Jump to content

"Permanent Mooring"


Heffalump

Featured Posts

56 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Using the Select Committee minutes of 1993, day 6, to directly answer the OP in affirmation of #2, it was BW’s position [respecting 17(3)( c )(ii)] that: -

This clause would not bite on somebody who has a home mooring, whatever the pattern of use of their boat might be.”

It is not that simple, mind you; BW’s QC kept on for some time about at least occasional use being required for a pleasure boat to retain that status on peril of being re-classified as a houseboat, but he muddied the waters too much with that line of argument in my opinion.

So far as I am concerned though, respecting use patterns, I see no distinction between requirements for boats licensed through either pathway – the reasons for which I have elaborated on previously [and won’t repeat here]. I agree with the suggestions in  #122 that the 14 day limit applies to all boats, including those off from home moorings [with the proviso that any of them are entitled to remain longer at any other legitimate long stay moorings elsewhere].

The only confusion arises from treating “bona fide navigating” as something distinct from and extra to, the 14 day limit. The latter IS the definition of the former for the purposes of the Act.

From the Select Committee minutes of 1993, day 6: “I would be happy to have no period mentioned at all and rely upon the expression “bona fide used for navigation”. This [the 14 day limit] is an attempt to clarify in the interests of boaters just what we reasonably mean by “bona fide used for navigation”, what are the parameters, that it appears to be either necessary or helpful to put some indication of what genuinely “on the move” means.”

 With respect to the period, we were trying to respond to the test for “bona fide navigation” to give some measure of protection to a boater in those circumstances, so that he or she would be clear in their mind as to the point at which he would begin not to be regarded by British Waterways as using the boat for bona fide navigation.”  [my bold]

The 14 days comes, as I see it, essentially as a guidance of definition of what is meant by bona fide navigation. [my bold]

Committee: “The impression I get . . . is that whoever has been involved with the drafting . . . have decided that the 14 day criteria is the one that is the benchmark for deciding whether people are or are not bona fide travellers.”  [my bold]  BW answer: “That is true.”

This is a very interesting point.

For the first time, the statement "bona fide navigation" has been described in simple English.

To be on the move.  Moving within 14 days is considered "on the move".  Staying put in one place for more than 14 days, is "not on the move."

By taking a non home mooring licence, you agree to be "on the move" at least every 14 days.

Nigel's post should be made a "sticky" post to be referred to  whenever a CCing thread is started.

 

Bod

Edited by Bod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mayalld said:

In demanding that boats 'cruise', ie move about, whilst away from their moorings, C&RT are effectively denying pleasure boaters enjoyment of some part of what they have paid for and are entitled to indulge in as and when they so choose. C&RT's stance on this matter is grounded in the ridiculous presumption that pleasure craft are not being 'used' unless they are underway on passage to another 'place'.

(I know that was Phil's original statement not mayalid's but I messed up the citation and cannot find a better way to correct it!)

Do we have any evidence that a 'pleasure boater' with a home mooring has ever been subject to such enforcement?

Edited by Mike Todd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NigelMoore said:

Using the Select Committee minutes of 1993, day 6, to directly answer the OP in affirmation of #2, it was BW’s position [respecting 17(3)( c )(ii)] that: -

This clause would not bite on somebody who has a home mooring, whatever the pattern of use of their boat might be.”

It is not that simple, mind you; BW’s QC kept on for some time about at least occasional use being required for a pleasure boat to retain that status on peril of being re-classified as a houseboat, but he muddied the waters too much with that line of argument in my opinion.

So far as I am concerned though, respecting use patterns, I see no distinction between requirements for boats licensed through either pathway – the reasons for which I have elaborated on previously [and won’t repeat here]. I agree with the suggestions in  #122 that the 14 day limit applies to all boats, including those off from home moorings [with the proviso that any of them are entitled to remain longer at any other legitimate long stay moorings elsewhere].

The only confusion arises from treating “bona fide navigating” as something distinct from and extra to, the 14 day limit. The latter IS the definition of the former for the purposes of the Act.

