Displaying Licence 'discs'

[WotEver]

35 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

Since doing away with the need to display a tax disc in cars the figure for car tax evasion has doubled.

As have prosecutions for doing so. 

From the FT:

Quote

The DVLA uses a debt collection agency, Marston Holdings, to claw back lost payments. According to the company’s most recent accounts, pre-tax profits more than doubled from £5.8m to £13.6m in the 12 months to the end of May 2015.

 

[system 4-50]

I am not concerned about displaying licence discs but I am much more narked about boats with no or deliberately hard to see boat number. When boats severely misbehave, eg doing damage to other boats or mine or the infrastructure it is difficult to involve the relevant authority if the boat can't be readily identified. Reading the tiny licence disc is not usually possible in a confrontation situation. Any boat found persistently without a number should be surcharged at licence renewal time. The boat name is no use, it is usually Kingfisher.  

[Arthur Marshall]

And if a boat doesn't have a unique name (or one at all), has no licence disk and doesn't show the boat number anywhere, it is surely impossible for CRT to pursue it for anything at all (unless they do it by bike) as there's nothing to identify it on their system.  The CRT assumption would surely have to be that such a boat is unlicensed, but there absolutely nothing that can be done about it in court - all they can do is turn up one day and tow it away.

[mrsmelly]

3 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

And if a boat doesn't have a unique name (or one at all), has no licence disk and doesn't show the boat number anywhere, it is surely impossible for CRT to pursue it for anything at all (unless they do it by bike) as there's nothing to identify it on their system.  The CRT assumption would surely have to be that such a boat is unlicensed, but there absolutely nothing that can be done about it in court - all they can do is turn up one day and tow it away.

It would be very easy to clone yer boat and not have to pay licence fees etc if you were so minded. I doubt CARTS logging system would work it out.

[Arthur Marshall]

10 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

It would be very easy to clone yer boat and not have to pay licence fees etc if you were so minded. I doubt CARTS logging system would work it out.

It always has been. Certainly easy enough now to print out a licence with the year changed. I suppose they have to rely on most of us being relatively law-abiding, which i would imagine we are.  Too much hassle otherwise. The only thing that might pop up is if you get logged two hundred miles apart in the same week... mind you, all this only affects the minority of boats that actually ever go anywhere.  As far as I can tell, the majority sit on their moorings for at least 50 weeks of the year.

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, WotEver said:

As have prosecutions for doing so. 

From the FT:

 

Well that stands to reason, as if they weren't prosecuted you wouldn't know they were evading  

[andy3196]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

And if a boat doesn't have a unique name (or one at all), has no licence disk and doesn't show the boat number anywhere, it is surely impossible for CRT to pursue it for anything at all (unless they do it by bike) as there's nothing to identify it on their system.  The CRT assumption would surely have to be that such a boat is unlicensed, but there absolutely nothing that can be done about it in court - all they can do is turn up one day and tow it away.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/7564-not-known-court-order.pdf shows that they can take an unidentifiable and its unknown owner boat to court.

[Iain_S]

20 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

The licence is not a contract, it is statutory, you don't have any contract with CaRT.  When you agreed to the " licence terms and conditions" you agreed to an unlawful fake contract which is unenforceable in any court whether agreed to or not. A contract can never override statute.

But it can set conditions where statute is silent. Otherwise, what's the point of any contract?

 

Anyway, the display of the licence is statutory : British Waterways Board Bye Laws 1975, Bye Law 3

[Allan(nb Albert)]

10 hours ago, Iain_S said:

But it can set conditions where statute is silent. Otherwise, what's the point of any contract?

 

Anyway, the display of the licence is statutory : British Waterways Board Bye Laws 1975, Bye Law 3

I think you will find that that display of the licence is also a matter of contract under licence conditions despite statute not being silent (see condition 7.1). It would appear to be one one several instances where licence conditions seek to amend statutory provision.

[Athy]

18 hours ago, Naughty Cal said:

Since doing away with the need to display a tax disc in cars the figure for car tax evasion has doubled.

