Jump to content

After you have done your 20 miles then what?


Jstupot

Featured Posts

I bought a mooring at the same time I licensed the boat (i.e. the day I bought the boat), it was moored in a marina at that time and for a week following the purchase.

Less than a week after the purchase (so boat still in the marina) I received an email from CaRT advising me that the boat had remained in the same place for more than 14 days...  A quick and very polite call cleared up the obvious error with the lovely young lady at CaRT saying that it was obviously their error and corrected it there an then.  Now wondering if, now the boat is at her mooring (53 miles and 31 locks - see - I've done my year's worth of travelling already!), I will receive the same sort of email after the next 2 trips out which will only be 'short' ones in the same general area ^_^ (just being facietious!)

CC'ers and those with a home mooring have to obey the same guidelines regarding stopping over, sensible enough to me.  Although I do wonder if the same boat that was moored opposite ours will still be there when we next visit the boat, it was one of those who felt the need to store wood and coal on the roof and scrub out the name of the boat...

Edited by Ratkatcher
Missed a bit!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ratkatcher said:

I bought a mooring at the same time I licensed the boat (i.e. the day I bought the boat), it was moored in a marina at that time and for a week following the purchase.

Less than a week after the purchase (so boat still in the marina) I received an email from CaRT advising me that the boat had remained in the same place for more than 14 days...  A quick and very polite call cleared up the obvious error with the lovely young lady at CaRT saying that it was obviously their error and corrected it there an then.  Now wondering if, now the boat is at her mooring, I will receive the same sort of email after the next 2 trips out which will only be 'short' ones in the same general area ^_^ (just being facietious!)

CC'ers and those with a home mooring have to obey the same guidelines regarding stopping over, sensible enough to me.  Although I do wonder if the same boat that was moored opposite ours will still be there when we next visit the boat, it was one of those who felt the need to store wood and coal on the roof and scrub out the name of the boat...

 

Having no name and no number displayed releases you from the 14 day rule. 

Didn't you know?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Legally they do not.

True, I do not have to prove 'bona fide' continuous navigation and may return to the same neighbourhood on trips out from my mooring as often as I choose.

The intent of the comment was regarding the 14 day rule on moorings not signposted to be of any other fixed period.  Perhaps I should have made that point clearer.

Thanks for pointing it out, Alan.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, I Spartacus said:

You could always write the boat name and number in Chinese ! to confuse CRT, but I expect would be against the law Lol

我在酒吧喝啤酒

The name has to be " clearly legible" according to the bylaw. So no.

 

  CaRT have never enforced any bylaws so it does not matter. They will claim that you have a contract with them which you are in breach of, you do not, and they know you do not and will not pursue any breach of the terms of this fake contact in court, only threaten you with it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

  CaRT have never enforced any bylaws so it does not matter. They will claim that you have a contract with them which you are in breach of, you do not, and they know you do not and will not pursue any breach of the terms of this fake contact in court, only threaten you with it. 

 

so what are you recommending?  ..........   that everybody should ignore the 'rules' and thereby assist CRT to spend their money on a fruitless pursuit of those who don't comply?

oh, I forgot, you don't accept that paying a licence fee implies that you agree to any contract.

I was taught that every time an offer is made, and the offer is accepted, that represents a contract.  Offering a licence, and accepting the offer by paying a licence fee represents a contract.

I expect you to come up with lots of legal BS to contradict me, but it doesn't help the administration of our waterways one iota.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

so what are you recommending?  ..........   that everybody should ignore the 'rules' and thereby assist CRT to spend their money on a fruitless pursuit of those who don't comply?

oh, I forgot, you don't accept that paying a licence fee implies that you agree to any contract.

I was taught that every time an offer is made, and the offer is accepted, that represents a contract.  Offering a licence, and accepting the offer by paying a licence fee represents a contract.

I expect you to come up with lots of legal BS to contradict me, but it doesn't help the administration of our waterways one iota.

 

 

 

By " legal BS" you mean the actual law ? 

The actual case law says that no contract can override statute, no contract can have any bearing on the issue or revocation of statutory licences. "The rules" of the waterways are the bylaws, revocation of a licence is not a penalty for a breach of any of them. CaRT has no powers to levy fines. So please tell me what your contract is for ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 18:45, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

This crossed my find too. CRT data checkers don't routinely check all the boats in marinas on a weekly basis do they?

 

Once every two months around the East Midlands. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

By " legal BS" you mean the actual law ? 

The actual case law says that no contract can override statute, no contract can have any bearing on the issue or revocation of statutory licences. "The rules" of the waterways are the bylaws, revocation of a licence is not a penalty for a breach of any of them. CaRT has no powers to levy fines. So please tell me what your contract is for ?

as I half-expected, you choose to quote legal stuff which helps no-one.

do you, or do you not, consider that CRT's understanding of what comprises continuous cruising?

are you one of those who will find legal loopholes to challenge the way CRT is trying to administer the waterways, at great cost to licence payers who, let's face it, one way or another are going to foot the bill through increased licence costs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Murflynn said:

as I half-expected, you choose to quote legal stuff which helps no-one.

do you, or do you not, consider that CRT's understanding of what comprises continuous cruising?

are you one of those who will find legal loopholes to challenge the way CRT is trying to administer the waterways, at great cost to licence payers who, let's face it, one way or another are going to foot the bill through increased licence costs?

Whilst I agree with you, and I really do hesitate to support Onion Bargee's position, he is absolutely correct that T&Cs cannot over rule the law and you cannot 'contract out' of legislation as was highlighted by the House of Lords in the following case :

 

OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE

BRUTON (A.P.)
(APPELLANT)

 

Where Lord Hoffmann stated (during a long, long statement) regarding the fact that the whilst the T&Cs of a 'contract' had been signed and 'agreed' :

 

"......Mr. Bruton's agreement is irrelevant because one cannot contract out of the statute..."

