Mooring in Marina unlicenced

[Higgs]

1 hour ago, Graham Davis said:

Or if the Terms and Conditions in the Contract held with a marina insist on it. Contract Law then applies.

 

Yes, they can insist you paint your boat pink, but the licence has no legal value in a marina.

[Higgs]

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Well obviously a licnence is required in a marina if the marina T&Cs demand it.

 

The licence is not a legal requirement, in a marina. I'm sure you know I know what the terms and conditions of a marina mean. The enforcement powers of CRT do not exist in a marina, and these statutory powers are not transferable to the management of the marina. 

 

There is absolutely no reason a SORN type arrangement could not be implemented in the private area of a marina.    

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Higgs said:

The licence is not a legal requirement, in a marina. I'm sure you know I know what the terms and conditions of a marina mean.

 

Yes. The T&Cs mean you need a licence if they so demand, for you to be granted a mooring contract. 

 

No licence, no mooring contract. It really IS that simple.

[Higgs]

7 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes. The T&Cs mean you need a licence if they so demand, for you to be granted a mooring contract. 

 

No licence, no mooring contract. It really IS that simple.

 

You obviously have difficulty understanding the difference between what the marina agrees to do for the sake of being able to make money and, the actual legal requirement that requires you to have a licence only on the Trust's water way.

[Rob VP]

My boat is currently sat unused in a marina alongside crt waters. I have no plans to take it out over the next few months (I'm too I'll) and it turns out I can't get a temporary licence, so I think I will just leave it unlicensed and see what happens.

[MtB]

24 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

You obviously have difficulty understanding the difference between what the marina agrees to do for the sake of being able to make money and, the actual legal requirement that requires you to have a licence only on the Trust's water way.

 

And you are all mouth and no action.

 

Stand by your claim and cancel your licence, and we'll see how long your marina tolerates this before cancelling your mooring agreement. 

 

I'm happy for you to prove me wrong but I am 100% certain you don't have the cojones to actually do what you preach. 

[Chewbacka]

9 minutes ago, Rob VP said:

My boat is currently sat unused in a marina alongside crt waters. I have no plans to take it out over the next few months (I'm too I'll) and it turns out I can't get a temporary licence, so I think I will just leave it unlicensed and see what happens.

If the mooring agreement you signed with the marina requires you to have a licence then you will have failed to comply.  Expect the marina and not crt to take action against you.

[BruceinSanity]

6 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

And you are all mouth and no action.

 

Stand by your claim and cancel your licence, and we'll see how long your marina tolerates this before cancelling your mooring agreement. 

 

I'm happy for you to prove me wrong but I am 100% certain you don't have the cojones to actually do what you preach. 

I admire your determination, Mike, but you really are wasting your time. We've been all round this one before with no resolution. The OP has been given a list of mooring places where you don't need a licence, so their purpose has been achieved, at least.

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, BruceinSanity said:

I admire your determination, Mike, but you really are wasting your time. We've been all round this one before with no resolution. The OP has been given a list of mooring places where you don't need a licence, so their purpose has been achieved, at least.

 

Thank you kindly, but I feel the twaddle posted about this needs countering. We don't want new boaters believing him and losing their moorings do we?

[Higgs]

59 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

And you are all mouth and no action.

 

Stand by your claim and cancel your licence, and we'll see how long your marina tolerates this before cancelling your mooring agreement. 

 

I'm happy for you to prove me wrong but I am 100% certain you don't have the cojones to actually do what you preach. 

 

I know they'd cancel. As I say, you have difficult grasping the main bone of contention. I'm not about to go about things in the stupid way you are suggesting - to prove something that I've no interest in contesting.

 

Edited July 22, 2018 by Higgs

[Paul C]

3 hours ago, gunsmoke said:

 

If correct then their requirement of a marina owner is dubious to say the least.

Except all (effectively) the marina owners agreed to it, because the NAA is borne from a negotiation with the trade body representing marinas, rather than CRT (or BW) negotiating possibly slightly different agreements with every marina constructed since a certain time in history.

