Canal & River Trust introduces new licence for boat renting

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, WotEver said:

No, you are referring to the fee paid. I am referring to the actual fee as should have been charged. He paid 247% of the fee. He should therefore receive a refund of 147% of the fee. 

That would leave it that he paid 100% of the fee. 

If the base 'fee' is £100, then the 'higher' fee is £247.

To refund 147% of £247 C&RT would refund £363.09

If C&RT refunded 60% of the £247 they would refund £147

[WotEver]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

refund 147% of £247

Why are you talking about the (made up) fee that he paid? I'm talking about the real fee which, in your example, would be £100. 

147% of £100 is £147, which is precisely the amount of the over-payment. 

[Mike Todd]

I suspect that CaRT have little choice but to do something. They are aware of the mushrooming AirBnB type of market as it has had plenty of publicity. Previously there was some concern over the renting of highly dangerous boats (not always on CaRT waters) that were worse than Rackman.

Because they now know about it, and can be shown to have known about it, there is a legal liability on at least two grounds:

(1) by tolerating the practice they will over time create the right to it

(2) by not acting against unsafe lettings then they run the risk that they could be sued in the event of a serious, possibly fatal, incident.

I doubt whether CaRT seriously expect to make money out of this, indeed they may well make a loss as a result of increased Enforcement costs. Sadly, that is all to often the consequence of a litigious society and the pursuit of personal 'rights'. Nothing comes for nothing.

The past few years have seen a growth in the number of individuals taking boats down to London for effectively permanent residence but acting under the CC rules. This licence move may well be an attempt to preempt the possibility that this usage will see the entry of organised businesses (perhaps those who run lightly over any rules) seeking to make maximum profit from people in tightly constrained circumstances.

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, WotEver said:

Why are you talking about the (made up) fee that he paid? I'm talking about the real fee which, in your example, would be £100. 

The 'real' fee for the licence (for which he applied and paid for) was £247

You receive a refund against what you pay - not what you 'should have paid'.

You can argue 'percentages' until the cows come home - its far more sensible to talk about a 'refund of £147'.

[WotEver]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

The 'real' fee for the licence (for which he applied and paid for) was £247

No it wasn't. It was a made up fee which included a 147% over-payment that other ownership schemes didn't pay. 

[WotEver]

36 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You can argue 'percentages' until the cows come home - its far more sensible to talk about a 'refund of £147'

Only if the fee was £100, otherwise it's far more sensible to refer to percentages. However that must be percentages of the actual fee, not the 147% uplifted charge. 

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

11 hours ago, Paul C said:

The board can be "unsatisfied" with your vivid interpretation of what the likely movement - or not - of a rented accommodation boat is, though. And it would then be up to someone to launch a judicial review and challenge them to say their dissatisfaction was unreasonable. It seems to be, by spelling out some requirements including a mooring (and possible PP) requirement, they've quite clearly set out the scenario under which they'd issue these new licences - and thus, the alternate scenarios under which they'd probably not issue a licence. Which is all completely legal (until someone takes them to court and undermines it).

The various waterways legislation only applies to the " master of the vessel" ie the owner, which in this case is not the Tennant but the land lord. 

The land lord could obtain an agreement from the Tennant to abide by the relevant laws,  which might stand as a satisfactory compliance with the relevant law.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Muddy Ditch Rich

[Paul C]

2 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

The various waterways legislation only applies to the " master of the vessel" ie the owner, which in this case is not the Tennant but the land lord. 

The land lord could obtain an agreement from the Tennant to abide by the relevant laws,  which might stand as a satisfactory compliance with the relevant law.

Indeed it might - but you and I aren't the ones who decide here. The way the law is written, CRT can decide (if its satisfied or not, at the point of licence application, regarding either the mooring or the CCing obligation) and if they decide "no" then its something of an uphill struggle for the owner onwards. This new style of licence has somewhat increased the gradient.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

Just now, Paul C said:

Indeed it might - but you and I aren't the ones who decide here. The way the law is written, CRT can decide (if its satisfied or not, at the point of licence application, regarding either the mooring or the CCing obligation) and if they decide "no" then its something of an uphill struggle for the owner onwards. This new style of licence has somewhat increased the gradient.

Naturally you would have to fight it , but CRT has refused perfectly valid licence applications in the past, they had to fight for theirs too. It depends on whether my previous argument holds water in court.

[Paul C]

Just now, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Naturally you would have to fight it , but CRT has refused perfectly valid licence applications in the past, they had to fight for theirs too. It depends on whether my previous argument holds water in court.

Can you realistically see anyone challenging this one?

[Sir Nibble]

7 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Can you realistically see anyone challenging this one?

Remember, the important thing is not safe accommodation, the important thing is to show CaRT in the wrong.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

3 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Can you realistically see anyone challenging this one?

I have no idea to be honest. 

The bylaws state 

“master” means the person having for the time being the
command, charge or management of a pleasure boat or
commercial vessel"

But the licence application is made by the owner of the vessel. 

 

[Paul C]

Just now, Sir Nibble said:

Remember, the important thing is not safe accommodation, the important thing is to show CaRT in the wrong.

Well yes, but apart from the usual CRT bashers, I can't see it getting any widespread support. A bit like the Planet Lightship case. And, worth pointing out, it only shows CRT in the wrong if they lose in court - we are discussing a hypothetical court case well into the future, which is reliant on a boat owner/landlord being able to pass on their legal obligations regarding CC compliance to a tenant, and CRTs non-acceptance of this situation being unreasonable.

