Incident with bridge keeper-Licence suspended

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Markblox said:

OK, that's it please carry on without me or find another topic to get involved with.  Out of five pages I have had about six or seven good answers to the questions I have asked.  The rest of you are a bit sad tbh, about usual in my experience with this forum. Bye.

 

Close the door on your way out.

[junior]

7 minutes ago, Markblox said:

OK, that's it please carry on without me or find another topic to get involved with.  Out of five pages I have had about six or seven good answers to the questions I have asked.  The rest of you are a bit sad tbh, about usual in my experience with this forum. Bye.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[GUMPY]

🤭

[booke23]

8 minutes ago, Markblox said:

The rest of you are a bit sad tbh, 

 

Says the guy who decided to moor up to go and 'ave a word' with a bridge keeper, gets punched in the mouth and then gets their licence suspended by CRT so you now can't move. It makes you look like a bit of an ass. 

[Alan de Enfield]

16 minutes ago, Markblox said:

The rest of you are a bit sad tbh, about usual in my experience with this forum. Bye.

 

 

 

[nicknorman]

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.

[Arthur Marshall]

52 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Bylaws are … laws! And therefore can be enforced in a court and have consequences. Ts and Cs are a recent CRT invention and have absolutely no clout outside CRT’s inflated sense of their own ego.

From a legal website :

"T&Cs can be used to protect your business, but they are not automatically legally binding. As T&Cs are not signed and accepted in the same manner as traditional contracts, their enforceability is often misunderstood. 

For T&Cs to be deemed legally binding, they must have been accepted by customers or clients. If a customer or client did not need to accept your business’s T&Cs prior to engaging your services, then they are not bound to them.  It is vital that your T&Cs are clearly presented so no case can be made to suggest the user was not previously aware of the T&Cs. For example, if your business’s T&Cs are hidden away on a webpage that is difficult to navigate to, then users will not be expected to find it of their own accord. 

The content within the T&Cs also needs to be written in a clear, concise manner avoiding technical jargon and acronyms that your customers may not otherwise understand. Content which is deemed to be too technical will have a negative impact on its enforceability".

In other words, once you've accepted them, they are legally binding. I believe that if they are "unreasonable", you can challenge them in court. I'm not sure any of CRTs can be classified as unreasonable, including the ones about not abusing their staff (however annoying some of them are).

[nicknorman]

5 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

From a legal website :

"T&Cs can be used to protect your business, but they are not automatically legally binding. As T&Cs are not signed and accepted in the same manner as traditional contracts, their enforceability is often misunderstood. 

For T&Cs to be deemed legally binding, they must have been accepted by customers or clients. If a customer or client did not need to accept your business’s T&Cs prior to engaging your services, then they are not bound to them.  It is vital that your T&Cs are clearly presented so no case can be made to suggest the user was not previously aware of the T&Cs. For example, if your business’s T&Cs are hidden away on a webpage that is difficult to navigate to, then users will not be expected to find it of their own accord. 

The content within the T&Cs also needs to be written in a clear, concise manner avoiding technical jargon and acronyms that your customers may not otherwise understand. Content which is deemed to be too technical will have a negative impact on its enforceability".

In other words, once you've accepted them, they are legally binding. I believe that if they are "unreasonable", you can challenge them in court. I'm not sure any of CRTs can be classified as unreasonable, including the ones about not abusing their staff (however annoying some of them are).

But you miss the point. Ts and Cs apply to some contract between parties. However obtaining a canal licence is a right enshrined in statute, provided that the terms of the 1995 Act are met - which in this case as far as we know they are. A private company such as CRT cannot add their own Ts and Cs to something that is set out in law as a right.

 

It is a completely different scenario to, say, employing a company to carry out some work, or making a purchase from some supplier. Any such company or supplier can, more or less on a whim, decide not to supply you with the service or the goods. Or they can have whatever terms and conditions they like- and it is up to you to agree or walk away.

 

However CRT are required by law to issue a licence if the terms of the Act are met. That is the end of it.

Edited November 11, 2023 by nicknorman

[MtB]

56 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Note the bottom line

 

Byelaws are effectively local laws to deal with local issues. They are made by a body, such as a local authority, using powers granted by an Act of Parliament, and so are a  form of delegated legislation. Some byelaws are made by private companies or charities that exercise public or semi-public functions, such as airport operators, water companies or the National Trust
Byelaws generally require something to be done - or not done - in a particular location. As the non-observance of a byelaw result in a criminal offence tried in a Magistrates' Court, they must be approved by central government before they can come into force

 

Thanks!

