Muddy Ditch Rich

The licence is anything CRT say it is until you prove otherwise in court, the law only applies if you can enforce it. The faux ombudsman has already upheld that it is a contract, so you won't get any help there. You can wave the law at CRT but they don't care, you will have to fight one of the biggest corporate law firms in the UK first. All the warnings about what CRT were doing were ignored or rubbished by most boat owners, especially on this forum, so don't complain.

My living cabin is at the stern end of my boat, and I'm constantly being disturbed by other boats running engines and generators, noise and toxic exhaust smoke. I like the doors open, fresh air, and peace and quiet. In fact the next boat where I am moored now is stern to stern, and running his engine now past 9 pm, which is boiling my p. The next boat along has let his geny run until 4 am, and the boat next to that has a 2.5 kW open frame on his back deck running every evening. People are just using their boats as mobile generating stations just so they can sit in there and watch TV, spoiling the peace for everyone else. What happened to the simple canal boating life ? I have 500 w of solar.

An alternative view of that might be that CRT were aware that they were not lawful, rather than the comrade revolutionaries at the nbta screwed up a good idea just out of spite. I posited the idea being fully aware that WM's may be illegal but no one can do much about it, so we will have to live with it. Whether payment for any WM's is lawful or not is still not settled.

The most expensive way to buy Kerosene. £1.30 litre !

The wm's round my neck of the woods are all in inconvenient places like Cosgrove, and three locks that are bus rides away from the shops if you haven't got a car, which most CC'ers don't have I would think. Why have they put them in remote places ? I think a better system would be a permit to stay anywhere you like for the winter excluding visitor moorings, different people have different needs, some want car parking nearby, some just peace and quiet, some near towns or facility's.

Does anyone have records from the canal carrying days that show the annual tonnage of dredging that was going on then ? It might be informative ?

Not as shallow as from New Bradwell to Cosgrove, that is not boating its ploughing.

The £250 was a new one from Chertsey, but I've emailed them if they have any used ones. Also had a quote for welding it for £60.

Trying to help a broken down boater that reversed their Z drive into the bank, busted the swivel fork, and chewed up the spines on the swivelling shaft. I have the parts diagram but its not clear which part this shaft is. http://www.chertseymeadsmarine.co.uk/enfield-drives/exploded-views/ New fork is £250, too much for the owner, does anyone have any of these used parts ?

And not included the mooring fees for little Venice, one of the most possibly the most expensive moorings on the system.

Aren't some new boats from this company made in China ?

Shouldn't the permission be a separate matter to a PBL licence ? it looks like CaRT have tricked trading licence holders out of the scope of the PBL and into a contractual licence. I'm not sure if trading licence holders are aware of this. Note that the business licence terms and conditions contain this little gem. "9.4 We reserve the right to refuse to issue you with any Licence in the future. "

If CaRT can arbitrarily refuse permission to trade on their waters via the bylaw ( I presume that decision is not required to be reasonable, and cannot be overturned by a court ? ) then is a contract the only lawful way left to trade ? Leaving out the blackmail issue for now.

If you don't need a special licence to trade as a shop in the first place, any admin cost of providing such a licence is purely their own making. No one has yet provided any evidence that such a licence is a statutory requirement. Unless you believe Mr Deards that an act of 1962 that does not contain any reference to licences or any thing like them, enacted more than a decade before licences were introduced, applies to licences.

Can a boater break the law if its only trivial in comparison to something else totally unrelated ?

How far would you limit CaRT in breaking the law to raise money ?

The permission under bylaw 30 would accomplish that.

Makes you wonder why they have set up a separate and unnecessary licence category, and dedicated staff for such a insignificant fee .

Catch 22 situation. You can't use any vessel as a shop without permission, and you won't get permission unless you pay (£80) extra for a licence that you don't legally require.

My understanding so far. *If sect 10 , 1971 only applies to PBC's as Mr Deards said, then CaRT have no powers to sub divide PBL's. ( only the permission is required to use your pleasure boat as a shop, store or workshop under bylaw 30 ) and the specific licence for trading is not a statutory requirement. *If sect. 10 does apply to PBL's via the 83 act then the sub category of trading licence is valid but the extra fee charged over and above a standard PBL is illegal. Both options are not in CaRT' s favour.

The head of CaRT legal dept has confirmed that the power to sub divide pleasure boat licences only applies to the relevant rivers, and they are not applying it generally, which means the business trading licence can only be a commercial vessel, there is no power to subdivide that licence. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/business_licences Q. What legislation governs the fees charged for commercial vessel licences ?

The long term mooring contract makes no distinction between offside and towpath moorings. Can CaRT make lawful contracts to moor on towpath sites ? Which applies on towpath sites, bylaw and statute or contract terms and conditions ?

The single four wheel wheelie bin has returned, which they know is totally inadequate, because they previously changed it to a side loading enclosed skip, there is now a sign stating that if its over filled the facility will be taken away, and that there is 24 hr CCTV on it, which there isn't. Its already overfilled.

That would allow them to make up the law as they want. Which is what we have now, ridiculous interpretations of the law like licences are issued in accordance with the 1962 transport act a decade before licences were created.

In that case how is Leigh responsible for not abiding by a law that the correct meaning of was unknown until the judgement ? How did CaRT know the MNC meant the whole river, surely they were guessing what the meaning was as well ?