Jump to content

Tadworth versus CRT.

onionbargee

By onionbargee
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

All this seems to hinge on 'does the law (any law) say that CRT are compelled to issue a licence to anybody that applies for one' If it doesn't and in fact CRT have some discretion as to who they issue a licence to then the whole thing is a non argument and CRT are in fact in the right.

 

Or put another way are there circumstances when a licence application can lawfully be rejected? If there is there may be perfectly reasonable in their decision. (I do think though in such circumstances any funds transferred should be refunded).

 

Without the full facts it is difficult to say much further. (as ever)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FadeToScarlet Veteran

FadeToScarlet

Posted
Posted

Perhaps his name 'canon7578' is to do with the business of lobbing a high-explosive shell into a battle zone and then hiding under cover?

 

Where is he!! He certainly had you lot!

No, he's actually a paragon of tea drinking moral rectitude within the C of E.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alan_fincher Veteran II

alan_fincher

Posted
Posted

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?

 

 

Do you understand the meaning of my question mark?

 

Let me try again, then.....

 

"canon7578, are you, please, the same person as onionbargee, or not?".

 

I'm not "asserting" anything at all, so you can get off your high horse.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
onionbargee Influencer

onionbargee

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

My non compliance with the law has been settled by the court order, which i have said was legitimate, and the matter is finished, I make no claims to being a saint, why the licence wasn't paid is irrelevant, however the public body that manages the canal system have been found out to be either liars or incompetent, and have acted unlawfully. That is the matter you need to be concerned with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nicknorman Veteran II

nicknormanDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

My non compliance with the law has been settled by the court order, which i have said was legitimate, and the matter is finished, I make no claims to being a saint, why the licence wasn't paid is irrelevant, however the public body that manages the canal system have been found out to be either liars or incompetent, and have acted unlawfully. That is the matter you need to be concerned with.

You acted unlawfully, CRT had to take you to court to get it resolved. CRT are now acting unlawfully, if you take them to court you'll probably win. Seems like good karma to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
onionbargee Influencer

onionbargee

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Was anything said in the court order about returning to CRT waters?

The court order is of a standard wording that BW/CRT use in all cases, it prohibits bringing the boat on CRT waters, without prior consent. Prior consent is a licence, and a licence must be granted if the conditions of the licence are met. That is the law.

 

CRT are a trust and not an authority, they manage the waterways according to the legislation laid down by Parliament, they have no authority to make their own rules, or interpret the law except in the way it was intended. Refusing or cancelling a licence can only be done for the reasons stated in the 1995 canal act, section 17, no BSC, no insurance, or no mooring / not genuinely constantly cruising.

 

Cancelling my licence was breaking the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jerra Veteran II

Jerra

Posted
Posted

Cancelling my licence was breaking the law.

Which law prevents CRT cancelling a license if they aren't satisfied as mentioned in #22?

 

MY point being that the cancellation of the license isn't IMO automatically unlawful it depends on why it was cancelled and their evidence to back this up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dave Payne Influencer

Dave Payne

Posted
Posted

The court order is of a standard wording that BW/CRT use in all cases, it prohibits bringing the boat on CRT waters, without prior consent. Prior consent is a licence, and a licence must be granted if the conditions of the licence are met. That is the law.

 

CRT are a trust and not an authority, they manage the waterways according to the legislation laid down by Parliament, they have no authority to make their own rules, or interpret the law except in the way it was intended. Refusing or cancelling a licence can only be done for the reasons stated in the 1995 canal act, section 17, no BSC, no insurance, or no mooring / not genuinely constantly cruising.

 

Cancelling my licence was breaking the law.

 

 

So can they refuse a new licence based on historically not genuinely constant cruising?

Isnt the new licence system automatic, so it went through, then they spotted it and cancelled it based on your past?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted (edited)

Was anything said in the court order about returning to CRT waters?

 

This matter is, in truth, quite clear cut and straightforward, but has been brought about solely by C&RT indulging in yet more of their customary nonsense and dishonesty.

 

Whatever may or may not have been said [in the sense of spoken] is of no great consequence, however, the Order that was made was in the standard C&RT/Shoosmiths requested form of words and forbade the owner returning 'Tadworth' to C&RT waters without ''prior consent''.

 

That 'prior consent' was obtained when C&RT were obliged to issue the Licence for 'Tadworth' in line with the satisfying of the pre-conditions stipulated in S17(3) of the 1995 Act.

 

Section 17(4) of the same Act lays down the circumstances under which the Licence can be revoked, and requires a minimum of 28 days notice for the boat owner to remedy the default [from the conditions in subsection (3)] before subsection (5) takes effect.

 

Section 17(5) of the 1995 Act states that ~ '' If the holder of the relevant consent does not comply with any notice served pursuant to subsection (4) above then the relevant consent shall determine on the date the notice expires.''

C&RT have not issued any such notice, but have simply E-mailed the owner stating that the Licence has been ''cancelled''.

 

This is quite simply yet another instance of C&RT inventing powers they don't have, and lying and misleading boaters in respect of the powers that they do have.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted (edited)

So are you saying they cancelled the licence due to Canon's past?

 

No, they haven't, in reality, 'cancelled' the Licence at all.

