Canal & River Trust introduces new licence for boat renting

[Sir Nibble]

All this speculation about how it would work is irrelevant, it's not supposed to work, or at least not as a rental market. Advertise the boat for rent, licence withdrawn. Apply for a new one and your history gives the board every reason to not be satisfied, shortage of mooring does the rest. A few owners sued by tenants dumped on the towpath by CaRT would help.

[Paul C]

25 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

I am too involved with other things just now to get drawn into this, but at the end of it, as mayalld and others have observed, the sanction of licence withdrawal will rely on non-compliance with new terms and conditions tailored to the new class of use. The tension between the obligation to issue a licence if s.17 is complied with, and the professed ability to withdraw it if further additional conditions are not met, is something that even Mr Deards in recent cross-examination was unable to resolve satisfactorily.

S.17 isn't complied with --> no licence

 

Edited June 1, 2017 by Paul C

[MtB]

1 hour ago, NigelMoore said:

But - how many of the perceived problem boats are being rented out on approved residential moorings? As far as I can see, there is no lawful sanction applicable to boats without a home mooring that are rented out, and the new class does not seem to be applicable to those; not that I have been paying much attention to this, admittedly.

 

If someone succeeds in driving a motor and butty through this, won't the same arguments apply to the hire boat class of licence? I can see a few hire companies taking the same action. 

If the hire boat class of licence is genuinely lawful, then what might be the legal difference between a hire boat licence and this new commercial residential licence?

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

If the hire boat class of licence is genuinely lawful, then what might be the legal difference between a hire boat licence and this new commercial residential licence?

One word !!

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

One word !!

 

Ah so you think the first few licence cancellations will be on the basis that the boat is being used for "residential" not "pleasure"?

That would be the thin end of a very thick wedge.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

2 hours ago, Chewbacka said:

But if you are renting you must now have the new licence as well as other things to get the licence - enhanced safety check etc.   If you continue to use a standard leisure licence you will be in breach of the conditions (because you have the incorrect licence) and so they will either revoke or refuse to renew your boat licence, either way you then become an unlicensed boat on CRT waterways, and we all know what comes next.

Where is the legislation that permits CRT to set their own mandatory terms and conditions for sub categories of pleasure boat licences ?

 

 

 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Where is the legislation that permits CRT to set their own mandatory terms and conditions for sub categories of pleasure boat licences ?

 

But it isn't being used for pleasure. It is blatantly commercial.

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Ah so you think the first few licence cancellations will be on the basis that the boat is being used for "residential" not "pleasure"?

That would be the thin end of a very thick wedge.

No - To answer your question I think that the difference between a 'Hire Boat Licence' and a 'Residential Hire Boat Licence' (whilst both are 'commercial') is the fact that the 'Residential' is classed as Residential and could / would be used by people as their sole (or main) residence. 'Hire Boats' (by their nature) are short term 'holiday homes' offered on a weekly basis.

[mayalld]

9 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Where is the legislation that permits CRT to set their own mandatory terms and conditions for sub categories of pleasure boat licences ?

 

 

 

They are permitted to issue licences (1976 bye-laws), and can set such charges as they wish.

If they set differential charges for different kinds of boat, then it is implicit that you must have the appropriate licence.

 

[MtB]

14 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

No - To answer your question I think that the difference between a 'Hire Boat Licence' and a 'Residential Hire Boat Licence' (whilst both are 'commercial') is the fact that the 'Residential' is classed as Residential and could / would be used by people as their sole (or main) residence. 'Hire Boats' (by their nature) are short term 'holiday homes' offered on a weekly basis.

 

But CRT specifically state they are targeting the Air BnB rentals which are often for a week or less. Sometimes for only one night. 

What now is the difference between a hire boat and an Air BnB short term let?

[mayalld]

32 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

But CRT specifically state they are targeting the Air BnB rentals which are often for a week or less. Sometimes for only one night. 

What now is the difference between a hire boat and an Air BnB short term let?

Well presumably, you can have a residential letting licence without having to prove that you can show people how to use a boat.

As things stand, the airbnb landlord hasn't a hope of getting a hire boat licence, because he isn't set up to operate a hire fleet, so he buys a private licence at a lower rate.

