section 8 canning dock ?

[Sir Nibble]

I for one abide by the rules i have a cc licance because i beleive that its a rip off and waist of money to have a mooring on crt water for which im paying a fee to use (marina is diffrent) (you dont pay road tax then expect to have to pay to park on the road out side say a mates house for a week if you visiting do you?)

 

Again i move my boat every few weeks on the dot without fail i pay my licance in full and respect everyone who is on the canal.

 

At the same time im not a particular fan of crt i dont really like the way they act in some cases and dont belive they do things that could be seen as cost effective another reason that i pay as little as pos to them as they waist alot of money.

 

Its in some ways like politicians we all know they have a job to do but we mostly ant going to agree with how they do things!

 

Ok yes my claim might be a bit high fenced but sit and think about it for a second do you really agree with what they do or who you prefer them to do things diffrent? They may treat me with respect and understanding if i have a problem only having a cc licance but im not going to try and test it to find out, would you???

A handsome retraction, but the main subject of your post is way off topic. I think it is safe to say there is a fair amount of suspicion of CaRT about and not without good reason but most people have not had bad experiences. Rather like the police, most have no contact with them, some have negative experiences.

[Graham Davis]

I for one abide by the rules i have a cc licance because i beleive that its a rip off and waist of money to have a mooring on crt water for which im paying a fee to use (marina is diffrent) (you dont pay road tax then expect to have to pay to park on the road out side say a mates house for a week if you visiting do you?)

 

Again i move my boat every few weeks on the dot without fail i pay my licance in full and respect everyone who is on the canal.

 

At the same time im not a particular fan of crt i dont really like the way they act in some cases and dont belive they do things that could be seen as cost effective another reason that i pay as little as pos to them as they waist alot of money.

 

Its in some ways like politicians we all know they have a job to do but we mostly ant going to agree with how they do things!

 

Ok yes my claim might be a bit high fenced but sit and think about it for a second do you really agree with what they do or who you prefer them to do things diffrent? They may treat me with respect and understanding if i have a problem only having a cc licance but im not going to try and test it to find out, would you???

 

Really? When did they start issuing those?

Must have been in the last couple of days!

[Jrtm]

 

Really? When did they start issuing those?

Must have been in the last couple of days!

???

[Jim Riley]

???

That's why it's known as analworld sometimes.

[Alan de Enfield]

???

 

You do not have a home mooring and you have a licence

I have a home mooring and I have a licence

 

We both pay the same, we both have identical licences.

 

There are two routes to having a licence - you have taken one route, I the other.

 

You do NOT have a CC licence - there is no such thing.

[Graham Davis]

Quite Alan, and it keeps be stated on here, but it appears that people do not learn.

[Arthur Marshall]

Quite Alan, and it keeps be stated on here, but it appears that people do not learn.

But it's still got buggerall to do with the topic!

[Sir Nibble]

And it's nit picking for it's own sake. Every one knows what the guy means.

[Alan de Enfield]

And it's nit picking for it's own sake. Every one knows what the guy means.

 

Amps per hour !! (you know what I mean ?)

[Sir Nibble]

But it wasn't amps per hour was it. It wasn't a corruption of an international standard, it was the use of a common term still widely used by boaters not obsessed with how far is far enough. My last word on the matter, this needs to get back on topic.

[matty40s]

Love them, chocolate nuts and caramellytoffeecrunch.

☺

[Geo]

 

You do not have a home mooring and you have a licence

I have a home mooring and I have a licence

 

We both pay the same, we both have identical licences.

 

There are two routes to having a licence - you have taken one route, I the other.

 

You do NOT have a CC licence - there is no such thing.

 

In one respect you are I believe correct but in another not quite. You have a licence on which application you have made a declaration as to having a Home Mooring for your boat, part 6 of the application, therefore different conditions and different legal aspects apply to you and your boat from that of a CCer. A CCer has a licence on which in the part 6 of the application the box marked 'The boat cruises continuously' has been ticked. The result is that you both have a licence but because the different legal aspects apply the two licences are different. You have a licence that applies to a boater with a home mooring and the CCer has a licence that applies to a boater who continuously cruises.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Geo

[Naughty Cal]

I for one abide by the rules i have a cc licance because i beleive that its a rip off and waist of money to have a mooring on crt water for which im paying a fee to use (marina is diffrent) (you dont pay road tax then expect to have to pay to park on the road out side say a mates house for a week if you visiting do you?)

 

Again i move my boat every few weeks on the dot without fail i pay my licance in full and respect everyone who is on the canal.

