Tadworth versus CRT.

[onionbargee]

Had you obtained a mooring when you applied for the new licence, or were you looking to CC again?

This is all in the original post.

I assume this means you have deep personal knowledge of the case or are you just guessing?

He does.

[PaulG]

This is all in the original post.

Would have been much quicker to just say "yes"...

[onionbargee]

I assume this means you have deep personal knowledge of the case or are you just guessing?

He does.

[Dave Payne]

Kind of agree then based on what is written on here, and that you had a mooring, what grounds can they cancel a licence.

[onionbargee]

If they can attempt to cancel my licence, they can try it on anyone else.

 

That is why you need to be concerned.

[Dave Payne]

Not quite, i cant see them cancelling my licence....

[jenlyn]

Not quite, i cant see them cancelling my licence....

I don't think he states they would, rather they "have the ability to".

[Jerra]

He does.

I am not sure why it was necessary to answer this in posts 51 and 53 but please refer to my post #47

[Arthur Marshall]

Enforcement officers can, and do just that. It's they that have to stand before the break and explain the reason for doing so.

I can understand an enforcement officer having to say why a licence should not be issued, but cancelling one during its period of operation is sutely different.

I would like to know where the new home mooring is as I suspect that may be relevant.

[churchward]

My non compliance with the law has been settled by the court order, which i have said was legitimate, and the matter is finished, I make no claims to being a saint, why the licence wasn't paid is irrelevant, however the public body that manages the canal system have been found out to be either liars or incompetent, and have acted unlawfully. That is the matter you need to be concerned with.

OK so you don't want to say how long you were unlicensed for before removal and the court case.

 

However, the reason I asked is that although CRT may be acting incorrectly in refusing a new licence application from you, if you had spent a long time evading paying a licence prior to your court case and removal from CRT waters I can understand why they would be reluctant to have you back.

 

A lot is made of wishing "justice" to be served on here when speaking about how CRT treat some people and those comments can be with good reason in some cases but justice works all ways and it seems just to me that someone may need to jump through a few hoops to get a new licence if previously they have shown themselves untrustworthy in paying what is due. Personally if someone has rightfully been removed for not paying a licence I would not let them back until they had paid their arrears/what is owed.

 

Still, anyone can change and I hope you have reformed to being someone who will pay their dues and can get your licence and boat as you choose. Happy boating.

[jenlyn]

OK so you don't want to say how long you were unlicensed for before removal and the court case.

 

However, the reason I asked is that although CRT may be acting incorrectly in refusing a new licence application from you, if you had spent a long time evading paying a licence prior to your court case and removal from CRT waters I can understand why they would be reluctant to have you back.

 

A lot is made of wishing "justice" to be served on here when speaking about how CRT treat some people and those comments can be with good reason in some cases but justice works all ways and it seems just to me that someone may need to jump through a few hoops to get a new licence if previously they have shown themselves untrustworthy in paying what is due. Personally if someone has rightfully been removed for not paying a licence I would not let them back until they had paid their arrears/what is owed.

 

Still, anyone can change and I hope you have reformed to being someone who will pay their dues and can get your licence and boat as you choose. Happy boating.

It does not really matter what the history is, the post relates to the law as it stands. Some seem to be ignoring that fact, in the rush to not answer the original post.

You being one of them.

 

It's simple enough, the law covers it, and CRT are abusing it.

Whatever went before, is not relevant.

[junior]

 

I offer no opinion on your predicament, however I wish you good luck in getting it resolved so you can enjoy boating.

 

So what news on the old girl? I like Tadworth, always admired from distance when passing the stink ole'. Last time we spoke you had taken it off the market and were going to do the bottom yourself. Would be nice to see it out and about again.

[zenataomm]

I see two victims here.

CRT being deprived of their just income after having provided the service.

Tadworth being deprived of her home waters.

 

Incidentally when I tied up in the stink ole' generations ago, I was under the impression BWB had no jurisdiction, the waters belonged to Thames Water.

Has something changed or had OP moved out?

[Arthur Marshall]

It does not really matter what the history is, the post relates to the law as it stands. Some seem to be ignoring that fact, in the rush to not answer the original post.

You being one of them.

 

It's simple enough, the law covers it, and CRT are abusing it.

Whatever went before, is not relevant.

Indicative though. What went before was someone trying to game the system. It is possible that they have just found a new way to try, and before they get my sympathy I'd need to be sure that wasn't the case.

For example, the claimed new mooring could be somewhere that CRT disputes is a valid legal mooring.

