|
Post by tadworth on Jun 22, 2017 19:58:33 GMT
linkdrive.google.com/file/d/0BxQlLvHstq64RUE1b1VKQkRLeVFqMDNPMzh6UzlIdVcwdWlJ/view?usp=drivesdkThere is mind boggling wriggling in there that absolves CRT of any blame. Somehow the end result is that licences are valid and not valid at the same time, you have to abide by the licence terms and conditions but CRT do not, and when they tell you " even a short term licence is out of the question" you should take that as a yes. Licences can be cancelled without notice at any time because they havent been given " due consideration" . 106 days is a reasonable time for that.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jun 22, 2017 21:27:26 GMT
linkdrive.google.com/file/d/0BxQlLvHstq64RUE1b1VKQkRLeVFqMDNPMzh6UzlIdVcwdWlJ/view?usp=drivesdkThere is mind boggling wriggling in there that absolves CRT of any blame. Somehow the end result is that licences are valid and not valid at the same time, you have to abide by the licence terms and conditions but CRT do not, and when they tell you " even a short term licence is out of the question" you should take that as a yes. Licences can be cancelled without notice at any time because they havent been given " due consideration" . 106 days is a reasonable time for that. The fact that a licence has been issued means that you have 'satisfied the board'. The 'back story' is irrelevant. If C&RT subsequently thought the boat was non compliant then they should have served notice giving a time limit for compliance of not less than 28 days.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jun 25, 2017 13:32:02 GMT
The ombudsman seems to have gone to absurd lengths to invent reasons not to up hold this complaint.
I think it confirms that CRT beleive that they can now cancel a statutory licence after its been issued without notice or any factual reason for " adminstative purposes", and bypass all the licence holders statutory rights as set out in the relevant legislation. In effect licence holders now have no statutory rights ?
|
|
|
Post by geo on Jun 26, 2017 10:09:44 GMT
Tadworth, I think that it all could have been handled better and more reasonably by both sides. You are both wrong in the way you handled the matter. If someone offers to meet and talk then you meet, record the meeting if you wish but try to be open to a solution rather than dogmatic and life maybe easier.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Jun 26, 2017 15:22:25 GMT
I agree with Geo, but it does seem to be a strange position to hold that a contract can be voided just because one side realises it has entered into said contract without due diligence.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 26, 2017 22:49:58 GMT
Tadworth, I think that it all could have been handled better and more reasonably by both sides. You are both wrong in the way you handled the matter. If someone offers to meet and talk then you meet, record the meeting if you wish but try to be open to a solution rather than dogmatic and life maybe easier. and; IainS said: I agree with Geo, but it does seem to be a strange position to hold that a contract can be voided just because one side realises it has entered into said contract without due diligence. I fail to see how either of you can conclude that Richard (Tadworth) was in any way being even the slightest bit unreasonable in demanding that C&RT comply with their statutory obligation to issue him with the PBL he was entitled to after satisfying every one of the preconditions imposed under S.17(3) of the 1995 Act. Just what is it that you find so unreasonable about expecting to be left in peace to enjoy the Licence that you've paid for, and has been rightly and properly issued ? Despite what C&RT would have boaters believe, neither the PBL nor the PBC is in truth any form of 'contract', they are statutory requirements demanded in law and NOT subject to any form of offer or acceptance of an offer.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jun 27, 2017 8:57:06 GMT
The Internet must have revolutionised how boaters disseminate knowledge, and is surely annoying for anyone trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2017 12:07:02 GMT
Section 3.3. Failure to renew license for boat. I would have thought if people just renewed their licenses when due the whole thing would work more smoothly.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Jun 27, 2017 16:57:04 GMT
Tadworth, I think that it all could have been handled better and more reasonably by both sides. You are both wrong in the way you handled the matter. If someone offers to meet and talk then you meet, record the meeting if you wish but try to be open to a solution rather than dogmatic and life maybe easier. and; IainS said: I agree with Geo, but it does seem to be a strange position to hold that a contract can be voided just because one side realises it has entered into said contract without due diligence. I fail to see how either of you can conclude that Richard (Tadworth) was in any way being even the slightest bit unreasonable in demanding that C&RT comply with their statutory obligation to issue him with the PBL he was entitled to after satisfying every one of the preconditions imposed under S.17(3) of the 1995 Act. Just what is it that you find so unreasonable about expecting to be left in peace to enjoy the Licence that you've paid for, and has been rightly and properly issued ? Despite what C&RT would have boaters believe, neither the PBL nor the PBC is in truth any form of 'contract', they are statutory requirements demanded in law and NOT subject to any form of offer or acceptance of an offer. From the Ombudsman's report and suggest that, on the balance of probabilities, the OP was the slightest bit unreasonable in his dealing with the situation. (possibly understandably so!) The law demands that the Board is satisfied that either Sec. 17(3) (c) (i) or (ii) of the Waterways Act 1995 will be complied with. If they are not satisfied, then they can refuse to grant a licence or certificate. What they cannot do, in my opinion, is grant one, and then rescind it on the grounds that they didn't consider the application as carefully as they might have. The cancellation is even more untenable if the licence is considered to be a contract. (as the Ombudsman appears to treat it)
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 27, 2017 21:45:30 GMT
