George ward eviction taking place

[Arthur Marshall]

11 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I'd really strongly suggest that  you read the various Acts & you'll find all the answers (and more).

But that would mean a whole raft of outrage would become impossible, and where's the fun in that? Social media is about the application of ignorance to real world problems, and then complaining about the unfairness of it all.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

But that would mean a whole raft of outrage would become impossible, and where's the fun in that? Social media is about the application of ignorance to real world problems, and then complaining about the unfairness of it all.

 

 

Or maybe, "why should I bother looking for something when someone else will do it for me"

[magnetman]

40 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Given that draft PSPO is dated almost 4 years ago, was the PSPO actually implemented? Under the draft text the Order expires after 3 years, so it could already have expired!

I don't think it was implemented in the end. I posted it as the wording was quite interesting and it is possible at some stage that councils might get their shit together and actually do this sort of thing. 

 

If the CRT refuse to enforce byelaws for whatever reason then it seems likely something else will happen at some stage. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At the end of the day this is the oldest type of human behaviour in the book. It is about Territory. Nothing new under the sun. 

 

All these 'bargee travellers' have no interest in traveling. It is use of the land they are interested in. Not unexpected but always worth doing a reality check now and then. 

 

 

 

 

[cuthound]

1 hour ago, peterboat said:

Wouldn't it be easier to weight them and drop them overboard?

 

Depends on how well that section of cut has been dredged...

 

[kris88]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

 

At the end of the day this is the oldest type of human behaviour in the book. It is about Territory. Nothing new under the sun. 

 

All these 'bargee travellers' have no interest in traveling. It is use of the land they are interested in. Not unexpected but always worth doing a reality check now and then. 

 

 

 

 

Can’t you say this about all human behaviour? 
It’s all about Territory, the control and use of. 
We are all interested in use of the land, the air and the water because from this comes life. 

[Arthur Marshall]

7 minutes ago, kris88 said:

Can’t you say this about all human behaviour? 
It’s all about Territory, the control and use of. 
We are all interested in use of the land, the air and the water because from this comes life. 

 It's surely more about whether our behaviour is governed by a social contract where the pressure to conform is largely unofficial and consensual, or whether we behave purely in our own interest with no regard to the wishes or views of others. The law is at least partly an attempt to codify the former.

Threatening to stab people with a garden fork in order to remain illegally in a place that you have unilaterally decided you have a right to be, isn't really territorial, just criminal.

While our lives derive from land, air and water, they are all shared resources and need to be seen as such. In my opinion.

[MtB]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

Nothing new under the sun. 

 

 

Quantum computers. They're new under the sun....

 

 

[Iain_S]

14 hours 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

This I kind of agree with. CaRT do "unlicence" boats, but I struggle to see the legal basis for this.

 

Also the requirement to "satisfy the Board" (i.e. CaRT) that there is a mooring available or that the boat will be used "bona fide" for navigation. If the boater hasn't moved for 10 years, it is difficult to see how this requirement can be met.

[Paul C]

Maybe its as simple as, he applied for a 12 month licence but they only issued a 6 month (or 3 month) licence. And George was so insistent he was right and they are wrong, that he convinced himself it was 12 months. But it wasn't. So, after 6 (or 3) months, he was indeed unlicensed, hence the S8 starting.

[magnetman]

The question seems to be whether the CRT are actually allowed to cancel the relevant consent or issue restricted timeframe consents.

 

The law clearly states they can refuse to issue the relevant consent but does this apply during the valididty in the sense that it is cancelled before it ends?

 

Someone will know what mechanism is used for withdrawing the consent after it has been issued.

 

Presumably satisfying the board must be an ongoing process not just a one-off thing when you put in the application for the relevant consent.

 

 

 

There are some indications of potential ultra vires behaviour here.

 

Edited April 28, 2023 by magnetman

[Paul C]

The whole point of their strategy for issuing 6 and 3 month licences was, instead of needing to go down the route of trying to cancel a current licence (or waiting 11.9 months....) they could wait a shorter time then refuse to re-issue a licence. Then use S8.

 

So I doubt in this case they have (tried to) "cancel" a valid licence.

 

The other possibility is there was an issue with payment, for example if a DD fails or a cheque bounces, that can render a previously issued licence invalid.

[magnetman]

 

That makes sense but one still wonders what legal framework they are using to allow them to choose a shorter period for the licence based on previous behaviour.

