More Recording Of Boat Licence Details

[Neil TNC]

 

Lets assume the chap we spotted yesterday is committed enough to repeat the same exercise at the same location next weekend.

 

 

He has probably read this thread and now is too scared to come back!

[carlt]

He has probably read this thread and now is too scared to come back! ...

or bought himself a fluorescent bib to make himself feel even more important.

 

Who are the 'they' that asked the man at the canoe club? Was it cart?

The Illuminati...

[cotswoldsman]

Did she actually describe it as a "penalty"?

 

No she said it was an overstaying charge

 

An interesting tit bit overheard at the recent Skipton meeting, from Sally Ash, was that when the CRT software recognises that a boat has been in one location for more than a month (because they only cover a canal twice per month so would only know it's been there for that long after their 2nd walkaround), it kicks out a notification automatically, sent to the "enforcement officers". She then said that an overstaying boat would be given a penalty of £25 per day. She said that this penalty wouldnt be added to the boats annual licence (for various reasons), but that they would then eventually take it to court to "sue for the debt" . (The debt being the penalties accrued).

 

Dean I think she was talking about restricted moorings ie 48h/7d etc and this would not be done unless there was clear signage that stated the overstaying charge.

[matty40s]

No she said it was an overstaying charge

 

 

 

Dean I think she was talking about restricted moorings ie 48h/7d etc and this would not be done unless there was clear signage that stated the overstaying charge.

Notices at Hawkesbury state Extended Stops charge, however, this is then described differently on the issued overstay notices - Overstay Levy.

 

 

(and no, I have not received one, however, have moved a boat which had one)

[David Schweizer]

No they haven't, maybe a continuous mooring campaign, but not CC.

 

 

Isn't that what Google did

Yes, and they got so much stick from some people that there are streets where the images have been removed.

Edited January 14, 2013 by David Schweizer

[Richard Fairhurst]

Isn't that what Google did

Yes, and it's what we do at OpenStreetMap, too.

[David Schweizer]

Notices at Hawkesbury state Extended Stops charge, however, this is then described differently on the issued overstay notices - Overstay Levy.

 

 

(and no, I have not received one, however, have moved a boat which had one)

And that demostrates (BW's) CRT's confusion over the issue, Cart has no legal powers to impose penalties or fines, but it does have the legal right to charge for moorings, and to set the fee as they think appropriate.

 

I have wondered for years why they cannot get their heads round this simple issue and put notices on posts which say something like " First 48 hours mooring free of charge, thereafter a mooring fwee £25 per day will be charged" (The signage can be changed according to the length of time free mooring is permitted and the longer stay charge can be ammendwed as thought appropriate).

 

The intended outcome is theoreticly the same, but within the existing legislation, but unfortunately someone at HQ seems to think being agressive and threatening fines will be more effective. Or am I missing something

[jenlyn]

And that demostrates (BW's) CRT's confusion over the issue, Cart has no legal powers to impose penalties or fines, but it does have the legal right to charge for moorings, and to set the fee as they think appropriate.

 

I have wondered for years why they cannot get their heads round this simple issue and put notices on posts which say something like " First 48 hours mooring free of charge, thereafter a mooring fwee £25 per day will be charged" (The signage can be changed according to the length of time free mooring is permitted and the longer stay charge can be ammendwed as thought appropriate).

 

The intended outcome is theoreticly the same, but within the existing legislation, but unfortunately someone at HQ seems to think being agressive and threatening fines will be more effective. Or am I missing something

It's not that simple. Once a charge is made, the mooring reverts to 14 day. You can't charge twice.

It's better practice if as cc'ers, we try to avoid the vm's in summer months. Common sense needs to be in the fore really. Take away the problem for moaners, till they find something else.

Edited January 14, 2013 by jenlyn

[cotswoldsman]

And that demostrates (BW's) CRT's confusion over the issue, Cart has no legal powers to impose penalties or fines, but it does have the legal right to charge for moorings, and to set the fee as they think appropriate.

 

I have wondered for years why they cannot get their heads round this simple issue and put notices on posts which say something like " First 48 hours mooring free of charge, thereafter a mooring fwee £25 per day will be charged" (The signage can be changed according to the length of time free mooring is permitted and the longer stay charge can be ammendwed as thought appropriate).

