Tadworth versus CRT.

[RLWP]

 

 

I thought so too. The deleted post was intended to be inflammatory.

 

Likely to cause swelling?

 

Richard

[Hawkmoth]

 

Likely to cause swelling?

 

Richard

[onionbargee]

Can a licence that once issued be immediatly cancelled or revoked due to being issued in error ?

 

"The licence which was issued recently by the Trust was an error because there had not been adequate consideration of all of the circumstances relating to Tadworth, and that is why it was subsequently revoked."

 

Or would the trust be required by law to keep the licence in place, and then make any enquiries as to safety, genuine mooring ect ?

[HaulierP]

Can a licence that once issued be immediatly cancelled or revoked due to being issued in error ?

 

"The licence which was issued recently by the Trust was an error because there had not been adequate consideration of all of the circumstances relating to Tadworth, and that is why it was subsequently revoked."

 

Or would the trust be required by law to keep the licence in place, and then make any enquiries as to safety, genuine mooring ect ?

Whatever way you look at it,its been poor show by CRT they have cocked this up from start to finish.

I don't believe there would be any legal requirement to keep the license in place,why would there be ?

The enquiries would be presumed to have been made prior to licensing the boat.

[Paul C]

Can a licence that once issued be immediatly cancelled or revoked due to being issued in error ?

 

"The licence which was issued recently by the Trust was an error because there had not been adequate consideration of all of the circumstances relating to Tadworth, and that is why it was subsequently revoked."

 

Or would the trust be required by law to keep the licence in place, and then make any enquiries as to safety, genuine mooring ect ?

 

It depends what you mean "revoked due to being issued in error". In particular, what is the error? There is a legally valid mechanism for revoking a licence, which is in 1995 Waterways Act 17(4) and 17(5), which is basically judged on the same criteria as the original licence issuance and there is 28 days notice in law. So in theory, if the licence is issued "in error" this must have been due to not meeting the terms in 17(3), because (apart from non-payment) there is no other reason to not issue a licence, and the obligation to do so is there.

 

The details regarding genuineness of the mooring, safety are detailed in the same Act.

On a more general note, an official licence issued "in error", or not issued, is still valid. For example I believe historically, when driving licences were converted from paper licence to photocard style, a number of people were affected because the entitlements (A, B, C etc) were not properly transferred over so that the licences were effectively erroneous, but that legally stood. Some of these were police officers who lost their entitlement to drive motorbikes and had to take their test again because of the error and not noticing it/being able to correct it in time etc.

 

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/2009/december/dec0809-mcn-ends-lost-licence-chaos/

[peterboat]

 

It depends what you mean "revoked due to being issued in error". In particular, what is the error? There is a legally valid mechanism for revoking a licence, which is in 1995 Waterways Act 17(4) and 17(5), which is basically judged on the same criteria as the original licence issuance and there is 28 days notice in law. So in theory, if the licence is issued "in error" this must have been due to not meeting the terms in 17(3), because (apart from non-payment) there is no other reason to not issue a licence, and the obligation to do so is there.

 

The details regarding genuineness of the mooring, safety are detailed in the same Act.

On a more general note, an official licence issued "in error", or not issued, is still valid. For example I believe historically, when driving licences were converted from paper licence to photocard style, a number of people were affected because the entitlements (A, B, C etc) were not properly transferred over so that the licences were effectively erroneous, but that legally stood. Some of these were police officers who lost their entitlement to drive motorbikes and had to take their test again because of the error and not noticing it/being able to correct it in time etc.

 

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/2009/december/dec0809-mcn-ends-lost-licence-chaos/

Funny you should say that I lost mine as well could I prove it yes as I had a producer from another police force which proved I had the license! Did it work no DVLA in their words do not make mistakes ha ha The police believed the evidence which was just as well because I had run a cyclist down broke his back so he would never walk again! It was his fault he rode straight out of a junction without looking, but it was a close run thing Now I photocopy everthing to do with DVLA shysters!!

[gazza]

Funny you should say that I lost mine as well could I prove it yes as I had a producer from another police force which proved I had the license! Did it work no DVLA in their words do not make mistakes ha ha The police believed the evidence which was just as well because I had run a cyclist down broke his back so he would never walk again! It was his fault he rode straight out of a junction without looking, but it was a close run thing Now I photocopy everthing to do with DVLA shysters!!

The dorks at the DVLA on my paper licence gave me 7.5 t entitlement based on my bike test pass date which was pre the 3.5 t limit of my actual car pass date by a month.

I had a copy of my paper licence at work to drive the truck.

Moved house and had to get a card licence so photocopied it before I sent it off.

Got it back to find it had been corrected and I no longer had entitlement to drive 7.5t.

I phoned up to query it, their answer? Our mistake but you should have checked it on receipt. When asked what would have happened if I had had a bump in the firm's truck they said i would have been liable for driving not in accordance with my licence! The one they sent me with that entitlement!

