License Terms and Conditions

[valrene9600]

The pot has been well stirred and chef has gone on to other things.

[Graham Davis]

The pot has been well stirred and chef has gone on to other things.

 

Perhaps Canard avec sauce l'orange?

[Loafer]

He's morphing now, and will shortly reappear in an electrical thread with really daft strong views about battery charging.

[Guest]

 

 

As moderator:

Please all take a moment to review the site rules and guidelines here: http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

I believe there is merit in this debate/thread topic; and that the participants are theoretically capable of reasoned debate without descending into personal abuse or threatening posts. If in practice, the level of debate does not improve, I'll lock it again and may keep it locked. As always, action will be taken for breaches of site rules. No posts have been removed - they have all remained, so readers can reflect on the quality of debate and improve it.

[GUMPY]

Just for info CRT are not allowing new L3 moorings. They now do a deal with the landowner who pays them and you then pay the landowner.

Also on L2 moorings the house holder has to be the boat owner so no subletting........

[Tony Dunkley]

Just for info CRT are not allowing new L3 moorings. They now do a deal with the landowner who pays them and you then pay the landowner.

Also on L2 moorings the house holder has to be the boat owner so no subletting........

 

Yet another instance of C&RT conferring wished for, but non-existent powers on themselves, and lying to boaters about them.

They don't have authority to veto or condition, or for that matter, approve and charge for, moorings alongside privately owned land adjoining canals or rivers.

The sole exception is when and if a vessel at any such mooring would be an obstruction to navigation.

[thebfg]

Mr duck,

 

Tread very carefully,

 

Please don't end up like Tom Crawford who when his mortgage company tried to evict him, he turned to the freeman of the land, as I Understand he could of won in court with a convincing legal argument, which he had, but instead he sprouted FOTL rubbish and lost his home.

 

Seems similar to you, You say you have the correct evidence yet don't want to use it.

 

I Read that parking ticket tribunal, it means nothing. they offered no evidence that the offence happened so they lost. its not even able to be used as a defence in another case. Trust Me I do Parking.

 

Please don't lose your boat because you feel dad is harder that CrT's.

 

P.s Out of interest Why do you not want to give your documents (copies) to the CrT and end this now?

[GreenDuck]

Mr duck,

 

Tread very carefully,

 

Please don't end up like Tom Crawford who when his mortgage company tried to evict him, he turned to the freeman of the land, as I Understand he could of won in court with a convincing legal argument, which he had, but instead he sprouted FOTL rubbish and lost his home.

 

Seems similar to you, You say you have the correct evidence yet don't want to use it.

 

I Read that parking ticket tribunal, it means nothing. they offered no evidence that the offence happened so they lost. its not even able to be used as a defence in another case. Trust Me I do Parking.

 

Please don't lose your boat because you feel dad is harder that CrT's.

 

P.s Out of interest Why do you not want to give your documents (copies) to the CrT and end this now?

Where did Tom Crawford spout FOTL nonsense, in a court hearing?

If that's a yes there is the answer apparently.

The point Ward who is far from FOTL by the way made was there is no material evidence full stop so he didn't play "their" game by stepping in court.

I have spoken with David Ward who claims he won the case at tribunal and he has since done this a further 20 times, so I am not sure meaningless rubbish or such descriptions are correct but if folks disagree speak to him directly and be educated or entertained the choice is yours!

It's not a route I need to go down anyway but the idea has been entertaining to say the least!

 

I think Tony's approach is more suited by sticking to the waterways act and keep bringing CRT back to it precisely.

Cheers.

[thebfg]

Where did Tom Crawford spout FOTL nonsense, in a court hearing?

If that's a yes there is the answer apparently.

The point Ward who is far from FOTL by the way made was there is no material evidence full stop so he didn't play "their" game by stepping in court.

I have spoken with David Ward who claims he won the case at tribunal and he has since done this a further 20 times, so I am not sure meaningless rubbish or such descriptions are correct but if folks disagree speak to him directly and be educated or entertained the choice is yours!

It's not a route I need to go down anyway but the idea has been entertaining to say the least!4

 

I think Tony's approach is more suited by sticking to the waterways act and keep bringing CRT back to it precisely.

Cheers.

 

One of Mr Crawfords defences was there was no wet signature or seal however yes and I will agree not all the defence was that way, He did try to use statute law to undermine the bank's position. I think his McKenzie friend ought to be strung up for offering such shocking "advice". Have you read the transcript?

 

I would agree that sticking to the act is one way forward if you are trying to help change their ways. BUT only IF, you are sticking to the act in full and your willing to go all the way.

 

BTW Im not here to argue, just putting my vastly experienced view on it and offering a difference of opinion to keep a debate on track

 

Mr Ward won the parking ticket tribunal because the council did not offer any evidence, whether they had any or not, does not matter. Hence why the decision was,

 

“The adjudicator has therefore directed that the appeal is allowed without consideration of any evidence or the merits of the case” the adjudicator may not of read anything Ward wrote

 

You say he has won 20 more like that, If the council keep offering no evidence based on that defence, it would be interesting to know the reasons.

 

He cant claim to have kept anything out of court because that tribunal is the last stage of appeal, the only way to appeal again is a judicial review at the high court which as far as I am aware, very expensive.

 

Good Luck

Adi

[GreenDuck]

 

One of Mr Crawfords defences was there was no wet signature or seal however yes and I will agree not all the defence was that way, He did try to use statute law to undermine the bank's position. I think his McKenzie friend ought to be strung up for offering such shocking "advice". Have you read the transcript?

 

I would agree that sticking to the act is one way forward if you are trying to help change their ways. BUT only IF, you are sticking to the act in full and your willing to go all the way.

 

BTW Im not here to argue, just putting my vastly experienced view on it and offering a difference of opinion to keep a debate on track

 

Mr Ward won the parking ticket tribunal because the council did not offer any evidence, whether they had any or not, does not matter. Hence why the decision was,

 

The adjudicator has therefore directed that the appeal is allowed without consideration of any evidence or the merits of the case the adjudicator may not of read anything Ward wrote

 

You say he has won 20 more like that, If the council keep offering no evidence based on that defence, it would be interesting to know the reasons.

 

He cant claim to have kept anything out of court because that tribunal is the last stage of appeal, the only way to appeal again is a judicial review at the high court which as far as I am aware, very expensive.

 

Good Luck

Adi

From what I can gather Adi the idea is not to step in court in person so there is no judge to argue with,so it becomes a paper games that escalates and can be manipulated.

If you would like to know more just ask David Ward he's on Facebook for communication.

I don't need to take his approach as the issue is resolved but God help CRT if this bloke decided to get a boat haha!

[onionbargee]

As far as I understand the terms and conditions the first paragraph is not true.

 

"In accordance with s.43(3) of the Transport Act 1962, boat licences are subject to the conditions which apply to the use of a boat on any Waterway which we own or manage. These are necessary to protect third parties and to help us manage the Waterways well for the benefit of all our users. Any breach of these Conditions would entitle the Trust to terminate your Licence which may result in the removal of your Boat from our Waterways. "

 

The trust has no legal authority to terminate a licence for breaking a bylaw. Bylaws have their own punishments, being convicted of breaking one BY A COURT has no effect on anyones licence.

 

God knows what the rest of the T & C's contain, and I don't have time to research it all, and cross reference it with the actual true legislation.