CANAL & RIVER TRUST OUTLINES POLICY FOR BOATERS WITHOUT A HOME MOORING

[Arthur Marshall]

 

PS Why do you have 2x IDs on the forum?

You jumped in very quick there - I deleted the post as soon as I realised I'd logged in under the wrong ID (as the edit says), and didn't bother to repost it. I may have several IDs - I had real trouble initially getting onto the forum and just kept trying. Normally i stay logged in but my computer clearing-up doofer deletes the cookies every week so i have to log in again. This time I picked the wrong one. No idea how to delete all the other ones, but I never use them, and they don't appear on the members list.

(edited for clarity)

Edited February 16, 2015 by Arthur Marshall

[Naughty Cal]

You jumped in very quick there - I deleted the post as soon as I realised I'd logged in under the wrong ID (as the edit says), and didn't bother to repost it. I may have several IDs - I had real trouble initially getting onto the forum and just kept trying. Normally i stay logged in but my computer clearing-up doofer deletes the cookies every week so i have to log in again. This time I picked the wrong one. No idea how to delete all the other ones, but I never use them, and they don't appear on the members list.

(edited for clarity)

Get the mods to delete them?

 

It is against forum rules to have numerous accounts.

[NigelMoore]

 

I'm trying to remember what Nigel said about the Court fees . . . .

 

Court fees [as with everything else of course], have risen.

 

Costs depend on the nature of your claim. A Small Claims application for money can be as little as £35 [£25 if made online], rising according to the value of the claim.

 

To issue a claim for something other than money, including possession, the fees payable will be based on where you start your claim:

 

County Court £280; High Court £480

 

Counter-claims attract the same level of fees. I haven’t kept track of the Rules recently, but I imagine that an application for an Injunction would qualify as a non-money claim, and would ordinarily have to accompany one. So: you would apply for declaratory relief and include an application for an injunction to prevent an action being taken prior to a court determination of your case.

 

Pertinent to this topic, if your boat licence was revoked/refused for any reason other than the ’95 Act requirements, then you would apply for Judicial Review of that decision, claiming that the CaRT decision was contrary to law, and asking the court to declare that the decision to refuse your licence should be quashed, and for an Injunction to restrain CaRT from acting under s.8 powers unless and until the court decided whether or not you were correct.

 

What you need to do prior to that of course, is write to them setting out your position and intentions, asking them to reconsider their position. If they refuse, then ask for an Undertaking that they will not act without court authority, in any action whether started by you or them.

 

If they give such an undertaking, then you don’t need the Injunction claim. This is all covered by what they call the ‘pre-action protocols’; designed to avoid unnecessary court action through voluntary agreements between reasonable [!?] people.

 

Once you have staved off the imminent threat of s.8, then you have breathing space to negotiate/debate with CaRT over your argument prior to making your claim through the courts [hopefully avoiding any JR at all]. Usually, CaRT will be agreeable to giving such an undertaking, though less amenable to debating the law; this is because it not only looks bad to the court for them not to agree to await a decision over a reasonably presented argument on a point of law, it also gives them time to comprehensively instruct their outsourced legal teams who have developed a specialty in manipulating the BW statutes.

 

Undertakings will ordinarily be ‘civil’ – between the two parties only, or they may be given to the court, which carries rather more ‘oomph’ with potential sanction for contempt of court similar to the Injunction. Don’t trust in this blindly though, there are always new employees to deploy who can be held to be ignorant of undertakings of either sort, offering the opportunity to bring about a fait accompli with little more than a rap on the knuckles.

 

Needless [?] to say, you need to have researched the facts and law well before ever finding yourself in such a position, and be totally confidant in your understanding. Also – think about the seriousness of that over which you seek to make a point; most of time, it is easy enough [e.g. if accused of overstaying] to simply move along in compliance with a request, or to accept some trivial even if unjustifiable suggestion as to compliance with T&C’s.

 

http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex050-eng.pdf

 

A Judicial Review application costs £140, and if permission is granted then a further fee of £700 is payable if you wish to proceed.

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/courts/administrative-court/applying-for-judicial-review.pdf

 

These sound high, but those on low income may be eligible for “Fee Remission”. You must not have disposable capital assets above certain levels, but if you qualify on that score, then you must also be either on some form of benefits, or have a gross monthly income less than a certain amount.

 

Your home and contents do not count as disposable capital assets, so if your boat is your only home, the value of that does not count, nor do the tools of your trade, nor your car if the sale of it would leave you without transport.

