|
Post by kris on Nov 2, 2016 12:46:17 GMT
So your happy for them to be able to kick you off your mooring for changing your oil, if they decide they don't like you. If that was a question to me, then as I said in my post "........as written feel it is totally unreasonable and unfair...... " I did go on to say I can see why they did it, but I still do not like it. it was a question to you, but tongue in cheek so don't take it too seriously.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 2, 2016 12:49:33 GMT
Just a point on the clause permitting boarding of the boat [one of those duplicating the Licence T&C’s wherein it is even more outrageous] - disregarding the offside situation, for so long as the boat is on public space, CaRT are forbidden to board boats without the master’s consent, except in clearly defined circumstances. I made this point explicitly before the High Court back in 2008, when seeking an injunction against BW continuing this practice as an intimidatory exercise with my s.8’d boats. No determination was made at that time or thereafter, but BW were given the opportunity to give an Undertaking to the Court instead, pending determination of the issues in my main Claim. The fact, however, that the subject was raised at this level at all, has put them on very public notice that this is a forbidden act under their own legislation, even if, as they contended, it were not to be considered an offence under the Merchant Shipping Act [which I continue to maintain it is]. My Statement at the time – www.scribd.com/document/329748966/Hales-Injunction-Statement My personal notes for presenting my case to the Court – www.scribd.com/document/329748861/Floyd-NM-Notes As is invariably the case of course, I was never given the chance to address the court from my notes; however the transcript of the brief proceedings is still helpful, I think – www.scribd.com/document/329748819/Injunction-Transcript The terms of the Undertaking were memorialised in the resultant Order – Apropos of concerns expressed in other topics, it was this Court Order that was subsequently violated by Mr Peter Palmer, whose actions BW attempted to brush under the institutional carpet – leading to judicial censure and an enforced apology to both the Court and myself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2016 13:51:47 GMT
Just a point on the clause permitting boarding of the boat [one of those duplicating the Licence T&C’s wherein it is even more outrageous] - disregarding the offside situation, for so long as the boat is on public space, CaRT are forbidden to board boats without the master’s consent, except in clearly defined circumstances. I made this point explicitly before the High Court back in 2008, when seeking an injunction against BW continuing this practice as an intimidatory exercise with my s.8’d boats. No determination was made at that time or thereafter, but BW were given the opportunity to give an Undertaking to the Court instead, pending determination of the issues in my main Claim. The fact, however, that the subject was raised at this level at all, has put them on very public notice that this is a forbidden act under their own legislation, even if, as they contended, it were not to be considered an offence under the Merchant Shipping Act [which I continue to maintain it is]. My Statement at the time – www.scribd.com/document/329748966/Hales-Injunction-Statement My personal notes for presenting my case to the Court – www.scribd.com/document/329748861/Floyd-NM-Notes As is invariably the case of course, I was never given the chance to address the court from my notes; however the transcript of the brief proceedings is still helpful, I think – www.scribd.com/document/329748819/Injunction-Transcript The terms of the Undertaking were memorialised in the resultant Order – Apropos of concerns expressed in other topics, it was this Court Order that was subsequently violated by Mr Peter Palmer, whose actions BW attempted to brush under the institutional carpet – leading to judicial censure and an enforced apology to both the Court and myself. That's interesting as I was told by a CRT employee that a CRT "data collector" (person who records locations of all boats regularly) seeking to identify a vessel moored on the outside of another vessel is authorised to board either or both vessels in order to locate the CRT index number. I guess this a defined circumstance ?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 2, 2016 14:23:51 GMT
Just a point on the clause permitting boarding of the boat [one of those duplicating the Licence T&C’s wherein it is even more outrageous] - disregarding the offside situation, for so long as the boat is on public space, CaRT are forbidden to board boats without the master’s consent, except in clearly defined circumstances. I made this point explicitly before the High Court back in 2008, when seeking an injunction against BW continuing this practice as an intimidatory exercise with my s.8’d boats. No determination was made at that time or thereafter, but BW were given the opportunity to give an Undertaking to the Court instead, pending determination of the issues in my main Claim. The fact, however, that the subject was raised at this level at all, has put them on very public notice that this is a forbidden act under their own legislation, even if, as they contended, it were not to be considered an offence under the Merchant Shipping Act [which I continue to maintain it is]. My Statement at the time – www.scribd.com/document/329748966/Hales-Injunction-Statement My personal notes for presenting my case to the Court – www.scribd.com/document/329748861/Floyd-NM-Notes As is invariably the case of course, I was never given the chance to address the court from my notes; however the transcript of the brief proceedings is still helpful, I think – www.scribd.com/document/329748819/Injunction-Transcript The terms of the Undertaking were memorialised in the resultant Order – Apropos of concerns expressed in other topics, it was this Court Order that was subsequently violated by Mr Peter Palmer, whose actions BW attempted to brush under the institutional carpet – leading to judicial censure and an enforced apology to both the Court and myself. That's interesting as I was told by a CRT employee that a CRT "data collector" (person who records locations of all boats regularly) seeking to identify a vessel moored on the outside of another vessel is authorised to board either or both vessels in order to locate the CRT index number. I guess this a defined circumstance ? Absolutely NOT. It is so defined only in the T&C's, precisely because the statute prohibits it by default. The SOLE defined basis for boarding a boat with their jurisdiction is on safety issues: - British Waterways Act 1983, section 7(2) - [my emphasis of course] ( a ) An officer may at any reasonable time enter upon any vessel on any inland waterway or on any reservoir owned or managed by the Board for the purpose of inspecting the vessel so as to ascertain whether the vessel is unsafe.
