general terms and conditions.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

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

It isn't 'blackmail' at all, if you can find the demand for a non-connected marina you are quite entitled to build if you so wish, its just that very few people are likely to want to moor there (a market of one as far as I can see at the moment ).

Edited May 29, 2016 by Wanderer Vagabond

[Jim Riley]

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

 

His mooring is in Nottingham, if I recall the other channel correctly. It was discussed that he could bow haul there - up the Trent!

[Tony Dunkley]

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 ?

 

No, . . . and for two reasons.

Firstly a boat Licence is not a contract, and nor are you making one when you buy a Licence.

Secondly, a boat Licence can only be terminated by C&RT following the statutory procedure for doing so, and NOT on the 'say so' or at the whim of some malevolent half-wit employed by them.

[Higgs]

 

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.

 

 

What is legally valid is what the laws says they can do. They use the 1962 act as all the reason they need, as Is granted under the provisions of Section 43 Transport Act 1962. If all the weight of a contract is based on the 1962 act, they clearly do not have a right to charge for or demand a licence is paid based on the provisions of that act. The provisions of which are made use of to define the NAA. Whatever its meaning between CRT and the marina, it cannot demand the payment of a licence. There are no provisions in that act to specify for something that was non existent at the time.

 

If you think the references you've made are relevant to the NAA, it has not been included. CRT are quite clear as to which act they are using.

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

 

 

Read the NAA. It's right at the top.

[Paul C]

 

 

What is legally valid is what the laws says they can do. They use the 1962 act as all the reason they need, as Is granted under the provisions of Section 43 Transport Act 1962. If all the weight of a contract is based on the 1962 act, they clearly do not have a right to charge for or demand a licence is paid based on the provisions of that act. The provisions of which are made use of to define the NAA. Whatever its meaning between CRT and the marina, it cannot demand the payment of a licence. There are no provisions in that act to specify for something that was non existent at the time.

 

If you think the references you've made are relevant to the NAA, it has not been included. CRT are quite clear as to which act they are using.

 

Read the NAA. It's right at the top.

 

Sorry I have no idea why you've decided to drag the NAA into this particular thread.

[Jerra]

No neccesarily true the EO may have rejected your reason to overstay,

As I suggested earlier a sensible boater would notify CRT as soon as they realised they were going to have to overstay then the decision would not be the EO's

[Alan de Enfield]

NETWORK ACCESS AGREEMENT FOR MARINAS AND OFF LINE MOORINGS SUMMARY OF MAIN TERMS
• Is granted under the provisions of Section 43 Transport Act 1962.
• The purpose of the NAA is to authorise connection to our waterway network and to charge marina operators for CRT services facilities including the impoundment, supply and re-supply of water to enable navigation between the marina and the waterway and within the marina.
• It deals with other issues such as entry upon and access across CRT land and other statutory rights and powers.
• Lasts for a period of 150 years from a date that anticipates the date of connection. • Has to be completed before you begin any works affecting CRT. (see Application Process).
• Has a start date that will be agreed between the parties and will be the anticipated date of the physical connection to the network.
• If the physical connection to the network is delayed the phasing in of payments will not be deferred. Conversely if the physical connection is achieved earlier than planned the phasing will not be brought forward so there is a financial incentive in completing the connection to the network as soon as possible.
• Specifies an agreed gross mooring capacity in metres which can only be changed by mutual agreement.
• Has a standard payment to CRT of 9% of the gross mooring capacity multiplied by the mooring rate (net of VAT) charged at the marina. This will be paid by equal 3 monthly payments in advance. It will be reviewed annually to reflect any increases in the marina mooring rate. Interest is payable on late payments.
• The payment will be phased in as follows. 1st year no payment, 2nd year 50% capacity, 3rd year 100% capacity.

[Higgs]

 

Sorry I have no idea why you've decided to drag the NAA into this particular thread.

 

To illustrate the point that CRT don't play straight. I never insisted that the NAA should be discussed. You responded, I responded. That's how it goes.

[onionbargee]

As I suggested earlier a sensible boater would notify CRT as soon as they realised they were going to have to overstay then the decision would not be the EO's

The decision is the EO's whenever you tell them.

[Paul C]

ou

 

 

To illustrate the point that CRT don't play straight. I never insisted that the NAA should be discussed. You responded, I responded. That's how it goes.

