Incident with bridge keeper-Licence suspended

[Iain_S]

2 hours ago, Markblox said:

(snip)

My questions to you:

1) Can I move the boat to get food, water gas, diesel black tank etc, possibly under the ECHR article 8 because I don't intend to die of thirst, starvation or hypothermia?

 2) In the event of having my licence revoked, what would be the timeline of them getting a court order and what might it cost me?

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

I want to avoid EA waterways until the spring.

I intend buying a house and selling the boat in two years time, when I receive my state pension and I can't wait!

4) Do the CRT exchange info with the EA?

(my bold)

 

1) According to the licence T&Cs, no. (Although I would hope CaRT would be reasonable if you told them you needed to go to a water point or fuel supplier, before returning to where you are moored. )

 

2) Minimum of 28 days from a notice being attached to the boat and probably (a lot) longer. However, the time to take action, if you feel that is a real possibility, is NOW, to take legal advice and be ready to apply for judicial review of the revocation as soon as it occurs. If it gets to court on a Section 8 (assuming CaRT adopt their usual course of obtaining a court order), it's too late: there is no licence in force, and the case is open and shut. There are several precedents for this.

 

3) After receiving the Section 8 notice, you have the 28 days to leave CaRT waters.

 

4) No idea, but I'd assume they would if asked. CaRT reserve the right to pass on personal information to anyone who has reason to require it, and I'd assume the EA do likewise.

 

Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 would only come into play if the licence is revoked. Section 13 of the 1971 Act, although always quoted along with Section 8 of the 1973 Act, has no additional effect.. It applies to "houseboats", as defined in the 1971 Act.

[LadyG]

9 hours ago, nicknorman said:

I would say this is one of the worst threads in recent times. So many people so desperate to pitch in their tuppence worth of judgement. It’s quite sad, though unfortunately not at all unexpected.

I think OP has shown plenty of attitude on here, and admitted to aggression towards CRT staff which resulted in reaction from CRT, what else would any responsible employer do?

If OP wants to remain on the CRT waterways, and live on board in a civilised manner he would be best advised to behave in a responsible manner, and absolutely avoid any action which will provoke further action from CRT.

OP is asking random people on a forum for their opinions.

The general advice is that he has probably contravened Ts and Cs.

I don't see this as being particularly judgemental. Boaters should take this as a warning that they should not assault staff, whether verbally or physically. There will likely be consequences.

 

16 hours ago, nicknorman said:

The OP came on here asking for advice about his current situation. I doubt he came on here so a bunch of sad old people could have an opportunity to say “Oooh, you shouldn’t have done that” to make themselves feel briefly superior.

The reason people pointed out his earlier transgressions is that his case looks weak, so that continuing to argue, if that is his strategy is going to make situation worse.

 

Edited November 12, 2023 by LadyG

[nicknorman]

9 hours ago, Orwellian said:

I think you are overlooking sec 43 of the Transport Act 1962 which gave BWB (and by statutory transfer) CRT the right to make charges and apply terms & conditions to the use of vessels on their waterways. This provision was not repealed by the 1995 Act which therefore only added aditional provisions to the issuing a boat licences rather than replacing those made in previous acts of parliament.

Ah yes the much vaunted 1962 act s. 43, which according to CRT gives them powers to do whatever they like, and meaning that all the thousands of hours of government and parliamentary time taken up created subsequent BW acts was completely pointless. Let’s have a look at what it actually says:

 

3)Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the [F5British Waterways Board [F6and Canal & River Trust] F7...] shall [F8each] have power to demand, take and recover [F9or waive] such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit.

 

The key words that this section applies to are “Services and facilities”. However a licence is neither a service nor a facility, it is a statutory right assuming the conditions are met. It does for example allow CRT to attach conditions and charges to eg the use of a water point or elsan. It might stretch to the use of a lock. But it certainly doesn’t encompass the licensing process which arises out of statute and is not a service or facility. 
 

It simply doesn’t make sense to say that a licence falls under this clause because as you know, subsequent to this Act there were several other Acts that related to the licensing process. If CRT always (since 1962) had Carte Blanche to create whatever terms and conditions they like for a licence, why on earth was so much time wasted on subsequent Acts? That position is completely irrational.

