Tag Archives: Canal & River Trust

Article, News, Newsletter

It’s Not The Serengeti

Leave a comment

A spell of dry weather with very little rain has exposed cracks in CRTs maintenance planning.  

This summer, many boaters experienced low water levels and changing plans due to drought. Even at the time of writing, Oxford still has restrictions in place. People heading north had to hold their nerve or turn back. Holiday boaters were restricted to boatyards and marinas. The Leeds canal completely drained, and could easily have been confused with a rubbish tip.  Emails advising people to move into pounds with water points were not entirely unexpected as partial closures and timed restrictions in early August quickly became complete lockdowns to retain water on higher ground from August 15th. 20% of the network was closed on Tuesday 26th, the day storm Erin hit.

Despite allowances for the drought, the condition of the canals and locks does seem to be deteriorating over time. A ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ attitude combined with lack of routine maintenance and the outsourcing of works to contractors raises the question; Were CRT tasked with maintaining the infrastructure or overseeing its managed decline? We can’t forget that the selling off of plant infrastructure and deskilling their own work force were policy decisions. Selling vast quantities of water to HS2 from Fenny Compton Reservoir that feeds this section must surely play a part in this too?

An FOI request by NBTA has revealed that dredging, a statutory duty to maintain navigation on the inland waterways, started to be phased out in the 1990s. It has now been completely been outsourced to third parties with ‘old equipment phased out and resources re-allocated to other work’. What other work? If they’re not dredging the canals and maintaining the network, what other work is there? These are the basics.

And while CRT claim ‘a surcharge on boaters without home moorings is necessary for those who make most use of the ‘utility’, it turns out that ‘utility’ is rain! An element that belongs to no-one and affects us all equally. Perhaps they rely a little too much on bad weather?

Article, News, Newsletter

NBTA Casework? What On Earth (or Water) Is That?

Leave a comment

NBTA helps any boater without a home mooring facing CRT enforcement or other issues that can arise from living on a boat without a home mooring, such as accessing benefits or registering with a GP. We are not a charity; we are boaters not too different from you, and we do this out of solidarity with our fellow boaters.

The reason NBTA puts effort into casework to support individual boaters is our foundational belief that we are stronger together. We shouldn’t allow authorities to target us one by one.

Most boaters on CRT waterways who seek help from us with enforcement issues find themselves in this situation because they have travelled less than 20 miles in a year, turned around a bit too much, or are facing health issues or engine problems that prevent them from moving as frequently or as far. A small number of those who come to us have not moved for quite some time, sometimes even years. Often there are valid reasons for not moving, such as health problems.

Without prejudice, we will do everything we can to stop a boater from being evicted; however, what we can do is limited by what is in existing Acts (of Parliament). On CRT waterways, the main Act for us is the British Waterways Act 1995. This Act states that CRT cannot refuse a licence to someone who has insurance, a boat safety certificate, and either a permanent mooring or who uses their boat for navigation, provided they do not stay longer than 14 days in one place unless reasonable.

So, stopping evictions on CRT waterways hinges on the boater’s ability to demonstrate an intention to use their boat for navigation or to obtain a home mooring.

To demonstrate that intention, the boater may require help in challenging CRT’s decision or more time to get a boat safety certificate, or to get their engine fixed. We use our collective resources as caseworkers to help the boater get licensed.

Another Act that significantly impacts our casework is the Equalities Act 2010, which both BW and CRT ignored until 2014, when a successful campaign by the NBTA brought the issue into the press and thus caused wider pushback. Under this Act, people who are unable to move as often as others or who need to overstay due to a disability or chronic illness can be allowed to stay longer than 14 days or to not have to travel as far in a year. Completing forms or dealing with CRT can be challenging, so we can also assist people with that aspect. Nevertheless, boaters needing reasonable adjustments still must use their boat for navigation if they don’t have a home mooring.

The NBTA believes that as a community, we need to stick together and support one another in sharing the waterways and protecting the travelling way of life.

If you want help from a caseworker, email: nbta.london.caseworker@gmail.com or ring 01615431945. If you are interested in becoming an NBTA caseworker, let us know by emailing us on NBTALondon@gmail.com

Article, News, Newsletter

All’s Fair In Love And War?

