George ward eviction taking place

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Shame it has no engine though, looks like he will taking a lot of exercise 

 

Maybe get a mooring then. With the ten years of license money he has saved so far.

 

 

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Maybe get a mooring then. With the ten years of license money he has saved so far.

 

And the £8000 of crowdfunding?

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

And the £8000 of crowdfunding?

 

 

I was saving that for later! 

 

Goes to show he does have significant support though, dunnit? 

 

 

 

 

[magnetman]

Do these crowdfunding things involve people known to the claimant or is it some sort of group therapy thing where people feel better afterwards but actually don't give a shit even remotely. 

 

Cynic, moi?

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Do these crowdfunding things involve people known to the claimant or is it some sort of group therapy thing where people feel better afterwards but actually don't give a shit even remotely. 

 

Cynic, moi?

 

Actually my guess is it is CRT-haters everywhere who contributed to the £8k. Not because they support Mr Ward's battle on its merits, but because they hate CRT and want to see them get a bloody nose over this.

 

And it seems to be working out for them really well, now CRT have slunk orf to lick their wounds. 

 

Mind you, give it ten years and they'll be back for another go. 

 

 

 

 

 

[LadyG]

So he's still not been evicted?

[MtB]

17 minutes ago, LadyG said:

So he's still not been evicted?

 

 

Have a guess!

 

 

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Have a guess!

 

 

 

Give us a clue....

[Arthur Marshall]

10 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Maybe get a mooring then. With the ten years of license money he has saved so far.

 

 

Interestingly, according to the paper  " Mr Ward claims he was only unlicensed for five months, from May to November 2022.  He said: "My vessels were unlicensed only between May 1 2022 and November 8 2022. Would you call this long-term licence evasion?” "

Which would imply it's being nicked for lack of movement. Though why CRT continued to licence it (if they did) is anyone's guess. They may of course have given him a six month one which has now run out. Facts are in slightly short supply.

[Paul C]

2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Interestingly, according to the paper  " Mr Ward claims he was only unlicensed for five months, from May to November 2022.  He said: "My vessels were unlicensed only between May 1 2022 and November 8 2022. Would you call this long-term licence evasion?” "

Which would imply it's being nicked for lack of movement. Though why CRT continued to licence it (if they did) is anyone's guess. They may of course have given him a six month one which has now run out. Facts are in slightly short supply.

Groundhog Day??

[kris88]

12 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 Facts are in slightly short supply.

Doesn’t seem to stop you all speculating. 

[Bod]

10 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Interestingly, according to the paper  " Mr Ward claims he was only unlicensed for five months, from May to November 2022.  He said: "My vessels were unlicensed only between May 1 2022 and November 8 2022. Would you call this long-term licence evasion?” "

Which would imply it's being nicked for lack of movement. Though why CRT continued to licence it (if they did) is anyone's guess. They may of course have given him a six month one which has now run out. Facts are in slightly short supply.

If I understand the paper correctly, and it's report is correct. The boat became unlicensed when C&RT removed a valid licence part way through the licence period.

Under the legislation govening C&RT, they have no right to do this, or refuse to grant a licence, if the 3 requirements are met, money, insurance, BSSC.

 

Bod

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, Bod said:

If I understand the paper correctly, and it's report is correct. The boat became unlicensed when C&RT removed a valid licence part way through the licence period.

Under the legislation govening C&RT, they have no right to do this, or refuse to grant a licence, if the 3 requirements are met, money, insurance, BSSC.

 

Bod

 

There is a slightly irritating phrase in the 95 act governing issuing of licences. 

 

One must "satisfy the board". 

 

I'm no lawyer but I have a feeling this gives the CRT rather more power than people might think. 

In this case I suspect the geyser has not satisfied the board (or the bored) that he has a place where the boat may lawfully or reasonably be kept. Or whatever the wording is. 

[Bod]

Just now, magnetman said:

 

There is a slightly irritating phrase in the 95 act governing issuing of licences. 

 

One must "satisfy the board". 

 

I'm no lawyer but I have a feeling this gives the CRT rather more power than people might think. 

This is only if you are applying for a non Home Mooring licence. (Aka CCing)

You are to "Satisfy the Board" as to your intention to Bona-fide navigate the waterways during the period of the licence.