 

So the next question which flows from your info is, which body made the waterways byelaws? British Waterways Board one would imagine. 

 

So can CRT also make bylaws?

 

(By the way is it "byelaw" or "bylaw"?)

 

 

[nicknorman]

Just now, MtB said:

 

Thanks!

 

So the next question which flows from your info is, which body made the waterways byelaws? British Waterways Board one would imagine. 

 

So can CRT also make bylaws?

 

(By the way is it "byelaw" or "bylaw"?)

 

 

BW made the bylaws relating to the canals, subject to being approved by parliament. As far as I know CRT have not made any new ones and they probably can’t. They also don’t attempt to enforce the existing ones, instead they smokescreen and bluster to give the impression that they can make up whatever rules they like.

One should bear in mind that BW was a quango, whereas CRT is a private company.

[ditchcrawler]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

(By the way is it "byelaw" or "bylaw"?)

 

 

I am the wrong person to ask that question 😀

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

However CRT are required by law to issue a licence if the terms of the Act are met. That is the end of it.

 

No it isn't. 

 

CRT can attach conditions to the licence if the licencee agrees to them. Which most applicants do. I certainly did when I first applied on line for a licence. I had to tick a check box agreeing to the T&Cs or no licence. 

 

Yes I could have done it the hard way, employed a solicitor to force CRT to issue a licence under the terms of the Act only, but frankly I was happy to accept the T&Cs as I considered them reasonable. So I took the path of least resistance and ticked the box and got my licence. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

However obtaining a canal licence is a right enshrined in statute, provided that the terms of the 1995 Act are met - which in this case as far as we know they are. A private company such as CRT cannot add their own Ts and Cs to something that is set out in law as a right.

 

You are absolutely correct in that C&RT cannot refuse to issue a licence if the relevant criteria are met - however, both the 1995 Act, the byleaws and the T&Cs allow for the licence to be removed if certin actions (or inactions) are taken by the boater.

You can of course immmediately re-apply for the licence and if the 1995 Act, or Bylaws, reasons for having the licenced cancelled are still evident C&RT do not need to  reissue the licence.

 

Just for example - if C&RT are not happy that you will CC as your previous records show you don't then they do not have to renew the licence.

 

 

If renewing your licence by phone, or on the internet then you are asked to agree to the T&Cs, I asked whiat happensif I don't agree and they said - easy we do not issue you with a licence.

 

By agreeing with the T&Cs you are commiting to follow them, unless they can be proven to be illegal, contravene anothers 'human rights', etc etc.

 

I don't think it unreasonable that C&RT employees should be protected against agressive behaviour.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[nicknorman]

Just now, MtB said:

 

No it isn't. 

 

CRT can attach conditions to the licence if the licencee agrees to them. Which most applicants do. I certainly did when I first applied on line for a licence. I had to tick a check box agreeing to the T&Cs or no licence. 

 

Yes I could have done it the hard way, employed a solicitor to force CRT to issue a licence under the terms of the Act only, but frankly I was happy to accept the T&Cs as I considered them reasonable. So I took the path of least resistance and ticked the box and got my licence. 

As I understand it from people much cleverer than me, one cannot attach conditions to something laid down in statute. So their attempt at applying Ts and Cs is illegal and therefore void.

No doubt it would have to go to court by as we know, CRT have never allowed it to go to court, they have always backed down beforehand (at the last minute, when the claimant has had the maximum expenditure on legal fees). And that surely tells you all you need to know.

.

[MtB]

1 minute ago, nicknorman said:

As I understand it from people much cleverer than me, one cannot attach conditions to something laid down in statute. So their attempt at applying Ts and Cs is illegal and therefore void.

No doubt it would have to go to court by as we know, CRT have never allowed it to go to court, they have always backed down beforehand (at the last minute, when the claimant has had the maximum expenditure on legal fees). And that surely tells you all you need to know.

.

 

CRT would be the claimant in any action to enforce a T&C. Claimant for damages for the breach.

 

The boater breaching the term would be the respondent. 