Leave a comment

When Canal & River Trust (CRT) come up with a new policy or strategy, they have a favourite word to cover up the subtext: fairness. Safety Zones – fairness; extortionate pre-bookable moorings – fairness; converting casual moorings into restricted time visitor moorings – fairness; the licence surcharge for itinerant boaters – fairness. But who loses out each time? Who is targeted? Which part of the boating community is further marginalised whenever CRT talks about fairness? It is, of course, boaters without a home mooring.

But the subtext doesn’t stop with CRT. NBTA members & volunteers speak to a lot of people; members of other boating organisations, boaters and the public on the towpath when we are leafleting and delivering newsletters, people at our public events and of course at events like Cavalcade where we engage with the public and aim to undermine CRT’s spin that they are some kind of beneficent society. And sometimes we are asked “what is your solution?”.

Boaters recently got together to clear up litter in Tottenham

What are we supposed to do to come up with this “solution”? Stop campaigning against the “Safety” Zones? Stop campaigning against the removal and monetisation of casual moorings? Stop campaigning against the licence surcharge?

Stop campaigning for the interests of parents who need to send their children to school, or people with physical and mental health issues who need adjustments to their expected cruising plans?

The fact is that these “what is your solution” questions are very rarely made in good faith. They are an attempt to deflect away from CRT’s attacks on our community and down a cul de sac where they can blame us for not coming up with the answers, framed within an acceptance of CRT’s claims that we are the problem. For these people, when they talk about a solution, they mean a solution to us, itinerant boaters.

So what could our reply be when we are asked about solutions? CRT need to stop blaming us; to stop marginalising us; to stop discriminating against us, and then, and only then, can we talk about the bigger picture.

Article, nbta london, News, Newsletter

Selling us up the Swanee

Leave a comment

While CRT complains about the reduction in government funding and uses it as an excuse to increase our licence fees, we must remind ourselves that the reason given by the Tory government for the creation of CRT was so that the waterways could eventually be self-sustaining and not need any government funding. Putting aside the fact that the only way the waterways can continue is at least in part via government funding, the question is: how could the waterways be self-funded?

The only way that the waterways could be self-sustaining is by the waterways authority managing its profitable assets properly. However, CRT, which got the government contract in the first place on the proviso that it would eventually be self-sustaining, has been selling off its profitable assets. Back in 2018, for example, CRT put up for sale its marina subsidiary, BWML. Why did they do this? Was it because the marinas were unprofitable? No. In the words of Stuart Mills, Chief Investment Officer at CRT at the time, “BWML is performing well and we believe its prospects for future growth are good.” In 2018, the turnover at BWML was £8,502,000. This level of turnover continued to grow even after BWML became Aquavista. In 2021, turnover was £10,064,021. But unlike when it was BWML, CRT doesn’t receive that profit from Aquavista.

Limehouse Waterside and Marina is also part of Aquavista owned by BWML

Now that CRT has sold off BWML, who gets that profit? While there are many strands to this, simply put, the profits go primarily to the private equity company Lloyds Development Capital (LDC), which is part of Lloyds Bank. In 2018, CRT sold all its shares in BWML for £2,116 (yes! We found it difficult to believe too, but this is what the financial reports suggest) to a limited company called Project Belize Limited. You would think that the 18 marinas, including the Crick Marina, caravan sites, etc., would sell for millions, but the amount isn’t reported in the press, nor is it in the financial reports of CRT, Project Belize, or Aquavista. So, BWML became Aquavista, and Project Belize borrowed roughly £35 million from Lloyds Development Capital for infrastructure (no more detail is given than that). Aquavista now has 29 marinas in its growing portfolio. A lot of the profits from the marinas go to paying off the debt and, of course, paying shareholders.

CRT sold off this whole road (Dock Road) in 2024

So why did CRT sell off these very profitable assets like marinas, particularly when they weren’t facing a large funding shortfall from the government? There appears to be no good business reason. Even if they sold them off for £35 million, with the level of profit the assets were making, they would get that back in a few years. What better way to bring in money for a water authority than moorings? As well as profits from moorings, BWML generated income from caravan sites, boat brokerage, property rents, and other sources. Now that profit is being gobbled up by shareholders and bankers rather than going back into reinvestment in the waterways, which serve the wider public good.

