Does a Mooring Reset the 14 Days Rule ?

[Iain_S]

Thanks, Nigel!

 

The CC1 letter looks as if it could be taken as complying with Sec.17 (4)( c), but it is surprising (to me, anyway) that the section is not mentioned, given the quoting of legislation in the subsequent CC2 and CC3 letters!

 

 

 

 

e.t.r ©

Edited July 2, 2016 by Iain_S

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Thanks, Nigel!

 

The CC1 letter looks as if it could be taken as complying with Sec.17 (4)( c), but it is surprising (to me, anyway) that the section is not mentioned, given the quoting of legislation in the subsequent CC2 and CC3 letters!

 

 

 

 

e.t.r ©

Not according to CaRT, Ian. They are quite specific that the processes that used do not amount to issuing a notice under the 1995 Act -

 

There are two areas where consent has been withdrawn or withheld due to

non-compliance with cruising, but no section 4 notice was issued:

 

 

• New CC monitoring process where they reached the end of the

restricted licence and we refuse a further CC licence.

 

This data is on our website in the document ‘the story so far’

[1]https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/m...

which was compiled in March 2016.

 

 

• Original CC process where we issue the letter CC3 – there were

32

 

As I understand it, the justification CaRT use for circumventing the issue of a notice under the 1995 Act is because the law says they 'may' issue a notice. They construe this to mean that they can use a substitute procedure if they wish (and also change it if they wish which, of course they have).

 

My guess is that it simply means that CaRT is not legally obliged to take action if a boat is not being used bona fide for navigation.

 

The other problem they have is that the law says that using a boat 'bona fide for navigation' is a matter of 'fact' (rather than CaRT's opinion or assessment). This is more in line with the evidence given to the select committee in 1993 which defines a 'test' for 'bona fide navigation'.

 

****Edited to correct year when BW defined the 'test' to the select committee.

 

Edited July 2, 2016 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Horace42]

Many of us go through life knowing our rights, but make sure we first face up to our obligations. They go hand-in-hand. In doing so we are left alone to enjoy ourselves

Occasionally we might attract the attention of officialdom, by mooring more than 14 days maybe, but for whatever reason, we are very much protected by the obligations of officialdom to conduct themselves properly if they want to resort to enforcement.

But then it is easy for me to talk about overstaying 14 day mooring limits. I have a mooring at home and only affected by one-night stops (2 at the most) when cruising.

Then I am concerned if there are no moorings available if they are filled with long stay CC's. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NigelMoore]

Not according to CaRT, Ian. They are quite specific that the processes that used do not amount to issuing a notice under the 1995 Act -

 

As I understand it, the justification CaRT use for circumventing the issue of a notice under the 1995 Act is because the law says they 'may' issue a notice. They construe this to mean that they can use a substitute procedure if they wish (and also change it if they wish which, of course they have).

 

My guess is that it simply means that CaRT is not legally obliged to take action if a boat is not being used bona fide for navigation.

 

I doubt if anyone could accuse me of reluctance to criticise the CaRT administration, but I am sensitive to the need for punctilious accuracy in doing so; at times it is necessary to distinguish between the malign and the maladroit, and this, I believe, is one of those instances.

 

The responses to FoI requests are shaped by the bizarrely defensive disinclination to divulge anything at all, lest it be used against them, and - as I hinted previously this reflex response at times results in illogical and counter-productive answers.

 

The responses to this request of yours are very muddy, and uninformative; too much ought not to be read into them I suggest. For example, it should have been an obvious response to have noted that no formal notice was required in the case of renewals section 4 deals only with revocation of licences mid-term yet they have solemnly vouchsafed that this is one of the areas where consent has been withheld with no notice. In context, that is just silly and unresponsive, missing the requisite explanation - of course no 'section 4 notice' would have been issued under those circumstances.

 

Similarly, the response re: the second area identified [revocation mid-term the only relevant situation] simply assumes on the face of it, that there is a formal Section 4 Notice that has not been used whereas there is no capitalisation of that description. The law simply states that summary revocation must not take place; notice must be given of any belief that conditions are not met and time given to remedy the situation. The series of letters preceding a CC3 notice of revocation meets the legislative requirement so far as I can see; they are just playing ignorant.

