Tadworth versus CRT.

[TheBiscuits]

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

 

We are writing to inform you that as your boat was unlicensed for a period of time, our team have checked the start date of your recent licence application.

We can now confirm that your licence begins on 01/04/2016.

Yours sincerely,

Boat licensing Team

 

I can't find the original note either, so I am wondering if it was just a status message on the licensing website.

[peterboat]

 

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 )

Completely wrong I was on a CX500 honda [plastic maggot], the cyclist wearing earphones and listening to music rode straight out of a junction, I didnt even have time to brake! I carried him 50 yards before we fell over I was injured he was crippled it was only by luck nobody else was injured! Fortunately there was over 30 witnesses as to my innocence, the police luckily checked with North Yorkshire plod and found my producer for the cx500 proving I had a license. The cyclist did try to sue but failed I had to pick up all the costs to repair my bike which were substantial! All because an idiot had to wear earphones listen to music and ignore stop signs. I did try to visit him in hospital but he didnt want to see me, and the worst of all is his dad was a friend of mine luckily he didnt blame me just his idiot son!

[Guest User]

As per Theo's earlier reminder: this is veering off topic folks, please keep to the point.

 

Thanks,

LC.

[NigelMoore]

Care to elaborate on that ?

Not while on phone only. Have posted on this earlier though, within several topics. If, e.g. a boat must navigate to a boatyard in order to get work done so it can pass the BSSC and get licensed, then CaRT must allow that. The only exception would be if that was dangerous for itself/others.

[mayalld]

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

 

BW Act 1995 s17 (11) (a)

 

Alternatively, if you are so determined to tie them up in the letter of the law, regardless of the actual effects;

 

The law makes no stipulation as to how long a licence must be granted for.

 

CRT are entirely within their rights to issue a series of licences for the day pending being satisfied that you meet the conditions.

 

If you say they can't do that, then you have them in a corner, where they would have to refuse licences until they have satisfied themselves as to meeting the conditions.

[Naughty Cal]

 

We are writing to inform you that as your boat was unlicensed for a period of time, our team have checked the start date of your recent licence application.

We can now confirm that your licence begins on 01/04/2016.

Yours sincerely,

Boat licensing Team

 

I can't find the original note either, so I am wondering if it was just a status message on the licensing website.

Fairly sure that wasn't the wording!

[onionbargee]

 

BW Act 1995 s17 (11) (a)

 

Alternatively, if you are so determined to tie them up in the letter of the law, regardless of the actual effects;

 

The law makes no stipulation as to how long a licence must be granted for.

 

CRT are entirely within their rights to issue a series of licences for the day pending being satisfied that you meet the conditions.

 

If you say they can't do that, then you have them in a corner, where they would have to refuse licences until they have satisfied themselves as to meeting the conditions.

Don't be daft.

[Graham Davis]

Don't be daft.

 

Dave's response sounds perfectly reasonable, so why EXACTLY is it daft?

[mayalld]

Don't be daft.

 

Would you care to point out what is daft there?

 

Or perhaps you would care to tell us what YOU think they should do if somebody applies for a licence, and they are unable to confirm that the mooring is valid immediately.

 

Should they;

1) refuse to licence until they are satisfied - no doubt you would scream blue murder about that.

2) allow the boater to use the boat without a licence until such time as they are satisfied, and backdate the licence when issued.

3) Licence the boat on a day by day basis.

4) Just issue the licence anyway, and forget about actually checking.

[onionbargee]

 

Would you care to point out what is daft there?

 

Or perhaps you would care to tell us what YOU think they should do if somebody applies for a licence, and they are unable to confirm that the mooring is valid immediately.

 

Should they;

1) refuse to licence until they are satisfied - no doubt you would scream blue murder about that.

2) allow the boater to use the boat without a licence until such time as they are satisfied, and backdate the licence when issued.

3) Licence the boat on a day by day basis.

4) Just issue the licence anyway, and forget about actually checking.

Depends what the law says, I would suggest they do that .

 

I would guess 1. Provide a copy of your insurance and mooring agreement and your done. Sounds fair to me.

[MtB]

Dont think I've ever had a written moorings agreement...

[magnetman]

Don't you get a receipt?

 

I suppose there may be a question about the validity of moorings if a mooring operator for example leases a section of a river which is not under CRT control but connects directly to CRT water (a feeder). Perhaps it is an industrial area not suitable for a normal marina.

 

Say for example there is room for 50 boats in there beside the treatment works or whatever. If CRT then find they have 80 boats claiming to be moored there it could potentially lead them to believing that there is abuse of the "home mooring" part of the licensing requirements. It is an obvious loophole and definitely opwn to abuse.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Depends what the law says, I would suggest they do that .

 

I would guess 1. Provide a copy of your insurance and mooring agreement and your done. Sounds fair to me.

Depends what the law says, I would suggest they do that .

