Boater With Home Mooring - Court Action Started.

[Rich]

 

Consequently, 'the board is not satisfied' it is a place were the boat can reasonably be kept.

 

If his health prevents him getting to the boat on that particular mooring, the board are probably not satisfied it is a reasonable place for him to keep his boat.

 

Hope that helps

 

MtB

 

Well, no not really. If this is the line the board are taking, and who knows, how far could this go. If the case is simply that some nitpickers in Canal and River Trust are having "a go" at the guy because he doesn't fit their idea of a good boater because of health issues...

 

Other than use the terms, conditions, bye-laws or whatever for his own benefit what has he done that is so wrong? Has he hogged VMs?

[Paul C]

 

Well, no not really. If this is the line the board are taking, and who knows, how far could this go. If the case is simply that some nitpickers in Canal and River Trust are having "a go" at the guy because he doesn't fit their idea of a good boater because of health issues...

 

Other than use the terms, conditions, bye-laws or whatever for his own benefit what has he done that is so wrong? Has he hogged VMs?

 

The phrase "the board is satisfied" is the black and white wording of the law, but it subjected to a reasonableness test in court.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Paul C

[Rich]

 

but it subjected to a reasonableness test in court.

Which is where it is heading.

[NigelMoore]

 

I doubt that this will be their tack.

 

Their argument is likely to be that the boater has stated that he finds it impossible to get to and from the boat at its home mooring, and that as such it is not a "place where the vessel can reasonably be kept"

 

I cannot, of course, without sight of the court submission, tell what their approach to the court has been – I can go only on what they have written respecting their explanation for taking the steps they have.

 

The boater has not claimed access is impossible, only that it is inconvenient. CaRT have never suggested that the mooring “is not a place where the vessel can reasonably be kept.” They relied upon the fact that the boater used the mooring but seldom, and that “you told me . . . that you only pay a mooring fee for this site in order, as you see it, to comply with our rules. Based on these remarks and your prior history of non-compliance, we have concluded that the home mooring arrangements you have . . . are not a genuine attempt to comply with our terms and conditions.” “As a result of the history stated above we are not satisfied that the mooring . . . is a genuine home mooring that falls within . . . [s.17].” [my emphasis]

 

This is why I referenced the “bona fide” argument successfully employed in Davies.

 

My position is that the only true test for the lawfulness of their claim is whether they are satisfied that an appropriate place to leave the boat “is available” – not whether, given its availability, it is used often enough or that the cruising/mooring pattern when away from the mooring is non-compliant with rules [for which appropriate sanctions are provided].

 

That they considered the mooring itself to be both appropriate and available is evidenced by their prior acceptance of those characteristics in the previous Licence/s granted on that basis.

[nicknorman]

That they considered the mooring itself to be both appropriate and available is evidenced by their prior acceptance of those characteristics in the previous Licence/s granted on that basis.

That cannot be a valid argument. You cannot expect CRT to examine the minutiae of every licence application quoting a home mooring. They can only reasonably be expected to do so once a boater "comes on the radar" for being a pisstaker. Your argument is like saying "I have deliberately misrepresented my tax affairs so as to underpay tax for the past 10 years, you accepted my tax returns at the time so you can't quibble now." It would be interesting to see how far that argument got you!

[mayalld]

Thanks for that Nigel. Perhaps I can trouble you further.

 

As a non lawyer (Barrack room or otherwise) can you interpret for me:

 

17 (9) Nothing in this section shall affect any power of the Board under any other enactment to refuse or withdraw a relevant consent.

 

To me not fully understanding legalese it says the board can use the powers of other acts e.g. contract law to with draw consent.

 

Contract Law isn't an "Act".

 

As a "relevant consent" isn't contractual, the various acts relating to contract law simply aren't relevant.

[cotswoldsman]

That cannot be a valid argument. You cannot expect CRT to examine the minutiae of every licence application quoting a home mooring. They can only reasonably be expected to do so once a boater "comes on the radar" for being a pisstaker. Your argument is like saying "I have deliberately misrepresented my tax affairs so as to underpay tax for the past 10 years, you accepted my tax returns at the time so you can't quibble now." It would be interesting to see how far that argument got you!

