George ward eviction taking place

[magnetman]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

As far as I can see there is no reference to the duration of a licence in the Act. So CRT can issue any duration licence they like, and there is (in law) no 'standard' 12 month licence. In practice 12 months is a reasonable balance between the administrative cost of issuing licences, and maintaining a degree of control over who has a licence. And so when compliance becomes an issue, that balance shifts towards a shorter licence period.

 

Well spotted. I must admit I had not noticed that the period of relevant consent (licence or certificate) is not mentioned.

 

So the yearly thing is just a traditional protocol and nothing to do with obligations of either the Trust or the boat owner.

 

Interesting.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

Well spotted. I must admit I had not noticed that the period of relevant consent (licence or certificate) is not mentioned.

 

So the yearly thing is just a traditional protocol and nothing to do with obligations of either the Trust or the boat owner.

 

Interesting.

 

 

 

The various acts do allow for daily, weekly, monthly certificates, but then do specify a limit to the number of times within a 12 month period that such short-term certificates can be issued.

 

 

 

 

[magnetman]

I had a look at the CRT website and there is no longer a one day licence available.

 

Is there a part above your screenshot which shows that a 1 day licence should be available?

 

[Mike Todd]

20 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

I don't think it does necessarily mean a suitable mooring. 

 

It is my understanding that you can get adjustments on section 17 "bona fide for navigation" declaration where the CRT will waive some of their requirements. I think you do still have to move a bit. 

 

If they started to give people moorings it might get a bit dodgy. 

 

Maybe they do this. I'm not sure about this but it is certainly interesting. 

Correct - but it might, for example, be restricted to a very long pound.

[Paul C]

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Surely, the only grounds for refusal of a licence is failure to comply with a1995 Act s17(4)(c)(ii) notice.

 

CRT could in those circumstances refuse a 12 month but agree to a shorter one but what would be the point.

The point is, they don’t need to wait as long before continuing enforcement with S8.

[magnetman]

I find the reasonable adjustments thing quite interesting. It is a private matter between boat owner and the CRT but I do wonder if in some circumstances they will authorise a long term stay at a fixed location which is not already allocated as a long term mooring.

 

If they did, for example, allow someone to remain for elf reasons provided they engaged in treatment it could in theory mean that if the person did not engage as required their permission to remain would be withdrawn.

 

Different place but on the Thames in Molesey some boaters occupied towpath side land for a number of yars and put in applications for residential planning permission. Most of them were refused but one of the boats which has a child on board was awarded permission for two yars while they arranged for alternative accomodation.

 

Interesting things going on with the boats.

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Paul C said:

The point is, they don’t need to wait as long before continuing enforcement with S8.

 

Also it is good for intimidation purposes and helping communication strategies around the sensibleness of living on boats.

 

 

I think there might be some who have a theory that the increase in people living on boats seen over the last 20 or so yars is just the tip of a rather large iceberg. Given what the country is facing, and this is just the start, I wouldn't be surprised if canals got completely overrun in quite a short timeframe.

 

Some people might not like this.

Edited April 28, 2023 by magnetman
typo

[Alan de Enfield]

50 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Is there a part above your screenshot which shows that a 1 day licence should be available?

 

AIUI there is a 'list of options' that COULD be made available, but not all of them MUST to be offered.

 

I have never used one, but I believe that the 30 day explorer licence is actually a 'book of one day tickets' where you fill in each time (day) you have used it.

 

It obviously does not comply with the Act which says no more than 6x 'Day Tickets' can be offered per annum .

Maybe the 30 day explorer licence is supposed to to be used over 5 years ?

Edited April 28, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Allan(nb Albert)]

38 minutes ago, Paul C said:

The point is, they don’t need to wait as long before continuing enforcement with S8.

Wrong. If a subsection 4 notice is not complied with within the given period, then the licence is automatically revoked. This period could be as short as 28 days.

 

The Trust can then prosecute for having an unlicenced craft.

[Machpoint005]

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

There must be something specifically allowing the CRT to issue shorter licences than the standard 12 months.

 

By doing this and monitoring behaviour the result is unlicensed boats which will lead to S8.

 

It would be interesting to know where it is written that this is allowed.

 

 

I don't know how it all works but the satisfying the board thing appears to be something which happens before the licence is issued and there does not appear to be a reference to altering the timeframe of the licence.

 

 

There will be something in there and someone will know.

 

It doesn't need to be specifically allowed, so long as it's not specifically proscribed.