I fail to see how either of you can conclude that Richard (Tadworth) was in any way being even the slightest bit unreasonable in demanding that C&RT comply with their statutory obligation to issue him with the PBL he was entitled to after satisfying every one of the preconditions imposed under S.17(3) of the 1995 Act. Just what is it that you find so unreasonable about expecting to be left in peace to enjoy the Licence that you've paid for, and has been rightly and properly issued ? Despite what C&RT would have boaters believe, neither the PBL nor the PBC is in truth any form of 'contract', they are statutory requirements demanded in law and NOT subject to any form of offer or acceptance of an offer. From the Ombudsman's report and suggest that, on the balance of probabilities, the OP was the slightest bit unreasonable in his dealing with the situation. (possibly understandably so!) The law demands that the Board is satisfied that either Sec. 17(3) (c) (i) or (ii) of the Waterways Act 1995 will be complied with. If they are not satisfied, then they can refuse to grant a licence or certificate. What they cannot do, in my opinion, is grant one, and then rescind it on the grounds that they didn't consider the application as carefully as they might have. The cancellation is even more untenable if the licence is considered to be a contract. (as the Ombudsman appears to treat it) In considering the "reasonableness", or otherwise of either side's stance in this dispute it is essential not to lose sight of the fact that C&RT's rationale for not issuing a PBL for "Tadworth" was simply that they had earlier obtained one of their standard forms of Injunction ordering that the boat must not be returned to their waters absent their "prior written consent", and they were anxious to try and preserve and perpetuate the myth that 'prior written consent' means 'at their discretion'. Truth is that there never were any valid grounds for C&RT to refuse, revoke or 'cancel' the newly issued Licence and they did in fact disclose the true reason for the refusal when they wrote to Richard Churchill on 29 August 2014 saying - quote - "Having gone through the lengthy process to get a court order for the removal of your craft from our waters, it is clearly not now appropriate that we issue you with another licence". Palmer and Griffin were, in line with standard C&RT working practices, just making up their own rules, inventing problems and erecting obstacles as and when it seemed expedient so to do. This, however, was one of the occasions when their deceit wasn't working, and they were quite prepared to persist, in line with well established corporate policy, in trying to lie their way out of the situation that they had created via their own dishonesty.The waffle from the Ombudsman about repairs and finding a 'mutually acceptable solution' is nothing more than red herrings to divert attention from yet another example of C&RT attempting to confer upon themselves powers that Parliament has never given them, . . he was, as is his custom, merely colluding with them to try and hide the truth about their worthless Injunctions, which are purposely worded, by C&RT/Shoosmiths and NOT the Court, to fool the named boater into believing that they are banned from C&RT waters until C&RT deign to let them come back.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jun 28, 2017 12:23:37 GMT
. . . you have to abide by the licence terms and conditions . . . It might be appropriate to revisit the SC Minutes yet again, on this topic of the enforceability of licence T&C’s outwith the 1995 Act. BW’s QC informed the Committee that his advice was that the Licence T&C’s “ is not a legally enforceable document. It is merely advice which we give to our boaters.” Asked: “ what is the remedy for a breach of condition”? he replied: “ Ultimately we could do one of two things or possibly both things. One would be to revoke the licence as it would be, as the owner or the holder of the licence would be in breach of the pleasure boat conditions. The alternative would be to revert again to the section 8 powers, which we talked about earlier. In both those cases, the Board believes that this action would be inappropriate. We have no remedy for breach of the code conditions at all . . .” – hence, he explained, the perceived need for the mooring restriction powers they sought in the Bill – which did not pass scrutiny and which were consequently omitted from the 1995 Act. www.scribd.com/doc/142106359/Dodd-on-Status-of-Licence-Conditions
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jun 28, 2017 18:05:48 GMT
No meeting needed to take place, all that was required was for CRT to stop acting illegally, the meeting was an attempt to get me to play along with their games, making it all seem legitimate. Their aim was to put the blame on me for not agreeing to their unlawful demands. Which they and the ombudsman have done.
Analogy of someone stealing your car, and then claiming that you didn't "engage" with them to get it back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 18:09:10 GMT
Car analogies never work with boats because the equivalent would be that you did not renew your road tax which would be followed by the DVLA clamping and removing your vehicle.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Jun 28, 2017 19:06:48 GMT
I thought it was a good analogy.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jun 28, 2017 20:47:46 GMT
. . . you have to abide by the licence terms and conditions . . . It might be appropriate to revisit the SC Minutes yet again, on this topic of the enforceability of licence T&C’s outwith the 1995 Act. BW’s QC informed the Committee that his advice was that the Licence T&C’s “ is not a legally enforceable document. It is merely advice which we give to our boaters.” Asked: “ what is the remedy for a breach of condition”? he replied: “ Ultimately we could do one of two things or possibly both things. One would be to revoke the licence as it would be, as the owner or the holder of the licence would be in breach of the pleasure boat conditions. The alternative would be to revert again to the section 8 powers, which we talked about earlier. In both those cases, the Board believes that this action would be inappropriate. We have no remedy for breach of the code conditions at all . . .” – hence, he explained, the perceived need for the mooring restriction powers they sought in the Bill – which did not pass scrutiny and which were consequently omitted from the 1995 Act. www.scribd.com/doc/142106359/Dodd-on-Status-of-Licence-Conditions I thought it might be of interest to research a bit on the internet and have found this gem which includes the words 'Legally binding
general conditions are printed in bold type'.
It's the 2003/4 long term mooring fees and conditions
|
|