general terms and conditions.

[NigelMoore]

I tend to regard CRT's T&Cs as guidelines for sensible and considerate boating practices, which in general they are.

 

Something which we should not lose sight of while decrying the false portrayal of them as binding contractual terms to which issue of the licence is subject.

[onionbargee]

Another issue has come up for Tadworth, the licence will only be granted with the mooring I have, because I didn't move TW enough in 2013* to comply with CC guidelines. I have another unpowered boat I want to licence as its butty, however CRT say that the butty must have a mooring as well. I don't intend to be on my mooring, and will be CC'ing both boats together.

 

*note that Tadworth has been off CRT waters since then. Is the record of cruising 2 & 1/2 years ago still relevant ?

 

The conditions for a butty licence are this...

 

"50% discount for a butty boat more than 50ft long that never travels separately from its motor boat. The motor boat must be licensed and licences for motor and butty must be concurrent with the same start and end date. "

 

I don't see that I need a mooring for the butty, unless I intend to keep my motor on a mooring long term, even then I could in theory move the butty every 14 days with the motor, then return to my mooring.

 

???

[Mike Todd]

Another issue has come up for Tadworth, the licence will only be granted with the mooring I have, because I didn't move TW enough in 2013* to comply with CC guidelines. I have another unpowered boat I want to licence as its butty, however CRT say that the butty must have a mooring as well. I don't intend to be on my mooring, and will be CC'ing both boats together.

 

*note that Tadworth has been off CRT waters since then. Is the record of cruising 2 & 1/2 years ago still relevant ?

 

The conditions for a butty licence are this...

 

"50% discount for a butty boat more than 50ft long that never travels separately from its motor boat. The motor boat must be licensed and licences for motor and butty must be concurrent with the same start and end date. "

 

I don't see that I need a mooring for the butty, unless I intend to keep my motor on a mooring long term, even then I could in theory move the butty every 14 days with the motor, then return to my mooring.

 

???

The issue of whether a mooring is used/needed has clearly become more complex over time. As I understand it, the requirement is to have a mooring available (realistically) for use when needed. On its own there is no specific amount of time that must be spent at the mooring. Rather the situation is the reverse. The general case is that a boat must have a home mooring unless it satisfies the Board that it will comply with the CC requirements - the same applies whether or not the boat has an engine to move it (assuming we are not talking about houseboats)

 

The complication more recently regards ghost moorings where the lack of time spent at that mooring has caused CaRT to be concerned about whether it is genuine or not (I guess the main fear is that such a mooring might be let out to several boats simultaneously).

 

The main issue in this case is that CaRT require you to have a home mooring for your boats - regardless of how long you are going to spend at them. OTOH, I assume that if it is possible, the same stretch of land can be used if breasted up.

 

You might also get into a complex debate about whether the butty (left towpath-side) for the 14 days is 'travelling' separately from the motor. I assume that normally there is no problem leaving the butty on its home mooring and taking the motor away. However, not having a home mooring means that you have to state that the boat (the butty in this case) is continuously travelling, even if stationary. (ie it is engaged on a bona fide journey)

[onionbargee]

The issue of whether a mooring is used/needed has clearly become more complex over time. As I understand it, the requirement is to have a mooring available (realistically) for use when needed. On its own there is no specific amount of time that must be spent at the mooring. Rather the situation is the reverse. The general case is that a boat must have a home mooring unless it satisfies the Board that it will comply with the CC requirements - the same applies whether or not the boat has an engine to move it (assuming we are not talking about houseboats)

 

The complication more recently regards ghost moorings where the lack of time spent at that mooring has caused CaRT to be concerned about whether it is genuine or not (I guess the main fear is that such a mooring might be let out to several boats simultaneously).

 

The main issue in this case is that CaRT require you to have a home mooring for your boats - regardless of how long you are going to spend at them. OTOH, I assume that if it is possible, the same stretch of land can be used if breasted up.

