Very confused over CC rules

[Dave Clinton]

I have seen on this thread, and others relating to boats without a home mooring that CRT are justified in demanding that a boater provides information to them to show that they are complying with the terms of their licence, because "it is for the boater to satisy the board..."

 

But, the only references I can find where someone is required to satisfy the board (trust) is in relation to an applicant for a licence. e.g. 1995 British Waterways Act s.17 (3) c) ii "the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board..."

 

Please! Can anyone of those who constantly repeat this mantra that "it is for the boater to safisfy the board", please point to anything, anywhere, which says that once a licence is issued it is for the licencee to satisfy the board (trust) that they are complying with the terms of their licence.

 

Many thanks.

yes. within CRT's customer facing pronouncements.

 

If you mean in law, no it doesn't. Hence mayalld refusing to directly address my accusation of his bending of the law to fit his argument.

[jenlyn]

Nigel, thanks.

 

Of course I understand that should CRT, through their own monitoring, be able to see that the boat has not been used in accordance with the licence T&C during it's current licence, the licencee may not be granted a licence when they apply for a renewal.

 

But that was not my question.

 

My question was actually about whether the licencee must actively satisfy the trust during the period of their licence (as is routinely claimed) by providing records, logs, photos, electronic tracking data or whatever else CRT deems necessary, pertaining to the licencee's use of the boat.

 

And if so, where that is specified in CRT's licence terms and conditions, rules, regulations or Acts of Parliament.

Simple, it's not. It gets confusing because some like mayall, Nick Norman and Rachael attempt to encompass everything under one heading, for instance "satisfying the board".

[mayalld]

Obviously you have not.

Obviously I have. Do play again when you have too!

yes. within CRT's customer facing pronouncements.

 

If you mean in law, no it doesn't. Hence mayalld refusing to directly address my accusation of his bending of the law to fit his argument.

I'm not bending any laws

[jenlyn]

Obviously I have. Do play again when you have too!

 

On and on and on and on and on........

[NigelMoore]

Simple, it's not.

 

This is correct.

 

Perhaps my post was insufficiently clear, due to haste in answering whilst in the middle of other things . . .

 

I cannot take the time at present to dig up the content of the relevant portion of the Select Committee minutes – but this precise question was exhaustively canvassed by BW throughout debate on the subject.

 

If any current CaRT employee was to make the assurances in this respect that were presented to Parliament by BW, they would be excommunicated from the CaRT faith. This is a very cogent reason underpinning the desperate repetitions in all relevant Court pleadings that such material should never be allowed.

[NilesMI]

I'm not bending any laws

 

So, if that's the case, can you answer the question I asked in #71 and again in #75?

[abraxus]

If I've read correctly I think Nigel answered your question in part, with regard to what it says in the 1995 Act, but you also asked about what CRT's licence terms and conditions have to say on the matter, and a quick google throws up this from Schedule 2 of the licence t&c's:

 

"The law requires the boater to satisfy the Trust that the bona fide navigation requirement is and will be met. It is not for the Trust to prove that the requirement has not been met. This is best done by keeping a cruising log, though this is not a compulsory requirement. If however, the Trust has a clear impression that there has been limited movement insufficient to meet the legal requirements, it can ask for more information to be satisfied in accordance with the law. Failure or inability to provide that information may result in further action being taken, but only after fair warning.

 

Enforcement of the legal requirements will be based on observations by the Trust. If initial observations indicate insufficient movement to meet the legal requirements, the boater(s) will be advised why the observed movement is considered insufficient and be asked to keep adequate evidence of future movements. Failure then to meet the movement requirements, or to provide evidence of sufficient movement when requested by the Trust, can be treated as a failure to comply with s.17 of the 1995 Act. After fair warning the boat licence may then be terminated (or renewal refused). Unlicensed boats must be removed from Trust waters, failing which the Trust has power to remove them at the owners cost."

 

Make of that what you will.

Edited August 22, 2015 by abraxus

[mayalld]

 

So, if that's the case, can you answer the question I asked in #71 and again in #75?

With pleasure.

 

However, I am reading this on the mobile version, so not sure which 71 and 75 are.

 

Perhaps you could just repost the questions you need help with

[b0atman]

 

But then: the new enforcement regime apparently began because some boats were hogging popular areas, causing resentment from other boaters. These boats have moved on now, to less popular areas, therefore there is no problem any more. The new enforcement process has been a success, there is no need for any further enforcement.

That is not strictly true when at Marple area in april /may I spoke to CMer who waited for CRT man to tell them to move they knew CRT man would be there on the Wednesday I am now heading back to Marple and expect to see the usual boats .I found that one of the usual excuses was well its alright for the pubs boat to overstay on the visitor moorings ?

[NigelMoore]

My question was actually about whether the licencee must actively satisfy the trust during the period of their licence . . .

 

An attempt to clarify: -

 

The intent of the 1995 Act was that the satisfaction factor arose at the time of each licence application.

 

What my first answer flagged up, however, [with reference to s.17 (4) & (5)] was that in the event – DURING the licensed period – of a boat provably not complying, the licence could be revoked after notice.

