Nbta's Nick Brown Finally Is Granted Permission For A Judicial Review

[Grace and Favour]

Can you still get a Missionary Position in Yorkshire?

Aye - but in my (unfortunate?) experience - as soon as 'one' has discovered a likely candidate, and 'one' looks forward to taking up the position, 'they' start reading passages from the Bible at 'one' !!!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Well that's exactly my point - if Nick Brown wins, CRT could then have grounds for a new Act.

When Parliament was considering the creation of the trust, some, including myself provided written evidence to various committees.

 

Whilst I took up funding issues, NBTA warned Parliament that BW were threatening boaters with homelessness and had draconian bye-laws 'waiting in the wings' which would be introduced if they became a charity.

 

NBTA have made it very difficult for CaRT to introduce any new legislation regarding boaters particularly anything that would result in homelessness or financial penalties.

 

[magpie patrick]

When Parliament was considering the creation of the trust, some, including myself provided written evidence to various committees.

 

Whilst I took up funding issues, NBTA warned Parliament that BW were threatening boaters with homelessness and had draconian bye-laws 'waiting in the wings' which would be introduced if they became a charity.

 

NBTA have made it very difficult for CaRT to introduce any new legislation regarding boaters particularly anything that would result in homelessness or financial penalties.

 

 

[sigh] No they haven't. They have made their view known to Parliament, it doesn't mean that view carries any weight.

 

Heaven help us when the day comes that simply providing evidence to Parliament means parliamentary judgement is fettered.

[LoneWolf]

 

They are allowed to charge for "services".

 

I would suggest that if they make every effort to provide a sufficient range of "off-the-shelf" packages that they accept will comply, then a one-off fee to register a new pattern would be proportionate (I would envisage that such newly agreed patterns would be usable by others, so it would be open to Mr Brown and his pals to agree something with CRT that would then be available to all.

 

humm...i think you're on thin ice there with the definition of services - do you have a link to that bit of Legislation?

 

Nice try with the complicated and highly impractical scheme but boaters do this anyway. We either have a mooring or we tick the box to say we intend to follow the requirements for boaters with no home mooring. If our interpretation of that differs from CART's then we discuss it at a local level (with the mooring warden) and, if agreement is not reached, via the CC process which ends in court.

 

 

 

They decided to leave it up to BW to decide so CRT have the power to decide a limit if they choose

 

Did they? So BW wanted the exception to have a home mooring did they?

Or did they want all boats to have a home mooring and the exception to this was inserted when the bill was before the Lords after lobbying by boating groups who pointed out the existence of boaters with no want or need of a home mooring?

 

I wonder...still i cant be bothered to check my facts so i'll just post it anyway

 

 

I would agree that "used bona fide for navigation" is the primary requirement. The "Without Remaining" isn't a definition of "bona fide navigation", rather it is an addition to it.

 

 

agreed, I'd read it as "used bona fide for navigation [and not] remaining in the same place...

 

Well that's exactly my point - if Nick Brown wins, CRT could then have grounds for a new Act.

 

.He wont though.

[BEngo]

I reckon there is absolutely diddly squat chance of any new legislation for CART. I don't know what sort of Bill they would need because I'm not a parliamentary expert but there are 4 sorts: Government Bills, Private Bills, Private Members Bills and Hybrid Bills.

 

Government Bills normally get announced in the Queens Speech, go through with a whip or three and are 'guaranteed' to pass. CART asked DEFRA and DCLG if they could have something to clarify their powers put in the Bill that enabled the transfer from BW to CART and were firmly told to go away and shut up. There wasn't the Parliamentary time and the Government didn't want to go there on principle because it would open a political can of worms.

 

Private Bills are brought to Parliament by outside entities (individuals, companies etc). There are no whips on a Private Bill. They are subject to serious delays and ambushes on the way and at the mercy of parliamentary diversionary tactics and amendments. BW's 1995 Act was a Private Bill: It took years to get through and was badly mauled on the way. DEFRA told BW that never again would they be allowed to bring in a Private Bill. If CART tried I think DEFRA would warn them off, but if not (or if they ignored DEFRA) the same activities as mauled the BW Bill will come back into play. CART know this.

