general terms and conditions.

[Jerra]

Can I ask why the area where the decisions are left to the local EO is such a secret? This is the third time I have asked and the nearest I have got is somebody thinks it may be the southern GU.

 

Why is everybody so coy about admitting where it is?

[mayalld]

 

 

A marina can do what it wants, it is their marina. The same as a hotel could say - No smoking. A marina doing what it sees fit to do on its property - not the same as a waterways authority demanding they do it by law. The argument is not about what the marina can do, it's about what CRT can't do.

 

The authority aren't demanding that they do it by law.

 

They are demanding that they do it as part of a commercial arrangement.

[Chewbacka]

I thought it was the five CaRT apologists that were the noisy ones and out of step with the 20,000 ...

Well I think that on balance CRT do a reasonable job, so now it's 19,999 that don't

[Lady Muck]

I agree. Locking threads for no other reason than they have the potential to descend into a slanging match is not good moderation policy.

I agree, we're not locking the thread.

[Higgs]

 

The authority aren't demanding that they do it by law.

 

They are demanding that they do it as part of a commercial arrangement.

 

 

How kind of them. Very comfortable for them, I'm sure. That's what I like to hear; two companies getting together on their behalf.

[mayalld]

 

 

How kind of them. Very comfortable for them, I'm sure. That's what I like to hear; two companies getting together on their behalf.

 

That is how the world works, and very specifically how canals have ALWAYS worked.

 

In fact, one could almost suggest that if CRT was to fail to make connecting to their waters conditional upon certain conditions it would be casting aside centuries of tradition.

 

Every time you pass through a stop lock, just think why that stop lock was put there.

[MtB]

 

Every time you pass through a stop lock, just think why that stop lock was put there.

 

 

I thought stop locks were the term for those locks separating the navigations belonging to different canal companies.

 

Necessary so canal company 'A' could keep its expensively acquired water in its own canal, rather than supplying it to adjoining canal company 'B'.

 

I think there is a different term for the locks where boats were charged for passage according to their load, but I can't recall it.

[Higgs]

 

That is how the world works, and very specifically how canals have ALWAYS worked.

 

In fact, one could almost suggest that if CRT was to fail to make connecting to their waters conditional upon certain conditions it would be casting aside centuries of tradition.

 

Every time you pass through a stop lock, just think why that stop lock was put there.

 

 

The details of the NAA have placed all the responsibility of maintaining the integrity of the banks inside the marina on the marina. Marinas are a practical solution for keeping the waterways free for navigation. Marina moorers, even if you want to class it as an overhead, are paying a connection fee.

 

Dress it how you wish, and I don't make the law, CRT are not entitled to a licence fee from boats in a marina; if the law matters.

[NigelMoore]

. . . the antagonists are neve going to agree.

 

As per usual, related issues have entered the topic over which considerable variance of opinion is evident, but is there any debate over the original topic question?

 

Basically it boiled down to whether the T&C’s had such standing in law as to validate refusal or revocation of boat licences. For that purpose, it does not matter whether the conditions have any legal validity as conditions of use of the waterways or not [most of them do], simply whether breach of them justifies cancellation of a licence [it does not - the only ‘exception’ to that would be such of the T&C’s as re-iterated the 1995 pre-requisites for the licence].

 

Of course, as PaulC has noted, as a matter of practical reality, CaRT can and do act as they see fit regardless of the legal grounding, unless and until challenged, but the original question was, as I read it, whether breach of conditions extraneous to those of the 1995 Act could invalidate a licence legally.

 

Are there any 'antagonists' over this?

 

[mayalld]

 

 

I thought stop locks were the term for those locks separating the navigations belonging to different canal companies.

 

Necessary so canal company 'A' could keep its expensively acquired water in its own canal, rather than supplying it to adjoining canal company 'B'.

 

I think there is a different term for the locks where boats were charged for passage according to their load, but I can't recall it.

 

Gauging locks (or simply gauging narrows).

 

The point I was making is that the established canal imposed conditions on the newcomer. It is the way of the world!

[mayalld]

 

 

The details of the NAA have placed all the responsibility of maintaining the integrity of the banks inside the marina on the marina. Marinas are a practical solution for keeping the waterways free for navigation. Marina moorers, even if you want to class it as an overhead, are paying a connection fee.

 

Dress it how you wish, and I don't make the law, CRT are not entitled to a licence fee from boats in a marina; if the law matters.

 

Quite so, and I wouldn't argue otherwise.

 

However, CRT are entitled to make a marina's connection to its waters subject to such terms and conditions as they choose, and they choose to make it a term of that agreement.

 

So, marina owners make it a condition.

 

If a hypothetical boat owner fails to licence his boat, then CRT cannot act against the boat owner directly, but the CAN act against the marina owner...

 

 

 

Excuse me, Mr Marina Owner, there is an unlicenced boat in your marina, and you have agreed with us only to allow licenced boats to moor there.

 

Excuse me, Mr Boater, your boat is unlicenced, and I only allow licenced boats in my marina. Licence it or leave

 

 

You can scream "foul" all you like, but it is the owner of the marina forcing you to have a licence, and the reasons why he requires it are not actually your business.