 

The authority would have to prove non-compliance in justifying that notice, but if that notice was proved valid, the boater would have to establish compliance during the notice period [which would be during the licensed period].

 

The burden of proof, in other words, lies with different parties depending upon the time/event frame; it lies with the authority in the first instance and with the boater in the second.

 

It must be appreciated, however, that the difference is more of a technicality to all practical intents and purposes.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

The authority would have to prove non-compliance in justifying that notice, but if that notice was proved valid, the boater would have to establish compliance during the notice period [which would be during the licensed period].

 

 

 

Would the authority purely have to say "we are not satisfied", or, would they be obliged to provide documentary evidence of 'failure to comply with ............' & if so is would the current 'questionable' accuracy of the logging system be accepted ?

[NigelMoore]

 

Would the authority purely have to say "we are not satisfied", or, would they be obliged to provide documentary evidence of 'failure to comply with ............' & if so is would the current 'questionable' accuracy of the logging system be accepted ?

 

If a boater asked a Court to declare the notice invalid, CaRT would need to prove their case for it. Their lack of satisfaction would count for nothing in those circumstances, and they would have to prove the accuracy and adequacy of the logging system.

 

It would be easy enough for them to establish a photographic daily record of a genuine offender for the required period, but I rather think that’s what it would take to satisfy a competent Court. Intermittent sightings records would not suffice.

[MtB]

 

If a boater asked a Court to declare the notice invalid, CaRT would need to prove their case for it. Their lack of satisfaction would count for nothing in those circumstances, and they would have to prove the accuracy and adequacy of the logging system.

 

It would be easy enough for them to establish a photographic daily record of a genuine offender for the required period, but I rather think that’s what it would take to satisfy a competent Court. Intermittent sightings records would not suffice.

 

 

On a practical note, how might the boater set about getting a court to hear his request in a timely manner, given the notice is likely to expire in 28 days and on expiry the relevant consent is determined*?

 

MtB

 

 

* "relevant consent is determined" being legalspeke for license is cancelled, I believe...

Edited August 22, 2015 by Mike the Boilerman

[Tony Dunkley]

If I've read correctly I think Nigel answered your question in part, with regard to what it says in the 1995 Act, but you also asked about what CRT's licence terms and conditions have to say on the matter, and a quick google throws up this from Schedule 2 of the licence t&c's:

 

"The law requires the boater to satisfy the Trust that the bona fide navigation requirement is and will be met. It is not for the Trust to prove that the requirement has not been met. This is best done by keeping a cruising log, though this is not a compulsory requirement. If however, the Trust has a clear impression that there has been limited movement insufficient to meet the legal requirements, it can ask for more information to be satisfied in accordance with the law. Failure or inability to provide that information may result in further action being taken, but only after fair warning.

 

Enforcement of the legal requirements will be based on observations by the Trust. If initial observations indicate insufficient movement to meet the legal requirements, the boater(s) will be advised why the observed movement is considered insufficient and be asked to keep adequate evidence of future movements. Failure then to meet the movement requirements, or to provide evidence of sufficient movement when requested by the Trust, can be treated as a failure to comply with s.17 of the 1995 Act. After fair warning the boat licence may then be terminated (or renewal refused). Unlicensed boats must be removed from Trust waters, failing which the Trust has power to remove them at the owners cost."

 

Make of that what you will.

 

The second para. is a reference to the same part of the '95 Act as quoted by Nigel Moore.

From the other thread that's presently running, however, it appears that C&RT now equate ''observed movement'' with making assumptions, and drawing 'conclusions' about the movements of a vessel they've neither seen nor located since issuing a short term Licence.

It should be noted that S.17 [4] [c] (ii) requires future compliance, within 28 days, and not the retrospective denial and disproving of non compliance. There is no provision in the Act empowering C&RT to revoke a Licence as a consequence of previous admitted or proveable non compliance. That can only be done after a minimum of 28 days, following the issue of a formal Notice, of failure ''to remedy the default'', in other words, future compliance with S. 17 (3) [c] (ii).

Edited August 22, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[NigelMoore]

 

 

On a practical note, how might the boater set about getting a court to hear his request in a timely manner, given the notice is likely to expire in 28 days and on expiry the relevant consent is determined*?

 

MtB

 

 

* "relevant consent is determined" being legalspeke for license is cancelled, I believe...

 

You believe correctly, MtB.

 

As to the practical side, you would need to promptly make a Claim for Declaratory relief, and file an interim injunction at the same time, demanding a stay of execution of the Notice pending the Court decision on your claim.

 

Pre-action protocols would ordinarily require that you informed CaRT beforehand, inviting them to either withdraw the notice or give an undertaking not to action it pending Court resolution of the situation.

 

If they were to be sensible, they would agree to the latter at least - but they appear to be getting less sensible with time.

[MtB]

Thanks Nige.

 

The penny is slowly dropping about how powerful a tool a "Claim for Declaratory Relief" appears to be.

[Tony Dunkley]

Thanks Nige.

