Incident with bridge keeper-Licence suspended

[MtB]

Just now, nicknorman said:

There is no contract involved in obtaining a CRT licence.

 

Of course there is. It goes on for pages on end.

 

There is only 'no contract' if you are one of the Awkward Squad who goes out of their way to avoid entering into it. It would be more accurate to say there are generally no consequences to breaching the terms of the contract. 

 

But I think if CRT were so minded, they could sue a boater for expenses incurred in enforcing a term a boater persistently breaches, e.g. sending an employee to tell the boater to turn the generator off after 8.00pm, repeatedly. The fact they don't do it doesn't mean they can't do it. 

[churchward]

5 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

It is not a contract, it is a statutory provision. Contract law doesn’t enter into it.

Good luck trying that argument in court.

 

The terms of the license can be applied and do have legal standing, other laws may take precedence and offer other protections for either party as I said above.

[Rob-M]

1 hour ago, Markblox said:

The allegations are against the T&C's

Is that the one that you signed up to agreeing you wouldn't abuse CRT staff.

[nb Innisfree]

Seems to me that C&RT are and always have been pulling the wool over eyes, giving the impression that they have certain powers but when challenged they back off under the guise of being 'reasonable' 

[Bod]

1 hour ago, Markblox said:

Section 8 & 13 of the British Waterways Act.

 

If they revoke a licence you have 28 days to remove the boat from their waters unless you live aboard in which case they need a court order.

 

Which British Waterway Act?

This should be in the letter.

There are several different ones, over the years each with different clauses 8&13.

 

Bod.

[nicknorman]

11 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Of course there is. It goes on for pages on end.

 

There is only 'no contract' if you are one of the Awkward Squad who goes out of their way to avoid entering into it. It would be more accurate to say there are generally no consequences to breaching the terms of the contract. 

 

But I think if CRT were so minded, they could sue a boater for expenses incurred in enforcing a term a boater persistently breaches, e.g. sending an employee to tell the boater to turn the generator off after 8.00pm, repeatedly. The fact they don't do it doesn't mean they can't do it. 

Well, CRT want you to think that, of course. But the hard facts are that the situation regarding a canal licence is set out in the 1995 act and CRT, for all they would like to be able to, can only comply with that statute and not add any bells and whistles of their choice.

9 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

Is that the one that you signed up to agreeing you wouldn't abuse CRT staff.

I can’t ever remember signing up to any such Ts and Cs. Recently we flipped between a Canal licence , a gold licence, and back to a canal licence and at not point did I tick any boxes accepting any fictitious Ts and Cs

[Markblox]

13 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

Is that the one that you signed up to agreeing you wouldn't abuse CRT staff.

 

13 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

Is that the one that you signed up to agreeing you wouldn't abuse CRT staff.

 

5 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Well there's a bit of speculation for you.  

 

10 minutes ago, Bod said:

Which British Waterway Act?

This should be in the letter.

There are several different ones, over the years each with different clauses 8&13.

 

Bod.

1983 and 1971

35 minutes ago, churchward said:

I am sorry to hear of the incident.  It is normal in many situations to suspend things while the incident is investigated. It is not necessarily a judgment to suspend your license but as has been said above they can under the license conditions act as they have done.

 

If you can get food, water, and fuel on foot it would be best if you can do that and not move the boat. If your location means you cannot access food or water without moving then if I were in your position I would do so but make sure the boat returns to the mooring where you are now. I would also inform CRT if you need to move the boat and your reasons why.

 

As for the rest of your questions, I can't help you as I do not know what could happen next or what they may demand of you.

Thank you so much for the thoughtful response to my questions, sad that so many just want to speculate and judge and mis read.  Anyway, I will do my best to follow that advice. I have contacted Citizens Advice and they are due to get back to me next week so will see what is said.  I have heard that the ECHR article 8 may apply and if it does then it would trump the CRT T's&C's.  