From the Select Committee minutes of 1993, day 6: “I would be happy to have no period mentioned at all and rely upon the expression “bona fide used for navigation”. This [the 14 day limit] is an attempt to clarify in the interests of boaters just what we reasonably mean by “bona fide used for navigation”, what are the parameters, that it appears to be either necessary or helpful to put some indication of what genuinely “on the move” means.”

 With respect to the period, we were trying to respond to the test for “bona fide navigation” to give some measure of protection to a boater in those circumstances, so that he or she would be clear in their mind as to the point at which he would begin not to be regarded by British Waterways as using the boat for bona fide navigation.”  [my bold]

The 14 days comes, as I see it, essentially as a guidance of definition of what is meant by bona fide navigation. [my bold]

Committee: “The impression I get . . . is that whoever has been involved with the drafting . . . have decided that the 14 day criteria is the one that is the benchmark for deciding whether people are or are not bona fide travellers.”  [my bold]  BW answer: “That is true.”

Can you privide a link to the original material?

I've seen numerous attempts here to play "semantic slice and dice" with the words "bona fide used for navigation".  The last couple of pages in this thread, including your information on the "Purposive rule" and the quote from the Select Committee minutes, suggests the original intent was relatively clear, and the "problem" is that the law did not accurately capture their intent.

 

Edited by Gordias
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have had several times the suggestion that the T&C's are not law. Do the Acts provide for CaRT to make such T&C's? If so then they would as a result 'be law' even if not on the face of the Act.

Increasingly, parliament seems to like making shorter laws with much of the detail settled by other means, such as SI. This does not mean that such deatil lacks the full force o the law.

What is CaRT's own legal justification for making T&C's?

Edited by Mike Todd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Gordias said:

Can you privide a link to the original material?

I've seen numerous attempts here to play "semantic slice and dice" with the words "bona fide used for navigation".  The last couple of pages in this thread, including your quote from the Select Committee minutes, suggests the original intent was relatively clear, and the "problem" is that the law did not accurately capture their intent.

 

You will find the relevant day’s evidence here: -

https://www.scribd.com/doc/297239609/SC-Minutes-1990-Bill-Day-6-1993

Page 9 [as uploaded, p19 of the transcript] paragraph 3; page 10 [20], paragraph 3; page 14 [24] paragraphs 6 & 7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

We have had several times the suggestion that the T&C's are not law. Do the Acts provide for CaRT to make such T&C's? If so then they would as a result 'be law' even if not on the face of the Act.

Increasingly, parliament seems to like making shorter laws with much of the detail settled by other means, such as SI. This does not mean that such deatil lacks the full force o the law.

What is CaRT's own legal justification for making T&C's?

The British Waterways Act 1975, s.5 extended the byelaw-making powers of BW to include such T&C’s: -

(1) In their application to the Board the provisions of subsection (2) of section 16 (Canal Byelaws) of the Act of 1954 shall be construed to have effect as if the power thereby conferred to make byelaws for regulating the use of the canal included the express power to make byelaws for excluding any vessel from the canal, prohibiting the use by any vessel of the canal or prohibiting the use of the canal except in compliance with such conditions as the Board may prescribe . . .”  [my bold]

The immediate result of this was the creation of the 1976 Byelaws making pleasure and commercial boat licences mandatory as a prerequisite for boats to be on and use the canals, but no further byelaws were passed conditioning those licences upon compliance with any further conditions. This was because, according to representations made to Parliament in the course of promoting the 1990 Bill, they wished to include adherence to boat safety requirements for which byelaws were an insufficiently flexible medium. Hence, the section 17 requirements in the 1995 primary legislation instead.

BW/CaRT’s own legal justification for making issue of and retention of licences subject to unilaterally drafted T&C’s rests upon the much misused s.43(3) of the 1962 Act. This too, was a subject that arose within the 1990 Bill discussions, and BW’s QC acknowledged that the extent of such claimed powers was debatable on canals, and certainly inapplicable on rivers; hence the request for Parliamentary approval of the s.17 conditions.

 

edit to add - it did not arise within the 1990 Bill debate, because BW did not seek to rely upon the 1962 Act for what they were requesting, but it could have been observed that, had such a justification been valid, s.5 of the 1975 Act would have been totally redundant.

