|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 29, 2016 7:17:07 GMT
"Unfortunately, whilst I can confirm that the person who processed your licence application has a different recollection to yourself, the call was not recorded so it has not been possible to verify exactly what was said."
Oh dear, did they really forget to record the call for staining 'training' purposes?
It's a great off-putter when someone you don't want to hear from phones you, and you say: "Hold on just a moment, I'm starting to record this call for training purposes." That flusters them!!
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 29, 2016 7:39:30 GMT
I found the last paragraph of the reply interesting. Sounds like Mr Palmer doesn't want anyone else to know what he's doing ? I often write to people and let them know I have sent copies to their bosses also. That puts them in the spotlight.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Oct 29, 2016 11:13:49 GMT
I found the last paragraph of the reply interesting. Sounds like Mr Palmer doesn't want anyone else to know what he's doing ? I often write to people and let them know I have sent copies to their bosses also. That puts them in the spotlight. In this case Richard Parry either doesn't want to know, or is actually pushing all of this abuse of the law. I suspect the latter.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 29, 2016 11:38:40 GMT
Debit card to pay the year in full. Then I see no need for them to acquire your dob. I wouldn't have given them the correct date. I don't trust them with such sensitive info. I don't trust them with holding personal data. The DoB is possibly for them to do an ID check linking you to the address, assuming a mailing addres has been given.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 29, 2016 11:45:15 GMT
Reply i receiced on 24 October that states clearly the trust will breach its statutory duty and break the law unless i agree to their faux contract. "Mr [ Tadworth ] As you are aware (because it has been confirmed more than once in writing to you over the last few months), the Trust is entitled to make use of its waterways subject to such terms and conditions as we think fit, by virtue of section 43 of the Transport Act 1962. Nevertheless, I understand you have contacted my colleagues to say you refused to accept or be bound by the licence terms and conditions at the time you applied for your boat licence earlier in the year, and you have re-stated that this is still your position more recently. Unfortunately, whilst I can confirm that the person who processed your licence application has a different recollection to yourself, the call was not recorded so it has not been possible to verify exactly what was said. That being the case, and if I accept what you say that you insisted from the outset you refused to accept the terms and conditions of the licence, I can only assume the licence was issued in error and I will cancel it. Clearly you will not be able to validly obtain a licence in future without agreeing to our terms and conditions either, because we do not issue licences without terms and conditions attached. Alternatively, you can continue boating with the licence you have been issued, in which case you will be deemed to accept the licence terms and conditions by allowing your boat to remain on our waterways. To be clear, if you refuse to accepted the licence terms and conditions, you must leave our waterways. Please let me know which of the above two options you prefer. To avoid any confusion in future, with the exception of emergencies I must ask you to only contact the Trust through me, in writing, in which case I will liaise with the appropriate colleagues if it is not something I usually deal with myself. Peter Palmer Enforcement supervisor" The simple way of dealing with this is to accept "under duress" This allows you at a later date, in court, to deny the parts you do not wish to or feel CRT had not the right to impose. You accepted because you had no alternative otherwise your boat would be endangered. Unless you are immediately willing to take CRT to court on the grounds they have refused/cancelled a licence when they did not have legal right to do so as the boat met all the requirements of the Act.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 29, 2016 12:25:03 GMT
Reply i receiced on 24 October that states clearly the trust will breach its statutory duty and break the law unless i agree to their faux contract. "Mr [ Tadworth ] As you are aware (because it has been confirmed more than once in writing to you over the last few months), the Trust is entitled to make use of its waterways subject to such terms and conditions as we think fit, by virtue of section 43 of the Transport Act 1962. Nevertheless, I understand you have contacted my colleagues to say you refused to accept or be bound by the licence terms and conditions at the time you applied for your boat licence earlier in the year, and you have re-stated that this is still your position more recently. Unfortunately, whilst I can confirm that the person who processed your licence application has a different recollection to yourself, the call was not recorded so it has not been possible to verify exactly what was said. That being the case, and if I accept what you say that you insisted from the outset you refused to accept the terms and conditions of the licence, I can only assume the licence was issued in error and I will cancel it. Clearly you will not be able to validly obtain a licence in future without agreeing to our terms and conditions either, because we do not issue licences without terms and conditions attached. Alternatively, you can continue boating with the licence you have been issued, in which case you will be deemed to accept the licence terms and conditions by allowing your boat to remain on our waterways. To be clear, if you refuse to accepted the licence terms and conditions, you must leave our waterways. Please let me know which of the above two options you prefer. To avoid any confusion in future, with the exception of emergencies I must ask you to only contact the Trust through me, in writing, in which case I will liaise with the appropriate colleagues if it is not something I usually deal with myself. Peter Palmer Enforcement supervisor" The simple way of dealing with this is to accept "under duress" This allows you at a later date, in court, to deny the parts you do not wish to or feel CRT had not the right to impose. You accepted because you had no alternative otherwise your boat would be endangered. Unless you are immediately willing to take CRT to court on the grounds they have refused/cancelled a licence when they did not have legal right to do so as the boat met all the requirements of the Act. Taking the initiative by taking C&RT to Court over this issue isn't the best way to tackle this. Why put yourself to the time, trouble and expense of doing so when you can effectively back them into a corner by simply refusing to tick the box ? In the event that they foolishly refuse a valid [complying in full with S.17(3) of the 1995 Act] Licence or PBC application on the grounds that their wretched box hasn't been ticked, they're left with nowhere to go except to issue an S.8 Notice which, in the case of a non-liveaboard, would not survive the legal challenge which could then be mounted, or in the case of a liveaboard, be challenged either through a Counter Claim to their follow-up Claim for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, or by simply filing a Defence to their Claim and then torpedoing them by re-applying for the Licence or PBC, and ticking the box, with the appropriate proviso, after the Directions Hearing, leaving them with no option but to file for Discontinuance. Either way, C&RT would be on a hiding to nothing, . . . and they know it !