Gosh, no one could possibly have foreseen that happening, could they? It's like when British Rail removed staff from many of their smaller stations: of course every passenger would dutifully pay the correct fare, wouldn't they?

[Jess--]

20 hours ago, Naughty Cal said:

Since doing away with the need to display a tax disc in cars the figure for car tax evasion has doubled.

impossible to tell.... but how much is deliberate and how much is accidental?

seeing the tax disc on the car at least gave you an extra reference for when it expired, I wonder how many youngsters have been caught out where a car is registered as being at parents house but used somewhere else (uni etc)

[mayalld]

On ‎14‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 17:48, matty40s said:

But Dave Mayall says it keeps him happy.

 

I haven't said a word!

[WotEver]

1 hour ago, Jess-- said:

impossible to tell.... but how much is deliberate and how much is accidental?

seeing the tax disc on the car at least gave you an extra reference for when it expired, I wonder how many youngsters have been caught out where a car is registered as being at parents house but used somewhere else (uni etc)

It's all extra money for The Treasury anyway. Not only do they get the back tax but they receive an £80 fine too. 

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

15 hours ago, Iain_S said:

But it can set conditions where statute is silent. Otherwise, what's the point of any contract?

 

Anyway, the display of the licence is statutory : British Waterways Board Bye Laws 1975, Bye Law 3

If you breach the licence terms and conditions CaRT have invented that are not statutory or bylaws what is the penalty ? The licence is issued or revoked under the three statutory conditions, whatever you do if you haven't breached them you still have a valid licence ? ( providing your boat is not a danger to others ) If you breach a canal bylaw you are fined if found guilty by a court, that still doesn't affect your licence. So I don't understand why you think the licence is subject to a contract . Just because CaRT have published licence terms and conditions doesn't make them a valid contract, even if you agree to them its still legally worthless.

 

[MtB]

On 16/03/2017 at 10:57, WotEver said:

It's all extra money for The Treasury anyway. Not only do they get the back tax but they receive an £80 fine too. 

 

The more cynical amongst us might think the reason for removal of the tax disc was precisely in order to automatically generate a vast  number of £80 penalties.

It certainly happened to me as I hadn't collected my post for a while and missed a renewal notice. There was not only a Penalty fine for using the vehicle on the road with no tax, but some other further penalty I had to pay in order to renew the vehicle tax at all. I think the mistake cost me about £160 in all. 

But with CRT it is different. They don't have APNR cameras everywhere with automated fine generation.  

[Jim Riley]

Renewed my Mooring permit just now by Phone. I was told that they won't be sending a mooring permit out, there's no need to display it. I asked whether that was the case with the boat licence as I had heard otherwise and was told, No, licence must be displayed. So at least thats one bit of carp I no longer have to clutter my window with.

[X Alan W]

On 13/03/2017 at 21:55, Arthur Marshall said:

 

By the way, they now let you go through with your stove alight - a small  victory for common sense. 

When was the no stove/fire rule brought in I cannot ever remember going through in my carrying days with the cabin range not lit There would have been some "argy bargy" if they had wanted us to put the range out, especially if there was any thing on the range top or in the oven cooking.

Edited March 16, 2017 by X Alan W

[Iain_S]

11 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I think you will find that that display of the licence is also a matter of contract under licence conditions despite statute not being silent (see condition 7.1). It would appear to be one one several instances where licence conditions seek to amend statutory provision.

1975 Bye Laws :

Quote

3. (1) The owner of a pleasure boat or commercial vessel shall not knowingly cause or permit to be used on a canal any pleasure boat or commercial vessel in respect of which a pleasure boat licence or commercial vessel licence has been issued unless the licence for the time being in force is displayed on the pleasure boat or commercial vessel in such a manner and position as to be clearly visible from outside the pleasure boat or commercial vessel at all times. (2) No person shall knowingly cause or permit to be concealed a pleasure boat licence or commercial vessel licence required to be displayed on a pleasure boat or commercial vessel in accordance with this Bye-law.

