After you have done your 20 miles then what?

[PhilAtterley]

1 hour ago, Iain_S said:

If that's aimed at me, apologies, but claims that CaRT are unable to set any conditions to usage of the canals, and that contracts are unenforceable, need, IMO, to be challenged. It might not be the person making the claim who ends up proving it wrong! 

Claiming that CRT are not empowered to set conditions on the USAGE of the waterways for which they are the Navigation Authority is unquestionably wrong, but I am not aware of any such claims by those to whom I believe you are referring. What CRT do not have powers to condition is the ISSUING of boat Licences, Pleasure Boat Certificates and Houseboat Certificates over and above the three specific conditions laid down in Section 17 of the 1995 Act, which, when met, preclude either refusal or revocation of a 'relevant consent'. The inclusion of, and the reference to, 'contracts' in the context of this matter is an irrelevancy. Contracts are undoubtedly 'enforceable', always provided of course that they pass the fairness tests, but any form of 'relevant consent' that an Authority is statutorily obliged to issue is NOT, and can never be, a 'contract'.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

Do you mean the power to propose bylaws ?

If so then they can't do anything without the S of S 's consent.

 

 

[Jim Riley]

On 2017-4-22 at 20:06, PhilAtterley said:

Claiming that CRT are not empowered to set conditions on the USAGE of the waterways for which they are the Navigation Authority is unquestionably wrong, but I am not aware of any such claims by those to whom I believe you are referring. What CRT do not have powers to condition is the ISSUING of boat Licences, Pleasure Boat Certificates and Houseboat Certificates over and above the three specific conditions laid down in Section 17 of the 1995 Act, which, when met, preclude either refusal or revocation of a 'relevant consent'. The inclusion of, and the reference to, 'contracts' in the context of this matter is an irrelevancy. Contracts are undoubtedly 'enforceable', always provided of course that they pass the fairness tests, but any form of 'relevant consent' that an Authority is statutorily obliged to issue is NOT, and can never be, a 'contract'.

But until someone with either a vast excess or no assets challenges them in court to issue the licence, having refused to accept the contract, then we can carry on wittering on, on here, for years.

[PhilAtterley]

1 hour ago, Jim Riley said:

But until someone with either a vast excess or no assets challenges them in court to issue the licence, having refused to accept the contract, then we can carry on wittering on, on here, for years.

There is no need to challenge CRT about issuing a 'relevant consent' absent acceptance of their bogus contract and agreeing to non-statutory, add-on T&C's unilaterally imposed by CRT themselves. If the applicant for a Licence or Pleasure Boat Certificate demonstrates that they are sufficiently resolute in their refusal to accept any of CRT's nonsense, then they they will cave-in and issue your Licence/PBC. In fact, they have just recently issued a PBC to a boater who not only did not agree to the T&C's, but also against whom they had obtained one of their Section 8 Injunctions excluding him from their waterways.

The single most important factor in successfully resisting and opposing CRT's threats and bluster is never to lose sight of the fact that they themselves know full well that they are exceeding their powers and are simply 'trying it on' to see just what they can get away with. The last thing they actually want to do is to risk exposing their feeble arguments to too much open scrutiny.

Edited April 29, 2017 by PhilAtterley

[Murflynn]

the canals were inherited by modern man from an alien race and we still don't know their true purpose; many of them were restored at great effort by goodly people who were not in the least bit interested in making through journeys, and it seems to me they should be used for the benefit of those who can't afford a proper fixed residence.

to hell with any 'contract' that suggests the licensee should move around the system or buy a mooring - who the hell do CRT think they are anyway?

and while we're about it, why are all these 'narrow-boats' fitted with engines?   I look forward to the day when CRT will be required by law to issue a licence to un-powered houseboats that may be towed to the owner's favourite spot and then moored up permanently, and the licence should allow exclusive use of the bank (i.e. something quaintly called 'the towpath') for overflow storage, chicken runs, veggie patches, bikes, rubbish bins, and the like, and the licence should come with the Trust's guarantee that anyone anti-social enough to move their boat along the canal will never cause any disturbance to the static floating residence such as engine noise, swell, surge, or other form of wave.

 

.................   NOT  

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

15 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

the canals were inherited by modern man from an alien race and we still don't know their true purpose; many of them were restored at great effort by goodly people who were not in the least bit interested in making through journeys, and it seems to me they should be used for the benefit of those who can't afford a proper fixed residence.

to hell with any 'contract' that suggests the licensee should move around the system or buy a mooring - who the hell do CRT think they are anyway?

and while we're about it, why are all these 'narrow-boats' fitted with engines?   I look forward to the day when CRT will be required by law to issue a licence to un-powered houseboats that may be towed to the owner's favourite spot and then moored up permanently, and the licence should allow exclusive use of the bank (i.e. something quaintly called 'the towpath') for overflow storage, chicken runs, veggie patches, bikes, rubbish bins, and the like, and the licence should come with the Trust's guarantee that anyone anti-social enough to move their boat along the canal will never cause any disturbance to the static floating residence such as engine noise, swell, surge, or other form of wave.

