|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 21, 2017 12:41:33 GMT
Not sure. They certainly quote Section 8 (1983 Act)and (wrongly, as per CaRT!) Section 13 of the 1971 Act in their correspondence. How does section 8 not apply to Scotland? None of the 1983 Act applies to Scotland. s.21 - " This Act shall not apply to Scotland" Fairly unambiguous?
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Jan 21, 2017 12:53:34 GMT
Yes!
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Jan 21, 2017 16:50:58 GMT
Ah yes, social cleansing again .. In line with their historical (10 years or so!) attitude to residential moorings. At one time, a senior manager of BW(S) suggested that boats wanting a residential mooring would have to be inspected, to make sure they came up to scratch, appearance wise. Another suggestion was that BW(S) supply the boats used as residences, again, "to ensure standards were maintained". "They'd have a power bollard, so they wouldn't need an engine" was another classic quote. At the moment, there is a shortage of leisure and visitor moorings, as a lot are being turned into residential moorings,so that they can be let at residential prices. BW(S) tried to use Section 134 of the Transport Act 1968 to justify both the conversion to residential moorings and the prices charged, claiming that it would be illegal for them to charge any less than "the market rate".
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 23, 2017 11:27:08 GMT
They certainly quote Section 8 (1983 Act)and (wrongly, as per CaRT!) Section 13 of the 1971 Act in their correspondence. Do you have any copies of such correspondence? Prompted by your comment I put in an FoI request for such things, and the immediate response I have received is absolutely correct - Dear Nigel,
Thank you for your request for information dated 22 January 2017 regarding numbers for letters written to boaters in Scotland warning of removal and the numbers for boats actually removed from the Scottish waterways for the period from 2 July 2012.
For information the powers set out in s.8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 do not extend to Scotland. The British Transport Commission Act 1958 s.19, following amendment by the British Waterways Act 1975 s.9 (2), sets out the applicable powers for Scotland regarding the removal of boats. [my bold]
Section 19 has no relevance to boats "left or moored therein without lawful authority", it applies only to boats sunk, stranded or abandoned.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Jan 24, 2017 22:48:39 GMT
Nigel, Apologies. I got that impression in conversation a few years ago with a BW(S) manager about a boat which had appeared in their yard, and was referred to as a "section 8". I obviously got the wrong end of the stick, and as a result am guilty of posting terminological inexactitudes Now trying to track down a copies of the British Transport Commision Act 1958, which doesn't seem available on line.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 25, 2017 7:14:26 GMT
Nigel, Apologies. I got that impression in conversation a few years ago with a BW(S) manager about a boat which had appeared in their yard, and was referred to as a "section 8". I obviously got the wrong end of the stick, and as a result am guilty of posting terminological inexactitudes Now trying to track down a copies of the British Transport Commision Act 1958, which doesn't seem available on line. You won't find it online Iain. In a couple of days I can file the relevant section on scribd for you.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 1, 2017 16:41:05 GMT
Now trying to track down a copies of the British Transport Commision Act 1958, which doesn't seem available on line. I did promise to post it up - www.scribd.com/document/338124282/British-Transport-Commission-Act-1958-s-19 I may have photo'd the entire original Bill, but where to find it now I am at a loss. This portion includes the immediately relevant section 19 though. A copy of the Bill is in the National Archives at Kew.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Feb 1, 2017 17:51:48 GMT
Nigel, How is that case going in London where the bloke refused to agree to the T&C's ?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 1, 2017 18:08:15 GMT
He lost and was ordered to get his boat off the waterways of course.
I have tried to learn more since, but all I can say is that I believe he sold the boat, and last heard was researching his legal position. He is doing that solo, though, as he did with his [never seen by the court] submissions in the first instance.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Feb 2, 2017 11:38:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 16, 2017 12:30:25 GMT
I was never aware of this, but in the immediate aftermath of the 1971 Act, government were considering abolishing BW and replacing them and others with a national waterways authority. Amongst those deliberations, was the question of restoring the public rights of navigation abolished in 1968, which a minister had rashly promised to the IWA would happen, whilst in opposition. On coming to power, the ramifications of that promise came to exercise their minds somewhat. One of the issues arising concerned the liability of the authority in the event of accidents arising from failure to maintain the system to statutory requirements [which BW had never managed to achieve, then as now in the guise of CaRT.] For so long as no PRN obtained [and for so long as licences were not yet a mandatory condition – though this was glossed over], then BW had been able to incorporate a condition of the boat licence whereby boat owners accepted personal responsibility exonerating BW. The sole recourse they would have respecting failure to maintain would be High Court proceedings under s.106 0f the 1968 Act; a clumsy and uncertain process, as all acknowledged. I am still processing the hundreds of photos of relevant material, and am yet to find the most specific reference to licence T&C’s vis-a-vis contractual licensing, but these excerpts from the Transport legal department are enough to be going on with: - Government of the day faced a choice – restore PRN’s, in which case no licence could properly obtain [and the river registration parameters would have to apply], or default on their pre-election promise. Challenged with a Question in Parliament over this, draft responses were debated that attempted to be as vague and slippery as possible, and amusingly enough the relevant minister commented on such efforts with this classic [last line]: -
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Feb 16, 2017 15:05:49 GMT
"Yes, Minister."
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 16, 2017 15:57:55 GMT
Indeed Sir Humphrey.
Well, you have to either laugh or cry.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 21, 2017 20:22:56 GMT
Curious but unsurprising information from BW Scotland sent today – not having s.8, they in fact use s.19 of the 1958 Act as though it applied to unlicensed vessels, as well as those sunk, stranded or abandoned.
They refer to their misuse of this clause as “the formal evasion process”, and interestingly also refer to the removals as having “taken ownership”. All a bit extreme for an open admission, even for BW. Some 40 boats were subjected to commencement of “the formal evasion process” from July 2012, and only 3 of those failed to respond ‘appropriately’, leading to BW having ‘taken ownership’ of them.
I cannot help wondering whether anybody ever challenged them over confiscating boats for non-licensing, in reliance on a statutory clause making no such provision; it seems not. It could be that the owners of the 3 boats were untraceable, and these could be legitimately considered abandoned, while all the rest were scared into paying up [as they should, of course].
Not that I can be bothered for now, but it would be interesting to know if BW Scotland ever prosecuted for breach of byelaws, or of the 1971 Act provisions.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Feb 28, 2017 17:21:01 GMT
I have made an effort to get an answer to why the Trust thinks the 62 act applies to licences introduced in 1975, but they refuse to answer. This is as far as I got, the first line is a lie, there is no such statute.
"because our licences are issued subject to terms and conditions which we are entitled to impose by statute. There is nothing to be gained by us constantly returning to this debate, it is completely pointless because we are clearly never going to agree, so this is the end of the matter and please do not contact us about it anymore because any such communications will not be responded to."
Something clearly lawful is easy to explain, and no one needs to hide behind refusing to discuss it, so its pretty obvious that CRT knows their impossible interpretation of sect.43 of the 62 act has no legs. The question is when will it be settled by a court ?
|
|