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

I know they'd cancel.

 

 

What would you do if they cancelled? Move marinas? Contest it? CC?

 

Effectively, you need a licence (because you need a marina mooring and they impose the requirement on you) although its route of enforcement is not the same as if you were on CRT waters without one.

[Rob VP]

I wonder how many marinas enforce this rule.  I suspect none, or very few. 

[Jerra]

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Stand by your claim and cancel your licence, and we'll see how long your marina tolerates this before cancelling your mooring agreement.  

As soon as they cancel your mooring you need a licence to move out!  You might as well have had one in the first place and avoided the hassel.

[mayalld]

On ‎20‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 23:03, DonCorleone said:

Whilst I concede that the likes of the C&RT may well do as you suggest, such action on the part of a navigation authority forced into restricting the use of or closing down their canals through lack of water by mid-Summer can hardly be described as "sound business and commercial practice". 

How so?

 

You have provided no evidence that these reservoirs provide any useful stock of water for dry weather.

 

You see, if you have a marina full of boats, and you flog it to CRT as additional reservoir capacity, then when there is dry weather, and they actually decide to use some of this capacity that you think they should pay for, would you be happy for them to drain the marina until the boats are sat on the bottom?

 

After all, the boats (in your world) have no need of what CRT can supply, and the marina owner (in your world again) has sold the water in his marina to CRT as a supply of extra water.

 

Bluntly, the marina owner has bog all to sell to CRT. The six inches of water that they might draw down from the marina before everybody complains isn't worth having.

 

On ‎20‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 23:24, Higgs said:

Here is a marina that I've used in the past, Mercia marina. It is near my home town of Derby. You can clearly see a before and after photo showing it was an area of water, before a channel was constructed over private land to the canal. This area was an area of water, without the use of a canal. You will be able to see the line of the canal and the access point. On one side private property, on the other the canal.

So why did they decide to connect to the canal?

 

After all, if they hadn't connected to the canal, they could have saved lots of money in connection fees, and their marina would be mega-popular, because nobody would need a licence.

[mayalld]

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

I know they'd cancel. As I say, you have difficult grasping the main bone of contention. I'm not about to go about things in the stupid way you are suggesting - to prove something that I've no interest in contesting.

 

And yet you contest it here all the time.

 

As was said, all mouth...

[David Mack]

4 hours ago, gunsmoke said:

I have correspondence from CRT that indicates that a marina is private water and outside the jurisdiction of CRT, even to the extent that it is considered to be 'off our water' from the point of view of seeking to remove a boat from 'their' water.  That is what is stated, whether correct or not I don't know and have had no reply when questioning it.

If correct then their requirement of a marina owner is dubious to say the least.

Given that we know that CRT law depends on variables such as which way the wind blows who would be correct if the marina owner refused to comply with CRT's requirement - which many do? 

This correspondence probably relates to a specific non NAA marina, where CRT may well regard it as "off their water" with no need for boats to be licensed. 

 

[Higgs]

22 minutes ago, mayalld said:

 

So why did they decide to connect to the canal?

 

After all, if they hadn't connected to the canal, they could have saved lots of money in connection fees, and their marina would be mega-popular, because nobody would need a licence.

 

I don't think you're an idiot.

 

Is the fking marina private property or not?

18 minutes ago, mayalld said:

And yet you contest it here all the time.

 

As was said, all mouth...

 

No I don't. IT'S very, very, very occasionally.

 

I pay my licence fee, I'll say what I think is going on, and you can all lump it.

[mayalld]

56 minutes ago, Rob VP said:

I wonder how many marinas enforce this rule.  I suspect none, or very few. 

 

I suspect that you are wrong!

 

You seem to be labouring under some kind of misapprehension that the marina owner won't care, because it's no skin of his nose whether you have a licence or not.