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2017 at 18:30, NigelMoore said:

You will find the relevant day’s evidence here: -

https://www.scribd.com/doc/297239609/SC-Minutes-1990-Bill-Day-6-1993

Page 9 [as uploaded, p19 of the transcript] paragraph 3; page 10 [20], paragraph 3; page 14 [24] paragraphs 6 & 7.

Thanks!

There's some very interesting reading there, especially in the light of  the the "Purposive rule". 

Edited by Gordias
Typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NigelMoore said:

Using the Select Committee minutes of 1993, day 6, to directly answer the OP in affirmation of #2, it was BW’s position [respecting 17(3)( c )(ii)] that: -

This clause would not bite on somebody who has a home mooring, whatever the pattern of use of their boat might be.”

It is not that simple, mind you; BW’s QC kept on for some time about at least occasional use being required for a pleasure boat to retain that status on peril of being re-classified as a houseboat, but he muddied the waters too much with that line of argument in my opinion.

So far as I am concerned though, respecting use patterns, I see no distinction between requirements for boats licensed through either pathway – the reasons for which I have elaborated on previously [and won’t repeat here]. I agree with the suggestions in  #122 that the 14 day limit applies to all boats, including those off from home moorings [with the proviso that any of them are entitled to remain longer at any other legitimate long stay moorings elsewhere].

The only confusion arises from treating “bona fide navigating” as something distinct from and extra to, the 14 day limit. The latter IS the definition of the former for the purposes of the Act.

From the Select Committee minutes of 1993, day 6: “I would be happy to have no period mentioned at all and rely upon the expression “bona fide used for navigation”. This [the 14 day limit] is an attempt to clarify in the interests of boaters just what we reasonably mean by “bona fide used for navigation”, what are the parameters, that it appears to be either necessary or helpful to put some indication of what genuinely “on the move” means.”

 With respect to the period, we were trying to respond to the test for “bona fide navigation” to give some measure of protection to a boater in those circumstances, so that he or she would be clear in their mind as to the point at which he would begin not to be regarded by British Waterways as using the boat for bona fide navigation.”  [my bold]

The 14 days comes, as I see it, essentially as a guidance of definition of what is meant by bona fide navigation. [my bold]

Committee: “The impression I get . . . is that whoever has been involved with the drafting . . . have decided that the 14 day criteria is the one that is the benchmark for deciding whether people are or are not bona fide travellers.”  [my bold]  BW answer: “That is true.”

Herein lies the danger of over-interpreting select committee minutes, where many words were spoken and arguments put forwards but didn't actually make it into the wording of the law. If indeed its as simple as "the 14 day limit basically defines bona fide navigation" then there would have been no need to insert both into the ultimate wording of the legislation - they could have simply stated the 14 days and not mentioned "bona fide navigation" for example, or maybe the other way round (although this would have been much less clear). I think this was deliberate - not only did they intend that CCers wouldn't stay longer than 14 days; but that their entire journey is a bona fide one (however wooly or widely that may now be construed).

Thankfully we have the situation where in most cases (with exceptions) its the actual letter of the law which is important and not some extra (and much longer to trawl through) underlying select committee minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, right or wrong, can you afford to stand up in court when CRT "say " you are breaking their rules and wont issue you with a licence. I can't so I have to abide with what they say whether I like it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Herein lies the danger of over-interpreting select committee minutes, where many words were spoken and arguments put forwards but didn't actually make it into the wording of the law. If indeed its as simple as "the 14 day limit basically defines bona fide navigation" then there would have been no need to insert both into the ultimate wording of the legislation - they could have simply stated the 14 days and not mentioned "bona fide navigation" for example, or maybe the other way round (although this would have been much less clear). I think this was deliberate - not only did they intend that CCers wouldn't stay longer than 14 days; but that their entire journey is a bona fide one (however wooly or widely that may now be construed).

Thankfully we have the situation where in most cases (with exceptions) its the actual letter of the law which is important and not some extra (and much longer to trawl through) underlying select committee minutes.

I have to disagree Paul – as the minutes make so clear: the 14 day limit was included by way of having a firm definition for the phrase. BW expressly said that they would have been happy for only the phrase “Bona fide navigation” to be used, but including the 14 day limit provided for clarity as to what that meant, to the benefit of all. It was accordingly included as the “letter of the law” – and sensibly so in my opinion. Had the 14 day limit only been used, the essential [as BW saw it] element of differentiating between pleasure boats and houseboats would have been lost.