Condition 7.1 CaRT Licensing conditions :

Quote

7.1 You must display the Boat’s name, index number and the Licence on both sides of the Boat so that they are always easily visible by our employees on the towpath or on the Waterway. If you do not, we may place a sticker on the Boat or on any cover on the Boat showing the number, which must not be removed unless the number is displayed in some other way. Any Tender must be marked with ‘Tender to (name and index number of the Boat)’.

Not a lot of difference, insofar as licence display is concerned  

7 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

If you breach the licence terms and conditions CaRT have invented that are not statutory or bylaws what is the penalty ? The licence is issued or revoked under the three statutory conditions, whatever you do if you haven't breached them you still have a valid licence ? ( providing your boat is not a danger to others ) If you breach a canal bylaw you are fined if found guilty by a court, that still doesn't affect your licence. So I don't understand why you think the licence is subject to a contract . Just because CaRT have published licence terms and conditions doesn't make them a valid contract, even if you agree to them its still legally worthless.

CaRT could seek to apply the British Waterways Act 1995 Sec 17 (9), with "any other enactment" being the infamous Transport Act 1962 sec. 43(3).

Whether that flies or not would be up to the Courts ....

 

Edited March 16, 2017 by Iain_S
make the smiley work! fail! Trying again...

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

1975 Bye Laws :

 

Condition 7.1 CaRT Licensing conditions :

 

Not a lot of difference, insofar as licence display is concerned :-)  

CaRT could seek to apply the British Waterways Act 1995 Sec 17 (9), with "any other enactment" being the infamous Transport Act 1962 sec. 43(3).

Whether that flies or not would be up to the Courts ....

 

But - I believe that 'the point' is that C&RT cannot revoke a licence for contravening a bye-law.

They can only impose the sanctions listed in the bye-law.

 

You cannot have a law stating that the fine for not having your car 'taxed' is (say) £200 but then take the car and 'crush it' to 'make your point'

[Iain_S]

55 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

But - I believe that 'the point' is that C&RT cannot revoke a licence for contravening a bye-law.

They can only impose the sanctions listed in the bye-law.

I agree.

I am, however,  unaware of any instance where a licence (or certificate) has been revoked for non display.

 

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

Not sure how CaRT would attempt to reason to a judge that the 1962 Transport act applies to licences when they were not a requirement until 1975 , and a public right of navigation existed on all BWB waterways until 1968, can an act of Parliament apply to something not conceived of at the time ?

[Arthur Marshall]

5 hours ago, X Alan W said:

When was the no stove/fire rule brought in I cannot ever remember going through in my carrying days with the cabin range not lit There would have been some "argy bargy" if they had wanted us to put the range out, especially if there was any thing on the range top or in the oven cooking.

I think it was about three years ago iI suddenly got told I couldn't go through the Harecastle with the stove lit (up to then there had never been a problem).  I said it was barmy - an enclosed stove, making no smoke, just simmering away deemed to be illegal and dangerous while pilot lights were OK?  Made no sense to me then.

It was the same time they decided that my horn wasn't loud enough and they insisted on lending me an airhorn as I went through!  I suspected it was a relatively new tunnel bod being a jobsworth - had no idea if any of it was true or not.

[thebfg]

On Wed Mar 15 2017 at 12:48, Naughty Cal said:

Since doing away with the need to display a tax disc in cars the figure for car tax evasion has doubled.

Would that be because more are caught now making it harder to evade?

It will also be the automated system  realising a car is not taxed or sorned and sending out an automatic fine after a mistake by the owner.

[WotEver]

37 minutes ago, thebfg said:

Would that be because more are caught now making it harder to evade?

No. Figures show that in the first six months of the new system car tax income to DVLA dropped a considerable amount. What percentage of that was a genuine mistake and how much was folk thinking they could get away with it no-one knows. It settled back down quite quickly though. 

[Machpoint005]

4 hours ago, WotEver said:

No. Figures show that in the first six months of the new system car tax income to DVLA dropped a considerable amount. What percentage of that was a genuine mistake and how much was folk thinking they could get away with it no-one knows. It settled back down quite quickly though. 

That'd be the Law of Unintended Consequences at work. The Coalition government and the present mob were/are equally ignorant of it.