 

Private Members Bills require Government support to become law and there are very few which make it to Royal Assent. There are just too many ways to make one run out of time even if you can find an MP who both wants to sponsor a bill for you and wins a place very near the top of the ballot for the order in which they are debated.

 

Hybrid Bills are a cross between a Private Bill and a Government Bill. They are not quite as easy to divert as a Private Bill and require Government (DEFRA) commitment but can still be delayed ambushed and diverted. See also Government Bill thoughts above.

 

Again, CART know all of this. The Trustees do seem to want progress, perhaps because improved clarity will ease relationships with Local Authorities (who have to rehouse any homeless people arising from CART actions) and may make LA's easier to tap for income streams, perhaps also because the groundswell of noise from some organisations and some boaters is becoming louder. Perhaps even because they have been told by the executives that 'Something needs to be done'. That means they will have to define the law through the courts.

 

Expect to see more cases. Expect to see the guidance being 'updated' and 'reviewed' in the light of each case.

 

 

N

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

 

You miss my point. It could be 3" or 1000 miles. It is whatever CRT SAY it is. It' within their gift to decide when 'the board is satisfied'.

 

MtB

Sally Ash has stated it is not in their (CRT's) powers to tell a boater how far to move on.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

So given that my intent is eventually to travel to the Shropshire union and I am moving every 14 days how long would you allow me to remain on the Macclesfield canal Dave?

Fortunately we don't need to move on Dave's say so.

I'm already back on the shroppie. Having been on the peak forest canal, through Manchester, along the Bridgwater down to Middlewich and then to audlem.

And I've done it before Dave can make the decision on how far I should move.

 

My crime, is possibly returning to a mooring.

 

Glenn

 

But what a wonderful idea: take 5years to travel the macc.

[mayalld]

[quote name="Goliath" post="1113385" timestamp="

But what a wonderful idea: take 5years to travel the macc.

 

It looks like somebody is trying it.

 

The boat that has been on the nearby 48 hour moorings for 2 months pales into insignificance when compared to the boat that has been on the 24 hour moorings for 5 months

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

It looks like somebody is trying it.

 

The boat that has been on the nearby 48 hour moorings for 2 months pales into insignificance when compared to the boat that has been on the 24 hour moorings for 5 months

That's someone who takes their religion very seriously.

 

Glenn

[mayalld]

 

He'd be OK, he's known to be distasteful

 

Richard

He's right you know

[Tuscan]

It looks like somebody is trying it.

The boat that has been on the nearby 48 hour moorings for 2 months pales into insignificance when compared to the boat that has been on the 24 hour moorings for 5 months

 

No change in the law or guidance is going to address problems like these, nor the introduction of charges or no return rules. I assume they are either in the enforcement process or allowed to remain for a specific reason. For example the boat on a VM that I know is there with CRTs permission as they have just had a baby (they are also paying).

[carlt]

....as they have just had a baby (they are also paying).

...and will be doing so for the next twenty odd years.

[Lady Muck]

That's someone who takes their religion very seriously.

 

Glenn

A fundie, even.

[alan_fincher]

...and will be doing so for the next twenty odd years.

 

Only twenty?

 

I wish!

[Doodlebug]

On the subject of whether a county court judgement is then relevant to the whole country, I thought I would try and clarify this

 

(My father is a barrister)

 

When the law is unclear, and says something like 'reasonable' they then look to previous cases to work out what 'reasonable' means.

 

If for instance the judge rules that you must move every X number of days and have to move X number of miles, then in the future if C&RT were to try and take you to court, you would be able to quote the judges ruling on nicks case, and would win on that basis.

 

So although it doesn't become the law, C&RT would change their own internal rules, and would not take anyone to court.

 

You would be quoting 'Brown V C&RT' rather than the legal verse.

 

Don't know if that makes any sense, but thought I should add my 2p worth. (And I agree with those who say they just want the law to be clarified not changed)

[MtB]

Geeenie for Doodlebug. Very helpful insight, thanks!

 

MtB

[MtB]

Sally Ash has stated it is not in their (CRT's) powers to tell a boater how far to move on.

 

But is IS within their (CRT's) powers to say when 'the board is satisfied'.

 

Or do you know otherwise?

