Canal World

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.

  • Announcements

    • RichM

      Changes to our Site Chat   05/04/17

      Invision Power Services Inc, the developers of our forum & chat software will be retiring the existing Chat functionality of the site as of May this year. (You may read more about this here) As such, we are in the position of finding an alternative solution given we believe that our chat functionality still has a place on Canal World. We're currently trialing out new "Chatbox" software on the site which you may view both via the bottom of the main page or by clicking "Chatbox" at the top right of the page. We appreciate the design & functionality is different though we welcome your feedback. 

Muddy Ditch Rich

Member
  • Content count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Muddy Ditch Rich

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Braunston
  1. The boat checkers on bikes on the GU work on a 10 day schedule, they told me.
  2. I asked CaRT via FOI what the legal basis for the business licence is, they responded by producing a list of all BW legislation, an evasive answer, in fact not an answer after they agreed to respond to my request. ( One which just involves pointing out the relevant legislation at no cost to anyone ). So they cannot produce any specific legislation that these licences are based on, I can only conclude they are not mandatory, are unlawful, or are just a fiction. But seeing as no one cares they are paying extra for nothing, certainly not the Roving Canal Traders Assoc. this remains academic. Case closed ?
  3. There is also the fact that its illegal to use a pleasure boat as a shop, store or workshop without the boards permission. Bylaw 30. A completely undefined and open ended bylaw that only makes the situation worse ?
  4. One problem with this is that the kind of uptight people that report other boaters for overstaying don't check why first, there are reasonable reasons why boats overstay, months in some cases where the owner has terminal cancer. Many boaters feel its none of anyone's business if they have an " authorised " overstay, and may not advertise the fact. CaRT are aware of the movements of every boat every ten days, so there is no need to report anything to them.
  5. I cant see any evidence that a non statutory licence is legitimate. If it was statutory licences would be irrelevant, all licences would be contractual, the fact that BW sought the consent of parliment for the 1995 act ( and others ) as regards licences is proof that they did not have the power to create their own licences, or the terms and conditions of them.
  6. Does the Trust have the power to offer non statutory licences ?
  7. Can you include retailing goods in the term " carriage of goods" ? There is an accepted distinction between road transport operators moving goods from A to B, and those with vehicle based retail operations, ice cream vans as an example.
  8. Do you mean the power to propose bylaws ? If so then they can't do anything without the S of S 's consent.
  9. The meaning of section 43 is disputed, and Nigel has gone into it in detail, more than I can. If BW could create its own mandatory terms and conditions for licences why did they spend years drafting the 1995 act when they could have added the BSC, insurance, and mooring as conditions to their licence contract ? If they could create their own " navigation rules" in 1962 why did they then return to parliment for the 1965 canal bylaws ?
  10. There is also this BW document online that states they undertook a major review of licencing in 2007, so their claim that it hasn't been reviewed since 1995 is also false. - ive cut and pasted the relevant section because I can't see how to copy the link. For information & comment on by Waterway User Groups Simon Salem, Marketing & Customer Service Director, 5 September 2008 1. BACKGROUND During 2007 British Waterway undertook an extensive consultation on future boat licence fees. Many boaters and representative groups contributed to this and many good suggestions were made. The result was that BW modified its proposals for licence fees in 2008 and asked the independent British Waterways Advisory Forum (BWAF) to examine each of the suggestions in closer detail. BW is very grateful to the members of the BWAF Licensing Sub-Group who dedicated many hours to the subject. By studying the 2007 public consultation responses, analysing data and debating options, they gained a deep understanding of the challenges involved in determining a ‘fair’ boat licensing system. The BWAF report was finalised during August 2008 and this paper is BW’s response to that. It is being sent to all relevant interest groups for their comments and views on the various recommendations.
  11. There is no such thing as the "spirit of constant cruising" it is an opinion, the term is an invention. The word "constant" is not part of any of the legislation. If you want to find out what the intent of the legislation is you need to read the minutes to the 1995 act, there was never any intent that anyone covers huge distances, or only cruises in one direction, or is involved in a constant cruise to cover the entire system.
  12. You show your true colours in that post.
  13. Makes no difference as I said CaRT do not and have never enforced any bylaws. My speculation is that they wish to only promote the false idea of a licence terms and conditions contract, and quietly forget about the bylaws, cancellation of a contract requires no evidence or prosecution by a court, a lie told often enough becomes reality.
  14. I am not referring to whether there needs to be change or not, I am just pointing out that the implied reason for the review in the trusts press release is false. My view is that with the current despicable management, and bent legal department, allowing them to interfere with licencing will not end well for boaters. We will be better off sticking with the hand we have been dealt, and fund a legal review of the correct interpretation of section 43.
  15. 1. The first paragraph of the licence conditions contradicts the 95 act "Any breach of these Conditions would entitle the Trust to terminate your Licence which may result in the removal of your Boat from our Waterways " 2. Don't be daft. 3.17 ( 9) , if you can find some other legislation that allows revocation of a licence, if you can find any mention of the issue or revocation of licences in the 62 act, I can't think of any, but I'm no expert, I find it very hard to accept that the 62 act created 12 / 14 years before licences were created is relevant to licences, or that BW's lawyers, Parliament, and all the user groups involved in the 95 bill forgot to mention the 62 act already gives BW unlimited powers to create bylaws without the consent the secretary of state, or revoke licences as they see fit, with no due process, and no rights for the licence holder to appeal. BW returned to parliment after 1962 for 4 further changes to bylaws, and eleven further BW acts, thousands of hours of hearings, legal work, and drafting legislation all for nothing ? It doesn't matter how you interpret section 43, the fact is that there is no historical evidence that BW ever believed or that parliment ever intended that they had these powers. If they do have this power to create a licence contract then you have zero rights, and your licence can be cancelled without notice at any time, and they can refuse to ever issue you with another one. Is that what you want ? A judge. ( not a Chinese one )