[Orwellian]

6 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

The key words that this section applies to are “Services and facilities”. However a licence is neither a service nor a facility, it is a statutory right assuming the conditions are met. It does for example allow CRT to attach conditions and charges to eg the use of a water point or elsan. It might stretch to the use of a lock. But it certainly doesn’t encompass the licensing process which arises out of statute and is not a service or facility. 

If you had read the whole of sec 43 a little further you would have come across the following -

 

"(8) The services and facilities referred to in subsection (3) of this section include, in the case of the British Waterways Board [F17and Canal & River Trust], the use of any inland waterway owned or managed by them by any ship or boat."

 

Is that clear enough for you?

 

 

[magnetman]

It is an interesting one. 

 

The CRT can control your -use- of the waterways it manages so even if you were licensed they could effectively stop you using the waterways if you break their t&c.

 

Hmmm. 

 

 

 

 

This does seem to render subsequent legislation a little pointless ! 

Edited November 12, 2023 by magnetman

[Peanut]

13 hours ago, Sue68 said:

I assume you aren't a member of Nabo or Rboa which is a pity as they could help you. They may support you if you were to join. As I'm no longer involved with either, I don't know what their stance is. I do know that when I was involved, we supported our members and often just acting as a mediator solved the problem.

Excellent advice given by Sue68, I would strongly advise the OP to take it.

 

https://nabo.org.uk/

https://www.rboa.org.uk/

 

I thought this kind of stuff belonged on Thor's-boat place.

Edited November 12, 2023 by Peanut

[StevieN]

10 hours ago, nicknorman said:

I would say this is one of the worst threads in recent times. So many people so desperate to pitch in their tuppence worth of judgement. It’s quite sad, though unfortunately not at all unexpected.

 

As a relative 'newbie' round here, although a long term hirer so not exactly green behind the ears when it comes to boating, I can say that this appears common practice when someone asks for advice on forums (Facebook groups being a particular hotbed of disinformation and derision,) - people jump on the OP, offer their own opinions without all the relevant details and generally offer no help whatsoever.

Just like being in a group down the pub, there's always one who thinks he knows it all and likes the sound of his own voice!

 

There's a wealth of knowledge here buried deep amongst the apathy, if only some realised how helpful they could be to the boating community. 

It's why people like me are afraid to ask questions in fear of the back lash you'd get from the "I know more than you" brigade and who make it known at every given opportunity.

[blackrose]

19 hours ago, Markblox said:

I had an altercation with a bridge keeper recently, one where I received abuse, sent some back and moored up to ask why etc and then was assaulted and defended myself.  It was six of one and half a dozen of the other TBH.  That's all the details that are needed 

 

How on earth does one manage to get into a fight with a G&S bridge keeper? If someone was shouting abuse at me as I was travelling along on my boat I may or may not shout some back depending on the circumstances, but what I certainly would not do is moor up to "sort it out". That's a clear and unnecessary escalation and I'm glad they've revoked your licence as I think everyone is safer.

[Stroudwater1]

In fairness to the Op I’ve seen on YouTube heard first hand and there’s postings from June on here which mentions the attitude of a bridgekeeper on here, three reported being shouted at , another telling off. All regular posters on here. 
 

I’m not condoning the OP but it seems that the bridgekeeper involved has something to answer I’m afraid. If the keeper had waved pleasantly and explained the protocol and reasons for it  properly then none of this would have happened. 

In fairness to the bridgekeeper they’ve been messed about for a long time. The days of permanent staffed bridges with keepers living in all the cottages have long gone but it must be upsetting to see it disappear to not even opening on a day a week quite possibly with poorly managed consultations. 
 

Im not sadly surprised this had happened and to scapegoat the OP and denying a cc  right to move when shops and toilet facilities are sparse seems a recipe for more discontent.

 

This situation needs proper mediation by CRT and support and not email threats and deprivation of basic needs. 


 

 

[magnetman]

Even if you have no licence you can still move the boat in order to get it off CRT water. There is a 28 day time frame. 

