general terms and conditions.

[onionbargee]

Can anyone help me get a better understanding of the legal standing of the terms and conditions in the licence contract ?

 

I know that the legislation, both statute and bylaw trumps any t & c 's, but I am not sure about the legality of extra conditions added on to statutes by CRT. For instance the t&c's require you to inform CRT "immediately" if you require to overstay, but the law does not.

 

1. Exactly how far can CRT add on its own interpretations, and conditions to the law ?

 

2. Are all the t & c's that are not a rewording of the legislstion, contract terms that if breeched would possibly end the contract ?

 

3. Can the cancellation of the contract prevent you from applying for another licence , or lead to CRT refusing to renew it ?

[magnetman]

. edited

Edited May 25, 2016 by magnetman

[Alan de Enfield]

Sometimes I feel so alone,
I just don't know,
Feels like I been down this road before.
So lonely and cold.
It's like something takes over me,
Soon as I go home and close the door.
Kinda feels like deja vu.
I wanna get away from this place I do.
But I can't and I won't say I tried but I know that's a lie cause I don't
And why? I just don't know...

[Ray T]

Ask the N.B.T.A, they seem to be rather good at those sort of questions.

 

http://www.nbta.org.uk/

Edited May 25, 2016 by Ray T

[nicknorman]

 

1. Exactly how far can CRT add on its own interpretations, and conditions to the law ?

 

Absolutely as much as they like. I'm hearing that the latest amendment will require all boater's to wear rubber shorts and an ostrich feather hat.

 

2. Are all the t & c's that are not a rewording of the legislstion, contract terms that if breeched would possibly end the contract ?

 

Breeched? Yes that is the same requirement to wear rubber shorts.

 

3. Can the cancellation of the contract prevent you from applying for another licence , or lead to CRT refusing to renew it ?

No and yes. But then you already knew that. Mind you, once you are attired in your rubber shorts they will undoubtedly be obliged to licence you.

Edited May 25, 2016 by nicknorman

[magnetman]

Don't be rude

I think it was a serious question not a trolling topic.

It is relevant to quite a lot of people as CRT are continually modifying terms and conditions and it is worth knowing if it is actually legal or just *****

This is where we need NigelMoore

Edited May 26, 2016 by DeanS
swearing is against the site rules

[Sea Dog]

1. Exactly how far can CRT add on its own interpretations, and conditions to the law ?

 

Absolutely as much as they like. I'm hearing that the latest amendment will require all boater's to wear rubber shorts and an ostrich feather hat.

 

 

 

Luckily....

[HaulierP]

Don't be rude

 

I think it was a serious question not a trolling topic.

 

It is relevant to quite a lot of people as CRT are continually modifying terms and conditions and it is worth knowing if it is actually legal or just *******

 

This is where we need NigelMoore

Some would say Graham Davies

Edited May 26, 2016 by DeanS
edited to match original content

[Jerra]

Surely all boaters know/read the T & Cs either on applying for the licence or when they are re-issued. If they object to the T & Cs that would seem the logical time to open discussions with the only people who can really give any kind of answer - CRT. Other than that I suspect it will require a case in a sufficiently high level court to decide it.

[Graham Davis]

Oh look we have another clone account!

[onionbargee]

Surely all boaters know/read the T & Cs either on applying for the licence or when they are re-issued. If they object to the T & Cs that would seem the logical time to open discussions with the only people who can really give any kind of answer - CRT. Other than that I suspect it will require a case in a sufficiently high level court to decide it.

There would be no discussion, its take it or leave it, and CRT being a monopoly in canal terms there is no other options. What I don't understand is the relationship between legislation, and extra conditions added to it in t & c's. I have to ask what happens if a new outrageous condition is added ? There is no option for thousands of boat owners to just leave the canals, or sell up ?

[Alan de Enfield]

There would be no discussion, its take it or leave it, and CRT being a monopoly in canal terms there is no other options. .................

 

 

There are 21 members of the 'Association of Inland Navigation Authorities' of which C&RT is one.

The AINA members control navigation on some 6000km of Inland waterways (C&RT control 3000km)

AINA members have around 88,000 boats on their waters (C&RT have around 30,000 whilst the EA have 24,000)

 

There are alternatives to C&RT.

 

Yes C&RT is a major player, but as with may things in life, if you cannot meet the criteria, you cannot do what you want - example - I want a Trawler Yacht, it costs £500,000+, I cannot afford it I have to get something less, or, I would like a 'mansion house. in the middle of London, I cannot afford it so I live more modestly elsewhere.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[Jim Riley]

Oh look we have another clone account!

 

No, its him, makes him feel a tad worthy.

