Tadworth versus CRT.

[Mike Todd]

I am waiting for their reply to my reply to the ideas they put forward about TW being 'unfit to navigate', ie they haven't told me what they think is wrong with it, and they haven't followed due procedure in giving me 28 days to fix the imaginary problem. So far we are up to...

 

1. Tried to prevent my licence by lying "it would not be appropriate" whilst fully aware that I could apply for a new licence at any time.

 

2. Agreed to let me exit CRT waters onto the tidal Thames, whilst they considered TW unsafe to navigate a canal.

 

3. misrepresented the court order to imply it prevented a new licence being granted.

 

4. Revoked my valid licence with immediate effect without giving any reason at the time, only inventing reasons later.

 

5. Claimed TW is "not fit to navigate" according to general canal bylaws 1965, but broke the same bylaw by not telling me what the problem was, or allowing 28 days for me to remedy it before a licence can legally be revoked.

 

6. Threatened me with seizure of TW by misrepresenting the court order.

You might find that CaRT claim that the licence was never properly issued and thus cancelled, not revoked. The para you refer to is about revoking a licence that has already been validly given but where the Board decide that the boat is no longer safe. In those circumstances they are required to give 28 days to remedy it but I cannot find a similar requirement regarding a refusal to issue one in the first place on similar grounds. I suspect that a court would take the view that the boater can always re-apply as soon as it is believed that the boat meets the requirements.

 

It is, however, unfortunate that they did not give a more substantial reply to the grounds for cancellation.

 

Where did they suggest that the court order prevented them from issuing you with a licence? As far as I can see, it only provided you with the opportunity to seek prior consent to a process which still has the 'satisfy' test within it. As far as I can see, the legislation is deficient in that it does not specify what the Board have to say to you in the event that they are 'not satisfied.'

 

With respect of your point 2, I thought that the legislation (1995 17 ii() required the Board to allow a boater to remove to non-CaRT waters or to a place where work can reasonable be done on it. It does not provide for them to take responsibility for the safety other than their standard duty in this respect. The primary responsibility lies with the boater, surely?

 

Like the worse legal wrangles, the legal position of both parties is less than clear and I think the general advice in such situations is that it is best to seek a negotiated settlement rather than end up in court where the outcome is final (apart from appeals) and very hard to predict. With negotiation, it only ends when both parties are happy or when one withdraws to pursue a more formal route. I think this is the basis of Nigel M's advice.

[onionbargee]

The licence was properly issued, because I met all the conditions required by the licencing process, the licence office is evidently sticking to the law and doing what it is supposed to do, issuing licences with no predudice to those who meet the conditions,, which the enforcement office are not able to interfere with until after they are issued.

 

I don't know if CRT have a " duty of care" at tidal locks, but in this case they have said you can transit Brentford tidal lock with a boat that is in their opinion " not fit to navigate"a canal. Which is a bizarre situation., at least they could have used their favorite phrase "it would not be appropriate " ? In reality though they know full well they have no information as to the condition of TW, they have tried to have their cake and eat it. TW is unfit when it wants to go canal boating, but fit to navigate the Thames when it wants to leave CRT waters !

[NigelMoore]

Another element to the dispute is that ‘consent’ can also be outwith the licence requirement.

 

If a boat wishes to travel to a place where remedial works can be carried out, in order to satisfy the Board as to the condition of the boat prior to issuing a licence, then “unless such movement or use would give rise to the risk of obstruction or danger to navigation or to persons or property” [which would need substantiating], then the Board have no discretion to withhold their consent to that travel. The Act provides that in such cases “the Board shall not withhold their consent” to the boat’s movement for that purpose.

 

So if the OP wished to take the boat to the hardstanding I think he referred to at one point, to have renovations done, then he does not need to have a licence anyway – so long as he made clear beforehand that he was intending to navigate straight to the boatyard or whatever, CaRT would have to be deemed to have consented or to be in violation of their own Statute [1995 Act, s.17(11)( b ).

 

The latter is par for the course, admittedly.

[Arthur Marshall]

If, as has been suggested, the boat was declared unfit for navigation without serious remedial work back in 2013, and this hasn't been done, that could have something to do with CRT's attitude. I'm aware, obviously, that I have no idea if the work has been done and if it has, that knocks that possibility on the head. if it hasn't, and it needed major replating then, it won't have improved any over the last few years (as I know to my cost with my own boat).

[onionbargee]

I was told that I could only move TW to a local boatyard, where It would be craned out and taken by road. And any longer journey by CRT waters would be out of the question. For instance Debdale marina , Leicestershire.

If, as has been suggested, the boat was declared unfit for navigation without serious remedial work back in 2013, and this hasn't been done, that could have something to do with CRT's attitude. I'm aware, obviously, that I have no idea if the work has been done and if it has, that knocks that possibility on the head. if it hasn't, and it needed major replating then, it won't have improved any over the last few years (as I know to my cost with my own boat).

