general terms and conditions.

[mayalld]

In the example I gave CRT can request evidence, and of course it is reasonable to provide it, but the law does not require you to do so, it is only a condition of your licence contract. CRT are also saying they have the authority to judge that evidence and authorise or unauthorise it. It looks to me that they have put in place terms and conditions to bypass the boaters statutory rights.

 

They have set terms and conditions.

 

If you play by their terms and conditions, they will consider your reasons for not moving, and if they agree that they are reasonable, they will not bother with any of the legal rigmarole that is at their disposal.

 

If you chose NOT to play by their terms and conditions, you give up the benefits that they bring (that they actually take into account why you are overstaying before taking action).

 

If you choose NOT to explain why you are overstaying, they will choose not to take into account those reasons, and will move to enforce.

 

So, Mr Onion, you failed to move for 3 months, and CRT revoked your licence. You are asking me to say that they were wrong to do so because it was reasonable for you to overstay because you had a broken leg.

 

Now, Mr CRT, we can see that Mr Onion has a broken leg. Surely it would be reasonable for him to stay more than 14 days whilst his leg healed?

 

Yes, it would indeed be reasonable.

 

So, why then did you revoke his licence, when it was reasonable for him to stay?

 

Well, unfortunately, Mr Onion was less than helpful, and simply said that he could stay as long as he liked if he had a good reason, but refused point blank to tell us what that reason was.

 

And did you have any reason to suspect that Mr Onion didn't have good reason to remain?

 

Again, unfortunately, yes. Mr Onion has a past history of non-compliance, and more generally, we do have a significant number of boaters who seek to remain in the same place for prolonged periods. Given his refusal to co-operate and tell us why it was reasonable for him to stay more than 14 days, we could only conclude that there was no good reason, and take the action we have taken.

 

Mr Onion, I can only agree with Mr CRT here. The word is reasonable, and you have hardly been reasonable. Case dismissed

[onionbargee]

 

They have set terms and conditions.

 

If you play by their terms and conditions, they will consider your reasons for not moving, and if they agree that they are reasonable, they will not bother with any of the legal rigmarole that is at their disposal.

 

If you chose NOT to play by their terms and conditions, you give up the benefits that they bring (that they actually take into account why you are overstaying before taking action).

 

If you choose NOT to explain why you are overstaying, they will choose not to take into account those reasons, and will move to enforce.

I have never suggested that you refuse to cooperate with CRT, or refuse to provide evidence . The broken leg example is going to be obvious to all concerned so is not help full, let's change it to an non visible illness. Your conclusion is also suspect, the boater would provide evidence to the court and the court would uphold his statutory right, if he has evidence of any kind then he is allowed to overstay by law. The judge may say he's an idiot, but he's a lawful idiot. Edited May 27, 2016 by onionbargee

[mayalld]

I have never suggested that you refuse to cooperate with CRT, or refuse to provide evidence .

 

And my answer stands.

 

If you accept their t&cs (even if you believe that they are ultra vires), you get the benefit of them.

 

If you stand on your principals, and insist that they have no right to insist that you inform them, they can stand on theirs and insist that they are not obliged to consider anything they don't know in making decisions.

[nicknorman]

I have never suggested that you refuse to cooperate with CRT, or refuse to provide evidence . Your conclusion is also suspect, the boater would provide evidence to the court and the court would uphold his statutory right, if he has evidence of any kind then he is allowed to overstay by law.

No. Not "evidence of any kind". You cannot overstay on the grounds of "evidence of any kind". Try explaining that the reason you want to overstay is because you hate boating/too lazy to get out of bed etc and see how far that gets you. If you have evidence that your need to overstay is reasonable, the chances are it will be accepted by both CRT and a court. But unless you are really bored, it would be much easier to pass it by CRT rather than demanding your day in court. That would certainly be seen as unreasonable by any court.