 

It doesn't really matter, your argument is flawed in the same way, whether its to do with NAA or the general T&Cs. You can't simply consider one bit of legislation in isolation, the 1995 Act was written and the 1962 Act was not repealed so both are to be considered.

[Jerra]

The decision is the EO's whenever you tell them.

It is strange that in the years I have been on the forum the vast majority (so vast I don't remember a single case) where somebody has notified CRT ASAP when they realised they had a problem there has been no trouble. Mention is made of CRT adding a note to the records are you saying that when this is done the EO ignores it and CRT back them?

[magnetman]

The decision is the EO's whenever you tell them.

If that is true that is well dodgy IMO and open to blatant abuse.

 

Surely there is some way to circumvent it

[onionbargee]

It is strange that in the years I have been on the forum the vast majority (so vast I don't remember a single case) where somebody has notified CRT ASAP when they realised they had a problem there has been no trouble. Mention is made of CRT adding a note to the records are you saying that when this is done the EO ignores it and CRT back them?

I am not saying any overstay has been refused, I am saying CRT have created a situation where it can be, and one where you now need to satisfy an EO who has no authority to make such a decision. This is outside the law, and is completely arbitrary , one that CRT can use to bully those it doesn't like, or create a situation where all overstays no matter what reason will be charged for.

 

If you think CRT is incapable of harrasment, lying, and breaking the law read the Tadworth, Ravenscroft, Moore, Dunkley threads.

Edited May 29, 2016 by onionbargee

[Jerra]

you now need to satisfy an EO

Surely if you have notified CRT about the over staying and they have made a note on the records it doesn't come into the EO's decision making. Whoever the boater notified at CRT made the decision (well going by most reports not even a decision) and put the note on the record.

 

I have no doubt CRT (or for that matter any authority is capable of harassing people if they decide to. However I am still trying to understand how anybody needs to satisfy an EO when they have notified CRT they need to overstay and CRT have noted this.

 

Is this a hypothetical case as I have been using the search (such as it is) and I haven't found anybody who have had a problem when they have notified CRT they need to over stay and have a genuine reason, or are we talking about boaters who haven't bothered to notify CRT and the first contact is with the EO?

[onionbargee]

Surely if you have notified CRT about the over staying and they have made a note on the records it doesn't come into the EO's decision making. Whoever the boater notified at CRT made the decision (well going by most reports not even a decision) and put the note on the record.

 

I have no doubt CRT (or for that matter any authority is capable of harassing people if they decide to. However I am still trying to understand how anybody needs to satisfy an EO when they have notified CRT they need to overstay and CRT have noted this.

 

Is this a hypothetical case as I have been using the search (such as it is) and I haven't found anybody who have had a problem when they have notified CRT they need to over stay and have a genuine reason, or are we talking about boaters who haven't bothered to notify CRT and the first contact is with the EO?

 

Overstays are "granted" by an EO, if you contact CRT they will direct you to your local EO, they won't just OK it.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Is this a hypothetical case as I have been using the search (such as it is) and I haven't found anybody who have had a problem when they have notified CRT they need to over stay and have a genuine reason, or are we talking about boaters who haven't bothered to notify CRT and the first contact is with the EO?

 

It is by no means hypothetical. There are instances on record [ records which you probably don't have access to ] of boaters being intimidated into moving in unsafe conditions on a flooded river by the local EO.

[onionbargee]

Quote from an email from an EO to a boater who has already provided a letter from a GP informing this EO of their ongoing health problem.

 

"until I am in receipt of specific detail with regards your ailment/condition and exactly how this, prevents you from cruising, regrettably, I am unable to authorise your continued presence at ... "

 

 

------------Enforcement officer

Canal and River Trust

Edited May 29, 2016 by onionbargee

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

It is by no means hypothetical. There are instances on record [ records which you probably don't have access to ] of boaters being intimidated into moving in unsafe conditions on a flooded river by the local EO.

So what is the threat used? Go out onto that flooded river, or what? We'll take your licence away? If a river is in flood it is now a public record (look up the EA site) so they'd have a difficult job in trying to force someone out onto a river that is flooded to an unsafe degree. A simple matter of pointing out that any insurance would invalidated should seal the deal. "You want me to go out onto an unsafe river in flood? You'll need to underwrite the risks as my insurers wont".

