|
|
Post by Higgs on Sept 11, 2016 10:08:46 GMT
Naughty Fox. Forgetting those marinas that have an historic right to allow boats to moor without a licence, all, mostly, are in a in contract with CRT to enable the marina to run the marine business, attached to the canal. The contract is called the NAA - Network Access Agreement.
There is a fee to be paid for access, it's a connection fee. This is calculated by CRT as 9% of the mooring fees at 100% capacity.
This 9% is passed onto the moorer and accounts for roughly 9% of the mooring fee paid to the marina. This the marina passes onto CRT.
You don't need a licence in any marina. Water cannot be owned, it is managed by the owner of the land it is over. CRT - the canal; Marinas - water over its land is managed by the marina, it is not CRT water.
There is no statutory power that says you need a licence in a marina. You pay a licence because is incumbent on the marina to make it part of their terms and conditions that apply to every moorer. It is written into the NAA that the marina agrees to: No sign, no business. It is a protection racket sort of an agreement
If you refuse to pay for a licence whilst in a marina, CRT don't prosecute, but the marina ejects you from the marina to protect their contract and you land in CRT 'waters' and there they can prosecute.
|
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on Sept 11, 2016 10:19:09 GMT
Strangely though, if you have an un-licenced boat in a marina, the enforcement staff contact/hassle the boat owner about it. I would have thought that it is the marina owner that should get the grief and it is then down to them to ask you to licence the boat or kick you out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Higgs on Sept 11, 2016 10:26:25 GMT
Strangely though, if you have an un-licenced boat in a marina, the enforcement staff contact/hassle the boat owner about it. I would have thought that it is the marina owner that should get the grief and it is then down to them to ask you to licence the boat or kick you out. I imagine if one or two hassle letters don't work, the marina will get it until you pay or leave the marina. Either way, the moorer is in for a hiding to the wallet. It won't be natural for the marinas to break ranks or act contrary to the NAA contract. |
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on Sept 11, 2016 10:31:01 GMT
It is usually more than one or two hassle letters. My friend has been receiving regular threats of enforcement, at least 10 letters so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Sept 11, 2016 10:38:40 GMT
It all depends on whether the water the boats in the marina sit on is canal water or water owned by the marina or someone else.
If a marina owns the water they pay no fee to CRT, or is the marina filled by water from a stream flowing through or into the marina.
If the water that fills the marina come from the canal it is CRT's water and the marina pays to use that water and to profit from it. Now why is that no fair?
|
|
|
|
Post by Higgs on Sept 11, 2016 11:56:05 GMT
It all depends on whether the water the boats in the marina sit on is canal water or water owned by the marina or someone else. If a marina owns the water they pay no fee to CRT, or is the marina filled by water from a stream flowing through or into the marina. If the water that fills the marina come from the canal it is CRT's water and the marina pays to use that water and to profit from it. Now why is that no fair? Both the marina and CRT are making money, even without the licence fee. And, for being connected to the canal, a connection fee is paid by all who moor in a marina that is part of the NAA. Water is not owned. For instance - A piece of land that contains a lake adjacent to the canal. Connecting that lake by way of a cutting to the canal does not make that lake the property of CRT. The land under the lake is still private property. A connection fee is paid for the privilege of being connected to the canal. A mooring fee is paid to the marina operator for the use of its facilities. |
|
|
|
Post by Higgs on Sept 11, 2016 12:02:21 GMT
It is usually more than one or two hassle letters. My friend has been receiving regular threats of enforcement, at least 10 letters so far. That's alot of hassle. If I intended to prosecute, I think ten letters would not show willingness to do that. Three letters should be sufficient before taking action. They certainly can't slap a section 8 on your friend for overstaying. The marina is not in CRT's domain. I'm surprised the marina haven't got involved by now. |
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Sept 11, 2016 13:36:28 GMT
It all depends on whether the water the boats in the marina sit on is canal water or water owned by the marina or someone else. If a marina owns the water they pay no fee to CRT, or is the marina filled by water from a stream flowing through or into the marina. If the water that fills the marina come from the canal it is CRT's water and the marina pays to use that water and to profit from it. Now why is that no fair? Both the marina and CRT are making money, even without the licence fee. And, for being connected to the canal, a connection fee is paid by all who moor in a marina that is part of the NAA. Water is not owned. For instance - A piece of land that contains a lake adjacent to the canal. Connecting that lake by way of a cutting to the canal does not make that lake the property of CRT. The land under the lake is still private property. A connection fee is paid for the privilege of being connected to the canal. A mooring fee is paid to the marina operator for the use of its facilities. Oh so who pays for getting the water there? You seem to have an idiotic concept of things, sorry but that is how you are coming across. Of course the water is owned by someone. |