 

 

[MtB]

2 hours ago, David Mack said:

For a continuous cruiser, the requirement is for the applicant to satisfy the Board. Once the licence has been issued the boatowner is no longer the applicant, 

 

This touches on another aspect which may or may not be relevant. Does it say anywhere that the applicant for a licence MUST be the same person as the boat owner? 

 

Is it possible for say, an interested well-wisher to apply for a license on a boat owned and occupied by someone who has, for example, 'fallen on hard times'? 

 

How does it work when the LA licences a boat with housing benefit? Do they just hand over the money to the boater and hope they buy a license with it? Or doers the LA make the application and buy the license itself?

 

Just wondering. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2023 by MtB
Add a bit.

[magnetman]

12 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

It doesn't need to be specifically allowed, so long as it's not specifically proscribed.

 

 

 

For a public body it does.

 

 

The CRT is a body governed by statute. This is different from a natural person.

 

For natural people things need to be specifically forbidden but for a body governed by statute they need to be specifically allowed.

 

This is why councils often act ultra vires. They are constrained by the existence of statute and byelaws and regularly move outside of these frameworks and do things which are not technically legal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_vires

[cuthound]

19 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

This touches on another aspect which may or may not be relevant. Does it say anywhere that the applicant for a licence MUST be the same person as the boat owner? 

 

Is it possible for say, an interested well-wisher to apply for a license on a boat owned and occupied by someone who has, for example, 'fallen on hard times'? 

 

How does it work when the LA licences a boat with housing benefit? Do they just hand over the money to the boater and hope they buy a license with it? Or doers the LA make the application and buy the license itself?

 

Just wondering. 

 

 

 

 

 

When I had shares in shareboats, it was cheaper to licence the boat if one (of the twelve) owners applied for the licence, because the boat could then use a private boat licence rather than a commercial one.

[magnetman]

27 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

This touches on another aspect which may or may not be relevant. Does it say anywhere that the applicant for a licence MUST be the same person as the boat owner? 

 

Is it possible for say, an interested well-wisher to apply for a license on a boat owned and occupied by someone who has, for example, 'fallen on hard times'? 

 

How does it work when the LA licences a boat with housing benefit? Do they just hand over the money to the boater and hope they buy a license with it? Or doers the LA make the application and buy the license itself?

 

Just wondering. 

 

 

 

 

 

If you claim state support for your boat licence and/or mooring this now comes under Universal Credit which is paid to the applicant by the DwP not the LA.

 

I would be a bit surprised if a third party could do this unless the person on the boat was officially subject to a power of attorney or similar arrangement where it was officially recognised that they were incapable of dealing with their affairs.

 

 

For direct purchase of licence I think one can use an agent but the person named would have to be the boat owner.

I've done a Thames licence for my friend who is out of the system but always put his name as the boat owner for rather obvious reasons.

batteries and solar panels ok but I'd not want to be lumbered by the boat.

Edited April 28, 2023 by magnetman

[Machpoint005]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

 

If you claim state support for your boat licence and/or mooring this now comes under Universal Credit which is paid to the applicant by the DwP not the LA.

 

I would be a bit surprised if a third party could do this unless the person on the boat was officially subject to a power of attorney or similar arrangement where it was officially recognised that they were incapable of dealing with their affairs.

 

 

For direct purchase of licence I think one can use an agent but the person named would have to be the boat owner.

I've done a Thames licence for my friend who is out of the system but always put his name as the boat owner for rather obvious reasons.

batteries and solar panels ok but I'd not want to be lumbered by the boat.

 

That does seem to be the case for the main protagonist in this matter.

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

Latest from the Wiltshire Times:

 In his latest letter, dated April 24, Mr Aymes says: "As you know, you were required to remove your boat from the inland waterways owned or managed by the Canal & River Trust by no later than March 23, 2023.  "Sightings of your boat March Hare show that it is still on our waters. We therefore now require you to remove your boat from our waters no later than May 2, 2023, failing which we will remove it using our powers under Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 and/or Section 13 of the British Waterways Act 1971 without further notice to you and you will be liable for the cost incurred.  "The removal will take place not less than seven days and not more than 27 days after the date of this letter."

  Mr Ward says he was only unlicensed for five months from May to November 2022 following an incident on November 27 2020, when he was accused of being abusive and threatening trust staff, and his licences were cancelled.  He said: “My licences were cancelled by the Canal & River Trust on December 18, 2020 but they were fully paid for until end of April 2021.  “They refused to refund any money and my property on the canal towpath was ‘stolen’ from me on April 12, 2021.

