CRT Terms and Conditions

[RLWP]

If your formal application for a standard pleasure boat licence is rejected - and it is that, as opposed to the commercial licence, that can be pushed for as something they are legally obliged to issue - despite your having met the 1995 requirements, it will be the ensuing correspondence over whether you do or do not meet those requirements that will build up a powerful case for any legal action that might become necessary – and which will also demonstrate that you have bent over backwards to resolve the issues prior to filing any claim.

 

This really won't help:

 

 

to summarise

 

1. I want a license for me and family to use the boat for cruising in birmingham

 

2. I want to run an AirBnB business from the boat (without cruising)

 

CRT are currently refusing both of these and I don't know what to do next

 

Putting your intentions on a public forum while saying something different to CRT is madness

 

Richard

[MtB]

Having said all this, and appearing to have a pretty valid case, I am not sure how to proceed legally in order to enforce my rights.

 

to summarise

 

1. I want a license for me and family to use the boat for cruising in birmingham

 

2. I want to run an AirBnB business from the boat (without cruising)

 

CRT are currently refusing both of these and I don't know what to do next

 

 

For clarity, can you confirm you only want to run AirBnB from your boat while it is away from CRT waters please?

 

If you can't, then CRT appear correct in denying you a licence of any type.

 

If you can, then offering CRT a written undertaking not to have paying guests aboard whilst on CRT waters might persuade them to issue a pleasure boat licence.

[Andysh]

Excellent advice Nigel, thank you enormously.

 

One way in which these forums help, apart for the invaluable knowledge such as yours is the way it clarifies the issues in my mind - and those who object are just as useful in this.

 

And, I do tend agree, I think I may have to send my guests packing with an empty stomach, though the Environmental Health inspections are not onerous and mostly common sense, I want to get the operation up and running first.

 

 

For clarity, can you confirm you only want to run AirBnB from your boat while it is away from CRT waters please?

 

 

Of course, Mike, I wouldn't dream of having guests on CRT waters.

 

I simply need the license to legally move the boat between one mooring (on another navigation) to the layby (not CRT waters) using CRT waters.

[mayalld]

 

mayalld, on 15 Jun 2016 - 08:47 AM, said:

 

OK, I will assume that you do indeed have the proper BSSC and insurance.

 

What you don't have is a mooring.

 

You may protest that you do indeed have a mooring, but the truth is that you almost certainly do not have a mooring that will "satisfy" them, regardless of any agreement you may have with the supplier of that mooring, because the mooring operator can only supply a mooring with CRT's approval, and they don't approve.

 

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I have two moorings, both legitimate, both accessible, one on CRT waters which is the one you contend they may not be satisfied, though I'm not clear how you work this out. It's a mooring, I have a contract, CRT are not involved in that contract (it's very slightly offline). In theory I don't need a license although I do need one to get there. I also have a mooring on another navigation authoritys waters where the boat is now. I fail to see how they can be dissatisfied with a mooring that I am using.

 

Perhaps you could clarify your thinking.

 

 

Of course.

 

You say that "CRT are not involved in that contract", which is of course correct, but that isn't the point.

 

The point is that the owner of some canalside land cannot simply set up a mooring. They require the permission of CRT to do so.

 

So, notwithstanding that your mooring owner may have told you that you can do this on the mooring, CRT haven't given the mooring owner permission to operate a mooring where this will happen, so he has given you permission to do something that he can't give permission for.

[onionbargee]

 

 

For clarity, can you confirm you only want to run AirBnB from your boat while it is away from CRT waters please?

 

If you can't, then CRT appear correct in denying you a licence of any type.

 

If you can, then offering CRT a written undertaking not to have paying guests aboard whilst on CRT waters might persuade them to issue a pleasure boat licence.

Rubbish.

[Andysh]

 

Of course.

 

You say that "CRT are not involved in that contract", which is of course correct, but that isn't the point.

 

The point is that the owner of some canalside land cannot simply set up a mooring. They require the permission of CRT to do so.