 

You might also get into a complex debate about whether the butty (left towpath-side) for the 14 days is 'travelling' separately from the motor. I assume that normally there is no problem leaving the butty on its home mooring and taking the motor away. However, not having a home mooring means that you have to state that the boat (the butty in this case) is continuously travelling, even if stationary. (ie it is engaged on a bona fide journey)

It says "travelling separately " not " mooring separatly" hence the motor can travel or be moored anywhere else during the butty's 14 days in one place, then return to collect it. I still don't see the problem.

[mayalld]

 

 

I have the feeling you are misunderstanding me/the legislation.

 

I see no problem with sections 3 & 4 respecting the requirement to display your certificate or licence. No-one has suggested licences did not exist prior to 1975; nor that these were not a valid alternative choice to existing charges structures, entitling the boat owner to freedom from payment for those [in the same way that holders of pleasure boat certificates were “exempt from payment of any lock toll”]. In fact these pleasure boat licences were recognised back in the immediately previous 1974 Act, wherein the certificate charges could not be increased by a proportion greater than the proportion by which licences for non-river waterways were increased.

 

The question at issue [as I understood it to be] was whether these were mandatory licences issued under force of statute. They were not. The mandatory licences were brought into being only post the 1975 Act. Subsequent to the passage of the 1976 Byelaw rendering pleasure boat licences mandatory, it was possible [and only then], to scrap the rigid charges scheme of 1971 as amended in 1974, and peg the certificate charges to 60% of the by-now mandatory licences under the terms of the 1983 Act.

 

Any interpretation of the right to demand tolls would have to be creative indeed, that sought to transform that always existent obligation to pay tolls, into a ‘licence’ to be on the canals; it was in fact legally impossible to demand a licence in circumstances where the PRN over all canals still subsisted – a situation unaltered until after passage of the 1968 Act. Hence even the 1962 Act could not empower any demand for a boat ‘licence’ – regardless of what charges might be imposed; permission to keep and use boats on the canals was by right of statute until the abolition of that right in 1968.

 

Again, you seem to misinterpret the effect of s.5 of the 1975 Act. It did indeed give greater powers respecting the imposition of conditions for bringing boats onto the canals – but this did NOT empower unilateral imposition; it created the avenue for introducing these via byelaws, and until such byelaws were approved and passed, the powers remained latent only.

 

It would repay you to read through the Select Committee minutes for the following Acts, which clarify the principles involved. Those Acts WERE necessary to impose that which they did– BW were asked why they had not promoted byelaws instead, for the extra powers of control that they were seeking, and given their stated disinclination for going that route, primary legislation was the only alternative.

 

 

 

edit to remove redundant duplicated word

 

 

The point about the display requirements was just a curiosity.

 

The Act imposes a display requirement, so the identical requirement of the 1976 byelaws was just a waste of ink!

 

I stand by what I said. The 1975 Act recognises that licences exist. Later Acts recognise that they exist, but there is no explicit statutory basis for them.

[NigelMoore]

 

The point about the display requirements was just a curiosity.

 

The Act imposes a display requirement, so the identical requirement of the 1976 byelaws was just a waste of ink!

 

I stand by what I said. The 1975 Act recognises that licences exist. Later Acts recognise that they exist, but there is no explicit statutory basis for them.

 

You are overlooking something critical; the requirement to display in the Act and in the subsequent byelaws is NOT identical.

 

As I have laboured to explain – in 1975 licences for pleasure boats on the canals were not a mandatory requirement. They existed – as a convenience by way of agreement with all parties – and those holding such a licence were exempted under statute from having to apply for registration to use the river waterways [such boats would already be registered].

 

Section 3 of the 1975 Act is dealing ONLY with pleasure boats on river waterways, nowhere else. Elsewhere on the canal system, ALL boats had ALWAYS been required to be registered [and to display that registration number on the boat at all times]; boats on the rivers pre 1971 had never had to be registered, but post 1971 they did, although holding a licence for the canals could be used as an exemption from the river registration requirement. While the canal registration number would already have had to be displayed on a boat holding a canals licence, the 1975 Act required the licence OR river registration certificate to be displayed additionally to that.

