|
Post by naughtyfox on Aug 13, 2019 19:57:16 GMT
Your avatar shouts 'smug'. My feeble attempt to construct a happy face. Maybe I will try again, this time going for a miserable face, or will that make me Mr Angry? Your current mug shot shouts Islington and Quinoa.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Aug 13, 2019 20:04:04 GMT
My feeble attempt to construct a happy face. Maybe I will try again, this time going for a miserable face, or will that make me Mr Angry? Your current mug shot shouts Islington and Quinoa. Didn’t know I look like a radical socialist. I must join the labour party
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Aug 13, 2019 20:11:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 13, 2019 20:11:41 GMT
Thanks very much Nigel, my dsylexia makes it very hard work trawling through the whole act. So if I'm understanding right, as long as the safety cert is valid on the date of issue of the new liscence then there the liscence should be issued? You are partly correct.
He is fully correct. S.17.3(c) mandates issue of the licence if the 3 specified conditions are met, pertinently, within this topic, if the BSSC is valid at the time. S.17.4(a) actually allows for a 28 day grace period if the safety certificate is not valid at date of issue of the certificate. s.17(6) confirms that if the safety certificate valid at the time of licence issue runs out during the term of the licence, the licence ceases to be valid from expiry of the safety certificate, though 4(a) – the 28 day grace period – applies. There is nothing anywhere within BW legislation to say that a licence may be refused if they consider the boat unsafe despite a valid BSSC. There ARE procedures that may be followed in the event of an officer deciding that a boat is unsafe - i.e those provided for under s.7 of the 1983 Act – but the minimum period that must be granted before being able to commence s.8 proceedings is in fact 3 months from a notice issued under that section specifying the relevant defects.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 13, 2019 20:23:39 GMT
Thank you NigelMoore i am on my phone so couldn't highlight the specific bit about date Thanks for trying though, sometimes being dsylexic is a real drag.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 13, 2019 20:26:29 GMT
Ah is this a "I have a friend who" type thread? I find the BS topic interesting and I wonder how crt would be able to judge the safety of a boat without actually boarding it. No it as I actually have stated, I now have three friends that this has happened too. Just to clarify for magnetman, my boat is liscenced insured and has a safety cert. There hope that helps clear up your confusion.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 13, 2019 20:27:47 GMT
He is fully correct. S.17.3(c) mandates issue of the licence if the 3 specified conditions are met, pertinently, within this topic, if the BSSC is valid at the time. S.17.4(a) actually allows for a 28 day grace period if the safety certificate is not valid at date of issue of the certificate. s.17(6) confirms that if the safety certificate valid at the time of licence issue runs out during the term of the licence, the licence ceases to be valid from expiry of the safety certificate, though 4(a) – the 28 day grace period – applies. There is nothing anywhere within BW legislation to say that a licence may be refused if they consider the boat unsafe despite a valid BSSC. There ARE procedures that may be followed in the event of an officer deciding that a boat is unsafe - i.e those provided for under s.7 of the 1983 Act – but the minimum period that must be granted before being able to commence s.8 proceedings is in fact 3 months from a notice issued under that section specifying the relevant defects. Once again thanks for the clarity Nigel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2019 20:43:47 GMT
I'm not remotely concerned about anyone else's vessel license status. However it would add interest to the topic if it was first hand experience. I am concerned if crt are attempting, or managing, to bypass the statutory requirements for granting of a "license".
This to me is worrying.
I also think the point about whether people being refused licenses on these grounds are also people on the " enforcement radar" was valid and did not desrve the rather obtuse response. If crt are able to treat customers differently according to past behaviour this is also slightly worrying.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 13, 2019 20:49:53 GMT
I'm not remotely concerned about anyone else's vessel license status. However it would add interest to the topic if it was first hand experience. I am concerned if crt are attempting, or managing, to bypass the statutory requirements for granting of a "license". This to me is worrying. I also think the point about whether people being refused licenses on these grounds are also people on the " enforcement radar" was valid and did not desrve the rather obtuse response. If crt are able to treat customers differently according to past behaviour this is also slightly worrying. so why the sarcastic comment that I replied to above?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2019 20:53:11 GMT
Like I said if it had been first hand experience then we would potentially be able to learn more about this problem .
A problem it definitely is.
