Mooring in Marina unlicenced

[Paul C]

6 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

I remember this, in other similar threads. It would be ok for any individual to try, but it doesn't stop what is a sharp practice. In your opinion It is anti-consumer. Its irrelevant to 95% of users because they go out of the marina at least at some point during their time there.. I am not sure there is a "legal" requirement for contracts to be "pro consumer" anyway - but surely if it were that bad, marinas wouldn't attract customers? I'm sorry that not alot people here agree with that. Bless.* What can I do. You could do better research and/or publish a list of those marinas which don't require a licence; or contest your requirement to buy one in your marina. I haven't really been convinced of the merits of the counter arguments. See * - people on forums (and everywhere else) have other opinions than you. If your argument had substance, then you could convince others of it. If it doesn't, then you won't. Similarly, if others' arguments were robust, then others would be convinced by those. It does seem you're somewhat isolated on this issue, with few supporters and many who disagree with your point of view.

 

 

 

See comments to your points in red. 

 

I do feel that its time to move on from this well-worn debate, it seems that you don't have anything fresh to bring to the argument and without stepping it up into an actual legal challenge of some kind (Why not? More risk than reward? The world being 'unfair'???) its becoming somewhat circular.

 

Do you have anything fresh to bring to the debate?

[Higgs]

10 minutes ago, mayalld said:

Not sure that it was ever in dispute.

 

As it is private property, the owner can impose such conditions as he sees fit on those he admits to it.

 

The reason why he imposes those conditions are absolutely none of your business.

 

He can, if he wishes require that all moorers be IWA members or National Trust members. Whether he does that because he wants toi garner support for these organisations, or because imposing the requirement brings a benefit to his business is not your concern.

 

You abide by his rules, or you go elsewhere.

 

 

I'm making them my business. In any case, the marinas sign along the dotted line before the commencement of construction and work begins on the marina. The marina has alot at stake by complying at that early stage. It's a take it or leave it offer for the marina, too.

 

What's the point, going elsewhere, the problem still remains. It really wouldn't change my view, even if I hadn't got a boat and lived on the moon.

 

 

[Jerra]

3 minutes ago, Higgs said:

It really wouldn't change my view, even if I hadn't got a boat and lived on the moon.

Can we hope?

[Higgs]

7 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

See comments to your points in red. 

 

I do feel that its time to move on from this well-worn debate, it seems that you don't have anything fresh to bring to the argument and without stepping it up into an actual legal challenge of some kind (Why not? More risk than reward? The world being 'unfair'???) its becoming somewhat circular.

 

Do you have anything fresh to bring to the debate?

 

Anything fresh? I'm pretty much driving this, it doesn't matter to me about putting any more effort into it here. Rome wasn't built in a day. Que sera, sera.

7 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Can we hope?

 

Oh, what a surprise.

[Ray T]

13 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Anything fresh? I'm pretty much driving this, it doesn't matter to me about putting any more effort into it here. Rome wasn't built in a day. Que sera, sera.

 

Oh, what a surprise.

Was Que sera sera ever found?

 

 

Edited July 22, 2018 by Ray T

[Higgs]

1 hour ago, Ray T said:

Was Que sera sera ever found?

 

 

 

Not too sure.

[BruceinSanity]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

Do you have anything fresh to bring to the debate?

Of course he doesn't, he's just enjoying the argument for the sake of it, i.e. trolling.

 

If I was a better person, I'd feel sorry for him. 

[Tom766]

Dunno what the negative comments are about.  If he's not using the waterways and sitting in a marina why buy a licence he doesn't need!!

 

Not in all marinas.....

[mayalld]

1 minute ago, Tom766 said:

Dunno what the negative comments are about.  If he's not using the waterways and sitting in a marina why buy a licence he doesn't need!!

 

Not in all marinas.....

Well, thank you for repeating your previous comment that shows that you aren't actually READING the thread.

 

It adds so much to the discussion to have people post one-liners that ignore all that has gone before 8 pages in

[mayalld]

1 minute ago, gunsmoke said:

 

'Not strictly legal' applies to getting the marina owner to agree to only accommodating boats with a licence regardless of use.

 

You do know that most marina owners don't particularly like CRT and don't give a toss what they think.

 

I will never get another boat as I witnessed the destruction of any possibility of a pleasant life on the waterways without undue interference. What has come to pass is a corporate style bureaucracy of petty, and unlawful, restrictions, a gestapo-like system of denunciation fostering division and hatred,

     

GODWIN!

[mayalld]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

I'm making them my business. In any case, the marinas sign along the dotted line before the commencement of construction and work begins on the marina. The marina has alot at stake by complying at that early stage. It's a take it or leave it offer for the marina, too.