 

The display requirements under the 1976 byelaws, by contrast, concerned ONLY boats “on any canal (not being a river waterway)” [my bold] – and could only have meant anything in that context if the licences were mandatory. The 1975 Byelaws were the waste of ink, demanding licence display without making the licences themselves compulsory!

 

This was obviously very swiftly recognised: approved on 6 February 1976, they were revoked before the year was out and replaced with byelaws making the licences compulsory first, then demanding display of those while on the canals.

 

In both cases, however, the display requirement concerned boats on entirely different waterways, so were NOT identical at all to the primary legislation.

 

It is of interest to note [which I had forgotten when commenting on commercial licences] that these 1976 byelaws are also the statutory genesis of the mandatory commercial vessel licence. Pertinent to this topic also, is the definition of “commercial vessel” – which is defined as any description of craft “used for the conveyance of goods on a canal other than a commercial waterway.” The sub categories of pleasure boats cannot fit that definition, so hire pleasure boats, and shared ownership boats cannot be regarded as commercial vessel licences - even if the 1995 Act s.17(7) had not made that clear.

 

Note that the 1995 Act, when referring to “licences”, makes no distinction between pleasure boats and commercial vessels, so it seems I was wrong earlier in suggesting that CaRT could deal with the latter as a matter of civil contract – the same obligation to issue them applies, if only the appropriate 3 conditions are met. The 1975 Act and subsequent extant byelaws are the explicit statutory basis for both pleasure boat and commercial vessel licences, conditions for issue of which are prescribed within the 1995 Act.

 

[mayalld]

 

You are overlooking something critical; the requirement to display in the Act and in the subsequent byelaws is NOT identical.

 

As I have laboured to explain – in 1975 licences for pleasure boats on the canals were not a mandatory requirement. They existed – as a convenience by way of agreement with all parties – and those holding such a licence were exempted under statute from having to apply for registration to use the river waterways [such boats would already be registered].

 

Section 3 of the 1975 Act is dealing ONLY with pleasure boats on river waterways, nowhere else. Elsewhere on the canal system, ALL boats had ALWAYS been required to be registered [and to display that registration number on the boat at all times]; boats on the rivers pre 1971 had never had to be registered, but post 1971 they did, although holding a licence for the canals could be used as an exemption from the river registration requirement. While the canal registration number would already have had to be displayed on a boat holding a canals licence, the 1975 Act required the licence OR river registration certificate to be displayed additionally to that.

 

The display requirements under the 1976 byelaws, by contrast, concerned ONLY boats “on any canal (not being a river waterway)” [my bold] – and could only have meant anything in that context if the licences were mandatory. The 1975 Byelaws were the waste of ink, demanding licence display without making the licences themselves compulsory!

 

This was obviously very swiftly recognised: approved on 6 February 1976, they were revoked before the year was out and replaced with byelaws making the licences compulsory first, then demanding display of those while on the canals.

 

In both cases, however, the display requirement concerned boats on entirely different waterways, so were NOT identical at all to the primary legislation.

 

It is of interest to note [which I had forgotten when commenting on commercial licences] that these 1976 byelaws are also the statutory genesis of the mandatory commercial vessel licence. Pertinent to this topic also, is the definition of “commercial vessel” – which is defined as any description of craft “used for the conveyance of goods on a canal other than a commercial waterway.” The sub categories of pleasure boats cannot fit that definition, so hire pleasure boats, and shared ownership boats cannot be regarded as commercial vessel licences - even if the 1995 Act s.17(7) had not made that clear.

 

Note that the 1995 Act, when referring to “licences”, makes no distinction between pleasure boats and commercial vessels, so it seems I was wrong earlier in suggesting that CaRT could deal with the latter as a matter of civil contract – the same obligation to issue them applies, if only the appropriate 3 conditions are met. The 1975 Act and subsequent extant byelaws are the explicit statutory basis for both pleasure boat and commercial vessel licences, conditions for issue of which are prescribed within the 1995 Act.

 

 

Thank you for spotting what I seemed to have missed in the difference between the requirements!