 

For a single person with no children, the gross monthly income threshold is £1,085.

 

http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex160a-eng.pdf

 

As to solicitors costs, I have never found one who was worth paying anything [of course there are plenty of excellent ones, but how would you find them and how would you know they were any good?], and more than once have been almost completely placed in peril through their ignorance and/or tendency to take uninstructed unilateral action.

 

Aside from that, there are very few waterways law experts, and they are mostly in the pay of the authorities. So as a general rule - if you don't know the law sufficiently well to argue the case yourself [or can learn fast on your feet], don't think that employing the legal profession is going to benefit you; it can work against you. Their greatest value is in understanding the procedural requirements and options.

[NigelMoore]

I suspect the judge didn't award CRT cost of 50,000+ at the second hearing because he would have known GDM had minimal income and was about to lose his home.

 

 

 

It doesn’t work that way – a judge will award costs regardless of ability to pay. The only basis on which a judge will overturn the usual rule of 'winner gets costs' is for reasons of contributing bad behaviour on the winner’s part. Depending on the extent to which the successful claimant has acted badly [or not won all their claims], the judge can reduce the costs award accordingly, or even – as in this case – deny them altogether.

 

I have never heard of a judge awarding or refusing costs on the basis of ability to pay; the closest scenario to that was seen in the rules applying to those on Legal Aid.

 

[NigelMoore]

As I understand it all the new terms and conditions ask for is the right to come on board to affix notices . . .

 

The T&C’s don’t ask for the right to board your boat; they tell you that you agree to it by accepting a boat licence. There is no restriction acknowledged in the T&C’s as in only for affixing notices or crossing boats, the new version but adds to the reasons for boarding, the claimed right to which has previously been part of the old T&C’s.

 

Thunderbird need not be unduly worried however, because they can never make that stick. Not even an Act of Parliament can remove a statutory right by implication only, let alone unilateral demands by a body expressly prohibited [in this case] from boarding boats without notice or permission except when there is reason to believe in an urgent safety issue. Permission cannot be legally obtained through inserting this into non-optional T&C's.

 

Any CaRT employee should be made aware that violating the statutory prohibition in reliance on the T&C’s places them in a position where the boat master can ask them to get off their boat, and place them under arrest if they fail to comply.

[Arthur Marshall]

Get the mods to delete them?

 

It is against forum rules to have numerous accounts.

Thanks - done it.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

It doesn’t work that way – a judge will award costs regardless of ability to pay. The only basis on which a judge will overturn the usual rule of 'winner gets costs' is for reasons of contributing bad behaviour on the winner’s part. Depending on the extent to which the successful claimant has acted badly [or not won all their claims], the judge can reduce the costs award accordingly, or even – as in this case – deny them altogether.

 

I have never heard of a judge awarding or refusing costs on the basis of ability to pay; the closest scenario to that was seen in the rules applying to those on Legal Aid.

 

I believe the bad behaviour was Geoff Mayers being told that the date of the hearing had been moved such that the case was initially heard in his absence.

 

[thunderbird]

 

The T&C’s don’t ask for the right to board your boat; they tell you that you agree to it by accepting a boat licence. There is no restriction acknowledged in the T&C’s as in only for affixing notices or crossing boats, the new version but adds to the reasons for boarding, the claimed right to which has previously been part of the old T&C’s.

 

Thunderbird need not be unduly worried however, because they can never make that stick. Not even an Act of Parliament can remove a statutory right by implication only, let alone unilateral demands by a body expressly prohibited [in this case] from boarding boats without notice or permission except when there is reason to believe in an urgent safety issue. Permission cannot be legally obtained through inserting this into non-optional T&C's.

 

Any CaRT employee should be made aware that violating the statutory prohibition in reliance on the T&C’s places them in a position where the boat master can ask them to get off their boat, and place them under arrest if they fail to comply.

Reassuring thank you Nigel. However one of my worries relates to physical damage to persons should a boat be boarded by CRT employees without permission, assuming it to be their right to do so, and then being bitten by an owners dog?

[jenlyn]

Reassuring thank you Nigel. However one of my worries relates to physical damage to persons should a boat be boarded by CRT employees without permission, assuming it to be their right to do so, and then being bitten by an owners dog?

That was one of my points at the meeting with CRT when this was discussed.

They shrugged it off. Which was pretty stupid, as at some point, it will happen.