[NigelMoore]

23 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

The various waterways legislation only applies to the " master of the vessel" ie the owner, which in this case is not the Tennant but the land lord. 

The 'master' of a vessel is the person physically in control of it at the relevant time, whether owner or not, and if not whether with the owner's permission or not.

I have mentioned this before, but there was an interesting case back in 1831 where an appeal was lodged against a court's agreement that the company employee placed in charge of a fly-boat on the Aire & Calder [owned by the navigation company] had sufficient standing as master of the vessel, to sue for trespass against the vessel. The appellants argued that while the master of a sea going ship might be assumed to have such authority over the ship as to confer a possessory interest in it, a "mere servant" in charge of "a mere boat plying on a canal" could not hope to be considered as having "such full powers and authority".

The argument was rejected, and the plaintiff in Moore v Robinson had his verdict maintained. [one of my earlier successes].

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

Yes, the " master " is not necessarily the owner, my mistake.

Is the licence application made by the master or owner ?

 

[NigelMoore]

4 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

But the licence application is made by the owner of the vessel. 

Is there anything that says that has to be the case? Insurance can only be taken out by someone with an insurable interest, but with the necessary such paperwork in place, anybody can apply for the licence so far as I can think off the top of my head.

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Is there anything that says that has to be the case? 

 

I started a thread here a couple of years ago asking if someone could licence a boat they didn't own.

I seem to remember (but am not clear) the thread was inconclusive, with many respondents saying it was a pointless question to ask as no-one in their right mind would want to licence a boat they didn't own. A classically oblique forum response to my question! 

[Sir Nibble]

Setting aside the fact that it has been made clear that this licence would not be available on a no home mooring basis, how about this for a hypothetical scenario. Owner gets CC1 letter, boat not cruising in accordance with licence. What does he do? Race round and remind the tenant of his obligations. "But I have children in school so I can't keep moving". CC2, what now? Heading for boat at risk territory.

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Sir Nibble said:

Setting aside the fact that it has been made clear that this licence would not be available on a no home mooring basis, how about this for a hypothetical scenario. Owner gets CC1 letter, boat not cruising in accordance with licence. What does he do? Race round and remind the tenant of his obligations. "But I have children in school so I can't keep moving". CC2, what now? Heading for boat at risk territory.

 

I'd suggest the landlord issues notice to quit, and gets his boat back. 

Which I suspect would lead into a completely different legal minefield.

[Paul C]

I can't see a reason why the licence application couldn't be done by either owner/landlord or tenant - although a tenant may rightly complain that it should be the owner's concern (especially if rental amount is not adjusted to compensate). In fact, it may be a route to continued renting - the owner never licences the boat, instead asking each tenant in turn to also do licensing (just as, a tenant of a house might be asked to have gas/electricity bills in their name). Tenant doesn't move boat enough? Gets into the CRT enforcement process, ultimately losing/being unable to renew the licence, boat is due to be craned out.......hey presto! A new tenant pops up and tries to licence the boat.....

Licence applications certainly can be done by those other than the owner - a mortgaged boat is not "owned" by the people with the mortgage, after all.

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

 

Licence applications certainly can be done by those other than the owner - a mortgaged boat is not "owned" by the people with the mortgage, after all.

 

Yes it is!

Who bears the loss (or gain) if the market for boats crashes (or booms)? Certainly not the mortgage provider.

The mortgage provider takes a legal charge over the asset, which is not that same thing as owning it. Ownership only passes to the mortgage provider if the terms of the mortgage are breached. 

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes it is!

Who bears the loss (or gain) if the market for boats crashes (or booms)? Certainly not the mortgage provider.

The mortgage provider takes a legal charge over the asset, which is not that same thing as owning it. Ownership only passes to the mortgage provider if the terms of the mortgage are breached. 

Probably depends on semantics, but the above is incorrect - a mortgage lender OWNS the properties it lends on. The mortgagee is the legal possessor. Your definition of owner (who gains/loses based on a crash or boom of the market - is bizarre at best, and probably arguable anyway even if it didn't come from the planet Zog.

[Sir Nibble]

9 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I'd suggest the landlord issues notice to quit, and gets his boat back.

Which I suspect would lead into a completely different legal minefield.

And gets the bargee travellers on his back taking him to court. Making a family homeless for staying near school? Breach of human rights surely?

[mayalld]

Just now, NigelMoore said:

Is there anything that says that has to be the case? Insurance can only be taken out by someone with an insurable interest, but with the necessary such paperwork in place, anybody can apply for the licence so far as I can think off the top of my head.

OK, let us run with this!

No, I don't believe that the owner HAS to licence the vessel. It could equally be that the hirer licences the vessel

However, it actually makes it very simple!

As licences cannot be transferred, we cannot have a legitimate situation where a boatlord licences the boat and lets it out with licence in place.

There are three possible states;

1) The boat is licenced as private by the owner, and is NOT let to others by way of trade.

2) The boat is licenced as Residential Letting by the owner and IS let to others.

3) The boat is licenced as private by the hirer for each period of hire, and is held on trade plates by the owner between hires

 

[Tacet]

41 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

The mortgage provider takes a legal charge over the asset, which is not that same thing as owning it. Ownership only passes to the mortgage provider if the terms of the mortgage are breached. 

"the right of the mortgagee to possession in the absence of some contract has nothing to do with default on the part of the mortgagor. The mortgagee may go into possession before the ink is dry on the mortgage""

Which probably has nothing to do with the matter under discussion.