 

So, notwithstanding that your mooring owner may have told you that you can do this on the mooring, CRT haven't given the mooring owner permission to operate a mooring where this will happen, so he has given you permission to do something that he can't give permission for.

 

I am sorry, you are completely wrong. I realise this is not your fault because I haven't revealed the location, but suffice it to say I am not the only business there

 

I have edited to add: It was a business premises long before CRT or even BW existed.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Andysh

[valrene9600]

 

 

For clarity, can you confirm you only want to run AirBnB from your boat while it is away from CRT waters please?

 

If you can't, then CRT appear correct in denying you a licence of any type.

 

If you can, then offering CRT a written undertaking not to have paying guests aboard whilst on CRT waters might persuade them to issue a pleasure boat licence.

All a bit late now. Two mistakes have been made

First telling crt about airbnb.

Second publishing the story on the internet.

 

I am sorry, you are completely wrong. I realise this is not your fault because I haven't revealed the location, but suffice it to say I am not the only business there

 

I have edited to add: It was a business premises long before CRT or even BW existed.

don`t reveal location

[Tuscan]

There are a couple of ' hotel' boats that advertise their London locations all within a 20 mile cruising range, not sure how they do it.

[Lady Muck]

If its the two Im thinking of, they havent moved out of a five mile area in at least a year (and the reviews confirm this).

[Mike Todd]

 

You should have looked at it rather more carefully, . . . for two reasons.

 

Firstly, and most significantly, that sub-section, 1995 ~ 17(7)[a](iii), ceased to have any relevance, or effect, some 19 years ago.

 

Secondly, and focusing only on the underlying purpose and reasoning behind that sub-section, a vessel, which in all other respects is a normal pleasure boat, and licensed as such, does NOT become a pleasure boat which has been "adapted or used for the carriage or conveyance of passengers" simply because it is used, whilst static, for the overnight accommodation of guests of the owner and [boat] Licence holder.

I did look at it very carefully - for a long time since, as I said, the text is exquisitely opaque! My point was independent of the specific purpose of the clause (which I know was applied to a particular situation. I may be stupid, but not that stupid!) but rather that it seems to indicate that CaRT are entitled to make the judgement about whether a boat needs a multi-user licence, since it does not otherwise limit CaRT's ability to do this (Nigel's general point about what not being explicitly forbidden is necessarily permitted)

 

OK, so it is a bit arcane but sadly that is the nature of waterways legislation much of which is not so much 'not fit for purpose' as devised for a very different purpose. As a result, lawyers will seek to draw on surprising clauses in seeking to justify one or other conclusion.

 

In any event, I was seeking to answer the original question about where in the legislation did it permit CaRT to make the judgement about whether the OP's boat needed to have a commercial licence and on what basis. This text indicates that it can both make that judgement and also that there is no specific indication of how it may reach that conclusion (unlike other clauses that state the only conditions on which a licence may be refused)

[RedPandaBear]

 

Of course.

 

You say that "CRT are not involved in that contract", which is of course correct, but that isn't the point.

 

The point is that the owner of some canalside land cannot simply set up a mooring. They require the permission of CRT to do so.

 

So, notwithstanding that your mooring owner may have told you that you can do this on the mooring, CRT haven't given the mooring owner permission to operate a mooring where this will happen, so he has given you permission to do something that he can't give permission for.

 

He has said multiple times that both of his moorings are off CRT waters, so I don't see why you would think CRT have any say in what he does on them.

 

 

All a bit late now. Two mistakes have been made

First telling crt about airbnb.

Second publishing the story on the internet.

 

See my response to the person above.

 

He has said he only wants to use the boat for air bnb when it is on his moorings.

[Mike Todd]

 

I did not say that they should cost less, necessarily; the terms of the Act required that they cannot cost more.

 

However, as that was tied to now abolished fee schedules, it is doubtful that an argument based on it would succeed – and as I said subsequently, I would not care to argue it [i flagged it up as a point of interest only]. I believe that you are right to have no interest in “rocking that particular boat”; quite apart from anything else, you have enough on your plate.

