New T&C's - merged thread

[TheBiscuits]

1 minute ago, Iain_S said:

Ask them ... 

 

No point, I've already got a business licence so the new pleasure boat conditions don't affect me.  

 

Feel free to ask them if you like, but it would spoil the joke if I asked.

[Tacet]

10 hours ago, IanD said:

 

I don't see why they can't check 100%, all it takes is an email to whoever own the home mooring they claim to be using -- and they could easily insist that the boater applying for the license gives them this information.

 

If they can do that, surely they can also do it in semi-realtime before issuing a license?

 

However it seems that they don't bother doing any of this in most (all?) cases...

When would CRT ask the mooring owner which boats were there?  Annually wouldn't work as just because a boat was not moored on a site six months ago does not mean it isn't now.  Mooring owners are soon going to annoyed by frequent and urgent requests.  And would CRT refuse to issue licenses until the mooring owner replied?

 

It would be a compete nightmare to administer.

 

 

9 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Surely any decent excel user could make two spreadsheets cross compare.

 

List of boaters claiming home moorings and specifying their mooring site Vs List of Moorers / boat numbers declared by moorings owners.

When would you make the comparison?  Both sets of data would need to be fully up to date and there is no chance of that with boats making only an annual declaration and moving in-between.

[Arthur Marshall]

There's a lot of boaters on here. I'm still waiting for a single one to tell me how they are, personally, disadvantaged by anything in the new T&Cs.  

 

[Chewbacka]

CRT will only be bothered by boats that don’t seem to be complying with cc rules, so it’s those they will want to confirm if the claimed mooring exists or not.  That’s a lot less work and manageable. 

[IanD]

12 hours ago, Tacet said:

When would CRT ask the mooring owner which boats were there?  Annually wouldn't work as just because a boat was not moored on a site six months ago does not mean it isn't now.  Mooring owners are soon going to annoyed by frequent and urgent requests.  And would CRT refuse to issue licenses until the mooring owner replied?

 

It would be a compete nightmare to administer.

 

 

When would you make the comparison?  Both sets of data would need to be fully up to date and there is no chance of that with boats making only an annual declaration and moving in-between.

Problems far more difficult than this are solved every day -- it's only a nightmare to administer if you want to guarantee that every infringement is detected immediately (and with no errors) when a license is applied for, and there's no need to do this.

 

Catching the rule-breakers at some time within the period of a license before next renewal is all that's really needed, which gives plenty of time to sort out details. It's not urgent at all and doesn't need to affect granting licenses in any way, it can be a check done afterwards.

 

If the problem (as Ex Brummie) says is loads of boats who've been doing this for years, they'll be easy to catch, even if it takes a year or so to track them all down. Don't even need to get in touch with them (extra effort/time) to argue about it, just put a flag on their entry in the CART license database to say they haven't got a home mooring, then next time they try and renew the home mooring license it can be refused on the grounds they haven't got one.

 

Dead easy, almost no additional time or effort needed. What's not to like?

 

[haggis]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

 

Dead easy, almost no additional time or effort needed. What's not to like?

 

Sounds fine in theory BUT you have not taken into account the C&RT staff required to send off emails (OK it could be done automatically IF all mooring locations email addresses are held on the licencing system), and to process the reply from the moorings. Also this system would be asking all mooring locations to do any necessary research to reply  by email. While marinas will have email addresses, will "farmers field" type moorings have one? Why not give the licence checkers a list of what boats say they are moored in a particular location then they could check when doing their rounds. 

 

haggis

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, haggis said:

Sounds fine in theory BUT you have not taken into account the C&RT staff required to send off emails (OK it could be done automatically IF all mooring locations email addresses are held on the licencing system), and to process the reply from the moorings. Also this system would be asking all mooring locations to do any necessary research to reply  by email. While marinas will have email addresses, will "farmers field" type moorings have one? Why not give the licence checkers a list of what boats say they are moored in a particular location then they could check when doing their rounds. 

 

haggis

 

 

Which is, apparently, what C&RT already do.

 

 

I know of boaters who declare a home mooring but never use it –

so this is a loophole isn’t it?

Yes and no. If we never observe your boat on the mooring you’ve declared, or we see you repeatedly on the towpath in an area distant from the declared mooring, we will contact you and ask you to confirm your mooring status. We may use powers under the data protection legislation to ask the mooring operator to confirm that you do hold the mooring you’ve declared. But either way, if you never use the mooring, it amounts to a false declaration which makes the licence invalid. We are just starting to apply this approach where a ‘ghost’ mooring is suspected.

[matty40s]

. We may use powers under the data protection legislation to ask the mooring operator to confirm that you do hold the mooring you’ve declared.

 

I think they have made this bit up!!!!

