So What To Do Now?

[b0atman]

CRT missed an opportunity when being set up membership instead of licences with terms and conditions .

[valrene9600]

Now you seem to be implying CRT are the only ones that know how to read the Act.

Certainly not. I am saying it's being read differently by some of us Inc. CRT.

I have no trouble understanding what's required for my c/c li ence. I can though see why others read it differently. Why I say it would be useful to be clearer.

I agree what you day re MP time. So perhaps we just let things stay as they are and letour licence fees keep being wasted in court.

CRT missed an opportunity when being set up membership instead of licences with terms and conditions .

Wow become a charity member with all the rules and regs set out. Sounds likean answer but probably a reason it did not happen.

[Machpoint005]

The law says he can stay as long as he has a reasonable excuse, or something along those lines. Lack of funds sounds like a perfectly reasonable excuse to me.

 

Well, it isn't. Just think for a moment about the precedent that might be established by such a revolutionary idea.

[ditchcrawler]

It could be written in a way that at least greatly reduced mis interpretation.

Hope your both well.

A bit like tax avoidance regulations.

[valrene9600]

The law says he can stay as long as he has a reasonable excuse, or something along those lines. Lack of funds sounds like a perfectly reasonable excuse to me.

Well, it isn't. Just think for a moment about the precedent that might be established by such a revolutionary idea.

This is the problem, who decides what is a reasonable excuse. I also feel it,s reasonable, short of cash but not the length of time if can be used. Which is where clarity is needed.

A bit like tax avoidance regulations.

[/quote

 

 

 

 

 

 

All set in law. Very expensive legal boffs make their interpretation work for clients.

[Delta9]

 

Well, it isn't. Just think for a moment about the precedent that might be established by such a revolutionary idea.

The precedent of not confiscating people's homes when they are too skint to fix them up?

 

What a horrifying thought...

[NilesMI]

It is not about having a "reasonable excuse".

 

What the Act says is that a boat may not be left for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

It is whether the extended length of time is reasonable, not whether the cause for staying is reasonable. And, in the end, it is a judge who decides what is and isn't reasonable, based on the law as it's written, any precendents created by higher courts and the facts of the individual case.

[Locksprite]

What would happen if the boat subject to a non-compliance order was a classic early steam vessel, of great historic value? Would the CRT break it up, store it in a national museum in lieu of payment, or find a way of helping the transgressor with lottery grants and similar aid?

[valrene9600]

It is not about having a "reasonable excuse".

 

What the Act says is that a boat may not be left for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

It is whether the extended length of time is reasonable, not whether the cause for staying is reasonable. And, in the end, it is a judge who decides what is and isn't reasonable, based on the law as it's written, any precendents created by higher courts and the facts of the individual case.

Nothing written down as to length of time so again someone else's interpretation will dictate the time being reasonable or not. This time you say a judge, OK we accept his ruling. The next judge might see different as without going back over posts didn't someone say lower courts can't set precedents.

[Tony Dunkley]

. . . . . . . . . . What I would say is the same as I say to others. Do you really want to spend the next 12 months of your life with the stress and strain of the legal system? The unstressful option is simply to move. No paper work involved, no writing a long defence etc. The choice is yours

 

That's good advice John, and I'm sure that Kris will be on the move as soon as he possibly can.

That post of mine from earlier (# 302) was mainly for the benefit of Parry and his Enforcement goons to read so that they're aware that anybody they target for further attempts at their abuse and misuse of Section 8 powers will have all the information and help that's necessary to stop C&RT in their tracks.

Unless C&RT start to behave in a more sensible and reasoned manner fairly soon, stop pretending that problems with moorers in one or two specific areas are some sort of national crisis, and turn their attention, and spending, in a constructive way to where problems do exist, and in the direction it should have been going since the Trust came into being, then there will be a great many more boaters having their licence renewals refused in the near future, the waterways will continue to fall further into disrepair and Shoosmiths will be the sole beneficiaries of C&RT's bloody minded, spiteful and negative administration.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[larkshall]

What would happen if the boat subject to a non-compliance order was a classic early steam vessel, of great historic value? Would the CRT break it up, store it in a national museum in lieu of payment, or find a way of helping the transgressor with lottery grants and similar aid?

What, attempting to get charity funding to save a boat from section 8?, Hmm there is probably a law against this, its a bit morally suspect at least

[Locksprite]

What, attempting to get charity funding to save a boat from section 8?, Hmm there is probably a law against this, its a bit morally suspect at least

I'm not drawing an analogy with this case, just posing a theoretical question of whether an early, nationally historic boat with unusual parts requiring custom engineering would be hurried on its way to the knackers yard, or if sense would prevail and assistance would be granted to see the craft back on the waterways asap. I'm old, ugly and cynical enough to think the latter but wouldn't be wholly surprised to see the vessel broken up as "a warning to the curious", as M R James might have said.

[valrene9600]

I'm not drawing an analogy with this case, just posing a theoretical question of whether an early, nationally historic boat with unusual parts requiring custom engineering would be hurried on its way to the knackers yard, or if sense would prevail and assistance would be granted to see the craft back on the waterways asap. I'm old, ugly and cynical enough to think the latter but wouldn't be wholly surprised to see the vessel broken up as "a warning to the curious", as M R James might have said.

I assume there is no such thing as a 'listed' boat that would guard against it's destruction.

 

Edit. Just the canal buildings.

Edited June 24, 2015 by valrene9600

[Locksprite]

I assume there is no such thing as a 'listed' boat that would guard against it's destruction.

