Tadworth versus CRT.

[onionbargee]

 

 

Tadworth, and C&RT.

 

This is a summary of what has happened to my boat Tadworth, ( the historic big Northwich motor)

 

ln Oct 2013 a fully legitimate court order was issued by CRT stating that i remove it from the trusts waterways, because the licence had not been renewed, which i did. In October 2014 i contacted the legal, and enforcement departments of CRT, and asked if i could re-licence Tadworth, the reply was quote

 

" Having gone through a lengthy process to get a court order for the removal of your craft from our waterways it is clearly not now appropriate that we issue you with another licence."

 

They did agree to craning out and moving by road, or a 2 day trip to Brentford lock and onto the Thames, but at no time over various emails discussing various options did they mention that i was free to apply for a new licence at any time, but made it obvious that was out of the question to them.

 

After some of my own research, and talking to Nigel Moore, and Tony Dunkley who i must thank for their help, it became apparent that the trust's answers were not true, and were mis represented the law, and their powers in a serious way, the court order did not prevent a new licence being issued, and the trust has no authority to arbitrarily refuse licences. So i applied for a new licence ,and it was granted on 25/02/16, paid in full for 12 months, all the conditions required by legislation were met, boat safety certificate, insurance, and a mooring, a short time later this licence was cancelled by an enforcement supervisor claiming it was a mistake, and threatening to seize Tadworth if it entered onto the trusts waters.

 

The court order stated in the standard wording of all similar BW/CRT orders that i could not bring my boat onto their waters "without prior consent " this is the important wording here, the word "consent" in this regard is the legal term for a licence, and not the trusts own permission. Under the 1995 canal act section 17 a licence application must be granted if all the conditions are met, a boat safety certificate, insurance, and a mooring or abiding by the terms of constantly cruising, the trust has no authority to arbitrarily decide what is an "appropriate" licence or not. Cancelling my legitimate licence was now breaking the law.

 

On 24/03/16 i contacted the legal dept, and asked why my licence had been cancelled they replied that Tadworth did not meet "safety standards" , I asked what these standards were via 3 emails, but relieved no reply. There are none outside of the BSS, and Tadworth has a BSC valid for four years.

 

As of now the licence fee has not been refunded, and i consider my licence, which i have the paper copy of to be valid. If the trust attempted to seize Tadworth this would be i think a seriously illegal act. An email to Richard Parry's personal email address notifying him that the trust was breaking the law has been sent, but no reply relieved.

 

My personal opinion is that all the CRT employees concerned know exactly what the law is, its not hard to understand, and have deliberately, and unlawfully tried to prevent me getting a licence, it is not credible to me that they are unaware of the basic waterways laws, and licencing system they are employed to implement, and all this makes it obvious that the legal and enforcement departments of CRT are out of control, and acting either incompetently or dishonestly, and certainly illegally. It is noteworthy that the CEO has not even acnowleged my email.

 

I wont go in for arguments over this on here, or name names, but i will answer questions or edit any mistakes in what i have posted.

[churchward]

Can I ask prior to Oct 2013 how long had the boat remained unlicensed on CRT controlled waters?

[Boat&Bikes]

Can I ask prior to Oct 2013 how long had the boat remained unlicensed on CRT controlled waters?

I was wondering that, also seems it was a year until the owner applied to re license the boat after october 13. There may well be a reason of course.

 

Ian.

[nicknorman]

I think the point is that yes CRT are out of order.

 

However you too were out of order because you failed to licence the boat, presumably for quite a long time since it takes that long for them to get to a court action.

 

Could you explain why you expect CRT to obey the letter of the law, whilst you don't feel the same need?

 

Being pragmatic about it you can understand that if CRT have had a lot of hassle from you and finally got it "sorted" by getting rid of you, they would be reluctant to re-start the whole process since they can have no expectation that you will continue to licence the boat any more than you did in the past. Or to put it another way it has cost a lot of my money in legal fees to get it sorted.

 

Or to put it yet another way, you reap what you sew.

 

There are numerous scenarios like this, I am routinely torn between what CRT are entitled to do legally, and what they do do, which in some cases is probably not legal but nevertheless morally right.

Edited April 12, 2016 by nicknorman

[Arthur Marshall]

Would be interesting to know whether you have a home mooring on CRT waters or intend to CC. It may be that in view of past history they don't expect you to abide by the CC definitions, though why they should quote safety instead is odd. Maybe they meant you didn't satisfy the conditions. Much depends on whether you spoke to someone in authority or just someone in a CRT vest.

[Loafer]

How come this sort of thing never happens to me?

[Arthur Marshall]

Is this the boat that was being sold by Onionbargee of this parish? I have a vague memory of it a few years back.

[alan_fincher]

Is this the boat that was being sold by Onionbargee of this parish? I have a vague memory of it a few years back.

Or indeed is "canon7578" actually "onionbargee"?

[kris88]

I am routinely torn between what CRT are entitled to do legally, and what they do do, which in some cases is probably not legal but nevertheless morally right.

That's okay then. Crt are acting outside of the law, but they are morally right.

 

Regards kris

 

Edit: to remove ad hominem argument.

Edited April 13, 2016 by wrigglefingers

[nicknorman]

That's okay then. Crt are acting outside of the law, but they are morally right.

 

Regards kris

Not actually what I said, but never mind. Perhaps you would like to illuminate us on why you think it's ok for the boater to break the law but not for CRT to do likewise?

