Jump to content

Tadworth versus CRT.


onionbargee

Featured Posts

So in law you say CaRt are wrong, but morally you think they are right not to give you a licence.

 

This says it all

It says or means little in reality.

However, I do see how it would fit your personal agenda, which is of course miles away from the actual point of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wowsers! ..... there's a point to this thread?

A very worrying one, with possible damage for either side. Some of you may well choose to miss the point, and even scoff at it, but this is getting silly.

Recent events have seen some pretty rubbish decisions from CRT, and doing an impression of an ostrich ain't gonna fix anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me that CRT, based as much on the OP's own admission he does not deserve a licence, are entitled to have a judge test in proceedings the OP might choose to bring the original assertion that "The court order stated in the standard wording of all similar BW/CRT orders that i could not bring my boat onto their waters "without prior consent " this is the important wording here, the word "consent" in this regard is the legal term for a licence, and not the trusts own permission".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I would just confirm (to myself) what the meaning of 'consent' is in this context, and it is (as thought) the 'issuing of a licence'. and for those others who may wish confirmation here is the relevant part of the Waterways Act 1995

 

Conditions as to certificates and licences

(1)In this section—

  • “houseboat certificate” means a houseboat certificate issued under the Act of 1971;

  • “insurance policy” means an insurance policy complying with Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act;

  • “licence” means a licence issued by the Board in respect of any vessel allowing the use of the vessel on any inland waterways;

  • “pleasure boat certificate” means a pleasure boat certificate issued under the Act of 1971;

  • “relevant consent” means a houseboat certificate, a licence or a pleasure boat certificate; and

  • “standards” means standards for the construction and equipment of vessels prescribed under this section and Part II of the said Schedule 2.

'Consent' is NOT an email, a letter or a phone call telling you that "we consent to you returning to the waterways", the act of issuing a licence is a 'consent'.

 

Having said that, in these days of 'automated' licence issuing, there must be the option to revoke the licence if it is subsequently found to have been issued for reasons that, had the licence been issued manually, would have identified a problem with 'satisfying the board', or a fictitious insurance certificate number or BSSC number has been used.

 

Edit To Add :

Having read thru the Act again it appears that BW / C&RT licences are valid for ANY inland waterway - now that's handy !!!!

 

"licence” means a licence issued by the Board in respect of any vessel allowing the use of the vessel on any inland waterways;

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the matter of the meaning of "prior consent" it is in a court order that is not necessarily a part of the '95 act. One can pick out the definition of "relevant consent" which of course is not the exact same phrase, and claim they mean the same thing, however I'm not so sure it is a certainty. The only way to be sure would be to test it in court.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the matter of the meaning of "prior consent" it is in a court order that is not necessarily a part of the '95 act. One can pick out the definition of "relevant consent" which of course is not the exact same phrase, and claim they mean the same thing, however I'm not so sure it is a certainty. The only way to be sure would be to test it in court.

 

Valid point and worthy of further consideration.

 

The court order specified "without prior consent"

The 1995 Act states "relevant consent"

 

Would the issuing of the 'relevant consent' prior to joining C&RT waters amount to 'prior consent' ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Edit To Add :

Having read thru the Act again it appears that BW / C&RT licences are valid for ANY inland waterway - now that's handy !!!!

 

"licence means a licence issued by the Board in respect of any vessel allowing the use of the vessel on any inland waterways;

Before getting too excited Alan - you did check the definition of 'inland waterway' in that Act?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valid point and worthy of further consideration.

 

The court order specified "without prior consent"

The 1995 Act states "relevant consent"

 

Would the issuing of the 'relevant consent' prior to joining C&RT waters amount to 'prior consent' ?

Who knows? In plain English prior consent means asking first and receiving approval. It seems to me a bit of a leap to claim that getting a licence via an automated system equates to this plain English meaning.

 

Without the court order of course it does. With the court order....?

Edited by nicknorman
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said that, in these days of 'automated' licence issuing, there must be the option to revoke the licence if it is subsequently found to have been issued for reasons that, had the licence been issued manually, would have identified a problem with 'satisfying the board', or a fictitious insurance certificate number or BSSC number has been used.

 

 

Interesting point. A fraudulent on-line application using say, a fabricated insurance policy number would result in the issue of a licence as details are not verified in real time, and cancelling it should not require the giving of 28 days notice etc etc.

 

One might be forgiven for wondering if the OP chose to use the automated licence application system relying on this, instead of applying to CRT for the 'prior consent' demanded by the court order.

 

Applying for a licence on-line without obtaining that prior consent *might* be regarded by the court as disregarding the court order, and perhaps even contempt of court.

 

 

 

(Edit for multiple spelling errors.)

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the matter of the meaning of "prior consent" it is in a court order that is not necessarily a part of the '95 act. One can pick out the definition of "relevant consent" which of course is not the exact same phrase, and claim they mean the same thing, however I'm not so sure it is a certainty. The only way to be sure would be to test it in court.

 

Who knows? In plain English prior consent means asking first and receiving approval. It seems to me a bit of a leap to claim that getting a licence via an automated system equates to this plain English meaning.