 

Edit. Just the canal buildings.

I don't know. In the case of railway artefacts being the last of a type wasn't necessarily enough to save a locomotive, but one assumes the C21st, heritage savvy world had caught on to historical importance as significant for its own sake. I'm wondering whether the CRT would follow through on a tow away if someone was waiting for the correct rivets for period boiler, or if it's only craft lower down the food chain that catch their ire?

[Naughty Cal]

I don't know. In the case of railway artefacts being the last of a type wasn't necessarily enough to save a locomotive, but one assumes the C21st, heritage savvy world had caught on to historical importance as significant for its own sake. I'm wondering whether the CRT would follow through on a tow away if someone was waiting for the correct rivets for period boiler, or if it's only craft lower down the food chain that catch their ire?

The type, age, condition and value of the vessel are irrelevant to CRT.

[Jess--]

everyone agrees that the current law is wide open to interpretation.

 

but I would bet that a new law stating similar to below would soon get some teeth gnashing.

 

a boat (not on it's home mooring) must move XX miles within 14 days and should not return within XX miles within 14 days unless there is a genuine reason for doing so (such as reaching the end of a section, turning to head for a new section or turning to head back towards it's home mooring.

the owner of a boat unable to move due to mechanical breakdown or similar circumstances must inform CRT of the issue whereupon they may be allowed a maximum of 60 days to make repairs or arrangements for movement of the boat. situations such as serious medical conditions will be assessed on an individual basis.

 

on the face of it such a wording would seem to be following the spirit of the current guidance while also being very clear as to what is required and where exclusions may apply in exceptional circumstances.

[Locksprite]

The type, age, condition and value of the vessel are irrelevant to CRT.

But is that a definitive judgement? If someone were actually custodian of the oldest extant craft on the waterways - for the sake of argument - and were scuppered for a matching widget and replacement with a modern alternative would mean heritage vandalism, would CRT and its agents get the cutting gear out and turn it into razor blades, or would it become a cause celebre with CRT spokesmen cringing in front of the media spotlight. Which would carry the greater moral weight, making an example of the owner or preservation of the historic object?

[Naughty Cal]

But is that a definitive judgement? If someone were actually custodian of the oldest extant craft on the waterways - for the sake of argument - and were scuppered for a matching widget and replacement with a modern alternative would mean heritage vandalism, would CRT and its agents get the cutting gear out and turn it into razor blades, or would it become a cause celebre with CRT spokesmen cringing in front of the media spotlight. Which would carry the greater moral weight, making an example of the owner or preservation of the historic object?

Why not ask crt?

 

I'm fairly sure that the boat's they sieze are sold to recover costs rather than being cut up where feasible.

[Arthur Marshall]

everyone agrees that the current law is wide open to interpretation.

 

but I would bet that a new law stating similar to below would soon get some teeth gnashing.

 

a boat (not on it's home mooring) must move XX miles within 14 days and should not return within XX miles within 14 days unless there is a genuine reason for doing so (such as reaching the end of a section, turning to head for a new section or turning to head back towards it's home mooring.

the owner of a boat unable to move due to mechanical breakdown or similar circumstances must inform CRT of the issue whereupon they may be allowed a maximum of 60 days to make repairs or arrangements for movement of the boat. situations such as serious medical conditions will be assessed on an individual basis.

 

on the face of it such a wording would seem to be following the spirit of the current guidance while also being very clear as to what is required and where exclusions may apply in exceptional circumstances.

Genuine reason? In whose eyes? And off you go again...

[NilesMI]

Nothing written down as to length of time so again someone else's interpretation will dictate the time being reasonable or not. This time you say a judge, OK we accept his ruling. The next judge might see different as without going back over posts didn't someone say lower courts can't set precedents.

 

Exactly. Interpretation of the law is in shades of grey, not black or white. Is 36 days or 3 months or 18 months unreasonable? The answer is; it depends. And we then have endless debate about whether something is reasonable or not and why one person is allowed to stay for 3 months, but another is told to move after 36 days.

 

The question is; would it be better if the law was not riddled with such greyness capable of endless interpretation, but simply said that 14 days was the limit, whatever the circumstances?

[David Mack]

 

This is the problem, who decides what is a reasonable excuse.

 

The man on the Clapham Omnibus

[Paul C]

What would happen if the boat subject to a non-compliance order was a classic early steam vessel, of great historic value? Would the CRT break it up, store it in a national museum in lieu of payment, or find a way of helping the transgressor with lottery grants and similar aid?

 

I believe a valuation is done (don't know how, by who, or how robust) and if the boat is above a certain value its stored then sold; if its below a certain value then it can be destroyed after a period of time. I know Geoff Mayers' boat was destroyed by careless handling, but I don't think we can assume CRT would destroy 100% of the boats they section 8 and plenty are sold on to new owners etc. So if the worst happened and Kris88 had his boat section 8'd, its entirely possible it would be removed from the canal safely, stored, sold then the new owner restore/renovate it sympathetically given its historical significance.

[David Mack]

What would happen if the boat subject to a non-compliance order was a classic early steam vessel, of great historic value? Would the CRT break it up, store it in a national museum in lieu of payment, or find a way of helping the transgressor with lottery grants and similar aid?

 

In the case of Pearl, they took possession of the boat and are selling it to defray their costs.

[MtB]

 

In the case of Pearl, they took possession of the boat and are selling it to defray their costs.

 

 

Or more accurately, failing to sell it, surely?

[larkshall]

Didn't BW send boats to auction? Or am I thinking purely of their workboats etc