Tadworth versus CRT.

[valrene9600]

Is there any legal reason that crt can refuse to issue a licence, apart from no insurance or safety ticket.

Put this present situation to one side.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

No, please enlighten me.

 

It is a concept invoked by C&RT in an attempt to negate compliance with S.17(3) of the '95 Act when they want to refuse a Licence on the sole grounds of petty mindedness and spite.

[Paul C]

Is there any legal reason that crt can refuse to issue a licence, apart from no insurance or safety ticket.

Put this present situation to one side.

 

Yes - they're not satisfied with the mooring or that the boater will CC properly. As mentioned many times, there's 3 conditions. Also there is a fourth, which is the payment of the licence.

[Tony Dunkley]

Is there any legal reason that crt can refuse to issue a licence, apart from no insurance or safety ticket.

Put this present situation to one side.

 

The sole lawful grounds for doing so are non-compliance with the stipulations in S.17(3) of the 1995 BW Act.

[valrene9600]

Yes - they're not satisfied with the mooring or that the boater will CC properly. As mentioned many times, there's 3 conditions. Also there is a fourth, which is the payment of the licence.

Not much on their side is there.

So no matter what I do to crt be it damage their property or abandon my sunken boat that they then have to remove, refuse to buy a licence and get legally removed or any other reason and you honestly telling me they mustt just keep issuing a licence. All seems unfair. What other business would work in that way.

[NigelMoore]

Was Barbie okay with that???

 

No, but she felt it was preferable to the other way around.

[valrene9600]

Surely the easy way for this to go is for crt to allow the licence to stand.

Over the next year canon/onionbargee/James bond or whatever name is on file can then prove by their actions that they deserve to be on crt waters.

[adam1uk]

The Transcript of the final hearing post that Order is revealing:

 

Halbert J: [to Mayers] I daresay if you obtain a mooring and a new licence they will leave you alone. [to CaRT’s barrister] Is that right? . . . Mr Moss, you did tell me in the course of argument that if he acquired a mooring, applied for a mooring licence and paid for it, he would be left alone. You did tell me that.

Mr Moss: Yes.

Halbert J: I expect it be honoured . . .

Of course, in that instance, although Mayers DID then obtain and pay for a mooring, and having done so asked for a new licence, they ignored his request. They then later seized the boat as soon as it left its offline marina without having received a new licence - but the point was clearly made by the judge that he could and should have been given one because of that compliance; the terms of the Order obviously not precluding that, in the judge’s own mind.

 

All this reveals to me is that the judge doesn't appreciate the difference between a licence and a mooring licence. He may have mentioned a licence in the first line, but when asking CRT's counsel, he talked about a mooring licence.

[valrene9600]

Yes - they're not satisfied with the mooring or that the boater will CC properly. As mentioned many times, there's 3 conditions. Also there is a fourth, which is the payment of the licence.

Had a look at the act and can see what you say. So it appears they have no say who they licence. Abide by those things in the act and nothing else matters, they have no say.

[Paul C]

Had a look at the act and can see what you say. So it appears they have no say who they licence. Abide by those things in the act and nothing else matters, they have no say.

 

Which is the way it should be - impersonal. They can refuse a licence if they're not satisfied on the mooring or the CCing bit. And a boater can challenge this via judicial review. So far nobody has challenged it though.

[valrene9600]

Sorry Paul I don't agree. Would you be happy having to deal with a bad customer in your business. My post 255 gives example of bad customer.

Sorry Paul I don't agree. Would you be happy having to deal with a bad customer in your business. My post 255 gives example of bad customer.

[Mike Todd]

Not much on their side is there.

So no matter what I do to crt be it damage their property or abandon my sunken boat that they then have to remove, refuse to buy a licence and get legally removed or any other reason and you honestly telling me they mustt just keep issuing a licence. All seems unfair. What other business would work in that way.

They would have to resort to other legislation to obtain a remedy which would be other than the withdrawal of the licence. In the event that this resulted in damages then they would be able to pursue these by seeking to seize assets from the boater.

[Paul C]

Sorry Paul I don't agree. Would you be happy having to deal with a bad customer in your business. My post 255 gives example of bad customer.

Sorry Paul I don't agree. Would you be happy having to deal with a bad customer in your business. My post 255 gives example of bad customer.

 

Can you quote it rather than mention its number, because 1) post #255, as I see it, was made by me 2) mobile users don't see post numbers.

