general terms and conditions.

[onionbargee]

Are boaters happy to have an enforcement officer decide what is a reasonable reason to overstay ?

 

No accountability, no way to appeal, just an arbitrary decesion ?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Are boaters happy to have an enforcement officer decide what is a reasonable reason to overstay ?

 

No accountability, no way to appeal, just an arbitrary decesion ?

No.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Thorfast]

Are boaters happy to have an enforcement officer decide what is a reasonable reason to overstay ?

No accountability, no way to appeal, just an arbitrary decesion ?

Neither wouød I be happy for the boater to make the decision souly themselves, as they may be being unreasonable too.

So who makes the descision? Saying a court can decide is also unreasonable, think of all the wasted public money and time in it being brought to court.

Surely common sense must prevail, but then I'm afraid common sense is not seen in the example or suggestions that are being made here.

It is common sense for a boater to liase with CRT and explain why they need to overstay and it would be common sense for CRT to appear reasonable in any response.

As far as I can see the senarios you are suggesting in this thread are all of people and CRT being antagonistic.

[Jerra]

Are boaters happy to have an enforcement officer decide what is a reasonable reason to overstay ?

 

No accountability, no way to appeal, just an arbitrary decesion ?

Surely a sensible boater realising they would need to over stay would not wait for an enforcement officer and contact CRT themselves. Everyone who has posted about overstaying (during) the few years I have been on here) who contacted CRT doesn't seem to have had a problem. Most report very sympathetic treatment and concern from CRT rather than problems.

[FadeToScarlet]

Isnt the main canal network is managed by CRT, you referring to a sum total of scattered river, and unconnected navigation , most of which if actually connected, can only be reached by CRT canals, or road transport. If you can show a map of a large connected system of non CRT navigations, I will change my mind.

 

Three different navigation authorities, but a connected system.

[HaulierP]

Surely a sensible boater realising they would need to over stay would not wait for an enforcement officer and contact CRT themselves. Everyone who has posted about overstaying (during) the few years I have been on here) who contacted CRT doesn't seem to have had a problem. Most report very sympathetic treatment and concern from CRT rather than problems.

I must agree with you this has been my experience too.I think what Onionbargee is concerned about and in my opinion rightly so,

is CRT attempting to claim "ownership" of the process as in any approval given is in their gift so to speak.

[Jerra]

I must agree with you this has been my experience too.I think what Onionbargee is concerned about and in my opinion rightly so,

is CRT attempting to claim "ownership" of the process as in any approval given is in their gift so to speak.

As has been said before somebody has to decide what is reasonable. As I see it if left to the boater there is far too much leeway for P-takers and CMers which would eventually cause problems. That leaves either CRT or the courts, personally I don't want CRT wasting money on every over stayer by letting the courts decide so that leaves CRT. As they seem to be invariably helpful when notified where is the problem?

 

Are there any better ideas as to who should decide what is reasonable? Having read on this forum a case of somebody being in the same place for (I think) 9 months claiming it was "reasonable" I doubt the boater would be acceptable to CRT and it would seem CRT aren't acceptable to a small minority of boaters.

[Alan de Enfield]

............ Having read on this forum a case of somebody being in the same place for (I think) 9 months claiming it was "reasonable" I doubt the boater would be acceptable to CRT and it would seem CRT aren't acceptable to a small minority of boaters.

 

On the 'breakaway' forum (that we cannot mention) he is now confirming that he is up to 20 months and that it is still reasonable in the circumstances (broken engine awaiting parts).

[Tony Dunkley]

As has been said before somebody has to decide what is reasonable. As I see it if left to the boater there is far too much leeway for P-takers and CMers which would eventually cause problems. That leaves either CRT or the courts, personally I don't want CRT wasting money on every over stayer by letting the courts decide so that leaves CRT. As they seem to be invariably helpful when notified where is the problem?