[nicknorman]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

You are absolutely correct in that C&RT cannot refuse to issue a licence if the relevant criteria are met - however, both the 1995 Act, the byleaws and the T&Cs allow for the licence to be removed if certin actions (or inactions) are taken by the boater.

You can of course immmediately re-apply for the licence and if the 1995 Act, or Bylaws, reasons for having the licenced cancelled are still evident C&RT do not need to  reissue the licence.

 

Just for example - if C&RT are not happy that you will CC as your previous records show you don't then they do not have to renew the licence.

You say “just for example” but that is pretty much the only example. In this case as far as we know CRT have not suggested that there is a failure to move the boat adequately - although by telling the OP not to move his boat, perhaps that is their agenda? If you have a satisfactory home mooring, insurance and a BSS there is no lawful means by which CRT can refuse or revoke a licence.

Edited November 11, 2023 by nicknorman

[nicknorman]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

CRT would be the claimant in any action to enforce a T&C. Claimant for damages for the breach.

 

The boater breaching the term would be the respondent. 

Ok fair point, but irrelevant to this thread.

Edited November 11, 2023 by nicknorman

[ditchcrawler]

2 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Ok fair point, but irrelevant to this thread.

I've read that somewhere before in this thread

[MtB]

Just now, nicknorman said:

Ok fair point, but irrelevant.

 

Hardly. You keep saying the T&Cs have no basis in law. Yes they do. 

 

You are right in that they have no effect on the licence. Ther basis they have is CRT are entitled to damages, i.e. recompense for losses or expenses incurred in enforcing a breached T&C. These could be pennies or very large sums.

[nicknorman]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

Hardly. You keep saying the T&Cs have no basis in law. Yes they do. 

 

You are right in that they have no effect on the licence. Ther basis they have is CRT are entitled to damages, i.e. recompense for losses or expenses incurred in enforcing a breached T&C. These could be pennies or very large sums.

I disagree, because any “Ts and Cs” falsely attached to a statutory process are valueless. You cannot reasonably have a private company who are responsible for enacting statutory processes, adding in their own little bits that have not been approved by parliament.

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

I disagree, because any “Ts and Cs” falsely attached to a statutory process are valueless. You cannot reasonably have a private company who are responsible for enacting statutory processes, adding in their own little bits that have not been approved by parliament.

 

Of course you can, when the boater has expressly agreed to abide by them by signing the declaration that they agree to accept the T&Cs or ticking a check box to say the same.

 

 

[Graham Davis]

Seems there is a barrack room lawyer alive and well here

 

[Orwellian]

20 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

As I understand it from people much cleverer than me, one cannot attach conditions to something laid down in statute. So their attempt at applying Ts and Cs is illegal and therefore void.

No doubt it would have to go to court by as we know, CRT have never allowed it to go to court, they have always backed down beforehand (at the last minute, when the claimant has had the maximum expenditure on legal fees). And that surely tells you all you need to know.

.

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.

[David Mack]

51 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

BW made the bylaws relating to the canals, subject to being approved by parliament. As far as I know CRT have not made any new ones and they probably can’t. They also don’t attempt to enforce the existing ones, instead they smokescreen and bluster to give the impression that they can make up whatever rules they like.

One should bear in mind that BW was a quango, whereas CRT is a private company.

But I believe the BW bylaws were transferred to CRT when it was established, so the BW bylaws still apply, and CRT have the same ability as BW to enforce them (whether or not they actually choose to do so).

[Ianws]

4 hours ago, Markblox said:

IMO it's called self defence.

Your opinion doesn't really matter, it's what the law thinks. Contrary to what some people might think as common sense, I was on a course recently and what if you had an intruder in your house while you were in bed upstairs cropped up. The answer was, if you went down and ended up assaulting them you would be in trouble because you could have stayed upstairs and kept yourself safe. It may sound bonkers but that was the advice. 

1 hour ago, Ianws said:

Your opinion doesn't really matter, it's what the law thinks. Contrary to what some people might think as common sense, I was on a course recently and what if you had an intruder in your house while you were in bed upstairs cropped up. The answer was, if you went down and ended up assaulting them you would be in trouble because you could have stayed upstairs and kept yourself safe. It may sound bonkers but that was the advice. 

Edited to add. If you were assaulted first, or under threat of assault, then it's reasonable to defend yourself proportionately to the threat, but no more than that. 

Edited November 12, 2023 by Ianws