If “bona fide for navigation” had any extra, unmentioned but arguable connotations for the purpose of the legislation [as argued for possibly the first time in Davies], then leaving those out would definitely have sown the seeds of such disputes as have been needlessly pursued by BW/CaRT. If the 14 days had NOT been included, then there would have been a need to define the relevant term within the “definitions” section; as it has been, no such need arose.

It is the authority that has set aside the “letter of the law” in seeking expansion of the meaning beyond the plain words we have. Had the “purposive” approach been taken in the Davies case – and the relevant material been available - none of the strained semantic contortions of Mr Stoner’s arguments over “intent” and the like could have been sustained, with the ensuing court argumentation thereafter over the years since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

The British Waterways Act 1975, s.5 extended the byelaw-making powers of BW to include such T&C’s: -

(1) In their application to the Board the provisions of subsection (2) of section 16 (Canal Byelaws) of the Act of 1954 shall be construed to have effect as if the power thereby conferred to make byelaws for regulating the use of the canal included the express power to make byelaws for excluding any vessel from the canal, prohibiting the use by any vessel of the canal or prohibiting the use of the canal except in compliance with such conditions as the Board may prescribe . . .”  [my bold]

The immediate result of this was the creation of the 1976 Byelaws making pleasure and commercial boat licences mandatory as a prerequisite for boats to be on and use the canals, but no further byelaws were passed conditioning those licences upon compliance with any further conditions. This was because, according to representations made to Parliament in the course of promoting the 1990 Bill, they wished to include adherence to boat safety requirements for which byelaws were an insufficiently flexible medium. Hence, the section 17 requirements in the 1995 primary legislation instead.

BW/CaRT’s own legal justification for making issue of and retention of licences subject to unilaterally drafted T&C’s rests upon the much misused s.43(3) of the 1962 Act. This too, was a subject that arose within the 1990 Bill discussions, and BW’s QC acknowledged that the extent of such claimed powers was debatable on canals, and certainly inapplicable on rivers; hence the request for Parliamentary approval of the s.17 conditions.

 

edit to add - it did not arise within the 1990 Bill debate, because BW did not seek to rely upon the 1962 Act for what they were requesting, but it could have been observed that, had such a justification been valid, s.5 of the 1975 Act would have been totally redundant.

Thanks. I'm not quite sure where you ended with that argument, however. Are you taking the view that the Board continue, as per the 1975 Act, to be entitled to set such conditions for the use of the canal as they deem appropriate? 

and that the later legislation specifically permits the setting of construction standards?

both of which can be conditions to the issue of a PBC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Thanks. I'm not quite sure where you ended with that argument, however. Are you taking the view that the Board continue, as per the 1975 Act, to be entitled to set such conditions for the use of the canal as they deem appropriate? 

and that the later legislation specifically permits the setting of construction standards?

both of which can be conditions to the issue of a PBC?

Argument Mike? Thought I was just laying out facts! I would have to think long and hard before committing myself to a position on the extent to which s.5 of the 1975 Act can now be applied. My immediate reaction is to think that the effect of the 1995 Act is to have rendered that no longer applicable, under implied repeal, but I will not be adamant about it.

If right, it would mean that CaRT can no longer set any further conditions upon issue of the pleasure boat licence or certificate via secondary legislation. They still can, of course, pursue conditions of use of the waterways by licensed boats by way of relevant byelaws, in which case any penalty would be a fine for breach of the byelaw, not revocation of the licence.

Whichever, it is important to note that the 1975 Act does not provide for unilateral imposition of conditions anyway, in the manner CaRT apply the T&C’s; the medium for setting the conditions is through approved byelaws only.

The whole business of setting construction standards continues to have effect through the BSSC by power of the 1995 Act, which allows, as pertinent byelaws could not have, for continual updating after consultation.

As things stand, the 1995 Act imposes a compulsion for CaRT to issue a pleasure boat licence or certificate provided only that the 3 listed conditions are met. The same does not apply to houseboats, certificates for which may be tied to whatever conditions CaRT dream up [subject to challenge over reasonableness].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could ask BWs QC who represented them for the 1995 act to help us . 