Sadly, this is not an isolated case. CRT and British Waterways before them have been selling off anything bolted down or otherwise. From lock houses and dredging equipment to even towpaths, assets have been sold off and are being sold off, and this isn’t to the benefit of the waterways. It’s only to the benefit of the people and businesses that own them now. So it is CRT’s remarkable mismanagement (read: selling off) of its assets that has led to huge holes in its funding. We shouldn’t allow CRT to lump us with the bill for this with ever increasing licence fees. We say to CRT: fund our waterways and stop selling our assets!

NBTA London needs your support to carry on our work. Please get in touch here if you would like to volunteer with us. Alternatively your donations are vital to us supporting boaters with their legal case work, campaign banners and other printed material as well as events. You can help us with your donations online here

Article, History, Local issues, News

2010-Present: BW and CRT’s local mooring strategies for London and the K&A

1 Comment

As itinerant boaters face the double threat of license surcharges and extortionate ‘pre-bookable paid towpath moorings’, it is worth reminding ourselves that when we faced similar challenges in the past, our protests were successful. 

In 2010, British Waterways (who were later succeeded by CRT), introduced ‘local mooring strategies’ in London and the West end of the Kennet and Avon. They claimed that ‘more boats are moored along the river Lea than desirable’ and tried to implement a set of rules that would make it near impossible for most itinerant boaters to live in these areas. 

British Waterways, in an attempt to make the river Lea less popular for boaters, tried to define the word ‘place’ in the following statute: the vessel ‘will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the [license period] without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.’ (BW Act 1995, Section 17)

They claimed that a ‘place’ is the same as a neighbourhood and then defined enormous stretches of the waterways as one neighbourhood. In London, the entire length of the river Stort became two ‘neighbourhoods’ (and almost entirely seven day mooring only); all waterways in London south of the North Circular became one neighbourhood, including Limehouse cut and the Hertford Union; the Lea north of the north circular was split into three neighbourhoods. 

Having redefined the meaning of the word ‘place’, British Waterways declared that itinerant boaters had to move to a new neighbourhood each 14 days and would have to spend an equal amount of time in each neighbourhood across the licence period. 

Against this unfair attempt to cleanse the river Lea of itinerant boaters, hundreds of boaters protested. It was at this time that London Boaters, originally a protest group, formed. They got information about the changes out to residents, rowers, canoers, cyclists and surveyed boaters and towpath users. They encouraged responses to the consultation and demonstrated that, far from being unwanted on the Lea, itinerant boats were welcome. 

London Boaters also challenged the legality of BW’s proposals  and worked with other boating organisations such as NABO (National Association of Boat Owners) and RBOA (Residential Boat Owners’ Association). They conducted their own research which challenged BW’s unsupported claims about congestion and examined the likely impact of the proposals, which would increase homelessness and put pressure on local housing waiting lists. They showed that the changes would prevent boaters accessing education, employment and health care.

Eventually, in September 2011, British Waterways realised the game was up and announced that it was dropping its plans for London. But, they were implemented by the newly formed Canal and River Trust in a 12 month trial in 2014 on the K&A.

On the K&A, similar to the ‘neighbourhoods’ idea, they set a maximum length of time that could be stayed on each stretch of the canal. They also planned to implement a charge of £25 a day for staying longer than stated on a less-than-14 day visitor mooring and introduced a 20 mile minimum distance. If boaters couldn’t abide by these draconian rules,  CRT offered ‘roving mooring permits’ (£800 a year for a 60ft boat) which enabled the boater to move every 14 or 28 days. While CRT eventually conceded that the ‘roving mooring permits’ were illegal , many of these requirements will be familiar to itinerant boaters across the country as they have since been rolled out in guidance to all boaters. The parallels between the new ‘constant-cruiser’ surcharge and the ‘roving mooring permits’ might also be noted. BW backed down in London because boaters dedicated a huge amount of time and energy to fighting their cause, but CRT re-used the same ideas on the K&A some years later and are re-using them again now in the introduction of the itinerant boater surcharge and the pre-payable visitor moorings in London. We must stick together and stay united in our opposition to their incessant attacks on our way of life – attacks which have been defended against before and can be defended against again.

