CRT Licensing Review final report

[MtB]

 

Where it does not matter to them, because the law, in this instance, existed to help identify unlicensed boats in days when computerised records were never dreamt of, and they now know immediately whether the boat is licensed or not, the offence of not displaying the licence becomes purely technical.

 

EXCEPT that boats choosing to 'forget' to display their registration number too might just possible have forgotten to buy a licence too and CRT have no way of finding out who they are or enforcing. 

Or so it would appear, and CRT seem in no hurry to reassure us otherwise. 

[NigelMoore]

 

 

EXCEPT that boats choosing to 'forget' to display their registration number too might just possible have forgotten to buy a licence too and CRT have no way of finding out who they are or enforcing. 

Or so it would appear, and CRT seem in no hurry to reassure us otherwise. 

It raises an interesting point. Whereas licences and their display come under the 1976 byelaws, the registration requirement existed from the commencement of every canal company's enabling Act, with the display of the registration number being a statutory obligation. It is not an area I have looked into - where would current sanctions [if any] be found respecting the failure to display the reg. no. I wonder?

[Alan de Enfield]

 

It raises an interesting point. Whereas licences and their display come under the 1976 byelaws, the registration requirement existed from the commencement of every canal company's enabling Act, with the display of the registration number being a statutory obligation. It is not an area I have looked into - where would current sanctions [if any] be found respecting the failure to display the reg. no. I wonder?

Maybe here  : (Bye-Laws)

Marking of vessels 

(1) Every vessel on any canal shall have exhibited on the outside
thereof so as to be clearly legible at all times at a distance of
twenty yards
(i) her name and such index mark and number (if any) as the
Board shall have assigned to the vessel.

[TheBiscuits]

 

It raises an interesting point. Whereas licences and their display come under the 1976 byelaws, the registration requirement existed from the commencement of every canal company's enabling Act, with the display of the registration number being a statutory obligation. It is not an area I have looked into - where would current sanctions [if any] be found respecting the failure to display the reg. no. I wonder?

The byelaws as amended specify a penalty for failure to display registration number and name of vessel, increased over the years from "five pounds" to "twenty five pounds" to "one hundred pounds" in 1976.

It's a good job it wasn't inflation linked:

UK Inflation Rate, 1976-2018 (£100)

According to the Office for National Statistics composite price index, the pound experienced an average inflation rate of 4.74% per year. Prices in 2018 are 598.0% higher than prices in 1976.

In other words, £100 in the year 1976 is equivalent in purchasing power to £698.02 in 2018

Edited March 12, 2018 by TheBiscuits

[NigelMoore]

 

Maybe here  : (Bye-Laws)

Marking of vessels 

(1) Every vessel on any canal shall have exhibited on the outside
thereof so as to be clearly legible at all times at a distance of
twenty yards
(i) her name and such index mark and number (if any) as the
Board shall have assigned to the vessel.

Of course! Thanks Alan.

The penalty is therefore the same as that for not displaying the licence.

[NigelMoore]

 

The byelaws as amended specify a penalty for failure to display registration number and name of vessel, increased over the years from "five pounds" to "twenty five pounds" to "one hundred pounds" in 1976.

It's a good job it wasn't inflation linked:

UK Inflation Rate, 1976-2018 (£100)

According to the Office for National Statistics composite price index, the pound experienced an average inflation rate of 4.74% per year. Prices in 2018 are 598.0% higher than prices in 1976.

In other words, £100 in the year 1976 is equivalent in purchasing power to £698.02 in 2018

The 'problem' with fixed penalties that needed to be changed through fresh legislation every time, led to the court 'band' or 'level' structure, such that nowadays the fine would be expressed as falling into a particular level, wherein the maximums are modified year by year by a central authority valid across all legislation. BW were a little slow catching up, but this appears in the 1995 Act s.18, where the offender is "liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."

I thought there had been a recent ruling which would permit discretion as to over-ruling the fixed penalties, so that old byelaws need not be bound to historic low levels, but cannot be confident of that.

[TheBiscuits]

 

The 'problem' with fixed penalties that needed to be changed through fresh legislation every time, led to the court 'band' or 'level' structure, such that nowadays the fine would be expressed as falling into a particular level, wherein the maximums are modified year by year by a central authority valid across all legislation. BW were a little slow catching up, but this appears in the 1995 Act s.18, where the offender is "liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."

I thought there had been a recent ruling which would permit discretion as to over-ruling the fixed penalties, so that old byelaws need not be bound to historic low levels, but cannot be confident of that.

Is this also one of those cases where the breach of the byelaws is considered to take place every day?

If the penalty could be £100 per day I might have to get my boat name displayed sooner rather than later!

(The registration number plates were gaffer taped in the cabin windows as a temporary fix 3 years ago.)