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, matty40s said:

. We may use powers under the data protection legislation to ask the mooring operator to confirm that you do hold the mooring you’ve declared.

 

I think they have made this bit up!!!!

 

But, when you signed up to your licence you agreed all sorts of Data Protection infringements (as pointed out by NABO in 2015 when the T&C amendments were introduced)

[haggis]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But, when you signed up to your licence you agreed all sorts of Data Protection infringements (as pointed out by NABO in 2015 when the T&C amendments were introduced)

Quite frankly, I have no objections under data protection legislation to C & RT doing whatever is necessary to make it more difficult for some boaters to play the system and possibly deprive  C&RT (and therefore the canals) of money. 

I know I'll get shot down in flames for this view but there you are. 

 

haggis

[IanD]

41 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Yes and no. If we never observe your boat on the mooring you’ve declared, or we see you repeatedly on the towpath in an area distant from the declared mooring, we will contact you and ask you to confirm your mooring status. We may use powers under the data protection legislation to ask the mooring operator to confirm that you do hold the mooring you’ve declared. But either way, if you never use the mooring, it amounts to a false declaration which makes the licence invalid. We are just starting to apply this approach where a ‘ghost’ mooring is suspected.

Which could explain how the phantom moorers at Ex Brummie's club got away with it in the past...

 

This still relies on checkers, and regardless of the objections it should be much quicker/easier/more reliable nowadays to use licensing data and email to sort this out. Everyone offering a mooring -- even a farmer's field or EOG mooring -- has to be contactable by CART to get their approval to offer it, so this should not be an obstacle to online or even automated cross-checking, letters can be even be sent out automatically if the poor farmer doesn't have an email address ?

 

Either way if CART remove the "bridge-hopping" exception for home moorers as they say they plan to do, the need for this goes away, all boats have the same range restrictions on CCing/mooring.

19 minutes ago, haggis said:

Quite frankly, I have no objections under data protection legislation to C & RT doing whatever is necessary to make it more difficult for some boaters to play the system and possibly deprive  C&RT (and therefore the canals) of money. 

I know I'll get shot down in flames for this view but there you are. 

 

haggis

Not by me... ?

Edited May 28, 2021 by IanD

[Tacet]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

If the problem (as Ex Brummie) says is loads of boats who've been doing this for years, they'll be easy to catch, even if it takes a year or so to track them all down. Don't even need to get in touch with them (extra effort/time) to argue about it, just put a flag on their entry in the CART license database to say they haven't got a home mooring, then next time they try and renew the home mooring license it can be refused on the grounds they haven't got one.

 

 

That would only show that the home mooring last declared was not the case at a later date.  But it wouldn't demonstrate that the boat hadn't move to another location where the boat may be lawfully kept.

 

It might identify the suspicious cases for more detailed investigations - but on-foot checking should throw those up anyway.

 

 

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, Tacet said:

That would only show that the home mooring last declared was not the case at a later date.  But it wouldn't demonstrate that the boat hadn't move to another location where the boat may be lawfully kept.

 

It might identify the suspicious cases for more detailed investigations - but on-foot checking should throw those up anyway.

 

 

The difference being that database checking identifies 100% of the possible culprits (some may be innocent, as they will be able to show) within a year, on-foot checking only identifies the boats that they see and check.

 

Anyway nit-picking about any of this is pointless if CART change the rules, they won't need to know if you've got a home mooring or not, all boats will have the same CC-type mooring restrictions.

 

BTW if on-foot checking is so good, why has the hideous floating-shed-wideboat near me been moored at exactly the same place on the GU towpath (it can't move, no engine!) since last year?

Edited May 28, 2021 by IanD

[haggis]

many years ago, I am sure  BW used to check that boats were moored where they said they were. This was in the days when all boats had to have a mooring and before Continuous Cruisers were introduced - at that time they were genuine CCers and did actually travel the system.  I knew of a few boats with ghost moorings - Ellesmere Port used to be a favourite - and some "got away with it" while I know of others who didn't ?

 

haggis

[ditchcrawler]

More important IMO than a home mooring is insurance. How many of them do C&RT check, I would guess they just do a random sample.

[dmr]

46 minutes ago, IanD said:

The difference being that database checking identifies 100% of the possible culprits (some may be innocent, as they will be able to show) within a year, on-foot checking only identifies the boats that they see and check.

 

Anyway nit-picking about any of this is pointless if CART change the rules, they won't need to know if you've got a home mooring or not, all boats will have the same CC-type mooring restrictions.

 

BTW if on-foot checking is so good, why has the hideous floating-shed-wideboat near me been moored at exactly the same place on the GU towpath (it can't move, no engine!) since last year?

