Jump to content

Canal & River Trust introduces new licence for boat renting


Ray T

Featured Posts

Business licence terms and conditions

11.8 If you give permission to any other person to use or have control of the Boat, you 
must ensure that they are aware of these Licence Terms. You will be held
responsible for their actions (which covers what they may do or fail to do) and for any 
breach of the Licence Terms as result of their actions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Business licence terms and conditions

11.8 If you give permission to any other person to use or have control of the Boat, you 
must ensure that they are aware of these Licence Terms. You will be held
responsible for their actions (which covers what they may do or fail to do) and for any 
breach of the Licence Terms as result of their actions.

 

I thought T&Cs were null and void in the onion world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 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.

The licence applicant can be anyone. In the case of shared ownership, the management companies provided a service whereby they would make licence applications on behalf of the owners. They also arranged insurance.

In trying to make it impossible for shared ownership boats to licence at the standard rate, BW altered the terms and conditions such that the licence applicant must be one or two of the crafts owners. They also altered the terms and conditions such that an owners name had to be on the policy.

Needless to say, these t's & c's did not apply if the boat was licenced at the hire boat rate ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mayalld said:

I thought T&Cs were null and void in the onion world

Mr justice Hildyard's judgement.

"BWB, not being a natural person but a creature of statute, has only those powers with which it is endowed by statute and (b) in the event of ambiguity, such powers should ordinarily be strictly construed if a wider construction would deprive a member of the public of an existing right."

CaRT does not have the power to create its own licence terms and conditions without the consent of parliment or the sec. of state ( bylaws), and BW never claimed such a power, in fact they told parliment they did not have this power, and demonstrated this fact by seeking 11 further acts of parliment post 1962, and four changes to bylaws, which would have been unnecessary if section 43. 1962 transport act gave them this power, like they claim. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

CaRT does not have the power to create its own licence terms and conditions without the consent of parliment or the sec. of state ( bylaws), and BW never claimed such a power . . .

Actually – perversely and contradictorily – BW always maintained their right to demand licences on canals on the basis of s.43, even while acknowledging to Parliament that they needed the further approval of Parliament to do so, and to condition the issue of them.

The Board Annual Reports claimed even years before the Transport Act 1968, that pleasure boat licences were mandatory on canals, even while bemoaning the fact that they could not impose these on the rivers due to the PRN. It seems somehow to have escaped their attention that back then, the canals also were still subject to PRN’s.

Consistency of legislative interpretation was never their strong suit, and in the early seventies they were describing the pleasure boat licences [accurately] as contractual arrangements wherein conditions could be agreed on a consensual basis, to relieve the Board of liabilities for incidents due to failure to maintain the system in a suitable condition. They had even protested government’s suggested imposition of mandatory licences in the 1968 Transport Act [to accompany the abolition of the canal PRN’s], on precisely that basis – that if boat licences were mandatory, the contractual conditions could not be imposed, such that Parliament would need to include in the 1968 Act, specific conditions attaching to such licences, relieving the Board of liability for accidents arising from failure to maintain the system.

As s.106 of that Act actually granted any member of the public the right to haul BW before the High Court for such failures, such a condition would have been inconsistent, so BW's protests were listened to and no mandatory licences were introduced. It was not until nearly a decade had passed that BW thought to get approval of powers to condition entry on to, keeping, and using boats on the canals through byelaws. Even once they introduced the mandatory licence in 1976, they still did not take the opportunity to have conditions imposed upon those by further byelaws [which they had the new power to do], and it took nearly 2 decades before they obtained conditions for licence issue in primary legislation instead.

In good part, the reason was that they wished consistency across the board for both licences and certificates, and the byelaw making powers were unsuitable for imposing conditions upon pleasure boat certificates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2017 at 23:04, NigelMoore said:

I cannot think of anything sillier and more pointless than this proposal, except insofar as it would hope to cash in on a trend. If, as advertised, these are for static residential lettings for boats on home moorings with residential planning consent – what is wrong with the legitimate Houseboat Certificate?

