Licencing a boat - MUST you own it?

[NigelMoore]

 

Now you're in danger of touching on an interesting point. CRT's insistence that the licence is terminated and re-applied for is ultra vires.

 

As has been pointed out, it's the boat that is licensed and not the owner.

 

It has yet to be legally challenged (so many transgressions, so little time) but the argument goes something along the lines of; the only reasons CRT can remove consent, i.e. the license, is for breach of Section 17 (4) of the 1995 Act and that through a well-defined and legally binding process. Therefore they cannot remove a license for a change of owner as the boat will presumably still have BSC and new insurance and satisfy, by default, Section 17 iii c.

 

Of course, the seller can remove the license for a refund (before they sell the boat) forcing the new owner to re-apply but that's not the same.

 

Have asserted all this, I would be very interested in Nigel Moore's take on the issue, and my argument.

 

With the caveat that I do not have the time to delve into this properly just now, you are at least broadly correct.

 

The 1976 byelaws place responsibility upon the registered owner or master of a boat with a pleasure boat licence for use of the vessel by others, so informing CaRT about any transfer is only to the benefit and protection of the transferor. I cannot recall any provisions demanding notice of change of ownership [but I have not double-checked the later legislation respecting that].

 

The 1971 Act makes it compulsory for the transferor to notify the Board of any transfer of a registered boat on river waterways, and upon receipt of such notice the registration certificate terminates, but the Board MUST then “without charge issue to the transferee a new pleasure boat certificate for the period for which the existing certificate is unexpired”.

 

Until such notice is given, the currently registered owner remains liable for any offences committed with the boat.

 

By way of comparison, the EA Order of 2012 provides that they MAY make it a requirement of the registration of a vessel that change of ownership is notified to the Agency by the transferor, but while the owner or master should notify the EA of any change in ownership, the responsibility for the use of the vessel etc is deemed to be the owner currently registered. So if you sell the boat without informing the EA, you can be stung for any breaches of byelaws etc, but the boat remains lawfully registered unless the EA have since activated s.8(2)( b ).

 

The new Middle Levels Bill has similar provisions if I recall correctly.

[Horace42]

If I sold my boat I assume CRT would hold me liable for compliance with the T & C's I agreed to when I applied for a license, until such time that the new owner obtained a license.

If for unknown reasons a license was not granted to the new owner, would I still be held liable until my license ran out - and perhaps still liable for renewing it,.

For practical reasons, if I had my sale money safely in the bank, should I be worried if events got out of hand and CRT got heavy handed and seized the boat.

[Jerra]

If I sold my boat I assume CRT would hold me liable for compliance with the T & C's I agreed to when I applied for a license, until such time that the new owner obtained a license.

If for unknown reasons a license was not granted to the new owner, would I still be held liable until my license ran out - and perhaps still liable for renewing it,.

For practical reasons, if I had my sale money safely in the bank, should I be worried if events got out of hand and CRT got heavy handed and seized the boat.

I thought the licence was no longer transferable so the moment you sell the boat, assuming that you can prove it is a genuine sale or have notified CRT you have sold it surely it is the purchasers responsibility.

[NigelMoore]

If I sold my boat I assume CRT would hold me liable for compliance with the T & C's I agreed to when I applied for a license, until such time that the new owner obtained a license.

If for unknown reasons a license was not granted to the new owner, would I still be held liable until my license ran out - and perhaps still liable for renewing it,.

For practical reasons, if I had my sale money safely in the bank, should I be worried if events got out of hand and CRT got heavy handed and seized the boat.

 

No. There is no requirement for notification of transfer under the licensing byelaws, only for the pleasure boat certificate [though I have not checked on subsequent legislation which might have altered that] - but once you have notified them of a transfer under the certificate scheme, your responsibility ceases; the transferee becomes responsible, whether or no they obtain a certificate [if not, they are the ones in breach of the law, not you.]

 

i cannot imagine that a notice of transfer of the licence could fail to insulate you from any breach of the byelaws by the transferee.

[matty40s]

The change in the boat licence at sale was brought in as a knee jerk reaction to try to find out new CC-rs as soon as possible.

The previous sell the boat with a licence meant that people could buy a boat, get down to London (or elsewhere) and have up to 11 months grace before having to comply/ sign t&c/ for enforcement to start.

