Jump to content

Tadworth versus CRT.


onionbargee

Featured Posts

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.

You are barking up a wrong tree, if I may say so, as there is no requirement in the legislation to ask CRT's permission before applying for a licence, court orders cannot over ride statues as far as I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

court orders cannot over ride statues as far as I know.

 

I think they can, and in fact that's exactly what the vast majority of court orders do. In other words, they impose a restriction or additional constriaints on the relationship between two parties.

 

For example if someone received a restraining order to stay at least 400yds away from their ex, they couldn't drive along the road which goes past the rear of her house and offers an excellent view into her garden, despite it being a right of way and having a taxed/insured/MoT'd car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

You're right there, as I said before I am no expert on this stuff I am still learning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are barking up a wrong tree, if I may say so, as there is no requirement in the legislation to ask CRT's permission before applying for a licence, court orders cannot over ride statues as far as I know.

 

 

Even if you are right, CRT have you badly rattled over this which was probably the whole point of their actions, regardless of whether CRT are acting legally or not.

 

Now one way or another, you are going to have to go to court for ,or risk having your boat seized, possibly illegally. Going to court to assert the 'rights' you think you have seems unavoidable one way or another.

 

Had you not dicked them around royally in the past this would not have arisen, so your historic dealing with them must be relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever is the case, IN THIS CASE the trust has now come clean about what they think prior consent means, which is what I think it means as well, so this is no longer an issue.

 

The only outstanding issue is that they have claimed TW is not "fit to navigate" but not given any reason why, or followed the procedure laid down in the relevant bylaw, or in fact ever inspected, had any access to, or can possibly have any knowledge of TW's condition. Which is obviously insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever is the case, IN THIS CASE the trust has now come clean about what they think prior consent means, which is what I think it means as well, so this is no longer an issue.

 

The only outstanding issue is that they have claimed TW is not "fit to navigate" but not given any reason why, or followed the procedure laid down in the relevant bylaw, or in fact ever inspected, had any access to, or can possibly have any knowledge of TW's condition. Which is obviously insane.

 

Essentionally yes, agree, they've been muddled/incoherent in their approach and I think they've severely jeopardised the prospect of success if it did come to trial. But....as said before, only a judge could judge that. It is a big risk assuming you're in the clear in that respect (don't drop the soap etc).

 

If you haven't received official notification which meets the requirements laid down in 17(4) and you're confident you have their prior consent.....go boating?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Essentionally yes, agree, they've been muddled/incoherent in their approach and I think they've severely jeopardised the prospect of success if it did come to trial. But....as said before, only a judge could judge that. It is a big risk assuming you're in the clear in that respect (don't drop the soap etc).

 

If you haven't received official notification which meets the requirements laid down in 17(4) and you're confident you have their prior consent.....go boating?

 

 

Quite. On balance, I think CRT are bluffing and making life difficult for the OP, 'just because they can'.

 

So call their bluff. I very much doubt they'll be chasing you up the towpath with a crane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am at a loss to understand why the pointless 'prior consent' - 'relevant consent' debate continues, because, as I have already pointed out twice, in Posts #290 and #314, C&RT are NOT quibbling about it.

 

They agree, and have confirmed so an E-mailed letter, that buying a Licence before bringing a boat on to their waters is obtaining 'prior consent'.

 

There may have been a hidden clue in the similarity in meaning of the words prior and before.

 

* prior

adjective
1.
existing or coming before in time, order, or importance.
Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever is the case, IN THIS CASE the trust has now come clean about what they think prior consent means, which is what I think it means as well, so this is no longer an issue.

The only outstanding issue is that they have claimed TW is not "fit to navigate" but not given any reason why, or followed the procedure laid down in the relevant bylaw, or in fact ever inspected, had any access to, or can possibly have any knowledge of TW's condition. Which is obviously insane.

No matter how many times you explain, there are a few on here who will not "get it". The simple fact is, they don't want to. (Mtb is just attempting to rattle you, I would suggest hitting the ignore button).

I am at a loss to understand why the pointless 'prior consent' - 'relevant consent' debate continues, because, as I have already pointed out twice, in Posts #290 and #314, C&RT are NOT quibbling about it.

 

They agree, and have confirmed so an E-mailed letter, that buying a Licence before bringing a boat on to their waters is obtaining 'prior consent'.

 

There may have been a hidden clue in the similarity in meaning of the words prior and before.

 

* prior

 

adjective

1.

 

 

 

 

existing or coming before in time, order, or importance.

 

Pathetic isn't it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Quite. On balance, I think CRT are bluffing and making life difficult for the OP, 'just because they can'.

 

So call their bluff. I very much doubt they'll be chasing you up the towpath with a crane.

 

Couldn't agree more, that is just what C&RT are doing, and just why they're doing it.

 

However, I don't agree with this part of what you said in post #428 :~

"Now one way or another, you are going to have to go to court for ,or risk having your boat seized, possibly illegally. Going to court to assert the 'rights' you think you have seems unavoidable one way or another."

 

Seeking to remedy this latest bit of C&RT nonsense through the Courts isn't necessary, and seems very easily avoidable to me.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pathetic isn't it.

 

C&RT seem to have an uncanny ability to induce the 'rabbit in the headlights' effect on a great many people, although it is also quite apparent that it's the one and only thing they are any good at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

It is an interesting question, in that it is very much debatable.