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on Sept 11, 2016 14:36:14 GMT
It is usually more than one or two hassle letters. My friend has been receiving regular threats of enforcement, at least 10 letters so far. That's alot of hassle. If I intended to prosecute, I think ten letters would not show willingness to do that. Three letters should be sufficient before taking action. They certainly can't slap a section 8 on your friend for overstaying. The marina is not in CRT's domain. I'm surprised the marina haven't got involved by now. The funny thing is that the boat is actually on brokerage with the marina and on one of their 'trade plates' so it does have a licence. The marina saythat they have informed CRT of this multiple times but the information doesn't seem to make it through to the enforcement muppets. The marina have told my friend that if CRT keep hassling him to give the enforcement officer their contact details. He has done this several times but it still isn't sinking in. |
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on Sept 11, 2016 14:40:07 GMT
Both the marina and CRT are making money, even without the licence fee. And, for being connected to the canal, a connection fee is paid by all who moor in a marina that is part of the NAA. Water is not owned. For instance - A piece of land that contains a lake adjacent to the canal. Connecting that lake by way of a cutting to the canal does not make that lake the property of CRT. The land under the lake is still private property. A connection fee is paid for the privilege of being connected to the canal. A mooring fee is paid to the marina operator for the use of its facilities. Oh so who pays for getting the water there? You seem to have an idiotic concept of things, sorry but that is how you are coming across. Of course the water is owned by someone. The water isn't owned. This isn't Higgs' idiotic concept, it is how the law works. |
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Sept 11, 2016 14:47:59 GMT
Oh so who pays for getting the water there? You seem to have an idiotic concept of things, sorry but that is how you are coming across. Of course the water is owned by someone. The water isn't owned. This isn't Higgs' idiotic concept, it is how the law works. Interesting, taking that a step on, so how can be stop someone cruising on their water. Think I am going barmy today, lol might always be barmy ed missing word "be" |
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on Sept 11, 2016 15:01:38 GMT
The water isn't owned. This isn't Higgs' idiotic concept, it is how the law works. Interesting, taking that a step on, so how can be stop someone cruising on their water. Think I am going barmy today, lol might always be barmy ed missing word "be" Technically they aren't stopping you cruising on their water, they are stopping you floating above their land on water under their control. |
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Sept 11, 2016 15:23:19 GMT
Interesting, taking that a step on, so how can be stop someone cruising on their water. Think I am going barmy today, lol might always be barmy ed missing word "be" Technically they aren't stopping you cruising on their water, they are stopping you floating above their land on water under their control. Knowing how technical the courts can be I can see a wicked defence from the refusal to licence etc to cruise on their waters. M'lud CRT do not own the water, although they appear to be claiming to. Could you ask them to prove they own the water. |
|
|
|
Post by Higgs on Sept 11, 2016 15:49:33 GMT
Both the marina and CRT are making money, even without the licence fee. And, for being connected to the canal, a connection fee is paid by all who moor in a marina that is part of the NAA. Water is not owned. For instance - A piece of land that contains a lake adjacent to the canal. Connecting that lake by way of a cutting to the canal does not make that lake the property of CRT. The land under the lake is still private property. A connection fee is paid for the privilege of being connected to the canal. A mooring fee is paid to the marina operator for the use of its facilities. Oh so who pays for getting the water there? You seem to have an idiotic concept of things, sorry but that is how you are coming across. Of course the water is owned by someone. You seem to be confusing owning with manage. I'd like to watch you follow CRT's water all the way down to the sea, then, maybe follow it across the channel. Picking out the molecules, mixed in with recycled pee. |
|
|
|
Post by Higgs on Sept 11, 2016 15:52:12 GMT
Technically they aren't stopping you cruising on their water, they are stopping you floating above their land on water under their control. Knowing how technical the courts can be I can see a wicked defence from the refusal to licence etc to cruise on their waters. M'lud CRT do not own the water, although they appear to be claiming to. Could you ask them to prove they own the water. Take two glasses of water to the court, one from the canal and one from a puddle, and ask CRT to pick theirs out. |
|