 

As you note, the 1976 bye-laws make licences compulsory (other than for commercial vessels on commercial waterways, which I suggest remain a matter of contract), but they are simply mandating the possession of something that lacks any explicit statutory foundation.

 

As these newly compulsory licences weren't created in 1975 or 1976, merely made compulsory, it is very much arguable that;

 

1. Licences are a creature of s43 of the 1962 Act
2. That s17 of the 1995 Act is actually unnecessary, as the powers that it grants could have been achieved under s43, and that as it explicitly doesn't remove the right to revoke a licence under other enactments, CRT can actually do as they please.

 

Now, I don't expect you to agree (and indeed I doubt that this can have been the intent), but I do think that this is a further nail in the coffin of the existing legislation.

 

Given the constraints that we know that CRT are under in respect of primary legislation, would you agree that, in actual fact, all that CRT wishes to achieve could be achieved by the repeal of the 1995 Act and the introduction of bye-laws?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Thank you for spotting what I seemed to have missed in the difference between the requirements!

 

As you note, the 1976 bye-laws make licences compulsory (other than for commercial vessels on commercial waterways, which I suggest remain a matter of contract), but they are simply mandating the possession of something that lacks any explicit statutory foundation.

 

As these newly compulsory licences weren't created in 1975 or 1976, merely made compulsory, it is very much arguable that;

 

1. Licences are a creature of s43 of the 1962 Act
2. That s17 of the 1995 Act is actually unnecessary, as the powers that it grants could have been achieved under s43, and that as it explicitly doesn't remove the right to revoke a licence under other enactments, CRT can actually do as they please.

 

Now, I don't expect you to agree (and indeed I doubt that this can have been the intent), but I do think that this is a further nail in the coffin of the existing legislation.

 

Given the constraints that we know that CRT are under in respect of primary legislation, would you agree that, in actual fact, all that CRT wishes to achieve could be achieved by the repeal of the 1995 Act and the introduction of bye-laws?

Can the 1995 Act be repealed without primary legislation?

 

[mayalld]

Can the 1995 Act be repealed without primary legislation?

 

 

No, of course it can't.

 

Whilst CRT cannot, itself, promote legislation, it can ask ministers to do so, and I have little doubt that parliamentary time would be found for a simple repeal of unnecessary legislation.

[NigelMoore]

 

Given the constraints that we know that CRT are under in respect of primary legislation, would you agree that, in actual fact, all that CRT wishes to achieve could be achieved by the repeal of the 1995 Act and the introduction of bye-laws?

 

Taking your last point first [have to dash off for a few days, so will leave the rest to later] – yes, I agree that CaRT could achieve their objectives through further byelaws [provided of course that they could survive the consultation process and Secretary of State approval].

 

I see no need to repeal any part of the 1995 Act for that to be effective.

 

[Alan Taylor]

Are you seriously arguing that a bill that took 8 years to agree, was subject to 1,000s of hours of professional scrutiny and examination by experts both inside and outside of both Houses of Parliament, was unnecessary and this wasn't spotted until you came along 21 years later?

 

I believe Nigel Moore has already explained the strict scope of 1962 S43. Perhaps you would do well to review that, it seems like BW's legal team of the early 90s did that basic groundwork.

[mayalld]

 

Taking your last point first [have to dash off for a few days, so will leave the rest to later] – yes, I agree that CaRT could achieve their objectives through further byelaws [provided of course that they could survive the consultation process and Secretary of State approval].

 

I see no need to repeal any part of the 1995 Act for that to be effective.

 

 

I would agree that it wouldn't be necessary.

 

However, the presence of multiple, possibly contradictory, legislation is fertile grounds for lawyers.

 

This is amply illustrated by the 1995 Act, where the exception proves the rule.

 

The 1995 Act provides 3 grounds for refusing to licence, and is now taken to mean that no other reason exists for not licencing (including failing to pay?)

 

The conclusion that I am drawn to is that the 1995 Act added 3 particular reasons to what was actually an open list.

Are you seriously arguing that a bill that took 8 years to agree, was subject to 1,000s of hours of professional scrutiny and examination by experts both inside and outside of both Houses of Parliament, was unnecessary and this wasn't spotted until you came along 21 years later?