Overstays are "granted" by an EO, if you contact CRT they will direct you to your local EO, they won't just OK it.

Again they are not granted, they are noted. Since it is the Enforcement Team that will need to know who else would you expect CRT to direct you to? The maintenance team?

[Jerra]

Overstays are "granted" by an EO, if you contact CRT they will direct you to your local EO, they won't just OK it.

Odd there are innumerable posts on the forum saying words to the effect "I contacted CRT they were very supportive and put a note on the record". I think there is even one in this thread I will try to have a search back.

 

EDIT: To add.

 

Wandering Vagabond in #91 says

 

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,

 

ALL bold apart from NOT are mine. No mention of the Enforcement Team or an EO just the office.

 

Perhaps Mr. W Vagabond could clarify who he contacted and who replied.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Jerra

[Tony Dunkley]

So what is the threat used? Go out onto that flooded river, or what? We'll take your licence away?

 

Yes, well done, you've nearly got it right, but the customary threats with regard to the boat Licence were accompanied by the usual consequential implications of boat seizure and removal.

All utter and unlawful nonsense, of course, but nonetheless very effective, thanks in no small part to C&RT's track record of intimidation and property theft.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Odd there are innumerable posts on the forum saying words to the effect "I contacted CRT they were very supportive and put a note on the record". I think there is even one in this thread I will try to have a search back.

 

EDIT: To add.

 

Wandering Vagabond in #91 says

 

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,

 

ALL bold apart from NOT are mine. No mention of the Enforcement Team or an EO just the office.

 

Perhaps Mr. W Vagabond could clarify who he contacted and who replied.

The e-mail was sent to enquiries.southeast @ CRT, the reply came from Lisa Jarvis, the Enforcement Team Leader. Since they are the one's of whom it is of interest to I can't say that I found it in any way surprising. Without Ms Jarvis's permission (yes I feel that I would need her 'permission to do that ) I wont post the full text but the end of the text just said, "Thank you for letting us know about your situation". No suggestion or 'authorisation' merely a note for their information.

 

Yes, well done, you've nearly got it right, but the customary threats with regard to the boat Licence were accompanied by the usual consequential implications of boat seizure and removal.

All utter and unlawful nonsense, of course, but nonetheless very effective, thanks in no small part to C&RT's track record of intimidation and property theft.

Well since you have access to this information and tell us that we haven't, pray tell us who exactly went out onto a dangerously flooded river?

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Well since you have access to this information and tell us that we haven't, pray tell us who exactly went out onto a dangerously flooded river?

 

Boaters who were intimidated into doing so by C&RT's local EO.

That's all you need to know, and all that you're going to get to know.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

Boaters who were intimidated into doing so by C&RT's local EO.

That's all you need to know, and all that you're going to get to know.

Pretty much the half answer I expected

[Jerra]

The e-mail was sent to enquiries.southeast @ CRT, the reply came from Lisa Jarvis, the Enforcement Team Leader. Since they are the one's of whom it is of interest to I can't say that I found it in any way surprising. Without Ms Jarvis's permission (yes I feel that I would need her 'permission to do that ) I wont post the full text but the end of the text just said, "Thank you for letting us know about your situation". No suggestion or 'authorisation' merely a note for their information.

Thanks for that WV. So it isn't being left to the whim of an EO on the cut who may have a personal grudge it is the Team Leader who hopefully will bear no grudges, unless of course the name of the boat/boater has floated past their eyes on numerous occasions for various reasons.

[onionbargee]

The e-mail was sent to enquiries.southeast @ CRT, the reply came from Lisa Jarvis, the Enforcement Team Leader. Since they are the one's of whom it is of interest to I can't say that I found it in any way surprising. Without Ms Jarvis's permission (yes I feel that I would need her 'permission to do that ) I wont post the full text but the end of the text just said, "Thank you for letting us know about your situation". No suggestion or 'authorisation' merely a note for their information.

?

There could be different ways of deal in with overstays in various areas. We would need to contact Mrs Jarvis and ask what their procedure is.

Thanks for that WV. So it isn't being left to the whim of an EO on the cut who may have a personal grudge it is the Team Leader who hopefully will bear no grudges, unless of course the name of the boat/boater has floated past their eyes on numerous occasions for various reasons.

You presume that . I wouldn't bet on it. Edited May 29, 2016 by onionbargee