|
Post by IainS on Mar 25, 2017 21:39:48 GMT
"The simple truth with regard to S.43 of the 1962 Act is that, contrary to C&RT's fanciful claims, it does NOT empower them to impose conditions on the issuing of 'relevant consent(s)' to use the 'services and facilities'. The wording of S.43 is hardly intricate or ambiguous, the relevant sentence from S.43 states - "and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit". It's plain enough, and it certainly doesn't need any interpreting, or pronouncing upon by a Court, it's straightforward written language and the meaning and intent is absolutely clear, . . . . it is 'use', in the sense of the manner of 'use', to which S.43 empowers C&RT to apply terms and conditions, NOT the issuing (in the form of a PBL) of permission to use, which is already regulated and conditioned under S.17(3) and (4) of the 1995 Act." Nigel, so what would be the penalty for not using such services and facilities in accordance with their terms and conditions ? Can you give an example of such T&C's now in existence ? Licence conditions? E.t.a. Sorry, couldn't resist ....
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Mar 26, 2017 12:43:18 GMT
I didn't mention LICENCE terms and conditions.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 26, 2017 13:50:09 GMT
Sorry but on miniature phone out in Panama unblocking sea loos. Will respond next month.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 15:46:49 GMT
Sorry but on miniature phone out in Panama unblocking sea loos. Will respond next month. πππππ
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Mar 26, 2017 18:23:22 GMT
Sorry but on miniature phone out in Panama unblocking sea loos. Will respond next month. Good luck with the unblocking of the sea loos, hope that after that job is done you'll have some time to enjoy yourself there, as I don't think that unblocking loos is something to be enjoyable.
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Mar 27, 2017 15:32:49 GMT
I didn't mention LICENCE terms and conditions. You did say, "Can you give an example of such T&C's now in existence ?" (Just to clarify my position on that: I think there is a real possibility that some judge might decide that licence conditions came under the ambit of Sec.43 of the 1962 Act. I'm not saying I support this position, but, failing a precedent, I think it's a case of wait and see.) How about mooring restrictions? (I've just seen a "No return within 7 days" notice on the Atherstone flight.)
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Mar 27, 2017 19:01:55 GMT
Sorry but on miniature phone out in Panama unblocking sea loos. Will respond next month. Living the dream???
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 29, 2017 1:33:01 GMT
Sorry but on miniature phone out in Panama unblocking sea loos. Will respond next month. Living the dream??? Of coprophiliacs? Worse working conditions do exist, however. Good swimming and hot sunshine. Mildly disapointed in the quality of girl watching.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 10, 2017 11:10:37 GMT
Doesn't sound right to me. If you can close off the marina and not affect the flow or navigation of the main river it is not part of the river its an adjunct to it. But this was the crux of the failure by the boaters' Counsel - he did not adequately clarify that the marina operators were entitled to close their property to the general public. The absence of any signage to the effect that entry was permissive only, was one of the fatal points seized on by the judges, although that in itself need not have been taken as proof that they could not have done so had they wished. My position is that they could indeed have barred entry with perfect legality, being essentially 'private water' for private [though business] purposes and so exempt under the relevant Acts.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 10, 2017 11:15:08 GMT
Back in Blighty, immersed now in helping Leigh with his preparation for next month. The loo was successfully unblocked without needing to take boat out of water [deliberate sabotage with teabags and tampons], but promptly blocked again by a constipated owner before leaving! Skipper not happy.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 10, 2017 11:16:17 GMT
sort of ...... from one lot of poo to another ??
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 10, 2017 11:27:13 GMT
Nigel, so what would be the penalty for not using such services and facilities in accordance with their terms and conditions ? Can you give an example of such T&C's now in existence ? The conditions of use of the system are detailed in the byelaws. Penalties for failing to use the system in accordance with those are fixed at Β£100 [plus associated costs and criminal record]. I have an idea that later [general] legislation provides discretion to judges for greater penalties. Examples would be failing to tie up properly; mooring to fixtures not designed for the purpose; mooring so as to cause obstruction etc, etc. If you moor so as to present a real danger, the fixed penalty rises to Β£1,000.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Apr 10, 2017 18:41:44 GMT
Nigel, so what would be the penalty for not using such services and facilities in accordance with their terms and conditions ? Can you give an example of such T&C's now in existence ? The conditions of use of the system are detailed in the byelaws. Penalties for failing to use the system in accordance with those are fixed at Β£100 [plus associated costs and criminal record]. I have an idea that later [general] legislation provides discretion to judges for greater penalties. Examples would be failing to tie up properly; mooring to fixtures not designed for the purpose; mooring so as to cause obstruction etc, etc. If you moor so as to present a real danger, the fixed penalty rises to Β£1,000. Why does it say " as they see fit" when " they" do not make the bylaws or prosecute them ?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 10, 2017 21:35:02 GMT
The conditions of use of the system are detailed in the byelaws. Penalties for failing to use the system in accordance with those are fixed at Β£100 [plus associated costs and criminal record]. I have an idea that later [general] legislation provides discretion to judges for greater penalties. Examples would be failing to tie up properly; mooring to fixtures not designed for the purpose; mooring so as to cause obstruction etc, etc. If you moor so as to present a real danger, the fixed penalty rises to Β£1,000. Why does it say " as they see fit" when " they" do not make the bylaws or prosecute them ? I gave the example of conditional use of the waterways themselves [and it IS CaRT who could and should prosecute breaches of those, though they choose not to]. There is of course a constraint on the setting of those conditions of use of the waterways, in that they cannot be imposed as CaRT "see fit", they must be approved by the Secretary of State Examples of valid conditions of use of facilities provided as a chargeable service would be any of those things that enabling Acts allowed β such as wharf facilities and moorings as obvious examples. Under the original Acts the charges for such, though specified as allowable, were nonetheless often subject to fixed prices and conditions. It is those constraints that were lifted altogether by the Transport Act β and if you wish to do business with them to use those services, you will have to agree with whatever conditions and charges they choose to impose - "as they see fit" in other words. The penalty is no different from failure to agree to/abide by any normal business arrangement β you donβt get to use the service, or you get sued for sums owing etc. I earlier posted up some of the behind-the-scenes considerations of MP's and Parliamentary legal officers, who felt that payment for a licence to use the waterways could not be considered, in fact, the sort of "transport charge" that the notorious section could be applied to at all anyway.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 10, 2017 21:35:58 GMT
sort of ...... from one lot of poo to another ?? Indeed. Give me the bloody Jabsco any day.
|
|