CRT taking your licence away

[rubblequeen]

Just wondered as there has been several threads on here about CRT taking a licence away for breaking the rules.

 

I do understand that it is the boat that is licenced but what happens next? Is that boat forever blighted or the person whose name was on the licence as it seems to me that those who break the rules could quite easily be back doing it again in no time.

How does CRT enforce someone who continually breaks the rules in different or renamed boats?

 

No I'm not looking for loopholes for me just wondered.

[John V]

Just wondered as there has been several threads on here about CRT taking a licence away for breaking the rules.

 

I do understand that it is the boat that is licenced but what happens next? Is that boat forever blighted or the person whose name was on the licence as it seems to me that those who break the rules could quite easily be back doing it again in no time.

How does CRT enforce someone who continually breaks the rules in different or renamed boats?

 

No I'm not looking for loopholes for me just wondered

 

 

Hadn't thought about that aspect....certainly opens a can of worms, for a start, as far as I am aware, at present, there is no requirement to prove who you are anyway!

[Ray T]

Ask the man in the green hat in this video:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44p1uOnWCNw

[Tony Brooks]

As a holiday/weekend boater with a marina mooring I to am getting concerned about the "noise" about canceling licenses for breaking the rules AS PERCEIVED by CaRT and the lack of any counter information from CaRT.

 

It appears that they may base their actions on a very infrequent licensing check and the first a boater MIGHT hear of an alleged infringement is months later when it will be difficult or impossible to provide evidence to the con tray. There is also no EASY way check what locations data CaRT hold about ones boat.

 

Then there is the ongoing refusal of CaRT employees to actually answer emails plus their ongoing attempts to impost rules that make holiday crusing for a private boat difficult while making exceptions for hire boats.

 

Its CaRTs apparent inability to put their side of the stories to their fee payers that I find particularly worrying. I simply do not want to risk all the stress etc of having to fight them in court and then find that they, or one or more employees, appear to be out to get me.

[NB Lola]

Is there an appeals service attached to this? If so are the reviewers independent of CRT. If not then they have problems.

[Alan de Enfield]

Its an interesting question as to 'how do you prove you have moved ?

 

Diesel receipts ? - just shows you have run the engine ?

Photo of 'Local' dated newspaper with a land mark in the background - Possibly ?

Signed and dated 'affidavit' from lockeepers that you have passed ? - not many canals have permanent lockies.

Your cruising log ? - could be a total fabrication.

 

 

So - you are recorded at location A, and 15 days later are recorded at location A - just how can you provide evidence that in between those dates you have been to locations B to C to B and back to A

 

As an example we had a couple of weeks on an 'out & return' and we stopped at the same mooring on the 1st and last night - fortunately it was Cromwell Lock so the lock keeper would have records of us transiting the lock. If it wasnt a manned lock how could we argue we hadnt moved ?

 

I'd be interested in any proposals.

[Tony Brooks]

Is there an appeals service attached to this? If so are the reviewers independent of CRT. If not then they have problems.

 

That is one of the problems, no one seems to know but we do "know" from more than one source that CaRT seem to take very strong action against a small number of boaters and reportedly in one case a member of the CaRT legal team lied to the boat owner so they did not attend the hearing.

 

The problem is that we have no way of assessing the truth but we know from the Upton upon Severn debacle that legality is not a strong point. In my experience their failure to answer emails they have acknowledged only adds to concerns. Then there seems to be cases where some boaters are allowed onto the Liverpool link by phone or even without any booking while others have to communicate by post.

[Quinafloat]

The only way to have an equal discussion about your boat movements with CaRT is to keep a log. It doesn't matter whether it is simple pen and paper, a spreadsheet or an automated one such as my company produce. Keeping a log is your only defence.

[Athy]

Its an interesting question as to 'how do you prove you have moved ?

 

 

 

Surely you don't need to? It is up to CART, if they wish to be petty enough and have no more canals left to fix, to prove that you haven't. That is the basis of Britain's legal system.

[Alan de Enfield]

The only way to have an equal discussion about your boat movements with CaRT is to keep a log. It doesn't matter whether it is simple pen and paper, a spreadsheet or an automated one such as my company produce. Keeping a log is your only defence.

 

I agree it seems the only possible method - but if I was so inclined - and to justify I was not a CMer (or whatever I was being accused of) I could sit here and write up a log that is complete fiction.

 

C&RT would provide evidence from their Data Loggers

 

So its a case of "I said, He said" - who gets believed when it ends up in court ?

 

Its almost as if C&RT are Judge, Jury and executioner.

[Tony Brooks]

Its an interesting question as to 'how do you prove you have moved ?

 

snip

 

As an example we had a couple of weeks on an 'out & return' and we stopped at the same mooring on the 1st and last night - fortunately it was Cromwell Lock so the lock keeper would have records of us transiting the lock. If it wasnt a manned lock how could we argue we hadnt moved ?

 

I'd be interested in any proposals.