 

What's the point, going elsewhere, the problem still remains. It really wouldn't change my view, even if I hadn't got a boat and lived on the moon.

 

 

Good grief, Higgs clearly imagines that he is The Lone Ranger / Dirty Harry / John Wayne.

 

Clue for you (despite your extreme resistance to getting a clue);

 

You can't make it your business, because it ISN'T your business - FACT.

 

The agreements that somebody who supplies a service to you makes with his own suppliers is none of your business, and no amount of peacocking on your part will change that.

 

Unless and until YOU are the one seeking to open a marina, you have no skin in the game sunshine.

 

Yes, CRT are making a take it or leave it offer, but that is business. CRT isn't under any obligation to enter into a contract on terms that it believes will damage its interests. Prospective marina owners are not under any obligation to enter into contracts that they believe will damage their interests.

 

So, it seems clear that the marina owners looked at the numbers and decided that it was a sound business investment, otherwise, they would have created fishing ponds instead.

[Paul C]

6 minutes ago, gunsmoke said:

 

'Not strictly legal' applies to getting the marina owner to agree to only accommodating boats with a licence regardless of use.

That doesn't make it illegal though. If you have a rant/point to make, for it to be meaningful it needs to not rely on falsehoods, otherwise it tends to be easy to ignore. 

 

6 minutes ago, gunsmoke said:

It's a pity that those who, rightly, in most cases, challenge them are not welcome on this forum and don't seem much in evidence elsewhere. 

I'm not sure what "rightly, in most cases" means - I guess its just your opinion/take on things. But its not really accurate to sum this up as "most cases" (IMHO). Everyone is welcome but as in pretty much all other aspects of life, the opportunity to participate in the forum is bound by some easy-to-understand rules. If there's an issue with cliquiness I guess most forums suffer from it in some or other form, maybe you have a valid point here though. I think it can be summarised as "don't be a dick".

 

6 minutes ago, gunsmoke said:

Sorry for 'going on a bit'.      

     

No worries, I did however give it a thorough ignoring. 

[TheBiscuits]

2 hours ago, Paul C said:

If there's an issue with cliquiness I guess most forums suffer from it in some or other form, maybe you have a valid point here though. I think it can be summarised as "don't be a dick".

Damn.  If that's a new forum rule it's going to get quiet around here

 

[BruceinSanity]

6 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

Damn.  If that's a new forum rule it's going to get quiet around here

 

In reply to

Quote

 I think it can be summarised as "don't be a dick".

 

"10 o'clock and still no sign of Dick!" (Alice in Dick Whittington)

 

My favourite panto line.

[Higgs]

 

 

............................................................................//...........................................................................

 

This subject was always going to be a hard nut to crack, but crack - it will.

 

• And, licence fees will not go up.
• And, boaters will have more of a say. For the nearly £1,000 a year for the licence fee, I demand more of a say. By the way, the licence fee would be expensive, at half the price. Licence fees are unreasonably high. You're a numpty, if you think the huge burden of financing the upkeep of the canal should in a large part be shouldered by so few boat owners. Boaters without a say, at that.
• Call me all the names under the sun, and ridicule the idea - Why not, get it off your chesty.

Have a good day.

[Tony Brooks]

14 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

Anything fresh? I'm pretty much driving this, it doesn't matter to me about putting any more effort into it here. Rome wasn't built in a day. Que sera, sera.

 

Oh, what a surprise.

 

If you were driving it issue then instead of repeating your stuff again and again you would be undertaking the legal route to challenge this - much like Nigel Moore has done - but as far as we know you are not so please either shut up or put up and that will involve you in lots of reading, expense, and time. Its easy to pontificate on forums, much harder to make things happen by legal challenge so, it seem, you take the easy option rather than the one that stands some chance of resolving the issue to your satisfaction.

[mayalld]

26 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

 

............................................................................//...........................................................................

 

This subject was always going to be a hard nut to crack, but crack - it will.

 

• And, licence fees will not go up.
• And, boaters will have more of a say. For the nearly £1,000 a year for the licence fee, I demand more of a say. By the way, the licence fee would be expensive, at half the price. Licence fees are unreasonably high. You're a numpty, if you think the huge burden of financing the upkeep of the canal should in a large part be shouldered by so few boat owners. Boaters without a say, at that.
• Call me all the names under the sun, and ridicule the idea - Why not, get it off your chesty.

Have a good day.

Totally unrealistic!