[churchward]

11 minutes ago, Markblox said:

Thank you so much for the thoughtful response to my questions, sad that so many just want to speculate and judge and mis read.  Anyway, I will do my best to follow that advice. I have contacted Citizens Advice and they are due to get back to me next week so will see what is said.  I have heard that the ECHR article 8 may apply and if it does then it would trump the CRT T's&C's.  

You are welcome. That's a good idea to go to the Citizen's Advice people for help.

 

You indeed may have other protections/provisions elsewhere than the T%Cs that will help your position so it is worth getting some proper legal help if it comes to it.

 

Given you said you were near State pension age you may find some help here too.

 

Where can I get free legal advice? | Age UK

[Bod]

Section 8  1983 Act.  1st paragraph.

By your description none of this section is appropriate to your situation.

Should this go any further, you need proper knowledgeable legal advice, as this is the method C&RT use to wrongly seize boats, by removing the licence, then, saying the boat is unlicensed therefore we have the right to remove the boat.

The difficulty C&RT have is there are very limited reasons to remove a licence, and the legal right to have a license  is enshrined in law.

 

Bod.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Markblox said:

 

 

 

1983 and 1971

Thank you so much for the thoughtful response to my questions, sad that so many just want to speculate and judge and mis read.  Anyway, I will do my best to follow that advice. I have contacted Citizens Advice and they are due to get back to me next week so will see what is said.  I have heard that the ECHR article 8 may apply and if it does then it would trump the CRT T's&C's.  

 

The reason people don't accept things at face value from one side of a story is because we've been here before, more than once. Also when somebody suggests posting the letter up on here and you say 'tried that the file is too big' and two follow up posters explain how to do it and you neither try nor acknowledge the posts it leads to a suspicion that there is information within the letter that would alter how people might respond.

 

Couple that with your rather aggressive posting style in other threads leads people to think we are getting a skewed version of what is going on here.

 

HTH.

[Alan de Enfield]

And section 8 of the 1971 Act relates to : Pleasure boat certificate on Rivers

 

 

Section 13 of the 1971 act refers to Houseboats (not Liveaboard cruising boats)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 13 of the 1983 act

 

 

 

 

I think you need help - either you are not reading what C&RT have written, OR  C&RT have made a total pigs ear of informing you.

[David Mack]

54 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

But the hard facts are that the situation regarding a canal licence is set out in the 1995 act and CRT, for all they would like to be able to, can only comply with that statute and not add any bells and whistles of their choice.

But if you 'voluntarily' tick the box saying you agree to the Ts and Cs, does that mean that both you (and CRT) are thereafter bound by those Ts and Cs, notwithstanding that CRT had no right to insist on them?

[magnetman]

Bylaws usually include a restriction on offensive behaviour. 

 

This includes verbal abuse. 

[David Mack]

32 minutes ago, Bod said:

 

And if the licence is withdrawn CRT would no doubt argue that 8(1) does apply in that the vessel is then moored on an inland waterway owned or managed by the Board without lawful authority.

4 hours ago, Markblox said:

Would I have the option of leaving the network under my own steam or would it be overland transportation?

Unless you are currently moored at a location where the boat can be craned out you would have no choice but to move the boat on CRT's water.

I imagine that if you approached CRT with plans to have the boat craned out at a nearby location with the appropriate facilities they would agree you could move the boat to that location for the purposes of being craned out, but not for any other reason. I doubt they would agree to you travelling further over their network (other than perhaps to pass through the lock at Sharpness).

[junior]

How on earth do you manage to get into this situation when presumably he is on the bank or the bridge, and you are on a boat floating on water?

 

You say you were responding to his abuse first, but surely if you're on your boat you just shout a bit of abuse back and go on your merry way - whilst making a complaint to CRT by email later that you were abused by one of their employees. 

[Bod]

The whole thing revolves around the reason the license was withdrawn, that reason then dictates the path of action.