[Paul C]

I think its to close off a loophole where someone could say its neither a hire boat, nor used as a "normal" pleasure boat (whether lived on or not - another area of debate) but they chose the licence which most closely fitted their usage. Thus, it was impossible to say "you have the wrong licence, you need the hireboat licence". Now there is a licence category which is defined slightly differently to a hireboat's licence, but at the end of the day basically boils down to the same thing - costs more, is "business" not "pleasure", needs the different BSS, different insurance requirements. The landlord, in this case CRT, have also specified conditions on the mooring requirement (just as they do for hireboats - where they require servicing facilities, car parking, etc etc) to "cover their arse" in case complaints or legal action tries to pin them down, in lieu of/as well as the boat owner, if/when the standards don't come up to scratch or something goes wrong. They could have remained silent on the mooring requirement and imposed the other requirements for it, after all.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

CRT cannot impose conditions on mandatory licences ( not houseboat certificates ) without the consent of parliment. Right or wrong ?

 

 

 

[SimonRNABO]

I'm sort of with CRT on this one and its very simple to my way of thinking, applying the same logic as some of the previous posters have said above: As soon as you rent out your boat whether in AirBnB or whatever, that is a commercial activity and should be subject to a trading licence. Many of us have pointed this out for many many years and been ignored on the point.  To that extent its just CRT actually attempting to enforce something that has been in the existing licence structure for a very long time but never fully observed before.

And I don't think they are particularly targeting boats with moorings; rather this is the start of attempts to enforce the renting out of boats without home moorings.

The difficulty CRT will have is in proving it is going on. Even if they do catch someone at it, that person throws out there tenant moves back on in the 28 days and we are not a lot further forward?

[Dave Payne]

1 minute ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

CRT cannot impose conditions on mandatory licences ( not houseboat certificates ) without the consent of parliment. Right or wrong ?

 

 

 

Right, no wrong, no right, oh i dont know.....

 

please tell us.

[Paul C]

32 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

CRT cannot impose conditions on mandatory licences ( not houseboat certificates ) without the consent of parliment. Right or wrong ?

 

 

 

 

They don't need to impose additional conditions, since the wording of the various legislation ALREADY allows them to decline a licence if they're not satisfied on the mooring arrangements. And has been already pointed out, they can set different amounts for different types of licence which they can classify into pleasure/business etc etc

[Allan(nb Albert)]

8 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

CRT cannot impose conditions on mandatory licences ( not houseboat certificates ) without the consent of parliment. Right or wrong ?

Wrong I think.

As Nigel pointed out the law specifically allows C&RT to make a houseboat certificate subject to terms and conditions as they see fit. With PBL's and PBC's there is no such provision.

My understanding  (and I am sure that Nigel will correct me if needed ...) is that section 5 of the 1975 British Waterways Act extended the Boards power to make bye-laws regulating the use of the 'canal' to include prohibiting the use of the 'canal' and making use of the 'canal' subject to conditions.

Making of bye-laws does not require Parliamentary consent but needs the approval of the Secretary of State

Having said that, the 1995 Act did make use of the waterways subject to three conditions. It may be that the avenue of using bye-laws to set further ones (or amend or delete those set) is no longer an option.

[MtB]

8 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Wrong I think.

As Nigel pointed out the law specifically allows C&RT to make a houseboat certificate subject to terms and conditions as they see fit. With PBL's and PBC's there is no such provision.
 

 

Which is of course irrelevant as these rented boats are commercial vessels, not pleasure boats. 

[NigelMoore]

48 minutes ago, Dave Payne said:

Right, no wrong, no right, oh i dont know.....

 

please tell us.

Mr Deards has admitted [not much choice really] that the initial issue of a licence is subject only to s.17 conditions. He was not so clear on how a once issued licence could be revoked for breaches of any other conditions, though he maintained, as per BW doctrine, that s.43 of the 1962 Act grants the right to impose whatever other conditions they please on the licences.

 If he is right, then CaRT are compelled to issue a licence if s.17 is complied with, but can immediately withdraw it if breach of [e.g.] byelaws could be proven. Whereupon, they would be compelled to re-issue it immediately upon a renewed application. That makes no sense to me.

 Incidentally, the Middle Level Commissioners are seeking an Act that does specifically provide for revocation upon conviction of any byelaw breaches – and, furthermore, for refusal of any and all future applications. The BW legislation contains none of such clauses relating either to pleasure boats or commercial boats.