Firstly, they don't have the grounds upon which to do so, and secondly, they haven't adhered to the procedure laid down in statute for instances when lawful grounds really do exist.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
onionbargee Influencer

onionbargee

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

 

So can they refuse a new licence based on historically not genuinely constant cruising?

 

Isnt the new licence system automatic, so it went through, then they spotted it and cancelled it based on your past?

Yes.

 

In which case the option of getting a mooring would make the licence renewal valid again. Unfortunately the law states the boater must "satisfy the board" that they have been genuinely constantly cruising, which is so vaigue and open to abuse when the "board" turns into a money grabbing, lying, and law breaking organisation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
zenataomm Veteran

zenataommDonate to Canal World

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)

Again, everybody is getting excited over half a story with the author instructing us "That is the matter you need to be concerned with."

 

Errr .... No I don't need to be concerned at all, I pay my bills and adhere to the instructions as required.

 

It strikes me that OP is still in debt to CRT as he had enjoyed an unlawful period on CRT waters without paying for it. A period of time which incidentally he doesn't clarify, probably because he realises that would put him in an even worse light. However, understanding how long it takes to get such a case through court I think we can all imagine how long that was.

 

The court would only have been interested in what was in front of it which was getting the boat removed.

MY OPINION "only" is you still owe them for the time you didn't pay plus interest. So why should they play ball with you?

I do know that in the days of BWB they were accepting renewals and then deducting the uncovered period from the new licence.

 

I realise "Moral" and "Lawful" are the issues here. Plus I'm coming from the Moral side of things, but if we all did what you're trying on i.e pay nowt for over a year, let them spend a fortune dragging us all through court and then paying a year etc. etc. there would be no canals very quickly.

 

CRT have many faults which I'd like to see remedied but causing distraction in other parts of their operation helps nothing .....

 

Edit: pending moderation.

Edited by wrigglefingers
  • Greenie 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Arthur Marshall Veteran II

Arthur Marshall

Posted
Posted

I can't believe that any old "enforcement supervisor" can, with a stroke of a pen, cancel a licence once it's been issued. That's like saying the local lock-keeper can do it. So it would be interesting to know who took the actual responsibility of cancelling this licence, and what authority was claimed to do it. I would assume it could only have been done by someone at the office that issues them - which has nothing to so with enforcement as far as I'm aware. I would certainly want any cancellation to be in writing rather than an email - any fool can send an email and I would doubt that this would be legally valid, especially as there is no guarantee that an email has been either sent correctly or received.

The nature and location of the procured home mooring may also be relevant, as may be the cruising pattern operating between when the licence was granted and when it was cancelled. Whether the boat has been on CRT waters prior to the licence application (and therefore unlicenced) could also be relevant in indicating to CRT that the licence conditions were unlikely to have been adhered to.

I'm also still unconvinced that legally CRT are obliged to issue a licence to anyone if the conditions quoted are met and have no discretion at all in the matter. They still have to be satisfied that the requirements will be adhered to and if they aren't, which could well be based on past history, I think the courts would probably rule that they have some discretion.

There's never enough info to really comment rationally on all this. The only people who really know what's happening are the OP and CRT and both have an interest in only revealing info which is to their advantage. I'll be interested to see where this has gone when I get back from the boat next week...

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jerra Veteran II

Jerra

Posted
Posted

I would certainly want any cancellation to be in writing rather than an email - any fool can send an email and I would doubt that this would be legally valid, especially as there is no guarantee that an email has been either sent correctly or received.

As far as I am aware an email can produce a binding legal contract and be used as evidence in court, so I don't see why a cancellation by email should be any less legal than one in writing.

 

Somebody may know more detail on the legality, but certainly in business that is (or was when we were in business) the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jenlyn Veteran II

jenlyn

Posted
Posted

I can't believe that any old "enforcement supervisor" can, with a stroke of a pen, cancel a licence once it's been issued. That's like saying the local lock-keeper can do it. So it would be interesting to know who took the actual responsibility of cancelling this licence, and what authority was claimed to do it. I would assume it could only have been done by someone at the office that issues them - which has nothing to so with enforcement as far as I'm aware. I would certainly want any cancellation to be in writing rather than an email - any fool can send an email and I would doubt that this would be legally valid, especially as there is no guarantee that an email has been either sent correctly or received.

The nature and location of the procured home mooring may also be relevant, as may be the cruising pattern operating between when the licence was granted and when it was cancelled. Whether the boat has been on CRT waters prior to the licence application (and therefore unlicenced) could also be relevant in indicating to CRT that the licence conditions were unlikely to have been adhered to.

I'm also still unconvinced that legally CRT are obliged to issue a licence to anyone if the conditions quoted are met and have no discretion at all in the matter. They still have to be satisfied that the requirements will be adhered to and if they aren't, which could well be based on past history, I think the courts would probably rule that they have some discretion.

There's never enough info to really comment rationally on all this. The only people who really know what's happening are the OP and CRT and both have an interest in only revealing info which is to their advantage. I'll be interested to see where this has gone when I get back from the boat next week...

Enforcement officers can, and do just that. It's they that have to stand before the break and explain the reason for doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.