CRT Council Results are in...

[Alan de Enfield]

 

BTW even I, with a perm mooring, has to move every 14 days...not sure how far but once out on the canal the same rules apply to me as to a cc'er.

 

 

 

It appears that you have fallen under the C&RT influence - NO YOU DO NOT have to meet the same rules as a CCer.

Yes - you have to move every 14 days, but NOT to a new place.

[MtB]

 

It appears that you have fallen under the C&RT influence - NO YOU DO NOT have to meet the same rules as a CCer.

Yes - you have to move every 14 days, but NOT to a new place.

 

 

Very concisely summarised.

 

Us HMers do, however, agree to the T&Cs attached to getting a license, which include complying with the same rules as a CCer. I hold should we fail to comply with the terms of our license, CRT's remedy in law would be to sue us for breach of contract and damages should be awarded.

 

The damages would hopefully be assessed as negligible by a court.

[Bod]

 

 

Very concisely summarised.

 

Us HMers do, however, agree to the T&Cs attached to getting a license, which include complying with the same rules as a CCer. I hold should we fail to comply with the terms of our license, CRT's remedy in law would be to sue us for breach of contract and damages should be awarded.

 

The damages would hopefully be assessed as negligible by a court.

 

Are the T&Cs backed up by legislation/bylaws?

 

Bod

[alan_fincher]

BTW even I, with a perm mooring, has to move every 14 days...not sure how far but once out on the canal the same rules apply to me as to a cc'er.

 

 

 

It appears that you have fallen under the C&RT influence - NO YOU DO NOT have to meet the same rules as a CCer.

Yes - you have to move every 14 days, but NOT to a new place.

 

Yes, except......

 

The requirement to move every 14 days if you have no home mooring is a statutory one defined in BW bye-laws.

 

Those bye-laws apply no such requirement to move every 14 days to someone like Roger who has a home mooring.

 

True the 14 day requirement for all is laid down by CRT in their terms and conditions, which we are supposed to adhere to when keeping a boat on their waters, but be clear, it is not actually what the bye-laws say.

 

I'll leave it to the legal experts to decide how much less enforcible one is than the other!

[MtB]

 

Are the T&Cs backed up by legislation/bylaws?

 

Bod

 

 

I'd say no. They are backed by civil law only, meaning CRT's remedy is to sue for breach of contract if a boater breaches a T&C. I think there is an option to request a court order directing 'performance of contract' too, or something like that.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

 

Yes, except......

 

The requirement to move every 14 days if you have no home mooring is a statutory one defined in BW bye-laws.

 

Those bye-laws apply no such requirement to move every 14 days to someone like Roger who has a home mooring.

 

True the 14 day requirement for all is laid down by CRT in their terms and conditions, which we are supposed to adhere to when keeping a boat on their waters, but be clear, it is not actually what the bye-laws say.

 

I'll leave it to the legal experts to decide how much less enforcible one is than the other!

The difference is the requirement to be in a different PLACE every 14 days.

 

A bit like 'main navigable channel' argument - C&RT have a different definition of PLACE for CCers and HMers, they are now (illegally) trying to apply the CCer definition to HMers.

 

Hopefully our new Council Reps will be aware of the law & the illegality of the new T&Cs and be able to take some action.

[MtB]

The difference is the requirement to be in a different PLACE every 14 days.

 

A bit like 'main navigable channel' argument - C&RT have a different definition of PLACE for CCers and HMers, they are now (illegally) trying to apply the CCer definition to HMers.

 

Hopefully our new Council Reps will be aware of the law & the illegality of the new T&Cs and be able to take some action.

 

 

This will, actually, be a good test to see what effectiveness the new crop of elected representatives can muster.

[alan_fincher]

The difference is the requirement to be in a different PLACE every 14 days.

 

A bit like 'main navigable channel' argument - C&RT have a different definition of PLACE for CCers and HMers, they are now (illegally) trying to apply the CCer definition to HMers.

 

Devils advocate mode.....

 

Why is enforcing the "different place" requirement on Homed Moorers any more illegal than forcing the 14 day requirement on Home Moorers?

 

The Bye-Laws actually require neither, (for a home mootrt).

 

If CRT has powers that make specifying the 14 day rule as compulsory for Home Moorers, simply because they have put in their T&Cs, then what are the limits on what they can lay down in their T&Cs before it becomes "illegal"?

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Devils advocate mode.....

 

Why is enforcing the "different place" requirement on Homed Moorers any more illegal than forcing the 14 day requirement on Home Moorers?