 

 

You have participated in more than enough debates on this particular subject to know that the truth of the matter is that C&RT have NEVER ONCE asked a Court for a decision with regards to whether an 'overstay' is reasonable or not.

 

In the event that they make the arbitrary decision to take legal action against a boater their MO is invariably the unlawful termination [grounded in alleged breaches of their general T&C's rather than statutory obligations] of the boat Licence followed by the issue of a Section 8 Notice for 'removal' of the vessel.

 

They take great care to ensure that the Courts don't consider anything but the fact that the vessel does not hold a current Licence/PBC at the time of any hearing, . . there's the problem ! If you really want to see an end to C&RT wasting money on needless litigation, then you should join in with the calls for them to cease misusing and abusing the statutory powers with which Parliament has equipped them.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Tony Dunkley]

As an adjunct to what I've said in Post #84, it should be noted that C&RT have now, in flagrant contempt of statute, progressed from simply 'revoking' Licences for an alleged breach of T&C's to refusing to issue Licences on the grounds of possible, or anticipated, future breaches of T&C's.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[onionbargee]

That is my confusion Tony, CRT, in the correspondence i have had with them are deliberatly confusing both legislation and T&C's where it suits them. There is absolutely no oversight as to what T&C's they can put in the contract, which it appears they are using to refuse renewal of licences. The "authorised" or "unauthorised" overstay being an example of this.

[Higgs]

 

you should join in with the calls for them to cease misusing and abusing the statutory powers with which Parliament has equipped them.

 

 

I agree, but it is hardly likely to happen. I quote:

 

"As to s.43(3), mandatory boat licences were not in existence at the time of the 1962 Act, and all canals and rivers then enjoyed a public right of navigation, such that law forbad the demand for such licences, let alone the levying of charges and the setting of conditions for them."

 

This is the very law that CRT rely on to form the NAA contract with marinas. Under such law CRT cannot claim a licence fee. Yet CRT do set conditions on the marina operators to enable that licence fees are levied. It cannot be assumed or exist in that section of the law, in using any discretionary terms such as -see fit, that CRT could use that to misinterpret what the law could be used to see fit to do. Mandatory boat licences were not in existence at the time of the 1962 act. Therefore, in using that law, the mandatory requirement of having a licence cannot be applied to boats in marinas, subject only, as they are, to a marina's terms and conditions. Not waterways law.

 

CRT are unauthorised to levy a licence fee under the 1962 act; not even for the sentimental value of the canal.

 

Trust CRT all you want, I'm reserving my opinion. (not intended as aimed at Tony Dunkley or Onionbargee).

Edited May 29, 2016 by Higgs

[Tony Dunkley]

That is my confusion Tony, CRT, in the correspondence i have had with them are deliberatly confusing both legislation and T&C's where it suits them. There is absolutely no oversight as to what T&C's they can put in the contract, which it appears they are using to refuse renewal of licences. The "authorised" or "unauthorised" overstay being an example of this.

 

It's quite understandable that C&RT have had to resort to lying consistently about their statutory powers, after all, there is no other way, short of new primary legislation, that they can impose their unlawful and oppressive aspirations on the use, and the users, of the waterways which have now, regrettably, been entrusted to their neglect care.

 

The mindless pronouncements from the 'Enforcement' hierarchy, of which the vast majority of the general T&C's are but one manifestation, must be seen for what they are, . . . . nonsensical and unenforceable drivel.

The framework regulating the issue, or termination, of Licences, PBC's and HBC's is defined in statute and in the absence of new primary legislation to alter the existing requirements, that is what C&RT are obliged to comply with, whether they like it or not.

[onionbargee]

 

It's quite understandable that C&RT have had to resort to lying consistently about their statutory powers, after all, there is no other way, short of new primary legislation, that they can impose their unlawful and oppressive aspirations on the use, and the users, of the waterways which have now, regrettably, been entrusted to their neglect care.

