|
Post by tadworth on Jan 3, 2017 13:14:55 GMT
General Canal bye-laws. 30. No vessel on any canal shall without the permission of the Board be used as a club, shop, store, workshop, dwelling or houseboat. ... and such permission would be a service or facility, and therefore could be charged for. I dont follow .. Hasn't it already been accepted that they can create various licence catagories , but cant charge any extra for them ?
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Jan 3, 2017 14:52:23 GMT
Nigel would be the expert here, but, so far, the only restriction I've found is Section 4 (1) of the 1983 Act, which restricts the charge for river registration to 60% of the charge for the same boat for canals and rivers. I haven't found anything that says a pleasure boat licence is the most expensive!
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 3, 2017 19:44:26 GMT
I was refering to 1971 sect.10.
I can't copy it as my document is a scan.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 3, 2017 21:41:48 GMT
For those unwilling/unable to check it out: -
“10. The Board may from time to time resolve that as from such date or dates as may be determined by the Board the classification of pleasure boats shall be sub-divided and may from time to time fix the appropriate registration charges to be paid in respect of the pleasure boats included in each sub-division:
Provided that such charges shall not exceed the appropriate prescribed charges in respect of such pleasure boats.”
At the time, recognised sub-division were:
Powered private pleasure boats [other than a tender]; depending on length from £4 to £22; Powered hire pleasure boats [other than a tender]; depending on length from £5 to £48; Unpowered private pleasure boats [other than a tender]; £1; Powered hire pleasure boats [other than a tender] certified to carry 200 passengers or more; £100; Tenders so marked and registered at the same time as the pleasure boat to which it is a tender; 75% of what would be charged if not a tender.
By 1995 it was recognised that BW had provided a further sub-division classified as a “multi-user pleasure boat” [presumably time-share boats].
There is also the class known as "portable unpowered craft", capable of being single-handedly lifted in and out of the water. These being cheapest of all.
The cost-capping related only to the river registration certificates; it can only be implied that the equivalent PBL had to at least relate proportionately to the legislated charges, since these were later expressed to relate to the PBL’s, in the order of 60% of their equivalent classification.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 4, 2017 14:11:24 GMT
I forgot that licences were not mandatory at the time of the 71 act.
Anyhow, where are we now in regard to the legal basis for demanding £200 extra for a trading licence that appears to be entirely a civil contract and not a statutory licence ?
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Jan 4, 2017 16:33:14 GMT
(snip) As I said, sub-categorisation of pleasure boat licences are approved, but charging more than standard is prohibited. The fact that CaRT DO charge more is not proof that they are legally entitled to do so and therefore the legislation must so provide - the opposite is likelier to be true. The controls on such charges [and the limiting of charges for pleasure boat certificates for boats restricted to rivers is another example] give the lie to claims over s.43(3), which has a place in the discussion only insofar as, read correctly, it emphasises limitations on charges rather than otherwise. Not sure where the prohibition on charging more than standard is found? The most obvious example is the "hire pleasure boat" licence. As for the Transport Act !962 S43, I think we'll have to agree to differ
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 4, 2017 16:54:27 GMT
The controls on such charges [and the limiting of charges for pleasure boat certificates for boats restricted to rivers is another example] give the lie to claims over s.43(3), which has a place in the discussion only insofar as, read correctly, it emphasises limitations on charges rather than otherwise. As for the Transport Act !962 S43, I think we'll have to agree to differ If a pleasure boat certificate CANNOT be charged for at more than 60% of the equivalent pleasure boat licence, then the freedom of s.43(3) is STILL not applying to the charges for the PBC, even though there is no limit to what CaRT can charge for the PBL. CaRT cannot, in other words, charge for the PBC “ as they see fit”. If they could, they could theoretically charge double what they charge for the PBL, given that what s.43 removed was the requirement for charges to be reasonable. At the very least, the later Act limits the application of the earlier.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 4, 2017 17:02:42 GMT
Not sure where the prohibition on charging more than standard is found? On that you are right to pick me up over looseness of language. This particular issue is not as clear-cut as desirable, because the application of the 1971 charging principles is not directly applied to the pleasure boat licence; it can only indirectly be applied, and applied only because there is to be a strict relationship between the identical classes in both regimes. Within the PBC regime, the given categories can be sub-divided, but cannot be charged for at more than the rate for the category from which it was divided.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Jan 4, 2017 19:54:58 GMT
Although, going back to the original subject, could a Business Trading Licence not be considered an additional service, exempting a boat from complying with Bye Law 30? (as quoted earlier by Tadworth, and which could open a whole new can of worms!)
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 4, 2017 20:34:31 GMT
I have really not looked at this at all. From the sounds of it, it does not appear to portray itself even as a boat licence per se, just as a "trading licence"?
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 4, 2017 22:25:56 GMT
I think it would be good to read the minutes for the 1962 act to see what their intention was, are they available ?
Of course, if CRT could make mandatory terms and conditions on licences as it sees fit it would not ask for specific agreement to them, applying for the licence would be the agreement, CRT obviously knows full well it cant, so they have invented the contract scam.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 4, 2017 22:34:58 GMT
I think it would be good to read the minutes for the 1962 act to see what their intention was, are they available ? The 1962 Act was a public Act, so there was no select committee deliberation. There will be Hansard records, and surely there will be reports etc, but you would need to enquire of the Parliamentary Archives what they have.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 10, 2017 0:37:19 GMT
The only possible reason for requiring the applicant to agree to the terms and conditions is if they are in fact not mandatory, and not legal.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Feb 8, 2017 14:29:09 GMT
So, to sum up, these trading licences are at best civil contracts, which CRT have no authority to create, at worst have no legal basis at all, and are ultra vires, which would mean the extra cost charged has been unlawful from day one.
Some may argue it doesn't matter, and their licence was good value for money, but I would argue that a licence fee that is unlawful is always going to be open to legal challenge, which would lead to every one of those fee's ever charged having to be refunded by order of a court. That may not be a sensible way to generate revenue ?
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Feb 20, 2017 1:12:35 GMT
You need permission to trade according to the bylaw, but CRT is demanding money for that permission in breach of the law, is this fraud ?
|
|