 

Of course some people are adamant that their need is reasonable even though, to everyone else, it isn't. An excuse such as "only my needs are relevant, anyone else's needs are irrelevant", "I'm terrible important, didn't you know" or "my dog really likes crapping here" are such examples. For these people the best course of action is to have their day in court followed by a demonstration of boat crushing.

[onionbargee]

 

And my answer stands.

 

If you accept their t&cs (even if you believe that they are ultra vires), you get the benefit of them.

 

If you stand on your principals, and insist that they have no right to insist that you inform them, they can stand on theirs and insist that they are not obliged to consider anything they don't know in making decisions.

But they have no legal authority to make any decesions on this matter, if they have been granted this power show me where it is ?

 

I am not advocating blindly sticking to principles, and winding up CRT, I am saying your statutory right is being bypassed, and CRT are deciding who can and cannot overstay.

No. Not "evidence of any kind". You cannot overstay on the grounds of "evidence of any kind". Try explaining that the reason you want to overstay is because you hate boating/too lazy to get out of bed etc and see how far that gets you. If you have evidence that your need to overstay is reasonable, the chances are it will be accepted by both CRT and a court. But unless you are really bored, it would be much easier to pass it by CRT rather than demanding your day in court. That would certainly be seen as unreasonable by any court.

 

Of course some people are adamant that their need is reasonable even though, to everyone else, it isn't. An excuse such as "only my needs are relevant, anyone else's needs are irrelevant", "I'm terrible important, didn't you know" or "my dog really likes crapping here" are such examples. For these people the best course of action is to have their day in court followed by a demonstration of boat crushing.

I meant evidence in any form, written, verbal ect, not any kind of bogus reason.

 

Surely the point of statutory rights is to avoid the need for the boater to have to argue with and beg an enforcement officer for permission to overstay, when that EO holds no authority other than being a canal traffic warden.

Edited May 27, 2016 by onionbargee

[Graham Davis]

In the example I gave CRT can request evidence, and of course it is reasonable to provide it, but the law does not require you to do so, it is only a condition of your licence contract. CRT are also saying they have the authority to judge that evidence and authorise or unauthorise it. It looks to me that they have put in place terms and conditions to bypass the boaters statutory rights.

 

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

 

The problem seems to be that some people want to make life as difficult as possible for themselves by disagreeing with anything that CaRT suggests. (see subsequent posts!!)

Edited May 27, 2016 by Graham Davis

[MtB]

 

And my answer stands.

 

If you accept their t&cs (even if you believe that they are ultra vires), you get the benefit of them.

 

If you stand on your principals, and insist that they have no right to insist that you inform them, they can stand on theirs and insist that they are not obliged to consider anything they don't know in making decisions.

 

 

Not only this, but if/when it gets to court, the courts take an extremely dim view of people ending up in court through just being bloody awkward and uncooperative when the whole dispute could have been settled with some reasonable communication.

 

When instead it ends up in court, the court generally considers the uncooperative party to be wasting the court's time when they come up with information in their defence they could have produced in the first place which would have resolved the dispute without it going to court.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Mike the Boilerman

[onionbargee]

 

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

 

The problem seems to be that some people want to make life as difficult as possible for themselves by disagreeing with anything that CaRT suggests. (see subsequent posts!!)

You think its reasonable that CRT bypass your statutory rights ?

[MtB]

You think its reasonable that CRT bypass your statutory rights ?

 

 

Your statutory right to be bloody awkward, obstructive and waste loads of people's time, you mean?

[Jerra]

Surely the point of statutory rights is to avoid the need for the boater to have to argue with and beg an enforcement officer for permission to overstay, when that EO holds no authority other than being a canal traffic warden.

Going by the many examples I have read on the forum nobody has had to beg anybody for anything. All they seem to have to do is contact CRT and explain why they need to over stay.

 

I suppose if somebody was bloody minded enough to not do this and wait for an EO then they may end up having to beg but that is their own fault.

 

Letting CRT know what is going on is as far as I am concerned nothing more than common (maybe getting uncommon these days) courtesy.