 

 

" Unfortunately Richard Drabble QC is unable to comment unless the questions come through a solicitor.

 

If you are happy to instruct a solicitor, Mr Drabble’s hourly rate is £500 per hour + Vat.,"

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

You can probably find enough information about the case referred to by Alan within the Defence filed by Tony Dunkley -

https://www.scribd.com/document/238236701/Dunkley-Defence

I was aware that this was the case being referred to albeit tangentially. I really meant to qualify my question to relate to Standard Canal and River Licence rather than just a Rivers Only (PBC) which is a somewhat different kettle of fish. (Which really is why I was asking)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I was aware that this was the case being referred to albeit tangentially. I really meant to qualify my question to relate to Standard Canal and River Licence rather than just a Rivers Only (PBC) which is a somewhat different kettle of fish. (Which really is why I was asking)

I understood your question to be are there any known examples of a boater with a home mooring having his licence renewal refused because he had not complied with the 'CC' rules whilst away from his mooring.

An example was given.

The 'licence' being either a Rivers Only (PBC) or a Standard Canal & River licence - both have the same conditions attached to them, so the example of one could equally apply to the other.

Are you suggesting that different  home mooring / non-home mooring rules apply to the two different waterways (or 'licences') ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, there were additional factors in Tony's case. I think the question was really whether we knew of any obviously  compliant canal based home moorer who had been penalised for breaking the T&Cs. 

It's not us trying to apply different rules - the question is, do CRT? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

As I understand it, there were additional factors in Tony's case. I think the question was really whether we knew of any obviously  compliant canal based home moorer who had been penalised for breaking the T&Cs. 

It's not us trying to apply different rules - the question is, do CRT? 

Is that 'compliant' with C&RT's ultra vires  T&C's, or 'compliant' with statute ? As for 'additional factors' - can you elaborate on that ?

Licences, Pleasure Boat Certificates, and Houseboat Certificates are grouped as all being a 'relevant consent' under the 1995 Act. The issuing and/or refusal of them is subject to the 'rules' laid down in S.17 of that Act, whereas the usage of them is subject to differing 'rules' - the most worthy of note, and the most draconian, being the HBC, for which C&RT are able to apply whatever T&C's they so wish.

Edited by PhilAtterley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PhilAtterley said:

Is that 'compliant' with C&RT ultra vires  T&C's, or 'compliant' with statute ? As for 'additional factors' - can you elaborate on that ?

Licences, Pleasure Boat Certificates, and Houseboat Certificates are grouped as all being a 'relevant consent' under the 1995 Act. The issuing and/or refusal of them is subject to the 'rules' laid down in S.17 of that Act, whereas the usage of them is subject to differing 'rules' - the most worthy of note, and the most draconian, being the HBC, for which C&RT are able to apply whatever T&C's they so wish.

My question asked whether they had been subject to such enforcement ie whether they had been given a formal notice to return to their home mooring?

But I'm happy to widen it to anyone who has been subject to enforcement (by which I mean anything formal whether or not going as far as licence removal) for not meeting CC Roles whilst away from their home mooring.

Both of these relate to someone holding a full Canal and River Licence.

Edited by Mike Todd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

My question asked whether they had been subject to such enforcement ie whether they had been given a formal notice to return to their home mooring?

But I'm happy to widen it to anyone who has been subject to enforcement (by which I mean anything formal whether or not going as far as licence removal) for not meeting CC Roles whilst away from their home mooring.

Both of these relate to someone holding a full Canal and River Licence.

There is not, in fact, any such thing as a full Canal and River Licence , nor for that matter is there any such thing as a 'Rivers only Licence', the latter being an invention of C&RT to con boaters, and the Judiciary, into believing that they have statutory powers to license the use of Common Law public navigable (PRN) river navigations 

A (boat) Licence covers use of all C&RT controlled waterways, and serves as Pleasure Boat Certificate whilst using the main navigable channel of any of the river navigations listed in Schedule 1 of the 1971 BW Act.

A Pleasure Boat Certificate covers use of the main navigable channel of only the river navigations listed in Schedule 1 of the 1971 BW Act.

