|
Post by Jim on Apr 7, 2019 19:29:08 GMT
The thing is, you can never quite believe the NBTA, who have a habit of overlooking pertinent facts if they do not fit in with their agenda. Could it possibly be that the owner is facing enforcement action because the boat has not moved from the same spot for 18 months, for example? I'm not saying that this is the case, but it is exactly the type of scenario where NBTA would generally opt to be "economical with the truth". Yes. A bit like "the bridge moved...."
|
|
|
Post by patty on Apr 7, 2019 19:29:49 GMT
It is not a very attractive boat but it is 'home' to someone.. i would like to know the rationale behind CRT's decision.. Unless they have been on board and have examined the structure it does not seem a reasonable action to pass judgement. I guess its somewhat ugly appearance may well offend those who think the waterways are the domain of proper boats but.. Man has always built somewhat eccentric abodes and who really has the right to judge another choice.
Ive seen many strange dwellings from packing cases next to the Amazon to put up shacks next to posher houses in St Lucia and of course there are the 'Hobbit Homes' and derelict caravans here in the UK. One of my sons spent several months in the most disgusting caravan Ive ever seen in my life....for a reason... it kept a roof over his head during a bad phase... All I'm saying is I guess if its just the look of the boat they should leave well alone but if it is unsafe they should provide the proof...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2019 19:30:09 GMT
I'm not lauding or condemning the actions of the nbta as such but I find it interesting to see the behaviour models they align themselves with. The idea that they "seek to represent the interests of all live aboard boat dwellers" appears to be incorrect.
Putting aside the fact it is badly written (better to remove "liveaboard" or remove "dwellers" and add "ers to "boat").
I know what its about and it's interesting but I think they are claiming to be something which in reality they are not. Encouraging loophole seeking behaviour with regards to itinerant living on waterways IS going to lead to increased regulation. It WILL happen.
Maybe it would happen anyway to be fair.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 7, 2019 19:31:29 GMT
I'm not saying that this is the case, but it is exactly the type of scenario where NBTA would generally opt to be "economical with the truth". I would agree in general but that doesn't tie in with "claiming it is unsafe in spite of having a valid BSS)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2019 19:42:46 GMT
I'm not saying that this is the case, but it is exactly the type of scenario where NBTA would generally opt to be "economical with the truth". I would agree in general but that doesn't tie in with "claiming it is unsafe in spite of having a valid BSS) From BW 1995 act. (10)Section 3 (Construction and equipment of vessels) of the Act of 1983 shall cease to have effect. So it looks like the BS does override the navigation authority's right to demand that vessels are safe. However 11(c)Nothing in this section shall affect the operation of section 7 (Control of unsafe vessels) of the Act of 1983. Definitely one for Nigel
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 7, 2019 19:44:52 GMT
I'm not saying that this is the case, but it is exactly the type of scenario where NBTA would generally opt to be "economical with the truth". I would agree in general but that doesn't tie in with "claiming it is unsafe in spite of having a valid BSS) Possibly though, as more facts emerge, it may transpire that there was more to it than this. Just as last year we heard about a liveaboard boat which was "sunk by a crew of speeding hire boaters", and it took several weeks to ascertain that the only thing keeping said boat afloat was a tarpaulin and a permanently running bilge pump.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Apr 7, 2019 19:52:07 GMT
I like others dont think its a thing of beauty, however as others have said its someones home and if it has a valid BSS for me thats the end of it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2019 19:53:26 GMT
From 1983 act sec 7
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 7, 2019 19:54:09 GMT
