BBC reports on CC

[smileypete]

Why not let the existing families do more limited ccing until the kids leave school?

 

Maybe said families could move a bit more in the school summer holidays too.

Edited April 16, 2016 by smileypete

[onionbargee]

 

The terms and conditions aren't too bad in that they do cite the relevant legislation for some of the paragraphs. However they do mix what are essentially, paraphrasing of the legally-worded legislation (in one paragraph) with another paragraph which is their own condition (ie doesn't have underlying legislation). I can assure you, definitely some of the conditions ARE legally enforceable but some aren't in themselves (only by virtue of Section 43(3) of the 1962 Transport Act).

 

It will be interesting if/when they further pursue your case, whether they do it based upon a term which has underlying clear legislation (for example, the boat has no valid BSS, or the mooring does not satisfy them, or you don't have insurance) or on a term where they're relying on S.43(3). If its the latter and you lose, it has massive consequences for the a large section of the boating community.

I won't lose.

 

If I did the situation would be that CRT is exempt from the law. Unfortunately as it stands their is no government oversight, no genuine complaints procedure, and no independent ombudsman , which is a very dangerous situation. They can actually break the law now with no repercussions, which I never would have believed until it happened to me.

[ditchcrawler]

Why not let the existing families do more limited ccing until the kids leave school?

 

Maybe said families could move a bit more in the school summer holidays too.

They could easily get their 20 miles a year in like that now if they wanted to

[Paul C]

They could easily get their 20 miles a year in like that now if they wanted to

 

Its not 20 miles/year. Its a RANGE!

[ditchcrawler]

 

Its not 20 miles/year. Its a RANGE!

Yes and in a 6 week summer holiday they could easily achieve a 20 mile range and get clocked in those locations and more

[Paul C]

I won't lose.

 

 

 

Your track record isn't brilliant though. Without seeing all the correspondance, I've no idea if CRT have actually served the proper notice under 17 (4). I suspect its either in the pipeline, or they're going to review it and shelve the idea of further action. Its not a brilliant situation to be in though.

[dmr]

Yes and in a 6 week summer holiday they could easily achieve a 20 mile range and get clocked in those locations and more

 

In the 6 week school holiday you can just about get to Birmingham and back.

 

................Dave

[Tony Dunkley]

 

It will be interesting if/when they further pursue your case, whether they do it based upon a term which has underlying clear legislation (for example, the boat has no valid BSS, or the mooring does not satisfy them, or you don't have insurance) or on a term where they're relying on S.43(3). If its the latter and you lose, it has massive consequences for the a large section of the boating community.

 

 

Your track record isn't brilliant though. Without seeing all the correspondance, I've no idea if CRT have actually served the proper notice under 17 (4). I suspect its either in the pipeline, or they're going to review it and shelve the idea of further action. Its not a brilliant situation to be in though.

 

Both the above posts were responses to canon7578, and have left me wondering what 'case' C&RT could be pursuing against him, and what possible reason they could have for issuing him with a Notice under S.17(4) [presumably of the '95 Act] ?

[ditchcrawler]

 

 

Both the above posts were responses to canon7578, and have left me wondering what 'case' C&RT could be pursuing against him, and what possible reason they could have for issuing him with a Notice under S.17(4) [presumably of the '95 Act] ?

Don't even know what it is

[Paul C]

 

 

Both the above posts were responses to canon7578, and have left me wondering what 'case' C&RT could be pursuing against him, and what possible reason they could have for issuing him with a Notice under S.17(4) [presumably of the '95 Act] ?

 

I don't know either.

[BMC problems]

Yes and in a 6 week summer holiday they could easily achieve a 20 mile range and get clocked in those locations and more

it's interesting that you think they don't do that.

 

 

Both the above posts were responses to canon7578, and have left me wondering what 'case' C&RT could be pursuing against him, and what possible reason they could have for issuing him with a Notice under S.17(4) [presumably of the '95 Act] ?

From the original post he reports that CRT told him his boat would be seized if it came onto CRT waters.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

I don't know either.

 

Huh ?

