Over staying notices

[Bod]

Been out recently and seen a boat with an "Over staying permitted" letter displayed in the window.  Appeared to be legit, Correctly headed paper, etc.

Didn't fully read it, should have done.

Boat was on a visitor mooring, could have been there a little while, not a problem.

Same boat next seen on a different visitor mooring several miles away, a few days later, still showing the same "Over staying permitted" letter.

Do these Official letters exist?   Are they for a particular event/place or general use, AKA the Blue Badge scheme? 

 

Bod 

[Nightwatch]

May I ask, where was this?

[Bod]

Ansty.

 

Bod

[zenataomm]

This thread interested me in case it's a blatant scam.

However the OP is scant in detail.

I've Googled C&RT Overstaying permitted letter and found this ...

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/enforcement_officers_authority_t

[Nightwatch]

A light blue boat? If it's the one I think it is, yes the occupant is disabled and has authorisation from CRT to over stay up to a maximum of 14 days on visitor moorings. 

 

Fear not, they will be on a wider cruising range soon.

[cheshire~rose]

There will be many perfectly legitimate reasons why certain boaters will have permission to overstay in a given area and the reasons are not really anybody's business apart from CRT and the person with the legitimate reason.

 

I suspect that it might be this particular person feels that people are pointing a finger at them for the crime of overstaying and so displaying a letter gives an answer to the critics who maybe feel that it is somehow their business. It is a shame we have got into this sort of situation where people are constantly watching others to check they are not getting away with something they didn't ought to. It is a sad indictment of society these days.

 

We had to loiter in a specific area  with our boat a short time ago due to us selling the boat and the potential buyers choice of boat yard to carry out the survey was at a place we had already stayed for the maximum allowed, then I knew if they bought the boat there would be a few days more it would stay there until they could move it and I didn't want CRT labelling them as overstayers when they had only just taken ownership. I pinged an email off and had a friendly chat with the CRT chappie in that area who understood the situation and said he had no problem in issuing an authority for our boat to overstay and gave me the date when that would expire.

[Bod]

9 hours ago, Nightwatch said:

A light blue boat? If it's the one I think it is, yes the occupant is disabled and has authorisation from CRT to over stay up to a maximum of 14 days on visitor moorings. 

 

Fear not, they will be on a wider cruising range soon.

Explains everything. 

Blue with fibre glass roof. 

This has got me thinking, after reading a previous thread. 

 

Bod

[Nightwatch]

Which previous thread?

[Bod]

Rather than take this off-topic, I started a new one.

 

Bod

[Mrs Trackman]

On 19/07/2019 at 10:15, cheshire~rose said:

There will be many perfectly legitimate reasons why certain boaters will have permission to overstay in a given area and the reasons are not really anybody's business apart from CRT and the person with the legitimate reason.

 

I suspect that it might be this particular person feels that people are pointing a finger at them for the crime of overstaying and so displaying a letter gives an answer to the critics who maybe feel that it is somehow their business. It is a shame we have got into this sort of situation where people are constantly watching others to check they are not getting away with something they didn't ought to. It is a sad indictment of society these days.

 

We had to loiter in a specific area  with our boat a short time ago due to us selling the boat and the potential buyers choice of boat yard to carry out the survey was at a place we had already stayed for the maximum allowed, then I knew if they bought the boat there would be a few days more it would stay there until they could move it and I didn't want CRT labelling them as overstayers when they had only just taken ownership. I pinged an email off and had a friendly chat with the CRT chappie in that area who understood the situation and said he had no problem in issuing an authority for our boat to overstay and gave me the date when that would expire.

Jan you are totally right. 

What I find annoying is the blatant misuse of this. For example, I'm sorry if someone cannot move because they are disabled but surely in this situation they should pay for a mooring? 

We would love to move all the time but we have parents in their 90s and have certain grandparent duties, so we pay for a mooring. I would hazard a guess that almost all boaters are unable to move at some point. Ok. It might be a temporary reason in which case overstaying is fair but to expect to never move or pay seems unreasonable. Visitors have been unable to access a visitor mooring all last winter  (& I mean a long length) due to boaters staying for months. I have no idea if legitimately or otherwise and I haven't enquired. However, boaters who did enquire have been threatened. 

[Mike on the Wey]

12 minutes ago, Mrs Trackman said:

For example, I'm sorry if someone cannot move because they are disabled but surely in this situation they should pay for a mooring? 

