Tadworth versus CRT.

[GUMPY]

Post something serious or don't bother.

I am serious.....

Your reaction leeds me to believe that you were registered With CRT under your old email and that the new email was purely to obtain a licence.

[Delta9]

I am serious.....

Your reaction leeds me to believe that you were registered With CRT under your old email and that the new email was purely to obtain a licence.

It really doesn't matter if he changed e-mail. He is entitled to buy a licence..

[Jerra]

It really doesn't matter if he changed e-mail. He is entitled to buy a licence..

So what was the court order for?

[GUMPY]

It really doesn't matter if he changed e-mail. He is entitled to buy a licence..

I am still not convinced that if an injunction has been obtained preventing someone from bringing their boat back on to CRT waters without CRTs prior consent its just as simple as applying for a new licence to get the injunction overturned. That makes the injunction a waste of time.

Logically to me one should have to apply to CRT for consent prior to applying for a licence.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Loddon

[Delta9]

So what was the court order for?

To stop him taking his boat out on CRT water without a licence...

I am not convinced that if an injunction has been obtained preventing someone from bringing their boat back on to CRT waters without CRTs prior consent its just as simple as applying for a new licence to get the injunction overturned. That makes the injunction a waste of time.

Logically to me one should have to apply to CRT for consent prior to applying for a licence.

Applying for a licence is applying to CRT for consent. If he has met the conditions (which he has) they have no justification to deny his application.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Delta9

[Theo]

Dear all

 

This topic is getting uncomfortably close to unfounded accusations.

 

I have not yet read it sufficiently to make a reasoned judgement so I am locking it for the time being. Please bear with the delay.

 

Theo

[Theo]

A few posts have been hidden. Carry on.

 

Theo

[steven wilkinson]

tidied up?

[Theo]

tidied up?

Hope so!

[Iain_S]

(snip)

Applying for a licence is applying to CRT for consent. If he has met the conditions (which he has) they have no justification to deny his application.

 

I agree. "Prior consent", to me, means consent given before an action is taken: in this case, taking a boat on to C&RT waters. "Relevant consent", i.e. the licence, is consent to do that very thing, which is why it's relevant.

 

The thing that bothers me about this saga is that C&RT appear to have marked the OP's card, and seem to be making every effort to prevent him from ever again boating on "their" water, In the same way, I wonder how much of the effort expended by C&RT in the matter of Tony Dunkley's PRN river registration is the result of previous incident(s)??

[Mike Todd]

Seems to me that CRT, based as much on the OP's own admission he does not deserve a licence, are entitled to have a judge test in proceedings the OP might choose to bring the original assertion that "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".

In this context it is the boater not CaRT that are entitled to have the judge test it.

 

 

Interesting point. A fraudulent on-line application using say, a fabricated insurance policy number would result in the issue of a licence as details are not verified in real time, and cancelling it should not require the giving of 28 days notice etc etc.

 

One might be forgiven for wondering if the OP chose to use the automated licence application system relying on this, instead of applying to CRT for the 'prior consent' demanded by the court order.

 

Applying for a licence on-line without obtaining that prior consent *might* be regarded by the court as disregarding the court order, and perhaps even contempt of court.

 

 

 

(Edit for multiple spelling errors.)

If you look at some of the detail in the process of obtaining a new (rather than follow on) licence I suspect there is a little more to this than has so far met our collective eye.

[Mike Todd]

 

I've acknowledged that both sides have made mistakes here. CRT have not made their motives/thoughts public and since the court order relates to entering their waters, CRT have not yet acted because canon7578 has not entered their waters yet, being moored offline.

I don't have the energy to trawl back in detail but I seem to recall that the boat is now some distance up the Grand Union, although not quite on it at the mo. Presumably at some point it got there via CaRT waters? Was that in the period when an automated licence had been issued and the time that it was cancelled?

[Mike Todd]

If CRT was a business that I had an account with and didn't pay, then they would be able to rightly decline any further trade with me .However CRT licences are bound by legislation, quite strict bylaws in fact, this part of CRT is the public body part, not the business part, and I have met all the licence conditions, and as a gesture of goodwill paid in full for 12 months so there is no doubt.

 

Another point that has been raised is the idea I sneaked the licence application in through a "automated system", The answer to that is if there were further conditions to a licence application than the canal act states, then they would be part of the licence system. If every licence had to be rubber stamped by enforcement officers, and in house lawyers, that would be in the licence process too.

 

Also remember that after the licence was granted I contacted them to ensure they were not not still under the impression that they could seize TW under the now spent court order.

 

My licence was prevented at first by deception, then when that failed, by breaking the law set out in the relevant legislation.

You quite clearly have not met all of the conditions, one of which is to satisfy the Board etc etc.

 

That is demonstrable in your cited correspondence.

 

You, however, assert that they were unreasonable in not being satisfied that you would now comply. This is the point that you would to convince a court.

 

You are making the assumption that canon7578 is alone in being treated in this manner.

Whatever he, or anyone else, may or may not have done in the past, cannot disbar him/them from buying a boat Licence.

That sort of thinking went out at about the same time as we stopped the transportation of poachers and other petty criminals to the Colonies.

The past actions are not an automatic bar but they may go some distance along the road of making their failure to be satisfied look reasonable.

