Jump to content

Waterways Acts


cobaltcodd

Featured Posts

I should have said "mandatory licences" my mistake. Or "licences as we know them" ?

 

Were the voluntary licences subject to statututory conditions like the ones we have now ?

 

 

First point: yes, saying “mandatory licences” would have met the situation.

 

Second point: no, of course not; not if you are talking of statutory conditions regulating issue of the licence; the licences being voluntary arrangements, they were subject to contractual conditions only. Use of the licensed boat remained, however, as is the situation with mandatory licences, subject to statutory conditions of such use.

 

So use of a boat licensed voluntarily, was subject to all the byelaws in force regarding use of boats on the canal. Whether licensed or not, breach of the byelaws governing use of the waterway would make you liable to punishment for the criminal offence.

 

In fact, given that the company had no obligation to issue the licence, the option existed - where it does NOT exist with the BW mandatory licences - to make issue of the licence subject to whatever conditions they wanted. A customer could agree to that or not – he was free to dispense with the licence, and, where travelling far afield, negotiate the minefield of tolls as and when they arose.

 

So although such conditions cannot be attached to issue of a CaRT pleasure boat licence, they could be to a contractual licence. The company would have been entitled to revoke the voluntary licence if the terms were breached.

 

The obverse of the licence I posted up, is entitled “Memorandum of Agreement” between the company and the boat owner, and begins: “Whereas the Licensee has applied for a license to place, keep and use one pleasure boat on the Company’s Grand Western Canal: . . . It is therefore agreed between the parties hereto as follows, viz. :-”

 

Nothing could more clearly demonstrate the contractual nature of the licence, as contrasted with the mandatory licence under the 1976 Byelaw.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enforcement officers only talk of breaking the terms and conditions, and renewing a licence by phone you will be told your licence is issued under the 1962 transport act, this is like a house of cards, the minute this is challenged in court the whole thing will collapse . . .

 

We need to be precise as to exactly what would be challenged in court.

 

In strict accordance with the point I believe you to be making, the challenge would arise if a boat licence was revoked for failure to adhere to any non-statutory conditions of the licence.

 

In other words, you would have [say] a Home Mooring; you would have up to date insurance, and you would have a current valid BSSC. Regardless of that, CaRT revoke your licence because you have, according to them, breached a term of the licence that demands you engage in a continuously cruising pattern in line with whatever their current paradigm insists on. An Andy Wingfield scenario, in other words.

 

In such a case, the court would be asked to decide whether CaRT were entitled to revoke the licence for such a reason.

 

If CaRT used only s.43 of the 1962 Transport Act to justify revocation of the licence on the grounds that they can make use of the waterways subject to whatever conditions they wished, then in my firm opinion they would simply have to fail. Unless the 1962 can somehow be construed as over-riding the 1995 Act, the case would be lost.

 

It would not even be necessary for an opponent to argue that CaRT could not, under the 1962 Act, impose whatever conditions they wished; the relevant question would be – does breach of that condition permit revocation of the licence? To that, there can be only one answer – no.

 

Let us not forget that there ARE conditions of use of the waterways by boats, enshrined in byelaws, and that any breach brings a penalty. It is simply that, in the present context, the penalty does not embrace revocation of the licence.

 

So – a CaRT failure would not necessarily decide the extent of the 1962 Act, although I believe that a decision on the extent of the 1962 Act would have to lead to failure on the licence revocation also.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didnt agree to the terms and conditions on my last licence renewal anyway, I made it very clear at the time, which sent the customer services phone operator into meltdown, but nothing has happened yet, the universe hasn't imploded, I'm guessing they just ticked the box anyway.

 

Similar thread here, http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=86258&hl=+on+my +last +licence +renewal&page=1

 

See post Nos 52, 53 & 68

Edited by Ray T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to be an elephant in the room.

 

It appears CaRT will provide a licence even if you don't agree to the T's & C's. However, if you do agree to the licence T's & C's you are agreeing that they can revoke your licence for serious breech of your agreement with them.clapping.gif

 

I wonder if CaRT has ever refused a licence because of non agreement to T's & C's. I wonder if CaRT has ever revoked a licence due to serious breech of T's & C's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Tony Dunkley and Tadworth case never got to that point. CRT won the Andy Wingfield case.

