Reading doesn't want boaters anymore!

[Bobbydogs dad]

We came off the Kennet and Avon in March this year and the same 5 or 6 boats were still there from the previous October and were still there in September of this year. I asked one chap moored there who has 2 boats "when are you going to move"he replied " when i feel like it". The very same chap had a written notice on the side of his boat informing anyone who puts any notices on the boat will be liable to charges. A right real piss taker who thinks he knows it. Probably Reading council along with the Thames authority have used this method of charging to rid of these c/moorers.

We came off the Kennet and Avon in March this year and the same 5 or 6 boats were still there from the previous October and were still there in September of this year. I asked one chap moored there who has 2 boats "when are you going to move"he replied " when i feel like it". The very same chap had a written notice on the side of his boat informing anyone who puts any notices on the boat will be liable to charges. A right real piss taker who thinks he knows it. Probably Reading council along with the Thames authority have used this method of charging to rid of these c/moorers.

[Bobbydogs dad]

I do not own 2 boats. Short, sometimes sarcastic answers are are usually reserved for the 'waltons' of this world, the holier than thou people that make uneducated assumptions about people without actually taking the time to find the truth. With respect, you do not know me, or have made no attempt to, you don't know about my life, or the reasons behind me being 'stranded' in a dump such as Reading. Maybe next time you are passing, you will take the time to find out, the kettle is always on!

[Paul C]

 

I have to correct you here Alan.

 

What you have quoted from is NOT an Act of Parliament, it is the “Articles of Association” of Canal & River Trust Ltd as “adopted by Special Resolution passed on 27.03.2013”. This is a purely private agreement by the trustees PRIOR to the passage of the relevant Act of Parliament, and of absolutely NO force in respect of overturning the provisions of ANY previous or subsequent Parliamentary Act.

 

The only relevant Act of Parliament is The British Waterways (Transfer of Functions) Act 2012, which was not passed until some 3 months later than these self-serving unilateral Articles. The essential property portfolio of BW was, under the Act, placed in a separate Trust to be administered by CaRT and NOT disposable at their whim, as provided for in the government's "Trust Settlement" as trustor.

 

It is important, in gaining an understanding of the powers to control the property, to read through the Government’s “Explanatory Document” to the 2012 Order.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1659/pdfs/uksiem_20121659_en.pdf

 

Section 7.7 provides:

 

“The property and assets being transferred to CRT include not just the infrastructure of the waterways, but also a substantial portfolio of investment property which originated from the development of surplus operational land but which has been substantially grown by British Waterways by the re-investment of capital development returns over recent decades. This commercial property portfolio, worth around £460m and used by British Waterways to fund repair, maintenance and operation of the network infrastructure, will be transferred to CRT for the same purposes, along with the rest of the network.” [my emphasis]

 

So there is a clear differentiation between “investment property” and what previous legislation referred to as “the Track” [the “infrastructure of the waterways”].

 

Section 7.9 provides:

 

“A very important role of CRT will be to safeguard the infrastructure of the waterways in perpetuity for the nation. We want the canals, towpaths, locks and other parts of the waterways to be looked after for the benefit of future generations. The document which will ensure this is the Trust Settlement. A draft of this document is at Annex I. The Trust Settlement places the waterways infrastructure in a Trust (called the ‘Waterways Infrastructure Trust’), which the Secretary of State will settle on CRT as first trustee. The Trust Settlement ensures that all of the waterways infrastructure (as defined in the Trust) is held as permanent functional endowment. This means that the CRT will not be able to sell any part of the waterways infrastructure without gaining the Secretary of State’s and in some cases the Charity Commission’s prior consent. Before granting such consent, the Secretary of State will hold a public consultation; for land held in Wales, the Secretary of State will also consult the Welsh Ministers before reaching a decision. The Trust Settlement also requires the CRT to grant free pedestrian access to the towpath (except in certain very tightly defined circumstances and again with the prior consent of the Secretary of State, following public consultation and, in the case of towpath in Wales, after consulting the Welsh Ministers).” [my emphasis]

 

The Secretary of State will probably just rubber-stamp it and pass the towpath (of some areas) from CRT to Councils with no real bother. Public consultation is unlikely to be any real obstacle because for the number of objectors, there will be approvers too.