 

As to how you proceed from here, I would suggest that all thought of litigation is shelved pro-tem [but not forgotten]. Before even considering that last ditch avenue of recourse, you should be prepared to calmly conduct correspondence requiring CaRT to specify exactly what grounds they claim justifies their refusal – meeting whatever they come up with point by point.

 

Clarify that it is an either/or situation. You wanted a commercial licence specifically in order to run an AirBnB business without hassle from them [or indeed from AirBnB]; CaRT having refused that [and for reasons stated earlier I do not believe you can insist on it – and personally would regard it as undesirable], you want to licence the boat anyway, as an ordinary pleasure boat for the use of you and your family. Lodge your application as Tony has suggested [if you have not already done so - did you send in an application, or did you just ask if you could?]

 

If your formal application for a standard pleasure boat licence is rejected - and it is that, as opposed to the commercial licence, that can be pushed for as something they are legally obliged to issue - despite your having met the 1995 requirements, it will be the ensuing correspondence over whether you do or do not meet those requirements that will build up a powerful case for any legal action that might become necessary – and which will also demonstrate that you have bent over backwards to resolve the issues prior to filing any claim.

 

In that correspondence [never phone calls] let CaRT be the ones to demonstrate aggression and disregard for the law by way of contrast with your polite rationality and knowledge of the law. That will stand you in good stead whether they back down or not [especially if not, and it goes to court]. They probably will back down in the end; it is unfair that you are inconvenienced by the process, but c’est la guerre.

 

I may have it wrong, but whilst there are specific and limited circumstances under which he Board may refuse a licence for navigation, they are entitled to limit what business (trade) is conducted using the canals. They set certain standards (which, incidentally includes not just any old mooring but one that meets stated criteria mainly to do with the fact that customers come and go and that the boat needs regular servicing) that have to be met. They have also, apparently, reached the conclusion that an AirBnB operation will always fail to meet those criteria. That conclusion can open to judicial review should an interested party bring a court action. The OP's immediately preceding posting re-stated his wish to trade via AirBnB and so a private use licence is not sufficient.

 

If this remains the case then any action has to focus on the reasonableness of the Board's view on BnB rather than whether it is allowed to refuse a private use licence for the intended use. They could easily come back and say, "OK we got it wrong in refusing the private licence but you still need a trade licence - and, BTW, your intended use falls outside our allowable criteria", in which case the effort and cost involved in chasing the private use licence will be fruitless. If the real reason is to operate a B&B, at least part time, then it is the right to do that which must be established.

 

I also share your concerns about this use!

[Tony Dunkley]

I did look at it very carefully - for a long time since, as I said, the text is exquisitely opaque! My point was independent of the specific purpose of the clause (which I know was applied to a particular situation. I may be stupid, but not that stupid!) but rather that it seems to indicate that CaRT are entitled to make the judgement about whether a boat needs a multi-user licence, since it does not otherwise limit CaRT's ability to do this (Nigel's general point about what not being explicitly forbidden is necessarily permitted)

 

OK, so it is a bit arcane but sadly that is the nature of waterways legislation much of which is not so much 'not fit for purpose' as devised for a very different purpose. As a result, lawyers will seek to draw on surprising clauses in seeking to justify one or other conclusion.

 

In any event, I was seeking to answer the original question about where in the legislation did it permit CaRT to make the judgement about whether the OP's boat needed to have a commercial licence and on what basis. This text indicates that it can both make that judgement and also that there is no specific indication of how it may reach that conclusion (unlike other clauses that state the only conditions on which a licence may be refused)

 

As far as I'm aware, there is absolutely nothing within any of the relevant legislation, including Byelaws, that empowered BW/C&RT to dictate the use to which a vessel may be put, or the reasons for which persons other than the owner are permitted aboard, whilst the vessel is static on a private mooring as opposed to being used underway.

If you know differently, I would be glad if you would point out where it can be found.

[Mike Todd]

There are a couple of ' hotel' boats that advertise their London locations all within a 20 mile cruising range, not sure how they do it.

Perhaps they agreed it with CaRT?

