Jump to content

CRT statement Nick BrownvCRT


jenlyn

Featured Posts

 

 

Just recieved this from Fran Read at the trust.

 

 

NICK BROWN vs CANAL & RIVER TRUST

 

Charity responds to misconceived claim for judicial review

 

The Canal & River Trust has filed in the High Court its strong response to the judicial review claim that the Trusts Guidance for Boaters Without a Home Mooring misrepresents the requirements of s.17 British Waterways Act 1995.

The Guidance, which was first issued in 2004 and has been subject to substantial consultation with boating groups through its life, helps boaters to determine whether their movement patterns comply with the law and aims to ensure that the waterways are managed fairly for everyone.

Nick Brown received permission at only the fourth attempt to take forward just one limited aspect of his claim, three previous judges having decided that he had no arguable case whatsoever.

His claims regarding (amongst other things) human rights and equality law have already been rejected.

This misconceived claim for judicial review should not mislead boaters. The Trusts Guidance for Boaters Without a Home Mooring remains valid and applicable, said Nigel Johnson, the Trusts legal director, Our response comprehensively answers each of the assertions Nick Brown makes and illustrates their flaws. The evidence submitted by the Trust explains that use for navigation is a charitable public purpose but anyone who uses the waterways for their (floating) home without continuously cruising is deriving personal benefit which is a misuse and abuse of charitable property without a fair payment in return.

The recently updated Charity Commission guidance on the issue of personal benefit makes this clear.

 

Richard Parry, chief executive at Canal & River Trust, said: We welcome people who choose to live on our waterways as they bring life and colour to the canals and rivers, provided that everyone observes the rules. Our guidance is there to help boaters comply with the law. It is regrettable that Mr Browns pursuit of his agenda through the courts means that we have to divert resources that would otherwise be used to care for the fabric of the 200-year old canals and river navigations and enhance public benefit.

 

The full Grounds of Resistance of the Trust and its accompanying evidence are available on the Trusts website:

 

ENDS

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/4434.pdf

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/4435.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst not entirely disagreeing with CRT's position surely this is the biggest load of legalese bull poo they have ever come up with...

 

The evidence submitted by the Trust explains that use for navigation is a charitable public purpose but anyone who uses the waterways for their (floating) home without continuously cruising is deriving personal benefit which is a misuse and abuse of charitable property without a fair payment in return.

 

 

Boating is now a "charitable public purpose"?

 

What a load of baloney!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst not entirely disagreeing with CRT's position surely this is the biggest load of legalese bull poo they have ever come up with...

 

 

 

Boating is now a "charitable public purpose"?

 

What a load of baloney!

I'd accept donations....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst the specialise language of legal documents is not an easy read, I did find the CRT submissions quite straighforward and cogent.

 

Part of the problem is that they are responding to a claimant that chooses not to abide by the conventions of the court! (For instance he returns to claims already dismissed and for which he does not have the court's permission to argue)

 

Once this case is dealt with, I am convinced that we will have solid guidance on what is permissible and what is not, still allowing the necessary degree of flexibility to adapt to the wide variety of circumstances what comprise our canal network.

 

The harden bit will then be to establish a style and degree of enforcement that attracts widespread (not necessarily universal) consent

 

Whilst not entirely disagreeing with CRT's position surely this is the biggest load of legalese bull poo they have ever come up with...

 

 

Boating is now a "charitable public purpose"?

 

What a load of baloney!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst the specialise language of legal documents is not an easy read, I did find the CRT submissions quite straighforward and cogent.

 

 

I understand the language of legal documents thanks.

 

The passage I quoted is not difficult to understand at all despite it being complete nonsense.

 

They attempt to differentiate boating from living aboard and by implication, suggest that people who navigate shouldn't have to pay for doing it.

 

As I said...baloney and potentially opening another can of worms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst not entirely disagreeing with CRT's position surely this is the biggest load of legalese bull poo they have ever come up with...

 

 

Boating is now a "charitable public purpose"?

 

What a load of baloney!

Legalese for "We're a charity, and we let some people use the canals for their intended purpose"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and what about the 30 odd thousand other boaters who don't carry cargo? rolleyes.gif

If they'd let me......

 

I did once work out what seemed to be a viable business plan to move chemicals from Paddington to Birmingham using a pair of boats. Wharves at both ends, no rush to get it there, but they wanted a regular run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The public v private benefit argument being used by CRT is set to be used for a lot of things. Hence mooring charges whether they be LTM or visitor will be private benefit. Charging for RMP as opposed to the alternative free community mooring permits etc charging will be the route as CRT believe they can charge for anything that is a private benefit so water points next ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I read it, they are trying to deal with an unintended consequence of the transfer of the canal system from a government agency to an independent charity. (What gov legislation does not have unintended consequences?)

 

Given the potential problem, it seemed to me to be a neat argument to avoid it.

 

In particular, they wish to ensure that people who moor overnight (or for up to 14 days) are not considered to be in the same situation as those deemed to be long term mooring.

 

The downside of what they are arguing seems to me that they may be creating another unintended consequence if, in the 14 days, the boat is left unoccupied overnight. Can it then be argued that the mooring is a necessary consequence of navigating? However, I can leave my house for up to a number of weeks (on holiday etc) before the insurance compaqny considered it to be unoccupied and impose conditions.