 

The intended outcome is theoreticly the same, but within the existing legislation, but unfortunately someone at HQ seems to think being agressive and threatening fines will be more effective. Or am I missing something

 

Mainly because once you start charging for say extra days on a 7 day mooring it is no longer a 7 day mooring but becomes a 14 day mooring and 14 day mooring is included in the cost of your licence

 

It's not that simple. Once a charge is made, the mooring reverts to 14 day. You can't charge twice.

It's better practice if as cc'ers, we try to avoid the vm's in summer months. Common sense needs to be in the fore really. Take away the problem for moaners, till they find something else.

 

cross posted again

[David Schweizer]

You are both going to have to explain that one to me , how does charging for one day on top of two days free mooring turn it into a 14 day mooring?

Edited January 14, 2013 by David Schweizer

[cotswoldsman]

You are both going to have to explain that one to me , how does charging for one day on top of two days free mooring turn it into a 14 day mooring?

 

Because what they are saying is that it is no longer a 7 day mooring provided you are prepared to pay. Or put in another way it is no longer what it says on the tin. A 48 hour can not be a 48 hour mooring if they are saying you can stay longer provided you are prepared to pay.

[jenlyn]

You are both going to have to explain that one to me , how does charging for one day on top of two days free mooring turn it into a 14 day mooring?

By charging you, they are making it a 14 day mooring. These charges are not the answer. We all need to abide by the signage.

[churchward]

Because what they are saying is that it is no longer a 7 day mooring provided you are prepared to pay. Or put in another way it is no longer what it says on the tin. A 48 hour can not be a 48 hour mooring if they are saying you can stay longer provided you are prepared to pay.

That seems rather obscure logic. Surely it is just it is saying it is 48 hours (for example) within your licence and longer is to be paid for at a given rate. It is not automatically converting it to a 14 day mooring. It is rather like the motorway service station car parks that say 1st 2 hours are free and there are charges after that.

 

By charging you, they are making it a 14 day mooring. These charges are not the answer. We all need to abide by the signage.

I agree with abiding by the notices is a better way of carrying on.

Edited January 14, 2013 by churchward

[David Schweizer]

Because what they are saying is that it is no longer a 7 day mooring provided you are prepared to pay. Or put in another way it is no longer what it says on the tin. A 48 hour can not be a 48 hour mooring if they are saying you can stay longer provided you are prepared to pay.

That is a very obtuse way of looking at it, and mathematicly unsound.

 

Staying with my example, 2 days free plus three days at £25 per day is still two days free and three days mooring charge, that does not add up to 14 days. The two may be associated but are based upon different criteria. The fact that (BW) CRT have not (as far as I know) introduced any chargeable short stay moorings does not mean that they cannot do so within the legislation as I understand it.

 

Perhaps you would prefer that way, all short stay mooring has a charge attached to it. The legislation to allow for that already exists.

Edited January 14, 2013 by David Schweizer

[jenlyn]

That seems rather obscure logic. Surely it is just it is saying it is 48 hours (for example) within your licence and longer is to be paid for at a given rate. It is not automatically converting it to a 14 day mooring.

 

 

I agree with abiding by the notices is a better way of carrying on.

Logic or not, it's arguable in court and would possibly cost a pretty penny finding out. CRT are not stupid, if it was easy to enforce, I am sure they would have used it before now.

So far, everyone I speak to have agreed to be more considerate of vm's In future. To me, that's the best way forward.

[David Schweizer]

By charging you, they are making it a 14 day mooring. These charges are not the answer. We all need to abide by the signage.

Merely repeating the answer already given does not make the original answer any more understandable.

[Neil TNC]

There were were in the remotest of the Shannon Locks, Meelick (Victoria), when a UK! registered black Astra, with a funny tripod mounted on the roof, came trundling down the private track. Should I have reported Google?...They did not make a very good job of fuzzing the images. Were they trying to record my licence details?

Google Street View linky

[David Schweizer]

Logic or not, it's arguable in court and would possibly cost a pretty penny finding out. CRT are not stupid, if it was easy to enforce, I am sure they would have used it before now.

So far, everyone I speak to have agreed to be more considerate of vm's In future. To me, that's the best way forward.

If you believe that there is a legally arguable case, I would be interested to hear the evidence, merely making bold statements without any supporting information or facts is not an arguement, it is opinion.

Edited January 14, 2013 by David Schweizer

[jenlyn]

If you believe that there is a legally arguable case, I would be interested to hear the evidence, merely making bold statements without any supporting information or facts is not an arguement, it is opinion.

If CRT believe it, then I do also, simples.