A Houseboat Certificate covers the keeping of a houseboat on any inland waterway that is under C&RT control - although S.13 the 1971 Act does actually state 'an inland waterway'.

It is also worth mentioning here that the distinction C&RT make between CC'ing Licences and HM'ing Licences is another fabrication made with the intention of confusing matters to their benefit - there is only one type of Licence that can be issued or refused under the S.17 provisions of the 1995 Act.

Edited by PhilAtterley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PhilAtterley said:

Is that 'compliant' with C&RT's ultra vires  T&C's, or 'compliant' with statute ? As for 'additional factors' - can you elaborate on that ?

No. My whole point, which you have ignored, was to try to avoid being sidetracked and to get a straightforward answer. Obviously, this is not what some people want as obfuscation is a lot more fun... 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

No. My whole point, which you have ignored, was to try to avoid being sidetracked and to get a straightforward answer. Obviously, this is not what some people want as obfuscation is a lot more fun... 

OK, . . so if I understand you correctly, you don't want to be 'sidetracked' into any degree of clarity about your phrase - 'obviously compliant', and my asking you to elaborate on what you meant by 'additional factors', equates with 'obfuscation' ?

Edited by PhilAtterley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PhilAtterley said:

Licences, Pleasure Boat Certificates, and Houseboat Certificates are grouped as all being a 'relevant consent' under the 1995 Act. The issuing and/or refusal of them is subject to the 'rules' laid down in S.17 of that Act, whereas the usage of them is subject to differing 'rules' - the most worthy of note, and the most draconian, being the HBC, for which C&RT are able to apply whatever T&C's they so wish.

Just to clarify – the difference between the certificate for a pleasure boat and that for a houseboat is that the conditions attached by the Board to the Houseboat Certificate are “contained in the Houseboat certificate” [1971 BWA, s.13(2)( a )]. Issue of the houseboat certificate, unlike other ‘relevant consents’ IS “subject to such conditions . . . as they think fit” [1971 BWA, s.14(1)].

Contravention of those conditions [if not remedied within the period of a statutory Notice] results in automatic determination of the certificate, whereupon the houseboat may be removed &/or destroyed [if not removed within 28 days by the owner].

The 1995 Act added a fixed schedule of conditions “in addition to such conditions” as may have been imposed under the 1971 Act [1995 BWA s.16(1)].

Relevant to that last, s.17(9) confirms that the 1971 Act power to refuse or withdraw the houseboat certificate applied for/granted under the above terms of the 1971 Act [as e.g. for failure to meet the arbitrary conditions], remains in force despite the opening provisions of s.17 that otherwise impose an obligation to issue relevant consents – 1995 BWA s.17(9).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PhilAtterley said:

OK, . . so if I understand you correctly, you don't want to be 'sidetracked' into any degree of clarity about your phrase - 'obviously compliant', and my asking you to elaborate on what you meant by 'additional factors', equates with 'obfuscation' ?

Absolutely correct. I just wanted  an answer to the original question, which you obviously don't want to give as it  might bugger up your desire for an irrelevant argument. 

Let me phrase it differently so you can understand it (the answer is simply yes or no). I was trying to keep it simple as I am aware English may not  be your first language (it's hard to tell when people - quite legitimately and understandably - don't feel comfortable using their real names on posts) . 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 ? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I understood your question to be are there any known examples of a boater with a home mooring having his licence renewal refused because he had not complied with the 'CC' rules whilst away from his mooring.

From my own experience I can cite at least one example – that of ‘Gilgie’, the single boat remaining of those s.8’d in my own case. BW persisted in arguing that she was a non-compliant CC’er [amongst the other accusations], and following the bizarre finding of Hildyard J that they were entitled to s.8 removal if she did not move off her mooring on the Brent and cruise in accordance with her licence T&C’s, and prior to the Appeal hearing, blocked renewal of her licence on the grounds she was not using her declared home mooring on the Thames.

This was the subject of [an unsurprisingly failed] complaint to the newly ‘appointed’ Ombudsman. Had I not won the Appeal, she would have been forced to return to her Thames mooring - her accepted possession of which was one of the reasons Hildyard J felt cancelled any HRA considerations.

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.