 

I would guess 1. Provide a copy of your insurance and mooring agreement and your done. Sounds fair to me.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

CaRT accepts a declaration of home mooring and insurance. It runs spot checks on insurance and only checks home mooring if it has concerns. As such it is wrong to fail to give consent if a boater has provided the info asked for.

[Paul C]

Give they issue a (well, there's only one kind, but it could be labelled "permanent" instead of "temporary" or "time limited" or "short term" or "provisional" etc) licence, then run checks if needs be on the mooring(/insurance), they'd need to use the section 17(4) and 17(5) process to "cancel" that licence. Or the alternate is to wait it out until the licence runs out (by expiring due to time) and next time a licence is applied for, not issue one.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Give they issue a (well, there's only one kind, but it could be labelled "permanent" instead of "temporary" or "time limited" or "short term" or "provisional" etc) licence, then run checks if needs be on the mooring(/insurance), they'd need to use the section 17(4) and 17(5) process to "cancel" that licence. Or the alternate is to wait it out until the licence runs out (by expiring due to time) and next time a licence is applied for, not issue one.

You describe how it should work. Notice of not less than 28 days should be given for the boater to 'rectify the default'.

 

It is difficult to see how CaRT can refuse an application because they dispute that the boat has a home mooring. The most they can do is a 'Ralph Freeman' and tell the boater that they intend to treat him as not having a home mooring when he was away from it.

 

With regard to insurance, it is difficult to see how an application can be refused on the basis that CaRT was previously aware that insurance was not in place and did nothing about it.

[mayalld]

Depends what the law says, I would suggest they do that .

 

I would guess 1. Provide a copy of your insurance and mooring agreement and your done. Sounds fair to me.

 

So, you present them with these documents.

 

Clearly, the insurance is easy enough to be satisfied with.

 

The problem comes with the mooring agreement. It may not actually be possible to verify that this is a genuine mooring (exists, is lawful, hasn't been claimed as a mooring y more boats than it can actually accommodate) instantly. Might take them a week to check.

 

Perhaps their checks suggest that there is room for 10 boats, and that 12 other boats already moor there. They will want to speak to the owner to confirm that he actually has room for you (which will mean him saying which other boats no longer have a mooring there).

 

What do you think they should do whilst waiting for this process to complete.

 

"Depends what the law says" isn't an answer that that question.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

So, you present them with these documents.

 

Clearly, the insurance is easy enough to be satisfied with.

 

The problem comes with the mooring agreement. It may not actually be possible to verify that this is a genuine mooring (exists, is lawful, hasn't been claimed as a mooring y more boats than it can actually accommodate) instantly. Might take them a week to check.

 

Perhaps their checks suggest that there is room for 10 boats, and that 12 other boats already moor there. They will want to speak to the owner to confirm that he actually has room for you (which will mean him saying which other boats no longer have a mooring there).

 

What do you think they should do whilst waiting for this process to complete.

 

"Depends what the law says" isn't an answer that that question.

You seem to be making it up on the hoof. As having a home mooring is not mandatory then the licence must be granted. This is what happened in the case of 'Ralph Freeman' who has a 'hot berth' agreement in summer.

 

***edited to add - In Ralph Freeman's case CaRT have told him that they will treat him as a CC'er when away from his home mooring.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Allan(nb Albert)

[mayalld]

You seem to be making it up on the hoof. As having a home mooring is not mandatory then the licence must be granted. This is what happened in the case of 'Ralph Freeman' who has a 'hot berth' agreement in summer.

 

***edited to add - In Ralph Freeman's case CaRT have told him that they will treat him as a CC'er when away from his home mooring.

 

What nonsense.

 

A home mooring is one (the usual) way in which people satisfy the "a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel" requirement.

 

However a boater chooses to try to meet this requirement, they must "satisfy the board", and CRT can reasonably decide that they aren't satisfied that the mooring WILL be available.

 

Clearly, it will be a question of degree.

 

If there are 10 berths and 11 boats claim a mooring, the operator could claim that based on many years operating the mooring, there has never been a summer week when ALL the boats were there, so it is sufficiently likely that the mooring will be available to amount to "WILL".

 

If 20 boats claim it as a home mooring, then it would be unreasonable to claim that a mooring will always be available.

[Alan de Enfield]

You seem to be making it up on the hoof. As having a home mooring is not mandatory then the licence must be granted. This is what happened in the case of 'Ralph Freeman' who has a 'hot berth' agreement in summer.

 

***edited to add - In Ralph Freeman's case CaRT have told him that they will treat him as a CC'er when away from his home mooring.

 

But, surely, when you don't have a mooring and you intend to 'cc' then you sign that section of the application form.

If you sign the part that says you 'have a mooring' then it must be common sense that you do actually have a mooring available to you.

 

Edit to add :

 

Lets say you have been a 'bit naughty' for the last 3 years, and have not licenced your boat, twisting and wriggling and offering very excuse under the Sun.