I think you are being too defensive.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 13, 2019 20:56:51 GMT
I find the BS topic interesting and I wonder how crt would be able to judge the safety of a boat without actually boarding it. Doubtless there would be circumstances where a boat appears unsafe even viewed from the towpath – as perhaps a listing boat lower in the water than it should be, gas bottles obviously unsecured on deck, or even smoke arising whence it should not. However determination that the boat is in fact unsafe (in the opinion of the qualified officer) will almost invariably require boarding the vessel, and a duly authorised officer may do so by giving a minimum 24 hours notice of his intention to do so. Only in an apparent emergency may he board without that 24 hour notice. The BWA 1983 section 7 goes into considerable detail as to BW’s powers and limitations respecting what are perceived to be unsafe vessels, and any decision is open to challenge by the boater making an appeal to the magistrates court, pending the results of which no s.8 notice may be enforced. “ s.7(2) (a) An officer may at any reasonable time enter upon any vessel on any inland waterway or on any reservoir owned or managed by the Board for the purpose of inspecting the condition of the vessel so as to ascertain whether the vessel is unsafe. (b) An officer shall not enter upon any vessel in accordance with this subsection unless— (i) not less than 24 hours' notice of such entry has been given to the master of the vessel; or (ii) the officer has reason to believe that the vessel may be unsafe and that an immediate inspection is required.”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2019 21:07:36 GMT
I often wonder why the BS scheme was implemented when navigation authorities already had powers to board and inspect suspect vessels anyway.
Bizarre.
My pet theory is that it was an attempt to force a certain type of boat off the water but it backfired because it is an unregulated system and unfit vessels are regularly awarded BS certificates.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 13, 2019 21:25:38 GMT
I find the BS topic interesting and I wonder how crt would be able to judge the safety of a boat without actually boarding it. However determination that the boat is in fact unsafe (in the opinion of the qualified officer) will almost invariably require boarding the vessel, and a duly authorised officer may do so by giving a minimum 24 hours notice of his intention to do so. Only in an apparent emergency may he board without that 24 hour notice. (ii) the officer has reason to believe that the vessel may be unsafe and that an immediate inspection is required. [/i]” [/quote] I'm not sure your interpretation quite matches the wording It uses the word "unsafe" for 24hr notice and immediate inspection. But what intended differences are there?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 14, 2019 0:20:12 GMT
I am not quite sure what you are querying?
An officer may board a vessel to ascertain whether a boat is unsafe. There will implicitly be some reasonable expectation that there may be a question over its safety. Equally, there is implicit acknowledgement that the apprehension over its safety may or may not prove to be groundless.
24 hours minimum notice is required to “book” the appointment to conduct the inspection, whereupon the boat may or may not be deemed unsafe, and if so, a list made of items needing rectification.
However in some cases it may appear that ascertaining whether the vessel is unsafe is a matter of some urgency demanding immediate inspection, in which case the 24 hour notice may be dispensed with. If the boat seemed about to sink, for example, or looked to be on fire, then waiting around for 24 hours would be ridiculous.
That seemingly apparent urgency is the only ‘intended difference’. In both (i) & (ii) the need for an inspection to find out IF the boat is unsafe is implicitly recognised.
Not sure whether that helps and that I am correctly focussed on the area of confusion?
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 14, 2019 8:01:13 GMT
I am not quite sure what you are querying? An officer may board a vessel to ascertain whether a boat is unsafe. There will implicitly be some reasonable expectation that there may be a question over its safety. Equally, there is implicit acknowledgement that the apprehension over its safety may or may not prove to be groundless. 24 hours minimum notice is required to “book” the appointment to conduct the inspection, whereupon the boat may or may not be deemed unsafe, and if so, a list made of items needing rectification. However in some cases it may appear that ascertaining whether the vessel is unsafe is a matter of some urgency demanding immediate inspection, in which case the 24 hour notice may be dispensed with. If the boat seemed about to sink, for example, or looked to be on fire, then waiting around for 24 hours would be ridiculous. That seemingly apparent urgency is the only ‘ intended difference’. In both (i) & (ii) the need for an inspection to find out IF the boat is unsafe is implicitly recognised. Not sure whether that helps and that I am correctly focussed on the area of confusion? I think so, maybe i missed something but i couldn't see any difference in the two areas in the legislation. I couldn't see where the emergency bit was coming from. But thanks
|
|