Best pay your CRT licence

[NigelMoore]

if indeed a boat were moored on a river out of the main navigable channel over private land, and a boat owner occasionally used their boat (within the main navigable channel, thus requiring a licence) what are CRT's options to address the non-payment or non-obtainment of a licence if the boat returns at the end of each cruise to private land/outside of main navigable channel?

 

It is a good question. Such a situation is no different to that of a boat in an offline arm or marina in the canal system where a licence is not required until the boat enters the canal itself. Nothing physically stops a boat doing so, and the simple answer is that if no-one notices, they will get away with it.

 

Same as if you have an unlicensed vehicle in your driveway declared SORN – you can drive down to the shops and back and get away with it much of the time. But in both cases, there is always a risk, and if the authority catches you, in both cases there is a similar outcome: you get convicted of the offence.

 

The boat may no longer be where it needs to be licensed, so you cannot [legally] s.8 it; not are there any monies owed for a licence you have not been given, so there is no civil debt to pursue - but if entering the canal system unlicensed, you have committed an offence under the byelaws, so can be prosecuted for that each and every time you are caught at it, with the attendant £100 fine plus costs.

 

On the rivers, if, as per your example, you are caught using your boat in the main navigable channel without a valid licence or certificate, you incur a fine also - in that case the offence being a breach of the statute, rather than a byelaw – and that applies to every day you are proven to have done so at a time [if you were out for more than a day trip].

 

CaRT do not, in other words, need to "address the non-payment or non-obtainment of a licence" other than to prosecute for the statutory or byelaw offence committed by not having one when needed.

 

It is something to bear in mind by those who suggest doing short trips through CaRT waters transiting jurisdictions, who point out that you would not need to fear s.8's because you would have left the jurisdiction before s.8 could bite - you will have, but you would have still committed the offence and [if caught at it] could be prosecuted for it [and end up with a criminal record to boot, though that would carry no more onerous record than a speeding ticket].

[valrene9600]

 

I thought the point was this boat was moored where it didn't need a license but here was reason to believe it had been in water where it did. If that is the case benefits could surely have been claimed as it wasn't CCing..[/

quote]

 

Talking generally not specificaly about the Trent boat.

[valrene9600]

 

 

No-one is having a gun held to their head forcing them to live in a boat and CC.

 

So people who decide to live on a boat have less rights than those on land. Strange attitude, you surprise me.

 

MtB

I agree but then nothing is easy when you reach the point of owing money without the means to pay.

 

Just because it is not easy it isn't an excuse for not doing it. If you want/need help first you have to help yourself obtain it.

Dam phone

Be interesting to hear from a genuine c/ c claiming benifits.

All these posts people will be calling me Tony.

Chill T just trying to inject a little humour

Edited February 6, 2015 by valrene9600

[costalot]

The implications of the Part 8 procedure are not affected or altered in any way by the preliminaries for the Section 8.

The fact that a Defendant should get a copy of any Order doesn't help them at all, it's too late by then.

That was quite generous by their standards.

 

The implications of the Part 8 procedure are not affected or altered in any way by the preliminaries for the Section 8.

The fact that a Defendant should get a copy of any Order doesn't help them at all, it's too late by then.

That was quite generous by their standards.

 

I agree about the defendant situation starting to become "too late by then". The defendant should take steps to avoid reaching that situation. Ignoring the prior correspondence from CRT IMHO is a bad decision. With hindsight paying for a licence would have been much cheaper than the cost of going to court or losing your boat.

[MtB]

 

 

I agree about the defendant situation starting to become "too late by then". The defendant should take steps to avoid reaching that situation. Ignoring the prior correspondence from CRT IMHO is a bad decision. With hindsight paying for a licence would have been much cheaper than the cost of going to court or losing your boat.

 

 

Ah but the victim being deluded, probably considers that CRT have been in the wrong all along and he still expects to get his boat back for free, once the police, CRT, judges etc finally listen to him and see the light.

