C&RT returns seized boat after legal action taken against them

[BWM]

3 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

One can certainly imagine a scenario where somebody deliberately ignores correspondence in the hope that they become some sort of 'martyr' to the cause of persecuted boaters. Of course I am not saying this is what has happened here but it is certainly not unknown in cases of people when they come up against an organisation like CRT.

 

I had an acquaintance (I no longer count them as a friend) who did it with his council tax. He had paid it, could prove he had paid it but the council insisted he hadn't. He received various correspondence which he carefully filed away unanswered 'for his big day in court'.

 

Eventually when things started to get sticky he decided to whip out the proof he had actually paid several months previously and of course the council backed off. He 'made his point' though and in the process wasted a lot of council time when highly probably at the very first query the whole issue could have been resolved.

 

I told him I thought he had been a bit of a dick head which is why he no longer is a friend.

It is a better friend that calls you out, than one who reinforces bad behaviour. No loss in the scheme of things, and the world would be a better place if it happened as often as it should. 

[Guest]

It is for CRT to follow the rules when enforcing the rules, otherwise there lays a significant mess at best.

 

None of us are likely no get to know all the ins and outs of the story. I could posit a theory that the boater got so fed up being hassled by CRT that he just thought 'fe** it - do your worst'.

 

The simple thing is a boat was taken away without following the rules (even if that action was a genuine mistake) - not something that should be easily glossed over.

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, Jon johan said:

 

[Mr Buga applied online for a 12 months Rivers Only licence, paid for it, and was provided with a correct receipt for the licence. However, the CaRT online licensing system recorded this as a six months Standard Canal & River Licence, which happened to be the same price. This occurred twice.  This discrepancy was central to CRT’s decision to seize the boat, as CRT’s computer system wrongly flagged the boat as unlicensed when in fact the licence had six more months to run.

This appears to be a systemic problem with the CRT online licensing system.]

If the two statements above are correct C&RT must have been sitting there waiting for the moment his 6 month licence ran out to seize the boat,

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

If the two statements above are correct C&RT must have been sitting there waiting for the moment his 6 month licence ran out to seize the boat,

 

That was my point, but he seems reluctant to confirm that.

[dmr]

I am aware of a couple of CCing boats not too far from me that have barely moved in two years. I strongly suspect that one has not had a licence for a year. I know that CRT are in contact with the owners trying to get them to sort things out. CRT do not just turn up and take a boat out of the water because its licence is a few months out of date.

If they are now taking that sort of action then we all need to know, and hopefully do something about it, but its no good if we are only getting a small part of the overall story.

 

.............Dave

[BWM]

44 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

If the two statements above are correct C&RT must have been sitting there waiting for the moment his 6 month licence ran out to seize the boat,

 

38 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

That was my point, but he seems reluctant to confirm that.

The timeline makes no sense whatsoever, that is undeniable. 

 It would appear that has been lucky that procedure wasn't followed, much like a criminal found with a pile of evidence during a warrantless search.

[Arthur Marshall]

I also seem to recall that it is not unlawful to remove a boat that is used as a home without a court order, but CRT choose not to do so.

 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I also seem to recall that it is not unlawful to remove a boat that is used as a home without a court order, but CRT choose not to do so.

 

Think that depends on what law you decide to follow...

 

Maybe some need to update themselves on the 'higher' laws...

[Allan(nb Albert)]

2 hours ago, Jon johan said:

 

[Mr Buga applied online for a 12 months Rivers Only licence, paid for it, and was provided with a correct receipt for the licence. However, the CaRT online licensing system recorded this as a six months Standard Canal & River Licence, which happened to be the same price. This occurred twice.  This discrepancy was central to CRT’s decision to seize the boat, as CRT’s computer system wrongly flagged the boat as unlicensed when in fact the licence had six more months to run.

This appears to be a systemic problem with the CRT online licensing system.]

CRT would have started chasing Mr Buga to licence his boat some six months into the first 12 month licence period because they believed it to be unlicensed. 

