|
|
Post by lollygagger on Aug 22, 2017 7:56:49 GMT
His licence would be revoked. He would then be processed as unlicenced. C&RT choose the court action, not us. But again, the point was that we're all just boaters, none are better than others just different. Rog Your point, not "the" point. I agree but Nick doesn't so I've suggested a way forward for him. |
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 22, 2017 8:03:22 GMT
I think Nick is technically correct in law. He would make an ideal test case and I suggest he parks up for a month on the towpath then fights his case. The law is quite clear on this so he should win or crt back down. 👍 But surely this has been done before. Hasn't Tony Dunkley been in the habit of parking his boat up for more than 14 days, got stick from CRT, they've threatened all sorts, but when TD called their bluff they backed down big time? Or was that all a dream? |
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 22, 2017 8:04:50 GMT
I believe Mr Dunkley's court case with C&RT was about not moving his boat sufficiently when away from his home mooring. C&RT (not for the first or last time) were wrong. Maybe my memory is in error.Rog The much trumpeted terms and conditions that we are all required to agree to, include the 14 day movement for all proviso Your memory is most definitely NOT in error, . . . but a great many people seem to have rather short memories which are working to C&RT's advantage in their unremitting efforts to impose unenforceable, fantasy T&C's on Licence and PBC applicants. C&RT served Section 8 and 13 Notices on my boat after revoking my PBC on the grounds of non-compliance with T&C's in early 2014, but lacking the confidence and will to argue the matter in Court after a Defence was filed and a new PBC applied for, dropped the DR and Injunction action like a hot potato ! It's also worth mentioning that earlier this year they issued a 12 month PBC that I applied for, by phone and with NO agreement to abide by T&C's, on behalf of another boater against whom they had previously obtained an Injunction preventing him bringing his boat back onto any of their waters. |
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 22, 2017 8:06:49 GMT
For those with a short memory, or too lazy to look it up for themselves, here is the relevant bit of section 17 of the 95 act. Note the either / or status of sub paras (i) and (ii):
(3)Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless—
(a)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;
(b)an insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence that it exists and is in force, has been produced to the Board; and
(c)either—
(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or
(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Aug 22, 2017 8:17:46 GMT
I stayed out of it last night just had a look in at the end but I was sure that Nick was correct and remembered Tonys battle about it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 8:51:15 GMT
I stayed out of it last night just had a look in at the end but I was sure that Nick was correct and remembered Tonys battle about it It skewed off from the original subject owing to the fact Nick was talking tripe and looking stupid. He consequently twisted and manipulated the discussion toward a direction that favoured him better. The fact still remains that there is no such thing as a cc licence. |
|
|
|
Post by geo on Aug 22, 2017 8:55:17 GMT
Unfortunately Nick is correct sec 17 lays a duty on CC'rs to move every 14 days but does not lay the same on boats with a home mooring. T&Cs cannot overrule the Law. The Law requires the issue of a licence if the conditions are met, be it for a CC'r or a homemooring boat. The only things that applies in law outside of that are the bylaws. No T&Cs have any weigh and a contract cannot in law be made by insisting a person agrees to the T&Cs or cannot have a licence.
It is actually very simple, in Law a contract cannot require anyone to give their rights up that are written into the various statues or common law. It is just like buying goods at a shop and the shop insists that you give up your rights under the Consumer Rights Act. They may tell you that but when it goes wrong a week later and they refuse to replace it, note no refuse to repair it, they are in trouble and a court will quickly tell them so. So buy the goods and use the courts if you have to.
ED Of course CRT could go to the expense etc and put 14 day mooring signs every 50 metres on every canal and they would have weight in law.