 

The correct response to your request for a copy of such a notice would have been to link to the templates for the CC series of letters, instead of pretending that they did not hold the information.

 

You are right in your guess that the provision that such notice may be given, applies to their option to take action, rather than making notice of that action optional. There would be absolutely no point to the clause at all if it did not grant a compulsory grace period to be applied in the circumstances.

 

The whole point of the notices was to alert licensed boaters of failure to comply with the statutory conditions of the licence, while giving time to remedy the default. Setting aside all argument over whether the CC series of letters demanded more than the statutory requirement for CCing, they fulfil the intent of the legislation under section 4 so far as I can see. The fact that this FoI response could be construed as admitting that their processes did not amount to issuing a notice under the 1995 Act, indicates nothing more than the degree of utterly pointless obfuscation indulged in by the department concerned.

 

Edited July 3, 2016 by NigelMoore

[Horace42]

 

 

The whole point of the notices was to alert licensed boaters of failure to comply with the statutory conditions of the licence, while giving time to remedy the default. Setting aside all argument over whether the CC series of letters demanded more than the statutory requirement for CCing, they fulfil the intent of the legislation under section 4 so far as I can see. The fact that this FoI response could be construed as admitting that their processes did not amount to issuing a notice under the 1995 Act, indicates nothing more than the degree of utterly pointless obfuscation indulged in by the department concerned.

 

Nigel, you seem to have a good grounding in the letter of the law, whereas in my advancing years, I could claim to have picked up a good grounding in the operation of the law, having been in business in my own company surrounded by legislation (often overwhelming at times) and therefore not a stranger to officialdom.

 

Obviously the letter of the law takes precede when it comes to the crunch as most of us find out when we break the law (usually out of ignorance). However, a good knowledge of the way the law operates in practice puts off the day the crunch comes - if ever.

 

Now and again though, we sail close to the wind. Take the 14-day rule which prompted this topic, but ignore what might be obviously valid reasons for over-staying (I guess illness, accident, engine failure sort of thing) but for example a blatant deliberate long stay until picked up by someone (I don't know. How are long stays monitored?) - then what happens.

 

I don't know the letter of the law, but I can guess with confidence that it will operate by the issue of a request (or demand) to move on.

Maybe have your name 'took' (...by Mr.Policemen - the dreaded threat hanging over Larry-the-Lamb for being naughty - Children's Hour back in the 50's - who remembers?) from which dire consequences could result.

 

Let;s jump to your license being revoked, but ignoring those instances where you are guilty (ie. you brought it on yourself and serves you right) - and look at an example where you are 'not guilty' but nevertheless a victim of unilateral action (perhaps maladministration) by CRT and your license is revoked or not renewed.

 

You still have your boat. It is still in the water, and you can still use it. What if you do. What will happen.

Will you be committing an offence? - you will not be insured - that's for sure - but what else?

 

I am not asking because I am looking for loopholes in the law, but more from a position of interest because from my practical experience, where parties fail to agree, the law will kick in and take over where both parties have to answer to a higher authority - in Court - where your defence (or prosecution if you take action against CRT) will be properly heard in accordance with the letter of the law - which is where you come in Nigel.

 

If it was me, I would have sorted it out with CRT at the first opportunity - but this is not about me - it's for those who find themselves up against officialdom - the genuine victims - and what they can do about it?

[bassplayer]

Nigel, you seem to have a good grounding in the letter of the law, whereas in my advancing years, I could claim to have picked up a good grounding in the operation of the law, having been in business in my own company surrounded by legislation (often overwhelming at times) and therefore not a stranger to officialdom.

 

Obviously the letter of the law takes precede when it comes to the crunch as most of us find out when we break the law (usually out of ignorance). However, a good knowledge of the way the law operates in practice puts off the day the crunch comes - if ever.

 

Now and again though, we sail close to the wind. Take the 14-day rule which prompted this topic, but ignore what might be obviously valid reasons for over-staying (I guess illness, accident, engine failure sort of thing) but for example a blatant deliberate long stay until picked up by someone (I don't know. How are long stays monitored?) - then what happens.