[NigelMoore]

Further to my last, the 1983 Act provided that if the Board had any queries over who owned or controlled any boat at any particular time on any of the waterways over which they had control, they could write to the owner/master of record asking for updated information. Section 6(2): -

 

“Where, with a view to performing a function conferred on them by or under any enactment, the Board consider that they ought to have information as to the master or the owner, as the case may be, of any vessel which is or has been on an inland waterways or on a reservoir owned or managed by the Board, they may serve a notice on any person reasonably believed by them to be the master or owner, or to have been the master or owner at any date specified in the notice (which shall not be less than 14 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served) the following information:-

 

( a ) the name and address of any person whom the recipient of the notice believes to be the master or owner of the vessel, or to have been such master or owner at any date specified in the notice; or

( b ) the capacity in which such master has or takes command, charge, possession or management of the vessel, or had or took such command, charge, possession or management at any date specified in the notice; or

( c ) the nature of the interest in or control of the vessel of any such owner at any date specified in the notice.”

 

And in (4):-

 

“A notice shall not be served under this section on any person who, at the date of service, is no longer the master or owner of the vessel named or identified in the notice if more than six months have elapsed since the recipient ceased to be such owner or master.”

 

So that effectively covered the Board if there was any query over who was responsible for any offence committed with the vessel at any point in time, and limited their opportunity to get the relevant details to a six month time slot from any transfer or either ownership or responsibility. It effectively covered the lacunae in the byelaw provisions of some 6 years earlier.

 

The wording also serves to emphasise that the interests of the Board had to do with whoever was responsible for the boat, whether they were the owner or not.

[NigelMoore]

Reading through the 1983 Act yet again, it strikes me that, contrary [perhaps] to my previous idea that the additional “without lawful authority” clause in section 8 came about with reference to the relatively recent obligatory pleasure boat licence, it actually had reference directly to the lawful authority dealt with in the immediately preceding section 7, which was concerned with the public safety issues of any boat, whether on rivers or canals.

 

I suspect it remains arguable that lack of a licence may still be covered under the aegis of s.8, but certainly the direct references to boats being considered “without lawful authority” and hence a “relevant craft” for the purposes of s.8(2), are apparently only ever, in both the 1983 Act and the 1995 Act, relevant to boats presenting a danger to the use of the navigation by others.

 

It would follow then, that for such boats – whether on PRN waters or not, and whether licensed/registered or not – the legislation provided that these could be removed in the interests of public safety.

 

This understanding would remove a very large part of the Board’s argument that s.8 had anything to do with enforcing licensing/registering requirements [provisions for which were already in place from the moment the relevant obligations for licensing/registering were legislated for].

[Bewildered]

Interesting question, we are on EA waters and when we first got this boat Chris did the form filling and found EA would not allow joint ownership so being the smart girl she is, filled in the form in her name but I licence the boat.

The Broads Authority do allow joint ownership ( just threw that in)

Phil

How can EA not allow joint ownership? It is not up to them to dictate how you run your finances.

If two people each put up 50% of the funds to purchase a boat who the hell do EA think they are to say pick which one of you is the outright owner? Each person legally owns half the boat, EA surely have no legal basis on which to tell you you can't do that.

This is just another case of trying to pigeon hole people; their computer system and forms were obviously designed by an idiot with no imagination; Computer says no!

Can you licence half a boat each? ?

Edited February 1, 2017 by Bewildered

[Horace42]

 

No. There is no requirement for notification of transfer under the licensing byelaws, only for the pleasure boat certificate [though I have not checked on subsequent legislation which might have altered that] - but once you have notified them of a transfer under the certificate scheme, your responsibility ceases; the transferee becomes responsible, whether or no they obtain a certificate [if not, they are the ones in breach of the law, not you.]

 

i cannot imagine that a notice of transfer of the licence could fail to insulate you from any breach of the byelaws by the transferee.

Nigel thank you, but with a proviso that (if I understand the original post correctly) the 'transferee' in this case has actually been refused a license.

But that seems an issue between CRT and the transferee; and not me.

But I am still unsure if the transferee has to be the owner.

I can imagine a situation where the 'sale' is conditional on obtaining a new license, that common sense suggests an application is made before completion.

So in the circumstance of this post - Where the application is refused because the transferee (it seems is not-fit-for-purpose or (not yet the owner). So either way, the sale falls through.

I don't want you to get side-tracked into lengthy legal explanation, but has enough been said to clarify if a boat can only be registered by the owner - albeit permitted by proxy. Which implies you have to own the boat to be granted a license.

[NigelMoore]

At its simplest, you do not have to be the “owner” as commonly understood, to be able or responsible for licensing the boat.