In broad terms I believe that the concessions for disabled boaters are about being able to access mooring locations with appropriate/safe towpath access, maybe having a smaller cruising range or not having to cruise in very poor weather etc. They are examples of "reasonable adjustments" that CRT can make. Never having to move would unreasonable.

[Mrs Trackman]

24 minutes ago, Mike on the Wey said:

In broad terms I believe that the concessions for disabled boaters are about being able to access mooring locations with appropriate/safe towpath access, maybe having a smaller cruising range or not having to cruise in very poor weather etc. They are examples of "reasonable adjustments" that CRT can make. Never having to move would unreasonable.

Yes. That all sounds fine to me. 

[Mrs Trackman]

1 minute ago, Mrs Trackman said:

Yes. That all sounds fine to me. 

About a year ago I was accosted at our mooring facilities by a regular overstayer, for whatever reason. He asked me what I was doing using the facilities. All boaters are perfectly entitled to use the facilities but it seemed a bit much to be asked what I thought I was doing when we actually pay for the mooring. 

[Nightwatch]

The boat in question has only got authorisation to stay for a maximum of 14 days. Not permanently. 

 

Theres some hard people on here. 

[CompairHolman]

CRT has a scheme where a disability let's you arrange a cruising pattern within your capability that they are also happy with. I think its called " reasonable adjustments" or something like that. 

 

Before the permanently angry go into a spasm, its not something that can be scammed easily, it requires a doctors letter ect, and it doesn't mean you don't have to cruise anywhere or you can stay on one mooring for ever. 

[BilgePump]

3 hours ago, CompairHolman said:

CRT has a scheme where a disability let's you arrange a cruising pattern within your capability that they are also happy with. I think its called " reasonable adjustments" or something like that. 

 

Before the permanently angry go into a spasm, its not something that can be scammed easily, it requires a doctors letter ect, and it doesn't mean you don't have to cruise anywhere or you can stay on one mooring for ever. 

Having spoken a few times with a chap recently he told me that his pattern was one of these. He has approval for a genuine cruising pattern that is along a stretch just over 20 miles long but has no locks and he can stop for three weeks at a time instead of 14 days. He is genuinely mobility impaired and not in the first flush of youth but does follow this continuous back and forth trip and is a nice, friendly guy. The area's busy but not under insane pressure boat wise. Geeing him along or making him and his boat get some help to clear a flight of locks to do another ten or twenty miles only to return a few months later and do the whole thing over again would be a bit pointless. Making him get a mooring would also be something he wouldn't use a lot I guess. I think he prefers life towpath side along the whole stretch. In circumstances like this CaRT seem to take a totally pragmatic and humanitarian approach.

[Jerra]

4 hours ago, CompairHolman said:

CRT has a scheme where a disability let's you arrange a cruising pattern within your capability that they are also happy with. I think its called " reasonable adjustments" or something like that. 

 

Before the permanently angry go into a spasm, its not something that can be scammed easily, it requires a doctors letter ect, and it doesn't mean you don't have to cruise anywhere or you can stay on one mooring for ever. 

Of course this is correct and as it should be.   I think the concern is that if CRT are issuing letters giving permission which are to be displayed, then in this day and age it is easy to make a copy/mock up.   That would be/is the scam some are wondering about I think.

[jonathanA]

I suppose if CRT are happy then good luck to him, however it strikes me there are plenty of lock free pounds of reasonable length with an abundance of marinas or moorings. We are currently on a 28 mile lock free stretch and were previously on a 22 mile stretch both have a mix of online offline and marina moorings which I would have thought would better suit someone with mobility issues.  So seems to me this is a lifestyle choice rather than a need, good luck to him but it does worry me that  perhaps some are taking advantage possibly. 

 

Just to add my wife has mobility issues so do have real life first hand experience 

[BilgePump]

7 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Of course this is correct and as it should be.   I think the concern is that if CRT are issuing letters giving permission which are to be displayed, then in this day and age it is easy to make a copy/mock up.   That would be/is the scam some are wondering about I think.

A fake latter may deflect the attention of other boaters who are overly keen to judge others but I guess it wouldn't stay under CaRT's radar with boat logging for too long and it's really only CaRT who have any authority to tell the individual how to cruise and what rules may be flexible within reason. As someone mentioned before it may be a bit of a sad indictment of scoiety that some people feel as though they are being questioned by others too much and have the need to display an explanation.

[Jerra]

59 minutes ago, BilgePump said:

A fake latter may deflect the attention of other boaters who are overly keen to judge others but I guess it wouldn't stay under CaRT's radar with boat logging for too long and it's really only CaRT who have any authority to tell the individual how to cruise and what rules may be flexible within reason. As someone mentioned before it may be a bit of a sad indictment of scoiety that some people feel as though they are being questioned by others too much and have the need to display an explanation.