 

Cheers DVLA!!!

[Theo]

You are veering off topic, folks. Please keep to the point.

 

Theo

[zigspider]

Funny you should say that I lost mine as well could I prove it yes as I had a producer from another police force which proved I had the license! Did it work no DVLA in their words do not make mistakes ha ha The police believed the evidence which was just as well because I had run a cyclist down broke his back so he would never walk again! It was his fault he rode straight out of a junction without looking, but it was a close run thing Now I photocopy everthing to do with DVLA shysters!!

 

I find your attitude appalling . I detect no sympathy for the affected cyclist. No doubt you were bimbling along in your fancy Jag or similar vehicle and also not paying much attention to what was going on.

For what it's worth, your statement has lost you a lot of respect from me.

 

edit to add. sorry for staying off topic, won't happen again ( probably )

Edited June 7, 2016 by zigspider

[onionbargee]

After a ponder on it, they cannot have issued it in an " admininstrative error" because it was valid, and I met all the statutory conditions, and paid in full for it. If the licencing office issued it before discussing it with the enforcement office then that is their problem not mine. If the licencing didn't check any of my details before issuing the licence then that again is their problem. All my details of insurance, and mooring were above board anyway.

 

I'm probably trying to make sense of the half baked rubbish CRT just makes up on the hoof, and has no real meaning, they probably just throw a tin of alphabetti spaghetti at the wall, and copy down the result.

[Naughty Cal]

After a ponder on it, they cannot have issued it in an " admininstrative error" because it was valid, and I met all the statutory conditions, and paid in full for it. If the licencing office issued it before discussing it with the enforcement office then that is their problem not mine. If the licencing didn't check any of my details before issuing the licence then that again is their problem. All my details of insurance, and mooring were above board anyway.

 

I'm probably trying to make sense of the half baked rubbish CRT just makes up on the hoof, and has no real meaning, they probably just throw a tin of alphabetti spaghetti at the wall, and copy down the result.

I'm going to ask you a question that you avoided answering the last time I asked you it.

 

As we now have Naughty-Cal out of the water for three months each winter we only licence her for 9 months of the year with a 3 month period unlicensed whilst ashore.

 

When we apply for our next licence after the period ashore CRT make it very clear in the email and letter they issue that the licence is temporary until they investigate the lapse in licence period.

 

Which they duly do and then a few days later a separate email arrives saying the licence is now valid.

 

Did you not receive anything similar?

[John V]

I'm going to ask you a question that you avoided answering the last time I asked you it.

 

As we now have Naughty-Cal out of the water for three months each winter we only licence her for 9 months of the year with a 3 month period unlicensed whilst ashore.

 

When we apply for our next licence after the period ashore CRT make it very clear in the email and letter they issue that the licence is temporary until they investigate the lapse in licence period.

 

Which they duly do and then a few days later a separate email arrives saying the licence is now valid.

 

Did you not receive anything similar?

 

That surprises me, Shapfell was unlicensed from Sept 2012 until Jan this year (on tidal waters). When I applied to license her again (on phone) I was expecting questions but there were none. I was not even asked details of her mooring (she has one, paid for until Jan next year) just if she had one. This year I have a Gold license (bloody waste of money, should have got a rivers only as unforseen factors have severely curtailed my time available for cruising this year) I wonder if this had an influence on it. or possibly because she is only 25' narrowbeam and unlikely to be a liveaboard.

Edited June 8, 2016 by John V

[Naughty Cal]

 

That surprises me, Shapfell was unlicensed from Sept 2012 until Jan this year (on tidal waters). When I applied to license her again (on phone) I was expecting questions but there were none. I was not even asked details of her mooring (she has one, paid for until Jan next year) just if she had one. This year I have a Gold license (bloody waste of money, should have got a rivers only as unforseen factors have severely curtailed my time available for cruising this year) I wonder if this had an influence on it. or possibly because she is only 25' narrowbeam and unlikely to be a liveaboard.

Unfortunately I have deleted the email from CRT. But they did certainly check with Burton Waters where the boat had been declared ashore because BW rang me to ask if it was ok to pass on the information to CRT.

 

NC is on a rivers only licence, but I'm not sure what bearing this would have on anything and she is also only 25ft long.

 

We will do the same again this winter and declare her off the water for 3 months, so fully expect the same process next spring when she is relaunched.

[onionbargee]

I'm going to ask you a question that you avoided answering the last time I asked you it.

 

As we now have Naughty-Cal out of the water for three months each winter we only licence her for 9 months of the year with a 3 month period unlicensed whilst ashore.

 

When we apply for our next licence after the period ashore CRT make it very clear in the email and letter they issue that the licence is temporary until they investigate the lapse in licence period.

 

Which they duly do and then a few days later a separate email arrives saying the licence is now valid.