 

.................   NOT  

 

No one has suggested or implied any of the turps induced fantasy you have just described. You appear to be arguing with yourself please seek help.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

1 hour ago, PhilAtterley said:

There is no need to challenge CRT about issuing a 'relevant consent' absent acceptance of their bogus contract and agreeing to non-statutory, add-on T&C's unilaterally imposed by CRT themselves. If the applicant for a Licence or Pleasure Boat Certificate demonstrates that they are sufficiently resolute in their refusal to accept any of CRT's nonsense, then they they will cave-in and issue your Licence/PBC. In fact, they have just recently issued a PBC to a boater who not only did not agree to the T&C's, but also against whom they had obtained one of their Section 8 Injunctions excluding him from their waterways.

The single most important factor in successfully resisting and opposing CRT's threats and bluster is never to lose sight of the fact that they themselves know full well that they are exceeding their powers and are simply 'trying it on' to see just what they can get away with. The last thing they actually want to do is to risk exposing their feeble arguments to too much open scrutiny.

Which case is this, and do you have the judgement or other evidence that CaRT issued a licence without agreement to the T & C's ?

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Murflynn said:

the canals were inherited by modern man from an alien race and we still don't know their true purpose; many of them were restored at great effort by goodly people who were not in the least bit interested in making through journeys, and it seems to me they should be used for the benefit of those who can't afford a proper fixed residence.

to hell with any 'contract' that suggests the licensee should move around the system or buy a mooring - who the hell do CRT think they are anyway?

and while we're about it, why are all these 'narrow-boats' fitted with engines?   I look forward to the day when CRT will be required by law to issue a licence to un-powered houseboats that may be towed to the owner's favourite spot and then moored up permanently, and the licence should allow exclusive use of the bank (i.e. something quaintly called 'the towpath') for overflow storage, chicken runs, veggie patches, bikes, rubbish bins, and the like, and the licence should come with the Trust's guarantee that anyone anti-social enough to move their boat along the canal will never cause any disturbance to the static floating residence such as engine noise, swell, surge, or other form of wave.

 

.................   NOT  

 

44 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

 

No one has suggested or implied any of the turps induced fantasy you have just described. You appear to be arguing with yourself please seek help.

I understood that this was the policy of the National Baton Twirlers Association and was used to drum up membership and support from like minded boat flat owners

[PhilAtterley]

42 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Which case is this, and do you have the judgement or other evidence that CaRT issued a licence without agreement to the T & C's ?

Not a 'case' as such, and hence no Judgment, at least nothing post the Court Order exiling the boater from CRT's waters. The boater concerned was Andy Wingfield, who has now returned to Nottingham after spending a year on the Nene, and his PBC was applied for and obtained on his behalf by Tony Dunkley.

[Murflynn]

1 hour ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

 

No one has suggested or implied any of the turps induced fantasy you have just described. 

of course they haven't, and nobody does it either              

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

1 hour ago, PhilAtterley said:

Not a 'case' as such, and hence no Judgment, at least nothing post the Court Order exiling the boater from CRT's waters. The boater concerned was Andy Wingfield, who has now returned to Nottingham after spending a year on the Nene, and his PBC was applied for and obtained on his behalf by Tony Dunkley.

Has it just been overlooked accidentally on purpose or are CaRT aware that he hasn't agreed ? If its the former then they have possibly ticked the box anyway, which is what they did on my renewal, until I told them I required just a statutory licence according to the law, and nothing else, you know the resulting email from Peter Palmer ( well known author of fiction ). If they let one licence application through without demanding the agreement  it makes all further agreements irrelevant ? 

 

[Iain_S]

2 hours ago, PhilAtterley said:

Not a 'case' as such, and hence no Judgment, at least nothing post the Court Order exiling the boater from CRT's waters. The boater concerned was Andy Wingfield, who has now returned to Nottingham after spending a year on the Nene, and his PBC was applied for and obtained on his behalf by Tony Dunkley.

I'd be a bit careful extrapolating from that "case", as it concerns a Pleasure Boat Certificate on a river, rather than a licence on a canal.

Thee has been lengthy discussion regarding the possible application of Sec. 43 of the Transport Act 1962 to canal licence conditions (as claimed by CaRT). However, until somebody chooses (or has) to get a binding Court ruling on that, the discussion is moot, IMHO  

[mrsmelly]

9 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Has it just been overlooked accidentally on purpose or are CaRT aware that he hasn't agreed ? If its the former then they have possibly ticked the box anyway, which is what they did on my renewal, until I told them I required just a statutory licence according to the law, and nothing else, you know the resulting email from Peter Palmer ( well known author of fiction ). If they let one licence application through without demanding the agreement  it makes all further agreements irrelevant ? 