 

I know that analogies involving cars often fall down, but the cul-de-sac that I live on is part public highway, and part communal parking area at the front of garages. Cars parked on the parking area are not on the public highway, and DVLA can't get them, but it is a lease condition (this is Manchester where 999 year leasehold with a £15 ground rent is common) that all vehicles in the communal areas are road legal, including tax and insurance.

[Jerra]

Necessary so canal company 'A' could keep its expensively acquired water in its own canal, rather than supplying it to adjoining canal company 'B'.

Surely that was part of a commercial agreement allowing one canal company to access the others canal and I am sure money would change hands over it.

 

Dress it how you wish, and I don't make the law, CRT are not entitled to a licence fee from boats in a marina; if the law matters.

Can you suggest a more cost effective way for CRT to ensure no boat leaves a marina without a licence than having as one of the T & Cs they insist the marina has get access to the canal?

 

EDIT: To swop the position of an a and an o.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Jerra

[KenK]

 

 

 

I don't think the welfare officer has any authority within CRT, and certainly not to over rule an EO or get involved in enforcement cases. What he does do is a mystery to me.

Last year at Newbury on the K&A the male half of a live-aboard couple died and his wife is partly sighted. C&RT were informed, the welfare officer visited and arranged a mooring on the visitor mooring above the town lock. The mooring had signs put up giving the boat name and that it was for the exclusive use of that boat. The Boaters Christian fellowship were also contacted and they provided assistance, taking the boat for water, pumpout etc. The boat was there for some time and the lady was able to deal with her problems without worrying about the boat or indeed finding somewhere to live.

The Welfare officer can offer assistance and clearly C&RT do listen.

 

Ken

[Higgs]

 

Quite so, and I wouldn't argue otherwise.

 

However, CRT are entitled to make a marina's connection to its waters subject to such terms and conditions as they choose, and they choose to make it a term of that agreement.

 

So, marina owners make it a condition.

 

If a hypothetical boat owner fails to licence his boat, then CRT cannot act against the boat owner directly, but the CAN act against the marina owner...

 

 

You can scream "foul" all you like, but it is the owner of the marina forcing you to have a licence, and the reasons why he requires it are not actually your business.

 

 

 

I'm sure you know that I know that.

 

I also know that given the option, marinas would not need to require the licence condition. As CRT cannot legally enforce the condition directly on boaters they adopt a T&C's requirement on the marina. The marina has no need of the licence fee and pays the connection fee; moorers are paying both these fees. The marinas want the contract and sign, CRT want a licence fee and connection fee.

 

The licence fee can also be claimed in a benefits claim. That's taxpayers' money being paid to an organisation that has no legal right to that payment.

 

At over £1,000 a year to me, it is my business, and, I don't need to cheat to make that money.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Higgs

[Higgs]

Surely that was part of a commercial agreement allowing one canal company to access the others canal and I am sure money would change hands over it.

Can you suggest a more cost effective way for CRT to ensure no boat leaves a marina without a licence than having as one of the T & Cs they insist the marina has get access to the canal?

 

EDIT: To swop the position of an a and an o.

 

 

Is every one a shoplifter that walks through the doors of the supermarket. ? Do the police lock every one up as potential criminals? What does the law permit.

[onionbargee]

 

As per usual, related issues have entered the topic over which considerable variance of opinion is evident, but is there any debate over the original topic question?

 

Basically it boiled down to whether the T&Cs had such standing in law as to validate refusal or revocation of boat licences. For that purpose, it does not matter whether the conditions have any legal validity as conditions of use of the waterways or not [most of them do], simply whether breach of them justifies cancellation of a licence [it does not - the only exception to that would be such of the T&Cs as re-iterated the 1995 pre-requisites for the licence].

 

Of course, as PaulC has noted, as a matter of practical reality, CaRT can and do act as they see fit regardless of the legal grounding, unless and until challenged, but the original question was, as I read it, whether breach of conditions extraneous to those of the 1995 Act could invalidate a licence legally.

 

Are there any 'antagonists' over this?

 

How can you retain a licence if you have broken the terms and conditions of the licence contract, and CRT have cancelled the contract but not invoked any statute ? Then you have a legally valid licence in theory, with no contract that CRT refuse to recognise ? The statute and the T&C's seem to be in conflict with each other, and CRT are putting their own invented rules into the T&C's because they know they have no basis in law.

[Paul C]

Or to put it another way - has anyone obtained a licence by simply meeting the 3 requirements in the 1995 Act but deliberately not signing or agreeing to the T&Cs? If so, then they MIGHT be legally immune from its cancellation from breaking the T&Cs (after all they never signed up to them) but anyone who has agreed to those T&Cs can't simply later break them, then disagree with them.

[NigelMoore]

There is no licence contract. There is no lawful contractual agreement to extraneous T&C’s of having a licence, therefore in law any such agreement represented as a contract is unlawful and unenforceable – whether you signed up to it or not.