 

Reasonableness is a very useful legal tool buy may, in this case, make the OP's case more difficult.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

I agree. "Prior consent", to me, means consent given before an action is taken: in this case, taking a boat on to C&RT waters. "Relevant consent", i.e. the licence, is consent to do that very thing, which is why it's relevant.

 

The thing that bothers me about this saga is that C&RT appear to have marked the OP's card, and seem to be making every effort to prevent him from ever again boating on "their" water, In the same way, I wonder how much of the effort expended by C&RT in the matter of Tony Dunkley's PRN river registration is the result of previous incident(s)??

I think the Street family is well aware what it is like to have ones card marked under BW.

 

Is the situation any better under CaRT?

 

I agree. "Prior consent", to me, means consent given before an action is taken: in this case, taking a boat on to C&RT waters. "Relevant consent", i.e. the licence, is consent to do that very thing, which is why it's relevant.

 

The thing that bothers me about this saga is that C&RT appear to have marked the OP's card, and seem to be making every effort to prevent him from ever again boating on "their" water, In the same way, I wonder how much of the effort expended by C&RT in the matter of Tony Dunkley's PRN river registration is the result of previous incident(s)??

I think the Street family is well aware what it is like to have ones card marked under BW.

 

Is the situation any better under CaRT?

[Mike Todd]

It really doesn't matter if he changed e-mail. He is entitled to buy a licence..

I suspect you will find that he is entitle to apply for a licence.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Sorry for the double post above. I had a message suggesting that my post was being delayed nine seconds because of the number of posts being made.

 

**** Edited for fat fingers

Edited April 19, 2016 by Allan(nb Albert)

[onionbargee]

You quite clearly have not met all of the conditions, one of which is to satisfy the Board etc etc.

 

That is demonstrable in your cited correspondence.

 

You, however, assert that they were unreasonable in not being satisfied that you would now comply. This is the point that you would to convince a court.

 

The past actions are not an automatic bar but they may go some distance along the road of making their failure to be satisfied look reasonable.

 

Reasonableness is a very useful legal tool buy may, in this case, make the OP's case more difficult.

What do you think I have satisfy the board with ?

 

The term 'satisfy the board ' is specific to bona fide navigation for boats without a home mooring, nothing else as far as I know.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

What do you think I have satisfy the board with ?

 

The term 'satisfy the board ' is specific to bona fide navigation for boats without a home mooring, nothing else as far as I know.

It seems that the CaRT apologists are struggling

...

[jenlyn]

So it seems their "finest hour" has passed. They retreat to the depths of the interweb, having fought bravely over profile names, interpretations of interpretations, and the relevance of consent.

 

They stand alone, spent, exhausted of reason.

Finally a lone voice shouts from the depths "help us CRT", but nobody comes.

[CDS]

Dispute not with her for she is lunatic. Shakespeare.

[Alan de Enfield]

What do you think I have satisfy the board with ?

 

The term 'satisfy the board ' is specific to bona fide navigation for boats without a home mooring, nothing else as far as I know.

 

There are a number of 'satisfy the board' clauses in the 1995 Act.

 

Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless—

(a )the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;

 

(b )an insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence that it exists and is in force, has been produced to the Board; and

 

(c )either—

 

(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; or

 

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[PaulG]

 

There are a number of 'satisfy the board' clauses in the 1995 Act.

 

Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless—

(a )the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;

 

(b )an insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence that it exists and is in force, has been produced to the Board; and

 

(c )either—

 

(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; or

 

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

The words "relevant consent" are interesting as well.

The Court Order, (if it used the same form of words as CO's made in other cases) used the phrase "prior consent", which clearly has a different meaning.

Otherwise the CO would have read "relevant consent".

Isolating a single word and thereby taking it out of context is just clutching at straws, IMO.

[Alan de Enfield]

The words "relevant consent" are interesting as well.

The Court Order, (if it used the same form of words as CO's made in other cases) used the phrase "prior consent", which clearly has a different meaning.

Otherwise the CO would have read "relevant consent".

Isolating a single word and thereby taking it out of context is just clutching at straws, IMO.

 

All as suggested many pages ago.

 

For what its 'worth', my opinion is that the Court Order means that the OP should apply for 'prior consent' to allow him to apply for the 'relevant consent' (licence)

During the application for 'prior consent' he would be able to show C&RT that he did meet the requirements and thereby 'satisfy' them (or otherwise) on all counts. Once they agreed they were 'satisfied' then the licence application (relevant consent) would proceed thru' smoothly.

[PaulG]

 

All as suggested many pages ago.

 

For what its 'worth', my opinion is that the Court Order means that the OP should apply for 'prior consent' to allow him to apply for the 'relevant consent' (licence)

During the application for 'prior consent' he would be able to show C&RT that he did meet the requirements and thereby 'satisfy' them (or otherwise) on all counts. Once they agreed they were 'satisfied' then the licence application (relevant consent) would proceed thru' smoothly.

Seems to me that that is the correct interpretation.

If that is not the case, why would the CO contain the requirement for "prior consent" at all?

You need the "relevant consent" in order to be on CRT managed waters already.

[MtB]

It is worth noting that there is a requirement to 'satisfy the board' in every case applying for a licence, not just when applying for a CC licence.

 

It seems to be received wisdom on here that a licence is a right once three conditions are met but this is a falsehood. In addition to meeting the technical conditions the board must always be 'satisfied' about one thing or another, which is a matter of judgement for the board so there will always be an area for doubt.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Mike the Boilerman