Jump to content

Tadworth versus CRT.


onionbargee

Featured Posts

Surely there is a fourth element to the granting of a licence, the payment of the appropriate fee.

 

Perhaps, though not necessarily, CaRT has retained the application fee for Tadworth to remedy some or all of any prior debt. This would mean that no or an insufficient fee has been received for a new licence, ergo the licence has been revoked.

 

Perhaps.

 

 

They have also held onto the money.

 

 

 

That all makes perfect sense, I refer to the opening paragraph of Post No. 74 of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update.

 

CRT have now changed their tune, now they claim Tadworth is "unfit to navigate" acording to a 1965 bylaw, without specifying why, and that the stink hole is not a genuine mooring for some unspecified reason.

 

I have to give them 10/10 for effort, they are combing through the legislation all night to find something. Probably the first time they have actually read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update.

 

CRT have now changed their tune, now they claim Tadworth is "unfit to navigate" acording to a 1965 bylaw, without specifying why, and that the stink hole is not a genuine mooring for some unspecified reason.

 

I have to give them 10/10 for effort, they are combing through the legislation all night to find something. Probably the first time they have actually read it.

The conditions for the licence haven't been met if they're not satisfied about the home mooring. Looks like you need to challenge that aspect - quite a costly process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update.

 

CRT have now changed their tune, now they claim Tadworth is "unfit to navigate" acording to a 1965 bylaw, without specifying why, and that the stink hole is not a genuine mooring for some unspecified reason.

 

I have to give them 10/10 for effort, they are combing through the legislation all night to find something. Probably the first time they have actually read it.

 

They have presumably decided you are no complying with :

 

Vessels

3. No person shall bring use or leave in any canal any vessel which is not in every respect fit for navigation on the canal or part thereof where it is intended to be used.

 

There appears to be no criteria that have to be met, but one would have thought that being in possession of a valid, in date, BSSC would be sufficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be moored next to Tadworth tomorrow and Sunday as I have an appointment in the Stinkole to do some varnishing under their wet dock.

 

You may well be taking a fearful risk in doing so, . . . according to the Enforcement Supervisor for that area 'Tadworth' constitutes a source of danger to both persons aboard and in the vicinity, and to other vessels.

On the other hand, you may find that you are quite safe and 'Tadworth' is not really there at all, because the same Supervisor is "not satisfied" that the mooring it has been using for the past year "is available for use".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the Stink hole?

 

It is a term applied to the arm that goes off the Grand Union to the Colne Valley Sewage Works. It was actually the unloading point for some of the last regular long distance coal traffics, as at the time the processing at the sewage works consumed large amounts of coal, (no, I have idea why).

 

I am intrigued that it is apparently one of those rare arms immediately connected to CRT waters where a CRT licence is not needed for historical reasons. I guess that is an explanation of how certain boats have in the past apparently managed to spend years in there, apparently untroubled by the officialdom of things like BSS, Insurance and Licence, (and in this case I'm not referring in any way to Tadworth).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many other boats are claiming the stinkhole as their home mooring, and how many boats can it accommodate?

You can Google earth it. The arm below Spring well lock and near the sewage works. It's part of the River Colne complex rather than canal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many other boats are claiming the stinkhole as their home mooring, and how many boats can it accommodate?

 

Looking at Google maps, the satellite images show at least 50 to 60 boats somewhere in there, many of which look like large wide-beam dumb barges.

 

The bit you can see easily from the high bridge that carries the tow-path over the entrance, I would say around 20-ish.

 

Linky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They have presumably decided you are no complying with :

 

Vessels

3. No person shall bring use or leave in any canal any vessel which is not in every respect fit for navigation on the canal or part thereof where it is intended to be used.

 

There appears to be no criteria that have to be met, but one would have thought that being in possession of a valid, in date, BSSC would be sufficient.

I think a argument could be made that a Bss certificate does not constitute proof that a boat Is safe for navigation.

Like a mot it is proof of what was present at time of inspection.

We have all seen boats with unsafe gas bottles and generators etc that weren't there at inspection time.

Plus 4 years is a long time for a boat to change/degrade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They have presumably decided you are no complying with :

 

Vessels

3. No person shall bring use or leave in any canal any vessel which is not in every respect fit for navigation on the canal or part thereof where it is intended to be used.

