|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 25, 2021 8:41:46 GMT
The crowdjustice funding appeal page is still carrying this patently incorrect statement this morning : -
"Every boat needs to have a licence, otherwise it can be seized by the Trust."
--- and now there is also an update stating that the mystery coalition's lawyers have sent a "Judicial Review pre-action letter" to the C&RT.
An extract from this letter has been included in the update, and it appears that the primary issue that the Judicial Review will be directed at is C&RT's proposed changes to its extra-statutory boat Licence T&C's rather than the fact that the T&C's themselves are founded on the false premise that S.43 of the 1962 Transport Act was a catch-all clause bestowing permanently enduring and limitless powers on BWB and its successors to impose, as it saw fit, ANY terms and conditions on ANYTHING connected with the administration or use of ANY of the waterways for the time being under its control.
Unless there is a radical change in thinking and direction to challenging C&RT's authority to impose its own extra-statutory T&C's, instead of merely challenging the legality of C&RT's proposed changes to something without any basis in law in the first place, then whatever the final total that's raised will end up being spent on something more akin to a Judicial Revue !
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 25, 2021 10:20:14 GMT
Remind us foxy are you even paying for a boat licence at the moment? Yes, we have a CRT licence ready to be validated as soon as we set forth onto CRT waters. Why do you ask? What makes you think we'd be on the canals without a licence? Still getting Damian's Boaters' Update. so you’ve contributed towards the upkeep of the waterways this last year?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 25, 2021 17:00:30 GMT
so you’ve contributed towards the upkeep of the waterways this last year? Most definitely. how’s that then?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 25, 2021 17:18:15 GMT
Sorry, Kris, but I'm not divulging my personal financial transactions for the whole world and his dog to see. And from what I've read here, you owe Tony Dunkley a very big apology for the things you've said about him. what about what Tony had said about everybody else?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2021 17:23:35 GMT
Sorry, Kris, but I'm not divulging my personal financial transactions for the whole world and his dog to see. And from what I've read here, you owe Tony Dunkley a very big apology for the things you've said about him. Freak.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 29, 2021 21:12:50 GMT
Only 2 days to go! Pledge now! Why bother, . . not a penny of it will go on a correctly focussed challenge to C&RT's authority to impose or enforce ANY extra-statutory boat Licence T&C's at all. Have you seen or read the latest 'update' about the pre-action letter the lawyers acting for the "boat dwellers" and other "support organizations" have sent to the C&RT ?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 30, 2021 9:50:02 GMT
Foxy you are a twat.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 30, 2021 9:55:36 GMT
and I am pretty certain I can give that a like kris without bothering to read his post
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 30, 2021 9:58:21 GMT
and I am pretty certain I can give that a like kris without bothering to read his post I’m not sure why I bothered.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Apr 30, 2021 20:20:06 GMT
Have you seen or read the latest 'update' about the pre-action letter the lawyers acting for the "boat dwellers" and other "support organizations" have sent to the C&RT ? If it's about this: "that a large number of the boating community are digitally excluded either in that they do not have any online access or that they have grave difficulties in dealing with anything online", then yes, that was already up a few days ago. What happens to the money so far raised when the lawyer looks at it, sniffs and then walks away because it's less than what he wanted? Or pockets the lot and gives a 'reduced service'? Who is this lawyer? And photos of him/her posted? Any info about him/her posted? What is their track record? Seems all very vague to me, I haven't the faintest what they intend to challenge CRT about. Only it looks like they won't be challenging anything as the target hasn't been reached. I find it a bit strange that their communication to CRT is about the unfairness of boaters excluded from the 'digital' consultation, and then they go on to say "Please keep this going so we can reach the target - please share the link below on social media, Tweet, re-Tweet, send emails or post it on a blog" so they are using ONLY digital communication!!! Do they have no interest in the digitally excluded boaters!!!!