Perhaps when Mr Buga licensed his boat for 12 months for the second time, CRT took it as a six month back payment and considered his boat still unlicensed. 

My guess is they did not go to court because Mr Buga would license his boat again rather than remove it or allow them to seize it. Alternatively, they did not go to court because they found out the Mr Buga's boat was correctly licensed. 

 

[Up-Side-Down]

7 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

It isn't you. If you are on a laptop, or similar with a mouse cursor interface, hover the cursor over many abbreviations in posts, including CRT and it will show you what it stands for. Canal River Trust. Who knew?! Works for CWDF as an abbreviation and I'm sure others too. Has been coded in to the forum by those clever people who look after it. Can't remember if it works with touch screen phone type interfaces or not.

Jen

Works with a desktop and touch pad too! Thank you.

[Mike Todd]

38 minutes ago, StationMaster said:

Think that depends on what law you decide to follow...

 

Maybe some need to update themselves on the 'higher' laws...

Is that not why they took the motor and declared the butty as his home?

[Graham Davis]

3 hours ago, Jon johan said:

The fella got his boat back, obviously because the CRT had tried it on with avoiding due process. 
Your own views attempting to undermine the nbta and their statements comes across as quite negative, and for me anyway, cancels out any of your opinions. 
I am all for debate, but if you cannot even grasp the basics, there’s little or no point going further.

Considering that elsewhere you have said you aren't a member of NBTA you seen to be remarkably well informed!

And instead of trying to insult a member why don't you answer his questions?

[PD1964]

10 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

He looks quite good after over two weeks on hunger strike, unless he classes being on hunger strike as having cereal for breakfast instead of his usual full English with extra toast and four cups of Coffee.??

Edited December 31, 2020 by PD1964

[peterboat]

18 hours ago, PD1964 said:

He looks quite good after over two weeks on hunger strike, unless he classes being on hunger strike as having cereal for breakfast instead of his usual full English with extra toast and four cups of Coffee.??

I thought the same ?

What worries me is clearly the spotters wernt looking at the license they were just looking at the hand held license checker which was telling porkies

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, peterboat said:

I thought the same ?

What worries me is clearly the spotters wernt looking at the license they were just looking at the hand held license checker which was telling porkies

Had he printed off, and was he displaying, the licence ?

[peterboat]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Had he printed off, and was he displaying, the licence ?

if he didnt he has learned a lesson, If he did CRT have learned a lesson

[Unicorn Stampede]

18 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

CRT would have started chasing Mr Buga to licence his boat some six months into the first 12 month licence period because they believed it to be unlicensed. 

Perhaps when Mr Buga licensed his boat for 12 months for the second time, CRT took it as a six month back payment and considered his boat still unlicensed. 

My guess is they did not go to court because Mr Buga would license his boat again rather than remove it or allow them to seize it. Alternatively, they did not go to court because they found out the Mr Buga's boat was correctly licensed. 

 

That seems pretty reasonable to me. Akin to CRT seeing it as 'back pay' - admittedly them having a creaking, IT system doesn't help their situation. 

[TheBiscuits]

24 minutes ago, peterboat said:

What worries me is clearly the spotters wernt looking at the license they were just looking at the hand held license checker which was telling porkies

 

I thought the spotters just put the boat registration number in their iPad.  All the rest is done at the office when the data goes into the computer system, not by the spotters.

 

[Flyboy]

18 minutes ago, Unicorn Stampede said:

That seems pretty reasonable to me. Akin to CRT seeing it as 'back pay' - admittedly them having a creaking, IT system doesn't help their situation. 

I've never had a problem licencing my boat on their creaking IT system. 

[dmr]

I suspect that for a new "offender" it would take CRT about 4 years to get to the point of lifting a boat out of the water. If its somebody who has been winding them up for years then it might be quicker, but still months.

 

They are a big clumsy organisation, they just don't move quickly.

 

...............Dave

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, Flyboy said:

I've never had a problem licencing my boat on their creaking IT system. 