    NBTA London needs your support to carry on our work. Please get in touch here if you would like to volunteer with us. Alternatively your donations are vital to us supporting boaters with their legal case work, campaign banners and other printed material as well as events. You can help us with your donations online here

    News

    The chargeable moorings, the backstory

    Leave a comment

    It’s been over a year since Canal and River Trust (CRT) started introducing chargeable moorings as part of their plan to bring down boat numbers in London. So far, only part of the plan to bring in 1.1km of chargeable moorings has been implemented and already these have had a great impact on the boaters that use these areas. Added to the chargeable moorings that were bought in with CRT’s London Mooring Strategy, the length of chargeable moorings in London will do up to 1.5km.

    The pretence was that these moorings would allow those from other parts of the country to visit the capital more freely, with assured availability in the most popular destinations. CRT supposedly carried out a consultation on whether boaters wanted such moorings in 2022, however they have so far been unable to provide us with the results of this consultation upon request. Meantime in the “Issues & Challenges Report” published as a result of their 2022 survey, the issue of a lack of moorings in central London is nowhere to be seen: unsurprisingly, a lack of facilities and the waterways falling into disrepair are much higher on boaters’ list of concerns.

    Anyhow, availability there now certainly is. According to a Freedom Of Information (FOI) request submitted to the Canal and River Trust (CRT) in June this year and NBTA’s calculations, 1,203 one-night paid bookings were made between 31st October 2023 and 31st May 2024, where the total availability would have been 7,224. This demonstrates that pre-bookable moorings are being used at approximately 17% of their full potential. Chargeable moorings have existed since 2019, with a few available for £10-£12 a night. Why the need to double or triple the price and create more, when these already sat empty?

    • Paddington visitor moorings after they were made chargeable, 2023

    In the aforementioned FOI response, CRT declared a total gross income from these booked moorings of £36,532, averaging an income of just over £30 for each night of each booking. To be clear, this is £30 per night to live in your own home, potentially double-moored, with the wonderful view of central London replaced by that of your neighbour’s curtains. Unfortunately, instead of opening up the capital to those living outside it, it has merely priced those of us already living there out. Instead of opening up new moorings and maintaining those available to us now, we find ourselves crammed into smaller spaces, while the most desirable parts of the city sit empty. This leaves the towpaths increasingly susceptible to crime and violence, particularly as the nights draw in earlier, and commuters walk home after dark. These once thriving community mooring spaces have been left empty and abandoned because CRT has made them financially exclusive – a strange no-person’s land throughout central London.

    For those of us crossing the capital and unwilling  or unable to pay, we now have an obligatory full day’s cruise ahead of us. And what’s to stop CRT extending these expensive moorings further, leaving us no choice but to stop in them and pay a fee or risk a fine? Alternatively, more London boaters will remain on a River Only licence and cruise solely on the Lee and Stort, therefore reducing CRT’s income further. Boaters from outside London will likely do what most Londoners do all year-round: moor up on the outskirts and travel in.

    In an FOI request submitted in October 2023, CRT explained that three Mooring Rangers manage the pre-bookable moorings alongside other tasks, at a cost to them of £104k a year. This doesn’t cover software, IT, admin support, management of that team, or any other associated costs. Considering the gross income from these moorings of £36,532 over six months, so approximately £73k a year, it’s hard to see how CRT could be making much profit, if any. It is in fact more likely they would be making a loss.

    So here we are again. Another scheme started by CRT under false pretences, which is not only detrimental to London boaters, but those all along the network, who aren’t seeing any of the supposed income reinvested into CRT waterways and facilities to meet boaters’ day to day needs.

    Boats moored in protest against chargeable moorings at Little Venice, late 2023
    Article, Campaigns, nbta london, Newsletter

    ‘Safety Zones’ Update

    Leave a comment

    It has been 3 years since CRT installed a new set of ‘No Mooring Zones’ on the River Lee. These ‘No Mooring Zones’ were exclusionary and unpopular at their outset – leaving the boating and wider community confused why it was so necessary to push boaters out of such a vital community area – without any evidence of a safety issue in the first place.

    For 3 years boaters have continued to moor in protest at these ‘No Mooring Zones’ – yet the river has remained safe, with no significant, or even noticeable spike in safety incidents. The Itinerant Boating Community is full of diversity. Boat dwellers are also canoeists, paddle boarders and rowers, and NBTA are keen to encourage and celebrate this diversity, so we have approached CRT to suggest a different approach. An approach based on mutual initiatives – rather than exclusionary ‘No Mooring Zones’ – where different aspects of the boating community work together to ensure the river is accessible to all. 