 

After nearly 200 posts on this subject " again "  can I ask you what personal vendetta CART have taken up against you? I have just relicensed my boat making this my twenty eight th licence and in those near twenty eight years of both Bw and now CART they have never picked on me and I have never found the very few very easy to follow rules hard to comply with and always been given a licence. I suggest you may be being victimised and should seek legal help.

[Murflynn]

31 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I suggest you may be being victimised and should seek legal help.

+1.

let's set up a crowdfunding campaign to help the sad person (? to be confirmed) known to himself as MDR, whoever he is (a glove puppet??).

[PhilAtterley]

13 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Has it just been overlooked accidentally on purpose or are CaRT aware that he hasn't agreed ? If its the former then they have possibly ticked the box anyway, which is what they did on my renewal, until I told them I required just a statutory licence according to the law, and nothing else, you know the resulting email from Peter Palmer ( well known author of fiction ). If they let one licence application through without demanding the agreement  it makes all further agreements irrelevant ? 

 

Having just done a laptop repair and swap with TD, I am in Nottingham with him at the moment and have passed on your query to him. He says that the application, and payment, for AW's PBC was all done over the phone, so there were no boxes to tick and no signature either. The conclusion I would draw from this is that CRT themselves recognize that ticking a box agreeing to abide by their T&C's and adding a signature to a form which exists only as a computer record and is in any event very definitely NOT a contract, carries no weight whatsover, and it is therefore utterly pointless to insist that it is done as a pre-requisite to issuing something that they are legally obliged to issue provided always that there is compliance with the three conditions in S.17 of the 1995 Act.

12 hours ago, Iain_S said:

I'd be a bit careful extrapolating from that "case", as it concerns a Pleasure Boat Certificate on a river, rather than a licence on a canal.

Thee has been lengthy discussion regarding the possible application of Sec. 43 of the Transport Act 1962 to canal licence conditions (as claimed by CaRT). However, until somebody chooses (or has) to get a binding Court ruling on that, the discussion is moot, IMHO  

I see your point to a certain extent, however, the PBC falls within the scope of the term 'relevant consent' which in CRT speak translates into 'Licence' and therefore, according to CRT, falls under the umbrella of S.43 of the 1962 Act. Furthermore, it is vitally important to note that CRT have not in fact issued a PBC to Andy Wingfield, but instead something which they print as a 'Standard River only Licence', which, according to the Invoice that accompanied it, is a 12 Month Licence to which they have applied a 40% 'River only' Discount. A genuine PBC is limited in statute to costing no more than 60% of the Licence fee, it follows therefore that they are, in reality, issuing a product of their own warped imagination, something which the law does not recognize or require, and which, therefore, they have no power or authority to issue. It is simply a rather pathetic and transparent attempt to conjure a Registration Certificate, which they are compelled under statute to  issue, into what appears to be a mandatory Licence which boaters will accept at face value as something authorizing or permitting them to use the scheduled River Waterways, upon which, of course the PRN confers the unassailable right to navigate and use, irrespective and independent of any mythical powers that CRT would like boaters, and Courts/Judges, to believe they have.

Edited April 30, 2017 by PhilAtterley

[Graham Davis]

2 hours ago, Murflynn said:

+1.

let's set up a crowdfunding campaign to help the sad person (? to be confirmed) known to himself as MDR, whoever he is (a glove puppet??).

Seems to be a growing number of ex-members returning, but being too scared to use their original names!

[Murflynn]

............. scaredy-cats 

[MtB]

On 30/04/2017 at 11:31, Graham Davis said:

Seems to be a growing number of ex-members returning, but being too scared to use their original names!

 

And if they return under a new username and post in accordance with the posting guidelines, I see no problem with that. 

[Graham Davis]

Neither do I Mike, but why not be honest and use their original names?

[WotEver]

17 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

Neither do I Mike, but why not be honest and use their original names?

Possibly because that name was banned?

[MtB]

On 30/04/2017 at 13:40, WotEver said:

Possibly because that name was banned?

Exactly. Dan's policy is that it is the poster who is banned, not the user name. So any doppels of banned members revealed will be banned too. 

I think this policy should be reversed.

[GUMPY]

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Exactly. Dan's policy is that it is the poster who is banned, not the user name. So any doppels of banned members revealed will be banned too. 

I think this policy should be reversed.

Well its not being applied so guess you have your wish. There is at least one banned poster back on here who has been outed and its just been ignored.

Guess its down to who you know not what you know........

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Well its not being applied so guess you have your wish. There is at least one banned poster back on here who has been outed and its just been ignored.

Guess its down to who you know not what you know........

There are several - one is obvious as it appears he is just cut & pasting his old 'moans' about C&RT but under a new name.

He is prolific in this thread.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

Explain the mentality of clicking on a clearly described thread title , reading it, then posting multiple replies saying how you are not interested in it, or that its so boring to you personally it should not be discussed, eight pages later you are still reading it,  and replying to it ?

Anyone ?

[Jerra]

Its a bit similar to multiple threads/pages of somebody pushing their personal view/grievance about CRT.