended. It's due, to keep the marina in business.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by Higgs

[Chewbacka]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

And you'd put your head in a gas oven, to make your point, if it was in the marina T&Cs?

 

 

I wouldn’t as the law concerning making unreasonable contract conditions unenforceable would apply.  However no one has ever managed to convince a court that having a licence is a condition of mooring in a marina to be an unreasonable condition.

[Paul C]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

And you'd put your head in a gas oven, to make your point, if it was in the marina T&Cs?

 

 

Contract law is challengeable with a "reasonableness" test. Until it is challenged (and that is successful), it would stand as a term. If I had a mooring contract with unreasonable terms, I would read the T&Cs and negotiate with them before signing it. In fact - interesting story - I actually did that once. I was about to sign a mooring contract, and I read through it, only to find a term which prevented repairs/working on the boat on the mooring. I asked about it and they said "oh that's just a standard thing the company puts in, because we have a workshop here". I crossed it out, signed it and handed it back. The marina manager signed his part and that issue became a non-issue in about 15 secs.

[Chewbacka]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

It isn't legally due, for the purpose it is intended. It's due, to keep the marina in business.

 

 

 

 

And if the marina doesn’t stay in business then it will close and all boats must leave.  So either way you aren’t staying without a licence

[Higgs]

3 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

I wouldn’t as the law concerning making unreasonable contract conditions unenforceable would apply.  However no one has ever managed to convince a court that having a licence is a condition of mooring in a marina to be an unreasonable condition.

 

I wonder why. Not difficult to understand, when so many people are convinced that the marina T&Cs are actually law, pertaining to the legal requirement of a licence.

 

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by Higgs

[Paul C]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

I wonder why. Not difficult to understand, when so many people are convinced that the marina T&Cs are actually law. 

 

 

The fall under contract law, which is civil law. 

 

Are you a Freeman of the Land? Your understanding of law is demonstrably poor. We've been through the above before but you don't seem to have comprehended it. Is someone else coaching you on how & where law applies?