Jump to content

CRT taking your licence away


rubblequeen

Featured Posts

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

 

Are you sure it's the OP? It seems to me that CaRT are trying to encourage a climate of fear. The scenario being the cheapest and easiest form of enforcement is fear. If the local scrote thinks he will get a good beating he is unlikly to pay your property a visit. Enforcement by the fear that - My boat might not have been logged - how after the event can I prove my innocence, is not a nice way to conduct business. Generating the fear of an uncertanty in the minds of the law abiding as well as the miscreants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Are you sure it's the OP? It seems to me that CaRT are trying to encourage a climate of fear. The scenario being the cheapest and easiest form of enforcement is fear. If the local scrote thinks he will get a good beating he is unlikly to pay your property a visit. Enforcement by the fear that - My boat might not have been logged - how after the event can I prove my innocence, is not a nice way to conduct business. Generating the fear of an uncertanty in the minds of the law abiding as well as the miscreants.

First we have promotion of fear, uncertainty and doubt, and now we have conspiracy theory.

 

Maybe we should all go just go boating and enjoy ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First we have promotion of fear, uncertainty and doubt, and now we have conspiracy theory.

 

Maybe we should all go just go boating and enjoy ourselves.

 

It's a bit hot...

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"

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.

 

You've written more posts than me, so I'm sure you're aware how people (myself included sometimes) tend to go off at a tangent and sometimes totally off topic. It looks to me as if Loddon just made a genuine mistake and had you confused with the people on the receiving end of s8 orders who try to drum up support for their cause by scaremongering, there was nothing in your OP criticising CRT except insofar as you wondered if there was a loophole they needed to close.

 

Let me attempt to turn the discussion to answering your original question...

 

On further reflection I doubt whether the s8 procedure has such a loophole. Someone who's been banned "from keeping any boat on CaRT waters again" (as per Lone Wolf's post #21) could probably get around that by finding a gullible nominee landlubber friend to hide behind. This person, perhaps a man of straw, could become a theoretical boat owner. But it's only a viable loophole if losing a licence and consequently having a boat removed by CRT under s8 can come without much financial cost to the boater, and I doubt that. Here are the relevant questions I can think of, which someone out there can probably answer:

 

Would CRT give such a boater a pro-rata refund for the remaining portion of the licence?

 

The boater can represent himself in court for next to nothing, but would the boater be able to avoid paying a charge for CRT's removal of the boat and/or court costs?

 

Would the boater then be able to sell the boat (to the nominee landlubber) without incurring other costs? There would ironically at least be the time/effort/money required to genuinely cruise the boat back from wherever CRT have taken it to the desired mooring on the K&A/Regents Canal. Perhaps our anti-hero could offset the cost of the loophole by persuading the landlubber to pay for a boating holiday without bothering to pay for the proper hire boat licence and insurance? Of course I am not for a moment encouraging anyone to break the law in this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Falsifying camera data is the work of less than a minute, so no better than keeping a log. In fact falsifying a log would be much more onerous than falsifying a pictures exif data.

 

I have read somewhere that CRT advice you keep alog of your movements for just such a purpose (proof that is not falsification) so surely they have to put some credence on a log you produce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Tony

There is a CRT requirement to answer emails within 7 working days iirc.

If you do not get answers then submit a complaint

You could also submit a Data protection act request for copies of all information they hokd about you and your boat.

Are we not all getting a bit over excited about nothing?

Yes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"

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,

Oops! sorry thought the way the thread had gone it was the Tony Dunkley thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we not all getting a bit over excited about nothing?

 

Absolutely! the majority of boaters I speak to on the cut have heard and know nothing of what's been suggested in this thread and many others.

 

It's pretty rare that anyone knows what you're on about if you mention CWF and the ones that do know of it tend to belittle it and roll eyes. Once again comments posted & readers of this forum equate to a tiny percentage of actual on the water boaters it seems to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony

There is a CRT requirement to answer emails within 7 working days iirc.