 

Without the court order of course it does. With the court order....?

 

C&RT have made it abundantly clear that obtaining a Licence [before the vessel enters their waters] equates with 'prior consent'.

 

From a C&RT E-mail dated last Thursday, 14 April 2016:~" the injunction does prevent you from bringing Tadworth onto the Trust’s waterways without our prior consent i.e. obtaining a licence from us."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

C&RT have made it abundantly clear that obtaining a Licence [before the vessel enters their waters] equates with 'prior consent'.

 

From a C&RT E-mail dated last Thursday, 14 April 2016:~" the injunction does prevent you from bringing Tadworth onto the Trust’s waterways without our prior consent i.e. obtaining a licence from us."

 

 

Surely it is for the court to decide what it meant by the term 'prior consent' in the court order, not CRT.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a C&RT E-mail dated last Thursday, 14 April 2016:~" the injunction does prevent you from bringing Tadworth onto the Trust’s waterways without our prior consent i.e. obtaining a licence from us."

And it is being assumed that means obtaining a licence by any method rather than meaning apply in writing so that we can consider the situation. Perhaps this is another example of CRT not having caught up/thought through the use of modern technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Surely it is for the court to decide what it meant by the term 'prior consent' in the court order, not CRT.

 

If the terms and wording of the Order originated from the Court, that would be so, but the process of obtaining Orders and Injunctions that C&RT go through doesn't work like that.

This Order/Injunction, and in fact all the Orders BW/C&RT have ever obtained in Section 8 actions, are in the precise terms and wording specified by C&RT's lawyers in asking the Court to make the Order.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That the words in the WW Act are "relevant consent" rather than "prior consent" may be the key to determining the issue....I spent a working lifetime dealing with Consumer Credit Acts... when even the simplest language was open to interpretation.

One enterprising chap, with his girlfriend, set up a company to "buy" consumer debts, not from the banks or loan companies, but from consumers themselves. They then went on a credit spending spree, racked up £100k of debt on , then "sold" their debts to the company for £1, which company failed of course to make any payment. The couple when sued asserted that they were fully entitled to sell their "obligation to pay". This confounded even the most hotshot of lawyers, until after some years it reached the Court of Appeal who shakily ruled that "obligation to pay" under the CCActs was only transferable by lenders. Very little in life is as certain as some on this thread believe.

Edited by BillM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If the terms and wording of the Order originated from the Court, that would be so, but the process of obtaining Orders and Injunctions that C&RT go through doesn't work like that.

This Order/Injunction, and in fact all the Orders BW/C&RT have ever obtained in Section 8 actions, are in the precise terms and wording specified by C&RT's lawyers in asking the Court to make the Order.

 

That leads to a question :

 

Do C&RT write their own orders & injunctions and then the court just 'rubber stamps' them ?

 

If so that rather suggests that C&RT are 'above scrutiny' and are assumed to be always 'right'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If the wording of the Order originated from the Court, that would be so, but the process of obtaining Orders and Injunctions that C&RT go through doesn't work like that.

This Order/Injunction, and in fact all the Orders BW/C&RT have ever obtained in Section 8 actions, are in the precise terms specified by C&RT's lawyers in asking the Court to make the Order.

 

 

Yes I wondered who drafted the order. But once issued, the court is making the order and defining the terms within is for the court.

 

On the other hand, enforcing the court order is only likely to happen if CRT draw a breach of it to the attention of the court, and if Shoosmiths see mileage in contradicting the emails you quote, I can imagine them claiming the email was sent in error by just "an employee not authorised to say that"

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it is being assumed that means obtaining a licence by any method rather than meaning apply in writing so that we can consider the situation. Perhaps this is another example of CRT not having caught up/thought through the use of modern technology.

 

The means of applying for a Licence isn't relevant.

The only 'consideration' C&RT can give to any Licence application is to ascertain whether or not the [statutory] requirements of S.17(3) of the '95 Act have been met.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That leads to a question :

 

Do C&RT write their own orders & injunctions and then the court just 'rubber stamps' them ?

 

If so that rather suggests that C&RT are 'above scrutiny' and are assumed to be always 'right'.

 

Yes, that is how the Court process works, although, of course, it's hoped that the Courts would only ever approve of and make Orders that don't go beyond the bounds of reason and legality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The means of applying for a Licence isn't relevant.

The only 'consideration' C&RT can give to any Licence application is to ascertain whether or not the [statutory] requirements of S.17(3) of the '95 Act have been met.

 

Disagree. A court order can restrict behaviour of one of the parties; or restructure the relationship between two parties. That's what court orders do. They can be appealed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The means of applying for a Licence isn't relevant.

The only 'consideration' C&RT can give to any Licence application is to ascertain whether or not the [statutory] requirements of S.17(3) of the '95 Act have been met.

 

 

This puzzles me. You write as though it is a matter of black or white.

 

In both cases there is a bit about the board needing to be satisfied. And the board being satisfied that a mooring is available or the applicant will CC, is not necessarily cut and dried.

 

 

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

 

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

 

Agreed it is not relevant in this case under discussion, but the point stands.

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • 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.