 

The mindless pronouncements from the 'Enforcement' hierarchy, of which the vast majority of the general T&C's are but one manifestation, must be seen for what they are, . . . . nonsensical and unenforceable drivel.

The framework regulating the issue, or termination, of Licences, PBC's and HBC's is defined in statute and in the absence of new primary legislation to alter the existing requirements, that is what C&RT are obliged to comply with, whether they like it or not.

 

The granting and revocation of licences is governed by the law, but cancelling your contract if you break the terms and conditions also leaves you without a licence does it not ?

[Paul C]

 

 

I agree, but it is hardly likely to happen. I quote:

 

"As to s.43(3), mandatory boat licences were not in existence at the time of the 1962 Act, and all canals and rivers then enjoyed a public right of navigation, such that law forbad the demand for such licences, let alone the levying of charges and the setting of conditions for them."

This is the very law that CRT rely on to form the NAA contract with marinas. Under such law CRT cannot claim a licence fee. Yet CRT do set conditions on the marina operators to enable that licence fees are levied. It cannot be assumed or exist in that section of the law, in using any discretionary terms such as -see fit, that CRT could use that to misinterpret what the law could be used to see fit to do. Mandatory boat licences were not in existence at the time of the 1962 act. Therefore, in using that law, the mandatory requirement of having a licence cannot be applied to boats in marinas, subject only, as they are, to a marina's terms and conditions. Not waterways law.

 

CRT are unauthorised to levy a licence fee under the 1962 act; not even for the sentimental value of the canal.

 

Trust CRT all you want, I'm reserving my opinion. (not intended as aimed at Tony Dunkley or Onionbargee).

 

Why didn't the 1995 Waterways Act repeal the 1962 Transport Act (or certain sections of it) when it was brought in then? Post 1995, the two exist together and are relevant, resulting in the situation where CRT can impose terms and conditions and believe its legally valid.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

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.

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.

Speaking as one who has approached CRT whilst in Oxford because I was going to overstay, I'm not sure where you get this thing about them 'authorising' an overstay. Basically when I arrived in Oxford the Thames was in flood so I couldn't continue up to Lechlade. I e-mailed the CRT office and told them that I was going to overstay (not ask for permission) and gave them the reason for doing so. Their reply was that they would create an Extended Stay on my boat record, all perfectly amicable, I didn't ask for permission and they didn't grant an 'authority', all they did was put something on record so that any EO or Data Checker would be aware of why I was at the location. My view was that if there had been any later differences of opinion on the subject (there weren't) I would put forward the case that if CRT were in any way concerned they should have raised their concerns at the time of initial notification.

 

If someone chooses not to tell CRT of their reasons for their actions they are in no position to complain if CRT draw the wrong conclusions.

[saltysplash]

 

On the 'breakaway' forum (that we cannot mention) he is now confirming that he is up to 20 months and that it is still reasonable in the circumstances (broken engine awaiting parts).

Is that correct? I thought Tadworth was moored in private waters?

Are you confusing OB with Kris?

[Paul C]

Kris has now obtained a home mooring, so its reasonable in the circumstances to remain on it for a number of months if the engine/drive is broken and waiting parts.

[Alan de Enfield]

Kris has now obtained a home mooring, so its reasonable in the circumstances to remain on it for a number of months if the engine/drive is broken and waiting parts.

 

And the previous 3 / 6 / 9 / 12 / 18 months when he was offered tows to a marina / engineering repair place or where ever he wanted to go but refused.

When he was offered the use of moorings by folks away on a cruise - and he refused.

[Paul C]

Its all a bit historical now really, and also its a bit unfair to get too personally involved in using it as an example. I think its best left as "each individual has their own opinion on what is a reasonable/unreasonable reason for a stay >14 days". And those individuals can obviously include boaters themselves differing in opinions, as well as a boater's opinion being different to a CRT official's.

[onionbargee]

Here are two quotes from recent CRT correspondence .

