onionbargee

Not over yet. By a long way.

If you remember in my original post I said the order was perfectly legitimate, and at no time have I said or implied I am innocent, or perfect, In fact a couple of times I have said the opposite. I acted unlawfully, and took my punishment. Now its CRT's turn. I am one man, irrelevant in the bigger picture, CRT is in control of over 30,000 licences, and has just shown once again that it cannot be trusted, I would concentrate on that.

CRT are paid their costs as part of the court order, you have not had to pay anything. Once the order is served and I do what it says I have complied with the law, and that is the end of the matter.

That is not right on any level.

The common sense definition of a houseboat in this country to me as a long time boat dweller is one that is not intended to move, but is just a form of querky housing. Usually old unseaworthy vessels, with no engines, or sheds on pontoons, or converted hoppers, or dumb barges. Having no means of propulsion would be normal for a houseboat.

Update. 1. CRT have admitted that contrary to what they told me, a court order does not prevent another licence being applied for. 2. They claimed Tadworth did not meet "safety standards" over and above its BSC , but could not provide any such standards when asked to do so. 3. When challenged CRT could not produce any evidence or reason why Tadworth might be "unfit to navigate" making the citing of this bylaw as a reason to cancel the licence without any basis. 4. It is noteworthy that they have used the terms "administrative error", "cancelled" , " witheld" and "revoked" to cover all bases to try and justify this. 5. Claimed my mooring was not genuine, which I then supplied the contact details of the mooring owner, he has never been contacted about this, yet CRT now say they are satisfied it is genuine. 6. Have asked me to re apply for the licence, but offered no apology or admission of any wrong doing.

Are you using your own money to fight these cases Nigel ? If so I think we should have a crowd fund to at least pay off some of your costs ?

As the wording is "predominant use" rather than what the craft was designed for, it doesn't specify what the superstructure is, whether boat shaped, or just a pontoon. I looks like a huge loophole in the legislation, that CRT are rubbing their hands with glee about. Even better for them than the " satisfy the board" rubbish. If you moved your boat every 14 days taking one day to cruise and staying 14 days, you are using your boat for predominatly mooring.

Note to self. Always fit a chimney chain.

Just an idle thought. Ask CRT if you can have a houseboat certificate instead of a pleasure boat licence, they will say no, then you have written evidence that your boat is not a houseboat.

Has there already been a thread on the fact that CRT are citing legislation for houseboats in their letters to boaters without a mooring who are not meeting the "cruising pattern" ? If so anyone got a link ? Quote " if you fail to comply with one of the above options by the end of the 28 day period, the Trust will immediately serve you with formal statutory Notices pursuant to Sections 8 and 13 of the British Waterways Acts 1983 and 1971 respectively (the Notices). Under these Notices, the Trust may remove your boat after first giving you not less than 28 days notice. " What is the current thinking on CRT claiming a pleasure boat not moving enough is a houseboat when it suits CRT ?

We will see what happens when the Tadworth case lands on their desk. Jackie Lewis is the head of the CRT legal department, and backed the attempt to illegally cancel my licence for Tadworth.

Their own policies may be the problem.

From the onbudsmans website "It is not my role to interpret the law or to decide whether the Trust has interpreted the law correctly. I can consider whether it has implemented its own policies correctly "

Er...JCB are the amoung the cheapest and worst Chinese rubbish diy toy brand,( they have nothing to do with the high spec vehicle brand )

If you can present the evidence that he's not independent I will support a petition to replace him, and I'm sure a few others would. Just in time for the Tadworth case to land on the new ones desk ?

Is it appropriate that CRT as a partly public body has its own deeply biased legal department reinterpreting the law in CRT's favour ? Shouldn't this function be independent when it comes to the statutory matters of licencing, cruising, and mooring ect ?

That's a good point, CRT say you must agree to the terms and conditions, but you don't need to agree to statutes or bylaws, they are the law, you don't sign a contract to comply with the law. That brings up one of my original points, how far can CRT go in making up its own rules ? I don't think we can claim 30,000 boat owners can just move off CRT waters if they don't like the contract conditions. So they must be fair.

How can you retain a licence if you have broken the terms and conditions of the licence contract, and CRT have cancelled the contract but not invoked any statute ? Then you have a legally valid licence in theory, with no contract that CRT refuse to recognise ? The statute and the T&C's seem to be in conflict with each other, and CRT are putting their own invented rules into the T&C's because they know they have no basis in law.

Overstay charges are in effect on selected sites, they are charges or fees for breaking the signed time limits, which is licence condition 7.2.

Well my assertion is what I think CRT may well read into that, "where difficulties persist and the boater is unable to continue the cruise" gives no hint as to what is a reasonable time to be broken down or ill. If you are not "authorised" to overstay then you are liable to an overstay charge, at present only at a few selected sites, but if it works that's going to be rolled out Nationwide I would think.

I will need to get a scan edited to remove names and addresses, which I can do in Xodo app, and onto photobucket ? No idea how to do that on android yet.

Page 12 terms and conditions "if dificulties persist the trust reserves the right to charge mooring fees ".

I have said multiple times that it is a procedure wide open to abuse, not that it is being abused, you must admit that before it is abused is a better time to look at it then after it is. Tell me who you are going to appeal to or complain to if your perfectly legitimate overstay is refused ? There is also another point here, that if your overstay is not "authorised" you are according to CRT liable to pay mooring fees, this is in the terms and conditions. Something that has never happened yet, but charging for overstaying on visitor moorings has crept in, after CRT said they had no plans to do it, and trying to claim a VM is a "facility" to get around the law. I have said multiple times that it is a procedure wide open to abuse, not that it is being abused, you must admit that before it is abused is a better time to look at it then after it is. Tell me who you are going to appeal to or complain to if your perfectly legitimate overstay is refused ? There is also another point here, that if your overstay is not "authorised" you are according to CRT liable to pay mooring fees, this is in the terms and conditions. Something that has never happened yet, but charging for overstaying on visitor moorings has crept in, after CRT said they had no plans to do it, and trying to claim a VM is a "facility" to get around the law.

No its not me. The EO deals with overstays in my region, no one else in CRT can give you permission to overstay, as I said different regions may be have different proceedures, if your overstay is "authorised" beyond 14 days you will get a visit from an EO who gives you a notice to display in your window, CRT procedure in this region is 14 days authorised by an EO, then another 14 has to be authorised by an EO supervisor. Its very likely that different regions work differently as a lot of the rules are made up as the go, and have no basis in law. Your in effect saying that every overstay for any reason is just ticked off. If you ask for an overstay for a dubious reason like lack of beer onboard someone is going to decide somewhere, and EO's make the notes on your sightings record.