( b ) An officer shall not enter upon any vessel in accordance with this subsection unless –
(i) not less than 24 hours’ notice of entry has been given to the master of the vessel; or
(ii) the officer has reason to believe that the vessel may be unsafe and that an immediate inspection is required.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2016 14:26:43 GMT
Very interesting So how is it possible for CRT to keep logs of boats' locations when in some of the more congested areas they can be as much as 4 abreast on a single mooring spot. What would be the recourse if someone did cone aboard without permission? I think this is a very interesting topic personally as boarding can as you suggest amount to intimidation.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Nov 2, 2016 14:48:56 GMT
This is interesting as even if the T's&C's that we signed as part of the licence/mooring agreements give CRT right of entry onto the vessel, that could only apply if the licence holder and master were the same person, and CRT have no idea if they are. As an example I am the licence holder for our boat, but there is nothing to say that for certain periods my wife is the master of the vessel - she is at home, so may as well be on the boat. Therefore before entering on to the vessel they would need her permission, mine is not enough, especially if she has not delegated that authority to me. I wonder how CRT would argue that one in court.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 2, 2016 15:31:55 GMT
This is interesting as even if the T's&C's that we signed as part of the licence/mooring agreements give CRT right of entry onto the vessel, that could only apply if the licence holder and master were the same person, and CRT have no idea if they are. As an example I am the licence holder for our boat, but there is nothing to say that for certain periods my wife is the master of the vessel - she is at home, so may as well be on the boat. Therefore before entering on to the vessel they would need her permission, mine is not enough, especially if she has not delegated that authority to me. I wonder how CRT would argue that one in court. Very observant of you chewy. I had intended to post at length on just that point, but I really have to go and do some chores. Suffice for now that you are perfectly correct; the master of the vessel has the say as to who boards the vessel they control, and that may well not be the owner in any number of cases. There would have to be compelling and obvious signs of danger for the boat to be legitimately boarded by a CaRT officer in the absence of notice or permission. Such circumstances can of course arise – fire and sinking, or drifting across the navigation springs to mind – which is why the exception of imminent safety concerns was inserted, for just such emergencies. The legislation is sufficiently unambiguous on this to have led CaRT to draft a T&C to purportedly circumvent the Act. My suspicion is that, if challenged in court along the lines of your [perfectly valid] argument, they might suggest that as the licence holder for the boat, it is your responsibility to ensure that all those to whom you entrust its care are appraised of the "legal disclaimer" you have signed. I am not for one moment suggesting that this is a sound argument of course; it still cannot get around the trespass, and cannot liberate them from action on that by the Master of the time. The Master of a vessel, no matter that he might be a mere temporary employee of the owner, and no matter that the vessel might be a 'mere' fly boat on the inland waterways, still has standing in law to bring an action against the trespasser independently of the owner. Moore v Robinson, Kings Bench, Nov.5 1831.- and please, no quips as to ancient mariners - this was NOT one of my earlier cases. [but I did cite it in my Injunction Claim, because none of the affected boats belonged to me]
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 2, 2016 16:52:58 GMT
Just another reference to the OP, and the first of the quoted conditions [yet another regurgitation of the Licence T&C’s] – the “ if we have to move you we can charge you for it” one [3.2(iii) in the WM T&C’s, and Licence T&C’s Schedule 2(6) – “I f we do need to move the boat, you agree to repay our costs.”] canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/5962.pdf This clause is inserted because the courts have upheld the claim that exercise of the powers of s.8(5) of the 1983 Act do NOT embrace any right to reimbursement of the costs of that. Taylor v BWB. Birmingham County Court, Case No: BM013306, 24 April 2001
“ My finding is that because the Board exercised their power to move the craft because it was an obstruction under subsection (5) they cannot take advantage of the charging provisions under subsection (3) which specifically refer to the removal, storage or destruction of the relevant craft – that is the phrase that follows on from subsection (2) which uses the phrase there “may remove any relevant craft”. My finding is that so far as that section is concerned, because the power has been exercised under subsection (5), they can’t use the charging provisions under subsection (3). Therefore the Board are not entitled to recover the charges for removal.” Because of DJ Davies’ judgment, I suspect that that was the last time they ever chose to exercise their legitimate powers in this regard. Inserting illicit terms of compulsory consent into Boat Licence T&C’s is their way of getting around this inconvenient judgment as to the law. For those interested, the judgment can be downloaded from the WhatDoTheyKnow website - just search for the title under CaRT.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 2, 2016 17:04:14 GMT
I wonder how CRT would argue that one in court. Further to my last comment, you would probably find they would back up their argument with clause 7.5 of the T&C’s: - “ You must ensure that any other person using the Boat is aware and agrees to comply with these Conditions and is covered by an appropriate insurance policy.” The agreement qua contract being an illegal one, none of that matters of course.
|
|
tuscan
Junior Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by tuscan on Nov 2, 2016 18:34:51 GMT
Out of interest Nigel is entering a vessel (which to the layman infers going inside) the same as boarding a vessel so as , for examp,e, to cross over to another boat moored alongside.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2016 18:55:52 GMT
Good question !
