Best pay your CRT licence

[Tony Dunkley]

What recent failures?

Didn't they waste thousands of pounds last year trying to get rid of somebody on the Trent in the Nottingham area ?

[Guest]

Didn't they waste thousands of pounds last year trying to get rid of somebody on the Trent in the Nottingham area ?

Yes I was aware of that Tony.

 

There was reference to failures, rather than just the singular failure.

 

I would however be interested in loafers list, there is apparently a lot.

Edited February 5, 2015 by The Dog House

[Loafer]

Yes I was aware of that Tony.

 

There was reference to failures, rather than just the singular failure.

 

I would however be interested in loafers list, there is apparently a lot.

 

I made up the 'list' bit. My original reference to their 'failures' referred to a couple of S8 collapses and a loss over a home mooring case.

 

I can't produce specifics now, in my current state. I just meant a sort of 'bona fide' suggestion that they might be examining their legal status a bit more closely these days.

[Tony Dunkley]

The only defence i can see there is that the boat isnt in the main navigable channel, which suggests it was moored against a bank, so that being the case as my boat has a 14" draught and i take the risk of running aground, so long as i dont venture into the main boating channel i should be able to get my 850 plus pound licence fee returned!

 

more seriously though, i dont see where the problem lies, the boat wasnt licenced for 4 years, had he licenced it we wouldnt be having this discussion.

The mooring obviously wasnt a completely off the trent mooring like any of the marinas are such as farndon, newark, sawley, shardlow, castle marina etc. so the guy got away with flaunting his lack of licence for 4 years... personally i think he has been very lucky ... if i had my way any boat left unlicenced should be dealt with by a section 8 within a month unless the owner has made a justifiable case to CaRT as to why it hasnt been done .... if everyone knew to leave their boat unlicenced , uninsured or out of BSS meant losing it i am sure they wouldnt behave so flippantly, as i said, if you cant afford a boat dont have one, if you do and arent prepared to pay your way, dont cry if you lose it.

 

Rick

As I've said earlier, C&RT should take action against Licence dodgers, but it should be lawful action that both carries the penalties intended by Parliament and recovers any unpaid licence fees owed to the Trust. The statutory powers used in this instance do neither.

[Paul C]

Having read the above (the whole thread, that is): is it worth using up 55 minutes of my life watching this video, or am I best staying well out of it?

[Guest]

I made up the 'list' bit. My original reference to their 'failures' referred to a couple of S8 collapses and a loss over a home mooring case.

 

I can't produce specifics now, in my current state. I just meant a sort of 'bona fide' suggestion that they might be examining their legal status a bit more closely these days.

Current state?

 

[Loafer]

Current state?

 

 

You know. A bit Friday-Night-ish!

[Guest]

You know. A bit Friday-Night-ish!

It's only Thursday..........

 

Time for bed perhaps?

[Henhouse]

I suppose someone could phone the bloke up and ask him !!!

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/narrowboatsforsaleuk/permalink/438087286343355/

[dccruiser]

As I've said earlier, C&RT should take action against Licence dodgers, but it should be lawful action that both carries the penalties intended by Parliament and recovers any unpaid licence fees owed to the Trust. The statutory powers used in this instance do neither.

Although there is evidence the owner was aware he was licence dodging, if CaRT did behave in any way illegally or inapropriately the guy has the right to seek the correct recourse, but i would hope as he was also behaving inapropriately and flaunting the rules it wouldnt leave him a leg to stand on.

Personally as i said i would love the rules to change so that anyone who attempted to dodge a licence, BSC or insurance would immediately lose any rights whatsoever.

 

Rick

[Phil.]

Although there is evidence the owner was aware he was licence dodging, if CaRT did behave in any way illegally or inapropriately the guy has the right to seek the correct recourse, but i would hope as he was also behaving inapropriately and flaunting the rules it wouldnt leave him a leg to stand on.

Personally as i said i would love the rules to change so that anyone who attempted to dodge a licence, BSC or insurance would immediately lose any rights whatsoever.

 

Rick

That unfortunately is not the way things work. If C&RT have acted unlawfully it is of no relevance whether the owner of the boat owes any licence fees or broke any rules. In fact if anything if C&RT have acted unlawfully then it is likely to undermine any action they could legitimately take. This is how it should be, it is not acceptable that an authority that has enforcement powers granted to it abuses them either deliberately or negligently. I am not suggesting this is the case in this instance because I do not have possession of the full facts, but if it is then C&RT should be pursued through the courts. The other factor we should all be concerned with is if C&RT are misbehaving then they are leaving themselves open to having to pay damages. This is OUR money raised through licence fees and donations that they will be wasting by ineptness.