This being a discussion group, we're entitled to ask for clarification so we can discuss from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance. If clarification isn't forthcoming, no-one can complain if we get stuff wrong.

Obviously, there's no reason the OP should give a toss what I or anyone else thinks, but I'm not condemning either him/her/them or CRT without a few more facts and presumably it was put on here in the hope of support.

[RufusR]

I wont comment on this specific case but my experience from business in dealing with unfair rulings from bodies such as the VAT office, when they abuse their powers to enfrorce a ruling that does not comply with the VAT complaince wording but just to suit them , is that these things can only be resolved with a court ruling in your favour .. All these cases where boaters are claiming CaRT are abusing the law can only be tested if someone or some group of people take them to court preferably the high court and get a ruling .. these things are natually very very expensive so the Body be it CaRT or HMRC sit behind that and for the most part no one can take it on .

 

maybe if a group of complainents ( and there seem to be many ) got together and crowd funded a decent legal team and too it court then you may get the outcome your are looking for which will force CaRT to comply ( if they are shown to be abusing thier powers and or acting illegally ) .

 

Other than that just like in our industries VAT case all the complaining and forum posts in the world will I am afraid not get you far even if your case is good .

 

 

Edited April 13, 2016 by RufusR

[jenlyn]

Indicative though. What went before was someone trying to game the system. It is possible that they have just found a new way to try, and before they get my sympathy I'd need to be sure that wasn't the case.

For example, the claimed new mooring could be somewhere that CRT disputes is a valid legal mooring.

This being a discussion group, we're entitled to ask for clarification so we can discuss from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance. If clarification isn't forthcoming, no-one can complain if we get stuff wrong.

Obviously, there's no reason the OP should give a toss what I or anyone else thinks, but I'm not condemning either him/her/them or CRT without a few more facts and presumably it was put on here in the hope of support.

The original post gave the relevant information to form an opinion on where it stood in law.

If you stood in front of a judge for having no licence, he will only be interested in the facts. Who you are, and all the other twaddle on this thread would have no bearing on the judge with regard the law set before him.

In the laws eyes, the criteria to apply for a licence has been fulfilled, CRT and some on here are looking for a get out clause that does not exist.

[Athy]

I believe that some CART staff read this web site. I think that one or two may even be members. If you are there, CARTers, could you please come in and tell us the story from your perspective? This will help baffled onlookers such as myself to develop a balanced view.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Athy

[Alan de Enfield]

.

In the laws eyes, the criteria to apply for a licence has been fulfilled, CRT and some on here are looking for a get out clause that does not exist.

 

And, the licence was issued.

Subsequently, it was reversed, we do not know why, you appear to know why and the OP obviously know why, the rest of us do not.

 

For example : we do not know if the mooring was 'acceptable' to C&RT.

 

With only part of the information provided there is bound to be speculation and assumptions, of which some may be wrong and some may be correct.

[NigelMoore]

I'm also still unconvinced that legally CRT are obliged to issue a licence to anyone if the conditions quoted are met and have no discretion at all in the matter. They still have to be satisfied that the requirements will be adhered to and if they aren't, which could well be based on past history, I think the courts would probably rule that they have some discretion.

 

The raw fact is that they WERE satisfied that the 3 conditions were met; the mooring is legitimate and off CaRT jurisdiction [else the boat would have been removed from there long since, under the terms of the Court Order].

 

CaRT are very alive to the legal realities governing issue and revocation of licences -

 

CaRT publication re: Online mooring Reduction:

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/1127.pdf

 

Page 6: “The British Waterways Act 1995 limits to three specific criteria our ability to refuse to licence a boat. These relate to (1) boat safety standards (the equivalent of the car MOT); (2) third party liability insurance cover; and (3) the requirement for the boat to have a home mooring, unless it is used for navigation throughout the period of the licence. There are no statutory provisions for refusing a licence on the grounds of say, congestion or aesthetics both of which are subjective.”

 

CaRT response to London Assembly report on London waterways:

 

http://www.londonboaters.org/sites/default/files/London%20Assembly%20Moorings%20Investigation%20-%20Canal%20and%20River%20Trust%20submission%20-%20July%202013%20FINAL.pdf

 

“. . . it is important that the constraints that affect our ability to influence boat numbers and boater behaviour are recognised . . . the statutes we have today contain no provisions refusing consent for a boat licence on the grounds of insufficient capacity . . . People enjoy the right to put a boat on our waterways, providing that they pay the necessary fee, that the boat meets safety standards and has insurance cover for third party liabilities – and that, unless it is used ‘bona fide’ for navigation throughout the period of consent, it must have a home mooring (somewhere where the boat ‘can lawfully be kept when not being used for navigation’).”

