Licencing a boat - MUST you own it?

[Horace42]

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

.

Yes MartinG. Just about any organisation has to have some sort of T & C's - perhaps called Conditions of Sale - that apply to any customer - that are implicit in the contract. If on-line a box to tick if you agree - that if not ticked stops the application and prevents further progress.

 

I can understand comments here in terms of the 'interest' aspect, re the consequences of refusing to accept the CRT T&C's, but as you say they are not unreasonable, and OK with me also.

 

If there are sinister clauses it would be interesting to hear about bad things from anyone who has been affected by them and what we need to be wary of.

[MtB]

Yes MartinG. Just about any organisation has to have some sort of T & C's - perhaps called Conditions of Sale - that apply to any customer - that are implicit in the contract. If on-line a box to tick if you agree - that if not ticked stops the application and prevents further progress.

 

I can understand comments here in terms of the 'interest' aspect, re the consequences of refusing to accept the CRT T&C's, but as you say they are not unreasonable, and OK with me also.

 

If there are sinister clauses it would be interesting to hear about bad things from anyone who has been affected by them and what we need to be wary of.

 

 

What about the one that says the licence gets cancelled on sale of the boat? On reflection I don;t agree with that. Is that one of the T&Cs or does authority to do that stem from somewhere else?

[BruceinSanity]

What about the one that says the licence gets cancelled on sale of the boat? On reflection I don;t agree with that. Is that one of the T&Cs or does authority to do that stem from somewhere else?

I thought we'd sorted that. It's the "owner" (rather broadly defined) that has to hold a licence for the boat, so CRT are within their rights to say the old licence stops when the boat passes to a new "owner", who must buy their own.

[NigelMoore]

If there are sinister clauses it would be interesting to hear about bad things from anyone who has been affected by them and what we need to be wary of.

 

Examples of terms some will find objectionable and others not, are those that purport to overturn statutory protections and limitations on what CaRT may do.

 

Boarding boats without consent for any reason other than legitimate concern for any imminent danger the boat’s condition may present to others, is prohibited under the 1983 Act. That provides that if there is reason for concern but there appears no imminent danger, they must give notice of their intention to the owner first. The T&C’s say you agree to their boarding the boat for any reason seeming good to them [including crossing to serve notices on breasted up boats].

 

BW had long had a County Court judgment relating to the ability to charge for simply moving a boat under s.8(5), that confirmed they could not do so [though they can for removals under s.8(2). Hence the T&C’s saying you agree to pay such statutorily impermissible charges.

 

NABO listed their own concerns over some of the newer T&C's also, which Tuscan could doubtless link to.

[hounddog]

I thought we'd sorted that. It's the "owner" (rather broadly defined) that has to hold a licence for the boat, so CRT are within their rights to say the old licence stops when the boat passes to a new "owner", who must buy their own.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'sorted that', it's simply not true. The boat has a license, anyone interested in it's navigation on CRT's waters can license it as long at the boat has a BSS certificate and insurance.

 

I do wish people would stop repeating things in the vain hope that by doing so they will come true. I know it's currently fashionable but it's extremely irritating.

[Horace42]

 

Examples of terms some will find objectionable and others not, are those that purport to overturn statutory protections and limitations on what CaRT may do.

 

Boarding boats without consent for any reason other than legitimate concern for any imminent danger the boat’s condition may present to others, is prohibited under the 1983 Act. That provides that if there is reason for concern but there appears no imminent danger, they must give notice of their intention to the owner first. The T&C’s say you agree to their boarding the boat for any reason seeming good to them [including crossing to serve notices on breasted up boats].

 

BW had long had a County Court judgment relating to the ability to charge for simply moving a boat under s.8(5), that confirmed they could not do so [though they can for removals under s.8(2). Hence the T&C’s saying you agree to pay such statutorily impermissible charges.

 

NABO listed their own concerns over some of the newer T&C's also, which Tuscan could doubtless link to.

Is not it true that commercial contract conditions even if you agree to them cannot override or negate the law - and if so then they are unenforceable - and in the crunch on practical operational matters is it an issue?