But there is no time to waste.

Is the stated reason covered in legislation or T&C's?

Do T&C's over rule Legislation?

 

Bod.

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, M_JG said:

 

Long shot - is there likely to be any form of CCTV at the site?? (not being familiar with that bit of the system)

I was just wondering if there were no witnesses, CCTV would be better.

[magnetman]

11 minutes ago, junior said:

How on earth do you manage to get into this situation when presumably he is on the bank or the bridge, and you are on a boat floating on water?

 

You say you were responding to his abuse first, but surely if you're on your boat you just shout a bit of abuse back and go on your merry way - whilst making a complaint to CRT by email later that you were abused by one of their employees. 

 

This seems to be the obvious question. Things can get out of hand. 

 

 

[churchward]

4 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I was just wondering if there were no witnesses, CCTV would be better.

On the Sharpness Canal, they do use cameras on at least some of the manned bridge approaches but I do not know if they are on all of them or if they are recorded rather than just a live monitor. Depending on where the incident was there could easily be no one else around as witnesses.

 

There are cameras at Saul Junction for instance monitored at the bridge station as they are looking for people approaching from 3 directions.

 

 

 

[Orwellian]

13 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I was just wondering if there were no witnesses, CCTV would be better.

 

44436-body-worn-cameras-on-towpaths.pdf

[Jerra]

9 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

 

44436-body-worn-cameras-on-towpaths.pdf 293.43 kB · 1 download

Assuming a) the cameras have been issued to lockkeepers and b) the lockkeeper had the camera on and hasn't lost/wiped/corrupted it CRT should have no problem seeing what happened.

 

Personally, if I was assaulted and didn't get physical first I would have called the police there and then.

[Markblox]

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

Assuming a) the cameras have been issued to lockkeepers and b) the lockkeeper had the camera on and hasn't lost/wiped/corrupted it CRT should have no problem seeing what happened.

 

Personally, if I was assaulted and didn't get physical first I would have called the police there and then.

It was a bridge keeper but I would welcome that because although I have given scant details as to what happened, partly because that is not the point of the post, every detail I have given is true.  As I said at the beginning, it was six of one and half a dozen of the other and I'm not the type of person to go running to the police when it's a 50/50.  Either there is evidence to corroborate what I have said or there is no evidence, but I will not respond to any more of these posts which tbh are simply speculation on what isn't the subject matter of the post. Sorry.

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, Markblox said:

It was a bridge keeper but I would welcome that because although I have given scant details as to what happened, partly because that is not the point of the post, every detail I have given is true.  As I said at the beginning, it was six of one and half a dozen of the other and I'm not the type of person to go running to the police when it's a 50/50.  Either there is evidence to corroborate what I have said or there is no evidence, but I will not respond to any more of these posts which tbh are simply speculation on what isn't the subject matter of the post. Sorry.

IMO unless you were daft enough to use violence against violence it isn't running to the police it is using the law of the land against uncivilised behaviour.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Markblox said:

It was a bridge keeper but I would welcome that because although I have given scant details as to what happened, partly because that is not the point of the post, every detail I have given is true.  As I said at the beginning, it was six of one and half a dozen of the other and I'm not the type of person to go running to the police when it's a 50/50.  Either there is evidence to corroborate what I have said or there is no evidence, but I will not respond to any more of these posts which tbh are simply speculation on what isn't the subject matter of the post. Sorry.

 

It might not be the 'subject matter' of what you wish the focus of the thread to be but it's relevant.

 

You would be on much stronger ground if after being assaulted in the first instance as you are claiming, you at least  reported it to the non police emergency line immediately. And not then responding 'in kind'.

Edited November 11, 2023 by M_JG

[Markblox]

4 minutes ago, Jerra said:

IMO unless you were daft enough to use violence against violence it isn't running to the police it is using the law of the land against uncivilised behaviour.

IMO it's called self defence.