Licencing a boat - MUST you own it?

[Jerra]

 

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

Why do you suppose they didn't decide to do that for cars road tax. I would suggest that to enforce a new licence ensurers:

 

1. They have a record of the change of ownership which they couldn't be so certain of if it relied on honesty of going to a website and filling in a form.

 

2. It gives an opportunity to ensure the boat (or vehicle) is insured etc.

[lulu fish]

Why do you suppose they didn't decide to do that for cars road tax. I would suggest that to enforce a new licence ensurers:

 

1. They have a record of the change of ownership which they couldn't be so certain of if it relied on honesty of going to a website and filling in a form.

 

2. It gives an opportunity to ensure the boat (or vehicle) is insured etc.

 

1. how do you think they currently find out about change of ownership?

 

2 As would a 'transfer of licence' form/web page

 

It could be exactly as it is now administration wise except CRT wouldn't get paid an extra month of licence fees every time a boat changes hands.

[Horace42]

 

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.

Nigel, you must spend hours here playing ping-pong with questions raised by numerous contributors, mine included, and the detail and quality of your input indicates a great deal research and work. For which I am grateful.

In my case there is no financial gain at all, I just like to keep out of trouble. and being forewarned is forearmed.

My wife says I am a pessimist, always looking on the downside of things. I disagree, I say if things can go wrong, they probably will, and having given thought to the possibility and watching out for them, I would have a plan ready to head them off.

It makes sense to agree the T&C's (which I do when I renew my license) but instead of making life difficult by getting into a legal scrap with CRT, I like the idea of ignoring illegal clauses if the situation ever arises - assuming here that CRT are abusing the privilege unreasonably - then let them make an issue of it.

 

 

.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Horace42

[NigelMoore]

In my case there is no financial gain at all, I just like to keep out of trouble. and being forewarned is forearmed.

My wife says I am a pessimist, always looking on the downside of things. I disagree, I say if things can go wrong, they probably will, and having given thought to the possibility and watching out for them, I would have a plan ready to head them off.

It makes sense to agree the T&C's (which I do when I renew my license) but instead of making life difficult by getting into a legal scrap with CRT, I like the idea of ignoring illegal clauses if the situation ever arises - assuming here that CRT are abusing the privilege unreasonably - then let them make an issue of it.

 

Reading your response I am unsettled that my comments as to the financial benefit of others might be misunderstood.

 

It is plain [i hope] that the success I had in my own main case has been of benefit to boaters generally in a way having nothing to do with financial benefit, nor did I ever expect to get any gratitude from the boaters directly affected in the short stretch of river which was the specific location of the issues debated. I mentioned the fact that nobody considered it appropriate to contribute to my considerable expenses despite the profit they made, to emphasise a point I made to another boater who was keen to make an issue over the T&C’s for the sake of boaters generally – that if he was looking for kudos from the general boating populace in establishing the illegality of the demands for agreement to these, then he was misguided; if anything, there would be resentment [illogical as that might seem].

 

If anybody decides to challenge this [or indeed any] authority over an issue, then they must do so for their own sake, however beneficial a successful outcome would be to others. I came in for judicial criticism [in a thinly veiled way] from the main trial Judge, for suggesting that the outcome in my own case would benefit boaters generally. There was a curious element of mild mockery in his characterisation of my challenge as riding into the fray on a white charger, which he was not going to factor into his decision [except in one small specific detail]. I had, of course, issued my Claim because in all truth, I had no other palatable choice in the matter; my home and livelihood were under threat with no hope of persuading BW to back away. Regardless of my understanding of the legal position, I was prepared to [and did] license several boats regardless – which perversely made no difference to BW, nor even to the Court.

 

That willingness to suffer injustice rather than fight - if at all practical - is one I have always promoted when the topic comes up. There comes a time in some circumstances, however, when this is neither practical nor desirable, hence my full support for those choosing to take up a challenge against wrong, even if my advice is to avoid that if at all possible. They should expect to come under fire for doing so though, especially from those who may benefit from their success; I am a pariah amongst the Brentford boaters to this day, with those having benefited the most [to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds each] being the greatest critics of my “maverick” status.

 

It sounds to me as though your own approach is a very sound one, and I would back your characterisation of your stance against that of your wife [but would never say so of course].