Off-topic my pet dislike in contracts is the almost automatic inclusion of clauses that cancels the contract if you are made bankrupt. In the old days of paper contracts I used to cross out those clauses - and tongue in cheek - expecting them to be missed.

How on earth does being broke affect a the obligations and liabilities of the other party to conform to their part of the contract - like free repairs under warranty.

It is a rhetorical question. No answer is required .

Edited February 4, 2017 by Horace42

[BruceinSanity]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'sorted that', it's simply not true. The boat has a license, anyone interested in it's navigation on CRT's waters can license it as long at the boat has a BSS certificate and insurance.

 

I do wish people would stop repeating things in the vain hope that by doing so they will come true. I know it's currently fashionable but it's extremely irritating.

Do you mind? I'm trying to engage in sensible debate here. I've not seen any response to Mike Todd's post #66 in response to mine immediately before. On that interpretation, the licence could have lapsed on sale of the boat because it's no longer insured by the current owner. OK, so that might be wrong, I'd be interested in Nigel's view, but it is a basis on which CRT could argue that the licence is not transferable.

[Horace42]

If the owner dies intestate and it could take months to dispose of the estate.

I assume CRT will deal with the Executors until such time the boat is disposed of.

[BruceinSanity]

Is not it true that commercial contract conditions even if you agree to them cannot override or negate the law - and if so then they are unenforceable - and in the crunch on practical operational matters is it an issue?

Off-topic my pet dislike in contracts is the almost automatic inclusion of clauses that cancels the contract if you are made bankrupt. In the old days of paper contracts I used to cross out those clauses - and tongue in cheek - expecting them to be missed.

How on earth does being broke affect a the obligations and liabilities of the other party to conform to their part of the contract - like free repairs under warranty.

It is a rhetorical question. No answer is required .

But anyway, we're not talking about contract law here, but the issuing of a licence under a statutory provision and whether a creature of statute such as CRT can impose further t&c's not explicitly sanctioned by that statute.

[Horace42]

But anyway, we're not talking about contract law here, but the issuing of a licence under a statutory provision and whether a creature of statute such as CRT can impose further t&c's not explicitly sanctioned by that statute.

I would say they can introduce any condition that enables them to reasonably function properly, but not to negate the law, but they do sail (cruise) close to the wind - and enforce them under contract law - it seems to me.

[NigelMoore]

Depends on whether you take the view the a licence lapses mid term if any of the pre-conditions cease to be true.

 

If the 3 conditions hold good following any transfer, then CaRT may not terminate the licence [although as I noted previously, the pleasure boat certificate does terminate on transfer].

 

Section 17(4) of the 1995 Act provides that in the event of any of the 3 mandatory conditions appearing to the Board to have ceased to hold true, then “the Board may give notice requiring the holder of the relevant consent to remedy the default” within a period of at least 28 days – and if after expiry of that notice the remedy has not been made, the relevant consent terminates on the expiry date of the notice.

 

Section 17(6) is obscurely worded, so as I have not thought on it in any depth, I will not be dogmatic, but I think the import is that while a licence must be issued on application for any boat that has a BSSC, if the validity of the BSSC terminates on a date prior to the licence termination date, then the licence would terminate also, when the BSSC expired. However the Board knowing the date of expiry, and absent notification of a new BSSC, should activate s.17(4) to demand a new one within 28 days. As I say, this subsection is obscure and it could mean something else entirely I cannot be bothered to think about just now.

 

Whether or not an insurance policy remained valid upon transfer to a new ‘owner’ would be down to the terms of the policy. Certainly, if the policy holder retained an insurable interest [and this could be made a condition of transfer] there seems no reason why the insurance should cease to be valid.

 

Again, though, the licence does not terminate immediately and automatically on cessation of the insurance cover, because the proviso is for the minimum 28 days notice to obtain one [whether by existing or new owner].

 

The same applies to 17(3)( c ) conditions, which might or might not continue to apply following any transfer.

[Mike Todd]

 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'sorted that', it's simply not true. The boat has a license, anyone interested in it's navigation on CRT's waters can license it as long at the boat has a BSS certificate and insurance.