 

As far as I'm aware, there is absolutely nothing within any of the relevant legislation, including Byelaws, that empowered BW/C&RT to dictate the use to which a vessel may be put, or the reasons for which persons other than the owner are permitted aboard, whilst the vessel is static on a private mooring as opposed to being used underway.

If you know differently, I would be glad if you would point out where it can be found.

Are you, thus, arguing that CaRT have no legal basis for issuing trading licences that are different from any other type of licence?

[Tony Dunkley]

I wonder what sort of Licences this lot have for their static 'Office Barges' ?

 

Paddington Basin Business Barges Ltd is a joint venture between the developers responsible for Paddington Basin – European Land and Property Ltd & Canal & River Trust, who manage over 100 miles of canals in the capital.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Are you, thus, arguing that CaRT have no legal basis for issuing trading licences that are different from any other type of licence?

 

No, . . . the point I'm making, and something which everyone seems to be overlooking, is that the OP will be accommodating guests who won't be either moving the boat themselves, or be conveyed anywhere on it, and the boat will be STATIC on a private mooring during the whole time that the guests are aboard.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[NigelMoore]

 

No, . . . the point I'm making, and something which everyone seems to be overlooking, is that the OP will be accommodating guests who won't be either moving the boat themselves, or be conveyed anywhere on it, and the boat will be STATIC on a private mooring during the whole time that the guests are aboard.

 

Are those not completely redundant considerations under the circumstances described in #103?

 

Whatever use the boat is put to while out of CaRT’s jurisdiction [as both moorings are], absolutely no licence from them is required for boat &/or business while there, regardless of whether either or both was required on CaRT waters.

 

Not that the topic has not raised questions of interest, even if purely academic to the OP.

 

I wonder what sort of Licences this lot have for their static 'Office Barges' ?

 

I remember some years ago that the Regents Network discovered that, in BW’s time, at least one of the ‘business barges’ was unlicensed for a very considerable time.

[Bod]

Out of curiosity, what in general are other Navigation Authorities views on Air bnb type letting?

 

Bod

[adam1uk]

He has said multiple times that both of his moorings are off CRT waters, so I don't see why you would think CRT have any say in what he does on them.

 

He has said he only wants to use the boat for air bnb when it is on his moorings.

So why did he even think to mention it to CRT in the first place then? Or is the plan changing as time goes on?

[Jerra]

So why did he even think to mention it to CRT in the first place then? Or is the plan changing as time goes on?

Good point. If as was suggested above the CRT license was only for getting the boat too and from the mooring and for family use there was no need to ever mention AirBnB.

[onionbargee]

To quote the OP " I have just been refused a license for my boat by CRT because I want to use the boat for AirBnB. I have boat safety scheme certificate and very good insurance, I also have two home moorings, one on CRT waters and one isn't. I normally keep the boat off CRT managed canals so don't need a license but it's much easier for my guests if I use a mooring in Birmingham on the BCN. "

 

[Jerra]

it's much easier for my guests if I use a mooring in Birmingham on the BCN. "

 

Being a cynic and having a fair amount of experience in various businesses does that actually mean "I will get more customers on the BNC than my other mooring"?

[Paul C]

Does a hireboat which is being moved (ie not being hired out) from one base to another, need a standard licence or a hireboat licence?

[Jerra]

Does a hireboat which is being moved (ie not being hired out) from one base to another, need a standard licence or a hireboat licence?

Would the question actually arise? Surely the hire company will have a 12 month license.

[magpie patrick]

I'm not alone in saying this but, an important material consideration was missed out of the OP's post: to wit, the only time the boat is in use as a B&B it isn't on waters where a CRT licence is required. Game, set and match to the OP - CRT should give him a licence.

 

Does a hireboat which is being moved (ie not being hired out) from one base to another, need a standard licence or a hireboat licence?

 

Probably academic for the reasons that Jerra gave - a closer parallel would be what licence would a hire boat on the Thames need if the owner of it (which might be the boatyard or might be the "sponsor" in a sponsored fleet) decided to take it up the Oxford Canal for their own use?

 

I'd like to think it would be a private licence, but can see CRT being awkward