[valrene9600]

Not much on their side is there.

So no matter what I do to crt be it damage their property or abandon my sunken boat that they then have to remove, refuse to buy a licence and get legally removed or any other reason and you honestly telling me they mustt just keep issuing a licence. All seems unfair. What other business would work in that way.

Edited April 18, 2016 by valrene9600

[Tony Dunkley]

Below is an extract from another Peter Palmer E-mail from nearly 5 weeks ago:~

 

17 March 2016

". . . . , this is a response to the e-mail you sent to Paul Griffin on the 16th March. Thank you for seeking clarification on this matter.

I have checked our records and can confirm that you have licensed your craft ‘Tadworth’. I must apologise as this is an administrative error on our behalf. As a result our licensing manager shall be writing informing you that we are refusing your application and you will receive a full refund on any monies paid."

The reality of the situation nearly 5 weeks after that E-mail, and considerably longer after, apparently, Tadworth's owner induced an 'administrative error' in C&RT's Licensing Office by Licensing his boat, is :~

*The Licence/paperwork is with Tadworth's owner.

*The Licence fee is in C&RT's bank account.

*No communication of any sort has been received from C&RT's Licensing Manager.

*No refund of the Licence fee has been offered, or accepted :~

I can't help feeling that some simplified, large scale anatomical charts would be of considerable help to the Enforcement and Licensing staff at C&RT.

A few days spent studying the relevant parts of such charts would undoubtedly assist them to distinguish between the joint halfway up their arms, and the part of their anatomy they polish the office chairs with.

[valrene9600]

255 is valrene9600 quoting Paul and answering. I am on phone and can see post numbers but glad to oblige you with the post.

[MtB]

 

Can you quote it rather than mention its number, because 1) post #255, as I see it, was made by me 2) mobile users don't see post numbers.

 

 

I can see the post numbers on my iPhone (having clicked the 'Full Version" link at the bottom of the front page).

[valrene9600]

Below is an extract from another Peter Palmer E-mail from nearly 5 weeks ago:~

 

17 March 2016

 

". . . . , this is a response to the e-mail you sent to Paul Griffin on the 16th March. Thank you for seeking clarification on this matter.

I have checked our records and can confirm that you have licensed your craft ‘Tadworth’. I must apologise as this is an administrative error on our behalf. As a result our licensing manager shall be writing informing you that we are refusing your application and you will receive a full refund on any monies paid."

 

The reality of the situation nearly 5 weeks after that E-mail, and considerably longer after, apparently, Tadworth's owner induced an 'administrative error' in C&RT's Licensing Office by Licensing his boat, is :~

 

*The Licence/paperwork is with Tadworth's owner.

 

*The Licence fee is in C&RT's bank account.

 

*No communication of any sort has been received from C&RT's Licensing Manager.

 

*No refund of the Licence fee has been offered, or accepted :~

 

 

I can't help feeling that some simplified, large scale anatomical charts would be of considerable help to the Enforcement and Licensing staff at C&RT.

A few days spent studying the relevant parts of such charts would undoubtedly assist them to distinguish between the joint halfway up their arms, and the part of their anatomy they polish the office chairs with.

They should just accept they have to honour the license and as I said earlier give the owner a chance to prove themselves. Simple.

[Tony Dunkley]

They should just accept they have to honour the license and as I said earlier give the owner a chance to prove themselves. Simple.

 

About what, and how, do you feel that Tadworth's owner, or for that matter, any applicant for a boat Licence, should need to 'prove' themselves?

[valrene9600]

About what, and how, do you feel that Tadworth's owner, or for that matter, any applicant for a boat Licence, should need to 'prove' themselves?

11 years I have renewed with no problem. Why is this owner having problems Tony there had to be some history.

Both parties need to take step back and a deep breath.

Whatever it is crt are chewing on they should let the licence stand and see if the boater is just like any other after the first year.

I'm not interested in the history just want to see common sense prevail.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

About what, and how, do you feel that Tadworth's owner, or for that matter, any applicant for a boat Licence, should need to 'prove' themselves?

 

I read that's as "given the opportunity to satisfy the board" as required for

a ) Either that a home mooring exists, or

b ) That they will 'bona fide' navigate ............