 

They DID all get to that point, insofar as the boat licence was revoked/refused for alleged failure to comply with non-statutory T&C’s. What did not happen was getting to the stage of arguing over it in court, in respect of Tony D and Tadworth. Only the Wingfield case ended up in court.

 

As to that, CaRT did not “win” the case against Wingfield in the terms suggested – i.e. they did not obtain a court ruling that they were entitled to revoke boat licences for breach of T&C’s.

 

The ‘Defence’ team did not dispute the grounds for revoking the licence as a matter of law, they disputed the facts as to whether he had complied with CC’ing rules, and whether, where any dispute over facts arose, Article 8 of the HRA was engaged.

 

The judge believed that E.O. Garner’s version of the facts was preferable to Wingfield’s version of the facts. On that basis he granted the injunction to have the boat removed from CaRT’s waterways.

 

As Ms Barry of Shoosmiths had said: “This is a Part 8 claim. It could be determined today on that issue. In relation to whether or not the Defendant’s boat had moved sufficiently, the Claimants set out their case. The Claimants submit it is for the Defendant to have provided evidence in rebuttal. He could provide recent logs, and having gone through this process on this basis before, he is well aware of what is required to rebut that. He could have provided that in his defence before today or at court to decide.”

 

Quite apart from the fact that a County Court judgment sets no precedent; quite aside from the fact that the injunction was granted on the basis of a determination of facts alone, the judgment never even considered any arguments as to the ability to revoke licences for breach of T&C’s – because no such arguments were offered by Miss Easty in the first place, and would not have been considered in a Part 8 case anyway; certainly not in circumstances where the designated representatives had not even filed an Acknowledgement of Service with a Defence.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They DID all get to that point, insofar as the boat licence was revoked/refused for alleged failure to comply with non-statutory T&C’s. What did not happen was getting to the stage of arguing over it in court, in respect of Tony D and Tadworth. Only the Wingfield case ended up in court.

 

As to that, CaRT did not “win” the case against Wingfield in the terms suggested – i.e. they did not obtain a court ruling that they were entitled to revoke boat licences for breach of T&C’s.

 

The ‘Defence’ team did not dispute the grounds for revoking the licence as a matter of law, they disputed the facts as to whether he had complied with CC’ing rules, and whether, where any dispute over facts arose, Article 8 of the HRA was engaged.

 

The judge believed that E.O. Garner’s version of the facts was preferable to Wingfield’s version of the facts. On that basis he granted the injunction to have the boat removed from CaRT’s waterways.

 

As Ms Barry of Shoosmiths had said: “This is a Part 8 claim. It could be determined today on that issue. In relation to whether or not the Defendant’s boat had moved sufficiently, the Claimants set out their case. The Claimants submit it is for the Defendant to have provided evidence in rebuttal. He could provide recent logs, and having gone through this process on this basis before, he is well aware of what is required to rebut that. He could have provided that in his defence before today or at court to decide.”

 

Quite apart from the fact that a County Court judgment sets no precedent; quite aside from the fact that the injunction was granted on the basis of a determination of facts alone, the judgment never even considered any arguments as to the ability to revoke licences for breach of T&C’s – because no such arguments were offered by Miss Easty in the first place, and would not have been considered in a Part 8 case anyway; certainly not in circumstances where the designated representatives had not even filed an Acknowledgement of Service with a Defence.

 

 

Thanks for the clarification. The Wingfield case is obviously not brilliant for boaters who oppose CRT on similar issues, and rightly as you say didn't set a precedent, or argue on the terms under discussion here. BUT people are quoting side issues from eg BWB vs Geoff Mayers case regarding home mooring use, which has much the same validity. I think we all need to be careful with what are merely untested opinions; what are barely/vaguely relevant court cases; and what is actually useful in a robust debate or subsequent court case. Until a court case which pretty directly relates to these issues occurs, none of us really know how far CRT can use the 1962 Act to impose conditions and charges etc. Of course, the wording of the Act is mightily convenient for CRT and doesn't look brilliant for argumentative boaters, so CRT are going to look towards it as a solution to a number of its issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Tony Dunkley and Tadworth case never got to that point. CRT won the Andy Wingfield case.