 

I don't know the letter of the law, but I can guess with confidence that it will operate by the issue of a request (or demand) to move on.

Maybe have your name 'took' (...by Mr.Policemen - the dreaded threat hanging over Larry-the-Lamb for being naughty - Children's Hour back in the 50's - who remembers?) from which dire consequences could result.

 

Let;s jump to your license being revoked, but ignoring those instances where you are guilty (ie. you brought it on yourself and serves you right) - and look at an example where you are 'not guilty' but nevertheless a victim of unilateral action (perhaps maladministration) by CRT and your license is revoked or not renewed.

 

You still have your boat. It is still in the water, and you can still use it. What if you do. What will happen.

Will you be committing an offence? - you will not be insured - that's for sure - but what else?

 

I am not asking because I am looking for loopholes in the law, but more from a position of interest because from my practical experience, where parties fail to agree, the law will kick in and take over where both parties have to answer to a higher authority - in Court - where your defence (or prosecution if you take action against CRT) will be properly heard in accordance with the letter of the law - which is where you come in Nigel.

 

If it was me, I would have sorted it out with CRT at the first opportunity - but this is not about me - it's for those who find themselves up against officialdom - the genuine victims - and what they can do about it?

Unfortunately it's probably the case that CRT will continue to push the law to the limit and beyond unless people like Nigel take them on in court. It's about stopping the tide of control freakery. But ignore me because I'm paranoid...

[NigelMoore]

If it was me, I would have sorted it out with CRT at the first opportunity - but this is not about me - it's for those who find themselves up against officialdom - the genuine victims - and what they can do about it?

 

 

The recent history of use of these letters and the subsequent minority of cases where it ended up in court, can be found on the KANDA website:

 

http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/the-continuous-cruising-procedure-and-cc3-letters/

 

The more recent letters replacing these are thoroughly explained in the same website:

 

http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/crt-publish-enforcement-letters/

 

Directly answering your question as to what unfairly targetted boaters might do on receipt of such notices, both KANDA and the London Boaters website offer comprehensive assistance.

 

http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/what-to-do-if-you-get-enforcement-letters-from-bw-such-as-a-cc1-or-pre-cc1/

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjNsdvCttfNAhVHDsAKHe9sDxUQFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.londonboaters.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FAdviceaboutBWCC1etcletters.rtf&usg=AFQjCNFLn_bQ1P4aH1uAmopNm_m2kTYwuw&sig2=QLerHYGAmjlqQll3K_Ewbg

 

Note that responding to such notices is a must [whether old variety or new], if you want to keep out of trouble. If that which is asked of you is not onerous, then compliance and notification of that is advisable. If you believe that their demands relating to movement are unlawful and/or based on false information, then the above sites will help you with replying to the notices, and with making decisions about future steps to take.

 

The NBTA in London has assisted nearly 90 boaters over the past year or so, with advice in similar circumstances, all with the aim of avoiding escalation of the situation into court.

 

Do note that the requirement of s.17(4) is to give notice to boaters of any perceived breach of the statutory licence conditions, with time to remedy the breach. In most [though not all] instances, that is what BW/CaRT have done. For so long as genuine dispute arises – with appropriate engagement over the issues – then the clock should stop. It is all about trying to sort matters out.

 

[NigelMoore]

Unfortunately it's probably the case that CRT will continue to push the law to the limit and beyond unless people like Nigel take them on in court. It's about stopping the tide of control freakery. But ignore me because I'm paranoid...

 

Just in case any imprecise waffling on my part has obscured what I have been trying to get across – I am saying that insofar as the law requires notice to be sent before any revocation of a licence, explaining what breach of the statutory licence conditions needs a remedy and giving time to do so, then BW/CaRT have mostly been acting in accordance with that, impressions to the contrary from their FoI response to Allan notwithstanding.

 

So for the majority of cases where existing licences have been revoked, on the available evidence CaRT have given the required s.17(4) notice, so that no grounds exist for taking them to court over acting unlawfully respecting that. I see no evidence that they "continue to push the law to the limit and beyond" in this particular respect. Whether the demands in any notice respecting CC guidelines are lawful or not is of course a separate subject.