 

The penny is slowly dropping about how powerful a tool a "Claim for Declaratory Relief" appears to be.

 

I would also be very heartening if there came about a greater realization of how vulnerable to successful resistance and attack C&RT's pseudo legal antics are, due mainly to either their total disregard for the Law, or at least their highly inventive interpretation of it.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Dave Clinton]

 

I would also be very heartening if there came about a greater realization of how vulnerable to successful resistance and attack C&RT's pseudo legal antics are, due mainly to either their total disregard for the Law, or at least their highly inventive interpretation of it.

As with many of these challenges from bureaucracy they can get away with it once, maybe twice or even three times but sooner or later clever and articulate people are going to marshall resources and arguments that mean they'll never get away with it again.

[mayalld]

Sorry to hear you are struggling with the technology and simply arithmetic. Early onset Alzheimer's perhaps? must be distressing for someone like you.

I struggle with neither technology nor counting beyond the number of fingers and toes I have.

 

However, on a device that doesn't show the post numbers, it is rather time consuming to count through to find the referenced post.

 

If somebody actually wants an answer, they will make that process easy by asking the question.

 

If they just want to posture and grandstand, they will make inane comments.

 

Post numbers aren't much good in a thread like this where certain people are flinging personal abuse, as when their posts are deleted, the numbers will change.

[Guest]

Sorry to hear you are struggling with the technology and simply arithmetic. Early onset Alzheimer's perhaps? must be distressing for someone like you.

And your excuse for using 'simply' rather than 'simple' is?

 

.

Edited August 22, 2015 by MJG

[MtB]

Mayalld, Nige has already answered the question so I'm not sure why Dave Clinton is pressing you.

 

For your information, the question posed in post 71 is as follows:

 

"Please! Can anyone of those who constantly repeat this mantra that "it is for the boater to safisfy the board", please point to anything, anywhere, which says that once a licence is issued it is for the licencee to satisfy the board (trust) that they are complying with the terms of their licence."

 

Then clarified in 75 as follows:

 

"My question was actually about whether the licencee must actively satisfy the trust during the period of their licence (as is routinely claimed) by providing records, logs, photos, electronic tracking data or whatever else CRT deems necessary, pertaining to the licencee's use of the boat.

 

And if so, where that is specified in CRT's licence terms and conditions, rules, regulations or Acts of Parliament."

[Dave Clinton]

Mayalld, Nige has already answered the question so I'm not sure why Dave Clinton is pressing you.

 

For your information, the question posed in post 71 is as follows:

 

"Please! Can anyone of those who constantly repeat this mantra that "it is for the boater to safisfy the board", please point to anything, anywhere, which says that once a licence is issued it is for the licencee to satisfy the board (trust) that they are complying with the terms of their licence."

 

Then clarified in 75 as follows:

 

"My question was actually about whether the licencee must actively satisfy the trust during the period of their licence (as is routinely claimed) by providing records, logs, photos, electronic tracking data or whatever else CRT deems necessary, pertaining to the licencee's use of the boat.

 

And if so, where that is specified in CRT's licence terms and conditions, rules, regulations or Acts of Parliament."

it was simple (sic) my sympath (mingled with surprise) for Mayalld's cerebral struggles.

[Guest]

it was simple (sic) my sympath (mingled with surprise) for Mayalld's cerebral struggles.

A bit like quoting the wrong post then...

[jenlyn]

where certain people are flinging personal abuse

Some are so easily offended (or feign it), I tend to wonder how they face the turmoil of having to wipe their bums.

You really do lay it on thick Dave.

[mayalld]

Mayalld, Nige has already answered the question so I'm not sure why Dave Clinton is pressing you.

 

For your information, the question posed in post 71 is as follows:

 

"Please! Can anyone of those who constantly repeat this mantra that "it is for the boater to safisfy the board", please point to anything, anywhere, which says that once a licence is issued it is for the licencee to satisfy the board (trust) that they are complying with the terms of their licence."

 

Then clarified in 75 as follows:

 

"My question was actually about whether the licencee must actively satisfy the trust during the period of their licence (as is routinely claimed) by providing records, logs, photos, electronic tracking data or whatever else CRT deems necessary, pertaining to the licencee's use of the boat.

 

And if so, where that is specified in CRT's licence terms and conditions, rules, regulations or Acts of Parliament."

Thanks Mike.

 

And I would be glad to answer.

 

During the period of a licence, the burden is on CRT to show that the boater has failed to CC

 

When a licence is renewed, the burden is on the boater to satisfy CRT that they will CC.

 

In the example on the other thread, CRT aren't threatening to revoke a licence. They are saying that at the point of renewal, they will need to be satisfied.

Some are so easily offended (or feign it), I tend to wonder how they face the turmoil of having to wipe their bums.

You really do lay it on thick Dave.

I don't seem to be able to find the post where I said I was offended.

 

It's almost as if it never happened.

 

Oh yes, that's right, it didn't.

 

People who start flinging a bit of personal abuse and invective don't particularly offend me. On the contrary, they prove that they have run out of actual arguments to put forward.