It wasn't.

[Tony Dunkley]

You might find that CaRT claim that the licence was never properly issued and thus cancelled, not revoked. The para you refer to is about revoking a licence that has already been validly given but where the Board decide that the boat is no longer safe. In those circumstances they are required to give 28 days to remedy it but I cannot find a similar requirement regarding a refusal to issue one in the first place on similar grounds. I suspect that a court would take the view that the boater can always re-apply as soon as it is believed that the boat meets the requirements.

 

It is, however, unfortunate that they did not give a more substantial reply to the grounds for cancellation.

 

Where did they suggest that the court order prevented them from issuing you with a licence? As far as I can see, it only provided you with the opportunity to seek prior consent to a process which still has the 'satisfy' test within it. As far as I can see, the legislation is deficient in that it does not specify what the Board have to say to you in the event that they are 'not satisfied.'

 

With respect of your point 2, I thought that the legislation (1995 17 ii() required the Board to allow a boater to remove to non-CaRT waters or to a place where work can reasonable be done on it. It does not provide for them to take responsibility for the safety other than their standard duty in this respect. The primary responsibility lies with the boater, surely?

 

Like the worse legal wrangles, the legal position of both parties is less than clear and I think the general advice in such situations is that it is best to seek a negotiated settlement rather than end up in court where the outcome is final (apart from appeals) and very hard to predict. With negotiation, it only ends when both parties are happy or when one withdraws to pursue a more formal route. I think this is the basis of Nigel M's advice.

 

On the contrary, . . the legal position of both parties is very clear, this is NOT a legal wrangle, and there is no 'settlement' in need of negotiating.

It is yet another instance of C&RT's predilection for inventing rules and procedures 'on the hoof ', whilst disregarding the law as and when it suits their purposes.

The sole requisite to dispense with this matter is for C&RT to stop lying about 'Tadworth's' current Licence, and to accept that they must abide by the legislation that governs their activities, and the terms of their own Court Orders [by not making threats of boat seizure against recipients who have done so].

 

A simple chronology can help to clear the befuddled mind :~

 

* Boat owner applies for boat Licence [as the law requires].

 

* C&RT Licensing issue Licence against satisfactory supporting documentation and payment of Licence fee [as the law requires].

 

* A C&RT Enforcement Supervisor informs the owner that the newly issued Licence has been 'revoked' because it was "not appropriate" to re-licence the boat following a previous dispute [action and procedure which is definitely NOT required, or prescribed, in any relevant legislation].

 

The previous dispute, mentioned above, was in 2013 and was yet another occasion when the Trust had felt compelled to indulge in their much loved and misused, pointless and costly Section 8 contrivance to remove boats from C&RT waters.

Contrived Section 8 actions are futile, and ultimately ineffective, simply because their purpose and effect is so easily negated simply by the named boater re-licensing the named boat, precisely as the owner of 'Tadworth' has done.

 

In attempting to prevent this, by means of a non-prescribed and unlawful procedure, C&RT are doing nothing other than to draw attention to the flaws and weaknesses inherent in using S.8 of the '83 Act for purposes other than those for which it was intended, ie. for the removal of vessels 'sunk, stranded or abandoned', and including any vessels, with traceable owners, who persisted in intentionally keeping or using them on BW canals without a current Licence.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[onionbargee]

All CRT need to do to solve this problem is act according to their own legislation, simple really, they have caused this, and only they can solve it.

 

Tony put his finger on it when I was speaking to him recently, BW did do some daft things, but CRT is a truly malicious organisation.

[onionbargee]

12 days since I replied to their last email claiming TW was not fit to navigate, still no reply.

 

I have now insisted that the licence must start from the date they confirm it is on their system, they have already cheated me out of 41 days of my licence.

[MtB]

No they havent. They havent followed the laid down procedure for revoking a licence therefore yours has not been revoked.

 

They are just yanking your chain, and you appear to be panicking just as they intended. Why, given Tonys support and advice?

Or is there something you are not telling us, despite your insistence otherwise?

[Graham Davis]

12 days since I replied to their last email claiming TW was not fit to navigate, still no reply.

 

I have now insisted that the licence must start from the date they confirm it is on their system, they have already cheated me out of 41 days of my licence.

 

You can't insist on anything.

And you still haven't given us all the facts.

[Naughty Cal]

12 days since I replied to their last email claiming TW was not fit to navigate, still no reply.

 

I have now insisted that the licence must start from the date they confirm it is on their system, they have already cheated me out of 41 days of my licence.

As we have started taking our boat out of the water for 3 months each winter we have for the last couple of years only licenced it for 9 months of the year via a 3 month and then a 6 month licence. It works our cheaper and means that we are not paying whilst it is ashore. We declare it off of the water when the 6 month licence has expired.