 

One way is for CaRT to post their log of your boats movements plus any patrol comments to you with your license renewal each year. That we one might get early warning of incorrect conclusions being drawn etc. I would also like to think the patrols records show which way the boat is pointing so CaRT do not confuse and out and back stops with longer term mooring.

 

CaRT have inherited a very poor relationship with customers and until they stat communication properly things will not get any better and people will think the worst rather than the best. I also think it is vital that they get a new Act that lays out exactly what their powers re mooring and licensing are. At present they seem happy to squander money and force boaters to do the same by going all the way to the high court (if the boater refuse to simply give up) to clarify the law.

 

 

PS they should also communicate with the boater on the first and every occasion they suspect a breach of their rules so there is a chance it can be resolved.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Tony Brooks

[Alan de Enfield]

Surely you don't need to? It is up to CART, if they wish to be petty enough and have no more canals left to fix, to prove that you haven't. That is the basis of Britain's legal system.

 

C&RT can 'prove' you have not moved by their data-loggers seing you in the same place 15 days apart - you then need to defend yourself and prove that in fact you have moved in the interim.

[Leo No2]

Its an interesting question as to 'how do you prove you have moved ?

 

Diesel receipts ? - just shows you have run the engine ?

Photo of 'Local' dated newspaper with a land mark in the background - Possibly ?

Signed and dated 'affidavit' from lockeepers that you have passed ? - not many canals have permanent lockies.

Your cruising log ? - could be a total fabrication.

 

 

So - you are recorded at location A, and 15 days later are recorded at location A - just how can you provide evidence that in between those dates you have been to locations B to C to B and back to A

 

As an example we had a couple of weeks on an 'out & return' and we stopped at the same mooring on the 1st and last night - fortunately it was Cromwell Lock so the lock keeper would have records of us transiting the lock. If it wasnt a manned lock how could we argue we hadnt moved ?

 

I'd be interested in any proposals.

Alan - in gliding to prove you had achieved a set task a photo of the wing of the glider together with the turning point, sometimes many thousands of feet below, was required. With modern cameras, which not only generally have a date/time function to print onto a digital picture, but also have 'meta data' provided with each file which records details of the camera and such like. I suppose it is possible to falsify it but it would take a bit but it would also be a simple way of the majority of boaters who are challenged being able to 'prove' where they were on a particular date. I think most people have a suitable camera these days.

[GUMPY]

I think there is a lot of paranoia going on here.

You can apply to CRT to find out where your boat has been spotted.

Two sightings in the same place with the boat facing in opposite directions is not enough to trigger anything happening even if you haven't been sighted elsewhere.

CRT do not have the resources to check every bit of towpath so its qute possible in some areas not to get checked for a few weeks.

CRT will be going for the obvious offenders such as those moored on VM way past the allowed length of stay, not a boat on the towpath spotted twice facing in different directions 15 days apart.

Certain areas are checked far more frequently than others so I guess that if your first and last night were in one of those areas then there would be X days in between when you were not sighted in that area.

If you are really worried then you can always keep a cruising blog with nice dated pictures of the boat in different locations so we can all share in your adventures.

 

 

ETA

Looks like the OP has succeeded in his aim to spark fear and distrust with CRT enforcement regime

Edited May 18, 2014 by Loddon

[Quinafloat]

CaRT log positions of boats. If the positions and dates on your log match those of CaRT's then your log is proved, or CaRT must disprove them. CaRT do not log all boat movements, just when they happen to pass by.

[matty40s]

I moved boats through Foxton and Watford flights earlier in the year on separate occasions where there were no lockers available to log boat movements.

I also moved a boat down Buckby flight and the locky present had previously worked 6 days earlier with no lockers in between to log boat movements.

If this had been my boat, I could have moved a massive distance and returned to A without that boat movement being recorded.

I take pictures of location every time I move.

[mango]

How often does it happen that CRT revokes a licence because they have made a mistake and the licence holder has actually been cruising the system? Rather than promoting fear, uncertainty and doubt, boaters should be supporting CRT's attempts to deal those who are deliberately breaking the rules.

[adam1uk]

I moved boats through Foxton and Watford flights earlier in the year on separate occasions where there were no lockers available to log boat movements.

I also moved a boat down Buckby flight and the locky present had previously worked 6 days earlier with no lockers in between to log boat movements.

If this had been my boat, I could have moved a massive distance and returned to A without that boat movement being recorded.

I take pictures of location every time I move.

You can be logged at more than just lock flights, though. There are people walking and cycling the towpath, and frequently do their work without people noticing.

[b0atman]

If bw had policed the system effectively then this problem would not be with us now .

CaRT need to get to grips and tighten up the rules so that they are clearly understood by all.

Visitor moorings need a fresh look at and in most cases longer times given for example what is point of 24 hour mooring when area needs more time to explore the area. Also no return in 28 days where is relevance in that ?

[cotswoldsman]

How often does it happen that CRT revokes a licence because they have made a mistake and the licence holder has actually been cruising the system? Rather than promoting fear, uncertainty and doubt, boaters should be supporting CRT's attempts to deal those who are deliberately breaking the rules.