 

The Bye-Laws actually require neither, (for a home mootrt).

 

If CRT has powers that make specifying the 14 day rule as compulsory for Home Moorers, simply because they have put in their T&Cs, then what are the limits on what they can lay down in their T&Cs before it becomes "illegal"?

 

They can put whatever they want in their T&Cs but they must be 'fair'.

They cannot put in anything that is against the law.

 

The law states that for CCers they must be in a different place every 14 days - HMers pay £1000's per year not to have to do so.

 

It all comes down to what is a 'place' - the fact it can have two meanings was mentioned by a Judge in one of the 'waterways cases' and (from my memory) said that you cannot have one word describing two different meanings / actions - it would be 'confusing'.

 

And of course there was this :

 

The judgement in the case of CaRT v Mayers states that repeated journeys between the same two places would be 'bona fide navigation' if the boater had specific reason for making repeated journeys over the same stretch of canal. HHJ Halbert also stated that any requirement by CaRT to use a substantial part of the canal network was not justified by Section 17(3)©(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 because the requirement to use the boat for bona fide navigation is 'temporal not geographical'.

 

 

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

[NigelMoore]

 

 

I'd say no. They are backed by civil law only, meaning CRT's remedy is to sue for breach of contract if a boater breaches a T&C. I think there is an option to request a court order directing 'performance of contract' too, or something like that.

 

The term you are looking for is “Specific Performance”.

 

However it cannot fly in this instance, because as I have repeatedly expounded before, with reference to case law such as United Dairies, CaRT cannot impose any contractual conditions on the issue of the licence that are extraneous to the 1995 provisions. It is mandatory for them to issue the licence if those 3 conditions are met, and if/insofar as the published T&C’s purport to be an enforceable contract over and above the 1995 Act, they are illegal. There is no such contract.

 

Those of the T&C's as are regurgitations of byelaws and other statutory provisions, CAN be enforced; breach of any of those carries a specified sanction which can be applied - having nothing to do with whether a licence may be revoked or refused, and having nothing to do with "contract" nonsense.

[MtB]

 

The term you are looking for is “Specific Performance”.

 

However it cannot fly in this instance, because as I have repeatedly expounded before, with reference to case law such as United Dairies, CaRT cannot impose any contractual conditions on the issue of the licence that are extraneous to the 1995 provisions. It is mandatory for them to issue the licence if those 3 conditions are met, and if/insofar as the published T&C’s purport to be an enforceable contract over and above the 1995 Act, they are illegal. There is no such contract.

 

Those of the T&C's as are regurgitations of byelaws and other statutory provisions, CAN be enforced; breach of any of those carries a specified sanction which can be applied - having nothing to do with whether a licence may be revoked or refused, and having nothing to do with "contract" nonsense.

 

 

Yes "Specific Performance". That's the one. A notice for which is a step in forcing completion of a house sale when the buyer fails to come up with the dosh on completion day, IIRC.

 

But notwithstanding United Dairies, if the HMing boater has meekly signed to accept the T&Cs, are you still saying a contract was not formed and/or CRT don't have a leg to stand on when attempting to enforce any of the T&Cs? Does this mean running a genny at midnight is actually legal and CRT can do nothing about it, say?

 

And how about the other side of the coin... what if I refused to sign up to their T&Cs and they consequently refused me a license? What do I do to acquire one? (Not that I'm planning to do this, but it might give Tony some ideas!)

[NigelMoore]

 

 

 

 

Yes "Specific Performance". That's the one. A notice for which is a step in forcing completion of a house sale when the buyer fails to come up with the dosh on completion day, IIRC.

 

But notwithstanding United Dairies, if the HMing boater has meekly signed to accept the T&Cs, are you still saying a contract was not formed and/or CRT don't have a leg to stand on when attempting to enforce any of the T&Cs? Does this mean running a genny at midnight is actually legal and CRT can do nothing about it, say?

 

And how about the other side of the coin... what if I refused to sign up to their T&Cs and they consequently refused me a license? What do I do to acquire one? (Not that I'm planning to do this, but it might give Tony some ideas!)

Correct; a contract is not formed; CaRT would be in breach of their own statute when attempting to revoke or refuse a licence on such basis.

 

As I have said: such of the T&Cs as repeat byelaw provisions are enforceable not because they are in T&Cs but because the T&Cs are citing applicable law they are NOT a condition upon which a licence can be withheld or revoked, but they are enforceable in a Magistrates Court, subject to fines and costs thereof etc.

