Hackney CMers want to have a "CC Licence" and to remain in one place.

[Loafer]

 

What Tony is saying is that if you have a CRT licensed boat you have already paid CRT to be on the water, wherever that water might be. So, if you tie up at the end of someone's garden, or a farmer's field, you have already paid CRT for the use of the water you are floating on and for the use of the canal bottom you are floating over, hence they would be charging you twice for the same thing by charging an EOG fee. The property owner has every right to charge rent, because the person would be mooring to their property and using their property for ingress and egress to their boat.

 

He further states that CRT's claim to EOG fees on rivers is even more specious, as the land to the middle of the river is owned by the property owners, and so one is not even mooring over CRT land on rivers.

 

I don't know if Tony is right or wrong. I'm just explaining to you what he has said. If I have mischaracterized his contentions, I'm sure he'll be along to correct me.

Thank you for that, but it doesn't seem to answer a long-running query about CRT owning the first metre of offside land. If they do, then they can charge a fee for mooring there, can't they? I haven't looked it up, so am not informed, just asking.

[Tony Dunkley]

Thank you for that, but it doesn't seem to answer a long-running query about CRT owning the first metre of offside land. If they do, then they can charge a fee for mooring there, can't they? I haven't looked it up, so am not informed, just asking.

Ownership of land on the outside (offside) of canals can differ according to what was laid down in the original enabling Acts, and needs to be checked and verified for any specific location and waterway, and of course bank erosion may have allowed the canal to encroach over canalside land. None of this, however, affects or alters the basic principle that C&RT cannot lawfully demand payment for boats moored to and against land they do not own. C&RT know this to be so, and it is the reason why their predecessors have had to resort to using the ridiculous 'mooring over our land(ie. the canal bed)' argument when the EOG charge has been challenged. . . . (see also # 290 on this thread).

Edited December 28, 2014 by Tony Dunkley

[Paul C]

Ownership of land on the outside (offside) of canals can differ according to what was laid down in the original enabling Acts, and needs to be checked and verified for any specific location and waterway, and of course bank erosion may have allowed the canal to encroach over canalside land. None of this, however alters the fact that C&RT cannot lawfully demand payment for boats moored to and against land they do not own. C&RT know this to be so, and it is the reason why their predecessors have used only the ridiculous 'mooring over our land(ie. the canal bed)' argument when the EOG charge has been challenged. . . . (see also # 290 on this thread).

 

Ridiculous as it may be (in your eyes), they were able to convince a judge and win in court though.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Ridiculous as it may be (in your eyes), they were able to convince a judge and win in court though.

That's so, but nonetheless a rather naive statement . . . Courts and Judges have been known to be swayed by persuasive arguments from glib, expensive lawyers and get their findings wrong . . . . for that reason we have Courts of Appeal.

[Paul C]

That's so, but nonetheless a rather naive statement . . . Courts and Judges have been known to be swayed by persuasive arguments from glib, expensive lawyers and get their findings wrong . . . . for that reason we have Courts of Appeal.

 

Its easy to say that, but we must recognise the weight of a court ruling. Yes, of course, the ruling of a higher court overrules the lower one, but the fact is that it didn't go to appeal, so for now it stands as a valid judgement.

 

One is free to not recognise the validity/weight of the court ruling but one should also not be surprised when others disagree here.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Its easy to say that, but we must recognise the weight of a court ruling. Yes, of course, the ruling of a higher court overrules the lower one, but the fact is that it didn't go to appeal, so for now it stands as a valid judgement.

 

One is free to not recognise the validity/weight of the court ruling but one should also not be surprised when others disagree here.

Yes, unfortunately it does and will no doubt result in C&RT continuing to behave in a dishonest manner by charging fees they have no right to. Incidentally, I think the number of Judgements on this in BW's favour that I stated is wrong, it is I believe in fact 3, not 2, and all of them gained by paying expensive lawyers ( with our money) to persuade the Courts that they had powers beyond those actually granted by Parliament.

[b0atman]

Scrap eog charges and put up licence fees to cover loss of income.

CRT lose nothing but licence owners lose to favour the few.