 

MtB

[bassplayer]

 

 

Ah but the victim being deluded, probably considers that CRT have been in the wrong all along and he still expects to get his boat back for free, once the police, CRT, judges etc finally listen to him and see the light.

 

MtB

Why would thinking you're inecent be deluded? I thought everyone was inecent until being found guilty in this country. Seems that's not always the case.

[Paul C]

Why would thinking you're inecent be deluded? I thought everyone was inecent until being found guilty in this country. Seems that's not always the case.

 

That's very muddled!

[Alf Roberts]

 

 

Ah but the victim being deluded, probably considers that CRT have been in the wrong all along and he still expects to get his boat back for free, once the police, CRT, judges etc finally listen to him and see the light.

 

MtB

ah, you know he's deluded then? some facts at last. please share.

 

i assume you are stating that a license was necessary where his boat was moored. can we have some detail please?

[MtB]

ah, you know he's deluded then? some facts at last. please share.

 

 

No of course I don't, silly!

 

I was just joining in with everyone else making stuff up, then commenting as if fact.

 

 

MtB

[Alf Roberts]

 

 

No of course I don't, silly!

 

I was just joining in with everyone else making stuff up, then commenting as if fact.

 

 

MtB

aah... ok. so...

 

Ah but the victim , probably considers that CRT have been in the wrong all along and he still expects to get his boat back for free, once the police, CRT, judges etc finally listen to him and see the light.

 

facts would help !!

[MtB]

aah... ok. so...

 

Ah but the victim , probably considers that CRT have been in the wrong all along and he still expects to get his boat back for free, once the police, CRT, judges etc finally listen to him and see the light.

 

facts would help !!

 

 

Tony has all the facts, so he claims...

[bassplayer]

That's very muddled!

Maybe because it suits your agenda to say it's muddled. One thing is for certain...I can't spell 'innocent'...well I can now!

[BrumSaint]

I' m not sure what sort of evidence you want or expect, really. The info. I got about where the boat was at the time of seizure came from someone well known to me and who was involved to some extent on the day, and I'm afraid that's as much about that as I'm in a position to tell you. I can assure you, though, the boat was towed away by C&RT's contractors, from a mooring on private land and out of the main navigable channel, to where it was lifted on to the lorry.

OK, it seems you have been told by a third party (who you won't/can't identify) that the boat, at the time it was seized was not on any land or water that C&RT have responsibility for, and you believe this person. That's fair enough, you can believe whoever you want, but when you post you should preface your assertion with the words 'I understand', because without concrete evidence that is all you have, an understanding. By boldly stating it was unlawful for C&RT to seize the boat, people think you have access to facts that they don't, and in order to understand the situation properly will ask you for the evidence which enables you to make such a definitive statement.

[Mike Todd]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but C&RT have no statutory powers of seizure pursuant to debt recovery, other than what I think you mean by the 'normal' rules, which apply to all.

As this was a C&RT seizure (for alleged non compliance with an S.8 Notice), and not a Bailiff / Sheriff seizure (for debt), the question of whether or not the boat was in C&RT waters at the time of seizure is relevant, and crucial, to the question of whether or not the seizure was lawful. They are two entirely separate issues.

The video gave no evidence either way - but perhaps you now have some direct input on it. It could have been the case that the bailiff bit was done before the camera started rolling, in which case the boat will then be in the lawful posession of CRT.

Behave yourself! if i move into my motorhome, park it on the side of the M5 , or any other road and refused to tax and insure it because it was my home and i couldnt afford it , it would still be seized by the police and put into a compound, so why should a boat on a major waterway be any different?..... and if this boat was lived on where was the guy when they towed it? probably at home or work or out in his car shopping or otherwise earning and spending money he chose not to buy a licence with.

 

For those who fall on hard times and do live on boats, most councils pay moorings and in some cases licences in leiu of housing benefit, so there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not paying your way whether it be by working or claiming benefits , so my stance remains the same, pay for it or lose it.