 

There appears to be no criteria that have to be met, but one would have thought that being in possession of a valid, in date, BSSC would be sufficient.

 

Not only an absence of criteria to be met, Alan, but in their desperation to lend credibility and weight to their claim that they have legitimately 'cancelled' Tadworth's recently issued new Licence, C&RT have overlooked the fact that revoking, or refusing, a boat's Licence is not even the prescribed penalty for a proven Byelaw infringement, let alone an enforceable penalty for the speculative and unproven presumption of such a heinous crime.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They have presumably decided you are no complying with :

 

Vessels

3. No person shall bring use or leave in any canal any vessel which is not in every respect fit for navigation on the canal or part thereof where it is intended to be used.

 

There appears to be no criteria that have to be met, but one would have thought that being in possession of a valid, in date, BSSC would be sufficient.

I think a argument could be made that a Bss certificate does not constitute proof that a boat Is safe for navigation.

Like a mot it is proof of what was present at time of inspection.

We have all seen boats with unsafe gas bottles and generators etc that weren't there at inspection time.

Plus 4 years is a long time for a boat to change/degrade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You may well be taking a fearful risk in doing so, . . . according to the Enforcement Supervisor for that area 'Tadworth' constitutes a source of danger to both persons aboard and in the vicinity, and to other vessels.

On the other hand, you may find that you are quite safe and 'Tadworth' is not really there at all, because the same Supervisor is "not satisfied" that the mooring it has been using for the past year "is available for use".

Its only dangerous when I am steering it.

 

Something they seem to be dead against giving me the opportunity to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a argument could be made that a Bss certificate does not constitute proof that a boat Is safe for navigation.

Like a mot it is proof of what was present at time of inspection.

We have all seen boats with unsafe gas bottles and generators etc that weren't there at inspection time.

Plus 4 years is a long time for a boat to change/degrade.

 

In that case you should contact C&RT's Enforcement Supervisor, Peter Palmer, and give him some directions as to how he can argue his way out of the increasingly embarrassing mess he's getting himself and the Trust into with regard to 'Tadworth'.

The Trust's ill-considered actions and words have, to date, led them into being perilously close to being in contempt of their own Order, obtained in respect of 'Tadworth' in September 2013.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not only an absence of criteria to be met, Alan, but in their desperation to lend credibility and weight to their claim that they have 'cancelled' Tadworth's recently issued new Licence, C&RT have overlooked the fact that revoking, or refusing, a boat's Licence is not even the prescribed penalty for a proven Byelaw infringement, let alone the speculative and unproven presumption of such a heinous crime.

 

If I remember correctly the fine is £100, and that a new infringement committed 'daily' until the 'fault' is remedied, however, not being told what the 'fault' is could make it tricky to remedy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If I remember correctly the fine is £100, and that a new infringement committed 'daily' until the 'fault' is remedied, however, not being told what the 'fault' is could make it tricky to remedy it.

 

Quite a good way of getting rid of any boat;

 

"your boat's unsafe, £100"

 

"what's wrong with it?"

 

"not telling, £100"

 

"I've fixed this and I've fixed that"

 

"nope, £100"

 

... and repeat...

 

Or is that absurd?

 

Hang on a minute....

Edited by BMC problems
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If I remember correctly the fine is £100, and that a new infringement committed 'daily' until the 'fault' is remedied, however, not being told what the 'fault' is could make it tricky to remedy it.

 

There are, in fact, comprehensive and well defined procedures for dealing with suspected dangerous and/or defective boats in Section 7 [Control of unsafe vessels] of the 1983 BW Act.

Despite it's proximity to the over, and inappropriately, used Section 8, it would seem that that C&RT's preference is to neglect the existence of S.7 and invent yet more imaginary, self-conferred powers, going well beyond those enshrined in statute.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are, in fact, comprehensive and well defined procedures for dealing with suspected dangerous and/or defective boats in Section 7 [Control of unsafe vessels] of the 1983 BW Act.

Despite it's proximity to the over, and inappropriately, used Section 8, it would seem that that C&RT's preference is to neglect the existence of S.7 and invent yet more imaginary, self-conferred powers, going well beyond those enshrined in statute.