[onionbargee]

 

 

Your statutory right to be bloody awkward, obstructive and waste loads of people's time, you mean?

Your contribution to CWDF is as above, but not a statutory right that we have to take any notice of you. Edited May 27, 2016 by onionbargee

[Alan Taylor]

I have never suggested that you refuse to cooperate with CRT, or refuse to provide evidence . The broken leg example is going to be obvious to all concerned so is not help full, let's change it to an non visible illness. Your conclusion is also suspect, the boater would provide evidence to the court and the court would uphold his statutory right, if he has evidence of any kind then he is allowed to overstay by law. The judge may say he's an idiot, but he's a lawful idiot.

one of the things that will influence a court's decision is whether you have made sincere attempts to resolve this out of court. At some point in the process you will need to explain to CRT the reasons for your actions. This is in no way 'asking permission' but it is down to you to be clear about the actions you have taken and what resolution you ask for and offer.

[onionbargee]

You cannot garentee that CRT will be reasonable in accepting your evidence, as has been shown before one EO has demanded " detailed and specific medical evidence" or no "authorised" overstay, once you get into this position of allowing EO's to decide whether you can exercise your statutory rights, with no easy way of appeal, or oversight of their decesions you are then giving the EO an authority he has not been legally granted.

[Chewbacka]

My understanding is that you have a 'right' to overstay in reasonable circumstances and CRT has an obligation and a 'right' to move-you-on if you don't. The court being the ultimate decider of the reasonableness of your reason.

 

You do not need CRT permission, but if you overstay and will not give a reason then all CRT can do is consider going to court.

If you tell CRT your reason, they will, if you accept the phrase, 'give you permission' however the other way of looking at it is that they do not give you permission, but accept your reason is reasonable and so will not pursue you into court. Of course if you stay to the point that they consider that you are unreasonable, they may then take action.

 

So while you are sort of correct that you don't need their permission, to avoid pointless strife and court action, why not simply recommend that people with a problem discuss the reason and proposed time to overstay with CRT to see if they will accept it as reasonable. It is a lot better than confrontation.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Chewbacka

[onionbargee]

My understanding is that you have a 'right' to overstay in reasonable circumstances and CRT has an obligation and a 'right' to move-you-on if you don't. The court being the ultimate decider of the reasonableness of your reason.

 

You do not need CRT permission, but if you overstay and will not give a reason then all CRT can do is consider going to court.

If you tell CRT your reason, they will, if you accept the phrase, 'give you permission' however the other way of looking at it is that they do not give you permission, but accept your reason is reasonable and so will not pursue you into court. Of course if you stay to the point that they consider that you are unreasonable, they may then take action.

 

So while you are sort of correct that you don't need their permission, to avoid pointless strife and court action, why not simply recommend that people with a problem discuss the reason and proposed time to overstay with CRT to see if they will accept it as reasonable. It is a lot better than confrontation.

I have said three times now that I am not proposing confrontation, or being awkward, I only want to ensure that CRT do not con people into believing they have powers they do not. Like you said presenting evidence to a court is the remedy laid down in the legislation for CRT, and not refusing to renew a licence because of "unauthorised" overstays. Edited May 27, 2016 by onionbargee

[Paul C]

I have said three times now that I am not proposing confrontation, or being awkward, I only want to ensure that CRT do not con people into believing they have powers they do not. Like you said presenting evidence to a court is the remedy laid down in the legislation for CRT, and not refusing to renew a licence because of "unauthorised" overstays.

 

Who's licence have they refused to renew?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I have said three times now that I am not proposing confrontation, or being awkward, I only want to ensure that CRT do not con people into believing they have powers they do not. Like you said presenting evidence to a court is the remedy laid down in the legislation for CRT, and not refusing to renew a licence because of "unauthorised" overstays.

Actually going to court is not the remedy laid down in law.

