onionbargee
-
Posts
3,186 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by onionbargee
-
-
I can't see why CRT have directed resources to get volunteers to do what boaters have been doing without any need of help, seeing as they claim poverty and have to prioritise resources. Wouldn't these volunteers at three locks be more useful going and painting the rotting lock gates south of Leighton Buzzard, that have never seen a coat of paint because they are out of sight of visitors ?
-
I dont see why i should have to pay to leave my boat somewhere. To start with 8/10 i cant get into the bank and often trying to find a 70 foot space late at night is bad enough. If i wanted to say in one place for a tume i buy a temp morning have you tried to moor at stoke bruerne? The longest is 7 days or pay as it is. Why should i pay just coz i want to stop in a nice town village and explore. I pay top wack for using the system coz i have a boat that some of the system was built for it to start with.
I dont mind paying if i want to go over the 14 days not a prob but why should we pay just to stop a few days for a week.
If i read your post right, i don't think there is an option of paying for a visitor mooring, the £25 " charge " is technically within the law, but still very dubious, and I suspect CRT don't want to push it in case it ends up in court. In which case £25 a night couldn't be justified as a fair charge, and it would be obvious it was intended as a penalty, which is unlawful. My FOI showed only a total of 7 out of 19 have been paid up to March this year, and 6 cancelled.
-
Tell me exactly what I am to blame for ?
CRT lying about the wording of court orders ? Why did you need that court order? there you go excusing CRT lying about the law.
CRT breaking the law by cancelling a valid licence ? We still don't know all the facts on that as you seem unwilling to give them. We only have your very one sided view of the situation. Given your track record they may well have a very valid reason for the revoke. tell me what you think is missing ?
CRT invoking a bylaw without any evidence, and not even following its due process ?
You want me to follow the law but CRT doesn't have to. What a stupid suggestion. Where was that suggested?
Close the door on your way out.
-
-
The only person crying for help seems to be you. Really you only have yourself to blame for your circumstances.
Tell me exactly what I am to blame for ?
CRT lying about the wording of court orders ?
CRT breaking the law by cancelling a valid licence ?
CRT invoking a bylaw without any evidence, and not even following its due process ?
You want me to follow the law but CRT doesn't have to. What a stupid suggestion.
Actually, note to OP: Once Tony, onionbargee and spadefoot all get involved in a thread, there's no point in trying to discuss anything rationally because they just trade in insults (it's a bit unfair to include Tony in that because he has a lot of knowledge and expertise which fits around the unnecessary aggression). And as they aim (succesfully sometimes) to just wind people up into a row, I'm out of this thread.
Enjoy your boating. Do it thoughtfully and you'll have no problems.
Close the door on your way out.
-
If that minority choose to behave in a way that brings them to the attention of CRT then they can not really claim to be persecuted.
The majority are willing to accept unlawful and underhand terms and conditions. Until it affects them of course, then they will be crying for help from the same people they didn't want to know before.
-
CRT are playing stupid games with the law, Parliament should be told, and Richard Parry should face a select committee and be told to get a grip of his legal department.
-
So boaters have to follow the law but CRT doesn't.When that boater has gone out of their way to avoid paying their licence fees I have no sympathy for them.
-
Funny that the vast majority of licence holders can manage it.
How many boaters will you accept being treated unlawfully, and being maliciously harassed by CRT as the price for the majority being left alone ?
-
I'm not so sure you'd get away with it. Worth remembering - if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Its nothing to do with me, I am just speculating on a question I didn't start.
-
If they did revoke it, would the ficticious persona launch the judicial review or the real owner? I suspect the game of cat and mouse would end badly for you but it makes for interesting forum posts.
I'm sure by that time the boat would have been sold back to the real owner for £2, and the previous owner Mr Mo Lester has emigrated to Kazakhstan.
-
It used to be longer. As I have observed elsewhere, from pre-BW days enforcement as in removing a boat on the towpath to a convenient place at the owners expense - could take place under s.19(6) of the 1958 Act once a month had elapsed and a weeks notice ignored.
BW having reduced the tolerance period to a customary 14 days, they really missed a trick by abolishing s.19 in its entirety in 1983. Arguably, however [and I agree with the argument], any stay longer than that 14 days - or shorter when on public facilities - can be treated as obstruction and the boat moved away. The only power now missing from that course of action, following 1983, is charging the boater for the action.
I'm sure you know the T&C's schedule 2 (6) states that they think they can charge , citing 1983 sec 8 (5) ?