 

Is this not a situation where future successes arising out of CRT's habitual misuse of the statutory [1971 Act] definition of a houseboat when scheming to deprive someone of their boat would be jeopardized by breaking with established malpractice and applying the houseboat definition correctly and as approved by Parliament ?

As you say, the Houseboat Certificate is the appropriate form of documentation for static vessels not bona fide used for navigation, but if CRT were to begin 'Licensing' permanently static boats as 'Houseboats' it would severely cramp their style on the occasions when it suits them to slap Section 13 Notices on CC'ers deemed not to be complying with their unspecified minimum movement requirements.

Edited by PhilAtterley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not noticed that they have felt constrained in serving s.13's as well as s.8's in the current situation, where they still issue some 80 odd houseboat certificates. They have never felt bound by any need for consistency.

Only when challenged in court over the foolishness of their s.13's and houseboat "definitions" do they drop the folly of this argument and sideline them for the next dupe.

As I said earlier, I cannot understand their stance on this; they love the wholesale freedom of application, conditioning, and punishment for breaches of houseboat conditions; they should welcome more of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

I have not noticed that they have felt constrained in serving s.13's as well as s.8's in the current situation, where they still issue some 80 odd houseboat certificates. They have never felt bound by any need for consistency.

Only when challenged in court over the foolishness of their s.13's and houseboat "definitions" do they drop the folly of this argument and sideline them for the next dupe.

As I said earlier, I cannot understand their stance on this; they love the wholesale freedom of application, conditioning, and punishment for breaches of houseboat conditions; they should welcome more of them.

I agree, along with honesty and integrity, consistency is the last thing anyone should expect from CRT, but that is not germane to the point I am making.

As far as I am aware, the majority, if not all, of the 80-odd Houseboat Certificates that get issued each year nowadays are for pontoon based houseboats without any means of self propulsion, or former self propelled craft now minus their propulsion machinery. Were CRT to begin issuing HC's to boats that remain permanently static despite being equipped for and capable of self-propulsion, then would that not make it so very much easier for CC'ers, who by definition cannot be permanently static however little they move, to mount an unassailable Defence against proceedings pursuant to a Section 13 Notice.

Edited by PhilAtterley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

Are you not forgetting their argument before the court in the first Wingfield hearing - that pleasure boats are properly houseboats, granted their 'licence' on the basis of permanently cruising?

I believe that was one of the spectacularly flawed arguments that irritated the Judge to such good effect !  I feel that it would be a mistake to assume that CRT are likely to be overcome by sudden and unexpected bout of consistency and resort to employing the same ridiculous argument again.

Edited by PhilAtterley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But sadly, that is one thing they ARE consistent with. They will try on defeated arguments in fresh cases in the hope that previous failures will not be picked up on – easy enough to happen at County Court level with the time pressures there.

In Leigh’s case they forwarded two sets of arguments in their Defence and Amended Defence, that had been thoroughly canvassed and rejected in my own case. They still thought it worth trying on again, regardless of the ban on re-litigating points that have been found against you.

Only in the Skeleton and oral argument in Court, did they abandon those – but had they not been addressed comprehensively in the Reply to Defence, they doubtless would have carried through with them. It illustrates the need for constant alertness to these tactics. It is simply insufficient to rely on previous findings if those are not brought to the Court’s attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Mr justice Hildyard's judgement.

"BWB, not being a natural person but a creature of statute, has only those powers with which it is endowed by statute and (b) in the event of ambiguity, such powers should ordinarily be strictly construed if a wider construction would deprive a member of the public of an existing right."

Pity was that Mr Justice Hildyard paid only that lip-service to the principle. He ended up interpreting the ambiguity in BW's favour, against the most fundamental of constitutional principles. It is almost as though it is felt that for so long as the principle has been acknowledged, it cannot be said that it has not been applied! It is that potential approach that tends to bother me with Leigh's case. 'Political' reasons can dictate a result that flies in the face of a maxim that demands findings in the public's favour against the promoters of the legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

 

As I said earlier, I cannot understand their stance on this;

I believe its nothing more than to foresee and close a loophole which a defendant might try. I don't understand the full mechanism of it though. The notification under s.13 doesn't necessarily need to relate to their current policy or enthusiasm/willingness on granting houseboat certificates though, surely you can see that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

I believe its nothing more than to foresee and close a loophole which a defendant might try. I don't understand the full mechanism of it though. The notification under s.13 doesn't necessarily need to relate to their current policy or enthusiasm/willingness on granting houseboat certificates though, surely you can see that?

There is in fact, no loophole whatsoever in need of closing, but I am intrigued by your labeling of someone who happens to need a Houseboat Certificate for a boat they own as a 'defendant' !! 

I might disagree with Nigel Moore about the motives and reasoning behind introducing this latest example of CRT stupidity, but I do agree about the utter pointlessness of inventing and then having to administrate a new, superfluous class of 'licence' when the craft to be covered by this new 'licence', ie. static, on a permanent mooring and never used for navigation, have been adequately legislated for throughout the last 46 years by the Houseboat Certificate introduced in the 1971 Act and applicable on any inland waterway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PhilAtterley said:

There is in fact, no loophole whatsoever in need of closing, but I am intrigued by your labeling of someone who happens to need a Houseboat Certificate for a boat they own as a 'defendant' !! 

 

It looks like you've misunderstood. I'm not labelling someone who needs a Houseboat Certificate a "defendant". I'm referring to the possibility that someone under enforcement (thus, s.8 and s.13 notices) might later lead to a court case.

Regarding issuing houseboat certificates instead of this new style of licence, I believe I've already covered this point (indirectly). Someone may interpret their situation as aligning with neither the houseboat certificate style of licence nor the pleasure boat licence, thus be obliged to choose the latter in lieu of anything better. By creating this new style of licence it clarifies the ambiguity and more clearly sets out what CRT perceive as the "requirements" to obtain this licence, regards BSS type and mooring/CC status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Where do the powers to create this new licence category come from ? 

 

 

 

AFAIK, they can subdivide the licence into different categories, and charge differently, as they see fit (for canals).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

It looks like you've misunderstood. I'm not labelling someone who needs a Houseboat Certificate a "defendant". I'm referring to the possibility that someone under enforcement (thus, s.8 and s.13 notices) might later lead to a court case.

 

This sounds as if you are anticipating an interesting new twist on the well established misuse of S.13 Notices !

Do you envisage the owners of permanently static boats, let for accommodation purposes only, and having been left with no option other than to accept the issue of one of these new type of Letting Licences, then being served with S.13 Notices because they don't hold a current Houseboat Certificate ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Paul C said:

AFAIK, they can subdivide the licence into different categories, and charge differently, as they see fit (for canals).

It is not as clear as it should be. The power to subdivide the categories of pleasure boats arises from the 1971 Act respecting certificates, not licences. Nonetheless, it seems reasonable by extension that they can do this for licences, because the categories must exactly conform to each 'relevant consent', if only because the 1983 Act inextricably ties the charge levels for either to each other.

The drawback for CaRT is that under the 1971 Act, the charges for sub-divided classes of pleasure boat certificate cannot be greater than that for the standard class of pleasure boat certificate [whether hire or private]. In other words the fees for sub-divisions of the hire boat licence cannot be greater than those for hire boats as originally catered for, and [again by extension, though not spelled out], those were originally fixed [for certificates] at roughly 150% of the fees for equivalent private, non-hired boats.

As noted earlier, it was the opinion of the Ministry of Transport that the "as they see fit" charging could not extend to the licensing of boats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/06/2017 at 21:22, PhilAtterley said:

There is in fact, no loophole whatsoever in need of closing, but I am intrigued by your labeling of someone who happens to need a Houseboat Certificate for a boat they own as a 'defendant' !! 

I might disagree with Nigel Moore about the motives and reasoning behind introducing this latest example of CRT stupidity, but I do agree about the utter pointlessness of inventing and then having to administrate a new, superfluous class of 'licence' when the craft to be covered by this new 'licence', ie. static, on a permanent mooring and never used for navigation, have been adequately legislated for throughout the last 46 years by the Houseboat Certificate introduced in the 1971 Act and applicable on any inland waterway.