[FadeToScarlet]

I think this is probably a bit of wishful thinking on the part of ECDC hoping that it will frighten people off. The problem with making it a Civil Offence rather than Criminal is enforcement. Unlike in a private car park where contractors will wheel clamp your car, how are ECDC going to enforce it? Trying to disable someone's boat would be risky in the extreme since they could face a counter claim for many times their £100 charge. Being a Civil Offence they have no power to physically detain you or ask for your personal details so if you return to your boat, quietly screw up the penalty notice (and put it in a bin ) they will then have to apply to CRT to find out who owns the boat. The wording of the notice states that "....you, the person or persons in control of the boat agree to these contractual terms....",it doesn't say 'Owner'.Even if the bailiff that they would have to employ to track you down to recover their civil charge could find you all you as an owner need say is that you were not the person in charge of the boat at the relevant time and you are not going to tell them who was. Where do they go from there?

 

Under the Richmond by-law you can't argue with it since if you don't tell them who you are they can have you arrested.

Well, it has worked for now; there's far more space at Ely than previously, as quite a few CMers have moved out of the city to other locations, and everyone else seems to move on rapidly.

 

They contract out enforcement to a third party, and received consultancy from the chap who applied this system in Oxford when he was an EA manager with good effect.

 

There's also two navigation authorities the boat could be registered with, as well.as the EA boats can be licenced to the Cam Conservancy.

 

Indeed.

 

They cannot unilaterally impose any implied agreement to their "civil contract". "Burnett v BWB" and other such case law would apply.

 

Just to clarify - ECDC would not be applying to CaRT for boat owner details in any event; the Ouse is EA controlled.

I'd be very interested in this case law, could you PM me some case names? Cambridge City Council are thinking of imposing a similar system to Ely's, and are.fairly convinced it's legally sound.

[pearley]

Well, it has worked for now; there's far more space at Ely than previously, as quite a few CMers have moved out of the city to other locations, and everyone else seems to move on rapidly.

They contract out enforcement to a third party, and received consultancy from the chap who applied this system in Oxford when he was an EA manager with good effect.

There's also two navigation authorities the boat could be registered with, as well.as the EA boats can be licenced to the Cam Conservancy.

 

I'd be very interested in this case law, could you PM me some case names? Cambridge City Council are thinking of imposing a similar system to Ely's, and are.fairly convinced it's legally sound.

I would agree with you about Ely. When we came through in early May the moorings were fairly full. On our return in late September fairly empty.

 

We had no problems mooring in Cambridge in May or August but the same unoccupied narrowboat was moored in the middle of the VMs.

[Alenafour]

Well, it has worked for now; there's far more space at Ely than previously, as quite a few CMers have moved out of the city to other locations, and everyone else seems to move on rapidly.

 

They contract out enforcement to a third party, and received consultancy from the chap who applied this system in Oxford when he was an EA manager with good effect.

 

There's also two navigation authorities the boat could be registered with, as well.as the EA boats can be licenced to the Cam Conservancy.

 

I'd be very interested in this case law, could you PM me some case names? Cambridge City Council are thinking of imposing a similar system to Ely's, and are.fairly convinced it's legally sound.

 

So once again it's OK for a government body, council or company to break and bend the law as long as the mob supports the sentiment.

 

What a wonderful way to run a country.

[Bobbydogs dad]

 

So once again it's OK for a government body, council or company to break and bend the law as long as the mob supports the sentiment.

 

What a wonderful way to run a country.

[NigelMoore]

If the boat were registered on a CRT licence (Gold Licence) what would stop them applying to CRT for boat owner details? Doesn't necessarily mean that CRT would give it to them but if you were trying to find out the owner of a boat to pursue a civil claim I can't see why they cannot apply.