[dccruiser]

That unfortunately is not the way things work. If C&RT have acted unlawfully it is of no relevance whether the owner of the boat owes any licence fees or broke any rules. In fact if anything if C&RT have acted unlawfully then it is likely to undermine any action they could legitimately take. This is how it should be, it is not acceptable that an authority that has enforcement powers granted to it abuses them either deliberately or negligently. I am not suggesting this is the case in this instance because I do not have possession of the full facts, but if it is then C&RT should be pursued through the courts. The other factor we should all be concerned with is if C&RT are misbehaving then they are leaving themselves open to having to pay damages. This is OUR money raised through licence fees and donations that they will be wasting by ineptness.

Unfortunately i know hence the bottom line on my post , just like those that get off a drink driving charge on a technicality, very frustrating but part of todays world which is why i would love to see a very straightforward system like that finally adopted by the police and dvla in respect of unlicensed, non M.O.T.,d and uninsured cars.

 

Rick

[kevinl]

Without seeming...weird....I just wanted to ask....is this vid all there is to this story, or is this something currently taking place, that everyone can follow...in days/weeks/months to come....in other words, are we going to be talking about this particular guy and his boat for a long time,...with new facts along the way, or are we condemned to only talk about "the vid" and thus go in circles for ever ?

Well the vid is all there is, that's the topic and the whole story to date. It's amazing that with all the Notts members we have on here one has noticed a boat with a big name painted on the side "the three wise monkeys"and a picture of the monkeys too, a boat which has never moved in 4 years (where ever it has been parked) so we all can work out if it's been seen on the cut or not surely.

If it's been on some "historic mooring right site" or marina and doesn't need a licence C&RT will have to pay some compensation and get the issue sorted before they start "removing" boats from other no licence or private moorings places where they have no jurisdiction.

K

[bassplayer]

Personally as i said i would love the rules to change so that anyone who attempted to dodge a licence, BSC or insurance would immediately lose any rights whatsoever.

 

Rick

Which rights do you think they should lose? Lose their only home perhaps? The problem is that the authority (in this case CRT) can act as judge and jury. As it appears they already have a history of failed court cases I don't think your suggestion is reasonable in the civil world.

[MtB]

Which rights do you think they should lose? Lose their only home perhaps? The problem is that the authority (in this case CRT) can act as judge and jury. As it appears they already have a history of failed court cases I don't think your suggestion is reasonable in the civil world.

 

Are you saying you think liveaboards who have fallen on hard times should be excused paying for a licence? I'd just like to clarify.

 

It's a binary thing though isn't it? Either these peeps should be allowed to continue to live aboard without a license or they should lose their home. Neither option is acceptable but one or the other has to win out.

 

MtB

[mayalld]

Not necessarily the best way of looking at it. There is no provision for legal aid anymore.

He may not have the money to fund a court case, or even a friendly lawyer to pro bono the case.

 

Not a problem for him.

 

He doesn't "do" lawyers, he said so on the video.

[furnessvale]

I'm sure you are right about that. How do you know anyway?

 

Edited to say I never realised there was a Freemason group for women

 

https://www.owf.org.uk

It would appear that Google is your friend too!

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[mayalld]

Careful, Graham may report you. Your statement could be defamatory.

 

Joking apart, your statements are as "assuming" as Tony's though?

 

The only thing that is adequately clear, is the fact that CRT did not have any relevant paperwork on site. That is appalling.

 

I actually suggested previously that things might be better with some paperwork.

 

However;

 

1) I rather doubt that the paperwork would have satisfied the owner, because CRT have powers to seize vessels WITHOUT the approval of a court, so the paperwork would have been from CRT, and I supect the owner would have rejected it.

2) How far must the paperwork follow the boat. The video purports to show CRT seizing a boat, but that isn't what is happening. They seized the boat earlier, and removed it by water. They are now in the process of moving a boat that they already had posession of.

[costalot]

It seems to me that CRT have decided taking a boat owner to court to recover monies owed is expensive and the outcome uncertain. It appears their strategy is to provide the owner with a 'reasonable' number of warnings and then refuse to license the boat and demand it be removed from the waters over which they have authority. If this doesn't occur they then use their legal powers to remove the boat. Adopting this strategy is also expensive, but has a more certain outcome. CRT have probably assessed that if the owner failed to respond to the warnings or failed to reply via a solicitor, then they probably don't have the funds to take CRT to court.

 

This strategy isn't without risk as there is a small chance they might take a boat from water over which they don't have authority or they may strike and owner who does have the ability to challenge them in court.

 

In this case the failure to licence the boat indicates to me that the owner probably wouldn't have the funds to mount a legal challenge.

[Alf Roberts]

 

 

In this case the failure to licence the boat indicates to me that the owner probably wouldn't have the funds to mount a legal challenge.

 

....or he believed it was moored in a place he didn't need a licence

 

There are so many missing pieces to this jigsaw puzzle that speculation is just that; an interesting discussion of possiblities.

 

I am of the mind that Mayalld's point 2 is the case - it explains the boatyard's actions. If so, this video - and the actions portrayed - was so the wrong way to go about things.

