Jump to content

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


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

3 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Perhaps as a new member you might benefit from being aware that boat ownership is not a pre-requisite of forum membership You might be surprised by the numbers of members on here who do not currently own a boat.

 

Some of course do, some aspire to but don't yet, some have done but no longer do (that's me), some are hire boaters and some have no intention of actually owning a boat what so ever but merely have an interest in boats, rivers and canals.

 

So perhaps you could wind in your stupid little armchair/sofa steering comments and similar (as above) you might find your comments on other matters might just be taken a little more seriously.

 

Tony's advice was good advice when dealing with any large organisation, boat ownership wasn't mentioned because it wasn't at all relevant (A bit like most of your contributions on here so far)

Correct @Flyboy

 

Glad you are paying attention.

 

But prior to my five years of ownership I was a 'serial hirerer' and once this ruddy pandemic is over I will be again, in fact we are booked for April (moved from last year) - but on waterways that some on here might find a bit too scary. The Broads including 'scary' Great Yarmouth and Breydon Water.

 

I fell out of love with boat ownership not boating.

Edited by The Happy Nomad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jon johan said:

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

Not sure what you comment is meant to mean. I no longer have a boat. If i was having a fight with and organisation that had acted illegally in my view I would be happy to let anyone interested see such documentation that I had so they could make up their own mind. That is ALL of it, not just what appears to be a small selection by word of mouth with nothing to back those words up. Documentation is all in this sort of case.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Correct @Flyboy

 

Glad you are paying attention.

 

But prior to my five years of ownership I was a 'serial hirerer' and once this ruddy pandemic is over I will be again, in fact we are booked for April (moved from last year) - but on waterways that some on here might find a bit too scary. The Broads including 'scary' Great Yarmouth and Breydon Water.

 

I fell out of love with boat ownership not boating.

No problem, but you do seem to be having a pop at another non owner who's entitled to air his views on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

I agree, but I do this for a different reason.

 

If your query is a complicated one, explaining it to whoever first answers the phone in the call centre is a pointless waste of both your time and theirs. 

 

If it's an email, it can easily be forwarded to the correct department or person to deal with it.  Add your phone number and they can ring you back if they need any further clarification.

 

For simple queries or to report issues I spot on the system I just ring them.

Do you not find that if you raise more than one issue in an email  (or  letter for that matter) modern office types only ever read as far as the first and answer that and probably miss the point anyway. Better to have both a detailed phone conversation and follow up email? Or perhaps the other way round?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Phoenix_V said:

Do you not find that if you raise more than one issue in an email  (or  letter for that matter) modern office types only ever read as far as the first and answer that and probably miss the point anyway. Better to have both a detailed phone conversation and follow up email? Or perhaps the other way round?

 

I wouldn't raise multiple issues in one contact.  Points can get missed as you correctly say, different issues might need to be dealt with by different people as I remarked earlier or worst case it gets treated as a rant.

 

I'm a great believer in making it as simple as possible for any organisation to do what I want them to!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Flyboy said:

No problem, but you do seem to be having a pop at another non owner who's entitled to air his views on this forum.

If he is to be believed I'm doing nothing of the sort.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

I wouldn't raise multiple issues in one contact.  Points can get missed as you correctly say, different issues might need to be dealt with by different people as I remarked earlier or worst case it gets treated as a rant.

 

I'm a great believer in making it as simple as possible for any organisation to do what I want them to!

I think we agree but sometimes the issues or questions are related and splitting the email would be worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Phoenix_V said:

I think we agree but sometimes the issues or questions are related and splitting the email would be worse.

 

Fair point, it does depend on the issues and how closely related they are.  

 

Maybe a numbered list would help, if only so you can say "What about point three?" in a follow up.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Flyboy said:

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

We've had the misfortune a couple of times - Easy enough to fix but I'm under no illusions the system is out dated (and I doubt they are investing in it)

 

Just the nature of organisations who make pushes for people to use their website etc. without making it very stable. CRT aren't the first, they won't be the last, but I would expect stuff to go wrong - just unfortunate it happens to people who mean to cause a fuss (like the chap whose boat was taken away)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours 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. 

It would appear to be a combination of poor staff, poor IT systems and inappropriate outsourcing. Back in 2012, CRT took a conscious decision not to invest by replacing aging IT systems although they admitted that they were not fit for purpose. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Fair point, it does depend on the issues and how closely related they are.  

 

Maybe a numbered list would help, if only so you can say "What about point three?" in a follow up.

Speaking as somebody who in a former life used to deal with NHS complaints the ones easiest to understand and deal with to the satisfaction of the complainant were the ones broken down in this manner.

 

Sometimes it wasnt always clear what the entire complaint was about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Unicorn Stampede said:

We've had the misfortune a couple of times - Easy enough to fix but I'm under no illusions the system is out dated (and I doubt they are investing in it)

 

Just the nature of organisations who make pushes for people to use their website etc. without making it very stable. CRT aren't the first, they won't be the last, but I would expect stuff to go wrong - just unfortunate it happens to people who mean to cause a fuss (like the chap whose boat was taken away)

I have also had the misfortune several times. Most recently, I made an online application for a licence refund and very shortly afterwards had an automated reply that it was being processed. It took 50 days, four emails and one complaint to receive the money owed. CRT's website says 15 days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

And the relevance of that?

As has been stated the ownership of a boat of any kind is not a requirement for joining this forum.

If you read the whole thread you will see the relevance. I covered it in post 79.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There doesn't seem to be a lot of point displaying a license. These days we are expected to print our own. Unfortunately ink jet ink is soluble in water so a few days condensation is enough to make the ink run to the extent that the small print is no longer legible.

 

We got our own and someone elses license on one occasion back in the days when they did used to post them out. I think it was a clerical error rather than IT malfunction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Flyboy said:

If you read the whole thread you will see the relevance. I covered it in post 79.

I have read the whole thread, and can see several non-boat owning members responding to Jon the Troll. you

I also see you using any excuse to have a go at another member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

I have read the whole thread, and can see several non-boat owning members responding to Jon the Troll. you

I also see you using any excuse to have a go at another member.

And you are totally wrong there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Cheshire cat said:

There doesn't seem to be a lot of point displaying a license. These days we are expected to print our own.

Not so, in my experience. We receive ours by post each year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Cheshire cat said:

There doesn't seem to be a lot of point displaying a license. These days we are expected to print our own. Unfortunately ink jet ink is soluble in water so a few days condensation is enough to make the ink run to the extent that the small print is no longer legible.

 

We got our own and someone elses license on one occasion back in the days when they did used to post them out. I think it was a clerical error rather than IT malfunction.

There probably is not but no-one has yet found a way of removing the ;legal obligation to do so! Plenty of scope for 'when they want to get you' - like in the old days being stopped by a policeman who, if you were uncooperative would invariably find something on your vehicle that did not conform to the rules, even if a bit of mud on your rear light. Not entirely irrelevant to the original purpose of this thread.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

There probably is not but no-one has yet found a way of removing the ;legal obligation to do so! 

A couple of years ago, didn't CART say that boaters need no longer display their licence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.