CaRT: Corrupt Management Fiasco

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, Chagall said:

The comment regarding the sunken boat is also valid, would it really take a year to find the owner? 

 

True, but what on earth does it have to do with the OP?

 

[Momac]

8 minutes ago, Chagall said:

 

 

The comment regarding the sunken boat is also valid, would it really take a year to find the owner? 

 

Would it take the owner a year to find his boat?

[Chagall]

Just now, MtB said:

 

True, but what on earth does it have to do with the OP?

 

True and fair enough, I suppose it was part of the moan, something many of us do, particularly when it was abandoned on a "lock landing" according to the op.  

[JamesWoolcock]

6 minutes ago, Chagall said:

True and fair enough, I suppose it was part of the moan, something many of us do, particularly when it was abandoned on a "lock landing" according to the op.  

Well I think some of us can pinpoint where all this is alleged to have taken place, and its rather farther from the local CRT office than claimed, albeit not far.

The sunken boat has caused many of us problems as it was tied at the end of but not really on the lock landing of Twyfords Lock, 38 T&M, alongside the apartments built on the site of Twyfords Cliffevale Works. Hanley Cemetery can clearly be seen across the canal. 

So, we're talking about those nice guys and gals up at Etruria. In my experience ever decent,  ever helpful.

The whole thing sounds like a personal grudge to me.

[peterboat]

53 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

Looking at the photo, that looks more like driver incompetence than excess width.. Vehicle's a trifle long for the spaces, but what does that matter?

I drive a slightly smaller camper van than that and it fills a modern car space, so it would tight fit and not fair on other flat owners.

Its was in the terms and conditions when I had a parking space at a flat 

[Momac]

6 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I drive a slightly smaller camper van than that and it fills a modern car space, so it would tight fit and not fair on other flat owners.

Its was in the terms and conditions when I had a parking space at a flat 

But how does a badly parked van become a  ''CaRT: Corrupt Management Fiasco'' ?

[peterboat]

2 minutes ago, MartynG said:

But how does a badly parked van become a  ''CaRT: Corrupt Management Fiasco'' ?

It's their van, we don't know why it's there do we? Its taking up 2 parking spaces in a private scheme 

Edited January 25, 2022 by peterboat

[nicknorman]

Slightly related, casual everyday corporate lying has sadly become acceptable and even expected. Not too surprising really bearing in mind the example set by goverment and some MPs.  In the W Midlands at least, faulty paddles etc are now bagged by a nice yellow sock thingy. Well it is certianly one step up from the tape and orange netting I suppose. But the writing on the socks really annoys me.

 

Quite obviously the structure is NOT undergoing repair. Of course it should be, but actually it is AWAITING repair (maybe, if we are lucky). So it is an outright, obvious and blatant lie. And yet we have become accustomed to accepting this sort of thing. Did I mention that it annoys me?

Edited January 25, 2022 by nicknorman

[Alan de Enfield]

17 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Quite obviously the structure is NOT undergoing repair.

 

Did you think of lifting it off to see what was happening ?

 

There could be a whole tribe of little umpa-lumpers working away 24/7 to get it repaired

[Momac]

33 minutes ago, peterboat said:

It's their van, we don't know why it's there do we? 

Yes we do.

The van is associated with  '' some of their ground workers................for commuting, to and from home''.

So it sounds like the ground workers are living there.

 

 

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, Chagall said:

Despite his accusatory attitude he does have a point, regarding the van in particular it is parked in a numbered bay so it either belongs to the driver of the van or is parked illegally and taking up two spaces.

The van is indeed badly parked, and since it is clearly a CRT van, then complaining to CRT might be a reasonable first response. But if CRT reply that, yes, one of their employees has permission to take the van home outside working hours, then there isn't much more the OP can do via CRT. CRT might well be advised to have a quiet word with the employee, asking him to ensure it is properly parked in future, but they won't be relaying that conversation back to the OP.

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

Yes we do.

The van is associated with  '' some of their ground workers................for commuting, to and from home''.

So it sounds like the ground workers are living there.

 

 

Still belongs to CRT so it's their responsibility to sort it before maybe it gets a parking charge notice by a management company ! 

[Nightwatch]

As far as I’m aware a company vehicle can be used for home to duty use, there is a tax implication. In addition, if the vehicle is used for call outs emergency or otherwise then that is another reason for the driver to take it home. As far as being intoxicated whilst in charge of a vehicle then a Bobby might get involved.

[Momac]

7 hours ago, peterboat said:

Still belongs to CRT so it's their responsibility to sort it before maybe it gets a parking charge notice by a management company ! 

