onionbargee

OK, your entitled to your opinions PaulC and Mayalid, if you want arbitrary decisions made by EO's on medical or other matters then that's fine. If you don't like the decision then you will have to suck it up, because if your overstay is not "authorised" by that EO you will be on the enforcement list. I have a copy of a letter from a GP that was rejected by an EO, as soon as I find out how to get it from the scan to the forum I will post it.

What authority, or qualifications does an EO have to decide if an overstay is reasonable, whether for medical or breakdown reasons ? My local EO believed that if you breakdown you can hire an outboard to continue your journey, but would not accept that no such thing is practicle or even available. The next EO along believes Braunston tunnel is at Cosgrove. An EO may have no knowledge of boating at all, usually they don't, so how are they supposed to decide ? Where did you get the last paragraph from, I haven't mentioned any overstay I have or haven't had ? I don't think the welfare officer has any authority within CRT, and certainly not to over rule an EO or get involved in enforcement cases. What he does do is a mystery to me.

I don't think we want to live under rules that mean the local EO is like some kind of mafia boss that you have to tip your hat to, the law was put there to prevent this happening and ensure fairness for everyone.

There could be different ways of deal in with overstays in various areas. We would need to contact Mrs Jarvis and ask what their procedure is. You presume that . I wouldn't bet on it.

Quote from an email from an EO to a boater who has already provided a letter from a GP informing this EO of their ongoing health problem. "until I am in receipt of specific detail with regards your ailment/condition and exactly how this, prevents you from cruising, regrettably, I am unable to authorise your continued presence at ... " ------------Enforcement officer Canal and River Trust

Overstays are "granted" by an EO, if you contact CRT they will direct you to your local EO, they won't just OK it.

I am not saying any overstay has been refused, I am saying CRT have created a situation where it can be, and one where you now need to satisfy an EO who has no authority to make such a decision. This is outside the law, and is completely arbitrary , one that CRT can use to bully those it doesn't like, or create a situation where all overstays no matter what reason will be charged for. If you think CRT is incapable of harrasment, lying, and breaking the law read the Tadworth, Ravenscroft, Moore, Dunkley threads.

The decision is the EO's whenever you tell them.

This sounds to me rather like someone already in the enforcement procedure which is the point I was making, it is a bit late to complain once into the enforcement process, communicate earlier. No neccesarily true the EO may have rejected your reason to overstay, and marked it down as "unauthorised" leading to being in the enforcement process. The second quote is proof that this "authorising" process is being applied.

'Not connected" could be read as blackmail ? Since no marina will ever be built without access it is not a genuine choice.

Here are two quotes from recent CRT correspondence . "Restricted licences remain blocked up until the date of expiration to allow customers the maximum amount of time to demonstrate that they can cruise in accordance with the Terms and Conditions." "As previously detailed in my emails to you over this past month, you do not have an Authorised Overstay. I invite you to revisit those emails. This is the reason that a permit was not issued to you." ( the forum owner has asked me not to name names or quote emails in full without permission )

The granting and revocation of licences is governed by the law, but cancelling your contract if you break the terms and conditions also leaves you without a licence does it not ?

That is my confusion Tony, CRT, in the correspondence i have had with them are deliberatly confusing both legislation and T&C's where it suits them. There is absolutely no oversight as to what T&C's they can put in the contract, which it appears they are using to refuse renewal of licences. The "authorised" or "unauthorised" overstay being an example of this.

Are boaters happy to have an enforcement officer decide what is a reasonable reason to overstay ? No accountability, no way to appeal, just an arbitrary decesion ?

I'm not falling for your usual trick of starting an argument to derail the thread. No one is forcing you to read this thread.

The purpose of this thread is to clarify the law, and investigate if CRT are complying with it, what is your problem with that ?

Yes, you are an apologist for CRT acting unlawfully, as long as its not happening to you.

Thanks, I learnt something there.

I have said three times now that I am not proposing confrontation, or being awkward, I only want to ensure that CRT do not con people into believing they have powers they do not. Like you said presenting evidence to a court is the remedy laid down in the legislation for CRT, and not refusing to renew a licence because of "unauthorised" overstays.

You cannot garentee that CRT will be reasonable in accepting your evidence, as has been shown before one EO has demanded " detailed and specific medical evidence" or no "authorised" overstay, once you get into this position of allowing EO's to decide whether you can exercise your statutory rights, with no easy way of appeal, or oversight of their decesions you are then giving the EO an authority he has not been legally granted.

Your contribution to CWDF is as above, but not a statutory right that we have to take any notice of you.

You think its reasonable that CRT bypass your statutory rights ?

But they have no legal authority to make any decesions on this matter, if they have been granted this power show me where it is ? I am not advocating blindly sticking to principles, and winding up CRT, I am saying your statutory right is being bypassed, and CRT are deciding who can and cannot overstay. I meant evidence in any form, written, verbal ect, not any kind of bogus reason. Surely the point of statutory rights is to avoid the need for the boater to have to argue with and beg an enforcement officer for permission to overstay, when that EO holds no authority other than being a canal traffic warden.

I have never suggested that you refuse to cooperate with CRT, or refuse to provide evidence . The broken leg example is going to be obvious to all concerned so is not help full, let's change it to an non visible illness. Your conclusion is also suspect, the boater would provide evidence to the court and the court would uphold his statutory right, if he has evidence of any kind then he is allowed to overstay by law. The judge may say he's an idiot, but he's a lawful idiot.

In the example I gave CRT can request evidence, and of course it is reasonable to provide it, but the law does not require you to do so, it is only a condition of your licence contract. CRT are also saying they have the authority to judge that evidence and authorise or unauthorise it. It looks to me that they have put in place terms and conditions to bypass the boaters statutory rights.