 

It seems to be an impenetrable fixed idea that s.8 powers are the only powers existing, and that without them nothing can be done about breaches of byelaws such rubbish! It is as though CaRT do not care to deal with anything other than the biggest stick in their arsenal, and cant be bothered with legitimate proportionate enforcement of the law as the law lays down.

 

If you refused to sign their T&Cs and were refused a licence on that basis, then CaRT would be in breach of their statute and committing a common law criminal offence. You could sue them for that; apply for a Court Order that they issue you your licence, and report them to the SoS [for all the good the latter would do, other than publicity].

 

It isnt something I would bother with; I would sign the application forms knowing that for so long as I abode by the law I could challenge any illegal attempt at enforcing an imaginary contract. If I felt sufficiently uneasy about signing the application [i wouldnt] I would follow the application with a letter outlining my repudiation of any supposed contract. But after all, most of the stuff in there is sensible guidance for considerate boating it is just no more than that. I would be keeping to the rules because they were considerate of others, not because they comprised an contractual obligation.

Edited December 19, 2015 by NigelMoore

[GoodGurl]

Jenlyn took a bit of flack for this post, including being accused of misogyny. Perhaps this was the result of other issues I'm not privvy to, but at face value this doesn't seem to be an unreasonable question to ask of an elected representative.

 

We are all aware that there are a number of interpretations of CC so, since Stella stood with this writ large in her 150 words, I think it a fair question and would be interested to know the answer.

i agree and i would also like to hear stella's interpretation of a CC'r and the distances she covers, as a CC'r myself it would be good to know coming from a council rep.

[MtB]

i agree and i would also like to hear stella's interpretation of a CC'r and the distances she covers, as a CC'r myself it would be good to know coming from a council rep.

 

 

 

Do I detect a general opinion abroad that Stella is a full on 'envelope pusher' when it comes to CC compliance?

[Barry]

 

 

 

Do I detect a general opinion abroad that Stella is a full on 'envelope pusher' when it comes to CC compliance?

 

I think that's nobody's business but her's and CRT.

 

If anyone wants to question that I reckon they should look at what their own motives are....vindictiveness? spite? Point to prove about how clever they are? Axe to grind? all that shite.

 

If she's not under enforcement why should we worry?

[John V]

people in any position in public life (at any level) are likely to be closely observed by any whose lives may be affected by them

 

 

edit for brain fade

effect noun affect verb doh!

Edited December 19, 2015 by John V

[haggis]

people in any position in public life (at any level) are likely to be closely observed by any whose lives may be affected by them

 

 

 

yes, but were similar questions addressed to the other successful candidates? if not, it looks to me like nit picking. I hasten to add, I don't know any of the candidates but just wonder why one is being picked out for interrogation

 

haggis

[matty40s]

Vaughan welch wouldn't dare come on here.

[John V]

maybe just the first nit spotted that needed to be picked ? (Not saying that was the reason but could be)

[GoodGurl]

Vaughan welch wouldn't dare come on here.

If he did i would ask him the same question. But i doubt he would last long on here

[jenlyn]

 

I think that's nobody's business but her's and CRT.

 

If anyone wants to question that I reckon they should look at what their own motives are....vindictiveness? spite? Point to prove about how clever they are? Axe to grind? all that shite.

 

If she's not under enforcement why should we worry?

Actually it is not something between just her and CRT. She has put herself up as a representative of others, specifically ccers, as her statement of intent made clear. She opted to be in the public eye if you like.

You make some very strange little speeches at times Barry.

[Tuscan]

I especially have an issue with folk who move very little and take the p!ss, yet claim to be ccers.

This not only spoils the canals for others, but tarnishes ccers with problems we don't need.

Hopefully, Crt will eventually act on the genuine p!ss takers

Just out of interest can you tell us how far a CC'er should travel to meet your definition of a genuine CC'er . I agree with your last sentence.

[GUMPY]

Just out of interest can you tell us how far a CC'er should travel to meet your definition of a genuine CC'er . I agree with your last sentence.

From one "place" to another "place"

[MtB]

Doesn't cruising 'range' come into it too?

[Barry]

Actually it is not something between just her and CRT. She has put herself up as a representative of others, specifically ccers, as her statement of intent made clear. She opted to be in the public eye if you like.

You make some very strange little speeches at times Barry.

 

I can't help help but stand up for someone when I see someone else charging in with a blunt axe. That's you sir