 

Nothing, I don’t suppose – but if the boat had a Gold Licence, would the EA not have those details already? I do not know the answer to that, but would have assumed so.

 

If the boat had a CaRT [or any other] licence only, then yes, I would presume as you do, that any breach of the law would entitle them to make the request successfully. I have recently applied to the DVLA, for example, giving reasons for wanting the name and address of a vehicle’s keeper, in order to give those details to the police in a ‘failure to report an accident’ incident.

 

I am happy to be corrected when I have misunderstood or misrepresented something.

 

You and I both Alan; well said.

[Bobbydogs dad]

OK, now to open up a can of worms!.... The government, by signing away powers to Brussels in the treaty of Versailles, the treaty of Nice, and the Maastricht treaty without proper consultation or a referendum (a legal requirement) under the terms of the magna carta 1215, have committed an act of treason against the state and therefore unfit to rule. The queen, who also gave her consent to this is also guilty of treason and as such is unfit to rule. This makes her government illegal and therefore we don't have to take any notice of them! How's that for anarchy!

[NigelMoore]

 

The Secretary of State will probably just rubber-stamp it and pass the towpath (of some areas) from CRT to Councils with no real bother. Public consultation is unlikely to be any real obstacle because for the number of objectors, there will be approvers too.

 

Now then Paul C; such cynicism ill becomes you.

 

While not an impossibility, however, I would imagine the outcry over disposing of the operational property would be considerably more than you suggest. BW got away with flogging off sections by doing so on the QT.

[Paul C]

Its not really disposing though, its handing it to the local council. Most would probably say they're equally as (in)capable of managing it (the towpath) as CRT, so no real risk or loss. I'd imagine it would come with some kind of agreement that it remains a publically accessible footpath.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Paul C

[NigelMoore]

I'd be very interested in this case law, could you PM me some case names? Cambridge City Council are thinking of imposing a similar system to Ely's, and are.fairly convinced it's legally sound.

 

The McCarthy Stone case in Post #145 addresses the point obliquely; Burnett v BWB I cannot find online just now [though it IS out there somewhere]. I could put my copy up on scribd for you. I suspect you are looking for more specific case law however – if I can find the time I will PM as you ask, with anything relevant.

 

If time has passed by and it appears that I have forgotten, PM me with a reminder. I am actually certain that I have posted more detail on previous occasions reference the topic, but I can't search this site effectively.

Edited October 20, 2015 by NigelMoore

[David Mack]

Its not really disposing though, its handing it to the local council. Most would probably say they're equally as (in)capable of managing it (the towpath) as CRT, so no real risk or loss. I'd imagine it would come with some kind of agreement that it remains a publically accessible footpath.

Legally it would be a disposal though.

 

And although publicly accessible, there is no legal public right of access to most of the towpath. CRT would not want that as it would make it more difficult to close the towpath when necessary for maintenance etc.

[NigelMoore]

Its not really disposing though, its handing it to the local council. Most would probably say they're equally as (in)capable of managing it (the towpath) as CRT, so no real risk or loss. I'd imagine it would come with some kind of agreement that it remains a publically accessible footpath.

 

My original response was to NilesMI in #134, wherein he asked whether CaRT could “simply give away the ownership”. That reads as "disposing" of it to me, and the short unqualified answer to which is NO.

 

As to transfer of control only, that is a more interesting question. Under [i think] the Transport Act 1968, that sort of thing COULD be done. The relevant clauses being excised from that Act as powers transferred to CaRT, that might suggest that it is no longer possible.

 

Ultimately, of course, no Parliament can bind a future Parliament, so in future the government could do as they pleased, providing only that the electorate were sufficiently passive.

Legally it would be a disposal though.

 

And although publicly accessible, there is no legal public right of access to most of the towpath. CRT would not want that as it would make it more difficult to close the towpath when necessary for maintenance etc.