 

When we come to relicence it again after the 3 month gap we do so online through the online licence system. Each time so far we have gotten a confirmation of a TEMPORARY licence which allows us onto CRT waters. It is however made very clear that this is only a temporary licence whilst CRT investigate the 3 month period that the boat was not licenced. In each instance so far they have a few days later confirmed by email and post that the licence is now valid and we are covered for the full licence period.

 

I would be very surprised if something similar didn't happen in this case.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Lady Cassandra
Quoted post breaching rules removed and linked comment removed

[Alan de Enfield]

Welcome back NC

[Naughty Cal]

Only a fleeting visit.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Lady Cassandra
Removed comments relating to quoted post

[Tuscan]

We have a standard charge for the service we provide to a large multinational, it's a simple exercise requiring the employee to complete one form and to submit 2 supporting documents. A bit like licensing a boat. 95% get it right and it takes 2 emails . 5% refuse to listen or complete the form correctly resulting in many emails/calls and the process taking days longer. We charge the 95% probably 10-15% more to cover the cost of resolving the problems of the 5%. I suspect my boat license is calculated in a similar manner.

 

General comment not addressed to anyone in particular

[Arthur Marshall]

Most boaters support boaters who want to work within the generally accepted rules and with each other. Not many want to work with those who are confrontational and aggressive with an admitted history of noncompliance and a selective definition of relevant facts. Although what do I know, as a musician, I probably don't qualify as a grown-up anyway and certainly not by the OPs earlier definition of a boater - after all, I've only had the thing thirty years.

 

That being said, if CRT are in fact acting illegally, it needs to be sorted. But I am yet to be convinced - which is why these threads are still for me (just about).

Edited April 28, 2016 by Lady Cassandra
Removed quoted post

[peterboat]

As we have started taking our boat out of the water for 3 months each winter we have for the last couple of years only licenced it for 9 months of the year via a 3 month and then a 6 month licence. It works our cheaper and means that we are not paying whilst it is ashore. We declare it off of the water when the 6 month licence has expired.

 

When we come to relicence it again after the 3 month gap we do so online through the online licence system. Each time so far we have gotten a confirmation of a TEMPORARY licence which allows us onto CRT waters. It is however made very clear that this is only a temporary licence whilst CRT investigate the 3 month period that the boat was not licenced. In each instance so far they have a few days later confirmed by email and post that the licence is now valid and we are covered for the full licence period.

 

I would be very surprised if something similar didn't happen in this case.

 

He licensed the boat in person at Milton Keynes head office not online so why would they email him?

Edited April 28, 2016 by Lady Cassandra

[Delta9]

I'd be interested to know exactly how CRT investigate the period the boat wasn't licensed for, and how they think the results of that investigation give them any right to refuse a legitimate licence application.

[Alan de Enfield]

He licensed the boat in person at Milton Keynes head office not online so why would they email him?

 

Is that another 'fact' that has emerged ?

Has it been confirmed by the OP ?

 

From previous posts it appeared that the renewal was done on line.

[Naughty Cal]

I'd be interested to know exactly how CRT investigate the period the boat wasn't licensed for, and how they think the results of that investigation give them any right to refuse a legitimate licence application.

In our case they rang the yard where we said the boat was ashore and confirmed the period which it was ashore.

 

I know this to be the case because the yard rang me to ask it it was ok to pass on the details to CRT.

[MtB]

He licensed the boat in person at Milton Keynes head office not online so why would they email him?

 

 

So why did he say he licenced it on line?

[Delta9]

In our case they rang the yard where we said the boat was ashore and confirmed the period which it was ashore.

 

I know this to be the case because the yard rang me to ask it it was ok to pass on the details to CRT.

That is interesting. I wonder how they would deal with it if you owned the yard, or if you had kept the boat in your garden. If they can't prove the boat was out of the water do they mistakenly believe that they can refuse the licence?

[onionbargee]

I have put ALL the information on this forum, and copied it to both to Tony and Nigel, there is no doubt about what CRT have done, the boaters on here who are trying to divert blame from CRT, and get at me personally are the lowest of the low. We don't need their support, or want it.

[GUMPY]

Reading between the lines does Tadworth have a BSS or are you relying on an expired BSS exemption cert for your licence?

[bag 'o' bones]

To Onion Bargee - Any chance a short (if possible) summary of the facts so far?

 

The thread is now so long its getting a bit confusing.

[peterboat]

 

 

So why did he say he licenced it on line?

He hasnt said he licensed it on line, you did in post 289!! I know he did it at Milton keynes because he told me, also he hints in post 359 and in post502 he mentions license office. I have had to read the whole thing from end to end to answer your question when you invented it very painful Mike cheers