 

According to the 95 Act, if a licence has been issued on the basis that the boat does not have a home mooring and if, in fact, the boat is not being used bona fide for navigation in accordance with S17(3)( c )(ii) (i.e. it has been remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days when this is unreasonable in the circumstances), then CaRT can give notice that the 'default' be remedied within a period of not less than 28 days.

 

If the 'default' is not remedied then the licence can be withdrawn and the boat treated as unlicensed.

 

 

(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

 

©either—

 

(i)(in the case of a vessel in respect of which a relevant consent is issued pursuant to subsection (3) (c ) (i) above) it appears to the Board that a mooring or other place such as is referred to in subsection (3) (c ) (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) (c ) (ii) above) the vessel has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation in accordance with the said subsection (3) (c ) (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).

 

(5)If the holder of the relevant consent does not comply with any notice served pursuant to subsection (4) above then the relevant consent shall determine on the date the notice expires.

 

 

***** Edited to include an extract from the 95 Act.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Allan(nb Albert)

[onionbargee]

Actually going to court is not the remedy laid down in law.

 

According to the 95 Act, if a licence has been issued on the basis that the boat does not have a home mooring and if, in fact, the boat is not being used bona fide for navigation in accordance with S17(3)( c )(ii) (i.e. it has been remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days when this is unreasonable in the circumstances), then CaRT can give notice that the 'default' be remedied within a period of not less than 28 days.

 

If the 'default' is not remedied then the licence can be withdrawn and the boat treated as unlicensed.

 

 

***** Edited to include an extract from the 95 Act.

Thanks, I learnt something there. Edited May 27, 2016 by onionbargee

[Graham Davis]

You think its reasonable that CRT bypass your statutory rights ?

 

I do not consider it reasonable that some people purposely try to antagonise CaRT and to be as obstructive as possible.

Your contribution to CWDF is as above, but not a statutory right that we have to take any notice of you.

 

And the same could be said about your views.

You cannot garentee that CRT will be reasonable in accepting your evidence, as has been shown before one EO has demanded " detailed and specific medical evidence" or no "authorised" overstay, once you get into this position of allowing EO's to decide whether you can exercise your statutory rights, with no easy way of appeal, or oversight of their decesions you are then giving the EO an authority he has not been legally granted.

 

And?

Sounds perfectly reasonable, especially if the person has been a thorn in their side.

 

Do you see where this is going?

[onionbargee]

 

 

 

Do you see where this is going?

Yes, you are an apologist for CRT acting unlawfully, as long as its not happening to you.

[Graham Davis]

Yes, you are an apologist for CRT acting unlawfully, as long as its not happening to you.

 

No, I am someone who disagrees with people who go out to purposely antagonise CaRT because they cannot behave in a perfectly reasonable manner, and then wonder why they get into trouble, and who cannot accept that others take an opposite and more reasonable view without resorting to the use of personal insults.

[onionbargee]

 

No, I am soone who disagrees with people who go out to purposely antagonise CaRT because they cannot behave in a perfectly reasonable manner, and then wonder why they get into trouble, and who cannot accept that others take an opposite and more reasonable view without resorting to the use of personal insults.

The purpose of this thread is to clarify the law, and investigate if CRT are complying with it, what is your problem with that ?

[Graham Davis]

The purpose of this thread is to clarify the law, and investigate if CRT are complying with it, what is your problem with that ?

 

Nothing, but I'm not the one using antagonistic language, making unreasonable demands and insulting people.

[onionbargee]

 

Nothing, but I'm not the one using antagonistic language, making unreasonable demands and insulting people.

I'm not falling for your usual trick of starting an argument to derail the thread.

 

No one is forcing you to read this thread.

Edited May 28, 2016 by onionbargee

[HaulierP]

 

Nothing, but I'm not the one using antagonistic language, making unreasonable demands and insulting people.

With respect I have followed CWF for many years and on this Thread Onionbargee hasn't used antagonistic language,hasn't made unreasonable demands

and hasn't insulted anyone.

Edited May 28, 2016 by HaulierP