 

The problem when claimants start to argue obscure interpretations of laws (which clearly Nick Brown is doing, regardless of whether he is right or wrong) is that it pushes the defendents into equally obscure responses.

 

Some of the responsibility for this situation lies with the government who wanted shot of the canals as quickly and cheaply as possible and therefore were not prepared to stump up the legislative time and cost to put CRT on a solid foundation. Instead they attempted to lump together a whole load of legislation created in many different circumstances over a long time, without seriously recognising that we are in a very different world now. Law on the cheap is generally bad law.

 

I understand the language of legal documents thanks.

 

The passage I quoted is not difficult to understand at all despite it being complete nonsense.

 

They attempt to differentiate boating from living aboard and by implication, suggest that people who navigate shouldn't have to pay for doing it.

 

As I said...baloney and potentially opening another can of worms.


Depends on whether you can claim that water is a necessary incidental to navigating (but the comparison with houses is not helpful)

 

I guess that the future will depend much on how minority/majority interests are handled. Already we see the influence of responding to those who demand (sometimes as in Macclesfield vociferously) that the canals are made great to look at just so long as no nasty boaters use them.

 

With more and more canalside housing development (which generally has been good for the canals), more walkers and cyclists being considered to be the primary users, and more boats being used as weekend cottages tied up in marinas for the most of the year, there may well be a tendency for stronger voices to object to the community of users paying for the costs of a minority.

 

That is the way in which society is dragging itself (I bitterly regret it as a manifestation of personal greed) but it is all too easy to support that trend when you are not the beneficiary only to regret it when you later become one.

The public v private benefit argument being used by CRT is set to be used for a lot of things. Hence mooring charges whether they be LTM or visitor will be private benefit. Charging for RMP as opposed to the alternative free community mooring permits etc charging will be the route as CRT believe they can charge for anything that is a private benefit so water points next ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but anyone who uses the waterways for their (floating) home without continuously cruising is deriving personal benefit which is a misuse and abuse of charitable property without a fair payment in return.

 

SO what is a Fair Payment for having a static floating home on a CART waterway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SO what is a Fair Payment for having a static floating home on a CART waterway?

CRT set a fee and conditions, which vary according to location and size of boat. It's up to you whether you accept these conditions and fee or not. In my case, if I add the cost of the boat to the charge for the mooring, it's about the same as renting a flat near where I work.

 

It's like any contract, both sides have to agree to the terms, which is what Nick Brown seems to have not realised. The sections of the various acts he is appealing against seem clear enough to me. If he was living in a motorhome, would he consider it his right to park anywhere he wanted to on the road or car park without paying for as long as he wished? Not a perfect analogy, I know, but it's a similar situation.

 

Oh, and wait until they install the turnstiles for the towpath walkers.....

 

Bye!

 

John.

Edited by John Williamson 1955
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose of the canals was carrying cargo. Not any more, the canals are now a leisure resource.

You could say that canals were built to support the local economy, and that carrying goods was the main way of doing that. Water supply and land drainage were two further benefits. As a leisure resource, they are still benefitting the local economy, and as a canal are still providing water supply and land drainage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could say that canals were built to support the local economy, and that carrying goods was the main way of doing that. Water supply and land drainage were two further benefits. As a leisure resource, they are still benefitting the local economy, and as a canal are still providing water supply and land drainage.

No, canals where built to make a profit for the investors who were businessmen not philanthropists. Whatever their purpose WAS is irrelevant, the situation now is that the purpose of a cruiseway is cruising so cruising through whilst living aboard is correct "Bona fide" use and living aboard whilst minimising cruising is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose of the canals was carrying cargo. Not any more, the canals are now a leisure resource.

and for some...a home.

the situation now is that the purpose of a cruiseway is cruising so cruising through whilst living aboard is correct "Bona fide" use and living aboard whilst minimising cruising is not.

In your opinion.

 

Since when was the sole definition of a canal a "cruiseway"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and for some...a home.

Which as CaRT point out is a misuse of charitable resources. Living aboard as an adjunct to cruising is fine, living aboard whilst minimising cruising is not.

My reading of their meaning by the way, not my own independent opinion though it does seem to mesh with the Davies judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which as CaRT point out is a misuse of charitable resources. Living aboard as an adjunct to cruising is fine, living aboard whilst minimising cruising is not.

Well considering their recent concessions to ccers it would appear that they are moving closer to my definition than yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could say that canals were built to support the local economy, and that carrying goods was the main way of doing that. Water supply and land drainage were two further benefits. As a leisure resource, they are still benefitting the local economy, and as a canal are still providing water supply and land drainage.

They weren't built to and didn't necessarily benefit the *local* economy. They did, however, benefit the economy at each end of the link. The Trent and Mersey for example, was built through Cheshire by a consortium of pottery manufacturers and coal mine owners to (Via them making a profit, and spending it.) benefit the economy of Stoke-on-Trent and the Potteries. Most of the traffic was through traffic and didn't benefit the local economy at all, except for the landowners who had shares in the canal company and the wages of the staff, but that was incidental. Even the boaters spent as little as possible while travelling, saving spending for payday when they arrived at their (company's) home base after a trip.

Edited by John Williamson 1955
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.