 

[NigelMoore]

. . . you seem to have a good grounding in the letter of the law . . .

 

I would really like to think that I am about more than the letter of the law. Obviously perhaps, that is what comes across here, because I mostly respond on such points for the benefit of my own developing understanding. However I would point out that when asked, soon after the final Appeal Court victory against BW over my s.8’s, to give talks on related topics at an NBTA meeting, I steered the final talk [“What the judgment means to boaters”] firmly in the direction of boater responsibilities in acting within the spirit of the law, and in mutual co-operation regardless of law.

 

I had occasion therein to quote from Bagehot's "The English Constitution", where he claims that [effectively] we get the sort of government we deserve - i.e. as I understand him, the degree to which we act as a mutually supportive society dictates the degree to which control over self-destructive elements in society becomes needful.

 

The more considerate we are of each other by reason of desire/training rather than because of law and compulsion, the less reason for laws and powers of compulsion to be sought by the rulers.

 

The earliest Christian communities, upon whose writings [and the earlier still Mosaic law] Alfred the Great based the foundation of our common law/constitution, were essentially without a governing law [other than the laws of their own country of residence]. It is how they were exhorted to behave in light of that freedom that is of most importance to all of us, if we prefer to have less “letter of the law”.

[bassplayer]

Just in case any imprecise waffling on my part has obscured what I have been trying to get across – I am saying that insofar as the law requires notice to be sent before any revocation of a licence, explaining what breach of the statutory licence conditions needs a remedy and giving time to do so, then BW/CaRT have mostly been acting in accordance with that, impressions to the contrary from their FoI response to Allan notwithstanding.

So for the majority of cases where existing licences have been revoked, on the available evidence CaRT have given the required s.17(4) notice, so that no grounds exist for taking them to court over acting unlawfully respecting that. I see no evidence that they "continue to push the law to the limit and beyond" in this particular respect. Whether the demands in any notice respecting CC guidelines are lawful or not is of course a separate subject.

 

Ok, to put it another way. If nobody bothered taking CRT (or any other large organisation) to task in any respect, what do you think would happen?

 

Putting P takers aside. The point is that large organisations know that most people will cave in at the first threat or warning because they are afraid to take them on due to the potential stress, time and funding. David vs Goliath if you like.

 

Although you say you see no evidence that CRT may be pushing the law to the limit or beyond. I'm not sure if you have taken into account the laws on causing unreasonable distress and harassment to individuals. Maybe that's for someone who has legal expertise in that area.

 

I know many see you as a leading light when it comes to helping genuine victims of the process get justice. On the other hand, some may read your verbose posts and be even more afraid to take CRT on themselves because they are not as well read as yourself. Of course it is our choice at the end of the day.

 

As much as I believe we should follow the letter of the law (because otherwise there would be anachy), it's naive to believe it's there to protect the layman. As we all know, money buys control.

[NigelMoore]

Ok, to put it another way. If nobody bothered taking CRT (or any other large organisation) to task in any respect, what do you think would happen?

 

Putting P takers aside. The point is that large organisations know that most people will cave in at the first threat or warning because they are afraid to take them on due to the potential stress, time and funding. David vs Goliath if you like.

 

Although you say you see no evidence that CRT may be pushing the law to the limit or beyond. I'm not sure if you have taken into account the laws on causing unreasonable distress and harassment to individuals. Maybe that's for someone who has legal expertise in that area.

 

I know many see you as a leading light when it comes to helping genuine victims of the process get justice. On the other hand, some may read your verbose posts and be even more afraid to take CRT on themselves because they are not as well read as yourself. Of course it is our choice at the end of the day.

 

As much as I believe we should follow the letter of the law (because otherwise there would be anachy), it's naive to believe it's there to protect the layman. As we all know, money buys control.

 

If nobody took CaRT to task, then they would continue to increase rules under threat of extreme sanctions as they pleased. So they should be taken to task whenever they overstep the proper bounds of their authority – but as I have endeavoured to point out, in this particular case over s.17(4) notices, I don’t see that they have.