[churchward]

 

The T&C’s don’t ask for the right to board your boat; they tell you that you agree to it by accepting a boat licence. There is no restriction acknowledged in the T&C’s as in only for affixing notices or crossing boats, the new version but adds to the reasons for boarding, the claimed right to which has previously been part of the old T&C’s.

 

Thunderbird need not be unduly worried however, because they can never make that stick. Not even an Act of Parliament can remove a statutory right by implication only, let alone unilateral demands by a body expressly prohibited [in this case] from boarding boats without notice or permission except when there is reason to believe in an urgent safety issue. Permission cannot be legally obtained through inserting this into non-optional T&C's.

 

Any CaRT employee should be made aware that violating the statutory prohibition in reliance on the T&C’s places them in a position where the boat master can ask them to get off their boat, and place them under arrest if they fail to comply.

It seems wrong on many levels for CRT to have (or think they have) the right to enter any ones boat because they want to (even if they are restricting the potential by a list of reasons) . There must be some independent judicial judgement and issue of a writ before this could happen in my view, case by case just as with little exception the police etc. must do with someone's property on land. It seems we have slipped back to the dark ages with CRT thinking they have the right to enter someone's boat without permission or a writ/warrent.

 

It is just wrong.

[thunderbird]

 

It doesn’t work that way – a judge will award costs regardless of ability to pay. The only basis on which a judge will overturn the usual rule of 'winner gets costs' is for reasons of contributing bad behaviour on the winner’s part. Depending on the extent to which the successful claimant has acted badly [or not won all their claims], the judge can reduce the costs award accordingly, or even – as in this case – deny them altogether.

 

I have never heard of a judge awarding or refusing costs on the basis of ability to pay; the closest scenario to that was seen in the rules applying to those on Legal Aid.

 

And what was it all for? Poor Geoff lost his home that is now said to be 'beyond economical repair' so yet more money down the CRT drain!

[thunderbird]

That was one of my points at the meeting with CRT when this was discussed.

They shrugged it off. Which was pretty stupid, as at some point, it will happen.

I've never met a boater yet that hasn't asked permission to cross my boat before doing so, and I likewise would never cross another's boat without first having asked for permission. Good manners decree. CRT appears not only to be mannerless, but to be on a planet of its own imagination! And yes, at some point it is bound to happen and then no doubt CRT will blame the boater and also seek destruction of 'the 'out of control' dog!'

[Jerra]

And yes, at some point it is bound to happen and then no doubt CRT will blame the boater and also seek destruction of 'the 'out of control' dog!'

A dog can be classed as dangerously out of control even in your own house if:

• injures someone
• makes someone worried that it might injure them

So it would be dangerously out of control if it bit someone.

[Graham Davis]

It seems wrong on many levels for CRT to have (or think they have) the right to enter any ones boat because they want to (even if they are restricting the potential by a list of reasons) . There must be some independent judicial judgement and issue of a writ before this could happen in my view, case by case just as with little exception the police etc. must do with someone's property on land. It seems we have slipped back to the dark ages with CRT thinking they have the right to enter someone's boat without permission or a writ/warrent.

 

It is just wrong.

 

It isn't a "right to enter", but as Nigel says a "right to board".

There is a big difference!

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

The T&C’s don’t ask for the right to board your boat; they tell you that you agree to it by accepting a boat licence. There is no restriction acknowledged in the T&C’s as in only for affixing notices or crossing boats, the new version but adds to the reasons for boarding, the claimed right to which has previously been part of the old T&C’s.

 

Thunderbird need not be unduly worried however, because they can never make that stick. Not even an Act of Parliament can remove a statutory right by implication only, let alone unilateral demands by a body expressly prohibited [in this case] from boarding boats without notice or permission except when there is reason to believe in an urgent safety issue. Permission cannot be legally obtained through inserting this into non-optional T&C's.

 

Any CaRT employee should be made aware that violating the statutory prohibition in reliance on the T&C’s places them in a position where the boat master can ask them to get off their boat, and place them under arrest if they fail to comply.