 

Did you not receive anything similar?

No, I have never received anything like that.

 

Is there such a thing as a "temporary" licence ?

[stagedamager]

We had that with Oak and Ash. Even though I told them the gap was because we were licenced on EA waters and gave them the registration numbers they still wouldn't issue until they investigated it......

[mayalld]

No, I have never received anything like that.

 

Is there such a thing as a "temporary" licence ?

 

It is, in most areas of the law, fairly well established that where something has been done in error, and where the error is noticed rapidly (an opinion as to what is rapid varies), that thing can be undone to wind back to the prior position.

 

The rule of thumb in such cases is that once the parties have accepted the outcome and taken further actions based upon it, you can't do that.

 

So, to keep it on a boating theme;

 

I decide to buy a boat, and after looking round the brokerage, decide that I am going to buy one. I sign the broker's papers, and give him a cheque. As I walk back to the car, I realise that this was a mistake, and rush back to the office to cancel the deal.

 

The ink isn't dry. The broker hasn't phoned the seller, he hasn't banked my cheque, he hasn't removed the boat from the internet listing, he hasn't lost an opportunity to sell it to anybody else. I can back out without penalty.

 

What can happen, and appears to have happened in NC's case, is that CRT are explicitly saying that it will take some time to determine whether NC is entitled to the licence she requests, but that they will assume for now that she is, and issue a licence as requested, without prejudice to coming back once they have checked and saying "sorry you don't qualify"

[onionbargee]

But the law requires CRT to allow 28 days for the licencee to rectify any problem with the statutory requirements of the licence. There is no such thing as a licence with an extra condition that they will revoke it immediately if their checks don't tally up. Any extra condition on a licence would be unlawful.

 

Once the licence is issued it means CRT are satisfied the conditions have been met.

[mayalld]

But the law requires CRT to allow 28 days for the licencee to rectify any problem with the statutory requirements of the licence. There is no such thing as a licence with an extra condition that they will revoke it immediately if their checks don't tally up. Any extra condition on a licence would be unlawful.

 

Once the licence is issued it means CRT are satisfied the conditions have been met.

 

The alternative would be that if CRT are not yet satisfied that the licence conditions are met, they simply refuse to licence the boat until their enquiries are complete.

 

As ever, those that try to play clever tricks with what CRT can and cannot do risk forcing them into a corner where they do what they CAN do, even if it is worse for boaters.

 

If you really want to play games, a temporary licence is not a licence at all.

 

Rather it is permission to use the boat as if it were licenced, without a licence actually existing, and an understanding that if the requirements of a licence are met, the licence will be backdated to cover this period.

[onionbargee]

 

The alternative would be that if CRT are not yet satisfied that the licence conditions are met, they simply refuse to licence the boat until their enquiries are complete.

 

As ever, those that try to play clever tricks with what CRT can and cannot do risk forcing them into a corner where they do what they CAN do, even if it is worse for boaters.

 

If you really want to play games, a temporary licence is not a licence at all.

 

Rather it is permission to use the boat as if it were licenced, without a licence actually existing, and an understanding that if the requirements of a licence are met, the licence will be backdated to cover this period.

There is no such thing as "permission to use the boat as if it were licenced" .

[magnetman]

Not yet

[NigelMoore]

Not yet

There is, and has been for a long time - in certain circumstances CaRT cannot unreasonably withhold such permission.

[Naughty Cal]

There is no such thing as "permission to use the boat as if it were licenced" .

There is because that is essentially what we had prior to the issuing of our licence.

 

Admittedly it was only a couple of days but had anyone put our index number into the boat checker page it would have come up as unlicensed for those few days.

[onionbargee]

There is, and has been for a long time - in certain circumstances CaRT cannot unreasonably withhold such permission.

Care to elaborate on that ? Edited June 8, 2016 by onionbargee

[TheBiscuits]

There is because that is essentially what we had prior to the issuing of our licence.

 

Admittedly it was only a couple of days but had anyone put our index number into the boat checker page it would have come up as unlicensed for those few days.

 

Are you sure?

 

After we cancelled a licence and got a refund (on hardstanding for a few months) we had the same message when re-applying for a licence.

 

I read their note as meaning that they were checking when the licence would start from and when they were satisfied I was telling the truth agreed it would start from 1st April as requested.

 

The online checker said we were licenced for 5 days before they sent us the email with the licence.

[Naughty Cal]

 

Are you sure?

 

After we cancelled a licence and got a refund (on hardstanding for a few months) we had the same message when re-applying for a licence.

 

I read their note as meaning that they were checking when the licence would start from and when they were satisfied I was telling the truth agreed it would start from 1st April as requested.

 

The online checker said we were licenced for 5 days before they sent us the email with the licence.

That isn't how it read. However I don't have a copy of the email anymore to post it.