 

Would it be reasonable to assume that the following has not be complied with ?

 

(3) Where in the opinion of an officer who inspects a vessel under the powers of this section the vessel is unsafe, he shall give to the master of the vessel and to the owner (if different) a notice—

 

(a ) containing details of the defects and of the measures required to remedy them;

 

(b ) stating that, except in any case where the defects are, immediately following the inspection, remedied to the reasonable satisfaction of the officer who has inspected the vessel, the further movement or use of the vessel other- wise than in accordance with any requirement of the notice or with the consent, or under the direction, of an officer shall be prohibited until a certificate has been issued by the Board stating that the vessel is no longer unsafe;

 

(c ) requiring the owner of the vessel to remedy the defects by a date (which shall be not less than three months from the date of the notice) and to notify the Board in writing within that period of the steps taken to remedy the defects;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You may well be taking a fearful risk in doing so, . . . according to the Enforcement Supervisor for that area 'Tadworth' constitutes a source of danger to both persons aboard and in the vicinity, and to other vessels.

On the other hand, you may find that you are quite safe and 'Tadworth' is not really there at all, because the same Supervisor is "not satisfied" that the mooring it has been using for the past year "is available for use".

I might be pursuaded to tow Tadworth away (despite the obvious dangers) for a nominal fee and take her over. I can't help but glance over her every time we pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Would it be reasonable to assume that the following has not be complied with ?

 

(3) Where in the opinion of an officer who inspects a vessel under the powers of this section the vessel is unsafe, he shall give to the master of the vessel and to the owner (if different) a notice—

 

(a ) containing details of the defects and of the measures required to remedy them;

 

(b ) stating that, except in any case where the defects are, immediately following the inspection, remedied to the reasonable satisfaction of the officer who has inspected the vessel, the further movement or use of the vessel other- wise than in accordance with any requirement of the notice or with the consent, or under the direction, of an officer shall be prohibited until a certificate has been issued by the Board stating that the vessel is no longer unsafe;

 

(c ) requiring the owner of the vessel to remedy the defects by a date (which shall be not less than three months from the date of the notice) and to notify the Board in writing within that period of the steps taken to remedy the defects;

 

It would be entirely reasonable, Alan.

The subsection of S.7 of the '83 Act you've quoted is one of several sections of various BW Acts which, apparently, and in the absence of any Parliamentary involvement, have somehow been recently amended or repealed by a bunch of rather dubious charity workers operating out of an office block in Milton Keynes.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be pursuaded to tow Tadworth away (despite the obvious dangers) for a nominal fee and take her over. I can't help but glance over her every time we pass.

 

You could well be letting yourself in for a big disappointment if you do that.

In view of what the local Enforcement Supervisor has said about the mooring at Colne Valley Works not being available for the real 'Tadworth', I think it's safe to assume that what you have been seeing is in fact a lifesize cardboard cut-out of a big Northwich, put there by Tadworth's owner for the sole purpose of deceiving C&RT into believing that he has a mooring there.

We must all be thankful that C&RT's Enforcement Team, and Peter Palmer in particular, have been diligent and alert enough to have uncovered this dastardly plot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it be reasonable to assume that the following has not be complied with ?

 

(3) Where in the opinion of an officer who inspects a vessel under the powers of this section the vessel is unsafe, he shall give to the master of the vessel and to the owner (if different) a notice—

 

(a ) containing details of the defects and of the measures required to remedy them;

 

(b ) stating that, except in any case where the defects are, immediately following the inspection, remedied to the reasonable satisfaction of the officer who has inspected the vessel, the further movement or use of the vessel other- wise than in accordance with any requirement of the notice or with the consent, or under the direction, of an officer shall be prohibited until a certificate has been issued by the Board stating that the vessel is no longer unsafe;

 

(c ) requiring the owner of the vessel to remedy the defects by a date (which shall be not less than three months from the date of the notice) and to notify the Board in writing within that period of the steps taken to remedy the defects;

The most important word in this section is the word SHALL. In legal speak this word is all important and if the authorities have not complied with it then any action taken subsequently would likely fail on a point of law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • 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.