 

It is vital to get things right when levelling criticism, otherwise the validity of all the criticism becomes questionable. There are many areas where CaRT are clearly acting beyond their powers; it weakens the case against their actions in those areas, if everything they do or do not do is criticised even when justifiable. There is absolutely no need to over-egg the situation after all, it is quite bad enough.

 

So far as legitimate areas of complaint are concerned, if my “verbose posts” give rise to alarm at the idea of challenging CaRT, then that is a good thing. It would be irresponsible for me to disguise the real dangers involved – as I have repeatedly said: being right will not guarantee victory by itself. Your last sentence can be applied to “justice” as much as to “control”.

 

I do not seek thereby to discourage action against wrong-doing; quite the opposite – but everyone should appreciate fully just what is involved in doing so before making that choice. Yes, you are correct that individuals [and even organisations] tend to “cave in at the first threat”, and CaRT play heavily on this for success in so much of what they do wrong. That is a fact of life. Those prepared to challenge them must be ready and equipped to do so. Remember that there is a price paid [and money is the least of that] even if you win – just be prepared to pay.

 

[with apologies for verbosity]

[bassplayer]

If nobody took CaRT to task, then they would continue to increase rules under threat of extreme sanctions as they pleased. So they should be taken to task whenever they overstep the proper bounds of their authority – but as I have endeavoured to point out, in this particular case over s.17(4) notices, I don’t see that they have.

It is vital to get things right when levelling criticism, otherwise the validity of all the criticism becomes questionable. There are many areas where CaRT are clearly acting beyond their powers; it weakens the case against their actions in those areas, if everything they do or do not do is criticised even when justifiable. There is absolutely no need to over-egg the situation after all, it is quite bad enough.

So far as legitimate areas of complaint are concerned, if my “verbose posts” give rise to alarm at the idea of challenging CaRT, then that is a good thing. It would be irresponsible for me to disguise the real dangers involved – as I have repeatedly said: being right will not guarantee victory by itself. Your last sentence can be applied to “justice” as much as to “control”.

I do not seek thereby to discourage action against wrong-doing; quite the opposite – but everyone should appreciate fully just what is involved in doing so before making that choice. Yes, you are correct that individuals [and even organisations] tend to “cave in at the first threat”, and CaRT play heavily on this for success in so much of what they do wrong. That is a fact of life. Those prepared to challenge them must be ready and equipped to do so. Remember that there is a price paid [and money is the least of that] even if you win – just be prepared to pay.

[with apologies for verbosity]

Lol...Ok, well I didn't mean to use the word 'verbose' in a insulting way but I am a firm believer that the more complicated something is, the more chance there is that someone is hiding the truth (not saying you are BTW). The legal process seems that way sometimes. It must take a good judge to see through it. The truth is the only thing I'm interested in (although sometimes I wonder if I'm climbing a mountain trying to get to it).

 

The point is that it shouldn't be so difficult to achieve the 'right' outcome, or get proper justice. The more the law becomes an ass the more chance there is that the layman will override it. When you say, being right will not justify victory, doesn't that just sum up how much the law is an ass already?

[NigelMoore]

The point is that it shouldn't be so difficult to achieve the 'right' outcome, or get proper justice. The more the law becomes an ass the more chance there is that the layman will override it. When you say, being right will not justify victory, doesn't that just sum up how much the law is an ass already?

 

Being right would justify victory; what I have said is that it does not guarantee it.

 

When people call the law an ass, they are most usually referring to its administration and interpretation rather than to the legislation itself. As that is necessarily conducted by mere mortals, it is unrealistic to expect that human frailties, motivations, biases and persuasions can be eradicated from the process.

 

On the whole, British jurisprudence is about as good as these things can be – but yes, some horrific miscarriages of justice and nonsensical decisions are made with depressing regularity, and even where a non-partisan judge is presiding, often the most learned and eloquent barrister will prevail in persuasion, regardless of rights and wrongs.