I have to agree with you there, but I still feel uncomfortable with some of the interpratation that CRT put on the laws the law is fairly simple but the guidance is very complicated even Judge Lewis in the recent JR was very sarcastic about CRT's interpratuon of the law

[LoneWolf]

Just wondered as there has been several threads on here about CRT taking a licence away for breaking the rules.

 

I do understand that it is the boat that is licenced but what happens next? Is that boat forever blighted or the person whose name was on the licence as it seems to me that those who break the rules could quite easily be back doing it again in no time.

How does CRT enforce someone who continually breaks the rules in different or renamed boats?

 

No I'm not looking for loopholes for me just wondered.

 

I read the judgments for a couple of the recent s8 cases and in both cases I think there was mention of the person (current owner of the s8 boat) being banned from keeping any boat on CaRT waters again

[John V]

 

That is one of the problems, no one seems to know but we do "know" from more than one source that CaRT seem to take very strong action against a small number of boaters and reportedly in one case a member of the CaRT legal team lied to the boat owner so they did not attend the hearing.

 

The problem is that we have no way of assessing the truth but we know from the Upton upon Severn debacle that legality is not a strong point. In my experience their failure to answer emails they have acknowledged only adds to concerns. Then there seems to be cases where some boaters are allowed onto the Liverpool link by phone or even without any booking while others have to communicate by post.

 

 

Moving the goalposts is not something that is confined to C&RT, an acquaintance travelling to Humber ports area radioed as per instructions in the latest Reed's and was then told he had to request permission to enter the Humber in writing 24 hours in advance!! This meant a Tug and tow swanning about off Spurn point and then having to go to anchor. You can imagine the extra fuel and wages bill!!

[Alan de Enfield]

Alan - in gliding to prove you had achieved a set task a photo of the wing of the glider together with the turning point,...........

 

Not a very good analogy

 

Indeed you do, but the 1st photo has to be a dated declaration showing the route and has to be signed by a BGA Official observer, then your various 'turning point' pictures, then the last picture is again of the original declaration. This is all supported by a 'barograph' showing you have not landed en-route and have made a continuous flight.

 

I doubt it would be practical to get a C&RT official to sign our 'log-books' everyday we moved.

[Peter X]

 

ETA

Looks like the OP has succeeded in his aim to spark fear and distrust with CRT enforcement regime

 

On the contrary, the OP's concern seems to me to be that there might be a loophole in enforcement which CRT need to close, namely that after CRT have taken away a licence the person concerned could buy another boat and start afresh. If, as I understand it, the consequence of the removal of a licence is the removal of the boat, I'd have thought that this is not much of a loophole because the person trying to use it would incur a substantial cost, but maybe someone who knows more about the procedure than I do could confirm or refute this point?

 

There do indeed appear to be other people who aim to spark fear and distrust with CRT enforcement regime, Tony Dunkley's recent emotively titled topic being one example. Having read a few similar topics, I think I can see what's happening here.

 

Someone with no home mooring, or a cheap mooring they have little intention of using, which may be cheap because it's up north in a place where there's lots of room or in Tony Dunkley's case is local but not convenient to use, is hanging about in a small stretch of canal in a popular area like central London or the western K&A. They might be doing this for a variety of reasons, e.g. to stay close to a place of work or a school, or they might have broken down and not have the money to fix the engine, or be in poor health and unable or unwilling to find crew, but unless they're trapped by stoppages or weather that's not CRT's problem. They do this to the extent that CRT deems them not to be conforming to their much-debated attempts at interpretation of the famously vague clause in the 1995 Act, and the enforcement process follows.

 

The boater decides to try to convince as many other boaters as possible that CRT is the big bad wolf, and that if they don't man the barricades they could be next to get picked on. So we get these emotively titled topics, and the ludicrous assertion that CRT are going to be taking enforcement action in future against the shiny boat fraternity who wander out of the marina on a Friday evening or Saturday morning and back on Sunday whenever there's a decent weekend's weather, and consequently are often to be seen moored in their favourite spot a few miles away on a Saturday night.

 

As has been said, CRT are not going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. This type of boater is happy doing what they're doing and paying the price they do, doesn't moan about their marina's NAA being unfair, might not even be aware what a NAA is, and gets along fine with CRT so long as they perceive some level of effort to keep the system open for navigation; lock gates working, not too many long lines of moored boats, and a reasonable prospect of finding somewhere to moor up when needed. CRT would be crazy to start insisting that they have to moor in a different place each Friday/Saturday to stay within the rules. It isn't going to happen.

[rubblequeen]

"
ETA
Looks like the OP has succeeded in his aim to spark fear and distrust with CRT enforcement regime "

That was the last thing on my mind - and didn't expect the thread to go the way it has. It was a simple question about how it all works.

I have no problems with CRT in fact gave never really had need to have been in contact with them,

Edited by Loddon, Today, 09:53 AM.