 

Bod

[magnetman]

No it isn't. It applies to both declaring a mooring and declaring you don't have a mooring. 

I know it is a nuisance but it is also real. 

 

 

 

This is to take out the obvious problem of wholly fictitious moorings or places to keep the boat being declared. 

 

In your earlier post @Bod you suggested that the CRT are under a legal obligation to issue a licence/certificate provided three conditions are met which was money, insurance and BS ticket. 

 

I am countering this by pointing out that a 4th condition is that you must satisfy the management of the CRT. It seems from the way this is worded that if you don't then Bad Things happen. 

 

 

[peterboat]

14 minutes ago, magnetman said:

No it isn't. It applies to both declaring a mooring and declaring you don't have a mooring. 

I know it is a nuisance but it is also real. 

 

 

 

This is to take out the obvious problem of wholly fictitious moorings or places to keep the boat being declared. 

 

In your earlier post @Bod you suggested that the CRT are under a legal obligation to issue a licence/certificate provided three conditions are met which was money, insurance and BS ticket. 

 

I am countering this by pointing out that a 4th condition is that you must satisfy the management of the CRT. It seems from the way this is worded that if you don't then Bad Things happen. 

 

 

Exactly this^^^^^^^^

[nicknorman]

29 minutes ago, Bod said:

 

Under the legislation govening C&RT, they have no right to do this, or refuse to grant a licence, if the 3 requirements are met, money, insurance, BSSC.

 

Bod

You are incorrect, there are other requirements in the law.

[Alan de Enfield]

55 minutes ago, Bod said:

Under the legislation govening C&RT, they have no right to do this, or refuse to grant a licence, if the 3 requirements are met, money, insurance, BSSC.

 

You forgot the 4th requirement.

Which looks as if it may be the one that George fell foul of.

[Bod]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

No it isn't. It applies to both declaring a mooring and declaring you don't have a mooring. 

I know it is a nuisance but it is also real. 

 

 

 

This is to take out the obvious problem of wholly fictitious moorings or places to keep the boat being declared. 

 

In your earlier post @Bod you suggested that the CRT are under a legal obligation to issue a licence/certificate provided three conditions are met which was money, insurance and BS ticket. 

 

I am countering this by pointing out that a 4th condition is that you must satisfy the management of the CRT. It seems from the way this is worded that if you don't then Bad Things happen. 

 

 

For interest, where is your quote taken from please?

 

Bod

[nicknorman]

3 minutes ago, Bod said:

For interest, where is your quote taken from please?

 

Bod

Same place as the bit you were talking about, next paragraph down. BW 1995 act section 17. You can view it here:

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/section/17/enacted

 

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, Bod said:

For interest, where is your quote taken from please?

 

The Waterways Act 1995

Section 17(3)(c)

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Bod said:

Under the legislation govening C&RT, they have no right to do this, or refuse to grant a licence, if the 3 requirements are met, money, insurance, BSSC.

 

But they do have every right to cancel / remove an already issued licence ;

 

From the 1995 Act : Nothing in this section shall affect any power of the Board under any other enactment to refuse or withdraw a relevant consent.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, kris88 said:

Doesn’t seem to stop you all speculating. 

That's what we're here for. Be a bit dull if we all just posted weblinks and pretended they were facts.

13 minutes ago, Bod said:

For interest, where is your quote taken from please?

 

Bod

Always worth reading legislation past the bit you want to rely on.

Religious fundamentalists have the same problem with their holy books.

It's always struck me as odd that neither barrack-room lawyers nor the aforesaid religous ever actually study their texts in entirety.

[Bod]

If this part of the Act is read, you will see that (i) is refering to the Board checking their records to see if your claimed mooring is correct'

(ii) it is down to you the boater to tell the Board what you are going to do.

So yes the Board has 2 Satisfie's to be filled.

 

Bod

[Athy]

1 hour ago, kris88 said:

Doesn’t seem to stop you all speculating. 

Of course not. If one is given all the facts, one no longer needs to speculate.

[kris88]

1 minute ago, Athy said:

Of course not. If one is given all the facts, one no longer needs to speculate.

I suppose it would spoil all the fun.