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 2, 2016 19:44:51 GMT
Out of interest Nigel is entering a vessel (which to the layman infers going inside) the same as boarding a vessel so as , for examp,e, to cross over to another boat moored alongside. Boarding a boat is stepping onto it. Custom, especially in congested circumstances with working narrowboats awaiting orders, accepted the inevitability of people stepping across breasted up boats to reach their own, and particular conventions arose as to how this was done to protect the privacy of occupants – but that applied/applies to those ‘belonging’ to those boats, not to strangers or officials. Obviously, not everyone is going to bother using the links I provided, so I’ll copy a bit from my 2008 notes: “ The sensitivity of a boat's master to people boarding without his knowledge or consent is not something new, something that has only arisen since the passing of the 1995 Act [should be the 1983 Act] ; - it is one of the oldest and most respected tenets of marine code. I have a friend for example, who likes to tell of a trip on the canals he made for the benefit of the Prince of Wales some years ago. Having brought the narrowboat to the quayside where the royal party was waiting, he simply waited for them to step on board. He was then startled to hear Prince Charles address him in tones of faintly amused impatience - "Well, aren't you going to invite me aboard?" His Highness was never going to encroach upon the sanctity of a vessel and its master, however lowly either might be considered. He refused to step foot on the boat until invited to do so. "Permission to come aboard?" is the usual formula. This was an example of strict punctilious attention to the courtesies and mores of maritime conduct. If the heir to the throne could exercise such proper respect for the right of a master to control the boarding of his vessel, I would respectfully suggest that the petty bureaucrats of British Waterways Board would do as well to follow suit.”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2016 20:01:21 GMT
I was told years ago by another boater that if someone came aboard without permission you would be legally entitled to hang them.
He was very convincing - fortunately I had gained permission before boarding his vessel and was offered wine by the master of the vessel (his other half) as well so I was relatively safe (until the time came to disembark !! )
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 2, 2016 20:24:34 GMT
Just to make it clear - you are not allowed to hang them! You are entitled to place them under restraints however, if that is something of which you are physically capable.
I don't know what legislation ever permitted non-Naval officers to hang casual pirates, though it may well have been the case once.
I was surprised to find, the other day, that the law permitting trial by combat actually survived into the mid 19thC in this country, and was only abolished following a successful appeal to that law by a man accused of murder.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 2, 2016 20:28:20 GMT
So how is it possible for CRT to keep logs of boats' locations when in some of the more congested areas they can be as much as 4 abreast on a single mooring spot. What would be the recourse if someone did cone aboard without permission? It may not be possible. It would not, however, be beyond the wit of man or woman to keep tabs on such boats and determine their identity, even from the shore [and in known ‘honey pot sites’ it would be sensible, as once was the case, to have patrol boats in the vicinity to espy from the water]. As I have said before: if it was determined that a boat or boats was obstructing the towpath by overstaying, then they can be physically moved on without having to board the boats [whether by bow-hauling or using a patrol boat]. If it proved necessary to serve a Notice respecting the boat, and it proved impossible to identify it or the owners, then fixing a Notice to the boat is not even necessary; affixing the Notice on the bank where they were boarded would be noticed, and that specifically suffices in law. The attempted circumvention of statute in the T&C’s is not even justifiable on that score. If a CaRT official stepped on my boat without asking, I would ever so politely suggest to them through gritted teeth, that debating the niceties of the law would best be accomplished off the boat, and invite them to disembark with all possible promptitude. If they failed to do so, I would formally notify them they were under arrest and should stay put until police arrived. At that point they would either leave of their own volition, stay put, or provide grounds for police attendance even if only on the basis of keeping the peace. I have before now gone onto boats delivered into my care, armed with copies of the MSA and a handful of heavy cable ties in the expectation of needing to restrain recalcitrant occupants, but fortunately never had occasion to use them. I also had the numbers of the Maritime Police on the Thames, in case of need. More pacific members of the boating fraternity could content themselves with politely requesting identification; inform Head Office on the instant of the situation, and let them know that a criminal prosecution of the offending officer will follow very shortly – in the hearing of the offender. On the other hand of course, if an officer asked politely for permission, for innocuous purposes, I would ordinarily be delighted to welcome them aboard. Letting them know well beforehand – if possible – of your position on the matter, is the best course of all. Peter Palmer, for example, once informed by the local management and the head legal officers of my position, always kept a very respectful distance from my boats when wanting to talk to me, for all that he tried to take the Mickey a bit over my ‘sensitivities’.
|
|