 

The economics of "somebody else should pay"

 

[Higgs]

16 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

If you were driving it issue then instead of repeating your stuff again and again you would be undertaking the legal route to challenge this - much like Nigel Moore has done - but as far as we know you are not so please either shut up or put up and that will involve you in lots of reading, expense, and time. Its easy to pontificate on forums, much harder to make things happen by legal challenge so, it seem, you take the easy option rather than the one that stands some chance of resolving the issue to your satisfaction.

 

I thank you for the advice, but, as you are a back seat driver, maybe you should not try and presume to know the route being taken. It is highly likely that your route is full of obstacles that need clearing first.  

8 minutes ago, mayalld said:

Totally unrealistic!

 

The economics of "somebody else should pay"

 

 

Rubbish.

[Jerra]

48 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

harder to make things happen by legal challenge 

I am trying to work out what sort of legal challenge could be made to a perfectly ordinary business agreement between two parties the challenger has nothing to do with.

[Higgs]

6 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I am trying to work out what sort of legal challenge could be made to a perfectly ordinary business agreement between two parties the challenger has nothing to do with.

 

Unreasonable contract. Challenge the ethics and the disadvantage to the consumer.

[Jerra]

22 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Unreasonable contract. Challenge the ethics and the disadvantage to the consumer.

I think it would need to be the marina owners trade organisation who made that challenge.  After all they negotiated the agreement and it is between the marinas and the CRT.   The contract between the moorer and the marina is a different one.

 

Nothing unethical in an agreement to provide a service if the other party is perpared to accept the terms.  CRT are providing the service to the marina and asking the marina to ensure nobody in the marina can avail themselves of the services of boating on the canal without a licence.

 

As a licence holder you should be against the possibility of people siting in a marina and nipping out when ever they like with no licence.

 

I can't see a disadvantage to the consumer any more than there is in any other business agreement.  I have seen car parks on private land which insist the vehicle has a "road fund licence".  Just the same thing.  Are you going to challenge them as well.  More people will feel the benefit I suspect.

[Higgs]

11 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I think it would need to be the marina owners trade organisation who made that challenge.  After all they negotiated the agreement and it is between the marinas and the CRT.   The contract between the moorer and the marina is a different one.

 

Nothing unethical in an agreement to provide a service if the other party is perpared to accept the terms.  CRT are providing the service to the marina and asking the marina to ensure nobody in the marina can avail themselves of the services of boating on the canal without a licence.

 

As a licence holder you should be against the possibility of people siting in a marina and nipping out when ever they like with no licence.

 

I can't see a disadvantage to the consumer any more than there is in any other business agreement.  I have seen car parks on private land which insist the vehicle has a "road fund licence".  Just the same thing.  Are you going to challenge them as well.  More people will feel the benefit I suspect.

 

There is no incentive for the marinas to dispute the agreement, and one which they have to agree to before any construction of the marina begins. At that point, they have entered into a contract.

 

It is not my place to police the canal system.

 

Your argument has an opposite - SORNS exist where vehicles are not on the public highway. The law does not insist a vehicle should remain fully licenced on private property. The law does not insist that a boat should remain fully licenced on private property. The licence is only in effect when the vehicle uses the place for which a licence is a legal requirement.

[Graham Davis]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

 

............................................................................//...........................................................................

 

This subject was always going to be a hard nut to crack, but crack - it will.

 

• And, licence fees will not go up.
• And, boaters will have more of a say. For the nearly £1,000 a year for the licence fee, I demand more of a say. By the way, the licence fee would be expensive, at half the price. Licence fees are unreasonably high. You're a numpty, if you think the huge burden of financing the upkeep of the canal should in a large part be shouldered by so few boat owners. Boaters without a say, at that.
• Call me all the names under the sun, and ridicule the idea - Why not, get it off your chesty.

Have a good day.

As usual, all mouth and trousers!

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

By the way, the licence fee would be expensive, at half the price. Licence fees are unreasonably high.

 

I disagree. And my evidence the licence is too cheap is the proliferation of boats on the canals.

 

We can't KEEP launching 10 new boats a week into CRT waters and expect them to just fade into the scenery. The canals are FULL and one way (the best way) of limiting the number of boats being added to the system is to make the licence fee high enough so living on a boat is no cheaper than living in a house. 

[Higgs]

7 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I disagree. And my evidence the licence is too cheap is the proliferation of boats on the canals.

 

We can't KEEP launching 10 new boats a week into CRT waters and expect them to just fade into the scenery. The canals are FULL and one way (the best way) of limiting the number of boats being added to the system is to make the licence fee high enough so living on a boat is no cheaper than living in a house. 

 

Elitist twaddle.