|
Post by geo on Jun 29, 2017 3:31:32 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. Basically if someone in so called authority offers to meet and talk about the problem you meet. It is amazing how often it solves things, of course if it does not you have a recording of the person being threatening or whatever. A court would not be happy if a meeting had been offered and ignored or turned down; then when it came to cost there is a high probability if you won the court would not give you their version of full costs but discount them quite heavily so you end up paying more of your own costs.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jun 29, 2017 12:25:34 GMT
Maybe I should sue them for breach of contract ?
If they want to insist that the licence is a contract then there is a whole new area of law involved.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jun 29, 2017 13:45:46 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. Basically if someone in so called authority offers to meet and talk about the problem you meet. It is amazing how often it solves things, of course if it does not you have a recording of the person being threatening or whatever. A court would not be happy if a meeting had been offered and ignored or turned down; then when it came to cost there is a high probability if you won the court would not give you their version of full costs but discount them quite heavily so you end up paying more of your own costs. Whilst I agree with you in principal, it is not unknown for BW/C&RT to use such a meeting to make someone subject to its Unreasonably Persistent Complaints Policy.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jun 29, 2017 16:24:05 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 Some eight years after the 1995 Act BW decided to give themselves some of the powers refused by parliament (although, at the time they were also suggesting that not everything was enforceable) - FEES AND CONDITIONS (Valid from 1st April 2003)
|
|