[magnetman]

Yes, unfortunately it does and will no doubt result in C&RT continuing to behave in a dishonest manner by charging fees they have no right to. Incidentally, I think the number of Judgements on this in BW's favour that I stated is wrong, it is I believe in fact 3, not 2, and all of them gained by paying expensive lawyers ( with our money) to persuade the Courts that they had powers beyond those actually granted by Parliament.

I am no expert but does that mean they do now in fact have those powers due to 'case law' or something.

 

Seems to me the expensive lawyers might be a good investment for mr Licens E. Payer

[Tony Dunkley]

I am no expert but does that mean they do now in fact have those powers due to 'case law' or something.

 

Seems to me the expensive lawyers might be a good investment for mr Licens E. Payer

No, it does not. County Court rulings don't create new laws or change existing laws, only Parliament can do that, but it does mean that C&RT will continue to act as if they do have those powers . . . and going on their past record, would probably continue to do so even in the event of Judgement going against them.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Yes, unfortunately it does and will no doubt result in C&RT continuing to behave in a dishonest manner by charging fees they have no right to. Incidentally, I think the number of Judgements on this in BW's favour that I stated is wrong, it is I believe in fact 3, not 2, and all of them gained by paying expensive lawyers ( with our money) to persuade the Courts that they had powers beyond those actually granted by Parliament.

This seems to me to be a facile argument since all laws are open to interpretation (just look at the total dog's breakfast that the the term 'place' has achieved in the 1995 Act, no-one has a clue what it actually means). It just so happens that in this case there have been, on your own admission, 3 separate, coherent, interpretations of the law. I would suggest that it would be a brave man with access to a lot of money who may now wish to challenge those interpretations. Just because Tony Dunkley says it is wrong doesn't actually add anything to the legal argument when 3 separate judges have said that it is correct.

 

No, it does not. County Court rulings don't create new laws or change existing laws, only Parliament can do that, but it does mean that C&RT will continue to act as if they do have those powers . . . and going on their past record, would probably continue to do so even in the event of Judgement going against them.

But the judgement HASN'T GONE AGAINST THEM HAS IT?????

Edited December 28, 2014 by Wanderer Vagabond

[Jerra]

create new laws or change existing laws, only Parliament can do that,

Would you (or perhaps Nigel but it is you who is making the statement) care to define what case law is in the English legal system?

[Tony Dunkley]

Would you (or perhaps Nigel but it is you who is making the statement) care to define what case law is in the English legal system?

If you want to read about 'case law' you can look it up and find out for yourself.

[Jerra]

If you want to read about 'case law' you can look it up and find out for yourself.

No it wasn't me that made the sweeping statement about how laws are made. Perhaps you don't know all you claim to know. It is reasonable to assume you don't know enough to answer the question or that it goes against what you suggest. Otherwise you would be pushing the point to strengthen your argument.

 

I was really just asking to check if your position was what I thought and you have confirmed it. Thank you.

[Tony Dunkley]

This seems to me to be a facile argument since all laws are open to interpretation (just look at the total dog's breakfast that the the term 'place' has achieved in the 1995 Act, no-one has a clue what it actually means). It just so happens that in this case there have been, on your own admission, 3 separate, coherent, interpretations of the law. I would suggest that it would be a brave man with access to a lot of money who may now wish to challenge those interpretations. Just because Tony Dunkley says it is wrong doesn't actually add anything to the legal argument when 3 separate judges have said that it is correct.

 

But the judgement HASN'T GONE AGAINST THEM HAS IT?????

If you would like to post something that merits a response rather than this sort of thing, which will be treated for what it's worth and ignored, then I suggest that you first aquaint yourself with the arguments used by BW's lawyers.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

If you would like to post something that merits a response rather than this sort of thing, which will be treated for what it's worth and ignored, then I suggest that you first aquaint yourself with the arguments used by BW's lawyers.

I, nor anyone else need to acquaint myself with the arguments used by the lawyers, the point is that they won their case whatever the arguments that were used. This is why it is advisable to actually use qualified lawyers rather than the 'barrack room' type since they have the ability to actually succeed in their case rather than just whingeing when they lose. The clear reason that you choose not to respond is obviously that you have no valid counter case to put. Whatever case you may choose to make is invalidated by the fact that the Courts have found differently. All you are left with is unsupported accusations of 'gullible' judges and 'dishonest' solicitors which impress no-one.