  “On April 16 2021, the CRT’s customer service representative in Gloucester, stated that I could relicense my boats. I then paid for both licences in full to begin on May 1 2021, valid until end of April 2022."  “The Canal & River Trust started the Bristol County Court case to evict me on November 8 2022, the paperwork was delivered to me January 6, 2023.  “Therefore, my vessels were unlicensed only between May 1, 2022 and November 8, 2022. Would you call this long-term licence evasion?”

[MtB]

The article starts off with Mr Ward claiming to be disabled. I had no idea he was disabled. 

 

But anyway, there are 24 public comments today under the article. Here is the first:

 

"jonners12324th April 6:22 pm

 

User ID: 311741

This is now a complete embarrassment. A man who along with a few others have repeatedly broken the law, made a complete mess of an environment meant to be enjoyed by all, is appeased again playing all his disability cards. It is an utter insult by him to the very vast majority of law abiding citizens who are sick of his complete selfishness. I hope he is arrested and has time in a cell to reflect on his appalling behaviour."

 

 

The remaining 23 comments are a descent into bad-tempered squabbling about whether this article should or should not have been included in the Swindon Times local newspaper, as Mr Ward is 30 miles away from Swindon. It's just like reading CWF! 

 

Here is the whole article that Arthur quoted from:

 

https://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/23473777.boater-nine-hour-standoff-given-new-canal-river-trust-deadline/

 

 

 

[Dyertribe]

On 20/04/2023 at 14:27, Paul Biddy said:

Boats are not Council Houses.

How perceptive of you

[ditchcrawler]

13 hours ago, magnetman said:

Evidently. I was just idly querying what legal process they are following regarding the shorter period licence. 

 

It seems an interesting question which someone will know the answer to. 

 

 

If no one challenges it through the court they can do anything.  What about treating boaters with a home mooring the same as one with no mooring when they are out cruising. Unless its challenged in the courts they can do anything

[MtB]

10 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

If no one challenges it through the court they can do anything.  What about treating boaters with a home mooring the same as one with no mooring when they are out cruising. Unless its challenged in the courts they can do anything

 

Lets imagine then that Mr Ward decides to challenge in the courts the (claimed) CRT cancellation of his license. How would he set about getting a court hearing? 

 

Like MM, I'm just curious. 

[TheBiscuits]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

Lets imagine then that Mr Ward decides to challenge in the courts the (claimed) CRT cancellation of his license. How would he set about getting a court hearing? 

 

Like MM, I'm just curious. 

 

He has to sue CRT.  The thousands of pounds he was given to fix his boat last time would be the deposit on the fees ...

[MtB]

9 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

He has to sue CRT.  The thousands of pounds he was given to fix his boat last time would be the deposit on the fees ...

 

Sue them? What for?  Damages? 

 

What would he write in the "Particulars of claim" box?

 

Not trying to be combative, just trying to unpick and understand the process.

 

 

Point being, suing always gets boiled down to money and I don't think suing CRT for unjust cancellation of one's licence and subsequent S.8 and loss of one's home translates easily into a sum of money due. 

[TheBiscuits]

18 minutes ago, MtB said:

I don't think suing CRT for unjust cancellation of one's licence and subsequent S.8 and loss of one's home translates easily into a sum of money due. 

 

No, I agree.  The thousands of pounds deposit is only so the lawyers you instruct can buy newer cars!

 

Just seeking redress against CRT for whatever perceived wrong they have done will cost tens of thousands of pounds and probably take two years to get a hearing.

 

Assuming you won outright, the best you could expect is a ruling that CRT couldn't do whatever they did again but only to you. 

 

To get a blanket ruling they couldn't do it to anyone else either would require a judicial review, so start adding extra zeros to the numbers above.

[john.k]

There are plenty of froot loops taking legal action against authority to right perceived wrongs they have suffered .....you dont need a solicitor or barrister to cause a major expensive nuisance to the powers that be 

[Arthur Marshall]

11 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

If no one challenges it through the court they can do anything.  What about treating boaters with a home mooring the same as one with no mooring when they are out cruising. Unless its challenged in the courts they can do anything

I've never really understood why anyone objected to this. Home moorers have  no legal rights at all, only concessionary ones. CCers have the right to stay in a place for up to 14 days, a right thus transferred to home moorers by this version of the t&cs, so technically home moorers gain by the change.

The only disadvantage I can see is for those who want to game the system by having a mooring but who want to hang around the same small area elsewhere for months on end (avoiding the distance limitation defining a cruise), which is probably a good thing.

[mrsmelly]

20 minutes ago, Dyertribe said:

so kind

Nice to see you posting again, havnt seen you about for a while