 

The availability of this choice must be explicitly mentioned somewhere.

 

 

 

 

 

Could there be a situation where someone was allowed to buy a one week licence but nothing longer and they would then have a week to satisfy the board?

[Paul C]

They can be satisfied for 3 months, but not satisfied for 12 months.

 

[magnetman]

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.

[Paul C]

13 minutes ago, magnetman said:

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

 

 

I believe its all covered by the "the board is satisfied...." bit. They can be satisfied for 3 months, but not 12 months.

 

I think its a good idea, compared to the other options, of either not issuing a licence at all; or issuing another 12 months. Its a compromise solution. For a boater who gets issued a 6 month one, it sends a clear message "We're serious". No doubt, NBTA and others contested it when the idea was first tried out - its probably on their website - but they were unsuccessful, so.......

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

Presumably satisfying the board must be an ongoing process not just a one-off thing when you put in the application for the relevant consent.

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, and so the requirement to satisfy the Board no longer exists. But when the period covered by the licence is coming to an end the boat owner has to apply for a new licence, and again becomes the applicant. At this point the Board are able to take into account the boat owner's previous behaviour in deciding whether they will be satisfied for the forthcoming licence period. And if they are in doubt they can issue a licence for a shorter period.

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, David Mack said:

 And if they are in doubt they can issue a licence for a shorter period.

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. 

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

25 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

I believe its all covered by the "the board is satisfied...." bit. They can be satisfied for 3 months, but not 12 months.

 

I think its a good idea, compared to the other options, of either not issuing a licence at all; or issuing another 12 months. Its a compromise solution. For a boater who gets issued a 6 month one, it sends a clear message "We're serious". No doubt, NBTA and others contested it when the idea was first tried out - its probably on their website - but they were unsuccessful, so.......

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.

[Bod]

8 hours ago, Iain_S said:

This I kind of agree with. CaRT do "unlicence" boats, but I struggle to see the legal basis for this.

 

Also the requirement to "satisfy the Board" (i.e. CaRT) that there is a mooring available or that the boat will be used "bona fide" for navigation. If the boater hasn't moved for 10 years, it is difficult to see how this requirement can be met.

It is the legal basis that is the heart of the matter.

C&RT, BW, BWB, Transport commission before, were set up by Parliamentary Acts, which specified exactly what they could do.  By the law that created them.

British waterways Acts 1971-95 are the most recent, there have been cases where the original Acts that allowed the canal to be dug, have been used.

Under normal English law, the law says what you can't do, "Thou shall't not kill" not what you can do.

The law for C&RT and other institutions set up by Parliamentary Act, is the opposite, the law dictate's exactly what they can do, and no more.

Which is why the Terms and conditions that are being forced upon us are on dubious grounds, those that are in the legislation or bylaws are ok, others are questionable.  This will need a High Court decision to really sort out.

 

Bod

Ps.  This my understanding of points made by Nigel Moore.

Edited April 28, 2023 by Bod

[David Mack]

3 minutes 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. 

 

 

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.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

6 minutes 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. 

 

 

See my answer above. They are trying to circumvent the issue of a subsection 4 notice.

If you read the 1995 Act carefully you will find that using a boat "bona fide for navigation" is a matter of fact rather than opinion. 

[john.k]

One time ,a 3d ferry fare non payment penalty went all the way to the Privy Council (Law Lords).....The City Council won,but the case cost them over  one million pounds ......the cost of a coal fired power station at the time.

[Alan de Enfield]

It is probably worth, for those that are interested, reading the series of Waterways Acts, everything is covered within those Acts - for example the removal of a boat is clearly defined in the British Waterways Act 1983

 

References are also made to the Acts of 1963, 1965, 1966, 1971, 1974, 1975.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And more on 'charges' :

 

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[haggis]

But how could the boat be licenced if it didn't have a current BSS certificate? and Insurance? I am sure I remember reading that the boat had neither and  it is one of the licence conditions that it has both, I would have thought. 

[Arthur Marshall]

3 minutes ago, haggis said:

But how could the boat be licenced if it didn't have a current BSS certificate? and Insurance? I am sure I remember reading that the boat had neither and  it is one of the licence conditions that it has both, I would have thought. 

I'm sure I read somewhere that he claims to have a BSS. Insurance wouldn't be a problem - 3rd party would do as he's fairly unlikely to hit another boat!