forced to agee to contract

[waterworks]

Re: forced to agee to contract

Sorry I got that last post wrong, I am having hospital treatment and not firing on all cylinders right now. I will try and correct it at some point. I think I meant if they move your boat if it overstays on a mooring site, however they claim that is an obstruction, though the legislation says obstruction to " navigation " which no mooring on the bank is.

[des8]

Re: forced to agee to contract

Perhaps you would like tp post up the exact wording or give a link.
I've been assuming it is CRT.

To return to your first post, where you say under the 1995 the authority has to issue a licemce if the three requirements are met.
I don't think that is completely accurate.
Sec 17 (3) (c) (ii) .......the board may refuse a relevant consent........unless....the applicant satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances"
That sounds to me that if the applicant declines to agree the board's T&Cs the board will argue that he has not satisfied them and so will not issue the licence.


Or do you have a permanent mooring?

I'm also assuming (do a lot of that when posters only give part of the story) that you are posting on Canalworld.net where there has been manydiscussions on this matter.

[waterworks]

Re: forced to agee to contract

You are only required to "satisfy the board" that you meet the three conditions in the 95 act, not any thing else. That has never been in doubt, what you quoted is the statutory condition that unless you have a fixed mooring place you must move your boat every 14 days. Their terms and conditions document has been made up by themselves, it has no consent of parliment, and as shown earlier there is, and obviously cannot be any legislation like their claimed sect.42 1962 TA, that allows them to create their own laws, and apply the penalty of revoking a licence issued under statute because the licence holder has breached their own invented contract terms ?

Does that make sense ?

[des8]

Re: forced to agee to contract

The statute does actually state that the board can refuse a consent if the applicant doesn't satisfy them about the proposed use of the vessel.
The way you satisfy the board is to agree their terms and coditions

Pragmatically, regardless of my opinion, I think you are unlikely to be successful if you become confrontational with CRT.

[waterworks]

Re: forced to agee to contract

You do not need to satisfy the board regarding any contract terms or conditions. Only the 3 statutory conditions. The licence is issued under statutory conditions, how can it be revoked for a breach of any non statutory conditions ?

If the canal and river trust can make up its own laws what is the point of parliment ?

[des8]

Re: forced to agee to contract

One of the statutory conditions is that the applicant satisfy the board.
Fail to satisfy the board and no licence! end of!

[waterworks]

Re: forced to agee to contract

One of the statutory conditions is that the applicant satisfy the board.
Fail to satisfy the board and no licence! end of!

No, there is a condition to satisfy the board in respect of the three things stated in the act section 17, and only those three things.

[des8]

Re: forced to agee to contract

We are going round in circles here.
Either agree their T&Cs and get your licence, or refuse and the initiate court action.
It's your choice... I'm not the one to argue with!

[waterworks]

Re: forced to agee to contract

Im not seeking an argument, only a discussion, on a discussion forum. I just pointed out the error you made.