[David Schweizer]

If CRT believe it, then I do also, simples.

Just another bland statement without any supporting evidence. Unless you can demonstrate that CRT do hold that view, you don't actually have a defendable arguement.

Edited January 14, 2013 by David Schweizer

[jenlyn]

Just another bland statement without any supporting evidence. Unless you can demonstrate that CRT do hold that view, you don't actually have a defendable arguement.

In that case, ask them yourself, instead of twittering about it on here.

It amazes me that so many are willing to screw a pound from someone rather than look for a solution! You cannot solve a problem for someone with little money, by trying to screw them for more.

Edited January 14, 2013 by jenlyn

[blackrose]

So you are not to worried about people taking pictures of you, and your boat? I know you lead a virtuos life, but surely even you would get cheesed off if somebody took pictures of you every day?

 

(One day we will find something to wind you up about.... )

 

If you live or just drive through any town or city in this country, the details of your vehicle are recorded on CCTV every day. I think we are the most survieled country in the world. I'm not saying that I want this extended to boats, but I don't think this is anything we haven't already seen.

[mayalld]

By charging you, they are making it a 14 day mooring. These charges are not the answer. We all need to abide by the signage.

 

I do see what you are driving at, but I'm afraid that your logic and conclusions are grounded in quicksand.

 

In essence, your theory requires there to be something special and different about 14 day moorings from all other time limited moorings. The 14 day rule has to emenate from some distictly different power.

 

It doesn't.

 

Much as certain people would sound off that it doesn't give them any right to do this that and the other, the 14 day general mooring limit is a regulation made under CRTs s43 powers. Any shorter limits are made under the exact same powers, and any charging uses the same powers.

 

Those who argue against the right to impose limits less than 14 days or to charge for casual mooring, tie themselves into a knot, because they argue that CRT has no powers, and that the 14 day limit applies, seemingly oblivious to the fact that it is only the powers that they deny that impose that limit.

 

Hitherto, BW used its powers to impose time limits. A blanket 14 days everywhere, and shorter limits elsewhere. In some places, they imposed limits on how soon you can return. All under the s43 powers.

 

Moving to charging for overstaying is (provided they get somebody to word it correctly) simplicity itself.

 

They simply amend the general rule in our licences from "14 days unless signs indicate otherwise" to "14 days (or such shorter period as indicated by signs) free of charge, then £25 per day for each day or part thereof beyond that"

[Richard Fairhurst]

BW (as was) has indeed considered levying overstaying charges of this type. If you Google 'BW overstay charge' you'll find a whole host of posts about it on the K&A 'boatingcommunity' site (they are, inevitably, unimpressed). I thought that some locations have been signposted accordingly, but I may well be wrong. You could try asking Damian Kemp (via the CRT Facebook page?) or Sally Ash.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Richard Fairhurst

[jenlyn]

I do see what you are driving at, but I'm afraid that your logic and conclusions are grounded in quicksand.

 

In essence, your theory requires there to be something special and different about 14 day moorings from all other time limited moorings. The 14 day rule has to emenate from some distictly different power.

 

It doesn't.

 

Much as certain people would sound off that it doesn't give them any right to do this that and the other, the 14 day general mooring limit is a regulation made under CRTs s43 powers. Any shorter limits are made under the exact same powers, and any charging uses the same powers.

 

Those who argue against the right to impose limits less than 14 days or to charge for casual mooring, tie themselves into a knot, because they argue that CRT has no powers, and that the 14 day limit applies, seemingly oblivious to the fact that it is only the powers that they deny that impose that limit.

 

Hitherto, BW used its powers to impose time limits. A blanket 14 days everywhere, and shorter limits elsewhere. In some places, they imposed limits on how soon you can return. All under the s43 powers.

 

Moving to charging for overstaying is (provided they get somebody to word it correctly) simplicity itself.

 

They simply amend the general rule in our licences from "14 days unless signs indicate otherwise" to "14 days (or such shorter period as indicated by signs) free of charge, then £25 per day for each day or part thereof beyond that"

So why have they not implemented this?

 

BW (as was) has indeed considered levying overstaying charges of this type. If you Google 'BW overstay charge' you'll find a whole host of posts about it on the K&A 'boatingcommunity' site (they are, inevitably, unimpressed). I thought that some locations have been signposted accordingly, but I may well be wrong. You could try asking Damian Kemp (via the CRT Facebook page?) or Sally Ash.

It's already been asked.