 

Had the OP given up his mooring once having received the boat licence on the grounds that he had it, he would then be in breach of one of the 3 conditions, but in fact he never left the marina to venture onto CaRT waters.

 

His mistake [in my opinion] was to make doubly sure he was going to be free from hassle before using the licence, by emailing the Enforcement Department to confirm that - now having the relevant prior consent - he was in the clear to do so. The response was to 'cancel' the licence and to assure him that if he then entered 'their' water he would be nobbled under s.8 and in Contempt of Court.

 

Edited April 13, 2016 by NigelMoore

[onionbargee]

Tadworths mooring is still in the stink hole, which is a fully legitimate paid up mooring, and not on CRT waters. Mooring has nothing to do with this case.

 

In fact I don't know why the licence was cancelled, no sensible explanation has been given yet, the head of legal dept has many years experience of the legislation, including court cases where BW/CRT have stated in court the standard worded court order does not prevent a new licence being issued ( BW v Ward ) so no one could be that incompetent to conveniently forget this.

 

Unfortunately the standard operating procedure of CRT when they are caught out is to refuse to answer any more correspondence, and hope it all goes away. I will not be going away though.

[Alan de Enfield]

Thank you Nigel for the additional information.

[Paul C]

Tadworths mooring is still in the stink hole, which is a fully legitimate paid up mooring, and not on CRT waters. Mooring has nothing to do with this case.

 

In fact I don't know why the licence was cancelled, no sensible explanation has been given yet, the head of legal dept has many years experience of the legislation, including court cases where BW/CRT have stated in court the standard worded court order does not prevent a new licence being issued ( BW v Ward ) so no one could be that incompetent to conveniently forget this.

 

Unfortunately the standard operating procedure of CRT when they are caught out is to refuse to answer any more correspondence, and hope it all goes away. I will not be going away though.

 

 

Based on this I'd say the cancellation is invalid - if they really want you not to have a licence, they should have put a note on the account to not automatically issue one. Of course this opens the door to your challenging a non-issue of it via judicial review. If they want you not to have a licence, they'd need to go through the process of due notice, section 8, court etc all over again.

 

If you were still CCing or they didn't accept the mooring they have an arguable right ("the board is satisfied....") to not issue the licence on those grounds, but since they have already done so they can't just say "admin error" and cancel.

 

Of course, if you're not on CRT waters they theoretically can't s8 the boat anyway........but they might try to.

[onionbargee]

 

 

His mistake [in my opinion] was to make doubly sure he was going to be free from hassle before using the licence, by emailing the Enforcement Department to confirm that - now having the relevant prior consent - he was in the clear to do so. The response was to 'cancel' the licence and to assure him that if he then entered 'their' water he would be nobbled under s.8 and in Contempt of Court.

 

That could have led to the situation of being on board Tadworth many miles away from its mooring, and finding the licence has been cancelled. In effect being tricked into being in contempt of court.

 

( contempt of CRT being my normal state)

[zenataomm]

C&RT Licensing General Terms & Conditions.

 

6.3 - A late payment charge applies for any boat which is on the Waterway unlicensed for more than one calendar month without a valid licence. The late payment charge will be payable in addition to the Licence fee, which must be appropriately backdated.

It also states that if they do cancel a licence they must write and inform you why to allow you to appeal.

Did they? Have you appealed?

If not it sounds to me like they've taken your payment for a new licence as part payment for what you already owed them. It's not been cancelled but payment accepted for arrears.

Edited ~ because write was right but right was wrong when you mean write.

Edited April 13, 2016 by zenataomm

[churchward]

It does not really matter what the history is, the post relates to the law as it stands. Some seem to be ignoring that fact, in the rush to not answer the original post.

You being one of them.

 

It's simple enough, the law covers it, and CRT are abusing it.

Whatever went before, is not relevant.

I don't have to answer anything in the same way the OP can decide not to answer my original question. Mind you I see no question the OP asked he supplied a status of his situation and opinion on what should happpen and in fact he said he would answer questions. Ho Hum.

 

I explained why what went before is relevant to me and I can reflect on why the OP may choose not to give the info requested.

 

I agree as things stand that CRT probably should grant the licence but I am also saying that I can understand the reluctance to do so.

 

Put another way if you ran a shop and someone kept coming in and asking for credit but never paid you back would you continue to give them the goods on credit?

Edited April 13, 2016 by churchward