|
Post by tadworth on Dec 12, 2016 15:35:57 GMT
This may be interesting, not sure what it means though, either no byelaws have been broken, and the canals are a haven of law abiding, or CaRT have no interest in enforcing any byelaws. link link www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/prosecutions_for_breach_of_bylaw?nocache=incoming-907735#incoming-907735Dear Canal & River Trust, Please make public a list of all prosecutions the Trust has brought against private individuals, boat owners or licence holders for breach of any of the general canal bylaws since the Trusts creation. This does not need to include any personal or court case details, only a general overview. 1. Overall number. 2. The offence in question. Further to your initial request of 29^th November and our subsequent acknowledgement of 30^th November, I can confirm that the information you have requested is not held by the Canal and River Trust. However, I have asked our Legal Team regarding this and they have confirmed that to the best of their knowledge no such prosecutions have taken place under the byelaws since the Trust’s creation.
|
|
|
Post by tonyb on Dec 12, 2016 16:30:21 GMT
Playing with words? - I bet the well publicised court cases are civil matters so "prosecution" may not be the correct word to use. It may get different results if that word was changed to "litigation."
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 12, 2016 17:02:08 GMT
Playing with words? - I bet the well publicised court cases are civil matters so "prosecution" may not be the correct word to use. It may get different results if that word was changed to "litigation." Byelaw breaches are criminal offences prosecutable in a Magistrates Court.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 17:38:00 GMT
Can anybody tell me who 'governs' the Waterways Ombudsman?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 18:01:42 GMT
Can anybody tell me who 'governs' the Waterways Ombudsman? CRT.
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Dec 12, 2016 18:13:19 GMT
Can anybody tell me who 'governs' the Waterways Ombudsman? That sounds like the last line from a Will Smith film... "But who watches the watchers?"
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Dec 12, 2016 18:45:55 GMT
Can anybody tell me who 'governs' the Waterways Ombudsman? Supposedly the Waterways Ombudsman Committee. It's main roles are - the appointment (or removal from office) of the Ombudsman; keeping the operation of the scheme under review, both to ensure that it meets its purposes and that it is adequately funded; to receive reports on the method and adequacy of publicising the scheme; to publish an annual report. However, in reality, C&RT disbanded the Ombudsman Committee which had been running since 2005 and appointed a new Ombudsman themselves. They did not tell anybody but were found out. Today, there is a committee appointed by C&RT with some rule changes which mean that users of the scheme are not represented.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Dec 12, 2016 18:57:50 GMT
Playing with words? - I bet the well publicised court cases are civil matters so "prosecution" may not be the correct word to use. It may get different results if that word was changed to "litigation." 'Prosecution' is right word in this instance. The reason for the wording is that the FOI Act requires that C&RT confirm or deny that the information requested is held in most circumstances. The second sentence provides reason as to why the information is not held.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 12, 2016 20:52:35 GMT
I suggest following this up with a new request - ask whether any information is held that could confirm whether any such prosecutions took place under BW; particularly whether there were any prosecutions for failure to hold a licence or pleasure boat certificate.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Dec 12, 2016 21:38:56 GMT
I find it odd that they haven't had any occasion to enforce a byelaw, in regards dumping rubbish, damage to property, extracting water, or interfering with infrastructure.
Looks like you can get away with anything ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 21:44:36 GMT
Not sure if I'm getting mixed up with wot u r saying as im bit thick lol .but cart bin in court for loads things other than boating .but lossed a lot cases. Big fishing case they lost. Car park case tthik they lossed
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Dec 12, 2016 21:58:14 GMT
I find it odd that they haven't had any occasion to enforce a byelaw, in regards dumping rubbish, damage to property, extracting water, or interfering with infrastructure. Looks like you can get away with anything ? It is odd, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Dec 17, 2016 10:28:45 GMT
Makes you wonder what you would have to do to be prosecuted, and why they demand you agree to the bylaws as re gurgitated in the " licence terms and conditions" ?
What about the bloke that dug out his own mini marina and back filled it ?
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Dec 17, 2016 11:51:29 GMT
I had a quick goggle and prosecutions have taken place, but not against the bylaws. Thames water for polluting the Grand Union - Fined £1M - prosecuted by EA Householder prosecuted and fined for dumping garden waste into the canal - prosecuted by local council Various actions taken against boats that do not move enough, but none of these seem to have been prosecuted under the bylaws but against other 'laws'. So the answer to your question is probably correct. It would be interesting to know why they prefer to prosecute using other laws rather than the bylaws, there must be some advantage for them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2016 14:53:01 GMT
As I see it prosecution under bylaws = no money for CRT Prosecution the way they do = possibly some money for CRT
|
|