    It is early days yet, and we hope that discussion will have began in earnest by the end of July – but early signs are good, with CRT and key boating orgs along the River Lee showing interest in a different and more collaborative approach.

    A further benefit to this collaborative approach is it can be ‘grassroots’, growing within the community – saving CRT the cost of needless and ineffective micro-management and policing during this time of financial need.

    Article, News, Newsletter

    Licence Strike Imminent

    1 Comment


    CRT have introduced their discriminatory surcharge against boats without a home moorings.  As every day passes, more boaters realise that their licences are spiralling upwards while services continue to degrade.  As more boaters realise that they are been priced off the water, urgent action is required.   CRT claim it’s about money.  But is it really? 

    There is no money to be made by the surcharge.  Rather it is about making an alternative way of life impossible.


    The surcharge has been justified by CRT following a consultation that they presented to their board of trustees.  CRT claimed that the consultation revealed that boaters were overall in favour of a surcharge.  However multiple FOI’s have shown that CRT doctored the consultation, removing the slides that demonstrate that 97% of boats without a home mooring and 60% of all boaters were against the surcharge.  The doctored consultation was used to mislead the board of trustees and push through this discriminatory surcharge.
    Recent contact with Richard Parry by NBTA members has shown that CRT has no interest in discussing how the surcharge will negatively impact our way of life.  He has stated that there will be no reopening of negotiations regarding the surcharge.  But CRT once claimed similar regarding the ‘saftey zones’ and following community pressure, they have been forced back to the table. 

    So what does pressure look like this time around? A licence strike: Strikers will refuse to pay CRT’s new class of licence fee in protest against the ever increasing additional charges for boaters who
    do not want, cannot afford, or cannot find a home mooring.
    Currently the Stop the Surcharge Campaign are looking to sign up 500 boaters to go on a full licence strike.  They are rapidly approaching that threshold and strike action is imminent.  Why do they need to wait until 500 are ready to go on strike before acting? First, we are stronger as a collective in the face of CRT’s enforcement.  Such a number would overwhelm CRT’s enforcement capabilities thereby minimising the risk to you and your home.  Secondly, it would deny CRT over half a million pounds (the same amount as the combined salaries of Richard Parry, Chief Executive, and Stuart Mills, Chief Investment Officer).  Such amounts would begin to exert the pressure require from CRT to reopen discussions.  

    To sign up to the strike go to  tinyurl.com/licencestrike . We are also looking for volunteers to deliver leaflets and picket CRT stalls, thereby damaging their public image.  If you feel that you would be able to please email:  CRTlicencestrike@gmail.com .

    Advice, Article, Document, Help, Legal

    Should I moor on the payable moorings? Some brief guidance and advice.

    1 Comment

    This guidance is to help you to decide whether to moor on the chargeable moorings or not. If CRT charge you for mooring without booking, contact NBTA Caseworkers for help. 

    For more detailed guidance, including case law and foot notes, see here

    I’ve already decided to moor – what are the basics I need to remember? Brief Information

    CRT’s ability to issue charges is untested. They state that they will charge double the nightly cost for any boat that stays without paying. It isn’t known if they can uphold this (see [link] for more info). 

    Stick to the British Waterways Act 1995: do not overstay the 14 day limit unless reasonable, use your boat for bona fide navigation, have a valid BSS, have insurance. 

    Check that mooring is available on CRT’s website before mooring on the chargeable mooring. If it is fully booked, don’t moor there. Be respectful to other boaters who may have paid.

    If you say that you are mooring there in protest or there are clear signs which state the charges, then then CRT could argue that you have agreed to the terms and conditions of mooring there. This may make it easier to charge you. 

    Hiding index numbers is against the 1975 BW byelaw. However, CRT do not have the power to refuse you a licence for not displaying your index number. If someone doesn’t display an index number, it is harder for CRT to know who is moored on the chargeable mooring and therefore to send emails to them.

    Do not engage in conversation with mooring rangers. 