 

I believe Nigel Moore has already explained the strict scope of 1962 S43. Perhaps you would do well to review that, it seems like BW's legal team of the early 90s did that basic groundwork.

 

Yes, I am seriously arguing that.

 

Lawyers love to pile rules upon rules. The more the better. They can then extort fees for arguing which takes precedence.

 

Nigel has indeed explained HIS OPINION, and I have read it with interest. However, I do not believe that Nigel's opinion, however well argued, actually stands as a definitive and unimpeachable statement as to what the effect of the law is.

[NigelMoore]

 

. . . s17 of the 1995 Act is actually unnecessary, as the powers that it grants could have been achieved under s43 . . .

 

Just one quick point before I go offline - if s.43 DID convey the powers you and CaRT argue for, then your statement holds true for every bit of such legislation controlling boats and their uses post 1962 – which is why I have highlighted this obviously [to me] absurd consequence in previous responses to your arguments on the point.

 

Following Alan Taylor's comment - BW specifically acknowledged the contentious scope of s.43 in arguing for the necessity of the 1990 Bill.

 

I do not believe that Nigel's opinion, however well argued, actually stands as a definitive and unimpeachable statement as to what the effect of the law is.

 

And I am genuinely grateful for all the thought-provoking challenges to my opinion, that encourage my further examination of the arguments.

[Alan Taylor]

 

Yes, I am seriously arguing that.

 

Lawyers love to pile rules upon rules. The more the better. They can then extort fees for arguing which takes precedence.

 

 

You have made the frankly absurd assertion that the 1995 Act was unnecessary, even though there is not one contemporary argument to that effect - notwithstanding that not all the parties to the discussions were lawyers.

 

Now you want us to believe that much legislation is some kind of conspiracy within the legal profession to make work for themselves.

 

I understand the internet is a wonderful vehicle for such crackpot theories.

 

Your views on 9/11?

Nigel has indeed explained HIS OPINION, and I have read it with interest. However, I do not believe that Nigel's opinion, however well argued, actually stands as a definitive and unimpeachable statement as to what the effect of the law is.

 

I too welcome your challenges to Nigel Moore's opinions, as he says, it enables him and interested readers the chance to rigorously test those opinions.

 

I look forward to the day when this particular opinion is validated by the only authority able to do so - those lawyers you so despise now sitting as judges.

[mayalld]

 

You have made the frankly absurd assertion that the 1995 Act was unnecessary, even though there is not one contemporary argument to that effect - notwithstanding that not all the parties to the discussions were lawyers.

 

Now you want us to believe that much legislation is some kind of conspiracy within the legal profession to make work for themselves.

 

I understand the internet is a wonderful vehicle for such crackpot theories.

 

Your views on 9/11?

 

 

Terrorism.

 

Thank you for a valiant attempt to cast my healthy scepticism about lawyers as if it were a conspiracy theory.

 

The 1995 Act was a mistake. It was there as a belt and braces approach, to lay down in black and white that BW could do certain things. It is highly likely that they could have done the same think through s43 and bye-laws, but clearly it was felt that primary legislation would be the gold plated way to achieve it, and put certain things beyond any dispute at all.

 

In fact, the eventual Act was something of a mess, both because as enacted it lacked clarity, and because in so far as it brought clarity to the areas it legislated for, it tended to muddy the position for everything else.

[Alan Taylor]

 

The 1995 Act was a mistake. It was there as a belt and braces approach, to lay down in black and white that BW could do certain things. It is highly likely that they could have done the same think through s43 and bye-laws, but clearly it was felt that primary legislation would be the gold plated way to achieve it, and put certain things beyond any dispute at all.

 

 

That's one opinion, yours. There is another opinion that says it is entirely fit for purpose, outlines precisely the terms under which a boat may be used and licensed. In addition there are bylaws to cover behaviour.

 

The problem with the 1995 Act is not the legislation, it is the way that people such as yourself, CRT and certain elements of the boating community, such as those who simply want to use it to avoid mooring fees, seek to subvert and devalue that law.