 

The pleasure boat licence is governed by the 1976 Byelaws. Clause 3(1) states: “No person shall knowingly cause or permit to be brought, kept, let for hire or used on any canal (not being a river waterway) any pleasure boat unless there is then in force in relation to the pleasure boat a pleasure boat licence.”

 

So the boat must be licensed, and any breach of that requirement is committed by anyone in charge of a vessel who permits it to be brought and used etc onto the canals.

 

The pleasure boat licence is “issued by the Board to the owner of a pleasure boat . . .” and clause 4(1) lays the responsibility for displaying the licence on the owner - HOWEVER “owner” is defined, for this byelaw, as including the “master or hirer”; “master” being defined as “the person having for the time being the command, charge or management of a pleasure boat . . .”

 

So you do not need to hold title to the boat to be able to [and obliged to] licence it, and if you have disposed of both ownership and control of the boat to someone else, compliance with the licensing requirement becomes the responsibility of the person to whom control has been handed over.

 

If you have sold the boat, the responsibility for licensing and displaying the licence then, lies squarely with the person having taken control, whether as owner or master. There is no way that the sale can fall through by reason of the new owner’s failure to either obtain a fresh licence or renew an existing one – unless the would-be new owner has made that a condition of his purchase [but that has nothing to do with the legalities].

 

Even if you retain ownership of the boat but hand the responsibility for it to anyone else, they both can and should apply for the licence and display it. It always boils down to the legislation’s own definitions, thus a licence may be issued by the Board to any person “having for the time being the command, charge or management” of the boat.

[Mike Todd]

At its simplest, you do not have to be the “owner” as commonly understood, to be able or responsible for licensing the boat.

 

The pleasure boat licence is governed by the 1976 Byelaws. Clause 3(1) states: “No person shall knowingly cause or permit to be brought, kept, let for hire or used on any canal (not being a river waterway) any pleasure boat unless there is then in force in relation to the pleasure boat a pleasure boat licence.”

 

So the boat must be licensed, and any breach of that requirement is committed by anyone in charge of a vessel who permits it to be brought and used etc onto the canals.

 

The pleasure boat licence is “issued by the Board to the owner of a pleasure boat . . .” and clause 4(1) lays the responsibility for displaying the licence on the owner - HOWEVER “owner” is defined, for this byelaw, as including the “master or hirer”; “master” being defined as “the person having for the time being the command, charge or management of a pleasure boat . . .”

 

So you do not need to hold title to the boat to be able to [and obliged to] licence it, and if you have disposed of both ownership and control of the boat to someone else, compliance with the licensing requirement becomes the responsibility of the person to whom control has been handed over.

 

If you have sold the boat, the responsibility for licensing and displaying the licence then, lies squarely with the person having taken control, whether as owner or master. There is no way that the sale can fall through by reason of the new owner’s failure to either obtain a fresh licence or renew an existing one – unless the would-be new owner has made that a condition of his purchase [but that has nothing to do with the legalities].

 

Even if you retain ownership of the boat but hand the responsibility for it to anyone else, they both can and should apply for the licence and display it. It always boils down to the legislation’s own definitions, thus a licence may be issued by the Board to any person “having for the time being the command, charge or management” of the boat.

But you do have to remember that having insurance is a pre-condition which I think is undisputed. However, any insurance company may well have all sorts of restrictions which are not subject to similar legislative restraint. In particular, you cannot insure something unless you have an interest in it (a bit wider than ownership)

[Horace42]

But you do have to remember that having insurance is a pre-condition which I think is undisputed. However, any insurance company may well have all sorts of restrictions which are not subject to similar legislative restraint. In particular, you cannot insure something unless you have an interest in it (a bit wider than ownership)

Thanks Nigel and Mike. To sum up my understanding of the situation; it is the boat that has a compulsory license that must be granted by CRT provided the boat has a BSS cert and insurance - and has a mooring -(or CC declaration) - and the correct completion of the application form - and not forgetting the fee!

[Jim Riley]

Thanks Nigel and Mike. To sum up my understanding of the situation; it is the boat that has a compulsory license that must be granted by CRT provided the boat has a BSS cert and insurance - and has a mooring -(or CC declaration) - and the correct completion of the application form - and not forgetting the fee!

and agreeing to the terms and conditions.....or not.......

[NigelMoore]

Stirrer.

[BruceinSanity]

Thanks Nigel and Mike. To sum up my understanding of the situation; it is the boat that has a compulsory license that must be granted by CRT provided the boat has a BSS cert and insurance - and has a mooring -(or CC declaration) - and the correct completion of the application form - and not forgetting the fee!