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Oct 29, 2016 12:37:33 GMT
I'm not telling CRT what I will be doing on here, so there's not much more I can add.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 29, 2016 13:18:15 GMT
I'm not telling CRT what I will be doing on here, so there's not much more I can add. That makes sense keep the powder dry
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Nov 2, 2016 21:02:14 GMT
Reply i receiced on 24 October that states clearly the trust will breach its statutory duty and break the law unless i agree to their faux contract. "Mr [ Tadworth ] As you are aware (because it has been confirmed more than once in writing to you over the last few months), the Trust is entitled to make use of its waterways subject to such terms and conditions as we think fit, by virtue of section 43 of the Transport Act 1962. snip Peter Palmer Enforcement supervisor" I'm Sorry but Mr Palmers interpretation of the act seems somewhat different to what it actually it says, I may be wrong but the appropriate bit he seems to be relying on is sub section 3 Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the Canal & River Trust shall have power to demand, take and recover [or waive] such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit. Is it just my mistake but that does not seem to give them the legal right to enforce any terms and conditions on the licence but only the right to a)charge for services and facilities. or b) add terms and conditions for services and facilities. Is a licence a service or facility and on a different note is a winter mooring a services or facility
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 2, 2016 22:26:23 GMT
Is it just my mistake but that does not seem to give them the legal right to enforce any terms and conditions on the licence but only the right to
a)charge for services and facilities. or
b) add terms and conditions for services and facilities.
The section you quoted does NOT give them the right to charge for services and facilities, and to make use of those subject to terms and conditions. They and their predecessors ALWAYS had that right. The difference was that formerly, respecting the services for which they could charge, the levels of those charges and the terms upon which those services could be provided, were controlled according to strict and unbending parameters [that needed Acts to get them changed, every time inflation took serious effect]. I have set out – on CWDF - the legislative development over the centuries to where the current position is reached, whereby the things for which they can charge remain constrained, but for all the things they are permitted to charge for, no restraints on the levels of charges, nor as to particulars of T&C’s relating to those, any longer apply. That is the sole effect of s.43(3). Post the 1962 Act, registration certificates and licence became mandatory under certain Acts for the majority [not all] of the waterways, and once again, at first, the levels of charge were strictly controlled [even 10 years AFTER the 1962 Transport Act, because that did not apply to these new chargeable conditions. Even though there is no ceiling placed on the pleasure boat licence charge, there remains the percentage ceiling applying to the pleasure boat certificate – the 62 Act and s.43(3) notwithstanding!
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Nov 2, 2016 22:38:51 GMT
Even if it did allow them to create terms of use for their facilities, it still has nothing to do with issuing ( or revoking) licences. There is no authority to apply a penalty of any kind if anyone broke such terms of use, they would not be bylaws.
What Peter Palmer has said is an advance warning, and written evidence that he is going to break the law . Again.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Nov 22, 2016 13:42:38 GMT
Disclaimer I have sent to CRT.
"Agreement to " licence terms and conditions".
To whom it may concern.
My agreement to the trusts "licence terms and conditions" contract is wholly under duress, the trust has refused in writing to issue any licence to me unless I do so, contrary to the 1995 BW act section 17 (3). Therefore i must regard the contract as an illegal agreement under English contract law , and is therefore unenforceable, whether agreed to or not.
My agreement does not imply that I will agree to act contrary to the relevant legislation if asked to do so by the Trust, nor should it be taken as my permitting the Trust to act contrary to any relevant legislation."
No reply as of yet.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 22, 2016 15:51:42 GMT
The latter bit is important if, for example, you do not wish their officers crawling over your boat without your consent, or do not wish to agree to paying them for moving your boat if they deem that necessary.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Nov 22, 2016 17:15:49 GMT
I'm not really sure where this gets me / boaters, as I am still under the written threat of my licence being revoked if I refuse to allow any of these ultra vires terms to take place. Not agreeing to the document would land me in court, and agreeing to them and I refuse to allow any thing i regard as unlawful would land me in court with a revoked licence.
|
|
|
Post by geo on Nov 22, 2016 18:05:31 GMT
Disclaimer I have sent to CRT. "Agreement to " licence terms and conditions". To whom it may concern. My agreement to the trusts "licence terms and conditions" contract is wholly under duress, the trust has refused in writing to issue any licence to me unless I do so, contrary to the 1995 BW act section 17 (3). Therefore i must regard the contract as an illegal agreement under English contract law , and is therefore unenforceable, whether agreed to or not. My agreement does not imply that I will agree to act contrary to the relevant legislation if asked to do so by the Trust, nor should it be taken as my permitting the Trust to act contrary to any relevant legislation." No reply as of yet. I would respectfully suggest that you have gone a shade too far. I would suggest that is should have read something like To whom it may concern. My agreement to the trusts "licence terms and conditions" contract is under duress, the trust has refused in writing to issue any licence to me unless I do so, contrary in my belief to the 1995 BW act section 17 (3). My agreement does not mean or imply that I will agree to act or will act contrary to the relevant legislation.
|
|