I think we could do with some clarification as to EXACTLY what is meant by 'boarding' the boat. My understanding is that by 'boarding' they mean getting onto the exterior of a boat principally to attach items to it,whereas a lot on this thread seem to be interpreting it as meaning entering the inside of the boat itself. I don't think that there is any suggestion that I can see that CRT want to enter the boat unless someone can see it somewhere in the revised T & C's. If it is merely boarding the exterior of the boat then I really don't see that there is much of an issue to be made since trespass is not committed until someone (with the authority to do so) has told you that they do not want you on their property and that your are trespassing and they would like you to leave. The old 'Trespassers will be prosecuted' signs are pretty meaningless since simple trespass is not a criminal offence (unlike Trespassing with Intent or trespassing with a Firearm). Neither am I entirely sure sure why the boat master would place anyone under arrest for trespassing on their boat, surely the whole purpose of the exercise is to remove someone who is trespassing, for which the law gives the authority to use reasonable force to do so if they do not go when asked.

 

It seems wrong on many levels for CRT to have (or think they have) the right to enter any ones boat because they want to (even if they are restricting the potential by a list of reasons) . There must be some independent judicial judgement and issue of a writ before this could happen in my view, case by case just as with little exception the police etc. must do with someone's property on land. It seems we have slipped back to the dark ages with CRT thinking they have the right to enter someone's boat without permission or a writ/warrent.

 

It is just wrong.

As has been written elsewhere I think that you will find that there are a lot of agencies who, under given circumstances have a statuary right of entry to your home without a warrant (including the Police). I have been 'advised' on several occasions by wife-beaters that, "...you ain't coming in here without a warrant...", sadly they have always been lawfully proven wrong

 

I've never met a boater yet that hasn't asked permission to cross my boat before doing so, and I likewise would never cross another's boat without first having asked for permission. Good manners decree. CRT appears not only to be mannerless, but to be on a planet of its own imagination! And yes, at some point it is bound to happen and then no doubt CRT will blame the boater and also seek destruction of 'the 'out of control' dog!'

Perhaps I'm particularly ill mannered but I can, off the top of my head think of at least two occasion in recent months when I have crossed someone else's boat without asking for, or gaining their permission. One occasion was where someone had left their boat moored and unattended on a water point so I rafted up alongside and took on water and the second occasion was going up through the staircase at Chester doubled up with another boat with a large enthusiastic, but not particulalry skilled shore crew. We were failing to get out of the middle chamber over the cill into the next lock and became caught with our bows on the cill when one of the crew of the other boat went back to the lock gates behind us with a windlass in his hand. I called up NOT to open the paddles on the gate to which he replied "It's already open". I haven't moved so fast in years to get up and get the paddle shut, on the way back to my own boat afterwards I did apologise to the skipper of the other boat but it's amazing what fear will do!!

Edited February 16, 2015 by Wanderer Vagabond

[NigelMoore]

. . . one of my worries relates to physical damage to persons should a boat be boarded by CRT employees without permission, assuming it to be their right to do so, and then being bitten by an owners dog?

 

In such a situation I would want my dog checked over by the nearest vet in case of food poisoning, then give him a biscuit for doing his job.

 

If the bitten intruder had been genuinely under the mistaken impression that he was empowered to board your boat, I would advise him to get a specialist solicitor to sue his employer for placing him in harm’s way in wrongly encouraging him to commit the crime, or for at least being criminally negligent in not giving him correct legal advice as to the limits to his empowerment.

 

Not knowing the law on dog-owner liabilities in circumstances where the attack was on private property against an intruder, I can’t comment on how that would affect you, although it might be covered under some public liability insurance? If I was a dog owner I would definitely check that out whether on boat or land.

[Jerra]

 

It isn't a "right to enter", but as Nigel says a "right to board".

There is a big difference!

I would like somebody to clarify things. As I interpret "right to board" coupled with what is said in the T & Cs they mean either standing on the deck or crossing the deck to get to another boat. What is there to get so hot under the collar about.

 

While it isn't something to encourage I don't visualise every CRT employee you meet wanting to stand on your boat. As far as I can see it would only come into play if they needed to communicate with you, surely that is a good thing rather than letters going to the wrong address or being left for a couple of months while matters escalate. Or if they need to cross your boat to a breasted up boat for similar reasons. If you are going to allow boats to breast up you obviously don't mind people crossing your deck (yes I know they have asked) but you have agreed in the T & C to allowing that.

 

I see it as being so rare that it is no worse than somebody walking up your drive to put a note through the letter box, or a traffic warden touching your car to fix the penalty notice.