 

I did - it was a few years ago when I renewed my licence in the middle of the month prior to the renewal date, they issued a licence that was not only backdated to the start of the month in which I paid, but was only isssued for 11 months - so, in effect I got a 10 month licence (100s of people had the same problem at the same time).

 

It was easily resolved by a phone call, no shouting, complaining, no aggro, no problem, just 'accepted as an error &sorted'.

 

It seems that many folk have lost the art of talking - if they cannot just text "it don't happen"

 

In the 1990’s  BT coined the phrase “it’s good to talk”.  The campaign went live with the likes of Maureen Lipman & Bob Hoskins.  BT hit the nail on the head.  What a marketing genius and how very apt almost 20 years later this phrase would be, we are at a time where people’s now last resort is to pick up the phone and make a call.

Edited January 1, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[peterboat]

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I did - it was a few years ago when I renewed my licence in the middle of the month prior to the renewal date, they issued a licence that was not only backdated to the start of the month in which I paid, but was only isssued for 11 months - so, in effect I got a 10 month licence (100s of people had the same problem at the same time).

 

It was easily resolved by a phone call, no shouting, complaining, no aggro, no problem, just 'accepted as an error &sorted'.

 

It seems that many folk have lost the art of talking - if they cannot just text "it don't happen"

 

In the 1990’s  BT coined the phrase “it’s good to talk”.  The campaign went live with the likes of Maureen Lipman & Bob Hoskins.  BT hit the nail on the head.  What a marketing genius and how very apt almost 20 years later this phrase would be, we are at a time where people’s now last resort is to pick up the phone and make a call.

When I converted my boat to electric it turned into a right horlics, I had spoken to BSS and CRT prior to the conversion and nothing was required, however licensing thought different. What made it worse is they accepted and banked the fee before refusing to license the boat, in the end a very nice lady called Joyce sorted it out for me, it took months but was sorted in the end. What made me smile is my boat is called Joyce just like the lady who sorted it out, as you say Alan you have to talk to them

[Jon johan]

19 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

Considering that elsewhere you have said you aren't a member of NBTA you seen to be remarkably well informed!

And instead of trying to insult a member why don't you answer his questions?

Tell me Mr shouty, which armchair are you steering today?
 

[Tony Brooks]

2 minutes ago, peterboat said:

When I converted my boat to electric it turned into a right horlics, I had spoken to BSS and CRT prior to the conversion and nothing was required, however licensing thought different. What made it worse is they accepted and banked the fee before refusing to license the boat, in the end a very nice lady called Joyce sorted it out for me, it took months but was sorted in the end. What made me smile is my boat is called Joyce just like the lady who sorted it out, as you say Alan you have to talk to them

Talking is fine as long as you are happy for there to be no record of the conversion. When dealing setups like CaRT I always  email or write. Its far harder for them to deny you ever contacted them. Why else do you think so many large companies are happy to give a customer services phone number but no email address and tend to hide the correct postal address. I am still annoyed that BT tries to charge me £60 for doing nothing to rectify an intermittent fault in their lines and only rescinded it when I wrote asking where to send the notice of court action and enclosing copies of emails that stated it was an intermittent fault related to weather.

 

Communicate definitely but in a form that allows you to easily keep hard copies.

[Jon johan]

1 minute ago, Tony Brooks said:

Talking is fine as long as you are happy for there to be no record of the conversion. When dealing setups like CaRT I always  email or write. Its far harder for them to deny you ever contacted them. Why else do you think so many large companies are happy to give a customer services phone number but no email address and tend to hide the correct postal address. I am still annoyed that BT tries to charge me £60 for doing nothing to rectify an intermittent fault in their lines and only rescinded it when I wrote asking where to send the notice of court action and enclosing copies of emails that stated it was an intermittent fault related to weather.

 

Communicate definitely but in a form that allows you to easily keep hard copies.

Good solid advice for those owning a boat. [A red waving flag for those that do not]. ?