 

At the same time im not a particular fan of crt i dont really like the way they act in some cases and dont belive they do things that could be seen as cost effective another reason that i pay as little as pos to them as they waist alot of money.

 

Its in some ways like politicians we all know they have a job to do but we mostly ant going to agree with how they do things!

 

Ok yes my claim might be a bit high fenced but sit and think about it for a second do you really agree with what they do or who you prefer them to do things diffrent? They may treat me with respect and understanding if i have a problem only having a cc licance but im not going to try and test it to find out, would you???

Something not quite right with that statement

[gaggle]

I hate to get back on topic and spoil everyone's fun, but it does seem that the owner was told all this in May and was then asked to provide a valid hull survey for Planet, including ultrasonic hull plate thickness readings, and evidence that it was insured.. And that the boat would be removed. It's now September. That the owner is STILL surprised that he owes any money probably just proves he's a true Liverpudlian...

Read the sites on the link re the survey insurance etc , story in paper stated CRT removed vessel because of unpaid berting/mooring fee,s , not sure but I think you will find others have explained in great detail that CRT have no legal right to remove take possession of vessel for unpaid debts.

As for your true Liverpudlian remark , is it the boat that's the maggot .

[gaggle]

Well honey, he wanted to ask it too. As is his wont. And who mentioned 10 boats, you do make stuff up my lovely.

BTW I'm certain there were only 3 more boats each way when I went in and out. Boats set off out at 8am and in at 1pm, on the same day. Except Tuesdays.

Edited cos I can, with Kisses on the bottom!or would you prefer a Goose?

CRT issued new rules to allow up to 10 boats down the locks , up from the previous limit of six per day , also the passage through the assisted bridges times , not saying that ten do go in or out daily but they now will allow that number , mooring up between maghull " bridge 10 ? " and Stanley locks also had changes made.

[Mike Todd]

Read the sites on the link re the survey insurance etc , story in paper stated CRT removed vessel because of unpaid berting/mooring fee,s , not sure but I think you will find others have explained in great detail that CRT have no legal right to remove take possession of vessel for unpaid debts.

As for your true Liverpudlian remark , is it the boat that's the maggot .

Since we are talking about former Liverpool docks, do we know under what legislation they are operated?

[Jim Riley]

CRT issued new rules to allow up to 10 boats down the locks , up from the previous limit of six per day , also the passage through the assisted bridges times , not saying that ten do go in or out daily but they now will allow that number , mooring up between maghull " bridge 10 ? " and Stanley locks also had changes made.

Fairy Nuff. Popular enough to justify it. I was advised to moor near Bridge 10 not 9 because its quieter. Apparently bridges 6 and 9 are controlled because of a nearby hospital, constant access required. As I read in other posts, if you want to stop on your way in, before Stanley top lock, Litherland service point is secure, tesco adjacent too. Other boaters down there were saying 7 days isn't enough to see the sights, certainly agree although could only stay 2. We did the round trip on the Mersey Ferry, Great way to view Liverpool.

[Arthur Marshall]

Read the sites on the link re the survey insurance etc , story in paper stated CRT removed vessel because of unpaid berting/mooring fee,s , not sure but I think you will find others have explained in great detail that CRT have no legal right to remove take possession of vessel for unpaid debts.

As for your true Liverpudlian remark , is it the boat that's the maggot .

Sorry, forgot you couldn't take a joke. And intrigued that you believe everything you read in the paper.

What do you suggest is done with someone who moors their boat somewhere that charges mooring fees, and then doesn't pay them? And runs a business on an unsafe craft without valid licences from their unpaid for mooring?

I suspect if I told the guy I rent a mooring from that I wasn't going to pay him any more he'd hitch my boat to his tractor and hoick it out of the water and off his land, whether or not he had the legal right to do so.

[Tony Dunkley]

C&RT have declared their intention to remove the vessel ['Planet'- ex LV23] from Canning Dock, Liverpool, at 1500 this afternoon. and because it's a bit too big to be taken to their stolen boats storage facility [in Chester] on a low loader, they're having it towed to Fleetwood.

 

The owners/vessel have NOT been served with an S.8 Notice, and nor have C&RT obtained, or even attempted to obtain, a Debt Judgment against the owners/operators. An E-mail has been sent to Parry, copied to the 'legal team' (sic), drawing attention to the omissions and shortcomings in the process so far, and putting C&RT on notice that if they do proceed this afternoon, the owners of 'Planet' will be taking action to secure the return of the vessel, and seeking appropriate compensation/damages.