 

I don't believe that the CRT can impound a boat without giving any prior notice. 

 

I'd just carry on as usual for now. 

 

 

 

Of course if there is a bigger picture and a cc2 or something has been applied then it may be different. 

 

 

[nicknorman]

48 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

If you had read the whole of sec 43 a little further you would have come across the following -

 

"(8) The services and facilities referred to in subsection (3) of this section include, in the case of the British Waterways Board [F17and Canal & River Trust], the use of any inland waterway owned or managed by them by any ship or boat."

 

Is that clear enough for you?

 

 

Yes it is quite clear. CRT can set terms and conditions regarding the use of waterways. For example, they can close waterways for maintenance, they can set opening times for the likes of Watford, Foxton, Anderson lift, Harecastle tunnel etc. But none of that has anything to do the licensing process which is created and enshrined in a separate and later Act.

And I would question whether this clause allows for user specific “use permissions” such as “you, you and you can navigate on the canal, but you other chap can’t because we don’t like you”. I think that would certainly have to be challenged in court, but in general the law does not like to assign the power of judge and jury to a non-judicial body, much less a private company like CRT.

6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Even if you have no licence you can still move the boat in order to get it off CRT water. There is a 28 day time frame. 

 

I don't believe that the CRT can impound a boat without giving any prior notice. 

 

I'd just carry on as usual for now. 

 

 

 

Of course if there is a bigger picture and a cc2 or something has been applied then it may be different. 

 

 

I see a problem in that having told the OP he can’t move his boat, they can then revoke his licence for not moving his boat enough. Sounds unreasonable, and it is, but I wouldn’t put it past them.

[magnetman]

Yes but have they told him he can't move the boat or have they just suspended the licence? 

 

These are two different things. 

 

No licence does not mean boat can't be moved in fact rather the opposite ! 

 

If the CRT are able to tell someone they are not allowed to move while insisting the boat is moved orf their water it seems a bit of a silly situation. 

 

 

[Stroudwater1]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Even if you have no licence you can still move the boat in order to get it off CRT water. There is a 28 day time frame. 

 

I don't believe that the CRT can impound a boat without giving any prior notice. 

 

I'd just carry on as usual for now. 

 

 

 

Of course if there is a bigger picture and a cc2 or something has been applied then it may be different. 

 

 

Except the OP can’t as the Severn is about to be in flood, they may encounter the bridge keeper once more and the lock keepers at Gloucester Upper Lode and Tewkesbury will probably have heard the other side of the story. 
 

Besides the OP clearly states the notice  left on the OP mooring pin says they can’t move. Even if they did there’s bridges that would have to be opened by bridge-keepers. You can’t really get anywhere on the G&S without bridges needing opening by keepers. 
 

 

[magnetman]

Ah OK. Thanks for that. Lack of local knowledge on my part. 

 

 

Seems like a bad place to get on the wrong side of the keepers. 

 

Always wise to be on good terms which is why I am on good terms with every Thames lock keeper and have never had cause for the slightest complaint in 30 yars of boating on the River. 

 

Even if someone shouts at you (never happened to me) you can just think of them as having a bad hair day and carry on with your boating. 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, StevieN said:

 

As a relative 'newbie' round here, although a long term hirer so not exactly green behind the ears when it comes to boating, I can say that this appears common practice when someone asks for advice on forums (Facebook groups being a particular hotbed of disinformation and derision,) - people jump on the OP, offer their own opinions without all the relevant details and generally offer no help whatsoever.

Just like being in a group down the pub, there's always one who thinks he knows it all and likes the sound of his own voice!

 

There's a wealth of knowledge here buried deep amongst the apathy, if only some realised how helpful they could be to the boating community. 

It's why people like me are afraid to ask questions in fear of the back lash you'd get from the "I know more than you" brigade and who make it known at every given opportunity.

 

Well then perhaps Facebook groups, the pub and this forum and indeed others have one thing in common. They facilitate a discussion. Of course you may not like the way the discussion goes but it seems to me that is pretty well normal.