"Restricted licences remain blocked up until the date of expiration to allow customers the maximum amount of time to demonstrate that they can cruise in accordance with the Terms and Conditions."

"As previously detailed in my emails to you over this past month, you do not have an Authorised Overstay. I invite you to revisit those emails. This is the reason that a permit was not issued to you."


( the forum owner has asked me not to name names or quote emails in full without permission )

Edited May 29, 2016 by onionbargee

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

 

I agree, but it is hardly likely to happen. I quote:

 

"As to s.43(3), mandatory boat licences were not in existence at the time of the 1962 Act, and all canals and rivers then enjoyed a public right of navigation, such that law forbad the demand for such licences, let alone the levying of charges and the setting of conditions for them."

 

This is the very law that CRT rely on to form the NAA contract with marinas. Under such law CRT cannot claim a licence fee. Yet CRT do set conditions on the marina operators to enable that licence fees are levied. It cannot be assumed or exist in that section of the law, in using any discretionary terms such as -see fit, that CRT could use that to misinterpret what the law could be used to see fit to do. Mandatory boat licences were not in existence at the time of the 1962 act. Therefore, in using that law, the mandatory requirement of having a licence cannot be applied to boats in marinas, subject only, as they are, to a marina's terms and conditions. Not waterways law.

 

CRT are unauthorised to levy a licence fee under the 1962 act; not even for the sentimental value of the canal.

 

Trust CRT all you want, I'm reserving my opinion. (not intended as aimed at Tony Dunkley or Onionbargee).

I see that you are still dragging this old chestnut around. Can you supply the evidence that CRT are using any waterway law to create the Network Access Agreement with marinas? As far as I can see it is a Civil Agreement (clue in the title really) between contracting parties. With new marinas CRT are advising the marina owners that if they want to come to an Agreement allowing access onto the canal system then part of the terms and conditions of the marina will be that boats within the marina should be licenced. The marina owner is quite entitled not to agree to this if they wish, it just means that they wont be connected to the system. There are older marinas not subject to this agreement, perhaps it'd be for the best if you used one of them

Here are two quotes from recent CRT correspondence .

 

"Restricted licences remain blocked up until the date of expiration to allow customers the maximum amount of time to demonstrate that they can cruise in accordance with the Terms and Conditions."

 

"As previously detailed in my emails to you over this past month, you do not have an Authorised Overstay. I invite you to revisit those emails. This is the reason that a permit was not issued to you."

 

 

( the forum owner has asked me not to name names or quote emails in full without permission )

This sounds to me rather like someone already in the enforcement procedure which is the point I was making, it is a bit late to complain once into the enforcement process, communicate earlier.

[onionbargee]

I see that you are still dragging this old chestnut around. Can you supply the evidence that CRT are using any waterway law to create the Network Access Agreement with marinas? As far as I can see it is a Civil Agreement (clue in the title really) between contracting parties. With new marinas CRT are advising the marina owners that if they want to come to an Agreement allowing access onto the canal system then part of the terms and conditions of the marina will be that boats within the marina should be licenced. The marina owner is quite entitled not to agree to this if they wish, it just means that they wont be connected to the system. There are older marinas not subject to this agreement, perhaps it'd be for the best if you used one of them

'Not connected" could be read as blackmail ? Since no marina will ever be built without access it is not a genuine choice.

[HaulierP]

Kris has now obtained a home mooring, so its reasonable in the circumstances to remain on it for a number of months if the engine/drive is broken and waiting parts.

According to another forum,he isn't on his mooring.

[onionbargee]

This sounds to me rather like someone already in the enforcement procedure which is the point I was making, it is a bit late to complain once into the enforcement process, communicate earlier.

 

No neccesarily true the EO may have rejected your reason to overstay, and marked it down as "unauthorised" leading to being in the enforcement process. The second quote is proof that this "authorising" process is being applied.

Edited May 29, 2016 by onionbargee