C&RT have taken fairly high costs to get you to eventually comply with the law, so, why should they now be confident that you are a reformed character and will do everything 'by the book'.

History tends to make them think otherwise and you will be a 'baddy' until you can prove you are an upstanding, law abiding citizen again.

 

Its only human nature - if someone kicks you in the nuts once, you stay well clear of them, in case they do it again.

It takes a long time to build up trust and respect and seconds to destroy it.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

But, surely, when you don't have a mooring and you intend to 'cc' then you sign that section of the application form.

If you sign the part that says you 'have a mooring' then it must be common sense that you do actually have a mooring available to you.

 

Edit to add :

 

Lets say you have been a 'bit naughty' for the last 3 years, and have not licenced your boat, twisting and wriggling and offering very excuse under the Sun.

C&RT have taken fairly high costs to get you to eventually comply with the law, so, why should they now be confident that you are a reformed character and will do everything 'by the book'.

History tends to make them think otherwise and you will be a 'baddy' until you can prove you are an upstanding, law abiding citizen again.

 

Its only human nature - if someone kicks you in the nuts once, you stay well clear of them, in case they do it again.

It takes a long time to build up trust and respect and seconds to destroy it.

Alan and Dave rather miss the point.

 

There is no legal requirement to have a home mooring. Thus there are no legal grounds to refuse or delay the issue of a license whilst CaRT checks.

 

It is quite easy. If a boat is, in fact, not complying with the legal requirements then CaRT should issue a notice to that effect giving 28 days or more to rectify the default.

 

As Simon Salem said on radio 4 - ‘We can't not give you a licence because of what we think you might or might not do in the future'.

 

 

[Paul C]

Alan and Dave rather miss the point.

 

There is no legal requirement to have a home mooring. Thus there are no legal grounds to refuse or delay the issue of a license whilst CaRT checks.

 

It is quite easy. If a boat is, in fact, not complying with the legal requirements then CaRT should issue a notice to that effect giving 28 days or more to rectify the default.

 

As Simon Salem said on radio 4 - ‘We can't not give you a licence because of what we think you might or might not do in the future'.

 

 

 

BUT if someone has made the declaration that they have a suitable home mooring, they've NOT made the declaration relating to CCing - so to simply "switch" them and consider them/evaluate their movements as a CCer isn't a valid alternate.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

But, surely, when you don't have a mooring and you intend to 'cc' then you sign that section of the application form.

If you sign the part that says you 'have a mooring' then it must be common sense that you do actually have a mooring available to you.

 

Edit to add :

 

Lets say you have been a 'bit naughty' for the last 3 years, and have not licenced your boat, twisting and wriggling and offering very excuse under the Sun.

C&RT have taken fairly high costs to get you to eventually comply with the law, so, why should they now be confident that you are a reformed character and will do everything 'by the book'.

History tends to make them think otherwise and you will be a 'baddy' until you can prove you are an upstanding, law abiding citizen again.

 

Its only human nature - if someone kicks you in the nuts once, you stay well clear of them, in case they do it again.

It takes a long time to build up trust and respect and seconds to destroy it.

 

It's the question of compliance with the law, as opposed to compliance with what C&RT wish was law, that's at the heart of this matter.

 

If you buy a Licence or PBC via the 'home mooring' option in the 1995 Act, then the 'law' simply requires that the mooring is 'available', whereas C&RT [unlawfully] insist that it must be used, . . . and waste huge amounts money in attempting to enforce that.

 

As for C&RT incurring high costs, particularly when taking action against boat owners who have failed to obtain a current Licence or PBC, the responsibility for any high costs rests not with the boat's owner, but solely with C&RT as a direct result of misusing the powers they have under the 1983 and 1971 Acts, both of which provide for the recovery of unpaid Licence or PBC fees as a civil debt under Sections 5 and 7 respectively. This, together with a criminal prosecution in a Magistrates Court [ under Section 5(1) of the 1971 Act, and the 1976 Byelaws] is the correct and appropriate action against licence-dodgers, but C&RT invariably choose the costly, futile and ultimately ineffective Section 8 [and 13] route instead.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Alan de Enfield]

Alan and Dave rather miss the point.

 

There is no legal requirement to have a home mooring. Thus there are no legal grounds to refuse or delay the issue of a license whilst CaRT checks.

 

 

 

 

No - I think that you are missing a fundamental point (which I tried to explain)

 

If you 'tick the box' for no home mooring then they cannot withhold your licence as you are making a 'CC declaration' as allowed for in law.

If you 'tick the box' to say you have a Home Mooring, then C&RT COULD withhold your licence until they are satisfied that such a mooring exists.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

BUT if someone has made the declaration that they have a suitable home mooring, they've NOT made the declaration relating to CCing - so to simply "switch" them and consider them/evaluate their movements as a CCer isn't a valid alternate.

The law does not require you to make a declaration.