The slight difference is that when you apply for a licence you have to give the location of your home mooring

[Pete & Helen]

My only question is, is why its got to the stage where court action has started?

If he has done something wrong or interpreted the rules wrongly then I am sure CRT would have contacted him and pointed out his wrongs so that he could amend his behaviour or discuss any problems. After that all should be hunky dory.

There must be more to it

[Naughty Cal]

My only question is, is why its got to the stage where court action has started?

If he has done something wrong or interpreted the rules wrongly then I am sure CRT would have contacted him and pointed out his wrongs so that he could amend his behaviour or discuss any problems. After that all should be hunky dory.

There must be more to it

Isnt there always?

[nicknorman]

The slight difference is that when you apply for a licence you have to give the location of your home mooring

Yes you have to give a location, but do you expect CRT to visit said location for each licence application to check that it is reasonable?

[Rich]

My only question is, is why its got to the stage where court action has started?

If he has done something wrong or interpreted the rules wrongly then I am sure CRT would have contacted him and pointed out his wrongs so that he could amend his behaviour or discuss any problems. After that all should be hunky dory.

There must be more to it

NBW, 12th March 2014, "Confused Leisure Boater".

 

Isnt there always?

 

You made a similar suggestion earlier in the thread but, as yet, have come up with nothing.

[nicknorman]

My only question is, is why its got to the stage where court action has started?

If he has done something wrong or interpreted the rules wrongly then I am sure CRT would have contacted him and pointed out his wrongs so that he could amend his behaviour or discuss any problems. After that all should be hunky dory.

There must be more to it

No doubt there have been considerable discussions at which he has told CRT to shove it. They certainly won't be taking him to court for a "first offence".

[Jerra]

 

Contract Law isn't an "Act".

 

As a "relevant consent" isn't contractual, the various acts relating to contract law simply aren't relevant.

Fine I am trying to understand why. It is easy to say it isn't relevant I want to know why it isn't. Incidentally I must have used my words wrongly if you understood me to say contract law was a single act. I don't think I implied it was and that certainly wasn't my intention.

[Naughty Cal]

NBW, 12th March 2014, "Confused Leisure Boater".

 

 

You made a similar suggestion earlier in the thread but, as yet, have come up with nothing.

You make similar comments on many topics, none of which have come up with anything vaguely useful to any of those topics.

 

It would seem your one aim Rich, is to snipe and swipe at people cheaply whilst not providing any useful content in the slightest. Why are you here?

[cotswoldsman]

Yes you have to give a location, but do you expect CRT to visit said location for each licence application to check that it is reasonable?

Are you saying that CRT do not have location on there system of all recognised marinas and LTM from whom they derive an income I know a 16 yo that could put all that information in the system for them in a few days but then I have been led to believe by CRT at a meeting that they do have the information. Edited July 10, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[Naughty Cal]

Are you saying that CRT do not have location on there system of all recognised marinas and LTM from whom they derive an income I know a 16 yo that could put all that information in the system for them in a few days but then I have been led to believe by CRT at a meeting that they do have the information

Not all boats applying for a licence are using a marina or CRT LTM though.

[cotswoldsman]

Not all boats applying for a licence are using a marina or CRT LTM though.

That is not what I said. They know the locations of all placed licenced to offer LTM as they confirmed at a meeting when the question was asked "if I declare a home mooring how do CRT know it is genuine?" Answer from CRT "because we know all legal moorings and marinas" that rather blasted the idea of just making up a home mooring.

[mayalld]

My only question is, is why its got to the stage where court action has started?

If he has done something wrong or interpreted the rules wrongly then I am sure CRT would have contacted him and pointed out his wrongs so that he could amend his behaviour or discuss any problems. After that all should be hunky dory.

There must be more to it

 

Of course there is.

 

CRT contacted him and told him that having a Home Mooring that you don't use, whilst habitually mooring on VMs in a limited area isn't on.

 

He decided that he "knows his rights".

[David Schweizer]

I know nothing of the case under discussion, so feel unable to make any sort of observation on the rights and wrongs. However I do know several people, who have a home mooring, but are rarely on them, what they are doing is moving their boat around the system, never staying in one area for more than a week. As far as I know, none of them has ever been challenged by CaRT (or BW before them), so I can only assume that the gentleman in this case has a different cruising pattern from the people I know.