 

After issuing a few Patrol Notices instructing me to "continue [your] journey", C&RT revoked the PBC for the boat I live on in early January 2014, initially citing non-compliance with Licence T&C's, specifically Conditions 2.1 and 3.1, with 'overstaying' thrown in for good measure.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

After issuing a few Patrol Notices instructing me to "continue [your] journey", C&RT revoked the PBC for the boat I live on in early January 2014, initially citing non-compliance with Licence T&C's, specifically Conditions 2.1 and 3.1, with 'overstaying' thrown in for good measure.

 

To be fair though, your case is a bit odd. Nevertheless, it never actually got to court, and the PBC/licence was reinstated after an amount of argument, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To be fair though, your case is a bit odd. Nevertheless, it never actually got to court, and the PBC/licence was reinstated after an amount of argument, right?

 

All C&RT's legal actions are a bit odd, and that's putting it mildly.

It DID get to Court, and the PBC was NOT 're-instated', so no, wrong !

 

The 2014 action against me went before a Judge in Nottingham on 4 July 2014 after I filed and served notice of intention to contest the Claim and a brief statement, which is availble to read on Scribd, courtesy of Nigel M.

 

The Judge accepted my argument that C&RT's Claim [the usual Declaratory and Injunctive Relief] should not go ahead under CPR Part 8 and gave me 3 weeks to file a Defence.

Coincidental with filing and serving the Defence, I submitted an application for a new PBC to C&RT, which they initially refused whilst at the same time, having had sight of the Defence, notifying the Court of their intention to Discontinue the action under CPR Part 38, following my refusal to agree to halting the proceedings by their preferred means of a Consent Order.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the Wingfield Case, does anyone know if the Statutory Demand on Richard Parry as CEO for CaRT regarding money owed to Andy Wingfield took place and if it was successful?

 

It was successful in that C&RT refunded all of the money they had siphoned out of his bank account post revoking his PBC and succeeding in evicting him from their waters.

On the other hand, it was a miserable failure in that the spoilsports paid up a day or two before I was to drive Andy down to Milton Keynes for him to serve the Stat. Demand on Parry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It was successful in that C&RT refunded all of the money they had siphoned out of his bank account post revoking his PBC and succeeding in evicting him from their waters.

On the other hand, it was a miserable failure in that the spoilsports paid up a day or two before I was to drive Andy down to Milton Keynes for him to serve the Stat. Demand on Parry.

Thanks for the heads up on this Tony.

 

It is a shame that CaRT, having agreed that they siphoned money out of Andy's account (or, as I am sure they would put it, withdrew money due to a clerical error), should take months and the threat of a Statutory Demand before repaying it.

 

***** Edited to add - thanks for picking this up

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what you are saying, but I maintain that the CC’ing debacle is not managing the waterways according to legislation or practical realities to begin with.

 

If a boat is causing a genuine problem, then the powers exist to deal with it promptly. The “complete dog’s breakfast” arises from efforts to achieve something never conceived of in the relevant legislation, with the only perceived means to enforce that being employment of a single, highly inappropriate and disproportionate power.

 

The solution lies more in re-education of the authority, not in the passage of yet more laws.

 

Trouble is, I have a cynical view of officialdom. It suits any organisation or corporate body to operate like this, funded by the tax-payer with a captive audience. It enables layers of box-ticking jobsworths supervised by even more layers of managers - that's where the money goes. Money left over (if any) goes to the physical infrastructure. Saving money by reducing overheads is a non-runner.

I can't see CRT volunteering to be re-educated in anything that improves their efficiency in terms of benefits for boaters if it requires a reduction in staff and restructure of CRT - unless it is forced on them by legislation - the latter perhaps by pressure by enough of us on our MP's if CRT don't behave themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For instance claiming that the 1962 transport act allows them to make their own licence conditions, when licences were not invented until 1974 ! Why should boaters have to fund challenges to pure nonsense like that ?

 

So what would you call those plastic encased paper things some of us were paying BW for before 1974, and dusplaying on our boats? :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So what would you call those plastic encased paper things some of us were paying BW for before 1974, and dusplaying on our boats? wacko.png

 

I would call them what they were, . . . . non-statutory, or perhaps more accurately, non-compulsory Licences, which were offered by BWB as an alternative to paying tolls or for the use of separate locks !