 

You have to be prepared to climb to the top of the jurisprudential tree to overturn some of the absurdities, and even then you are at the mercy of their choice whether to bother with you or not. I agree it should not be all so difficult, but that's life innit? [hope I got the colloquialism correct]

 

As to my verbosity - I can take criticism without feeling insulted; just try to be gentle with me when indulging in it.

 

[bassplayer]

You have to be prepared to climb to the top of the jurisprudential tree to overturn some of the absurdities, and even then you are at the mercy of their choice whether to bother with you or not.

 

The whole jurisprudential tree and legal process is dependant on public trust. When that breaks down, other methods to overturn the absurdities start to take place (as history has shown). I believe the surprise Brexit vote was partly born out of a protest against the way democracy has been highjacked by the elite since we joined the EU in 1975.

 

Anyway, I realise this has gone way off topic, although very interesting.

[MtB]

 

Being right would justify victory; what I have said is that it does not guarantee it.

 

When people call the law an ass, they are most usually referring to its administration and interpretation rather than to the legislation itself. As that is necessarily conducted by mere mortals, it is unrealistic to expect that human frailties, motivations, biases and persuasions can be eradicated from the process.

 

On the whole, British jurisprudence is about as good as these things can be – but yes, some horrific miscarriages of justice and nonsensical decisions are made with depressing regularity, and even where a non-partisan judge is presiding, often the most learned and eloquent barrister will prevail in persuasion, regardless of rights and wrongs.

 

You have to be prepared to climb to the top of the jurisprudential tree to overturn some of the absurdities, and even then you are at the mercy of their choice whether to bother with you or not. I agree it should not be all so difficult, but that's life innit? [hope I got the colloquialism correct]

 

As to my verbosity - I can take criticism without feeling insulted; just try to be gentle with me when indulging in it.

 

 

 

Point of order M'Nigel, I respectfully suggest the korrekt colloquialism would be "but thats life innit!"

 

Punctuation is wellcrucial, innit!

[NigelMoore]

 

 

Point of order M'Nigel, I respectfully suggest the korrekt colloquialism would be "but thats life innit!"

 

Punctuation is wellcrucial, innit!

Ahh - so it is a quote I should have been acknowledging, instead of a presumptuous adoption of the vocabulary?

 

Much obliged; this second language thing gets tricky betimes.

[MtB]

welltricky...

[NigelMoore]

Only just noticed - was it the apostrophe in "that's" that was misplaced in vulgar usage?

[Horace42]

Do note that the requirement of s.17(4) is to give notice to boaters of any perceived breach of the statutory licence conditions, with time to remedy the breach. In most [though not all] instances, that is what BW/CaRT have done. For so long as genuine dispute arises – with appropriate engagement over the issues – then the clock should stop. It is all about trying to sort matters out.

 

Thanks Nigel. Well I did ask.

The alleged verbosity of you posts is surpassed here by the brevity of your reply to my question.

You give innocent looking links to pages of useful info to complete the story. That kept me out of mischief for a few hours.

Purely from my personal perspective, as an EOG home moorer, I am not affected by all this CC stuff other than time limits at visitors moorings.

I have read through the links and am amazed at the amount of 'paperwork' that's been generated although not surprised at the need for it.

But the advice and guidance to deal with the issue seems to support my general experience that enforcement is a last resort that arises if basic steps are not taken to regularise a situation to comply with the rules - the letter of the law so to speak - where you can be a complete novice, because the 'rules' get spelt out to you as you go from the outset with enough time to comply.

One thing I did not see though, in the links or elsewhere, is the actual mechanism by which CRT 'deliver' these notices. Is it literally by hand by someone to you personally at your boat wherever you happen to be moored - if they know where you are - logically the place you are accused of overstaying..... I just wonder.

Thanks for your help.

[NigelMoore]

One thing I did not see though, in the links or elsewhere, is the actual mechanism by which CRT 'deliver' these notices. Is it literally by hand by someone to you personally at your boat wherever you happen to be moored - if they know where you are - logically the place you are accused of overstaying..... I just wonder.

 

This is answered fairly comprehensively in the 1983 Act: -

 

"17.— (l) All notices authorised or required to be served on any person by or under this Act shall be in writing.