[David Schweizer]

That is not what I said. They know the locations of all placed licenced to offer LTM as they confirmed at a meeting when the question was asked "if I declare a home mooring how do CRT know it is genuine?" Answer from CRT "because we know all legal moorings and marinas" that rather blasted the idea of just making up a home mooring.

 

Very intersting John, is that a new development? When I changed moorings some years ago, I wrote to BW giving very specific details, including location, correct address, grid reference etc. When the renewal was sent out some three months later they had located me in a nearby marina which includes part of the location address in it's name, I contacted them advising of the correct location and they sent out a revised renewal, except that they had now located me in another nearby marina, which included a different word from my loctation address in it's title. I contacted them again and "advised" them of the exact words to be used, and notified them of the BW structure number for the bridge less than 100 metres from my mooring. Third time lucky!!

 

Ironicly the moorings where we are located have been there for a very long time (pre GUCCC) and much longer than either of the marinas.

Edited July 10, 2014 by David Schweizer

[jenlyn]

Yes you have to give a location, but do you expect CRT to visit said location for each licence application to check that it is reasonable?

They do that already....

[Guest]

That is not what I said. They know the locations of all placed licenced to offer LTM as they confirmed at a meeting when the question was asked "if I declare a home mooring how do CRT know it is genuine?" Answer from CRT "because we know all legal moorings and marinas" that rather blasted the idea of just making up a home mooring.

But that doesn't stop somebody saying that they have a mooring at a legitimate mooring site though. yes they could verify their own LTM,s and BWML marinas but how do they verify the claims of somebody that they moor at 'such an such' farm moorings for example? or private marinas.

[NigelMoore]

can you interpret for me:

 

17 (9) Nothing in this section shall affect any power of the Board under any other enactment to refuse or withdraw a relevant consent.

 

S.17(9) is, as I understand it, a catch-all disclaimer similar to those protecting [without referencing anything in particular] rights such as the Crown or the Duchy of Cornwall - which are frequent examples in much legislation – whether or not there is any likelihood that those rights could be affected.

 

The enactments referred to in this instance, refer only to Acts specific to BW, and can only be those from 1971 onwards, because that is the date from which the first of the “relevant consents” were introduced.

 

The 1971 Act, for example, laid down that in order to obtain the necessary Pleasure Boat Certificate, information of the boat’s particulars had to be supplied, and the requisite fee produced. That stands. Under s.17(9) nothing in the rest of s.17 affects the power of the authority to refuse an application if the particulars are not given and/or if the fee is not paid – but in effect, that is what an application consists of, and any relevant consent can only be refused or accepted on the basis of a paid-for application.

 

Up until the drafting of the 1990 Bill, no conditions could be placed upon issue of that relevant consent; you paid your money for an adequately described boat, and the authority were obliged to give you the consent. Since 1995, they can now impose the 3 specified requirements, and if you consider that the application itself and the payment are also additional conditions rather than being integral to a request for a licence, then you will be in a position to claim that there are 5 pre-requisite conditions for issue of a licence. So - they are entitled to refuse you a licence if you don't apply for one [!?]

 

Given the [relatively new] option of paying for a licence in instalments, I would accept that a default in payment during the relevant period would entitle the Board to withdraw the consent for that reason.

 

I am dealing only with pleasure boats here, the houseboat certificates may well have had other requirements [such as a suitable mooring] already. Byelaws also, imposed requirement of safety and suitability – but were not capable of being applied to refusal of relevant consents.

 

So basically there was no power of the Board under any other enactment to refuse or withdraw a relevant consent, and such statutory conditions of use of the waterways as might be seen to be applicable [such as a suitable mooring for a houseboat] are in any event now formally subsumed within the 3 identified subsections of s.17.

 

I am open to correction on any of this of course.

[jenlyn]

You make similar comments on many topics, none of which have come up with anything vaguely useful to any of those topics.

 

It would seem your one aim Rich, is to snipe and swipe at people cheaply whilst not providing any useful content in the slightest. Why are you here?

He's probably waiting for your swingbridge document......

[Alan de Enfield]

He's probably waiting for your swingbridge document......

 

That was ages ago - have we not yet seen it ?