 

This does make all this T&C changes stuff a bit pointless, its people in an office dreaming up rules, but if they don't enforce them its all pointless. Even worse is ignoring the worse (and often difficult) offenders and going after the "soft target" genuine boaters over some minor issue.

 

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

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But, when you signed up to your licence you agreed all sorts of Data Protection infringements (as pointed out by NABO in 2015 when the T&C amendments were introduced)

But the reference to data protection legislation is also an acknowledgement that CRT's own legislation doesn't give them the necessary powers.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

But the reference to data protection legislation is also an acknowledgement that CRT's own legislation doesn't give them the necessary powers.

 

Good point.

[TheBiscuits]

35 minutes ago, dmr said:

Even worse is ignoring the worse (and often difficult) offenders and going after the "soft target" genuine boaters over some minor issue.

 

 

I agree.  There's that CM'er that's been refusing to leave a short bit of the Rochdale for a couple of years now ...

 

"Voice of the Stars" I think it's called, but they wrote it in forrin' to confuse people ;)

 

[wandering snail]

2 hours ago, haggis said:

Quite frankly, I have no objections under data protection legislation to C & RT doing whatever is necessary to make it more difficult for some boaters to play the system and possibly deprive  C&RT (and therefore the canals) of money. 

I know I'll get shot down in flames for this view but there you are. 

 

haggis

But the end shouldn't justify the means, should it?

[dmr]

10 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

 

I agree.  There's that CM'er that's been refusing to leave a short bit of the Rochdale for a couple of years now ...

 

"Voice of the Stars" I think it's called, but they wrote it in forrin' to confuse people

 

 

Second injections done, the Rochdale appears to be navigable, Broken lock fixed yesterday and the Macc should also be open soon giving a choice of two routes, long distance boating is getting imminent, hope we can remember how to do it. ?

 

and yes, we did get a serious telling off even though there were only a handful of days last year when the Manchester route was available.

 

....just need a little delay to weld some windlasses back together, have now broken both of the long ones on the Gauxholme flight ?

 

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

[TheBiscuits]

6 minutes ago, dmr said:

.just need a little delay to weld some windlasses back together, have now broken both of the long ones on the Gauxholme flight ?

 

I borrowed (and bent!) somebody else's long throw windlass there a couple of years ago.  I bent it back to mostly straight, but it's never been quite the same since ...

[dmr]

6 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

I borrowed (and bent!) somebody else's long throw windlass there a couple of years ago.  I bent it back to mostly straight, but it's never been quite the same since ...

 

I snapped one and bent the other, both on the same lock (on different trips to the pump out).

I will trend to try to bend it straight then weld some strengthening triangular plates in. They will then be known as the Rochdale windlasses. ?

 

We had a delay on our way to the summit as the CRT man was stripping and rebuilding the paddle gear on one lock, he told us that when we return in October the Rochdale will be perfect.

 

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

 

[Mike Todd]

9 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

There's a lot of boaters on here. I'm still waiting for a single one to tell me how they are, personally, disadvantaged by anything in the new T&Cs.  

 

Whilst I do not have any personal issues with the T&Cs what I would have strong issue with is if it were suggested that the interests of minorities (especially disadvantaged ones) were being ignored or ridden over roughshod. It is fashionable to decry Human Rights - until you personally need them, that is. There is a famous saying about this. 

7 hours ago, haggis said:

Sounds fine in theory BUT you have not taken into account the C&RT staff required to send off emails (OK it could be done automatically IF all mooring locations email addresses are held on the licencing system), and to process the reply from the moorings. Also this system would be asking all mooring locations to do any necessary research to reply  by email. While marinas will have email addresses, will "farmers field" type moorings have one? Why not give the licence checkers a list of what boats say they are moored in a particular location then they could check when doing their rounds. 

 

haggis

I suspect the majority of cost is not int he detection (which, as several have pointed out, could be quite simple but in the subsequent enforcement which inevitably proves expensive. (with some good reasons, as well)

[Mike Todd]

6 hours ago, IanD said:

The difference being that database checking identifies 100% of the possible culprits (some may be innocent, as they will be able to show) within a year, on-foot checking only identifies the boats that they see and check.

 

Anyway nit-picking about any of this is pointless if CART change the rules, they won't need to know if you've got a home mooring or not, all boats will have the same CC-type mooring restrictions.

 

BTW if on-foot checking is so good, why has the hideous floating-shed-wideboat near me been moored at exactly the same place on the GU towpath (it can't move, no engine!) since last year?

What makes you think that CaRT do not know about it? Much mire likely that they do but cannot do anything about it, or.possible, are actually doing something but cannot tell you and it takes a long time anyway.

5 hours ago, David Mack said:

But the reference to data protection legislation is also an acknowledgement that CRT's own legislation doesn't give them the necessary powers.

Explain?