 

Your assertion that the Judgement regarding 'mooring over CRT land' was ridiculous would demonstrate your total lack of law knowledge. Since if CRT had any reason to drain the canal for repair the any boat that was 'over' their land (the canal bed) would settle upon their land therefore to try to claim that it is in fact located on the canal bank merely because it is attached by a flimsy piece of rope is ridiculous. I would assume that this was the eminently sensible position that the Judge took.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Wanderer Vagabond

[Tony Dunkley]

No it wasn't me that made the sweeping statement about how laws are made. Perhaps you don't know all you claim to know. It is reasonable to assume you don't know enough to answer the question or that it goes against what you suggest. Otherwise you would be pushing the point to strengthen your argument.

 

I was really just asking to check if your position was what I thought and you have confirmed it. Thank you.

 

I presume the 'sweeping statement' you refer to is . . . "County Court rulings don't create new laws or change existing laws, only Parliament can do that" . . . . in which case I will admit that, despite being essentially true as written, it could have been worded better . . . would substituting ' statutory powers' for 'laws' meet with your approval ?

[Tony Dunkley]

I, nor anyone else need to acquaint myself with the arguments used by the lawyers, the point is that they won their case whatever the arguments that were used. This is why it is advisable to actually use qualified lawyers rather than the 'barrack room' type since they have the ability to actually succeed in their case rather than just whingeing when they lose. The clear reason that you choose not to respond is obviously that you have no valid counter case to put. Whatever case you may choose to make is invalidated by the fact that the Courts have found differently. All you are left with is unsupported accusations of 'gullible' judges and 'dishonest' solicitors which impress no-one.

 

Your assertion that the Judgement regarding 'mooring over CRT land' was ridiculous would demonstrate your total lack of law knowledge. Since if CRT had any reason to drain the canal for repair the any boat that was 'over' their land (the canal bed) would settle upon their land therefore to try to claim that it is in fact located on the canal bank merely because it is attached by a flimsy piece of rope is ridiculous. I would assume that this was the eminently sensible position that the Judge took.

 

Congratulations . . . that's a fine example of some really Award winning quality tripe.

[Pen n Ink]

I very rarely get involved in these discussions since I believe that the vast majority of boaters have no problems in understanding what is meant by the rules and abiding by the spirit of them, but I have to say that Mr Dunkley's childish, petulant, repetitive, boring, pointless, blinkered, biased, naive, selfish, ill-informed, spiteful rantings have just got my goat.

 

The waterways are there today as the result of the hard work and efforts of many thousands of unsung heroes over the years, from the navvies to the Rolts and beyond. Surely to goodness we, as the community (in the largest sense) who benefit from this work, should be supporting all efforts to keep the waterways open and available for use? Mr Dunkley's efforts to single-handedly prove that CRT have no authority to charge anyone anything would, if successful, only result in the bankruptcy of the system and the final closure of the canals.

 

If that is your aim, then, Mr Dunkley, I applaud your efforts. If not then please grow up and belt up.

[b0atman]

I think this post has run its course !

We need to wait and see if any one achieves their ambition to turn this area into a recognised mooring this could start the ball rolling for other community or like minded groups.

[Tony Dunkley]

I very rarely get involved in these discussions since I believe that the vast majority of boaters have no problems in understanding what is meant by the rules and abiding by the spirit of them, but I have to say that Mr Dunkley's childish, petulant, repetitive, boring, pointless, blinkered, biased, naive, selfish, ill-informed, spiteful rantings have just got my goat.

 

The waterways are there today as the result of the hard work and efforts of many thousands of unsung heroes over the years, from the navvies to the Rolts and beyond. Surely to goodness we, as the community (in the largest sense) who benefit from this work, should be supporting all efforts to keep the waterways open and available for use? Mr Dunkley's efforts to single-handedly prove that CRT have no authority to charge anyone anything would, if successful, only result in the bankruptcy of the system and the final closure of the canals.

 

If that is your aim, then, Mr Dunkley, I applaud your efforts. If not then please grow up and belt up.

 

Appropriately named boat you have there.