[mayalld]

As I've said earlier, C&RT should take action against Licence dodgers, but it should be lawful action that both carries the penalties intended by Parliament and recovers any unpaid licence fees owed to the Trust. The statutory powers used in this instance do neither.

 

As you said earlier, CRT should use those powers which inconvenience the non-payer as little as possible.

 

It would appear that CRT (rightly or wrongly) take the view that those who don't pay their licences for 4 years are unlikely to actually have the money for 4 years licence lying around.

 

If they take him to court, perhaps they will get a judgement for payment, and perhaps he will offer a pound a week. They aren't about to make a realistic recovery of the debt, and he will continue to rack up more unpaid fees.

 

Seizing the boat means that if the owner DOES have the funds, he is going to pay up to get his boat back, and if he doesn't they might recover some money from the ultimate sale of the boat to somebody who might actually licence it.

[Henhouse]

It would seem to me that the gent concerned makes a habit of challenging authority.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRgE-a_plUE

[BrumSaint]

Where is your evidence for the 'facts' I've highlighted? Please don't say it is evident from the video, it is not; the only evidence in the video is the owner and someone else saying it was on private property. Your assertion that C&RT have acted unlawfully is only true if the 'facts' you state above are correct. If you can supply the evidence to support your facts, I think you will find that more people would accept your view of C&RT's actions. If you can't then people will look at the fact that the boat was unlicenced and conclude that C&RT are right to try and obtain the money owed to them.

 

 

In fact they're not doing that, which is one of the reasons for my criticism. The Section 8 process doesn't recover unpaid debt, like the 4 years licence fees, for instance, it just puts money into the pockets of contractors and hauliers.

I've added to the Post you quoted from . . . . . here it is again : -

That's the reason C&RT will put up for seizing and removing the boat, and if it had been, or was being used (for navigation) without a Licence then they certainly should be taking action against those responsible, however belated it may be . . . there was mention of 4 years Licence fees owing, and you have to ask why it's taken that long for BW / C&RT to get round to it.

Assuming that the boat has been, or was being, used whilst unlicensed we must first ask why there have not been either prosecution(s) under the Bye Laws followed by civil action for debt recovery by C&RT if the boat has been used on the canals, or simply civil action for debt recovery if use was restricted to the Trent. Both or either of these two alternatives would have resulted in income for the Trust, but they have chosen not to exercise the appropriate powers they have under the legislation that was put in place for the purpose of countering Licence evasion, opting instead for a process which in addition to being, in this instance, unlawful, entails considerable initial expediture and outlay by C&RT and does not result in the recovery of the money owed for unpaid licence fees that would have come via an action for civil debt recovery, the 4 years of unpaid licence fees, plus costs.

The boat in question was seized and removed from a mooring on private land and out of the main navigable channel on a scheduled river and was therefore not on C&RT waters at the time of seizure. Assuming that a Section 8 notice had been served at least 28 days prior to the seizure, then the vessel, by virtue of its location at the time of seizure, had been removed from C&RT waters as required under the S8 Notice. The 1983 Act empowers C&RT to remove sunken,derelict, abandoned or unlicensed vessels from it's waters, it does not confer upon them the right to seize and remove vessels that are not on, or have been removed from, their waters, which in this instance is precisely what they have done.

Hi Tony,

I see you are up to your favourite game of avoiding the question. C&RT are trying to obtain the money due to them (they seize the boat and either the owner pays what's due and gets the boat back, or they sell the boat and recover their money that way). You may think there are more efficient means of doing it, but the method they've chosen is still an attempt to regain the unpaid licence fees.

 

Now answer my original question, where is your evidence that C&RT "...seized and removed from a mooring on private land and out of the main navigable channel..." the boat in question?

[mayalld]

It would seem to me that the gent concerned makes a habit of challenging authority.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRgE-a_plUE

 

let's not stint on this;

 

LEIGH Ravenscroft, 39, of Moor Lane, East Stoke, has been found guilty of having no insurance for a Mercedes in Upper Parliament Street, Nottingham, on January 11. His case will be listed at Mansfield Magistrates' Court on January 14.

 

Read more: http://www.nottinghampost.com/News-courts/story-20326511-detail/story.html#ixzz3QxLIsh8k

Follow us: @Nottingham_Post on Twitter | NottinghamPostOnline on Facebook

[churchward]

 

Are you saying you think liveaboards who have fallen on hard times should be excused paying for a licence? I'd just like to clarify.

 

It's a binary thing though isn't it? Either these peeps should be allowed to continue to live aboard without a license or they should lose their home. Neither option is acceptable but one or the other has to win out.

 

MtB

There is a third option. Those people who genuinely have reached the point where they cannot pay the licence due to unemployment, ill health for example can claim benefit. Just like those on land with rent arrears and the like.

 

On the whole there is little excuse for someone not to pay their licence.