 

Rick

But to be fair to Tony D and others of like eprsuasion, that comparsion is not worth a lot unless there are comparable laws to back it up. The contention is that since the legal framework has not been updated, CRT's powers regarding boats is very differnt from police with regard to cars.

[Mike Todd]

Maybe it's me but it seems some people keep avoiding my question. I'll paraphrase it again. Does anyone think an authority (like CRT) should be able mess with someone's home without both sides being heard in a proper court first? I don't know if the guy lived on that boat (I doubt it), I'm just asking people for general views.

 

BTW, I do try to comply with the rules...and like you I have an issue with h P takers...regardless of their agenda and walk of life...don't we all?

When a baot is a permanent home, as with a landlord of a rented property, there is an extensive procedure which can take for ever. Great from the tenant's point of view when faced with an aggressive landlord, but it can also mean that in cases where the tenant (or in this case a liveaboard boater) has no intention of complying, it will take a very long time from giving notice to actual re-possession or (in the case of a boat) seizure. If you are landlord in the context and losing rent as well has, like as not, having the premises trashed, it is not such good news. Over the years the legal balance has swung from one side to the other and it seems as if no point on the spectrum is OK - one side or the other takes advantage. As far as I can see, CRT comply with the current legal framework) unscrupulous landlords may well resort to all sorts of harassment etc) - one can always debate the extent to which they might have used their right to discretion in hard cases, but it is rare that any tenant or boater facing eviction is entirely blameless.

[Mike Todd]

 

You've "slanted" your question a little bassplayer.

 

As I understand it CaRT is not even allowed to care about whether someone might lose their home or not. Certainly they would be crazy to accept any formal responsibility of that kind if it were offered to them.

 

The real question is "who is responsible for people who can't afford to live in their current home, or are unable due to social or other issues from taking care of themselves?".

 

I suggest that the correct answer will never be CaRT.

I think you go too far: what has been estabnlished is that CRT does not have a **duty** to act as a housing authority. If they did then they might find themselves having to re-house homeless boaters, although not those who have made themselves intentionally homeless.

 

This does not **prevent** CRT from acting with discretion in order to minimise the number of cases that reach crisis point. After all, they certainly have discretion over what constitutes circumstances that justify over-staying. There is, as far as I am aware, not obligation on CRT to presecute instantly every infringement. If they did then there would definitely be no money left over for maintenance!

 

CRT accepts council benefit from some liveaboards, that makes them a landlord, housing association, whatever you want to call it (officially or not).

As a council recently pointed out at a meeting, this brings responsibilities with it, and will be harder for the trust to ignore as time goes by.

I doubt if that is correct. Boaters may well receive housing benefit which they are, intriguingly, able to use to pay for licence and mooring if a liveaboard. Direct payments I think have now been withdrawn - a big mistake.

[Mike Todd]

Yes that's another annoying thing. We have to pay solicitors lots of money because most of us find the law too complex to understand. Surely it's not that way on purpose?

No, it's that way because lots of people push at boundaries and the law adds complexity after complexity in an effort to deal with arcane cases.

[Gordias]

I think you go too far: what has been estabnlished is that CRT does not have a **duty** to act as a housing authority. If they did then they might find themselves having to re-house homeless boaters, although not those who have made themselves intentionally homeless.

 

This does not **prevent** CRT from acting with discretion in order to minimise the number of cases that reach crisis point. After all, they certainly have discretion over what constitutes circumstances that justify over-staying. There is, as far as I am aware, not obligation on CRT to presecute instantly every infringement. If they did then there would definitely be no money left over for maintenance!

 

I doubt if that is correct. Boaters may well receive housing benefit which they are, intriguingly, able to use to pay for licence and mooring if a liveaboard. Direct payments I think have now been withdrawn - a big mistake.

 

Perhaps I didn't go far enough Anyway I think me agree (more or less).

 

CaRT made an announcement a little while ago they they have in informal "partnership" with a social welfare organization, so they're not completely turning their back on welfare issues.

