Canal and River Trust changes in Licence Terms and conditions

[bassplayer]

On another thread someone mentioned we shouldn't act just because something seems 'unfair'. I would say that it's even more reason to act. How many people (including judges) would say it's fair to allow an authority, which has a history of failed judgements, to force those to sign away basic rights because they live on water? Forget the T&C's, if the law allows this we are all on a very slippery slope.

[Alan de Enfield]

Alf Roberts, on 03 Feb 2015 - 09:33 AM, said:

your 2.

 

it does say that the only criteria for refusal to license is those conditions ie if those conditions are met a licence must be issued

 

'they may refuse if not these conditions' to paraphrase

 

my guess is that the board has decided to be hard to satisfy ( insert sexist joke of choice)

 

It does but it relates to wording in scetion 7 which is very specific as to what type of vessel etc is included.

 

 

Allan(nb Albert), on 03 Feb 2015 - 09:34 AM, said:

I think you need to reread your post Alan.

 

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

 

In other words the law states the criteria on which CaRT can refuse or rescind a licence (i.e. consent).

 

Yes it does - but read section 7 which lists the criteria.

 

(7)(a)In this subsection

a) designated vessel†means any vessel in respect of which a relevant consent has been in force at any time during the qualifying period other than

(i)

a houseboat registered under the Act of 1971 for the first time after 31st December 1979; or

 

(ii)

any hire pleasure boat, that is, any pleasure boat which is let, lent, hired or engaged for gift, pay, hire or reward or promise of payment or carries or conveys passengers for a charge or payment; or

(iii)

any pleasure boat (not being a hire pleasure boat) adapted or used for the carriage or conveyance of passengers, being a vessel in respect of which the Board are satisfied that a multi-user licence would be appropriate; and

“the qualifying period†means the period commencing twelve months before the date of the passing of this Act and ending six months before the date of the passing of this Act.

 

(b)The Board shall not

 

(i)before the first anniversary of the passing of this Act, in the case of any designated vessel constructed after 31st December 1970; or

(ii)before the second anniversary of the passing of this Act, in the case of any designated vessel constructed before 1st January 1971;

refuse or withdraw a relevant consent in respect of the vessel on the grounds that the vessel does not or has ceased to comply with the standards applicable to it.

 

That means to me - the standards applicable, not that it has not travelled far enough (for example)

Edited February 3, 2015 by Alan de Enfield

[Paul C]

AFAIK no court case regarding cancelling or not renewing a boat's licence has yet been fought based on failing to comply with the Terms and Conditions; BW/CRT have always won or lost the case based on the wording of the underlying legislation. So whilst in theory one can cite law on this in similar (contract law) cases, its not been applied to a boat licence case and I expect it would lead to a court case.

 

The TD case came close.

[Alf Roberts]

again not so. 7b is an BSS ( standards) holiday for older boats.

[Tony Dunkley]

I am a person who likes to understand how things work and I am trying to get an understanding of the situation as it is now, and the implications for when the new T&Cs come into force.

 

We all know the 1995 act (with regard to the necessary conditions to issue a licence)"backwards" by now :

 

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;

 

( 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 a

 

(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.

 

There looks to be two possibilities here :

 

1) They MUST issue a licence if the three criteria are met, but there appears to be no mention of a system for the removal or cancellation of a licence - therefore C&RT can write their own T&Cs regarding the actions that could result in the removal of a licence. The licence is withdrawn, and the boat owner can imediately reapply, and it must be granted if the three criteria are met, the licence is withdrawn and around and around we go,

 

2) There is no mention in the Act that the three criteria are the only criteria - it says that in order for the licence to be issued these three citeria must be met, but that leaves room for the addition of further criteria which can be those specified in the T&Cs.

 

I know there are a couple of 'legal minds' on the forum - is this a reasonable synopsis ?

The criteria for the refusal (termination) of a Licence are in the next subsections of the 1995 Act . . . 17(4) and (5).

Edited February 3, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Alan de Enfield]

Alf Roberts, on 03 Feb 2015 - 09:58 AM, said:

again not so. 7b is an BSS ( standards) holiday for older boats.

 

Sorry - do not follow / understand

 

 

The criteria for the refusal (termination) of a Licence are in the next subsections of the 1995 Act . . . 17(4) and (5).

 

Thanks - yes it does - but again it does NOT say that these are the only reasons for which a licence could be withdrawn :

 

(4)If—

(a)(subject to subsection (6) below) the vessel does not comply with the standards applicable to the vessel on the date when the consent was granted; or

 

(b)an insurance policy is not in force in respect of the vessel; or

 

©either—

 

(i)(in the case of a vessel in respect of which a relevant consent is issued pursuant to subsection (3) © (i) above) it appears to the Board that a mooring or other place such as is referred to in subsection (3) © (i) above is not available for the vessel; or

 

(ii)(in the case of a vessel in respect of which a relevant consent is issued pursuant to subsection (3) © (ii) above) the vessel has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation in accordance with the said subsection (3) © (ii);

 

the Board may give notice requiring the holder of the relevant consent to remedy the default within such time as may be reasonable (not being less than 28 days).

 

It may be pedantic,or viewed as being Devils advocate, but I am really trying t get an understanding of what C&RT can, or cannot, do and hopefully reasoned discussion will help.

[Higgs]

Boaters are not engaged enough in a relationship with CRT. Not in anyway that could galvanise the boaters. It is still pretty much them and us. We are consistently finding that there is no representation with clout.

 

I suppose the last big campaign was to enable CC. May be we should start, if it's possible, to change the nature of our relationship with CRT. Membership and constitution. How else can we stop this endless run around that threads like this highlight. References to sections and subsection are endless; It seems can only be proved in court, not a place most of us wish to find ourselves.

[bassplayer]

Boaters are not engaged enough in a relationship with CRT. Not in anyway that could galvanise the boaters. It is still pretty much them and us. We are consistently finding that there is no representation with clout.

 

I suppose the last big campaign was to enable CC. May be we should start, if it's possible, to change the nature of our relationship with CRT. Membership and constitution. How else can we stop this endless run around that threads like this highlight. References to sections and subsection are endless; It seems can only be proved in court, not a place most of us wish to find ourselves.

 

It's funny I was only thinking the other day how nice it would have been if the boaters could have had the opportunity to run the system before it was handed to CRT. If the 'friends of CRT' had a large boating representation and had the power to change things that might not be so bad either.

[Jerra]

Boaters are not engaged enough in a relationship with CRT. Not in anyway that could galvanise the boaters. It is still pretty much them and us. We are consistently finding that there is no representation with clout.

 

I suppose the last big campaign was to enable CC. May be we should start, if it's possible, to change the nature of our relationship with CRT. Membership and constitution. How else can we stop this endless run around that threads like this highlight. References to sections and subsection are endless; It seems can only be proved in court, not a place most of us wish to find ourselves.

I would agree with you basically. However if the forum is a typical cross section of boaters (God help us! OK I know it isn't and can't ever be) CRT have little to gain. The forum gives the impression (well many posts anyway) that they wouldn't work with CRT if their life depended on it.

 

CRT would end up wasting valuable time and resources dealing with people who seem to object to everything they try to do. Nothing to gain for them. However if they could engage with boaters who showed some give and take about what was going on they might have more to gain.

It's funny I was only thinking the other day how nice it would have been if the boaters could have had the opportunity to run the system before it was handed to CRT. If the 'friends of CRT' had a large boating representation and had the power to change things that might not be so bad either.

If the Trust had been set up with members rather than friends and those members had some input things might have been different.

[Higgs]

It's funny I was only thinking the other day how nice it would have been if the boaters could have had the opportunity to run the system before it was handed to CRT. If the 'friends of CRT' had a large boating representation and had the power to change things that might not be so bad either.

 

 

I suspect the next time we are asked to vote for 4 people to sit on the council, the turnout will be less than before.

[Alf Roberts]

I would agree with you basically. However if the forum is a typical cross section of boaters (God help us! OK I know it isn't and can't ever be) CRT have little to gain. The forum gives the impression (well many posts anyway) that they wouldn't work with CRT if their life depended on it.

 

CRT would end up wasting valuable time and resources dealing with people who seem to object to everything they try to do. Nothing to gain for them. However if they could engage with boaters who showed some give and take about what was going on they might have more to gain.

If the Trust had been set up with members rather than friends and those members had some input things might have been different.

 

I don't agree with this. The thing that is obvious from this forum is that there is a diversity of opinion and that none of those opinions is likely to disappear.

 

So we would have to get on with it.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Alf Roberts

[Bod]

 

Sorry - do not follow / understand

 

 

 

Thanks - yes it does - but again it does NOT say that these are the only reasons for which a licence could be withdrawn :

 

(4)If—

(a)(subject to subsection (6) below) the vessel does not comply with the standards applicable to the vessel on the date when the consent was granted; or

 

(b)an insurance policy is not in force in respect of the vessel; or

 

©either—

 

(i)(in the case of a vessel in respect of which a relevant consent is issued pursuant to subsection (3) © (i) above) it appears to the Board that a mooring or other place such as is referred to in subsection (3) © (i) above is not available for the vessel; or

 

(ii)(in the case of a vessel in respect of which a relevant consent is issued pursuant to subsection (3) © (ii) above) the vessel has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation in accordance with the said subsection (3) © (ii);

 

the Board may give notice requiring the holder of the relevant consent to remedy the default within such time as may be reasonable (not being less than 28 days).

 

It may be pedantic,or viewed as being Devils advocate, but I am really trying t get an understanding of what C&RT can, or cannot, do and hopefully reasoned discussion will help.

 

See section 17 (11a)

 

Bod

[Higgs]

 

I don't agree with this. The thing that is obvious from this forum is that there is a diversity of opinion and that none of those opinions is likely to disappear.

 

So we would have to get on with it.

 

 

It wouldn't be about changing diverse opinions, but about changing a relationship. And if we have to get on with it, what is the value of all this microscopic analysis of the various acts. The only other people are those that live with the various inconsistencies and put up with it. If no one has any suggestion on how to change the status quo, it's business as usual.

 

 

 

Omphaloskepsis.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Higgs

[Alan de Enfield]

 

See section 17 (11a)

 

Bod

 

Yes - so C&RT can revoke the licence if the boat does not have a BSS

 

(11)(a)The refusal or withdrawal by the Board of a relevant consent in respect of any vessel on the grounds that the vessel does not comply with the standards applicable to that vessel shall not preclude the movement or use of the vessel with the consent of the Board (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) and subject to such reasonable conditions (if any) as they may determine.

 

Which comes back to the original examples of why a boat may have its licence withdrawn

 

1) No BSS

2) No insurance

3) No home mooring, or not bona fide etc etc.

[Alf Roberts]

 

 

It wouldn't be about changing diverse opinions, but about changing a relationship. And if we have to get on with it, what is the value of all this microscopic analysis of the various acts. The only other people are those that live with the various inconsistencies and put up with it. If no one has any suggestion on how to change the status quo, it's business as usual.

 

 

 

Omphaloskepsis.

 

Well, actually, we have a huge area of agreement. We all - that's every single one of us - want the canal system to work and maintenance doing and catching up with. Once we get started on that I think we'd find our differences were pretty small in the scheme of things.

 

It is my firm opinion that CRT and lapdog IWA are the ones whipping up division.

 

Answer one question: when you go out boating do you really see a bunch of people who can't agree with each other? Because I don't recognise that. With very few exceptions boaters I meet on the canal get on with each other.

[Higgs]

 

Well, actually, we have a huge area of agreement. We all - that's every single one of us - want the canal system to work and maintenance doing and catching up with. Once we get started on that I think we'd find our differences were pretty small in the scheme of things.

 

It is my firm opinion that CRT and lapdog IWA are the ones whipping up division.

 

Answer one question: when you go out boating do you really see a bunch of people who can't agree with each other? Because I don't recognise that. With very few exceptions boaters I meet on the canal get on with each other.

 

 

I think, out on the canal, being engaged in the experience is still the overriding motivation and focus. I still find it a way to switch off. Yes, there's more to life than picking faults.

[cotswoldsman]

I would agree with you basically. However if the forum is a typical cross section of boaters (God help us! OK I know it isn't and can't ever be) CRT have little to gain. The forum gives the impression (well many posts anyway) that they wouldn't work with CRT if their life depended on it.

 

CRT would end up wasting valuable time and resources dealing with people who seem to object to everything they try to do. Nothing to gain for them. However if they could engage with boaters who showed some give and take about what was going on they might have more to gain.

 

If the Trust had been set up with members rather than friends and those members had some input things might have been different.

It would have to two way and I think CRT would find that difficult unless everyone agreed with them 100% that is why their relationship with IWA works so well. I can assure you many boaters have tried and failed. CRT do not seem to be able to take criticism you can agree with them 75% of the time but the 25% where you do not agree will break the relationship

[Jerra]

It would have to two way and I think CRT would find that difficult unless everyone agreed with them 100% that is why their relationship with IWA works so well. I can assure you many boaters have tried and failed. CRT do not seem to be able to take criticism you can agree with them 75% of the time but the 25% where you do not agree will break the relationship

You are probably right but two points. First some boaters have tried. There is currently no way the vast silent majority are getting a word in and (from what is seen on here) many of those who speak up are in to the minutea of the law and preventing CRT doing anything they don't agree with.

 

The point being made was there needs to be a change of relationship that would of course require both sides to give and take.

 

If (an I am probably wrong) the disagreement with CRT is along the lines of the picking on tiny points which goes no here no wonder they take no notice.

 

What is needed is a change of relationship where both sides (note both sides) do not feel that the other is constantly trying to stop them doing something and is prepared to discuss the pros and cons rather than why it can't/shouldn't happen.

 

Just my opinion of course.

[jenlyn]

You are probably right but two points. First some boaters have tried. There is currently no way the vast silent majority are getting a word in and (from what is seen on here) many of those who speak up are in to the minutea of the law and preventing CRT doing anything they don't agree with.

 

The point being made was there needs to be a change of relationship that would of course require both sides to give and take.

 

If (an I am probably wrong) the disagreement with CRT is along the lines of the picking on tiny points which goes no here no wonder they take no notice.

 

What is needed is a change of relationship where both sides (note both sides) do not feel that the other is constantly trying to stop them doing something and is prepared to discuss the pros and cons rather than why it can't/shouldn't happen.

 

Just my opinion of course.

Well, it seems they have now bestowed themselves with a Political Officer.

Perhaps that fits in somewhere.

[Tony Dunkley]

Well, it seems they have now bestowed themselves with a Political Officer.

Perhaps that fits in somewhere.

That's a fairly alarming turn of events . . . straight out of the KGB operating manual.

[John Williamson 1955]

 

Before April 2015 this would cause you no problems.

After April 2015, unless you return and move the boat, on or before the 14th day, (how far too move.........???) you will face enforcement proceedings.

 

Bod

The rule still says that there are reasons which make it acceptable to stay for more than 14 days, so the only change is that you will need to tell CRT and get permission first.

[cuthound]

Well, it seems they have now bestowed themselves with a Political Officer.

Perhaps that fits in somewhere.

Don't know what the Political Officers remit is, but if it is to liaise with the Government and hopefully get a larger grant, then more power to his elbow.

[Tony Dunkley]

The rule still says that there are reasons which make it acceptable to stay for more than 14 days, so the only change is that you will need to tell CRT and get permission first.

That's not a change they're entitled to make. . . you don't need to get C&RT's permission to stay more than 14 days in circumstances that make it reasonable to do so . . . . Parliament gave permission to do that in 1995.

[Tony Dunkley]

I am a person who likes to understand how things work and I am trying to get an understanding of the situation as it is now, and the implications for when the new T&Cs come into force.

 

We all know the 1995 act (with regard to the necessary conditions to issue a licence)"backwards" by now :

 

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;

 

( 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 a

 

(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.

 

There looks to be two possibilities here :

 

1) They MUST issue a licence if the three criteria are met, but there appears to be no mention of a system for the removal or cancellation of a licence - therefore C&RT can write their own T&Cs regarding the actions that could result in the removal of a licence. The licence is withdrawn, and the boat owner can imediately reapply, and it must be granted if the three criteria are met, the licence is withdrawn and around and around we go,

 

2) There is no mention in the Act that the three criteria are the only criteria - it says that in order for the licence to be issued these three citeria must be met, but that leaves room for the addition of further criteria which can be those specified in the T&Cs.

 

I know there are a couple of 'legal minds' on the forum - is this a reasonable synopsis ?

I've got it in writing from C&RT, more than once, that the only grounds for refusal (revoking) a Licence are those stated in 17(4), and the wording on the Court papers eventually confirmed it after they'd finished moving the goal posts about.

[jenlyn]

Don't know what the Political Officers remit is, but if it is to liaise with the Government and hopefully get a larger grant, then more power to his elbow.

Vincent Moran stated quite categorically at a meeting that this would not be likely.