 

 

MtB

[Ange]

On the subject of whether a county court judgement is then relevant to the whole country, I thought I would try and clarify this

 

(My father is a barrister)

 

When the law is unclear, and says something like 'reasonable' they then look to previous cases to work out what 'reasonable' means.

 

If for instance the judge rules that you must move every X number of days and have to move X number of miles, then in the future if C&RT were to try and take you to court, you would be able to quote the judges ruling on nicks case, and would win on that basis.

 

So although it doesn't become the law, C&RT would change their own internal rules, and would not take anyone to court.

 

You would be quoting 'Brown V C&RT' rather than the legal verse.

 

Don't know if that makes any sense, but thought I should add my 2p worth. (And I agree with those who say they just want the law to be clarified not changed)

From my very rudimentary law exams that's the law of precedent. If I remember correctly only the higher courts have precedent over the lower courts - so if a judge rules in favour of Brown or CRT in a lower court it means nothing for the future.

 

So yes, correct, but the hierarchy of the court is very important.

 

If I'm wrong I'm happy to wear lots of egg on my face because it's a long time since I sat those exams and it's too late and I can't be arsed to check my facts

[Jerra]

 

But is IS within their (CRT's) powers to say when 'the board is satisfied'.

Perhaps she means they can never get the board to agree (a bit like some debates on here).

 

[pearlygeoff]

This endless, and tedious, debate only serves to give CRT/BW the impression that their dictatorial rules actually have some validity. They don't.

 

What it actually demonstrates is that the 1995 Act is ambiguous and therefore can be successfully challenged as a challenge to a Private Act, if reasonable, must be decided in favour of the challenger.

 

It's, also, being misused for commercial gain which would constitute a successful challenge.

 

Why do you a treat these people as a valid authority when they are, clearly, a 'bunch of crooks'?

[carlt]

 

Why do you a treat these people as a valid authority when they are, clearly, a 'bunch of crooks'?

Because, whatever you may think about them, they are the enforcing authority so, if at all possible, it is better to work with them than against them.

[magpie patrick]

This endless, and tedious, debate only serves to give CRT/BW the impression that their dictatorial rules actually have some validity. They don't.

 

What it actually demonstrates is that the 1995 Act is ambiguous and therefore can be successfully challenged as a challenge to a Private Act, if reasonable, must be decided in favour of the challenger.

 

It's, also, being misused for commercial gain which would constitute a successful challenge.

 

Why do you a treat these people as a valid authority when they are, clearly, a 'bunch of crooks'?

 

I'm having to say the serenity prayer a little too often.

 

The term navigation authority includes the word "Authority"

 

The law is that to have no home mooring you must "satisfy the board".

 

The only point that reasonableness comes into it is what will satisfy the board. Is the board "being reasonable", is their assertion that an identified cruising pattern is not acceptable a reasonable one?

 

CRT's "guidelines" (not draconian "Rules") have validity, they are not invalid even if there are circumstances when they may be inappropriate. it's just that some people don't like what they say.

[LoneWolf]

 

But is IS within their (CRT's) powers to say when 'the board is satisfied'.

 

Or do you know otherwise?

 

 

MtB

 

But it is not within their powers decide what "bona fide navigation" is

 

They can (and do) give guidance on their interpretation of the law but that's all it is, their view, which can be challenged

[magpie patrick]

 

But it is not within their powers decide what "bona fide navigation" is

 

They can (and do) give guidance on their interpretation of the law but that's all it is, their view, which can be challenged

 

I understand that, you understand that, but it's not the same as this is it

 

This endless, and tedious, debate only serves to give CRT/BW the impression that their dictatorial rules actually have some validity. They don't.

What it actually demonstrates is that the 1995 Act is ambiguous and therefore can be successfully challenged as a challenge to a Private Act, if reasonable, must be decided in favour of the challenger.

It's, also, being misused for commercial gain which would constitute a successful challenge.

Why do you a treat these people as a valid authority when they are, clearly, a 'bunch of crooks'?

[churchward]

 

But it is not within their powers decide what "bona fide navigation" is

 

They can (and do) give guidance on their interpretation of the law but that's all it is, their view, which can be challenged

You need to read the act.

 

(3)Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless—

(a)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;

(b)an insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence that it exists and is in force, has been produced to the Board; and

©either—

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances