Jump to content

"Permanent Mooring"


Heffalump

Featured Posts

9 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

To our knowledge, has anyone with a CRT approved home mooring (and just to keep it simple, let's restrict this to canals and exclude river moorings) ever been refused a licence because of non-compliance with the T&Cs as published by CRT ? 

 

I don't accept that the answer should be restricted to canals only - why should it ? - C&RT's ultra vires T&C's are enforced equally unlawfully on both river waterways and canals. 

The answer to the question is - yes, at least twice when a 'Rivers only Licence' was refused on the grounds of breaching Conditions 2.1, 3.1, and 7.2 of the 2013-14 T&C's. There is also the instance of the boat on the Grand Union canal, referred to by Nigel Moore in post #150 of this thread.

Edited by PhilAtterley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know we are repeating 'old ground'. but C&RT are putting conditions into the T&Cs (2015 issue) that are not required in law eg :

3. Boats with a Home Mooring 
3.1 You must cruise on the Waterways whilst you are away from the Home Mooring (save for any period when you leave the Waterways or when the Boat is lawfully moored at another mooring site).

From 'definitions' : The terms ‘cruise’ and ‘cruising’ are used in this guidance to mean using a boat bona fide for navigation.

Ie - C&RT are saying that when a boat is away from its home mooring it must be used 'bona-fide for navigation'

 

If a boat with a home mooring does not 'bona fide navigate' then its licence will not be renewed, which is in contravention to the 1995 Act which stipulates if a boat has :

1) Insurance

2) A BSSC

3) A home mooring

(No mention of bona fide navigating as a criteria for the issue of a licence)

 

Then it must be issued with a licence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2017 at 14:26, Paul C said:

I don't like your logic though. The same mooring costs the same, no matter what distance the boat is from it at any given time.

Ah well. You win some you lose some. I like my logic.

The point I had in mind was the cost to me of a cruising license - supposedly good value because it gives me access to the whole waterways network. But because of distance I cannot use the whole network. So why not a reduction in the license fee for home moorers who only go out occassionally.

Or more likely, an increase in the license fee for CC's - to recognise the cost to CRT of providing visitors moorings  that CC's get free-of-charge - albeit 14 days max, but anywhere for a whole year.

apologies to CC's who use paid temporary moorings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2017 at 14:46, Steilsteven said:

Please let us know how you get on.

Keith

It was a rhetorical point on my part. I did this years ago, and was told that the fee structure averaged out the cost for everybody. So if a 'usage' factor was to be applied to reduce the fee for not being able to use distant canals, then the cost of the bit I did use would have to go up by a similar amount - or extra licences would be required to travel outside my licensed area. Which was then a logistic problem costing more than any savings made.  But perhaps today might be viable with satellite tracking 

I pitched in the distance/availability logic to weaken the CRT argument for moorers......and probably confused the issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Horace42 said:

It was a rhetorical point on my part. I did this years ago, and was told that the fee structure averaged out the cost for everybody. So if a 'usage' factor was to be applied to reduce the fee for not being able to use distant canals, then the cost of the bit I did use would have to go up by a similar amount - or extra licences would be required to travel outside my licensed area. Which was then a logistic problem costing more than any savings made.  But perhaps today might be viable with satellite tracking 

I pitched in the distance/availability logic to weaken the CRT argument for moorers......and probably confused the issue

By saying that they verified that the licence fee has nothing to do with usage and therefore the size of the vessel is no basis for the rate of charge.

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I know we are repeating 'old ground'. but C&RT are putting conditions into the T&Cs (2015 issue) that are not required in law eg :

3. Boats with a Home Mooring 
3.1 You must cruise on the Waterways whilst you are away from the Home Mooring (save for any period when you leave the Waterways or when the Boat is lawfully moored at another mooring site).

From 'definitions' : The terms ‘cruise’ and ‘cruising’ are used in this guidance to mean using a boat bona fide for navigation.

Ie - C&RT are saying that when a boat is away from its home mooring it must be used 'bona-fide for navigation'

 

If a boat with a home mooring does not 'bona fide navigate' then its licence will not be renewed, which is in contravention to the 1995 Act which stipulates if a boat has :

1) Insurance

2) A BSSC

3) A home mooring

(No mention of bona fide navigating as a criteria for the issue of a licence)

 

Then it must be issued with a licence.

Surely in this debate it is not what is 'required by law' that matters so much as what is 'permitted by law'. That is to say, if the law permits CaRT to create T&C's or other regulations (which at least in some circumstances is most definitely the case) then boaters must comply on pain of whatever penalty is prescribed, including loss of limitation of licence.

Just to say that a particular requirement is not written on the face of the Act does not in itself make it not lawful.

Do we know definitely that a court has ruled that under no circumstances may CaRT withhold a licence solely on the grounds that the boater has breached the T&C's? (ie rejecting CaRT's claim that they may)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Steilsteven said:

By saying that they verified that the licence fee has nothing to do with usage and therefore the size of the vessel is no basis for the rate of charge.

Keith

Not at all: they are (were) saying that the cost of a usage licence would be high and outweigh and gain of fairness. Cost-benefit trade-off. As with any cost factor, technology may well change the balance over time. Using the size of vessel is a low-cost way of addressing a perceived unfairness that small boats might be charged the same as a big one (as with Council Tax v Poll Tax, sorry Community Charge, if you are listening up there Mrs T!) Main thing is that as a parameter in licence collection it is very low cost to administer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Surely in this debate it is not what is 'required by law' that matters so much as what is 'permitted by law'. That is to say, if the law permits CaRT to create T&C's or other regulations (which at least in some circumstances is most definitely the case) then boaters must comply on pain of whatever penalty is prescribed, including loss of limitation of licence.

But - would an act of 1960 (?) which C&RT claims to give them the right to create whatever T&Cs they require, over-rule an act of 1995 which states the only 3 criteria necessary to obtain (and maintain) a licence.

 

Section 9 of the 1995 Act does state

"Nothing in this section shall affect any power of the Board under any other enactment to refuse or withdraw a relevant consent"

 

So is this what C&RT are relying on ?

What other acts give specific reasons for refusal to licence ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Section 9 of the 1995 Act does state

"Nothing in this section shall affect any power of the Board under any other enactment to refuse or withdraw a relevant consent"

So is this what C&RT are relying on ?

What other acts give specific reasons for refusal to licence ?

Did you overlook my post #148 Alan?

No prior enactment other than the BWA 1971 [and relevant amendments] deals with the issue of relevant consents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Did you overlook my post #148 Alan?

No prior enactment other than the BWA 1971 [and relevant amendments] deals with the issue of relevant consents.

So - would this be the relevant sentence ?

Issue of the houseboat certificate, unlike other ‘relevant consents’ IS “subject to such conditions . . . as they think fit” [1971 BWA, s.14(1)].

 

Meaning that 'other consents' are NOT “subject to such conditions . . . as they think fit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

So - would this be the relevant sentence ?

Issue of the houseboat certificate, unlike other ‘relevant consents’ IS “subject to such conditions . . . as they think fit” [1971 BWA, s.14(1)].

 

Meaning that 'other consents' are NOT “subject to such conditions . . . as they think fit

Exactly so Alan. The very fact that in respect of houseboat certificates [one of the 'relevant consents'] the legislation specifically provided that such T&C's could be made a condition of the certificate, emphasises that no other relevant consents could be so subject.

As I think I have alluded to earlier, BW's QC in 1993 very specifically made the point that in terms of the pleasure boat certificate [not licence], issue was mandatory with NO conditioning possible - and hence the need for s.17 of the 1995 Act [it was s.14 in the 1990 Bill if I recall correctly].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Do we know definitely that a court has ruled that under no circumstances may CaRT withhold a licence solely on the grounds that the boater has breached the T&C's? (ie rejecting CaRT's claim that they may)

We can be confident that no binding court ruling to that effect has been made.

The closest finding to the contrary, would possibly be that of the County Court Judgment in CaRT v Pierret in the beginning of this year. That was not quite the scenario of your question, because it did not deal with any breach of conditions, rather it concerned the refusal of CaRT to issue a licence on the grounds that the applicant refused to sign agreement to the T&C’s. Sadly – the boat owner being uninformed as to how this country’s law courts operate – no Defence was filed [only an ‘affidavit’ unseen by the judge], and as per usual, the Part 8 procedure followed, together with the framing of the Claim, meant that the only question arising was whether the owner possessed a required licence or not.

As to the representations that the judge allowed the owner to make orally, the court response was that he ought to have signed under stated duress, and subsequently brought a Judicial Review of the decision.

So there exists no relevant finding either way to date. Reference to the issue was made in the course of the Ravenscroft arguments [responding to one of the specious reasons given by CaRT as to the alleged uselessness of following statutorily prescribed remedies], but that was a side issue that will not be decided upon in the imminent judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Issue of the houseboat certificate, unlike other ‘relevant consents’ IS “subject to such conditions . . . as they think fit” [1971 BWA, s.14(1)].

The whole “houseboat” issue is one which CaRT have very mixed feelings about. On the one hand they would be happy to dispense with them altogether – and have allowed them to be whittled down to 80 or less at last count I know of – because of what they see to be onerous obligations over security of tenure and the legal requirement to pass on the benefits to subsequent owners - yet they find it useful to arbitrarily re-classify any pleasure boat as a houseboat for the purpose of s.8 litigation.

However absurd the result, it ties in neatly, for them, with the messy definitions within the 1971 Act, wherein houseboats are classified as [inter alia] anything that is not bona fide used for navigation. Hence, on their argument, once a boat can be said to no longer being so used, it becomes a houseboat – automatically non-compliant with the mandatory T&C’s applying to those. All a bit clever when you stop to analyse it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

Not at all: they are (were) saying that the cost of a usage licence would be high and outweigh and gain of fairness. Cost-benefit trade-off. As with any cost factor, technology may well change the balance over time. Using the size of vessel is a low-cost way of addressing a perceived unfairness that small boats might be charged the same as a big one (as with Council Tax v Poll Tax, sorry Community Charge, if you are listening up there Mrs T!) Main thing is that as a parameter in licence collection it is very low cost to administer.

Ah yes, got it now.

I don't agree that using the size of vessel is either low cost or fair though. 

The mistake that's always made in such discussions is that it isn't the boat that pays for the licence, it's the owner.

Stating the obvious I know, but to make a point and the point is that the size of the boat doesn't necessarily indicate the owner's ability to pay. The object of the licence fee is to provide a contribution towards the costs of running the waterways end of. There is no reason why anyone should be subsidised by others for keeping their boat on the water just because it is smaller. At present it costs around £500 to licence the smallest boat ( 0-18 ft ) so it's not exactly peanuts anyway.

Anyway, that's my point of view and I know it'll fall on deaf ears but there you go.

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NigelMoore said:

We can be confident that no binding court ruling to that effect has been made.

The closest finding to the contrary, would possibly be that of the County Court Judgment in CaRT v Pierret in the beginning of this year. That was not quite the scenario of your question, because it did not deal with any breach of conditions, rather it concerned the refusal of CaRT to issue a licence on the grounds that the applicant refused to sign agreement to the T&C’s. Sadly – the boat owner being uninformed as to how this country’s law courts operate – no Defence was filed [only an ‘affidavit’ unseen by the judge], and as per usual, the Part 8 procedure followed, together with the framing of the Claim, meant that the only question arising was whether the owner possessed a required licence or not.

As to the representations that the judge allowed the owner to make orally, the court response was that he ought to have signed under stated duress, and subsequently brought a Judicial Review of the decision.

So there exists no relevant finding either way to date. Reference to the issue was made in the course of the Ravenscroft arguments [responding to one of the specious reasons given by CaRT as to the alleged uselessness of following statutorily prescribed remedies], but that was a side issue that will not be decided upon in the imminent judgment.

So we return to my earlier question (and Alan's similar one) about whether breach of T&C's - on its own - has even led to enforcement? More specifically in my question, whether anyone with a home mooring has been 'done' for not using their home mooring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

So we return to my earlier question (and Alan's similar one) about whether breach of T&C's - on its own - has even led to enforcement? More specifically in my question, whether anyone with a home mooring has been 'done' for not using their home mooring?

That is an awkward question as posed, simply because NO “enforcement” - as in direct legal action - has ever taken into account the reason why a boat does not have a licence [or certificate]; CaRT simply rely upon the lack of the licence/certificate to justify a s.8.

Tony Dunkley’s case was specific as to the failure to abide by T&C’s being the reason for revoking the pleasure boat certificate, but even so, the reason was peripheral to their lodged County Court Claim, which was withdrawn in any event, later on. It only surfaced because Tony successfully challenged the Part 8 process and filed a detailed Defence.

If we leave aside s.8 Claims, and ask whether there has been any “enforcement” [as in legal action] for alleged breach of T&C’s “on its own”, i.e. outwith an accompanying s.8 Claim, then the answer is a clear NO. While unilaterally imposed T&C’s have no force in law [so no direct penalty is imposable], those that incorporate byelaw provisions ARE enforceable through Magistrates Courts, but not a single breach of those has ever been prosecuted by CaRT.

So the question as phrased leads to a misleadingly slanted answer; unquestionably alleged breaches of T&C’s lies behind virtually ALL s.8 cases, notably commencing with Paul Davies. The more specific question you pose as to whether action has been taken against a boater with a home mooring for breach of T&C’s, is likewise answered by the Dunkley example, for all that a distinction is sought between his situation and those on canals [for reasons that escape me entirely].

To summarise: nobody, with or without a home mooring has ever been “done” directly, for a breach of T&C’s; boaters who have allegedly breached T&C’s, whether with or without a home mooring, have been “done” by way of refusal or revoking of the licence/certificate because of the alleged breach. It amounts to the same thing in the end, for all practical purposes – certainly so far as the boater is concerned.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Horace42 said:

Ah well. You win some you lose some. I like my logic.

The point I had in mind was the cost to me of a cruising license - supposedly good value because it gives me access to the whole waterways network. But because of distance I cannot use the whole network. So why not a reduction in the license fee for home moorers who only go out occassionally.

Or more likely, an increase in the license fee for CC's - to recognise the cost to CRT of providing visitors moorings  that CC's get free-of-charge - albeit 14 days max, but anywhere for a whole year.

apologies to CC's who use paid temporary moorings.

CaRT don't have to provide visitor moorings, you could moor there whether or not a sign says so. If you are claiming that CaRT spends money on devoting special levels of maintenance to visitor moorings I'm not sure about that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

Surely in this debate it is not what is 'required by law' that matters so much as what is 'permitted by law'. That is to say, if the law permits CaRT to create T&C's or other regulations (which at least in some circumstances is most definitely the case) then boaters must comply on pain of whatever penalty is prescribed, including loss of limitation of licence.

Just to say that a particular requirement is not written on the face of the Act does not in itself make it not lawful.

Do we know definitely that a court has ruled that under no circumstances may CaRT withhold a licence solely on the grounds that the boater has breached the T&C's? (ie rejecting CaRT's claim that they may)

As regards licences CaRT are a public body and as such can only do what is specifically permitted by statute, in contrast to an individual person who is free to do anything that is not specifically prohibited by the law.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

That is an awkward question as posed, simply because NO “enforcement” - as in direct legal action - has ever taken into account the reason why a boat does not have a licence [or certificate]; CaRT simply rely upon the lack of the licence/certificate to justify a s.8.

Tony Dunkley’s case was specific as to the failure to abide by T&C’s being the reason for revoking the pleasure boat certificate, but even so, the reason was peripheral to their lodged County Court Claim, which was withdrawn in any event, later on. It only surfaced because Tony successfully challenged the Part 8 process and filed a detailed Defence.

If we leave aside s.8 Claims, and ask whether there has been any “enforcement” [as in legal action] for alleged breach of T&C’s “on its own”, i.e. outwith an accompanying s.8 Claim, then the answer is a clear NO. While unilaterally imposed T&C’s have no force in law [so no direct penalty is imposable], those that incorporate byelaw provisions ARE enforceable through Magistrates Courts, but not a single breach of those has ever been prosecuted by CaRT.

So the question as phrased leads to a misleadingly slanted answer; unquestionably alleged breaches of T&C’s lies behind virtually ALL s.8 cases, notably commencing with Paul Davies. The more specific question you pose as to whether action has been taken against a boater with a home mooring for breach of T&C’s, is likewise answered by the Dunkley example, for all that a distinction is sought between his situation and those on canals [for reasons that escape me entirely].

To summarise: nobody, with or without a home mooring has ever been “done” directly, for a breach of T&C’s; boaters who have allegedly breached T&C’s, whether with or without a home mooring, have been “done” by way of refusal or revoking of the licence/certificate because of the alleged breach. It amounts to the same thing in the end, for all practical purposes – certainly so far as the boater is concerned.

Ta.

3 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

As regards licences CaRT are a public body and as such can only do what is specifically permitted by statute, in contrast to an individual person who is free to do anything that is not specifically prohibited by the law.

 

You misunderstand. If the law permits T&Cs then they are therefore lawful even if not on the face of the act. Unless unreasonable.

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2017 at 12:44, mrsmelly said:

Hell o young man how ya doin. Remember its not what you know its who you know that counts. Come and see me for beer and advice ;)

Good day Sir!

That is very true, I will pop in soon - we came along earlier in the year but you were out for the day, we saw Paul though and said hello, had a lovely sandwich and a bottle of pop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

 If the law permits T&Cs then they are therefore lawful even if not on the face of the act. Unless unreasonable.

The comments by the previous Waterways Ombudsman are very much to the point in this respect – “British Waterways themselves can sometimes interpret legislation in different ways depending on what suits them in a particular case”. [page 16 of her 2010-2011 Report]

http://www.waterways-ombudsman.org/media/1016/annualreports201to11final.pdf

CaRT’s submissions to the Mayor of London’s Report on mooring problems in London contains the accurate admission: “People enjoy the right to put a boat on our waterways, providing that they pay the necessary fee, that the boat meets safety standards and has insurance cover for third party liabilities – and that, unless it is used ‘bona fide’ for navigation throughout the period of consent, it must have a home mooring (somewhere where the boat ‘can lawfully be kept when not being used for navigation’2 ).”

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/Combined responses_Part1_0.pdf  [see page 10]

This was more explicitly enunciated in  CaRT’s “Overview of statutory framework”, page 6, which acknowledges clearly enough:  

The British Waterways Act 1995 limits to three specific criteria our ability to refuse to licence a boat.”   [my emphasis]

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/1127.pdf

They go on, however, in their submission to the GLA, to inaccurately claim [in effective contradiction of the above quoted public statement] that revocation of the licence with subsequent s.8 removal “is the only sanction available to us in respect of a breach in licence terms.” [page 12 of the GLA Report pack on Responses in the link above] Insofar as any breach of non-statutory terms can naturally have no sanction applicable, this would explain the s.8 process chosen - albeit with no legal justification whatsoever - while any breach of approved byelaws etc contains within the legislation the accompanying legislated sanction – which does NOT include revocation of a licence. If a sanction is not legislated for, then the claimed legal outrage does not exist and such T&C’s are – as acknowledged to Parliament by BW in the debates over the 1990 Bill – mere guidance without the force of law.

Revoking a licence can only be enabled upon breach of the s.17 conditions, exactly as, admitted by them above, refusing a licence can only be enabled by failure to meet those conditions.

In short, where the 1995 Act has expressly limited grounds for refusal/revocation of a licence to 3 specific conditions, then the issue of the licence CANNOT legally be subjected to compliance with anything else.

Where, under byelaw making powers passed on to CaRT by the terms of their Statutory Instrument, conditions of use of the waterways by licensed boats may still be added to, the relevant statutory procedure must be followed – but those, as with existing byelaws, could only govern use of the waterways by licensed boats, they could never be tied to issue or revocation of the licence. Any attempt to portray them as something issue and retention of the licence is subject to, is blatant falsehood.

The law quite simply does NOT permit T&C’s to be attached to issue of the licence, therefore the asserted contrary statements and actions are indeed unlawful. When elements of these T&C’s specifically claim to over-ride express statutory protections and prohibitions, the legal affront is all the more objectionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

 

CaRT’s submissions to the Mayor of London’s Report on mooring problems in London contains the accurate admission: “People enjoy the right to put a boat on our waterways, providing that they pay the necessary fee, that the boat meets safety standards and has insurance cover for third party liabilities – and that, unless it is used ‘bona fide’ for navigation throughout the period of consent, it must have a home mooring (somewhere where the boat ‘can lawfully be kept when not being used for navigation ).”

 

Whilst not as inaccurate to the same extent as much that C&RT produce and publish, they have nonetheless tacked  the words -"when not being used for navigation"  - onto the 'home' mooring option of the 1995 Act's S.17(3){c}, the implication being that when not engaged in "navigation",  whether 'bona fide' or not, the boat cannot be moored anywhere other than on it's (home) mooring. In this, it is going very much further than Parliament did with the straightforward proviso/option that a mooring "where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left" will be 'available' for the boat, if the owner does not intend to regularly move and/or use it after a maximum of 14 days continuously moored at one location on a canal towpath or any other C&RT controlled mooring.

Edited by PhilAtterley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PhilAtterley said:

. . .  the implication being that when not engaged in "navigation",  whether 'bona fide' or not, the boat cannot be moored anywhere other than on it's (home) mooring. 

It is actually very odd that they insist on this, given the administrative burden and legal costs so pointlessly assumed. I can only imagine it is the accepted cost of bolstering their alternative “bona fide for navigation” interpretations.

The essential point of the legislation was to ensure that boats were not left unattended in places which ought to kept available for all in turn as a public facility. It does not matter what route is taken to obtain the licence in the first place – any licensed boat may be kept at any place other than its declared ‘home mooring’ for as long as they like, provided only that it also, is a place where a boat “may reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

(snip)

Revoking a licence can only be enabled upon breach of the s.17 conditions, exactly as, admitted by them above, refusing a licence can only be enabled by failure to meet those conditions.

In short, where the 1995 Act has expressly limited grounds for refusal/revocation of a licence to 3 specific conditions, then the issue of the licence CANNOT legally be subjected to compliance with anything else.

(snip)

(My bold)

unless

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

applies. (which does seem to directly contradict

(3)Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless— .....

!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I chose my wording carefully Iain. I remarked only upon the situation with a ‘licence’, which is but one of the classes of ‘relevant consents’.

Section 9 which you quote does not contradict, directly or otherwise, my statement regarding the limited conditions attendant upon a licence, because the only ‘relevant consent’ to which that section can apply is that of a ‘houseboat certificate’, which is emphatically NOT a ‘licence’.

ALL ‘relevant consents’ are subject to the 3 criteria of s.17(3), but the ‘houseboat certificate’ [alone], is ALSO subject to both specific statutory and unilaterally drafted terms and conditions, as empowered under the “other enactment” of 1971 and confirmed in s.16 -

(1) A houseboat certificate issued or renewed after the passing of this Act under the Act of 1971 shall, unless the certificate or some other document referred to in the certificate provides otherwise, be subject to the general terms set out in Schedule 1 to this Act in addition to such conditions (if any) as the Board may determine under section 14 (Registration of houseboats) of the Act of 1971.

(2) The Board shall on demand provide a copy of the general terms for the time being in force under this section to any person requiring the same and to the holder on the issue or renewal of the certificate.

(3) A houseboat certificate shall contain or refer to some other document containing the general terms and any conditions to which it is subject.

 

Nor does s.9 contradict s.3, which while saying that regardless of any other enactment the Board are obliged to issue relevant consents if the 3 listed criteria are met, explicitly excludes any express former statutory power of refusal of such a consent [such consents and their attendant conditions only becoming law post 1971].

One could reasonably use s.3, on the other hand, to counter CaRT’s claimed ability to refuse ‘licences’ on the basis of non-agreement with T&C’s applied under the alleged powers of the enactment of 1962 – even IF that enactment had the breadth of application claimed for it!

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.