Surely not another lie ?
-
No, but then I don't envisage ever needing to.
From the tenor of your remarks I infer that you have had a problem arising from your mooring choices.
Oh, I don't have to demonstrate my innocence; CART have to demonstrate my guilt, as I hinted in post no.12.
You have to "satisfy the board" that you are genuinly CC'ing, rather than the board prove you weren't . so in this respect you are in theory guilty until proven innocent.
-
The wording of the Fraud Act 2006 is quite broad-reaching. You're either dishonetly making up/using these invented names etc for a gain of some kind; or there's no gain.
If there's a gain - its fraud.
If there's no gain - what's the point?
Your right, I thought fraud was defined as financial gain, but it can be personal gain as well.
Then there is the question of can the licence be revoked if CRT find out the name is ficticious ?
-
There is nothing in the licence process that can't be done in an invented name. I have a feeling that CRT can't actually check the insurance policies, I may be wrong on that. The BSC is for the boat, and not the owner, payment can be from anyones account, or in cash. There is no requirement to prove your identity in any of the licence process.
A licence is not proof of ownership, so no one would licence someone else's boat without their knowledge.
-
Sounds risky unless you have absolute total faith that the friend wont be tempted by getting a boat worth a few thousand for £1.
I didn't mean that the friend actually owns the boat, you are just using their details on the licence form.
-
I don't think there is anything to stop anyone selling their boat to a friend for a pound, and licencing it with them as the new owner to avoid enforcement issues. It has certainly been done before.
-
i may be misreading this, but if I am not, why do you assume OB has only one boat.
I don't
You don't
I think he probably doesn't.
All that said, I'm not sure we have fully been given the reasons why he apparently paid CRT at the "usaual" (marked up) 6 month rate, rather than just half the annual rate. Did he not check the arithmetic before making the payment. (Apologies if this has already been explained - I'm on an intermittent connection).
There is no mystery, I just paid what they said, in the end they just quoted the wrong figure but debited the correct one in the end. As far as I'm concerned it is finished. I will leave you all to weave more theories about this.
-
The OP hasn't asked about other issues, he wants to know about red Diesel.
-
I haven't asked anyone to make decesions on CRT, my post asked if CRT had said the restricted licence was pro rata or not, so I can then have the correct information to ask for the amount to be corrected. I put it down to a simple mistake that's all.Be nice to get a truthful answer. How can anyone make a decision on crt actions if only part of the story is told.
You can all stop weaving theories now, CRT just told me the wrong amount when I renewed it, and the correct pro rata amount has been taken from my account.
-
combining what has been said in the other thread (tadworth vs crt) and this one perhaps we can now see the reason that crt were unwilling to license tadworth.
tadworth was previously removed from crt waters by court order after a period with no license.
another boat (presumably owned by the same person) is appearing on enforcements radar for overstaying to an extent that will lead to it only being offered a short license
tadworth reappears and applies for a 12 month license
it could appear to crt that licensing tadworth was an attempt to circumvent the enforcement process (by removing a boat that is under enforcement and replacing it with one that wasn't)
if this was the case it may be reasonable for the board to "not be satisfied" that the boat was going to be used for bona fide navigation throughout the period of the license (I know this wasn't the reason given for tadworth's licensing fun but perhaps it played a part)
Pure fantasy.
-
If they charged extra they would be challenged on its legality, possibly in court, and they do not want their invented rules being scrutinised. Or the fact that they are conning licence holders about the legality of the T&C's document.
-
I only went to strand on the green and the Isleworth draw dock before they started charging, but the rules now mean you have to register as a user and book. I think you pay up front when you book.
Its not a big fee, but you can only paint in very good summer weather, the hull has to be bone dry or else you are wasting your time, you could book for a week and it be bad weather, and you have wasted your money.
-
Quite glad I'm off on the boat with no internet in a week or two so I don't have to read any more whinging about CRT breaking the law by people who happily admit to deliberately breaking the accepted rules themselves. And then complaining they get charged for it.
Thank gods most of us get boats because we like them, use them with consideration for others and so generally enjoy our lives with very little grief.
No one has to read the internet Arthur, it is voluntary.
CRT v Andy Wingfield Update
in General Boating
Posted
Parliament ( or somebody ) should be keeping CRT's legal costs in check, and ensuring they are not wasting public money, or colluding with Shoosmiths to bring about malicious or pointless prosecutions.
Lawyers will milk any money tit they can latch onto.