Jump to content

Incident with bridge keeper-Licence suspended


Markblox

Featured Posts

2 hours ago, nicknorman said:

(snip)

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.

If CaRT revoked the OP's licence for that reason, it would certainly be grounds for judicial review. While moored, he is acting according to CaRT's terms and conditions where a licence is suspended.

Quote

12.3. If You repeatedly breach these Conditions, fail to pay for the Licence or We reasonably believe that there is serious risk to people's health and safety, or of damage to any property or pollution, We may do one of the following: 12.3.1. immediately suspend Your Licence. We will investigate to decide whether the breach can be put right. Whilst Your Licence is suspended You may not use the Boat to navigate on Our Waterways. The Boat must remain moored where We tell You whilst We investigate. We will tell You when and if the Boat can leave this mooring location.        

(my bold)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 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. 

Why?, there are far older laws and acts of Parliament still in effect.

Nothing has really changed on or with the canals, locks still work the same way, the boats are still the same (long and thin), and none of the major problems with the canals that are frequently discussed on this forum (e.g. maintenance, unplanned closures, length and numbers of closures, continuous moored etc) would be solved by a change in the law governing the canals.

The issues all come down to a lack of funding for the canals and/or issues away from the canals (eg shortage of affordable housing)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours 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. 

The law is more complex than that, your intent and what you thought was happening or going to happen comes in to it.

If you discover some has broken in and attack them as they try to get away then it's hard to claim self defense.

If you go down stairs because you heard a noise, you are not automatically going to be in trouble if it ends in  physical confrontation, the act of going down stairs in your own house can not be seen as aggressive, it depends what happens once you confront them. 

Even if you "throw the first punch" you can still claim self defense if you can demonstrate that you genuinely believed yourself to be at risk.

The law is complex and there are rarely black and white or simple yes/no answers to things like this.

32 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

 

Edited by Barneyp
  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

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.

??? Of course there is a statute compelling you to obtain a licence before putting a boat on CRT waters, and the same statute requires CRT to issue the licence when requested (and paid for) if the 3 required conditions in the statute are met.

3 hours ago, Orwellian said:

Now your being silly.

With that being your bestest and most rational response, I think we can see the extent of your knowledge and capabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nicknorman said:

??? Of course there is a statute compelling you to obtain a licence before putting a boat on CRT waters, and the same statute requires CRT to issue the licence when requested (and paid for) if the 3 required conditions in the statute are met.

 

My point was more that the statute law isn't aimed at the level of the specific individual parties to a licence agreement, it's a generic thing designed to set out CRT powers and obligations.

 

I don't see why you think the presence of the statute prevents the formation of a contract below it. The statute doesn't directly apply to me. It just sets out CRT adminstration obligations should I choose to enter into a contract to put my boat on CRT waters.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I'm sure initial licence applications have to be signed. Maybe I am confusing this with Thames registrations. 

 

Looks pretty similar to a contract to me as a lay(about)man. 

 

 

I didn't have to sign my first licence, although I don't think an old fashioned pen on paper signature (or even a "digital" signature) is required to create a contract.

Just because it looks like a contract doesn't mean it is.

I have no idea if the T&C's form a contract, or are legally enforceable,  if they aren't then CRT should ask the government to approve making them Byelaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

I didn't have to sign my first licence, although I don't think an old fashioned pen on paper signature (or even a "digital" signature) is required to create a contract.

Just because it looks like a contract doesn't mean it is.

I have no idea if the T&C's form a contract, or are legally enforceable,  if they aren't then CRT should ask the government to approve making them Byelaws.

 

 

Byelaws are not really much use because the CRT for some reason do not enforce them. 

 

I don't know if anyone knows for sure why this is.

It has been pointed out that a lot of hassle could be avoided were the CRT to enforce or indeed apply for byelaws but this doesn't happen. 

 

Apparently they BW byelaws were transferred to the CRT but they never get enforced. 

 

There will be some conspiracy theories around this I think. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

I didn't have to sign my first licence, although I don't think an old fashioned pen on paper signature (or even a "digital" signature) is required to create a contract.

Just because it looks like a contract doesn't mean it is.

I have no idea if the T&C's form a contract, or are legally enforceable,  if they aren't then CRT should ask the government to approve making them Byelaws.

 

I expressly remember having to tick a box on the screen when I applied for my first licence on the boat I bought five or six years ago, to confirm I had read and agreed to abide by the T&Cs.

 

Out of curiosity I tried leaving it un-ticked and the website would not issue the licence. I could not find a way to get my licence without ticking the box, other than by going off-piste, joining the Awkward Squad and possibly going legal. 

 

I"ve never been asked to tick a box since so I suspect you are right and one signature on the initial licence application is all CRT ask for. I suspect the transfer of an existing licence with a boat sale was stopped in order to get that signature or check-box tick. 

 

 

Edited by MtB
Clarify a point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I don't know if anyone knows for sure why this is.

 

 

 

Because a Judge (incorrectly) told them it wasn't worth it !

 

Note who the discussion was regarding .....................................

 

 

I response to a question as to why C&RT do not use the byelaws :

 

Nigel Moore 8/2/20

 

It was HH Judge Denyer QC in the judgment against George Ward of 20 December 2012 on the Bristol County Court :-

 

Other than the removal of the boat the only sanction provided for in the legislation in respect of a contravention of the Rules by a person such as the Claimant is that of a derisory fine.  I think it has now reached the sum of £50.  If they are not entitled to take these steps i.e. removal of the boat from the river they are in truth substantially powerless to enforce the obligations of those who use the waterways.  I do not regard the ability to take debt recovery proceedings as being a sufficient alternative remedy.  Aside from anything else they would face problems of enforcement.  No doubt if they did obtain a money judgment the judgment debtor would seek to or could seek to pay at some derisory sum per week or per month.”

 

He overlooked, of course, the fact that the same would apply to any County Court judgment as to costs etc, and also that the seizure of the boat even if leading to a sale could never be used to pay off the debt, because the relevant statute specifically bars that. They can only (legally) retain from the profits of a boat sale, the costs of seizing, storing and selling it. However it may be that this judge (and others) was misled into believing that BW could use possession of the seized boat as a lien on monies owed to them. This was pre-Ravenscroft after all.

 

He was mistaken as to the level of fine which is £100 (plus, of course, costs, and nowadays ‘victim surcharges’). He was also off the mark about “problems of enforcement”. Having obtained a court order for fines and costs and charges, the collection could be left to court bailiffs, or payment could be sought for from central funds as respects costs at least. The judge also seems to be confusing pursuit of money judgments with prosecutions (pursuit of merely a money claim being a third option NOT, as the 1983 Act provides, preclusive of parallel criminal action.

 

If the convicted boater proved evasive and in breach of a court order, then a warrant for their arrest could be issued, and once caught they could be sent to prison for contempt of court. There is nothing “derisory” about such implications as attached to the prosecution process. If this judge was correct, then the EA could be considered “powerless to enforce the obligations of those who use” - their – waterways” – and clearly, that is very far from the truth.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • RichM featured this topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.