No.

It's the drivers responsibility. A parking fine would be deducted fro the drivers pay.

 

 

[Higgs]

18 hours ago, one of the hidden said:

 

To Conclude:

During my 5 years as a live-a-board boater, the only dealings I had with CaRT, was when I occasionally overstayed, "at a place" by a week, due to bad winter weather (harassment) and when I sold my boat, they took a £30 admin charge (fraud), to refund the remainder of my licence. Funny how CaRT only ever seem to take any action, when it is from the comfort of their centrally heated offices, and when any real problems arise, especially with their own employees, they turn a blind eye. 

 

I always find the inclusion of an admin charge laughable. It's part of their work to communicate and they should pay back any unused licence in full. £30 admin is a penalty charge, for having to give back money they have no right to. They'll be expecting a charge to turn up for work next, or for plugging in the Xerox.  

 

Admin: There will be a bill for making out the bill, for doing the work we would have to do to make out a bill. Breathing in and out; something else we hadn't foreseen the need to do, in our costing anywhere. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 26, 2022 by Higgs

[john.k]

Where a servant operates a motor vehicle belonging to his master in a manner consistent with instructions given by the master,then the master is liable for any damages .

[Athy]

11 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

Well that is your call.

 

However if CRT did complain about it (unlikely tbh) then AFAIK if you didnt the forum would bear responsibility for it rather than just the OP.

I don't think so. Our rules and guidelines make it clear that views expressed are those of individual members, and that CWDF is not responsible for them.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Athy said:

I don't think so. Our rules and guidelines make it clear that views expressed are those of individual members, and that CWDF is not responsible for them.

 

But if CRT complained (unlikely in this case) and you didnt remove the offending comments then the forum could be liable too.

 

Im aware of what the rules say but I dont believe it absolves the forum owner of any responsibility. If no action is taken after a complaint is made. It just covers the time the forum owner isnt aware.

 

 

[john.k]

Its not possible to defame a group,company or body ,unless they can prove substantial financial loss.as a result.....individual members named or identified may be defamed ,however.

[Momac]

24 minutes ago, john.k said:

Where a servant operates a motor vehicle belonging to his master in a manner consistent with instructions given by the master,then the master is liable for any damages .

But traffic offences are the responsibility of the driver. 

[john.k]

That is correct on the principle that no person may indemnify another against any penalty of law.

[nicknorman]

13 minutes ago, MartynG said:

But traffic offences are the responsibility of the driver. 

They are from a legal point of view. But from a reputational point of view, bad driving (or parking) reflects badly on the corporate image of an organisation whose logo is on the side of the vehicles, and so any organisation that is concerned about their reputation would be likely to want to get involved.

[cuthound]

8 hours ago, peterboat said:

Still belongs to CRT so it's their responsibility to sort it before maybe it gets a parking charge notice by a management company ! 

 

Most, if not all companies, expect their employees to be responsible for any driving penalties incurred whilst driving one of their liveried vehicles.

 

That said, a quiet word in the driver's ear about parking responsibly in appropriate places wouldn't go amiss.

[Murflynn]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

I always find the inclusion of an admin charge laughable. It's part of their work to communicate and they should pay back any unused licence in full. £30 admin is a penalty charge, for having to give back money they have no right to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

you would be more than a little aggrieved if there was nobody answering the phone/letter/email when you try to cancel your arrangement before the end of the nominal period, whether it is for boat licence, car insurance, whatever.   .....   and, as pointed out already, different rates would apply for a period less than a full year. 

 

who do you expect to pay for the provision of staff/offices, etc, in such circumstances?

how do you expect the service provider to accommodate your wish to cancel early, without you paying a sum to take into account the difference in rates for a part year?

 

[Higgs]

12 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

 

you would be more than a little aggrieved if there was nobody answering the phone/letter/email when you try to cancel your arrangement before the end of the nominal period, whether it is for boat licence, car insurance, whatever.   .....   and, as pointed out already, different rates would apply for a period less than a full year. 

 

who do you expect to pay for the provision of staff/offices, etc, in such circumstances?

how do you expect the service provider to accommodate your wish to cancel early, without you paying a sum to take into account the difference in rates for a part year?

 

 

I don't expect an electrician to charge me extra for using a screwdriver or a pair of wire snips in the line of work, or for handling wire. You get a bill (license fee). You wouldn't be happy to find the maintenance of locks was an extra, and not a necessary and obvious need for using the canal. 

 

 

Edited January 26, 2022 by Higgs