 

Tony and the OP state with absolute certainty that issuing a licence is "prior consent", based on the word "consent" being part of the terminology used for a licence ("relevant consent").

 

However, that is far from certain. Indeed, the two are separate things.

 

It is equally arguable that whilst they are separate things, a "relevant consent" brings with it the required "prior consent".

 

The fact that the order requires "prior consent" doesn't necessarily mean that it imposes any additional requirement, and it is very common for injunctions to require people to do something (or not to do something) that they must (or must not) do in any case.

 

The key thing is that once something is in a court order, not doing as you should ceases to simply be a breach of what the rules are, and becomes a contempt of court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am at a loss to understand why the pointless 'prior consent' - 'relevant consent' debate continues, because, as I have already pointed out twice, in Posts #290 and #314, C&RT are NOT quibbling about it.

 

They agree, and have confirmed so an E-mailed letter, that buying a Licence before bringing a boat on to their waters is obtaining 'prior consent'.

 

There may have been a hidden clue in the similarity in meaning of the words prior and before.

 

* prior

adjective
1.
existing or coming before in time, order, or importance.

 

The point is that it is not within the remit of CRT to decide what a CO means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

So going back to the OP, it seems broadly agreed that Canon isn't in breach of the court order as he applied for, and received a licence, and any emails from CRT claiming to have cancelled it have been sent in error because the money has not been refunded. Yes?

 

So the only remaining worrry to analyse is the threat to seize Tadworth.

 

This seems pretty unlikely if the OP is steering the boat along the cut but there seems a significant risk should he moor up and leave it unattended for any length of time.

 

What actually happens when a boat is 'seized'? Do they chain it to the bank while the crane is booked? Or what? This would be the point at which the OP starts his judicial review, I'd have thought, should this come to pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that it is not within the remit of CRT to decide what a CO means.

 

True enough, and if they try to claim that something is NOT their prior consent a court may tell them not to be silly.

 

However, the CO says that the OP must obtain the prior consent of CRT. If CRT say that something IS their prior consent, then that is definitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that it is not within the remit of CRT to decide what a CO means.

 

Utter nonsense, . . . C&RT's Solicitors wrote the Order, . . . who else is better placed to decide what it means ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been a few of these ....for want of a better phrase.....bodged issues between CRT and boaters they consider non compliant.
One would have thought that by this time a proper system could have been established that would prevent this.

 

If a boat requires prior permission or vetting before a licence can be obtained I would have thought it a fairly simple matter to "red flag" it on the computerised system so that any attempt to obtain a licence would get a "this vessel number xxxxx must apply for a licence either in person, by mail or via email to the authorised officer Blah Blah Blah."

 

If only there was one designated office with staff knowledgeable and competent to deal with the legal issues dealing with all these matters and all other departments forbidden to make ad hoc comments or communications.

.

Surely this is not impossible, and it would save so much hassle both for CRT and boaters.....of course it would dry up a never ending source of threads on this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

True enough, and if they try to claim that something is NOT their prior consent a court may tell them not to be silly.

 

However, the CO says that the OP must obtain the prior consent of CRT. If CRT say that something IS their prior consent, then that is definitive.

you're either arguing against yourself or you failed to read the quoted email from CRT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If a boat requires prior permission or vetting before a licence can be obtained I would have thought it a fairly simple matter to "red flag" it on the computerised system so that any attempt to obtain a licence would get a "this vessel number xxxxx must apply for a licence either in person, by mail or via email to the authorised officer Blah Blah Blah."

 

Yes. Flagging the boat rather than the 'customer' would be the obviousl way to do it. Also suggests the (deleted) previous speculation about the OP changing his email address to fool CRT into seeing him as a new customer was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It is an interesting question, in that it is very much debatable.

 

Tony and the OP state with absolute certainty that issuing a licence is "prior consent", based on the word "consent" being part of the terminology used for a licence ("relevant consent").

 

However, that is far from certain. Indeed, the two are separate things.

 

It is equally arguable that whilst they are separate things, a "relevant consent" brings with it the required "prior consent".

 

The fact that the order requires "prior consent" doesn't necessarily mean that it imposes any additional requirement, and it is very common for injunctions to require people to do something (or not to do something) that they must (or must not) do in any case.

 

The key thing is that once something is in a court order, not doing as you should ceases to simply be a breach of what the rules are, and becomes a contempt of court.

 

That isn't quite what I said, and C&RT themselves have acknowledged that simply obtaining a Licence equates with obtaining 'prior consent, but I'm in complete agreement with the rest of what you've said.

 

The existence of a standard C&RT S.8 Order/Injunction, in effect and reality, does nothing more than increase the severity of the penalty for having an unlicensed boat on the canals, by elevating a minor criminal offence to a minor criminal offence plus Contempt of Court.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Judge that signed it!

It matters not one jot who "wrote" it...

 

I worded my post very poorly, . . . substitute 'understand the intention and purpose of the wording' for 'decide what it means', and then think about it a bit more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Judge that signed it!

It matters not one jot who "wrote" it...

 

 

Yes it does, because CRT are the only organ likely to demand enforcement of it, and if they consider the terms of it have not been broken, they won't demanding enforcement.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes it does, because CRT are the only organ likely to demand enforcement of it, and if they consider the terms of it have not been broken, they won't demanding enforcement.

 

I've just given you a greenie for describing C&RT as an 'organ'.

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.