[Alf Roberts]

I very rarely get involved in these discussions since I believe that the vast majority of boaters have no problems in understanding what is meant by the rules and abiding by the spirit of them, but I have to say that Mr Dunkley's childish, petulant, repetitive, boring, pointless, blinkered, biased, naive, selfish, ill-informed, spiteful rantings have just got my goat.

 

The waterways are there today as the result of the hard work and efforts of many thousands of unsung heroes over the years, from the navvies to the Rolts and beyond. Surely to goodness we, as the community (in the largest sense) who benefit from this work, should be supporting all efforts to keep the waterways open and available for use? Mr Dunkley's efforts to single-handedly prove that CRT have no authority to charge anyone anything would, if successful, only result in the bankruptcy of the system and the final closure of the canals.

 

If that is your aim, then, Mr Dunkley, I applaud your efforts. If not then please grow up and belt up.

 

You seem to ignore the fact that Mr Dunkley has, in various ways, been an active part of keeping the canals alive for over 40 years so has an informed opinion on their management which for one, amongst many others, share.

 

so to paraphrase your last sentence, grow up or belt up.

[Wanted]

I very rarely get involved in these discussions since I believe that the vast majority of boaters have no problems in understanding what is meant by the rules and abiding by the spirit of them, but I have to say that Mr Dunkley's childish, petulant, repetitive, boring, pointless, blinkered, biased, naive, selfish, ill-informed, spiteful rantings have just got my goat.

The waterways are there today as the result of the hard work and efforts of many thousands of unsung heroes over the years, from the navvies to the Rolts and beyond. Surely to goodness we, as the community (in the largest sense) who benefit from this work, should be supporting all efforts to keep the waterways open and available for use? Mr Dunkley's efforts to single-handedly prove that CRT have no authority to charge anyone anything would, if successful, only result in the bankruptcy of the system and the final closure of the canals.

If that is your aim, then, Mr Dunkley, I applaud your efforts. If not then please grow up and belt up.

Maybe some of us consider Tony an unsung hero who has given his life to the waterways. Given his knowledge of how things have been and how they are now, I think we would be fools to dismiss what he is saying.

 

Maybe if you are not so keen to join the apparent TD bashing that he has to endure here then you may learn something.

[magnetman]

I am quite intrigued about CRT having no right to charge 'EOG' fees. Reminds me of the pillings lock con.

 

I actually think they demonstrably DO have the right, because they do it and have been told that is allowed.

 

 

I would bow to a more knowledgeable person but I just don't get it. If someone goes for a 4th challenge against payment.of EOG they will lose. Seems quite simple to my rather basic brain.

 

Or is the suggestion that a load of people being 'conned' should start a case and see if CRT can be 'broken' ?

 

Where would that lead us? seems a bit backwards but I suppose if your own situation is the only important thing and the group can sod off then go for it!!

 

Are we going to get a Peoples Front of Judea problem

[Paul C]

Does doing stuff for the waterways allow you to rise above the law?

[Alf Roberts]

 

I actually think they demonstrably DO have the right, because they do it and have been told that is allowed.

 

 

Whereas Tony Dunkley has a marmite reputation, I think Nigel Moore comes across as someone well researched and authorative.

 

His position is as outlined by Tony above. They do not have a legal right to charge but they do so in spite of this, the challenges to this right have, so far, failed but it by no means follows that a properly mounted challenge would fail again.

 

Nigel Moore fought BW in court over exactly the same behaviour, he lost the first time and won on appeal. If we judge this by your logic then; 1. they were right because the did it and when challenged 2. were right because a judge said so but 3. they were found wrong by another judge.

 

As to whether it should be challenged - after all it is in all our interests for CRT to maximise their revenue stream, even if they wasted the largest part of it - there are, in my opinions, many 'polite fictions' in the way the waterways are run. You yourself have experienced this by your own account - when they 'evicted' you from your mooring you acquiesced, you didn't have to do this, you could have said 'no'. Instead, in the same way as EOG moorers pay the fees demanded, you invested the right in BW to move youone.

Does doing stuff for the waterways allow you to rise above the law?

 

I thought there was 100 pages on this and the issue was settled. Your statement is libellous. Tony Dunkley has not 'risen above the law'.

 

I suggest you provide evidence or apologise.