[Alan de Enfield]

Section 17 :4

 

(4)If—

 

(a)(subject to subsection (6) below) the vessel does not comply with the standards applicable to the vessel on the date when the consent was granted; or

 

(b )an insurance policy is not in force in respect of the vessel; or

 

(c )either—

 

(i)(in the case of a vessel in respect of which a relevant consent is issued pursuant to subsection (3) © (i) above) it appears to the Board that a mooring or other place such as is referred to in subsection (3) © (i) above is not available for the vessel; or

 

(ii)(in the case of a vessel in respect of which a relevant consent is issued pursuant to subsection (3) © (ii) above) the vessel has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation in accordance with the said subsection (3) © (ii);

 

the Board may give notice requiring the holder of the relevant consent to remedy the default within such time as may be reasonable (not being less than 28 days).

 

After the 28 days (if the fault has not been remedied) the boat licence can be revoked.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[Paul C]

Tony, I thought you had helped canon7578 - are you saying you don't know the reason for the original court order; or the reason(s) given by CRT so far for the cancellation of the new licence? The latter is on his thread. What I'm saying is, yes unofficially (it appears) they have tried to cancel the licence, but as well you know, there is an official process requiring giving notification, a reason, and 28 days after which the licence expires.

 

(Cross posted with above for relevant legislation quote).

[onionbargee]

 

Your track record isn't brilliant though. Without seeing all the correspondance, I've no idea if CRT have actually served the proper notice under 17 (4). I suspect its either in the pipeline, or they're going to review it and shelve the idea of further action. Its not a brilliant situation to be in though.

What do you mean my " track record " ?

[Murflynn]

It beats me why some peeps, whose lifestyle, employment and/or family arrangements, preclude them from bona fide navigation of the system, insist they have right on their side when they fail to CC.

 

When I was employed I regularly worked on overseas projects on a 6 week on and 2 week off rota. I couldn't comply with a requirement to move every 14 days, so I had to get a mooring. I didn't feel hard done by. Why do they?

[Paul C]

What do you mean my " track record " ?

 

Simply based on the fact that you had a court order against you, as mentioned on your thread.

[onionbargee]

 

 

The licence was cancelled by email, as of immediate effect, with no reason given, which is not merely the wrong internal procedure it is a breach of the law. This untrue statement below was also included as a threat. The truth is ( as far as i know ) the order is only valid if no prior consent ( a licence ) is obtained by me, the licence was cancelled unlawfully, i have a valid licence, hence the order is not in force anymore.

 

Misrepresenting a court order in an attempt to threaten to seize someones property, possibly that itself is contempt of court ?

 

 

"Let me be clear, the court Order CRT obtained remains valid and in force. If you were to bring Tadworth onto our waterways you will be in contempt of court and we will immediately enforce removal of the boat as per the injunction."

 

Edited April 16, 2016 by canon7578

[Graham Davis]

I won't lose.

 

Not a statement you can make, since you are not the Judge.

Over-confidence is the path to failure.

[onionbargee]

 

 

Simply based on the fact that you had a court order against you, as mentioned on your thread.

That order, like I said, was perfectly valid, and I did not appeal against it. Whether I have one or a hundred orders against me is irrelevant to CRT breaking the law.

[Paul C]

 

Tony, I thought you had helped canon7578 - are you saying you don't know the reason for the original court order; or the reason(s) given by CRT so far for the cancellation of the new licence? The latter is on his thread. What I'm saying is, yes unofficially (it appears) they have tried to cancel the licence, but as well you know, there is an official process requiring giving notification, a reason, and 28 days after which the licence expires.

 

(Cross posted with above for relevant legislation

 

The licence was cancelled by email, as of immediate effect, with no reason given, which is not merely the wrong internal procedure it is a breach of the law. This untrue statement below was also included as a threat. The truth is ( as far as i know ) the order is only valid if no prior consent ( a licence ) is obtained by me, the licence was cancelled unlawfully, i have a valid licence, hence the order is not in force anymore.

 

Misrepresenting a court order in an attempt to threaten to seize someones property, possibly that itself is contempt of court ?

 

 

"Let me be clear, the court Order CRT obtained remains valid and in force. If you were to bring Tadworth onto our waterways you will be in contempt of court and we will immediately enforce removal of the boat as per the injunction."