 

I do wish people would stop repeating things in the vain hope that by doing so they will come true. I know it's currently fashionable but it's extremely irritating.

I repeat - at the risk of irritating you - that it is very likely that the insurance will terminate on the sale, even if a new one is arranged subsequently for the new owner.

[NigelMoore]

I would say they can introduce any condition that enables them to reasonably function properly, but not to negate the law, but they do sail (cruise) close to the wind - and enforce them under contract law - it seems to me.

 

I would say, rather, that they can introduce any conditions for the use of the licenced boat for which they gain legislated approval [such as new byelaws], not otherwise. They cannot usurp the existing obligation to issue the licence by way of demanding any supernumary conditions beyond the mandated ones.

 

You are correct that CaRT insist that enforcement of their additional conditions is possible under contract law. They are wrong on a number of counts, but is suffices that the 1995 Act gives them no leeway to withhold a licence if the 3 statutory conditions are met - such that the issue and obtaining of a licence is a matter of statutory obligation for both parties, not the voluntary contract it was in days gone past pre-1976.

[Horace42]

 

 

 

You are correct that CaRT insist that enforcement of their additional conditions is possible under contract law. They are wrong on a number of counts, but is suffices that the 1995 Act gives them no leeway to withhold a licence if the 3 statutory conditions are met - such that the issue and obtaining of a licence is a matter of statutory obligation for both parties, not the voluntary contract it was in days gone past pre-1976.

out of sheer cussedness, what if, after agreeing the T&C's and receiving a license, I told CRT that I have changed my mind on grounds that I object to a particular clause that I think is 'illegal' - and that I am not going to comply with that particular clause.

 

Does that invalidate my whole application by default - allowing them to revoke my license, even if the 3 statutory conditions are still met.

[NigelMoore]

 

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.

 

The case you are probably thinking of was CaRT v Pierret, heard in London County Court on 6 January 2017.

 

It was the usual straightforward Part 8 procedure hearing, and Mr Pierret had filed no Defence [and his posted “Affidavit” never reached the judge]. The judgment was simply that CaRT was entitled to have the boat removed, because it was incontestably on their waterways without a licence – the usual story.

 

Mr Pierret did protest at Court that the only reason for being unlicensed was because he refused to sign T&C’s, and that the demand that he do so was unlawful – but the judge said that in such a case the correct thing to do was to sign the T&C’s under protest, then bring a Judicial Review of the decision to refuse to issue the licence without that forced agreement.

 

In all honesty, it was as well the judge did not see the affidavit, as that would have incensed him even more than he was by the oral arguments presented in defence. It is a shame that this boater had not sought advice very much earlier, as it could have been an open and shut case with proper preparation, but then, he had been given exactly the same advice as was given by the judge, well before he had to attend the hearing, and did not do so, so it seems doubtful that any advice conflicting with his views would have been taken aboard.

out of sheer cussedness, what if, after agreeing the T&C's and receiving a license, I told CRT that I have changed my mind on grounds that I object to a particular clause that I think is 'illegal' - and that I am not going to comply with that particular clause.

 

Does that invalidate my whole application by default - allowing them to revoke my license, even if the 3 statutory conditions are still met.

 

It has been done, and the boater was told that unless he recanted CaRT would indeed invalidate the licence. Once more - they cannot legally do this, but such considerations never stop them.

[BruceinSanity]

Finger trouble delete.

Edited February 4, 2017 by BruceinSanity

[WotEver]

It has been done, and the boater was told that unless he recanted CaRT would indeed invalidate the licence. Once more - they cannot legally do this, but such considerations never stop them.

At that stage what recourse was available to the boater? Anything that wouldn't involve a costly legal battle?

[Horace42]

It has been done, and the boater was told that unless he recanted CaRT would indeed invalidate the licence. Once more - they cannot legally do this, but such considerations never stop them.

On a technical point of practicality, I have a proper printed license on display, who or how will anyone know it has been revoked.