 Even more incidentally, but still topical, in 1969 the Ministry of Transport [when consulting over the 1970 Bill] noted, in respect of the application of s.43, that: “it can reasonably be argued that charges for the registration of pleasure craft are essentially of a different nature from the general run of transport charges”. That would necessarily follow, of course, because on canals registration had been provided for from the beginning, whereas [as the Ministry noted elsewhere in the consultation] the 10962 Act specifically disapplies the section to previously forbidden charges, and so could not apply to rivers in the first place.

 If s.43 cannot apply to the registration of craft respecting charges, then it cannot apply to the conditioning of them. As Allan has observed, BW were granted power to impose conditions via byelaws for entry onto and use of the canals under the 1975 Act, but never went further than imposing the licence requirement itself, and using the primary legislation of 1995 for conditioning those, instead of the byelaw route.

 I am not sure of the niceties of distinction between Parliamentary Consent and Ministerial consent; moreover any application to either demands public consultation.

 I tend to agree with Allan's suggestion  [while not being adamant on the point without further thought] that now a limit has been set upon licence conditioning via primary legislation, CaRT are precluded from effectively overturning that via secondary legislation.

[NigelMoore]

9 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Which is of course irrelevant as these rented boats are commercial vessels, not pleasure boats. 

Well no, they are not commercial vessels as defined in the licensing byelaws. But in any event, the issue of both pleasure boat licences AND commercial boat licences are governed by the provisions of the 1995 Act, so the confines of the conditioning of these are the same, and the application of that Act is relevant.

[David Mack]

4 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

But CRT specifically state they are targeting the Air BnB rentals which are often for a week or less. Sometimes for only one night. 

What now is the difference between a hire boat and an Air BnB short term let?

Very little in practice, except that a conventional hire boat has been let out on the basis that the hirer will travel along the canal (although nothing stops them from staying put for the week), whereas the AirBnB type is essentially static. If AirBnB start letting boats specifically on the basis that the renter will regularly move the boat, then they become conventional hire boats and subject to the standard hire boat licence requirements.

This new licence type is really nothing more than a rebranded version of the existing hire boat licence, but tweaked to address a type of use which didn't used to exist (to any significant extent). 

[cuthound]

7 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I guess this will go the same way as BW/C&RT attempts to make shared owners pay for licences at the 'commercial rate'.

What way did this go? 

In my experience, BW/CRT allowed boats which were 100% owned by the shareholders to be licence as "private" boats, and charged those where the share offering company retained a percentage of ownership at the "commercial" rate.

Seemed perfectly equitable to me, as if the company held an interest in a boat,  then that boat had a commercial interest in it and was charged accordingly.

[MHS]

5 hours ago, Dave Payne said:

Can see CRT spending money on new staff now, visiting boats advertised for rent, posing as a potential renter, getting boat names and then checking if said boat has correct type of licence.

More dosh wasted.

Why would they not use the cheaper & quicker option of the internet or telephone like any other potential renter of an airbnb?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Which is of course irrelevant as these rented boats are commercial vessels, not pleasure boats. 

From the Bye-laws -

“commercial vessel” means any ship, boat, barge, lighter or raft and any other description of craft used for the conveyance of goods on a canal other than a commercial waterway.

“pleasure boat” includes any yacht, launch, randan, wherry, tender, skiff, gig, dinghy, shallop, punt, canoe, float or other ship, boat, vessel or craft (including amphibious craft and hovercraft) but does not include any commercial vessel or houseboat.
 

[haggis]

24 minutes ago, cuthound said:

What way did this go? 

In my experience, BW/CRT allowed boats which were 100% owned by the shareholders to be licence as "private" boats, and charged those where the share offering company retained a percentage of ownership at the "commercial" rate.

Seemed perfectly equitable to me, as if the company held an interest in a boat,  then that boat had a commercial interest in it and was charged accordingly.

Ah, but it wasn't always like that! When we first took a share in a boat (managed by OwnerShips) the licence was in line with a hire boat licence and not a private boat licence. The shared boat licence was, I think 147% of a private boat licence. After  a few years, I queried why we were being charged a higher licence and as they couldn't give me an answer, I took the case to the Ombudsman - and won.  However, BW weren't happy with the result and we had to go back to the Ombudsman again. We won again! 

haggis