I don't remember the details, but it seemed reasonable behavior on CaRT part in two ways:

• It gives them a way to informally report possible issues noticed by their staff
• I thought they made a special effort to state that welfare and housing of boaters isn't a formal responsibility / duty of CaRT - in contrast to councils, who must address these matters

I makes sense to me. CaRT have no way to get enough income to care for thousands of boaters, and it would not be good for the system if they had to prioritize social issues over management and maintenance. OTOH if a boater reports (temporary or permanent) difficulties in paying for their license or mooring, it should be easy for CaRT to engage the responsible authorities, and they should do so reliably and promptly.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Gordias

[Tony Dunkley]

The video gave no evidence either way - but perhaps you now have some direct input on it. It could have been the case that the bailiff bit was done before the camera started rolling, in which case the boat will then be in the lawful posession of CRT.

 

Definitely not a Bailiff /Sheriff seizure. The boat is now stored by Commercial Boat Services at Chester, who were the C&RT contractors who towed it from it's mooring to where it was lifted out and on to the lorry. Transporting a boat over a long distance following seizure, such as Newark to Chester, is normal C&RT practice as a means of increasing the removal costs.

Commercial Boat Services are now waiting for the requisite 6 weeks to elapse, after which, title to the vessel passes to C&RT and it can be put on sale by their (CBS's) Brokerage.

[Paul C]

Maybe because it suits your agenda to say it's muddled. One thing is for certain...I can't spell 'innocent'...well I can now!

 

I don't have an agenda, I just like boating.

[Tony Dunkley]

When a baot is a permanent home, as with a landlord of a rented property, there is an extensive procedure which can take for ever. Great from the tenant's point of view when faced with an aggressive landlord, but it can also mean that in cases where the tenant (or in this case a liveaboard boater) has no intention of complying, it will take a very long time from giving notice to actual re-possession or (in the case of a boat) seizure.

Can you provide some more details of this 'extensive procedure' . . . I'm not aware of any such thing applicable to C&RT, as a Navigation Authority, for seizing or removing boats from their waters.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Alf Roberts]

Definitely not a Bailiff /Sheriff seizure. The boat is now stored by Commercial Boat Services at Chester, who were the C&RT contractors who towed it from it's mooring to where it was lifted out and on to the lorry. Transporting a boat over a long distance following seizure, such as Newark to Chester, is normal C&RT practice as a means of increasing the removal costs.

Commercial Boat Services are now waiting for the requisite 6 weeks to elapse, after which, title to the vessel passes to C&RT and it can be put on sale by their (CBS's) Brokerage.

and do you know whether the owner is taking CRT to court?

[Phil.]

Commercial Boat Services are now waiting for the requisite 6 weeks to elapse, after which, title to the vessel passes to C&RT and it can be put on sale by their (CBS's) Brokerage.

Surely if the boat has been seized incorrectly, title can never pass to C&RT and perhaps the owner should serve notice on this company to that effect, also hint that in addition to pursuing C&RT he will also seek damages from them unless the boat is returned immediately. If nothing else the company will then be onto C&RT to establish if they have acted without legal authority, which is what is being suggested.

[bassplayer]

I don't have an agenda, I just like boating.

So why did you think my post was muddled?

 

Come to think of it, what made you think I would propose they don't go to court if it's a live aboard boat? Re : Your quote from earlier "...they ALREADY DO go to court if its a liveaboard boat. Or are you proposing they stop doing so?"

 

...seems a bit odd to me...

[Tony Dunkley]

and do you know whether the owner is taking CRT to court?

No, afraid not, but I hope he does, although having seen him perform in the video, it would be very much for the best if he was represented.

Whatever he's done or not done, it's been allowed to continue for the last 4 years by BW and C&RT so it's hardly likely to be the crime of the century and C&RT's behaviour shouldn't go unchallenged. If they expect boaters to abide by their rules and the law, then they should set an example and first do so themselves.