If it reaches court on the grounds your boat is not licensed. Seemingly a matter of fact according to CRT. But in defence you produce your valid license and argue it was revoked illegally. It seems the court ignores mitigating circumstances and decides simply that you are guilty because there was no licence.

If it was me it would never get that far. There are so many options available to remedy the situation long beforehand.

We have been talking of rights of both parties - but what of responsibility - good citizenship and a wish to confirm without hassle must figure somewhere.

[NigelMoore]

At that stage what recourse was available to the boater? Anything that wouldn't involve a costly legal battle?

 

Capitulation.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

- but what of responsibility - good citizenship and a wish to confirm conform without hassle must figure somewhere.

 

Not things that C&RT recognise.

 

(I guess you meant 'conform' ??)

[NigelMoore]

If it was me it would never get that far. There are so many options available to remedy the situation long beforehand.

We have been talking of rights of both parties - but what of responsibility - good citizenship and a wish to confirm without hassle must figure somewhere.

 

If you were in the postulated situation, as my prior response indicated, you have 2 choices: capitulate and recant under stated duress, without prejudice to your stated position, or maintain your position as a matter of principle, hopefully fully educated and prepared as to the legal procedure [with its attendant risks] you intend to pursue.

 

The one other boater who was keen to go that route, I persuaded to go the first option. Mr Pierret I also recommended to sign under protest and do what he thought best thereafter.

 

I personally would tick the box without a qualm, knowing that CaRT are in absolutely no doubt as to my position on the matter [which is that it is an illegal and unenforceable ‘contract’], and confident that should anyone dare, for example, to board a boat of which I was Master without my consent, and refuse to leave when requested, their employer would know that the offender would be placed under arrest and restrained pending laying of information with the Magistrates Court of the criminal offence thus perpetrated. Any argument as to any purported “agreement” that they could do so by way of supposed "contract” would be thrown out of court literally and emphatically, given the circumstances and the relevant case law.

 

I have, however, no interest in suing CaRT for the sake of it, just to establish an intellectual ascendancy, or to take up cudgels for others – none of whom, incidentally, amongst those directly benefitting from my expensive battles, have ever offered to reimburse me for the expense of doing so out of the many tens of thousands of pounds they received from CaRT as a result of my main case. I have always recommended the path of least resistance; there is more to life than attempting to educate the criminal minds of certain bureaucrats.

 

That said, I fully support the moral right of anyone to challenge the imposition of illegalities, should they choose to tread that perilous path.

Edited February 4, 2017 by NigelMoore

[Momac]

 

 

What about the one that says the licence gets cancelled on sale of the boat? On reflection I don;t agree with that. Is that one of the T&Cs or does authority to do that stem from somewhere else?

Unless things have changed .........If you have some whole months of C&RT license outstanding you can hand in the license and get a partial refund subject to a fee .

Its comparable with a used car the new owner has to start a fresh with the road tax. The vendor can claim a refund on whole months of unused tax.

[WotEver]

Unless things have changed .........If you have some whole months of C&RT license outstanding you can hand in the license and get a partial refund subject to a fee .

Its comparable with a used car the new owner has to start a fresh with the road tax. The vendor can claim a refund on whole months of unused tax.

Yup, it's another way of squeezing an extra month's money on every sale.

[MtB]

Yup, it's another way of squeezing an extra month's money on every sale.

 

 

I think the reason is that new boaters who buy a boat with 11 months license then proceed to ignore the CC rules claiming not to know anything about them, have a perfectly valid argument.

 

Forcing a new licence application on each change of ownership forces new boaters to make their own CC declaration to which they can be held to account. And a Good Thing too. Sadly it impacts negatively on the more responsible of us.

[lulu fish]

 

 

I think the reason is that new boaters who buy a boat with 11 months license then proceed to ignore the CC rules claiming not to know anything about them, have a perfectly valid argument.

 

Forcing a new licence application on each change of ownership forces new boaters to make their own CC declaration to which they can be held to account. And a Good Thing too. Sadly it impacts negatively on the more responsible of us.

 

A simple 'transfer of licence' form/web page would achieve the same without penalising anyone.