I would agree in general but that doesn't tie in with "claiming it is unsafe in spite of having a valid BSS) From BW 1995 act. (10)Section 3 (Construction and equipment of vessels) of the Act of 1983 shall cease to have effect. So it looks like the BS does override the navigation authority's right to demand that vessels are safe. However 11(c)Nothing in this section shall affect the operation of section 7 (Control of unsafe vessels) of the Act of 1983. Definitely one for Nigel No details are given of what processes have been implemented by CaRT in this matter. While section (3) of the BWA 1983 with respect to the early grant of powers to control by byelaws the “Construction and equipment of vessels” was repealed by the 1995 Act in favour of a recognised BSSC scheme, section 7 – “Control of unsafe vessels” remains as an available power to determine that a vessel is unsafe. For so long as it is so deemed, and until a certificate is issued that the vessel has complied with identified defects, the vessel is expressly deemed subject to s.8 Notices. Built into that section 7 however, are a whole raft of strictures governing its application, with protective measures available to the boat owner. Sub-section 7 of s.7 provides: “ (7) Any person aggrieved by a notice under subsection (3) of this section, or by the refusal of the Board to issue a certificate under that subsection stating that the vessel is no longer unsafe, may appeal to a magistrates' court; and on any such appeal the court may confirm, vary or set aside the notice and may order the Board to issue a certificate under the said subsection (3) stating that the vessel is no longer unsafe. (8) (a) An appeal under subsection (7) of this section may be brought at any time until the expiry of the period specified under paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of this section and at any time thereafter if— (i) a certificate has not been issued under the said subsection (3) stating that the vessel is no longer unsafe; and (ii) the Board have not dealt with the vessel under section 8 (Removal of vessels) of this Act, as applied by subsection (6) of this section. (b) Until the time for appealing has expired or, if an appeal is lodged, until the proceedings have been concluded by the disposal or withdrawal of the appeal or its failure for want of prosecution, the notice shall continue in force but the Board shall not deal with the vessel under section 8 of this Act, as applied by subsection (6) of this section, after the lodging of an appeal until the proceedings have been concluded.” Whether a Notice under subsection (3) of the 1983 Act has been issued, and if so whether the boat owner was aware of the protections available under sub-section 7, is not revealed. The quoted section certainly needs to be brought to the attention of those involved.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 7, 2019 19:54:15 GMT
Actually, I'm on the boater's side here. We need more enterprising people like Andrzei, rather than these pesky workshy Brits who insist on safe working practices, a living wage and a house to live in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2019 19:57:28 GMT
So I reckon (subject to Nigel's corrections if needed) that using section 11(c) of the 95 act CRT can default to section 7 of the '83 act and bypass the boat safety scheme entirely if they have reason to believe that a vessel is unsafe. Personally I think that's a Good Thing. Eta I hadn't seen Nigel's post when I put this up. Thanks for that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2019 20:00:46 GMT
Actually, I'm on the boater's side here. We need more enterprising people like Andrzei, rather than these pesky workshy Brits who insist on safe working practices, a living wage and a house to live in. I reckon he probably has got a house to live in its just not in Middlesex or Greater London.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 7, 2019 20:08:54 GMT
So I reckon (subject to Nigel's corrections if needed) that using section 11(c) of the 95 act CRT can default to section 7 of the '83 act and bypass the boat safety scheme entirely if they have reason to believe that a vessel is unsafe. ?? There IS no s.11(c) in the 95 Act. You mean s.17(11)(c) I presume (being pedantic as usual). Assuming so, then yes.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 7, 2019 20:10:21 GMT
I have just sent an email to the NBTA pointing out the relevant sections which the boater should be made aware of as a matter of urgency.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2019 20:16:49 GMT
So I reckon (subject to Nigel's corrections if needed) that using section 11(c) of the 95 act CRT can default to section 7 of the '83 act and bypass the boat safety scheme entirely if they have reason to believe that a vessel is unsafe. ?? There IS no s.11(c) in the 95 Act. You mean s.17(11)(c) I presume (being pedantic as usual). Assuming so, then yes. Yes Nigel I was being lazy. I did think of checking it but couldn't be arsed. One of my weak points I'm afraid. CBA syndrome. Pedantry is good.
|
|