 

The process, and C&RT's high-handed and illegal conduct of it, is remarkably similar to the illegal seizure and removal of Leigh Ravenscroft's boat from the Trent at Newark in Jan. 2015, except in that this instant the removal costs will be very much higher, and C&RT are proposing to tow a vessel which they have expressed concerns as to the condition of, out of a sheltered dock and some 45 - 50 miles up the West coast.

 

Leaving aside any argument as to the rights or wrongs, or legality, of what C&RT are doing, you really do have to ask, . . . what do they use for brains when they're having a good day ?

[Mike Todd]

C&RT have declared their intention to remove the vessel ['Planet'- ex LV23] from Canning Dock, Liverpool, at 1500 this afternoon. and because it's a bit too big to be taken to their stolen boats storage facility [in Chester] on a low loader, they're having it towed to Fleetwood.

 

The owners/vessel have NOT been served with an S.8 Notice, and nor have C&RT obtained, or even attempted to obtain, a Debt Judgment against the owners/operators. An E-mail has been sent to Parry, copied to the 'legal team' (sic), drawing attention to the omissions and shortcomings in the process so far, and putting C&RT on notice that if they do proceed this afternoon, the owners of 'Planet' will be taking action to secure the return of the vessel, and seeking appropriate compensation/damages.

 

The process, and C&RT's high-handed and illegal conduct of it, is remarkably similar to the illegal seizure and removal of Leigh Ravenscroft's boat from the Trent at Newark in Jan. 2015, except in that this instant the removal costs will be very much higher, and C&RT are proposing to tow a vessel which they have expressed concerns as to the condition of, out of a sheltered dock and some 45 - 50 miles up the West coast.

 

Leaving aside any argument as to the rights or wrongs, or legality, of what C&RT are doing, you really do have to ask, . . . what do they use for brains when they're having a good day ?

Surely it depends on what legislation covers the docks? On another thread, Peel have quite a different context for dealing with boats not having permission than obtains on the CaRT canal network or the navigable rivers.

[Tony Dunkley]

Surely it depends on what legislation covers the docks? On another thread, Peel have quite a different context for dealing with boats not having permission than obtains on the CaRT canal network or the navigable rivers.

 

Peel Ports/Holdings don't own Canning Dock, or any of the other of the South Docks, . . . ownership was transferred to BW some years ago, so now it all belongs to C&RT.

I'm guessing that neither Canning Dock, nor any of the others, fall under the S.8 umbrella, being neither an "inland waterway" nor a "reservoir", as specified in S.8(1).

[Jerra]

Surely it depends on what legislation covers the docks? On another thread, Peel have quite a different context for dealing with boats not having permission than obtains on the CaRT canal network or the navigable rivers.

I must admit I was wondering about Tony's mention of S8 as the part of the act quoted on the Bridgewater thread makes no mention of such.

[David Mack]

 

I'm guessing that neither Canning Dock, nor any of the others, fall under the S.8 umbrella, being neither an "inland waterway" nor a "reservoir", as specified in S.8(1).

 

The BW Act 1983 defines "inland waterway" as "any canal or inland navigation belonging to or under the control of the Board and includes any works, land or premises belonging to or under the control of the Board and held or used by them in connection with such canal or inland navigation".

 

That is a pretty broad definition, so it would be hard to argue that Canning Dock is not included within the scope of an "inland waterway".

 

"Belonging to or under the control of the Board" also means that its not relevant that the docks have only fairly recently come under the ownership/control of BW/CRT, its who owns or controls them now that matters.

[Arthur Marshall]

Still haven't seen a suggestion about what should be done about an unsafe, unlicensed, unlawfully moored boat that the owner hasn't bothered to check, survey, insure or manage properly trading in a public area that two people had already fallen/jumped off. Presumably wait until it kills someone and then blame CRT for inaction.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

The BW Act 1983 defines "inland waterway" as "any canal or inland navigation belonging to or under the control of the Board and includes any works, land or premises belonging to or under the control of the Board and held or used by them in connection with such canal or inland navigation".

 

That is a pretty broad definition, so it would be hard to argue that Canning Dock is not included within the scope of an "inland waterway".

 

 

Within the brief and very limited correspondence between themselves and the owners, C&RT are putting considerable, even exclusive, emphasis on their contention that this vessel, and anyone going aboard without their permission is trespassing on their ''waterspace''.

I wonder which of the three options they will select to include "waterspace", . . . works, land or premises ?