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 1, 2021 6:33:27 GMT
If it's about this: "that a large number of the boating community are digitally excluded either in that they do not have any online access or that they have grave difficulties in dealing with anything online", then yes, that was already up a few days ago. What happens to the money so far raised when the lawyer looks at it, sniffs and then walks away because it's less than what he wanted? Or pockets the lot and gives a 'reduced service'? Who is this lawyer? And photos of him/her posted? Any info about him/her posted? What is their track record? Seems all very vague to me, I haven't the faintest what they intend to challenge CRT about. Only it looks like they won't be challenging anything as the target hasn't been reached. I find it a bit strange that their communication to CRT is about the unfairness of boaters excluded from the 'digital' consultation, and then they go on to say "Please keep this going so we can reach the target - please share the link below on social media, Tweet, re-Tweet, send emails or post it on a blog" so they are using ONLY digital communication!!! Do they have no interest in the digitally excluded boaters!!!! Every aspect of this fundraising appeal seems to be as ill-conceived and badly thought out as the objective to be pursued. C&RT's claimed authority - S.43 of the 1962 Transport Act - for setting ANY Licence T&C's to compliment or override the statutory conditions set down in S.17 of the BW Act of 1995, is what should be the objective for Judicial Review, . . NOT quibbling about C&RT's right to amend or add to Licence T&C's that were unlawful and unenforceable from inception.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2021 7:57:34 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2021 8:18:39 GMT
CRT Terms and Conditions: Second pre-action letter sent to Canal & River Trust June 2, 2021 NBTA Following the publication by Canal & River Trust (CRT) of its revised Boat Licence Terms and Conditions, the NBTA’s lawyers sent a second pre-action protocol letter to CRT this week. We would like to again thank everyone who has contributed to the appeal to fund this legal challenge – see www.crowdjustice.com/case/protect-boats-homes/– Please keep sharing and circulating this appeal and please make a donation if you can. This is an extract from the letter: The Details of the matter being challenged: 1. The carrying out of the consultation online. 2. Proposed new clause 5.1 with regard to ‘Boats with a Home Mooring’. 3. The introduction of new amendments to the Terms and Conditions which have not been consulted on namely: (i) On page 1 of the new Terms and Conditions the use of descriptions ‘Pleasure Boat Licence’, ‘River Licence’ and ‘Continuous Cruiser Licence’. In addition proposals to introduce new clauses 10.10 and 10.11. (ii) The change from the old 2015 Terms and Conditions which stated: “4. Boats without a Home Mooring or ‘Continuous Cruisers’ 4.1. You must cruise in accordance with the British Waterways Act 1995. The Guidance for Boats without a home mooring is contained in Schedule 2 and sets out the Trust’s understanding of what is required to comply with the British Waterways Act 1995.” to 5.4 of the new Terms and Conditions which states: “Boats without a Home Mooring or ‘Continuous Cruisers’ Boats: 5.4 You must Cruise on Our Waterways in accordance with Schedule 1 [ie Guidance for Boaters Without a Home Mooring] and the British Waterways Act 1995.” The issue: …… 2. We note the proposed new clause for boats with a home mooring. Section 17(3) of the British Waterways Act 1995 sets out the circumstances in which a Licence may be refused. It does so by stipulating a number of conditions that must be met, and if they are not met, CRT may refuse a Licence. It is a reasonable interpretation to say that if those conditions are met, a Licence may not be refused. Under s17(3) (c) it is necessary to satisfy CRT of either (i) or (ii) but not both. The first of these deals with those who are able to satisfy CRT that they have access to a home mooring. There is no requirement for these individuals to cruise when they are away from their mooring. In fact, there is no requirement for them to do anything when they are away from their mooring. The section does not seek to impose any obligation on these individuals to use the waterway in any particular way or not use it in any particular way. So long as they satisfy CRT they have a mooring, they cannot be refused a Licence. If their failure to cruise cannot form the basis of refusing a Licence, it cannot lawfully afford the basis of revoking their Licence. This proposed condition is unlawful. This condition should clearly be withdrawn immediately. 3. The new matters that have been imposed in the Terms and Conditions have been done so without consultation and this is a clear and obvious breach of the Consultation Principles. For that reason alone, these Terms and Conditions should be removed until proper consultation takes place. 4. The introduction of new phrases on page 1 appears to be an attempt to re-interpret s17 of the 1995 Act. This is unlawful. ……… 7. The change to the Term with regard to (so called) ‘continuous cruising’ purports to give the Guidance the same status as the 1995 Act whereas the 2015 Term merely stated that boaters “must” cruise in accordance with the 1995 Act and then drew attention to the Guidance stating that the Guidance sets out the Trust’s “understanding” of what the 1995 Act requires. For the record our client does not believe that the Guidance is a correct or lawful interpretation of the 1995 Act but accepts that that argument is for another occasion. The details of the action that the Defendant is expected to take: 1. By withdrawing the new Terms and Conditions and by carrying out a proper consultation process, not just a process carried out online. 2. By withdrawing the proposed Term 5.1. 3. By either withdrawing the descriptions on page 1 and new Terms 5.4, 10.10 and 10.11 or by including those proposed terms in a new consultation process. Proposed reply date: Given that the consultation response from CRT and the new Terms and Conditions have only just been published and are now going to be brought into force as early as 1st June, we will reduce the relevant deadline for response to 7 days. We are happy to extend that deadline if it is agreed that the introduction of the new Terms and Conditions will be stayed until at least 14 days after a substantive response to this pre-action protocol letter. We await the response from CRT.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jun 3, 2021 8:21:33 GMT
So it begins.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2021 8:45:09 GMT
We await the response from CRT. Don't hold your breath.
|
|