[NigelMoore]

It seems wrong on many levels for CRT to have (or think they have) the right to enter any ones boat because they want to (even if they are restricting the potential by a list of reasons) . There must be some independent judicial judgement and issue of a writ before this could happen in my view, case by case just as with little exception the police etc. must do with someone's property on land. It seems we have slipped back to the dark ages with CRT thinking they have the right to enter someone's boat without permission or a writ/warrent.

 

It is just wrong.

 

It IS wrong, but CaRT do not think it is right [as in correct] either – that is WHY they introduced the supposed permission into T&C’s in the first place. They recognise that that are forbidden to enter upon any vessel in their jurisdiction for any reason other than to do with safety.

 

There is no ambiguity in the relevant law: the only statute empowering a BW/CaRT officer to “enter upon any vessel” within their jurisdiction is strictly “for the purpose of inspecting the condition of the vessel so as to ascertain whether the vessel is unsafe.” [i.e. “if its condition is such as to constitute a danger to persons on board the vessel, to other persons, or to any property”.]

 

Even there, the statute provides [Part II, s.7(2)( b ) of the ’83 Act]:

 

“An officer SHALL NOT enter upon any vessel in accordance with this subsection UNLESS –

 

(i) not less than 24 hours’ notice of such entry had been given to the master of the vessel; or

 

(ii) the officer has reason to believe that the vessel may be unsafe and that an immediate inspection is required.” [my capitalisation and bold for emphasis]

 

As to making no difficulties in giving permission to CaRT officers as much as to any other boaters, to come on board for innocuous purposes while you are aboard, that is simply, as said, a matter of courtesy. What is objectionable is the assumption of power to enter upon your boat for any other reason than provided for by statute, whether you are present or not, willing or not. If you are happy with the idea that you have given permission via acceptance of the T&C's for an officer to board your boat without notice in your absence, then fine - but no licence holder can be held in law to have done so via that device.

 

It is no accident that this offence of boarding without the master's consent appears within the Merchant Shipping Act under the section on Safety of Vessels.

[Paul C]

 

It IS wrong, but CaRT do not think it is right [as in correct] either – that is WHY they introduced the supposed permission into T&C’s in the first place. They recognise that that are forbidden to enter upon any vessel in their jurisdiction for any reason other than to do with safety.

 

There is no ambiguity in the relevant law: the only statute empowering a BW/CaRT officer to “enter upon any vessel” within their jurisdiction is strictly “for the purpose of inspecting the condition of the vessel so as to ascertain whether the vessel is unsafe.” [i.e. “if its condition is such as to constitute a danger to persons on board the vessel, to other persons, or to any property”.]

 

Even there, the statute provides [Part II, s.7(2)( b ) of the ’83 Act]:

 

“An officer SHALL NOT enter upon any vessel in accordance with this subsection UNLESS –

 

(i) not less than 24 hours’ notice of such entry had been given to the master of the vessel; or

 

(ii) the officer has reason to believe that the vessel may be unsafe and that an immediate inspection is required.” [my capitalisation and bold for emphasis]

 

As to making no difficulties in giving permission to CaRT officers as much as to any other boaters, to come on board for innocuous purposes while you are aboard, that is simply, as said, a matter of courtesy. What is objectionable is the assumption of power to enter upon your boat for any other reason than provided for by statute, whether you are present or not, willing or not. If you are happy with the idea that you have given permission via acceptance of the T&C's for an officer to board your boat without notice in your absence, then fine - but no licence holder can be held in law to have done so via that device.

 

It is no accident that this offence of boarding without the master's consent appears within the Merchant Shipping Act under the section on Safety of Vessels.

 

Pragmatically, how are CRT supposed to attach enforcement notices to a boat which is breasted up outside another? Rubber dinghy?

[NigelMoore]

. . . trespass is not committed until someone (with the authority to do so) has told you that they do not want you on their property and that your are trespassing and they would like you to leave.

 

Neither am I entirely sure sure why the boat master would place anyone under arrest for trespassing on their boat, surely the whole purpose of the exercise is to remove someone who is trespassing, for which the law gives the authority to use reasonable force to do so if they do not go when asked.

 

 

Trespass may not be a criminal matter except in some instances [such as boarding boats without the master’s consent], but it is still an actionable civil wrong, and is committed whether the owner is aware of it or not. The owner does not need to have specifically denied access, and/or demanded that the offender leave, for the wrong to be committed, and it has been committed whether the trespasser leaves on demand or not.