    If CRT move beyond threats and do issue a charge, contact the NBTA London caseworkers: https://nbtalondon.co.uk/resources/contact-nbta-caseworkers/

    Advice, Article, Facts and Advice, Help

    Should I moor on the payable moorings? More detailed guidance

    1 Comment

    This detailed guidance is to help you to decide whether to moor on the chargeable moorings or not. If CRT charge you for mooring without booking, contact NBTA Caseworkers for help. 

    For less detailed guidance, see here.

    I don’t know whether to moor there – what do I need to consider?  Detailed Guidance 

    Can CRT Charge me?

    CRT claims it could charge a fee for breaking the T&Cs and ignoring their signs. They haven’t issued any extra charges to boaters for ignoring their signs. 

    CRT are claiming that they can charge double for mooring on chargeable moorings without booking. This has not been tested. We believe it to be unlikely and as far as we are aware, no charges have been issued for overstaying before. However, mooring will be at your own risk.

    If no signs are visible clearly saying what the restrictions are, CRT will not be able to charge boaters for staying there. If signs are visible, it can be argued that the boater is entering into a contract with CRT by mooring there. In ‘Parkingeye Ltd v Beavis (2015), a motorist’s appeal against a charge was rejected because there were plenty of signs stipulating the length of stay and the penalty1.

    Similarly, if a mooring ranger tells you to move, it can be argued that by remaining there the boater is entering into a contract with CRT. If you were to tell a CRT employee that you are moored in protest, you would be acknowledging that you know about the chargeable mooring and so also be entering into the contract. However, you should only feel compelled to move if safe and able to do so. 

    If you mooring on a chargeable mooring doesn’t stop another boater who has paid, then CRT can not issue a large fine. In the Parkingeye Ltd v Beavis 2015 court case, the judges ruled that a charge collected needs to be in line with the loss incurred. This suggests that if you cause CRT to lose money by mooring in a spot someone else has paid for, they will be able to charge more than if you had not caused them a loss2. Take a screenshot of the available booking online and of the empty spaces so that you have proof of this. 

    The booking website will show you if there is limited or no availability on the chargeable moorings (amber or red). If it is red, we do not advise that you moor there. If it is amber, make your own judgement about whether to moor there. 

    CRT cannot legally issue fines which automatically take money from your bank account. They might be able to send a penalty charge notice to your address. 

    Can CRT take away my licence if I get a charge and don’t pay it? 

    Mooring on chargeable moorings without paying should not affect your licence. It is a breach of your licence Terms and Conditions.

    Legal advice states that CRT that cannot refuse to relicense your boat so long as you satisfy all the conditions of section 17 of British Waterways Act 19953 (Not staying more than 14 days, the boat is used for bona fide navigation, has insurance, and valid BSS). Whether you breach the Terms and Conditions or refuse to pay the charge, it is not relevant and should not affect your renewing your licence.

    CRT cannot evict a boater only for running up charges that they say are owed to them. In Ravenscroft Vs Canal and River Trust court case (2018), the judge ruled that CRT cannot recover ‘outstanding cost’ from boat owners using Section 8 of British Waterways Act 1983 (one of the eviction notices that CRT issues to boaters)4.

    If I decide to moor there, how do I go about it?

    • untickedCheck that mooring is available on CRT’s website before mooring on the chargeable mooring.
    • untickedStick to British Waterways Act 1995: do not overstay the 14 day limit, use for bona fide navigation, have a valid BSS, have insurance. 
    • untickedHiding index numbers is against the 1975 BW byelaw5. If someone doesn’t display an index number, it is harder for CRT to know who is more on the chargeable mooring.
    • untickedYou do not have to engage in conversation with mooring rangers. 

    If CRT move beyond threats and do issue a charge, contact the NBTA London caseworkers: https://nbtalondon.co.uk/resources/contact-nbta-caseworkers/

    Footnotes

     1 Parkingeye Ltd v Beavis [2015] EWCA Civ 402: “[28] …charges of the kind now under consideration should be recoverable, provided that they had been brought clearly to the attention of the motorist at the time he made use of the car park.”

    2Parkingeye Ltd v Beavis [2015] EWCA Civ 402: “ [12] It will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach.”

    3 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/section/17/enacted

    4  https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b2897fa2c94e06b9e19e90e

    5  “No person shall knowingly cause or permit to be concealed a pleasure boat licencce or commercial vessel license required to be displayed on a pleasure boat or commercial vessel in accordance with this Bye-law”,