 

 

eg : C&RT cannot arbitrarily amend the 1995 Act such that boaters with a home mooring must comply with the same regulations as boats without a home mooring

 

If this was to allowed to continue and became 'the thin end of the wedge' when would you stand up and say "You cannot do that !!", will it be when they say all narrowboats will only be allowed to travel weekdays and widebeams on weekends, or, no diesel powered boats will be allowed - what will it take for you to say NO - ENOUGH !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Murflynn said:

as I half-expected, you choose to quote legal stuff which helps no-one.

do you, or do you not, consider that CRT's understanding of what comprises continuous cruising?

are you one of those who will find legal loopholes to challenge the way CRT is trying to administer the waterways, at great cost to licence payers who, let's face it, one way or another are going to foot the bill through increased licence costs?

1. Legal stuff is vital, unless you believe the Trust can do no wrong. Good luck with that.

2. Your question makes no sense.

3. No. I don't know what costs you are referring to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ratkatcher said:

True, I do not have to prove 'bona fide' continuous navigation and may return to the same neighbourhood on trips out from my mooring as often as I choose.

If you so wish you do not ever have to return to your mooring, you may moor for (up to) 14 days, move a couple of miles, moor for (up to) 14 days and then return back to the location you moored at 14 days previously, repeat, repeat.

(ie, shuffle A-B-A-B-A etc)

 

You cannot do that if you have made a 'no home mooring' declaration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

The name has to be " clearly legible" according to the bylaw. So no.

 

  CaRT have never enforced any bylaws so it does not matter. They will claim that you have a contract with them which you are in breach of, you do not, and they know you do not and will not pursue any breach of the terms of this fake contact in court, only threaten you with it. 

 

 

I suggest you look up the legal definition of a contract.

6 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

By " legal BS" you mean the actual law ? 

The actual case law says that no contract can override statute, no contract can have any bearing on the issue or revocation of statutory licences. "The rules" of the waterways are the bylaws, revocation of a licence is not a penalty for a breach of any of them. CaRT has no powers to levy fines. So please tell me what your contract is for ?

Wrong!

See my comments above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

I suggest you look up the legal definition of a contract.

Wrong!

See my comments above.

It would appear that a judge thinks different to you looking at the case above so I will believe him instead thanks

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Murflynn said:

as I half-expected, you choose to quote legal stuff which helps no-one.

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

are you one of those who will find legal loopholes to challenge the way CRT is trying to administer the waterways, at great cost to licence payers who, let's face it, one way or another are going to foot the bill through increased licence costs?

I cannot begin to understand the thinking behind these remarks, which appear to be nothing less than a defence of illegality. There is no argument that whilst "legal stuff" is of no help whatsoever to those wanting to act illegally, it can be of immeasurable assistance to anyone being taken to task despite complying  with the law.

As for branding the drawing of attention to legal wrongdoing as "find(ing) legal loopholes" - words fail me!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PhilAtterley said:

I cannot begin to understand the thinking behind these remarks, which appear to be nothing less than a defence of illegality. There is no argument that whilst "legal stuff" is of no help whatsoever to those wanting to act illegally, it can be of immeasurable assistance to anyone being taken to task despite complying  with the law.

As for branding the drawing of attention to legal wrongdoing as "find(ing) legal loopholes" - words fail me!

What he said ^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

By " legal BS" you mean the actual law ? 

The actual case law says that no contract can override statute, no contract can have any bearing on the issue or revocation of statutory licences. "The rules" of the waterways are the bylaws, revocation of a licence is not a penalty for a breach of any of them. CaRT has no powers to levy fines. So please tell me what your contract is for ?

Agreed, but a contract does not override statute if the statute is silent. What part of the licence conditions directly contradicts Section 17 of the Waterways Act 1995?

It is ridiculous to assert that no other conditions than these stated in that section can apply to the issue or revocation of a licence. The most obvious one is that payment must be made, or are you asserting that I can insist on the issue of a free licence, provided I have insurance , a BSS and a home mooring (to keep it simple!) ?

Section 17(9) of the Act states "Nothing in this section shall affect any power of the Board under any other enactment to refuse or withdraw a relevant consent."

It is at least arguable that "other enactment" could be construed as the Transport Act 1962 Section 43(3).

 

Edited to add : True, CaRT has no powers to levy fines. Neither do private parking companies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/03/britains-biggest-parking-fine-motorist-told-must-pay-24500-ignored/

Edited by Iain_S
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎20‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 15:01, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

The name has to be " clearly legible" according to the bylaw. So no.

 

  

 

 

It doesn't stipulate by whom. So yes. Or does it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Iain_S said:

Agreed, but a contract does not override statute if the statute is silent. What part of the licence conditions directly contradicts Section 17 of the Waterways Act 1995?

It is ridiculous to assert that no other conditions than these stated in that section can apply to the issue or revocation of a licence. The most obvious one is that payment must be made, or are you asserting that I can insist on the issue of a free licence, provided I have insurance , a BSS and a home mooring (to keep it simple!) ?

Section 17(9) of the Act states "Nothing in this section shall affect any power of the Board under any other enactment to refuse or withdraw a relevant consent."

It is at least arguable that "other enactment" could be construed as the Transport Act 1962 Section 43(3).

 

Edited to add : True, CaRT has no powers to levy fines. Neither do private parking companies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/03/britains-biggest-parking-fine-motorist-told-must-pay-24500-ignored/

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 ?
 

3 minutes ago, Athy said:

It doesn't stipulate by whom. So yes. Or does it?

A judge. ( not a Chinese one )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.