 

Edit: to remove reference to ad hominem argument.

Edited April 13, 2016 by wrigglefingers

[kris88]

Not actually what I said, but never mind. Perhaps you would like to illuminate us on why you think it's ok for the boater to break the law but not for CRT to do likewise?

Regardless of wether the boater has broken the law or not, the authority is bound by law. Surely that is obvious, the navigation authority has a duty to act within the law!! It can't decide which laws it wants to abide by and which ones it wants to ignore. Let me make this clear, for the hard of understanding. Regardless of wether the boater has broken the law or not.

 

Regards kris

 

Edit: to remove reference to ad hominem argument.

Edited April 13, 2016 by wrigglefingers

[BMC problems]

Not actually what I said, but never mind. Perhaps you would like to illuminate us on why you think it's ok for the boater to break the law but not for CRT to do likewise?

it seems a bit of a leap to assume that that person who was served the court judgement is the same as the this man trying to licence the boat.

 

Edit: to remove reference to ad hominem argument.

Edited April 13, 2016 by wrigglefingers

[kris88]

Or indeed is "canon7578" actually "onionbargee"?

Oh yes, the old spread assertions about the posters identity ploy. Why not deal with the issues raised by the op rather than questioning their identity?

 

Regards kris

[nicknorman]

it seems a bit of a leap to assume that that person who was served the court judgement is the same as the this man trying to licence the boat.

It's not a leap. It's what the OP says "I" for both the licence evasion issue and the attempt to re-licence. Perhaps you should re-read it?

[Arthur Marshall]

I personally don't give a toss as to how many identities anyone has on here - I accidentally had a few myself due to confusion in setting up. But it may cast doubt on the probity of a poster if tbey deliberately set out to deceive, which, when someone is basically asking for moral support, may be a valid point.

It's probably a different boat with the same name anyway - plenty of duplicated names about. I was just interested if it was the same boat that was being written about a few years ago.

[nicknorman]

Regardless of wether the boater has broken the law or not, the authority is bound by law. Surely that is obvious, the navigation authority has a duty to act within the law!! It can't decide which laws it wants to abide by and which ones it wants to ignore. Let me make this clear, for the hard of understanding. Regardless of wether the boater has broken the law or not.

Regards kris

The point is that you are not equally outraged by the boater's non-compliance with the law, as you are with CRT's. Why is that?

[RLWP]

It's probably a different boat with the same name anyway - plenty of duplicated names about. I was just interested if it was the same boat that was being written about a few years ago.

 

 

 

my boat Tadworth, ( the historic big Northwich motor)

 

It is the same boat

 

Richard

[BMC problems]

It's not a leap. It's what the OP says "I" for both the licence evasion issue and the attempt to re-licence. Perhaps you should re-read it?

yes, you are right, sorry. I was interested in the situation of a new owner licensing the boat so mis-read it.

[Alan de Enfield]

I seem to remember someone spending over 9 months on a '14 day' mooring "waiting for engine parts" - surely the 'laws' should apply to both parties.

 

We do not know the full history of the refusal.

 

I believe that C&RT could only refuse to renew the licence if they were not 'satisfied', and having 'previous form' may colour their thinking.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[MtB]

 

We do not know the full history of the refusal.

 

I believe that C&RT could only refuse to renew the licence if they were not 'satisfied', and having 'previous form' may colour their thinking.

 

 

 

ISTR that is only the case for a boater without a home mooring. And then their decision is still required to be 'reasonable'. Given the OP's history, refusing a CC licence would probably be seen as reasonable by a court.

 

If the OP has declared a home mooring though, I think CRT are on dodgy ground. But the OP is silent on this point.

[kris88]

The point is that you are not equally outraged by the boater's non-compliance with the law, as you are with CRT's. Why is that?

OI

No the point is you where saying that as long as Crt are "morally right" then it's okay for them to make the law up as they go along. The ends never justify the means. Imagine if we apply your reasoning to some of the other "law abiding authorities" that we have to deal with. Local authority's for instance.

 

Regards kris

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

 

ISTR that is only the case for a boater without a home mooring. And then their decision is still required to be 'reasonable'. Given the OP's history, refusing a CC licence would probably be seen as reasonable by a court.

 

If the OP has declared a home mooring though, I think CRT are on dodgy ground. But the OP is silent on this point.

 

Even with a home mooring, the board must be satisfied :

 

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere;

 

Speculation :

 

A licence was issued as all of the conditions were met, subsequently it was found that the claimed 'home mooring' did not exist so the licence was revoked.

 

Would that 'work' ?

[Dave Payne]

Two wrongs dont make a right....

 

 

Reading the OP, its another case of not enough information, what happened leading up to the court case....

[billh]

I seem to remember someone spending over 9 months on a '14 day' mooring "waiting for engine parts" - surely the 'laws' should apply to both parties.

 

 

That same person recently seen in uniform apparently in the employ of one of the parties.

Poacher turned lock keeper???

Happen I have misunderstood.

[nicknorman]

OI

No the point is you where saying that as long as Crt are "morally right" then it's okay for them to make the law up as they go along. The ends never justify the means. Imagine if we apply your reasoning to some of the other "law abiding authorities" that we have to deal with. Local authority's for instance.

Regards kris

No that is not actually what I said. I said there was fault on both sides. Therefore it seems inappropriate for one party at fault to be moaning on about the other party's fault. Pot, kettle etc.