The optional Licence idea had also been extended to some of the carrying boats that were still operating back in the 1960's. Somewhat strangely the scheme was confined to Willow Wren, who could buy an annual commercial licence for £25 per boat instead of running a Tolls account with Leeds office.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would call them what they were, . . . . non-statutory, or perhaps more accurately, non-compulsory Licences, which were offered by BWB as an alternative to paying tolls or for the use of separate locks !

So they were still licences, then?

 

The optional Licence idea had also been extended to some of the carrying boats that were still operating back in the 1960's. Somewhat strangely the scheme was confined to Willow Wren, who could buy an annual commercial licence for £25 per boat instead of running a Tolls account with Leeds office.

Out of interest, how did Blue Line operate? I may be wrong but thought they had the same deal as Willow Wren?

 

Did you happen to read post #43 ?

Yes, but I read unread posts from the top downwards, and must admit I sometimes manage to reply to something before reading all subsequent posts after this, particularly if I'm using a phone on a slow connection, and trying to process all unread posts since I last look becomes a bit of a faff.

 

I think the challenge is valid, I think few people purchasing something like this back then had read the letter of the law to the extent that they realised buying it was "optional".

 

(I have no idea why I have this licence, never having owned the boat!)

 

BexhillLicence.jpg

 

Edited by alan_fincher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

All C&RT's legal actions are a bit odd, and that's putting it mildly.

It DID get to Court, and the PBC was NOT 're-instated', so no, wrong !

 

The 2014 action against me went before a Judge in Nottingham on 4 July 2014 after I filed and served notice of intention to contest the Claim and a brief statement, which is availble to read on Scribd, courtesy of Nigel M.

 

The Judge accepted my argument that C&RT's Claim [the usual Declaratory and Injunctive Relief] should not go ahead under CPR Part 8 and gave me 3 weeks to file a Defence.

Coincidental with filing and serving the Defence, I submitted an application for a new PBC to C&RT, which they initially refused whilst at the same time, having had sight of the Defence, notifying the Court of their intention to Discontinue the action under CPR Part 38, following my refusal to agree to halting the proceedings by their preferred means of a Consent Order.

The previous comment was a slightly inaccurate shorthand; it is not going into court that matters, but rather whether it reaches a judgement. Many civil cases are withdrawn following informal review of both sides (sometimes with a judge more interested in resolution than principle) or after an out-of-court settlement. As a result the case cannot set precedent, other than to act as guidance to those contemplating similar action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Out of interest, how did Blue Line operate? I may be wrong but thought they had the same deal as Willow Wren?

 

 

Yes, you are wrong. As I said above, the £25 per year Carrying Licence deal was limited to Willow Wren only.

Blue Line's own 3 x pairs, and mine as the regular Winter time sub-contractor, had to fork out toll payments on tonnage for every load we ploughed round the Atherstone pound with.

 

Michael Streat described it as " honorary unpaid dredging", and having to pay BWB for the privilege of doing it didn't go down at all well with us.

Not long after the traffic ceased, the Atherstone pound was treated to the extensive dredging it had needed for years, but which BWB had been able to get away with not doing, thanks to the regular passage of loaded boats.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trouble is, I have a cynical view of officialdom. It suits any organisation or corporate body to operate like this, funded by the tax-payer with a captive audience. It enables layers of box-ticking jobsworths supervised by even more layers of managers - that's where the money goes. Money left over (if any) goes to the physical infrastructure. Saving money by reducing overheads is a non-runner.

I can't see CRT volunteering to be re-educated in anything that improves their efficiency in terms of benefits for boaters if it requires a reduction in staff and restructure of CRT - unless it is forced on them by legislation - the latter perhaps by pressure by enough of us on our MP's if CRT don't behave themselves.

Sadly it is a fact of life in today's litigious society (another regrettable US import!) a lot of organisations have had to put an increasing proportion of their turnover into the kind of overhead that you describe. On the other hand, many say the same thing about H&S but I, for one, do not regret the significant reduction in accidents that has resulted.

 

Ironically, it is the ability to sue (which leads to this overhead) which enables 'the little person' to defend their rights in the first place! I doubt whether many of us would appreciate a return to an autocratic world with no rights (note to May: keep your hands off HRA - sorry almost politics but before the Mods take action this is a comment on the social context of canals not a political polemic!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.