 

In the last 12 months or so, quite a lot of "Boats without a Home Mooring" (BWAHM) has been refused renewal of a 'full' licence due to their 'history' and C&RT not being 'comfortable' that the applicant will honour his agreement to "CC", therefore, as the law does not state the period of time that a licence covers, C&RT are entirely at liberty to issue 6 month, 3 month or even 1 month licences and still comply with the 1995 Act. This gives the applicant the opportunity to 'prove themselves' as being able to meet their obligations.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[onionbargee]

 

No, they are both issues that are being used to retrospectively justify cancelling the licence. A new licence was refused over a year ago for the simple emotive reason given in the Palmer email of 2014. The licence issued a year later was cancelled once the same gentleman was appraised by the OP that he had acquired the licence, in the same knee-jerk reaction.

 

Only upon subsequent challenge did he resile from his position and raise the concept of safety and mooring issues instead. The safety issue relied solely on the OPs previous expressions of concern that the boat was in too delicate a condition to be moved [for example], onto the Thames, even though he since notified them that he had undertaken essential repairs, and [of course] had passed the BSSC.

 

Suitability of the mooring is less clear; it appears from his other emails that he thought the boat was not present at the mooring - ?!?!

 

A slight correction, I told CRT Tadworth needed repair and I wanted to move it to hard standing about 100 miles away, CRT refused, but did agree to me moving Tadworth out of Brentford lock onto the tidal Thames, a solution which I suggested but later found was impracticle due to the lack of moorings. So CRT agreed to letting my boat exit Brentford tidal lock, though now they are saying it is unfit to navigate even a canal, which must mean they were prepared to risk my life previously .

 

To be clear, they have never inspected TW, never had access to it, and have no information as to its condition in any way apart from what I have told them, it needed repair, and now it has been repaired. If this was the norm every boat that was repaired, say repacking the stern gland, would have its licence revoked immediatly, then need to satisfy CRT it was fit to return to the water, which is plainly ridiculous.

 

It is not the law, and its not going to happen.

[Tony Dunkley]

11 years I have renewed with no problem. Why is this owner having problems Tony there had to be some history.

Both parties need to take step back and a deep breath.

Whatever it is crt are chewing on they should let the licence stand and see if the boater is just like any other after the first year.

I'm not interested in the history just want to see common sense prevail.

 

History has no bearing on any of this, other than in the sense that C&RT are acting in contempt of a 2013 Order/Injunction against Tadworth's owner by means of suggestion and inference intended to lead the recipient into believing that they have the power to extend and vary the terms of the Order to suit themselves.

 

Since embarking on this ill-considered course of action they have been forced into admitting, in an E-mail letter, that obtaining a new Licence does amount to obtaining the 'prior consent' stipulated in the Order, . . . this from C&RT E-mail last Thursday,14 April 2016:~ " the injunction does prevent you from bringing Tadworth onto the Trust’s waterways without our prior consent i.e. obtaining a licence from us."

 

Leaving aside the rather loose and inaccurate paraphrasing of precisely what the Order/Injunction does say, in essence, the Enforcement Supervisor who wrote that, Peter Palmer, was being wholly truthful, and correct.

 

C&RT have nowhere left to go with this. Their foolish attempt to bluster their way through an unlawful process which is wholly beyond the compass of their statutory powers has blown up in their faces.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[onionbargee]

I wouldn't give me another licence either, I am nothing but trouble, but that's not the law, and it certainly is not the law that a waterways traffic warden gets to decide who he likes to have a licence or not, and deliberatly misrepresents a court order to deceive people out of applying for a licence, and then breaks the law trying to wrestle it back off them after it has been validly issued.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

I read that's as "given the opportunity to satisfy the board" as required for

a ) Either that a home mooring exists, or

b ) That they will 'bona fide' navigate ............

 

In the last 12 months or so, quite a lot of "Boats without a Home Mooring" (BWAHM) has been refused renewal of a 'full' licence due to their 'history' and C&RT not being 'comfortable' that the applicant will honour his agreement to "CC", therefore, as the law does not state the period of time that a licence covers, C&RT are entirely at liberty to issue 6 month, 3 month or even 1 month licences and still comply with the 1995 Act. This gives the applicant the opportunity to 'prove themselves' as being able to meet their obligations.

 

One of the more utterly ridiculous aspects of this pantomime is that C&RT were at one point threatening to seize the boat, and wheel the owner back into Court, if he moved the boat from the very same mooring that they are now questioning the availability of.

I think C&RT may be working from an unused script, originally written for 'Yes Minister', but rejected as being rather too implausible and silly.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Tony Dunkley