[Jerra]

There would be no discussion, its take it or leave it, and CRT being a monopoly in canal terms there is no other options. What I don't understand is the relationship between legislation, and extra conditions added to it in t & c's. I have to ask what happens if a new outrageous condition is added ? There is no option for thousands of boat owners to just leave the canals, or sell up ?

I am well aware of that it was a little tongue in cheek.

 

However I see no reason why CRT T&Cs should be any different to any others. If you like them you accept and do business if you don't you look elsewhere. As Alan d E points out there are as many Km of navigable inland waters not controlled by CRT as there are controlled by CRT so plenty of choice.

[Richard10002]

As far as I know, the Unfair Contract Terms Act, (or whatever it might now be known as), makes some terms between the general public and a business unenforceable. But I'm sure this route has been trodden in some of the cases to date?

[spadefoot]

Oh look we have another clone account!

Is that the royal "we" you're using there.

[MtB]

Don't be rude

 

I think it was a serious question not a trolling topic.

 

It is relevant to quite a lot of people as CRT are continually modifying terms and conditions and it is worth knowing if it is actually legal or just bullshit.

 

This is where we need NigelMoore

 

 

As Nigel has not appeared, ISTR him saying that the T&Cs are broadly optional as CRT are obliged to issue a licence provided the mandatory provisions in 17© etc are met, i.e. insurance, BSS and a home mooring or CC declaration.

 

Consequently, should CRT revoke a licence due to non compliance with once of the optional conditions, a judicial review may be applied for to make them re-instate it.

 

The net result of this is you can run your generator any time you like (for example), and all they can do is write you terse letters.

[NigelMoore]

 

Feels like I been down this road before.

 

 

 

With considerable sympathy with Alan’s plaint, because this has indeed been thrashed out before often enough, there remains a cardinal point that evidently needs reiterating – issue of boat licences is NOT a matter of contract, certainly as ordinarily understood; it is a matter of statutory obligation.

 

As CaRT inconsistently recognise: issue of a boat licence upon a paid for application is mandatory if the 3 statutory obligations on the boat owner have been complied with. Both applicant and issuer are bound to conform to that regulatory framework. IF it could be said that this was a matter of contract, then those are the ONLY terms applicable to it.

 

In itself, that disposes of the OP’s questions. I would add only that “interpretations” of the law [more accurately perhaps, ‘understanding’ of the law] is obligatory for both parties in the matter. That is not an “add on” of course. However, within the bald statements from CaRT regarding issue of licences, their obligation to issue the licence on compliance with those statutory conditions is acknowledged, as is their inability to impose further unilaterally contrived conditions such as boat appearance etc. So the interpretation aspect appears to be uncontentious.

 

Having said that, my description of their recognition as inconsistent arises from the additional claims made by CaRT elsewhere, that the licence IS a matter of contract dependant upon compliance with unilaterally imposed Terms and Conditions, such that breach will entitle revocation. That is clearly erroneous.

 

I have said it before, but it needs saying again: keeping and using a boat on the canals is conditional upon obtaining a licence for the boat [which is to be issued on compliance with the statutory requirements]; failure to obtain that licence carries specified penalties.

 

Use of the canals by that licensed boat is conditioned by further requirements, breaches of which carry their own specified penalties [which do NOT include revocation of the licence].

 

CaRT, as was the case with all their predecessors, are entitled to impose further conditions of use of the canals [that are not tied to the boat licence] through the medium of byelaws, which will carry the specified penalties for breach. These must be sanctioned by the Secretary of State. Without such sanctioned byelaws, there can be no penalty for breach of a unilaterally imposed condition; such conditions will remain advisory codes of conduct without penalties.

 

There are plenty enough of byelaws conditioning how a licensed boat may use the canals [referenced within the licence “T&C’s”], and breach of any of them could cost you a not insignificant amount and a criminal record; what it cannot do is entitle revocation of the licence.

 

The questions would never arise had not CaRT [as BW before them] attempted to govern licence issue by such circumlocutory and entangling methods, the only point of which appears to be streamlining enforcement by limiting that to the most draconian weapon in their arsenal. On the whole, I would observe that they are largely successful on the practical front, regardless of legalities.

 

[Dave_P]

Very helpful Nigel. Is there a list of byelaws and penalties anywhere?

[Horace42]

We live in a democratic free society which is highly regulated by laws. Within which codes-of-practice have evolved which are observed as matter of common sense and courtesy, in terms of rights and obligations, if you want a hassle free life as you go about your daily business/leisure.

 

Occasionally you fall foul of the law through ignorance or forgetfulness or inattention (and maybe outright defiance) , where there are penalties that can be imposed by others empowered to use fiscal force. (fines etc) and/or physical force where the latter physical force is extremely limited and only permitted for use by certain people (the police, eg) in extreme circumstances - anyone else thinking of using physical force would have to obtain a Court order. - which in reality would never be given - . .