|
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 22, 2017 9:15:02 GMT
I stayed out of it last night just had a look in at the end but I was sure that Nick was correct and remembered Tonys battle about it It skewed off from the original subject owing to the fact Nick was talking tripe and looking stupid. He consequently twisted and manipulated the discussion toward a direction that favoured him better. The fact still remains that there is no such thing as a cc licence. I love it when you squirm! |
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 22, 2017 9:16:34 GMT
Unfortunately Nick is correct sec 17 lays a duty on CC'rs to move every 14 days but does not lay the same on boats with a home mooring. T&Cs cannot overrule the Law. The Law requires the issue of a licence if the conditions are met, be it for a CC'r or a homemooring boat. The only things that applies in law outside of that are the bylaws. No T&Cs have any weigh and a contract cannot in law be made by insisting a person agrees to the T&Cs or cannot have a licence. It is actually very simple, in Law a contract cannot require anyone to give their rights up that are written into the various statues or common law. It is just like buying goods at a shop and the shop insists that you give up your rights under the Consumer Rights Act. They may tell you that but when it goes wrong a week later and they refuse to replace it, note no refuse to repair it, they are in trouble and a court will quickly tell them so. So buy the goods and use the courts if you have to. ED Of course CRT could go to the expense etc and put 14 day mooring signs every 50 metres on every canal and they would have weight in law. IIRC there used to be the odd bit of VM signed as 14 days, although I think they've mostly been removed now. |
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 22, 2017 9:32:42 GMT
I stayed out of it last night just had a look in at the end but I was sure that Nick was correct and remembered Tonys battle about it It skewed off from the original subject owing to the fact Nick was talking tripe and looking stupid. He consequently twisted and manipulated the discussion toward a direction that favoured him better. The fact still remains that there is no such thing as a cc licence. The mythical 'CC'ing Licence' should be consigned to the bin along with the other great myth perpetuated by Parry's hit squads, the equally misleading and non-existent 'Rivers only Licence'. As you say, there is only one type of Licence, and that's the one issued under S.17 of the 1995 Act. What some folks can't seem to grasp, and what C&RT definitely don't want generally understood is that it is ONLY the conditions under which the Licence is issued that vary from CC'er to HM'er, and NOT the Licence itself. As for the 'Rivers only Licence' - that is NOT in fact a Licence at all, but is in truth nothing more than a certificate proving registration as required under S.5 and S.6 of the 1971 Act. No-one needs a Licence to exercise a common law or statutory right, and it is regrettable, but not insignificant, that C&RT's lawyers succeeded in avoiding this particular matter being considered and pronounced upon during the hearing of Leigh Ravenscroft's claim. |
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 22, 2017 9:44:27 GMT
Unfortunately Nick is correct sec 17 lays a duty on CC'rs to move every 14 days but does not lay the same on boats with a home mooring. T&Cs cannot overrule the Law. The Law requires the issue of a licence if the conditions are met, be it for a CC'r or a homemooring boat. The only things that applies in law outside of that are the bylaws. No T&Cs have any weigh and a contract cannot in law be made by insisting a person agrees to the T&Cs or cannot have a licence. It is actually very simple, in Law a contract cannot require anyone to give their rights up that are written into the various statues or common law. It is just like buying goods at a shop and the shop insists that you give up your rights under the Consumer Rights Act. They may tell you that but when it goes wrong a week later and they refuse to replace it, note no refuse to repair it, they are in trouble and a court will quickly tell them so. So buy the goods and use the courts if you have to. ED Of course CRT could go to the expense etc and put 14 day mooring signs every 50 metres on every canal and they would have weight in law. IIRC there used to be the odd bit of VM signed as 14 days, although I think they've mostly been removed now. It's also worth remembering that in some instances VM's can be infinitely mobile. When C&RT were trying to impose their unenforceable T&C's on me the VM's I was allegedly 'overstaying' on actually followed me around to any location in the the Holme Lock area where I had last tied-up ! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 9:48:00 GMT
IIRC there used to be the odd bit of VM signed as 14 days, although I think they've mostly been removed now. It's also worth remembering that in some instances VM's can be infinitely mobile. When C&RT were trying to impose their unenforceable T&C's on me the VM's I was allegedly 'overstaying' on actually followed me around to any location in the the Holme Lock area where I had last tied-up ! Probably down to a shit signal on the tracker they had on your boat. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 9:58:24 GMT
Boaters of the world unite ! Except the posh ones  Rog |
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 22, 2017 9:59:30 GMT
It's also worth remembering that in some instances VM's can be infinitely mobile. When C&RT were trying to impose their unenforceable T&C's on me the VM's I was allegedly 'overstaying' on actually followed me around to any location in the the Holme Lock area where I had last tied-up ! Probably down to a shit signal on the tracker they had on your boat. In fact, it was down to a well known little shit called Stuart Garner, aided most ably by a particularly malevolent and incredibly stupid member of C&RT's 'in house' Legal team. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 10:02:49 GMT
Probably down to a shit signal on the tracker they had on your boat. In fact, it was down to a little shit called Stuart Garner, aided most ably by a particularly malevolent and incredibly stupid member of C&RT's 'in house' Legal team. Both battery operated and benefiting from Duracell batteries. 🤣 |
|