This brings a few thoughts into my head.

1.  A quiet life without other boaters grumbling may help some.

 

2.  I am not totally convinced it wouldn't help buy a little extra time the things happening a bit like this.  

"Oh that one isn't on my computer must be a new one I will check when I get back".  The either forget or they are safe until the next checkers visit which on a short term mooring buys quite a a number of days.

 

3.  When does questioning the actions of other stop being a bad thing and become a good thing.  Is it for example bad to take an interest in say people who regularly do 30 mph past a school with a 20mph limit.  Or to take a boating example when is it wrong or right to query whether a boat is licenced or not.   Should we ignore the car with the blue badge where the single occupant gets out of the car and runs off to the shops.

[carlt]

18 minutes ago, Jerra said:

This brings a few thoughts into my head.

Should we ignore the car with the blue badge where the single occupant gets out of the car and runs off to the shops.

 

Yes we should. 

They may be fully capable of running and driving but not capable of walking across a busy car park without having a melt down. 

Not all disabilities are visible. 

[Machpoint005]

On 20/07/2019 at 14:07, Mike on the Wey said:

They are examples of "reasonable adjustments" that CRT can make.

 

And quite right too.The trouble is, one person's "reasonable adjustment" is another's "blatantly taking the piss". A third person should mind their own business, in my view. 

[Jerra]

52 minutes ago, carlt said:

 

Yes we should. 

They may be fully capable of running and driving but not capable of walking across a busy car park without having a melt down. 

Not all disabilities are visible. 

Unless the system has changed when my MiL and my Brother were given blue badges it clearly said mobility not disability.  The person who can run is not by any definition of the word immobile.

 

If fact the MiL had I think to prove she couldn't walk more than a certain distance.

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Unless the system has changed when my MiL and my Brother were given blue badges it clearly said mobility not disability.  The person who can run is not by any definition of the word immobile.

 

If fact the MiL had I think to prove she couldn't walk more than a certain distance.

 

Had to go thru this rigmarole with my Father. When it expires he has to be certified as complying before it will be renewed.

 

1. People who automatically  qualify for a badge:
A person is automatically eligible for a badge if they are over two years old and meet at least one of the following criteria: a receives the Higher Rate of the Mobility Component of the Disability Living Allowance; b receives a Personal Independence Payment for being unable to walk further than 50 metres (a score of 8 points or more under the ‘moving around’ activity of the mobility component); c is registered blind (severely sight impaired); d  receives a War Pensioner’s Mobility Supplement; or e has received a lump sum benefit within tariff levels 1-8 of the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation) Scheme and has been certified as having a permanent and substantial disability which causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.

 

Medical conditions such as asthma, autism, psychological/ behavioural problems, Crohn’s disease/incontinent conditions and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (M.E.) are not in themselves a qualification for a badge. People with these conditions may be eligible for a badge under this criterion, but only if they are unable to walk or have very considerable difficulty in walking, in addition to their condition. 

 

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/197719/can-i-get-a-blue-badge.pdf

Edited July 23, 2019 by Alan de Enfield

[carlt]

8 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Unless the system has changed when my MiL and my Brother were given blue badges it clearly said mobility not disability.  The person who can run is not by any definition of the word immobile.

 

You are wrong.

 

My vehicle qualifies for a blue badge and you may be excused for thinking that it is me hobbling to the shop with my walking stick who qualifies for the higher rate of mobility allowance and not my son who is fully capable of running several miles but is incapable of crossing a busy car park or road.

 

As it is we don't use the disabled spaces because I need the exercise, despite the pain, and my son stays in the car because he can't cope with the inside of the supermarket either.

 

Not all disabilities or immobilities are visible.

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/197719/can-i-get-a-blue-badge.pdf

 

This is out of date now (surprising that it is still online).

 

 

Quote

 

What do the new rules mean?

Under the new rules, there will be two important new ways that autistic people may qualify for a Blue Badge:

• If you can’t undertake a journey without being at risk of serious harm, it causing “very considerable psychological distress”, or if you have very considerable difficulty when walking; or
• If you have scored 10 points for PIP Mobility Component for “planning and making a journey” because making a journey causes ‘overwhelming psychological distress’ (we are seeking clarification about the exact meaning of this with the Government.) 

Children who get Higher Rate Mobility Disability Living Allowance (HRMDLA) will also continue to qualify, as before.