 

My point being, If you are failing to observe the rules, terms and conditions of contracts, etc, etc, but not breaking the law, there is not much anybody can do about - other than use tactics of a fiscal nature - where in reality it often ceases to be a choice for you because the financial implications become onerous simply because others will become party to the solution where the cost of their services (voluntary or forced) lead to all sorts of additional costs - that in turn you can be made to pay enforced by a Court order..

 

So you make up your own mind what to do. Comply, or pay up today for an easy life, or cruise without a license - see what happens - and wait for someone to take action (CRT eg in this case) - then pay up. Or ignore it again - and so on.

 

In reality, if CRT take you on, as they must if it is a point of principle with far reaching consequences, the likelihood of you losing increases, the bill for failure gets bigger, the time to act gets shorter. Eventually you could end up in Contempt of Court - and soon in prison. Meanwhile CRT have to comply with the same laws - and prove it in Court.

 

There's a lot of mileage in this.

[NigelMoore]

Very helpful Nigel. Is there a list of byelaws and penalties anywhere?

Yes - Google "general canal byelaws". Am only on phone at present so cannot give you the link direct. The same penalty of £100 (with attendant costs) applies to them all. One of the byelaws (re: obstruction) has an additional penalty under the 1995 Act if breach involves danger to people or property.

[onionbargee]

 

There are 21 members of the 'Association of Inland Navigation Authorities' of which C&RT is one.

The AINA members control navigation on some 6000km of Inland waterways (C&RT control 3000km)

AINA members have around 88,000 boats on their waters (C&RT have around 30,000 whilst the EA have 24,000)

 

There are alternatives to C&RT.

 

Yes C&RT is a major player, but as with may things in life, if you cannot meet the criteria, you cannot do what you want - example - I want a Trawler Yacht, it costs £500,000+, I cannot afford it I have to get something less, or, I would like a 'mansion house. in the middle of London, I cannot afford it so I live more modestly elsewhere.

Isnt the main canal network is managed by CRT, you referring to a sum total of scattered river, and unconnected navigation , most of which if actually connected, can only be reached by CRT canals, or road transport. If you can show a map of a large connected system of non CRT navigations, I will change my mind. Edited May 26, 2016 by onionbargee

[Paul C]

Isnt the main canal network is managed by CRT, you referring to a sum total of scattered river, and unconnected navigation , most of which if actually connected, can only be reached by CRT canals, or road transport. If you can show a map of a large connected system of non CRT navigations, I will change my mind.

 

The more specific you make your requirements, the more likely only one company is supplying that area. For example, if you wanted moorings, there's loads. If you wanted marina moorings in Nantwich, there is only one - Nantwich Marina.

 

As far as breaking T&Cs but not laws goes, yes in theory everything Nigel says is right - CRT are obliged to issue the licence. However, they might not (in defiance of the law). Without the funding and/or backing of a large number of people, your isolated case is likely to get nowhere. If it were a more general issue where many other boaters were concerned, there may be an uprising of support for the issue at hand, but the evidence doesn't seem to suggest this here (as in, in your particular circumstances). I know you've made the original post quite general, but a simple search of previous threads will show that in the areas you've so far chosen to discuss, none have massive support.

[onionbargee]

As far as I can see 1.3 of the T&C's is not true, or worded to confuse contract terms with statutes ?

 

"In accordance with s.43(3) of the Transport Act 1962, boat licences are subject to the conditions which apply to the use of a boat on any Waterway which we own or manage. These are necessary to protect third parties and to help us manage the Waterways well for the benefit of all our users. 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.

 

 

1.3 conditions means these general terms and conditions."

[onionbargee]

 

The more specific you make your requirements, the more likely only one company is supplying that area. For example, if you wanted moorings, there's loads. If you wanted marina moorings in Nantwich, there is only one - Nantwich Marina.

 

As far as breaking T&Cs but not laws goes, yes in theory everything Nigel says is right - CRT are obliged to issue the licence. However, they might not (in defiance of the law). Without the funding and/or backing of a large number of people, your isolated case is likely to get nowhere. If it were a more general issue where many other boaters were concerned, there may be an uprising of support for the issue at hand, but the evidence doesn't seem to suggest this here (as in, in your particular circumstances). I know you've made the original post quite general, but a simple search of previous threads will show that in the areas you've so far chosen to discuss, none have massive support.

Ultimately CRT have to go to court to remove your boat, at that point there is a hearing where you have the opportunity to defend yourself, you would not need to initiate or fund legal action ?

 

( I have heard that Shoesmiths remove part of the court paperwork that is issued to the defendant in either a court order or section 8 case, without which no defence can be put forward.)