 

 

Whatever the path forwards now, we will one way or another find out if "without prior written consent" actually means if you require explicit permission from CRT to (effectively) reverse the court order, or whether simply licencing a boat through the online process (which was not picked up by CRT and went through) is enough. As I understand it, the wording "without prior written consent" is put into the court orders so that there is an avenue for reconciliation and possible future licence issue, but it would need to be an explicit "consent" given by CRT over & above simply applying for the licence and the computer sending it out. Just because they have subsequently issued a licence after a court order for one boater, doesn't automatically follow that they'd do it for everyone else with a court order - it would be a case-by-case basis. The fact that you emailed and was told "no" reinforces this.

 

The fact that they have now actually issued a licence, if they indeed intended not to allow you do, suggests an admin error of monumental proportions; but they could cancel it using 17(4). AFAIK they couldn't simply say "admin error, oops" and immediately cancel it via email though - but they could give notice via email for the 28 days etc.

[smileypete]

They could easily get their 20 miles a year in like that now if they wanted to

This is something that doesn't come across in the video sadly, though CRT seem reluctant to commit to a specific distance.

 

Yes and in a 6 week summer holiday they could easily achieve a 20 mile range and get clocked in those locations and more

 

I'd also film/document it somehow just in case CRT seems to think otherwise!

 

It beats me why some peeps, whose lifestyle, employment and/or family arrangements, preclude them from bona fide navigation of the system, insist they have right on their side when they fail to CC.

 

When I was employed I regularly worked on overseas projects on a 6 week on and 2 week off rota. I couldn't comply with a requirement to move every 14 days, so I had to get a mooring. I didn't feel hard done by. Why do they?

 

Well, good for you if your circumstances allowed that!

 

Have to admit, with my subsidising taxpayer hat on, I do have a little compassion for families trying to bring up children on the waterways these days.

[onionbargee]

 

Whatever the path forwards now, we will one way or another find out if "without prior written consent" actually means if you require explicit permission from CRT to (effectively) reverse the court order, or whether simply licencing a boat through the online process (which was not picked up by CRT and went through) is enough. As I understand it, the wording "without prior written consent" is put into the court orders so that there is an avenue for reconciliation and possible future licence issue, but it would need to be an explicit "consent" given by CRT over & above simply applying for the licence and the computer sending it out. Just because they have subsequently issued a licence after a court order for one boater, doesn't automatically follow that they'd do it for everyone else with a court order - it would be a case-by-case basis. The fact that you emailed and was told "no" reinforces this.

 

The fact that they have now actually issued a licence, if they indeed intended not to allow you do, suggests an admin error of monumental proportions; but they could cancel it using 17(4). AFAIK they couldn't simply say "admin error, oops" and immediately cancel it via email though - but they could give notice via email for the 28 days etc.

BW said that the order does not prevent a new licence being issued in a previous court case BW v Ward, and in this case they have now admitted this as well. There is no doubt.

 

It is written in the legislation that they do not have any authority to choose who they decide is granted a licence. If you meet the conditions therein you must be granted it.

Edited April 16, 2016 by canon7578

[Paul C]

BW said that the order does not prevent a new licence being issued in a previous court case BW v Ward, and in this case they have now admitted this as well. There is no doubt.

 

Yeah that's my point - the order doesn't prevent a new licence being issued in BW v Ward, but it might prevent you having a new licence issued. There may be relevant circumstances in the BW v Ward case which are different to yours. Did Ward obtain explicit permission to once again licence their boat. Or email, be told no, then simply go online and apply for a licence anyway?

Edited April 16, 2016 by Paul C

[Dave_P]

 

Not so interested that I fancy spending the next few hours trawling through the forum search results for a needle in a haystack. Which will probably just turn up someone reporting a conversation they had.

 

Likewise.

 

As for the "conversation they had" remark, I have learned to expect that sort of reply from some on here.

Makes no difference to me anymore, but I suggest you get some facts in future before posting your assumptions that in the main are just that, assumption.

 

Eh? Why the aggressive tone? I never claimed any facts. I was interested in what you had to say and wondered if you had any evidence, that's all. I guess you don't. It doesn't mean I don't believe you though. Strange as it may seem, not everyone on here is trying to start an argument.