 

Is there a requirement to have no engine in order to qualify for a houseboat certificate?

If so, then few boats currently being rented out will qualify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

It is not as clear as it should be. The power to subdivide the categories of pleasure boats arises from the 1971 Act respecting certificates, not licences. Nonetheless, it seems reasonable by extension that they can do this for licences, because the categories must exactly conform to each 'relevant consent', if only because the 1983 Act inextricably ties the charge levels for either to each other.

The drawback for CaRT is that under the 1971 Act, the charges for sub-divided classes of pleasure boat certificate cannot be greater than that for the standard class of pleasure boat certificate [whether hire or private]. In other words the fees for sub-divisions of the hire boat licence cannot be greater than those for hire boats as originally catered for, and [again by extension, though not spelled out], those were originally fixed [for certificates] at roughly 150% of the fees for equivalent private, non-hired boats.

As noted earlier, it was the opinion of the Ministry of Transport that the "as they see fit" charging could not extend to the licensing of boats.

Remind me, what part of the legislation (if its needed, or set out in it) spells out that CRT can charge a different amount based on the length of the boat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Is there a requirement to have no engine in order to qualify for a houseboat certificate?

If so, then few boats currently being rented out will qualify.

No, the test is whether or not the vessel "is bona fide used for navigation". 

A permanently static vessel is unarguably NOT used for navigation, and therefore falls within the statutory definition of a Houseboat in S.3(1) of the 1971 Act. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Is there a requirement to have no engine in order to qualify for a houseboat certificate?

No, strictly speaking the definition is couched in terms of what a houseboat is not, rather than what it is – but [inter alia] it “does not include any boat, barge, vessel or structure which is bona fide used for navigation;

Ambiguous as this might be, a “pleasure boat” is defined [inter alia] as not including any vessel being used solely as a houseboat, and the pleasure boat can be any vessel propelled through water by any means, with mechanical propulsion [which in the definitions relates only to pleasure boats] being defined as “powered”.

Not a huge amount of help probably, but usefully indicative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Remind me, what part of the legislation (if its needed, or set out in it) spells out that CRT can charge a different amount based on the length of the boat?

Once again, this is contained only within the 1971 Act relating to pleasure boat certificates [and by necessary extension as per my previous comment, to licences, by virtue of the 1983 Act.]

Section 7 of the 1971 Act provides (1) that “there shall be paid to the Board for the registration of every pleasure boat . . . such charge as the Board may from time to time determine not exceeding the appropriate charge in that behalf specified in Part 1 of Schedule 3 to this Act.”

Schedule 3 Part 1 lists the maximum charges according to length only, split into categories as:

15’ & under; 15’ to 20’; 20’ to 30’; 30’ to 40’; 40’ to 50’; 50’ to 60’; 60’ to 70’; 70’ to 80’, and over 80’.

That applies to both ‘powered private’ and ‘powered hire’ pleasure boats. There is a single charge for unpowered pleasure boats of whatever length, whether private or hire, and for any powered hire pleasure boat licensed to carry 200 passengers or more.

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/06/2017 at 23:51, PhilAtterley said:

No, the test is whether or not the vessel "is bona fide used for navigation". 

A permanently static vessel is unarguably NOT used for navigation, and therefore falls within the statutory definition of a Houseboat in S.3(1) of the 1971 Act. 

 

Thanks. I'm probably confusing it with the requirements on the Thames then.

 

On 03/06/2017 at 23:51, PhilAtterley said:

No, the test is whether or not the vessel "is bona fide used for navigation". 

A permanently static vessel is unarguably NOT used for navigation, and therefore falls within the statutory definition of a Houseboat in S.3(1) of the 1971 Act. 

 

Ok, reading S.3(1) of the act it appears the vessel cannot be a houseboat if bona fide used for navigation.

The act does NOT say if not used bona fide for navigation the vessel IS a houseboat. 

Not quite the same as you assert, I don't think.

 

 

 

Edit to delete a stray line of text.

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
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.