 

I think you'll find opinion on this forum, as I read it, is that the vast majority of boaters have absolutely no problem complying with the 1995 Act, a fact that supports my contention that is absolutely fit for purpose.

 

CRT have an agenda, the 1995 Act does not support that agenda. That they use their natural authority and vast sums of our money to subvert it is, in my opinion, far worse than the small minority of boaters that do the same thing from the other side.

 

In a similar way, CRT, and your opinion, are seeking to abuse the limited scope of the 1962 Act, to do those things which the continued abuse of the 1995 Act has so far not made possible.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Alan Taylor

[mayalld]

 

That's one opinion, yours. There is another opinion that says it is entirely fit for purpose, outlines precisely the terms under which a boat may be used and licensed. In addition there are bylaws to cover behaviour.

 

The problem with the 1995 Act is not the legislation, it is the way that people such as yourself, CRT and certain elements of the boating community, such as those who simply want to use it to avoid mooring fees, seek to subvert and devalue that law.

 

I think you'll find opinion on this forum, as I read it, is that the vast majority of boaters have absolutely no problem complying with the 1995 Act, a fact that supports my contention that is absolutely fit for purpose.

 

CRT have an agenda, the 1995 Act does not support that agenda. That they use their natural authority and vast sums of our money to subvert it is, in my opinion, far worse than the small minority of boaters that do the same thing from the other side.

 

In a similar way, CRT, and your opinion, are seeking to abuse the limited scope of the 1962 Act, to do those things which the continued abuse of the 1995 Act has so far not made possible.

 

Yes, of course it is one opinion, and my opinion.

 

What other opinion would you expect me to offer?

 

I offer my opinion, Nigel often offers his opinion. Our opinions are seldom the same, but I find that as an intellectual exercise, arguing those opinions with him to be an interesting pursuit, and whilst neither of us are lawyers, I do like to think that we manage to explore the nuances rather better than the lawyers ever have, such that this forum has the benefit of a broader range of research into the law here than any court has ever had (and before this becomes a complete love-in, there are others here whose contribution to that mining of the law has contributed a huge amount).

 

You choose to venture that you are putting forward the opinion of the forum (as you read it), which is not something that I could recommend. Put YOUR opinion forward. For right or wrong stand behind what YOU think, because the weight of numbers as to how many agree or disagree counts for nothing.

 

A majority may be right, or they may be wrong, and the numbers won't tell you!!

 

I would actually agree that there are attempts on all sides to stray from what the law allows, but I invite you to imagine that the 1995 Act never existed.

 

What powers to refuse a licence would CRT have in that scenario?

[Alan Taylor]

 

I would actually agree that there are attempts on all sides to stray from what the law allows, but I invite you to imagine that the 1995 Act never existed.

 

What powers to refuse a licence would CRT have in that scenario?

 

To be honest I don't know.

 

It seems, in my opinion, that the 1995 grants a boater a right to a license if the 3 conditions are met. It also gives CRT the method by which they can address breaches of these conditions - which, wrongly, they never use.

 

Before 1968 a boater had a PRN on the canals and didn't need *'consent' as given in the 1995 Act, although they needed registration.

 

Between 1968 and 1995, I'm not entirely sure, Nigel has outlined the informal basis of licensing in 1965, it would be my opinion that BW needed, in 1990, to find a way to legislate to resolve the situation where they had no power to 'evict' a boater without a license.

 

*Even as I write this I notice the way that terminology is used imprecisely and 1995 doesn't give a right to a 'license', it gives a right to 'consent'

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

 

................*Even as I write this I notice the way that terminology is used imprecisely and 1995 doesn't give a right to a 'license', it gives a right to 'consent'

 

But as explained in section 17:1

 

"“relevant consent” means a houseboat certificate, a licence or a pleasure boat certificate"

 

So C&RT do have the 'right to licence'.

[mayalld]

 

To be honest I don't know.

 

It seems, in my opinion, that the 1995 grants a boater a right to a license if the 3 conditions are met. It also gives CRT the method by which they can address breaches of these conditions - which, wrongly, they never use.