 

(2) Any notice such as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section may be served—

 

( a ) by delivering it to the person upon whom it is to be served or by leaving it at his proper address or by sending it by post to him at that address; or

 

( b ) if the person is a body corporate, by serving it in accordance with paragraph (a) of this subsection on the secretary or clerk of that body; or

 

( c ) if the person is a partnership, by serving it in accordance with paragraph (a) of this subsection on a partner or a person having the control or management of the partnership business; or

 

( d ) if in the case of a notice relating to a vessel the name and address of the person upon whom the notice is to be served cannot after reasonable inquiry be ascertained, by exhibiting it in a conspicuous position on or near the vessel; or . . ."

 

Sub-sections (3) & (4) finesse some details.

 

If the vessel is licensed or registered, then the latest address for service will be available to CaRT; if out of date, and the boat cannot be physically located, then it obviously has moved on from where it was recorded as 'overstaying' and has thus complied with the CC requirements anyway!

 

It is worth noting that where notices cannot be posted or hand delivered, they can be left on or near the vessel, so that this need for delivery in no way justifies violation of the strictures under s.7(2)( b ).

[MtB]

Only just noticed - was it the apostrophe in "that's" that was misplaced in vulgar usage?

 

 

I think the apostrophe is a punctuation mark generally ignored in vulgar usage, as is the question mark. In my suggested korrection you'll note I replaced your question mark with an exclamation mark. This is generally considered more korrect.

 

I used to frequent the "Pigs' Nose Inn" down in East Prawle, Cornwall occasionally (to see Wishbone Ash, if you remember them!) Their random use of the appostrophe in various signage led to some very long and heated debates at the bar, mostly fueled by their most excellent beer drawn from barrels set up behind the bar...

[NigelMoore]

Live and learn. Thanks MtB.

[NigelMoore]

I should add to my previous posting quoting the alternatives for service of notices, that for a long time now, electronic service has been approved where alternatives have failed.

 

In 2009 an injunction was allowed to be served via Twitter, because the defendant was only known by his ‘twitter handle’. In 2011 a County Court allowed service of a Court order via Facebook, and then in 2012 the Ako v TFS High Court claim was permitted to be served via Facebook.

 

More recent analyses by some legal firms have argued that there is no basis in English law for this, but they are a bit weak, and I strongly suspect that demonstrating service of a CaRT notice by email/twitter/facebook whatever, would be found acceptable by any court.

[Jerra]

I should add to my previous posting quoting the alternatives for service of notices, that for a long time now, electronic service has been approved where alternatives have failed.

 

In 2009 an injunction was allowed to be served via Twitter, because the defendant was only known by his ‘twitter handle’. In 2011 a County Court allowed service of a Court order via Facebook, and then in 2012 the Ako v TFS High Court claim was permitted to be served via Facebook.

 

More recent analyses by some legal firms have argued that there is no basis in English law for this, but they are a bit weak, and I strongly suspect that demonstrating service of a CaRT notice by email/twitter/facebook whatever, would be found acceptable by any court.

How can it be guaranteed the person has received it? I can understand a message on email saying the email has been read but knowing nothing about the other methods I don't know.

 

Surely if there is no proof of it being received it isn't really an acceptable way to do things in a system which is supposed to be legally unbiased and fair.

[Paul C]

How can it be guaranteed the person has received it? I can understand a message on email saying the email has been read but knowing nothing about the other methods I don't know.

 

Surely if there is no proof of it being received it isn't really an acceptable way to do things in a system which is supposed to be legally unbiased and fair.

 

Your version of fair though.

 

Why need there be any guarantee of receipt? Surely sending is good enough. The burden of proof that it be received would be too high. For example let's take a simple letter sent through the post. 99.9% or whatever it is, of mail, gets delivered. For a sender to prove its receipt, would entail greater expense (tracking signed for post) and even then is no GUARANTEE - the recipient could simply say that someone else signed for it instead and he never saw it. To receive a guarantee would require the receipient to basically admit that they received it. Thus, an easy get-out would be to simply lie and say you never received it, even if you did - case closed.

 

The law quite rightly presumes that an item of post sent, is deemed to have been received.