 

First point agreed - you got in just before I did!

 

Second point: historically you are correct, however the situation now is that CaRT ARE obligated to maintain the towpath for public access, under the terms of the Settlement.

[Paul C]

So in summary, do you agree that its possible?

[NigelMoore]

 

So once again it's OK for a government body, council or company to break and bend the law as long as the mob supports the sentiment.

 

What a wonderful way to run a country.

 

Not “OK”, but sure – that is how it often works. Witness the comments of some on here on occasion, which have support even acknowledged [even if only for sake of argument] illicit action by CaRT, provided that it usefully addresses problems that concern them. It is a common social phenomenon.

[NigelMoore]

So in summary, do you agree that its possible?

 

In summary, anything is theoretically legally possible to the UK government, providing only that the essential constitutional principles of its governance are not violated.

 

In summary, anything is pragmatically possible to the UK government, providing only, as I have said before, the electorate are sufficiently passive [&/or uninformed].

[Emerald Fox]

Neither have I.

It can be arranged.

[mark99]

 

In summary, anything is theoretically legally possible to the UK government, providing only that the essential constitutional principles of its governance are not violated.

 

In summary, anything is pragmatically possible to the UK government, providing only, as I have said before, the electorate are sufficiently passive [&/or uninformed].

But that's the basis of the legal system. If everyone; Corp, Gov or individuals followed the law exactly, there would be no need for courts.

 

Nb I'm not defending.

Edited October 20, 2015 by mark99

[Paul C]

 

In summary, anything is theoretically legally possible to the UK government, providing only that the essential constitutional principles of its governance are not violated.

 

In summary, anything is pragmatically possible to the UK government, providing only, as I have said before, the electorate are sufficiently passive [&/or uninformed].

 

Yes theoretically, the 1995 act could be torn up and replaced, eliminating many of the perceived issues some have. But, pragmatically, its widely believed this wouldn't occur. The "disposal" of towpaths to local councils is possible via a much easier route - public consultation followed by Sec of State approval. I don't think the approval would rely on electorate being passive, it would be difficult if the consultation revealed widespread disapproval - but would it???? I say pragmatically, no it would not. There would be a few hundred objections of varying strength and quality, but a few hundred endorsements too.

 

The question is rather, would the councils want to take it on? And I suspect they're happy not to, at this stage.

[NigelMoore]

The question is rather, would the councils want to take it on? And I suspect they're happy not to, at this stage.

 

That, I would agree with.

 

Control over the London waterways was superficially considered by the GLA a year or so ago - but was never pursued.

[tidal]

Me too
Councils have enough problems at this time

[Lmcgrath87]

 

 

That's odd, it's always been free when I go there. Getting very successful!

 

When they first opened they had a very amusing dress code: "Anyone wearing smart casual will be refused admission."

 

Very sensible way of keeping the undesirables out in my opinion!

 

It's been refurbed and I have to say it's quite nice for an afternoon pint now, which I'd never have probably don't previously. Not impressed with Pav's make over...far too bright in there. I like my boozers dark.

 

It was a music night apparently which is why they wanted to charge. I have to say I politely declined said I just wanted a pint and he did let me in, but the band where so terrible we downed our drinks and retreated to the Hope Tap!

[Bobbydogs dad]

Re:- Reading moorings (the original topic of this forum before it went off on a tangent) ... A local resident has been told by the local council jobsworth that there is a tug coming to tow our boats away. ..... Completely illegal!

[Graham Davis]

OK, now to open up a can of worms!.... The government, by signing away powers to Brussels in the treaty of Versailles, the treaty of Nice, and the Maastricht treaty without proper consultation or a referendum (a legal requirement) under the terms of the magna carta 1215, have committed an act of treason against the state and therefore unfit to rule. The queen, who also gave her consent to this is also guilty of treason and as such is unfit to rule. This makes her government illegal and therefore we don't have to take any notice of them! How's that for anarchy!

 

What a load of rollocks!!