 

Before 1968 a boater had a PRN on the canals and didn't need *'consent' as given in the 1995 Act, although they needed registration.

 

Between 1968 and 1995, I'm not entirely sure, Nigel has outlined the informal basis of licensing in 1965, it would be my opinion that BW needed, in 1990, to find a way to legislate to resolve the situation where they had no power to 'evict' a boater without a license.

 

*Even as I write this I notice the way that terminology is used imprecisely and 1995 doesn't give a right to a 'license', it gives a right to 'consent'

 

We can put aside the licence vs consent issue. "relevant consent" is defined there as an overarching term that covers licences and river registrations.

 

The point I would make is that the 1995 Act, whilst providing 3 very specific requirements that, if not met, allow it to refuse a licence (and by the exception proving the rule implying that these are the ONLY reasons to refuse a licence), also says;

 

(3) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment .....

 

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

 

Now, if we assume that lawyers are paragons of virtue, not seeking to maximise revenue, we might assume that;

 

1) they thought that there were rights to revoke licences already subsisting

2) they were clear that they were NOT seeking to say that these were the only powers to revoke a licence.

 

so, the question is "what powers do they have already", which is why I seek to determine what the statutory basis of a licence is.

 

I have put forward s43 of the 1962 Act, but I am open to being proved wrong. The Acts of 1971, 1975, 1983 and 1985 all recognise that a licence exists, but seem silent as to what authority there is for a licence, as do the 1976 bye-laws.

 

If s43 is actually the original statutory basis, and the later legislation simply made rules that related to this creation of the 1962 Act, then there is no apparent limitation to the board's powers to revoke a licence, and the additional powers in 1995 actually already existed.

[Alan Taylor]

By which statement you argue eloquently against yourself, if the additional powers in the 1995 Act already existed why did they go to so much effort?

 

So much effort and they didn't achieve what they wanted, which you say they already had, the power to make a license subject to a mooring.

 

Seems a bit daft really. They have, according to you and nobody else, not even CRT, the power to say 'no mooring, no license' so they ask Parliamenf for a power they already have, Parliament says 'no' and yet you maintain they still have this power?

 

Even Lewis Carroll is struggling with this one. Six impossible things before breakfast indeed.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Between 1968 and 1995, I'm not entirely sure, Nigel has outlined the informal basis of licensing in 1965, it would be my opinion that BW needed, in 1990, to find a way to legislate to resolve the situation where they had no power to 'evict' a boater without a license.

 

 

Section 8 of the 1983 Act gave BW powers to remove ~ " any vessel which is sunk, stranded or abandoned in any inland -waterway or in any reservoir owned or managed by the Board or which is left or moored therein without lawful authority and includes any part of such vessel."

 

BW needed these powers at the time in order to deal with both Licence dodgers, and the considerable numbers of derelict, sunken and abandoned boats that littered the waterways in those days.

 

The majority of the derelict/sunk/abandoned vessels were without known or traceable owners and this fact is reflected in the procedures specified [in S.8] to be followed subsequent to the raising and/or removal of the offending vessels.

 

Owners of pleasure craft caught on BW canals without a current Licence continued to be prosecuted, as they had been prior to the '83 Act, and the the S.8 sanction, provided for vessels on BW waters "without lawful authority", would only be applied if the owner then subsequently failed to buy a Licence.

[onionbargee]

I've posted the question before of why are CRT using the section 8 process against non licence payers, instead of other easier and cheaper remedys available to them.

 

I can only guess the answer is malicious.

[NigelMoore]

I've posted the question before of why are CRT using the section 8 process against non licence payers, instead of other easier and cheaper remedys available to them.

 

I can only guess the answer is malicious.

When I am reunited with the laptop in a few day's time, I will post up CaRT's considered answer to that question as outlined in their Defence in Leigh's case.

[bobtom]

When I am reunited with the laptop in a few day's time, I will post up CaRT's considered answer to that question as outlined in their Defence in Leigh's case.

I think their argument was "better to make them homeless than make them criminals"