 

The trouble with that theory is that whether you have a licence or not is actually something that the marina owner of an NAA marina WILL care about.

 

The marina owner has an agreement with CRT that he will only allow boats to moor which have a current licence, and that CRT are welcome to come into the marina and verify this.

 

When CRT come in and find your boat sans-licence, you will be pleased to know that CRT will do absolutely nothing to you. As Higgs points out ad-nauseam, CRT can't require you to have a licence in a marina.

 

What they will do is say "excuse me, Mr Marina Owner, Rob's boat over there doesn't have a licence, and it is a breach of your agreement with us for you to allow hin to moor here with no licence"

 

Now, Mr Marina Owner COULD say "So what, not my problem", but he would be a fool to do so, because if he does, he is in breach of his agreement with CRT, and they will give him notice of termination and put the stop planks in. When his other customers hear what is about to happen, they will sail off into the sunset. He ceases to own a marina, and owns a pond instead.

 

So, basically, your marina owner has a vested interest in you having a licence, and if CRT say "Rob's boat has no licence", he will be on the phone and say "Get a licence or get out"

 

[Higgs]

6 minutes ago, mayalld said:

You seem to be labouring under some kind of misapprehension that the marina owner won't care, because it's no skin of his nose whether you have a licence or not.

 

The marinas do not give a fig. It all boils down to their own business needs, not CRT's rule.

[mayalld]

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

I don't think you're an idiot.

 

Is the fking marina private property or not?

 

It is indeed private property.

 

It is also private property that is far more valuable as a marina than as a pond.

 

The owner took a business decision to connect to CRT waters, knowing that he would pay for that connection, and that having created a connection, he would no longer be able to have unlicenced boats there.

 

He clearly took the view that the denmand for marinas not connected to anything being what it is, his business interests were best servef by requiring boats to be licenced.

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

The marinas do not give a fig. It all boils down to their own business needs, not CRT's rule.

Of course they care.

 

They care, because if they fail to require licences, they don't have a business any more.

[Higgs]

7 minutes ago, mayalld said:

It is indeed private property.



 

Glad we got that cleared up.

Edited July 22, 2018 by Higgs

[Graham Davis]

23 minutes ago, mayalld said:

And yet you contest it here all the time.

 

As was said, all mouth...

Perhaps we should stop feeding the troll.

[Paul C]

44 minutes ago, gunsmoke said:

So?    It's not uncommon to  be forced to agree to something that is not strictly legal

But requiring you to buy a licence isn't "not strictly legal". You have two choices: 1) buy a licence (and comply with the various other terms) then stay at that marina, or 2) stay elsewhere.

 

If you genuinely believe its an unreasonable term in the mooring agreement then 1) negotiate with the marina to stay but without a licence or 2) contest it via legal means. I remember this has come up, frequently, before. I have looked at a mooring contract, looked at some of the terms, had a chat with the manager, got a pen, crossed them out then signed it. If as the above posts suggests, its rarely enforced anyway (I suspect its not true though - partly because CRT come round and check the licences of moored boats quite frequently) then it would be a non-issue to do this.

[Higgs]

10 minutes ago, Paul C said:

But requiring you to buy a licence isn't "not strictly legal". You have two choices: 1) buy a licence (and comply with the various other terms) then stay at that marina, or 2) stay elsewhere.

 

If you genuinely believe its an unreasonable term in the mooring agreement then 1) negotiate with the marina to stay but without a licence or 2) contest it via legal means. I remember this has come up, frequently, before. I have looked at a mooring contract, looked at some of the terms, had a chat with the manager, got a pen, crossed them out then signed it. If as the above posts suggests, its rarely enforced anyway (I suspect its not true though - partly because CRT come round and check the licences of moored boats quite frequently) then it would be a non-issue to do this.

 

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. It is anti-consumer. I'm sorry that not alot people here agree with that. What can I do. I haven't really been convinced of the merits of the counter arguments.

 

 

[mayalld]

11 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Glad we got that cleared up.

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.