But it's the "owner", here defined as a term of art for this byelaw, who is responsible for purchasing the licence, thus giving CRT the excuse to say that a new owner must buy a new licence.

[Mike Todd]

But it's the "owner", here defined as a term of art for this byelaw, who is responsible for purchasing the licence, thus giving CRT the excuse to say that a new owner must buy a new licence.

Depends on whether you take the view the a licence lapses mid term if any of the pre-conditions cease to be true. If that is the case then when a boat is sold its insurance (at least the one declared to obtain the licence) also lapses and thus the licence. Although the old owner could not get around to declaring that the boat has been sold until the end of the licence term, they remain the official contact and will be considered by CaRT to be liable for the actions of the new owner. Overall, I would be surprised if CaRT are not on firm ground with their current interpretation - the wonder is that they previously allowed the licence to be transferred, Of course, they are quite free to decide on the financial arrangements surrounding a transfer - in effect they do that by refunding to the previous owner less a little bit. The cost to the old or the new owner as a result of having to re-licence is not huge even though around a month's licence is lost - it all becomes material if something else other than a simple sale is going on in parallel. Again, only for a shortish period since CaRT have 'to be satisfied' each time a licence is sold so that any issues regarding the new owner will arise within 11 months max.

[MtB]

Thanks Nigel and Mike. To sum up my understanding of the situation; it is the boat that has a compulsory license that must be granted by CRT provided the boat has a BSS cert and insurance - and has a mooring -(or CC declaration) - and the correct completion of the application form - and not forgetting the fee!

 

 

This raises another point that's crossed my mind repeatedly over the years. Which bit of the law says any particular application form must be completed to apply for a licence?

 

I'd have thought a letter giving the mandatory information and declaration would suffice in law, with BSS and insurance certificates and payment accompanying the letter. This would neatly sidestep CRT's requirement to 'sign' to agree the T&Cs as well.

[hounddog]

I haven't filled in an application for years. I just ring them up and say 'can I renew my license?' and give them my card details, which is the 2017 version of walking into the local office with a bag of pennies.

 

Can you still buy a license at the Stop House?

[Momac]

 

 

This raises another point that's crossed my mind repeatedly over the years. Which bit of the law says any particular application form must be completed to apply for a licence?

 

I'd have thought a letter giving the mandatory information and declaration would suffice in law, with BSS and insurance certificates and payment accompanying the letter. This would neatly sidestep CRT's requirement to 'sign' to agree the T&Cs as well.

You can renew your license on line. Also no signature required.

[MtB]

I haven't filled in an application for years. I just ring them up and say 'can I renew my license?' and give them my card details, which is the 2017 version of walking into the local office with a bag of pennies.

 

Can you still buy a license at the Stop House?

 

 

When I renewed my licence on the phone this year I was asked the specific question "Do you agree to the terms and conditions?". I said yes but wondered what would have happened had I said 'no'.

 

Similarly when renewing on line one has to tick a box accepting T&Cs IIRC.

[lulu fish]

 

 

When I renewed my licence on the phone this year I was asked the specific question "Do you agree to the terms and conditions?". I said yes but wondered what would have happened had I said 'no'.

 

Similarly when renewing on line one has to tick a box accepting T&Cs IIRC.

 

They won't give you a licence unless you agree. I think there has been a recent court case about this, a boater that refused to agree, but I can't remember where I saw it to give any further info.

[Momac]

 

 

When I renewed my licence on the phone this year I was asked the specific question "Do you agree to the terms and conditions?". I said yes but wondered what would have happened had I said 'no'.

 

Similarly when renewing on line one has to tick a box accepting T&Cs IIRC.

It's not exactly an unreasonable to expect there to be some terms and conditions.

And the terms and conditions dont seem to be unreasonable.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/5962.pdf

.

[MtB]

It's not exactly an unreasonable to expect there to be some terms and conditions.

And the terms and conditions dont seem to be unreasonable.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/5962.pdf

.

 

 

True, but paid up members of the Awkward Squad will find plenty in there unacceptable.

[hounddog]

 

 

When I renewed my licence on the phone this year I was asked the specific question "Do you agree to the terms and conditions?". I said yes but wondered what would have happened had I said 'no'.

 

Similarly when renewing on line one has to tick a box accepting T&Cs IIRC.

Did they read them out to you?

[MtB]

Did they read them out to you?

 

 

No but they asked if I had read them.

So I headed off a further 20 mins on the phone by saying 'yes'...