The Canal and river Trust

[Waterworks]

I live on a canal boat,

for which I am required by the 1995 British waterways act to have a licence,

the licence is a statutory requirement,

 

 

British waterways was changed to a charitable trust some years ago but the legislation that governs licences has not changed,

 

 

the trust is now falsely claiming that this licence is now a contract which they can add their own terms and conditions to without any recourse to parliment, and can cancel at any time they choose if the boat owner breaches any condition they have invented.

 

 

The trust has now " re interpreted " the 1962 transport act section 43 and are claiming this gives them the authority to do anything they want,

 

 

but they can't hide the fact that licences for boats on their waterways were not invented until 1975, and a public right of navigation existed on all their waters until 1968,

so whatever way you interpret this section of this act it cannot possibly apply to licences.

 

 

BW never claimed it had any such powers and post 1962 sought the consent of parliment for four new sets of bylaws, and 11 further waterways acts.

 

 

The trusts is doing this because the law gives boat owners certain statutory rights which the trust wants to con them out of,

 

 

many boaters already believe that the licence is a contract with contract terms and conditions, it sounds so right, but it is not true.

 

I have taken the trust to task over this in a reasoned and polite way,

they have banned any of their staff from speaking to me, and blacklisted my email and phone,

 

 

they have also stated to me in writing that they will refuse to issue or renew a statutory licence unless their contract is agreed to,

 

 

agreement to a contract or anything else is not a statutory pre condition of this licence

 

 

surely must be illegal, the contract illegal and therefore unenforceable ?

 

I and all other licence holders are being forced to agree to a contract we do not want,

which the law states we do not need to obtain a licence,

 

 

the Trust is blatantly breaking the law,

which for them has no consequences,

without funding a very expensive judicial review of the legislation we are at a loss to find a way to challenge this.

[stu007]

Hi Waterwork

 

Welcome to CAG

 

Could you just clarify that the Contract they want you to Sign is in addition to the Licence?

 

Also does that Contract they want you to sign have a specific Heading?

 

As for the staff not to speak to you,email & phone stopped I think they may be using there "Unreasonably Persistent Complainants Policy - Last Updated: 21 March 2017", you can download the PDF of the policy here: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/search?page=2&q=policy

 

Have a good read of that specific policy document and as you read it just think to yourself "Did the do that" and if not highlight what they didn't do.

[steampowered]

It is very common for licences issued by statutory bodies to have a set of conditions attached. This applies to everything from telecom operator licences to the licences issued to law firms. Although I have no idea whether the power to do this exists under the Waterways or Transport Acts.

 

I would have thought British Waterways only need a power giving them discretion as to whether or not to issue a licence to impose conditions - they don't necessarily need a specific statutory power to impose conditions.

[Waterworks]

Hi Waterwork

 

Welcome to CAG

 

Could you just clarify that the Contract they want you to Sign is in addition to the Licence?

 

Also does that Contract they want you to sign have a specific Heading?

 

As for the staff not to speak to you,email & phone stopped I think they may be using there "Unreasonably Persistent Complainants Policy - Last Updated: 21 March 2017", you can download the PDF of the policy here: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/search?page=2&q=policy

 

Have a good read of that specific policy document and as you read it just think to yourself "Did the do that" and if not highlight what they didn't do.

 

My correspondence with them has been minimal and polite, and my questions simple to answer, though I'm sure they would use this policy to stop me, they are a thoroughly dishonest organisation.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Waterworks

[Waterworks]

It is very common for licences issued by statutory bodies to have a set of conditions attached. This applies to everything from telecom operator licences to the licences issued to law firms. Although I have no idea whether the power to do this exists under the Waterways or Transport Acts.

 

I would have thought British Waterways only need a power giving them discretion as to whether or not to issue a licence to impose conditions - they don't necessarily need a specific statutory power to impose conditions.

 

The 3 pre conditions for the issue of a licence are stated in the 1995 BW act, section 17, that act says a licence must be issued if those three conditions are met, it says nothing about contract terms.

[steampowered]

Could the imposition of conditions be part of limb (a) of section 17(3) - i.e. part of the Board satisfying itself that the vessel complies with the applicable standards?

[Guest]

. Although I have no idea whether the power to do this exists under the Waterways or Transport Acts.

 

.

maybe the transport act (as amended) you mention, re s43(3) '.....subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit.' (which have been amended re case law)?

eg

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/5962.pdf

[Guest]

broken link

its on googly, right click on it, search googly

it references s43(3) as its authority

[Waterworks]

Could the imposition of conditions be part of limb (a) of section 17(3) - i.e. part of the Board satisfying itself that the vessel complies with the applicable standards?

 

No, that section is the statutory conditions for a licence, 1, a boat safety certificate, 2, insurance, 3, a mooring or the intent to not stop in one place for more than 14 days.

[Waterworks]

maybe the transport act (as amended) you mention, re s43(3) '.....subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit.' (which have been amended re case law)?

eg

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/5962.pdf

 

There is the problem, the meaning of this section is disputed, the Trust only quote part of the section but it also says " Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is PART III mentioned in the last foregoing subsection" when this is taken into context what is the outcome ?

 

The section in full.

 

 

43.-(1) Subject to this Act,-

 

(a) all charges schemes under Part V of the Transport Act,

1947, shall cease to have effect, and

 

(b) no local enactment passed or made with respect to any

particular undertaking so far as it limits the discretion

,of the persons carrying on that undertaking as to the

charges to be made by them-

 

(i) for the carriage of passengers or goods,

(ii) for the use of any railway, or of any inland

waterway by any ship or boat,

(iii) for services and facilities connected with the

carriage of passengers or goods, or with the use of

any railway, or of any inland waterway by any ship

or boat, or

(iv) for services and facilities in or connected with

a harbour,

(whether by specifying, or providing for specifying, the

charges to be made, or fixing, or providing for fixing,

maximum charges, or otherwise) shall apply to the

charges of the Boards.

 

(2) Paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection shall not be

read as exempting the Boards from any local enactment so

far as it expressly provides for freedom from charges or other-

wise prohibits the making of any charge

 

(3) Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is PART III

mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the Boards shall

have power to demand, take and recover such charges for their

services and facilities, and to make the use of those services

and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit.

[Waterworks]

Can I also direct you to this explanation, I have no connection to the organisation on the website. Nigel Moore is the man who took BW to court and won, he is probably the foremost expert on waterways legislation there is.

 

http://http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/tag/nigel-moore/

[Waterworks]

Can anyone advise on if these contract terms are in line with the data protection act or any other legislation ?

 

 

 

7.8 You agree that we may provide your relevant personal details including your contact details such

as your name and address to any person (or the insurer of any person) who we believe has a

reasonable interest in an incident or alleged incident involving the Boat which will generally be

the case where for example personal injury or damage to property may have occurred.

 

7.9 You agree that where we believe you have failed to comply with the Conditions, we may

exchange information relating to you and/ or the Boat with third parties who are assisting us in

managing the situation such as contractors, mooring providers, individuals or organisations with

a legitimate interest or duty in exchanging information about you.

[BankFodder]

Yes.

Who is it?

[Guest]

Who is it?

maybe its further re this OP thread? bankfodder

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?476870-The-Canal-and-river-Trust

[Waterworks]

Yes, same organisation.

 

Just checking.

[dx100uk]

threads merged

please keep to ONE THREAD

 

 

dx

[Waterworks]

Let me make the question simpler, the licence is statutory, but the trust are claiming their licence contract can override statute and any breach of this contract permits them to cancel this statutory licence.

 

I don't see how this can possibly be lawful.