Edited March 12, 2018 by TheBiscuits

[NigelMoore]

3 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Is this also one of those cases where the breach of the byelaws is considered to take place every day?

If the penalty could be £100 per day I might have to get my boat name displayed sooner rather than later!

(The registration number plates were gaffer taped in the cabin windows as a temporary fix 3 years ago.)

Do not quote me, but I believe not. That sort of thing needs to be expressly stated.

For example, though primary legislation [1971 Act] rather than a byelaw, the offence of not having a pleasure boat certificate [as distinct from a pleasure boat licence] is expressed to be subject to a fine, plus a daily penalty following summary conviction until remedied.

[Red Ruth]

Speaking of byelaws - does anyone know please when and why they stopped (or never started?) enforcing the one that says you need BW permission to use your boat as a dwelling? Have been hearing about and not understanding this a bit.. 

[NigelMoore]

1 minute ago, Red Ruth said:

Speaking of byelaws - does anyone know please when and why they stopped (or never started?) enforcing the one that says you need BW permission to use your boat as a dwelling? Have been hearing about and not understanding this a bit.. 

I do not have specific details, but I have been told that they either tacitly or explicitly shelved that following the Human Rights Act 1998. However it is doubtful that it was ever really enforced, as that clause was drafted in 1965, and almost immediately boats were being lived on as a matter of sheer necessity by working boat people.

[Red Ruth]

2 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

I do not have specific details, but I have been told that they either tacitly or explicitly shelved that following the Human Rights Act 1998. However it is doubtful that it was ever really enforced, as that clause was drafted in 1965, and almost immediately boats were being lived on as a matter of sheer necessity by working boat people.

Thanks Nigel. It would be hard to enforce now. I found records of residential craft licences being granted in BW reports in 1968 and 69 - 257/288, but since the requirement to have a pleasure boat licence didn't come in till later (75?) I'm not sure what this is about. 

[NigelMoore]

Just now, Red Ruth said:

Thanks Nigel. It would be hard to enforce now. I found records of residential craft licences being granted in BW reports in 1968 and 69 - 257/288, but since the requirement to have a pleasure boat licence didn't come in till later (75?) I'm not sure what this is about. 

You need to understand that although mandatory boat licences only came about in 1976, boat licences had been around as a discretionary alternative to toll payments since the time of the first canal companies. They were almost exclusively offered to pleasure boats, though there was a relatively short period when BW experimented with offering them to some commercial carriers.

BW's first decade saw much such experimentation as they felt their way into efficient organisation of what was generally seen as something of a difficult liability by government. The benefit to boaters of a contractual licence was obvious - as it was, from an administrative viewpoint to BW - though the drop in income from applying that to commercial carriers was too drastic to continue with. There was also the benefit to BW, of which they were somewhat jealous, of the ability to subject the licences to terms and conditions, amongst which was an important clause absolving them from any liability to damages due to failures in upkeep to suitable standards. Statutory licences following an abolition of the PRN would have removed that liberty [government had considered suggestions that a statutory licence should accompany the Transport Act 1968's abolition of the PRN's, but BW opposed that for this very reason]. Why they changed their minds within the next decade is a mystery to me

[Tuscan]

I went to a couple meetings a few years ago when it was suggested that CRT were soon to follow the car tax disc and stop issuing licences all together. They then realised it was in the bylaws and they couldn’t do this so it was quietly dropped . However as mentioned it’s the index number that’s key in their recording process. I would not be suprised if CRT initiate a couple of by law prosecutions for not displaying an index number as this would appear to be a growing problem.

[Red Ruth]

29 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

BW's first decade saw much such experimentation as they felt their way into efficient organisation of what was generally seen as something of a difficult liability by government. The benefit to boaters of a contractual licence was obvious - as it was, from an administrative viewpoint to BW - though the drop in income from applying that to commercial carriers was too drastic to continue with. There was also the benefit to BW, of which they were somewhat jealous, of the ability to subject the licences to terms and conditions, amongst which was an important clause absolving them from any liability to damages due to failures in upkeep to suitable standards. Statutory licences following an abolition of the PRN would have removed that liberty [government had considered suggestions that a statutory licence should accompany the Transport Act 1968's abolition of the PRN's, but BW opposed that for this very reason]. Why they changed their minds within the next decade is a mystery to me

OK - Can I check I understand please? Are you saying that the licences were really just a 'cover-all' payment for the use of different canals and locks etc.. but not mandatory. The 62 Act allowed BW to set terms and conditions, and because the licence was discretionary, to link those to that? and when the '68 Act abolished the PRN, BW didn't want a statutory licence because it would remove their liberty to set their own terms and conditions (including absolving them of liability for damage caused by failures in upkeep) for the licence? thanks Nigel - have I understood?