 

Yes of course, the whole purpose of the exercise for an owner/boat master is to remove the trespasser; that is why I mentioned arrest if, after being asked to do so, they failed to leave. Physical ejectment is doubtless one viable option, but the power of arrest is all that is provided for in the MSA, and would perhaps concentrate the offender’s mind more acutely. The purpose of the whole exercise would in that case be inhibiting future offences.

[NigelMoore]

 

Pragmatically, how are CRT supposed to attach enforcement notices to a boat which is breasted up outside another? Rubber dinghy?

 

It is a sensible question. Presuming there was a need to fix a notice to the boat, the officer could always ask the bankside boat owner for permission to cross his in order to do so – if that person was aboard. Or indeed, use a patrol vessel to reach it as has been done often enough in the circumstances you describe.

 

But there is actually never any real necessity to fix notices to boats, although in some instances it will be convenient. The question only arises in circumstances where contact details for the owner of the boat are unknown/undiscoverable – how many such instances would there be these days?

 

If no contact address for the owner is known, and the boat cannot be reached for notices to be affixed without boarding it or any others, then the notice may be affixed nearby the boat, and the notice will be deemed served appropriately with time running accordingly.

 

The ’83 Act provides that all notices must be in writing and “may be served – ( a ) by delivering it to the person on whom it is to be served or by leaving it at his proper address or by sending it by post to him at that address: or ( d ) IF in the case of a notice relating to a vessel the name and address of the person cannot after reasonable inquiry be ascertained, by exhibiting it in a conspicuous position on or near the vessel;” [my bold and capitalisation]

[mark99]

The ’83 Act provides that all notices must be in writing and “may be served – ( a ) by delivering it to the person on whom it is to be served or by leaving it at his proper address or by sending it by post to him at that address: or ( d ) IF in the case of a notice relating to a vessel the name and address of the person cannot after reasonable inquiry be ascertained, by exhibiting it in a conspicuous position on or near the vessel;” [my bold and capitalisation]

 

Well it states "on" the vessel too?

 

Am I being to thick here Nigel - you sign T+C's which are a clear way set out by the Board to aid you to be "SATISFYING" the board. If you then don't stick to them you are not satisfying and are refused a licence?

Edited February 17, 2015 by mark99

[Ssscrudddy]

I stopped reading on page 3. But 1 problem I noticed when that map was doing the rounds, near me (Northampton) they defined as 1 place the start of Northampton Arm (lock 17) all the way to this side of the Blisworth tunnel, & up to Whilton. Now I would have considered them 3 possibly 4 places.
I brought a boat back from Crick, it took 3 days. Day 1 ran out of time because of how long it took to actually get my hands on the boat. Day 2 with no locks took forever because of all the moored boats & so cruising on tickover I didnt make much progress. Day 3, Gayton to Northampton, I expected to take 4 hours, I even told the owner half a day. I've done it in 3 hours before. This time it took 8 hours. It was busy & low on watrer, having wait for most of the pounds to fill up before exiting the locks.
So it seems to me if it takes 3 days to get through then it is more than 1 place.

[Nige123]

sorry playing catch up here but I found this interesting...

 

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/7556-cc-rules-shot-down-in-flames

 

 

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/6791-do-cc-rules-apply-to-all

 

why not spend some of this cash on making more marinas for boats? all the fields that flood & farmers don't use could be dug out & made profitable again? more boats less moorings that is a fact but no one would complain about better services like more water points, pump outs, electric points, boat yards...... make it better not worse I would say why do we try to fix things by beating folks with a stick?

 

I would say drag it to the courts until CRT have a massive hole in the budget then fire the lot of them & get some boaters to run the trust......

Edited February 17, 2015 by Nige123

[churchward]

 

As has been written elsewhere I think that you will find that there are a lot of agencies who, under given circumstances have a statuary right of entry to your home without a warrant (including the Police). I have been 'advised' on several occasions by wife-beaters that, "...you ain't coming in here without a warrant...", sadly they have always been lawfully proven wrong

Yes I am aware of limited police powers and some other agencies to enter homes that is why I said "with little exception the police etc." I know under some circumstances they can enter a home.

 

However, I think it is another matter when a company/organisation like CRT assumes a "right" to act in a similar manor to those public agencies whose rules of engagement are clearly defined in law.

 

It isn't a "right to enter", but as Nigel says a "right to board".

There is a big difference!

As long as "right to board" means stand on the outside but but not enter I guess that would be OK but I would rather see that explicitly spelled out by CRT in the T&Cs