 

If you don't like that then perhaps join somewhere highly prescriptive that is heavily moderated where mods clamp down hard on anything thar remotely strays off topic. That said most of what has been posted is within the realms of the topic title. The OP attempted to stipulate the responses remained within specific areas which rarely goes down well especially when you appear to be withholding certain information.

 

As for people who know stuff, well yes that is just a fact there are lots of people on here who do know lots of stuff, that is simply how it is. Quite often they do know better.

[Orwellian]

41 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

And I would question whether this clause allows for user specific “use permissions” such as “you, you and you can navigate on the canal, but you other chap can’t because we don’t like you”.

Now your being silly.

[The Grey Goose]

Hmm slightly rude response after requesting advice , maybe a look in the mirror will find some answers.

[Captain Pegg]

I consider my licence agreement with CRT to be a contract. There is no statute that compelled me to apply for it and none that requires CRT to explicitly offer me a licence. Just some over-arching provision that in the event I request one and can satisfy three conditions they have no ability to refuse me a licence.

[magnetman]

Maybe the OP is not satisfying the board. 

[Peanut]

Having regard to the suggestion that the Canal and River Trust, CRT, have been acting in ultra vires, I do not know how many boats have been affected, yet in all the time, nobody has challenged CRT on appeal.  Were there to be a clear case in law, then I would expect someone to have done so, you might, after all, lose your home.

There are plenty of lawyers who would like a good tussle, charities who support the downtrodden and oppressed, and left wing chambers who might pick the case up, yet no one has done so.  Maybe it is not so clear-cut, and their action is lawful, or have the chances of success been so compromised by the circumstances leading up to their action, that the chance of successes would be in doubt?

[nb Innisfree]

A certain boater told me that he was in dispute with BW or C&RT, can't remember which, over a sum of money they claimed he owed them, so they took it out of his paid licence fee and then claimed he wasn't licenced, this added weight behind their attempts to seize his boat. 

 

Canal & River Slippery Trust. 

[Iain_S]

3 hours ago, nicknorman said:

Ah yes the much vaunted 1962 act s. 43, which according to CRT gives them powers to do whatever they like, and meaning that all the thousands of hours of government and parliamentary time taken up created subsequent BW acts was completely pointless. Let’s have a look at what it actually says:

 

3)Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the [F5British Waterways Board [F6and Canal & River Trust] F7...] shall [F8each] have power to demand, take and recover [F9or waive] such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit.

 

The key words that this section applies to are “Services and facilities”. However a licence is neither a service nor a facility, it is a statutory right assuming the conditions are met. It does for example allow CRT to attach conditions and charges to eg the use of a water point or elsan. It might stretch to the use of a lock. But it certainly doesn’t encompass the licensing process which arises out of statute and is not a service or facility. 
 

It simply doesn’t make sense to say that a licence falls under this clause because as you know, subsequent to this Act there were several other Acts that related to the licensing process. If CRT always (since 1962) had Carte Blanche to create whatever terms and conditions they like for a licence, why on earth was so much time wasted on subsequent Acts? That position is completely irrational.

You neglect S43(8)

Quote

The services and facilities referred to in subsection (3) of this section include, in the case of the British Waterways Board [F17and Canal & River Trust], the use of any inland waterway owned or managed by them by any ship or boat.

You also neglect S43(2), which provides that British Waterways cannot charge for a service which was previously free, although where charges had been limited, the limits were removed. Several Canal Acts allowed pleasure boats on their canals without charge. 

Quote

Paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection shall not be read as exempting the [F1British Waterways Board [F4or Canal & River Trust] F3...] from any local enactment so far as it expressly provides for freedom from charges or otherwise prohibits the making of any charge.

 

Edited November 12, 2023 by Iain_S

[magnetman]

Its a bit mad that the Cabal and River Trust is ruled by a law which was passed 62 yars ago. 

[kris88]

9 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Its a bit mad that the Cabal and River Trust is ruled by a law which was passed 62 yars ago. 

Not really. 

[MtB]

14 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Its a bit mad that the Cabal and River Trust is ruled by a law which was passed 62 yars ago. 

 

Great typo!