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by Red Ruth

[TheBiscuits]

8 minutes ago, Red Ruth said:

Thanks Nigel. It would be hard to enforce now. I found records of residential craft licences being granted in BW reports in 1968 and 69 - 257/288, but since the requirement to have a pleasure boat licence didn't come in till later (75?) I'm not sure what this is about. 

The 1965 byelaws stated that:

No vessel on any canal shall without the permission of the Board be used as a club, shop, store, workshop, dwelling or houseboat.

 

[NigelMoore]

4 minutes ago, Red Ruth said:

OK - Can I check I understand please? Are you saying that the licences were really just a 'cover-all' payment for the use of different canals and locks etc.. but not mandatory. The 62 Act allowed BW to set terms and conditions, and because the licence was discretionary, to link those to that? and when the '68 Act abolished the PRN, BW didn't want a statutory licence because it would remove their liberty to set their own terms and conditions (including absolving them of liability for damage caused by failures in upkeep) for the licence? thanks Nigel - have I understood?

 

Remove the sentence commencing with "The 62 Act", and ending with "to link those to that?", and the remainder is correct.

[Red Ruth]

5 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

The 1965 byelaws stated that:

No vessel on any canal shall without the permission of the Board be used as a club, shop, store, workshop, dwelling or houseboat.

yes - i was wondering when and why they stopped enforcing it... Nigel thought maybe the Human Rights Act stopped it, but I wonder whether it might have happened before that - any ideas?

 

6 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Remove the sentence commencing with "The 62 Act", and ending with "to link those to that?", and the remainder is correct.

Ah thanks - it's a contractual (private law) terms and conditions they had then, not the statutory ones (only those allowed under the enabling acts)?

[NigelMoore]

7 minutes ago, Red Ruth said:

yes - i was wondering when and why they stopped enforcing it... Nigel thought maybe the Human Rights Act stopped it, but I wonder whether it might have happened before that - any ideas?

It was not me saying that the HRA stopped it – that was something I have heard from others – I suggested it had to have been practically discarded long before. In fact it could not really have been effectively enforced most of the time – hence the 1971 introduction of houseboat registration legislation. Coming 6 years after that byelaw, it effectively supplanted it.

Ah thanks - it's a contractual (private law) terms and conditions they had then, not the statutory ones (only those allowed under the enabling acts)?

Yes. Read through the 1972 government correspondence to and from the Transport Department’s legal office, and that is exactly how BW described it – the licence T&C’s were a contractual matter.

 

[Red Ruth]

12 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

It was not me saying that the HRA stopped it – that was something I have heard from others – I suggested it had to have been practically discarded long before. In fact it could not really have been effectively enforced most of the time – hence the 1971 introduction of houseboat registration legislation. Coming 6 years after that byelaw, it effectively supplanted it.

Apologies - you did.  And it couldn't have been. Although the way i understand it, the 'houseboat' definition actually has nothing to do with whether a boat is or is intended to be used as a dwelling - more that it doesn't move and isn't a pontoon.. Perhaps that's why all this is so confusing... 

 

edited to add - i've just looked back at the 1969 report and the stated intention is to do something about the houseboats - seems really strange that the living in them seems to be irrelevant to the definition in the law. 

Edited March 12, 2018 by Red Ruth

[NigelMoore]

The ‘houseboat’ definition has perplexed even Lords Justice of Appeal and eminent MP’s, but even after decades of debate [and there was a lot during passage of the 1990 Bill] they have all decided to just leave it alone.

From a practical point of view, BW & CaRT have managed to reduce official houseboat certificates to well under 100, so it becomes less and less an issue. The only times it rears its ugly head is when CaRT want to hammer home an eviction notice, and serve both s.8 and s.13 Notices simultaneously.

[Red Ruth]

 

6 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

The ‘houseboat’ definition has perplexed even Lords Justice of Appeal and eminent MP’s, but even after decades of debate [and there was a lot during passage of the 1990 Bill] they have all decided to just leave it alone.

There must be something in it.... houseboats are very controversial - the authorities seem to have gone from placing all their attention on whether or not a boat was used as a dwelling from about 1876 to 1968/9 to actively not wanting to know.. 

[MtB]

Interesting. Back in 1977 when I first started looking at boats as a dwelling, I discounted canal boats as I gained the impression it was illegal to live aboard. So I concentrated on buying a boat on the Thames.

[Red Ruth]

8 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Interesting. Back in 1977 when I first started looking at boats as a dwelling, I discounted canal boats as I gained the impression it was illegal to live aboard. So I concentrated on buying a boat on the Thames.

That is interesting - do you remember what gave you that impression Mike? Did you do any research or anything or was it hearsay? 

[b0atman]

I seem to see more boats with no Identifying Number Name or licence disc moving around than in the past.

[Alan de Enfield]

14 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

Of course! Thanks Alan.

The penalty is therefore the same as that for not displaying the licence.

Presumably then failure to display both your registration number, and, the licence is two offences and would be 'double the fine' ?