Insofar as T&C’s reproduce valid conditions of use of the waterways – i.e the byelaws – those are not subject to your agreement either; those are lawfully imposed conditions of use, breach of which carries financial penalties and a criminal record if prosecuted – whether you have signed up to keeping them or not.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Or to put it another way - has anyone obtained a licence by simply meeting the 3 requirements in the 1995 Act but deliberately not signing or agreeing to the T&Cs? If so, then they MIGHT be legally immune from its cancellation from breaking the T&Cs (after all they never signed up to them) but anyone who has agreed to those T&Cs can't simply later break them, then disagree with them.

I signed up using the NABO suggested caveat as stated on another thread.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Allan(nb Albert)

[NigelMoore]

 

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.

 

True, but a bit of clarity over the situation is called for.

 

When properly understood, there is absolutely no conflict between s.43(3) of the Transport Act 1962 and the BW Act 1995. The ’62 Act has not been repealed - as you say - in fact quite the contrary, the relevant section has been updated to specifically apply to CaRT.

 

However, addressing the point raised in the context of claimed inconsistency – certain principles govern the interpretation of all statutes:

 

Primarily, as a fundamental principle of English law, no statute can exist in conflict with another. If a later Act contains terms that are repugnant to a former Act, and if understanding of that former Act cannot be construed in a way to avoid that conflict, then the doctrine of ‘implied repeal’ applies – whether or not the later Act has specifically repealed the former.

 

So either there is no conflict between the 1962 Act and the 1995 Act [which there is not, if my understanding of the terms is correct], or, IF there was conflict, the later would have abolished the former.

 

Both Acts sit side by side only if in accord. They are in accord, so they both do stand to be considered – but if CaRT’s claims to be authorised to add non-statutory licence conditions under s.43(3) was correct, then there would indeed be conflict, and to the extent that such application of the 1962 Act nullified the wording of the 1995 Act, the former would have to be considered repealed.

 

To repeat myself: all of the valid conditions for use of the waterways as are reproduced in the 'licence T&C's' are enforceable, it is just that those other than the 3 s.17 conditions, are not enforceable by threat of revocation of the licence.

 

onionbargee's plaints arise from an improper reliance by CaRT on the view that issue of a boat licence IS subject to compliance with all the T&C's, not just those in the 1995 Act. This is where and why clarity on the relationship between the two is important.

[onionbargee]

There is no licence contract. There is no lawful contractual agreement to extraneous T&Cs of having a licence, therefore in law any such agreement represented as a contract is unlawful and unenforceable whether you signed up to it or not.

 

Insofar as T&Cs reproduce valid conditions of use of the waterways i.e the byelaws those are not subject to your agreement either; those are lawfully imposed conditions of use, breach of which carries financial penalties and a criminal record if prosecuted whether you have signed up to keeping them or not.

 

That's a good point, CRT say you must agree to the terms and conditions, but you don't need to agree to statutes or bylaws, they are the law, you don't sign a contract to comply with the law. That brings up one of my original points, how far can CRT go in making up its own rules ?

 

I don't think we can claim 30,000 boat owners can just move off CRT waters if they don't like the contract conditions. So they must be fair.

Edited May 31, 2016 by onionbargee

[Paul C]

 

This is where and why clarity on the relationship between the two is important.

 

I agree clarity is needed here, probably by a court case.

[onionbargee]

Is it appropriate that CRT as a partly public body has its own deeply biased legal department reinterpreting the law in CRT's favour ?

 

Shouldn't this function be independent when it comes to the statutory matters of licencing, cruising, and mooring ect ?

[Alan de Enfield]

Is it appropriate that CRT as a partly public body has its own deeply biased legal department reinterpreting the law in CRT's favour ?

 

Shouldn't this function be independent when it comes to the statutory matters of licencing, cruising, and mooring ect ?

 

"He who pays the piper calls the tune"

I think any 'limited' company (and many more besides) will have a legal representative acting on their behalf and interpreting the laws to their clients benefit.

 

Who would fund an 'independent' legal team, whoever funded them would inevitably have some say in their roles, therefore making them not as independent as you would wish.

[Chewbacka]

Is it appropriate that CRT as a partly public body has its own deeply biased legal department reinterpreting the law in CRT's favour ?

 

Shouldn't this function be independent when it comes to the statutory matters of licencing, cruising, and mooring ect ?

CRT legal department are under the control of the directors of CRT. The leaders of the charity set it's policies etc.

They also have a duty to manage the waterways for which they are responsible and need a legal team to take action when deemed required.

The interpretation of the law is done by the courts.

You have your idea of how the law should be interpreted, I have mine and CRT have theirs. Where there is conflict the parties can either attempt to negotiate an agreeable outcome, or they can go to court for it to be resolved.

 

Unfortunately, going to court can have some terrible consequences and being able to say afterwards "I was wrong, can we start again" is not going to happen, especially if having your boat destroyed was part of the process.

 

Maybe what is needed is an arbitration service where both sides can put their case and hopefully resolve the matter without someone's boat being destroyed.