If you do not get answers then submit a complaint

You could also submit a Data protection act request for copies of all information they hokd about you and your boat.

 

 

They do, they send an automated reply and then fail to follow it up. I have been treated this way by the London Office, Ms Ash, and the Wigan office. This sends a clear message to me that CaRT do not place customer service high on their list and as the holding emails promise a reply within X days which they fail to keep they can not be trusted.

 

In fact why should I be expected to move to a complaints procedure. Just like the main thrust of this thread CaRT and others seem happy to make boaters responsible for ensuring the CaRT procedures etc. are working and fit for purpose.

 

It also seems CaRT treat the Freedom of Information Act, even when backed up with judgments against them, with disdain so how will they handle Data Protection requests?

 

Whether accidentally or deliberately BW then CaRT have engendered a degree of fear in some of their rule abiding customers and apparently do nothing to counter it. Whatever the law may actually say or mean CaRT interprets it into rules and then behaves as their rules are the law it appears to me.

 

Unfortunate any assurances given by others in this thread are worth;less UNLESS backed up by CaRT. I do not see why I should be happy with assurances that CaRT are "too busy" or have other things to rather than pursue me over erroneous data possibly provided by a checker or other official who may have a hidden agenda or viewpoint.

 

The fact that CaRT seem very happy negotiate with special interest groups of boaters but do not communicate with the majority of their customers is another thing that encourages mistrust.

 

They must up their game, I would have thought a simple B&W A5 newsletter explaining their thinking and actions sent out with license reminders would not be overly expensive and would reach all legal boaters.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing there seems to be little argument about is the need to move every 14 days. I have seen no data from CRTs data logging or enforcement team on how many boats fail to do this basic act. Looking at all the attempts at changing guidance and introducing penalty charges or no return rules which they are not equipped to enforce. I suggest that they just need to focus on getting this happening then worry about the how far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing there seems to be little argument about is the need to move every 14 days. I have seen no data from CRTs data logging or enforcement team on how many boats fail to do this basic act. Looking at all the attempts at changing guidance and introducing penalty charges or no return rules which they are not equipped to enforce. I suggest that they just need to focus on getting this happening then worry about the how far.

 

 

Very good point and how in the main we interpret the general guidelines, moving to somewhere with a different name is a different place and of course doing a to b to c to d to f even before returning.

 

I reckon this new Western K&A proposal will struggle.

Edited by Julynian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First we have promotion of fear, uncertainty and doubt, and now we have conspiracy theory.

 

This has nothing to do with the matter under discussion except to show the mindset of people and institutions in a powerful position.

 

Does anyone recall that during the 1975 referendum concerning our staying in the European Economic Union it was said that the EEC was just the start of a United Europe, with a single currency? No, no, said the politicians, heaven forbid. Look what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at all the recent threads on C&RT's 'illegal actions', chasing boats with a home mooring for not being there often enough, etc etc

 

Thin end of the wedge I say - thin end of the wedge !!!!!

 

We need clarity of information, clarity of the rules (independant or professional interpretation) and consistent enforcement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

happened to Me with BW! and a massive row erupted because of it. I proved them wrong hands down and they renewed my licence eventually1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And CaRT refused my friend’s licence renewal because of claimed ‘uncertainty’ over her status as a CC’er or Home moorer. They later agreed to licence her based on the status already established previously in the High Court, but by then she was too disenchanted to bother. More lost income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need clarity of information, clarity of the rules (independant or professional interpretation) and consistent enforcement.

 

As I’ve noted elsewhere, unfortunately, clarification of Rules by the court is only heeded by CaRT when that is in the authority’s favour.

 

So far as no-contentious Rules are concerned – you are right, consistent enforcement is required but not carried out. Mick & Maggie have also commented elsewhere that clarity of interpretation is needed, and yet even though existing legislation [that part of it that has never been contested], if enforced, could solve most problems in the few real trouble areas, it is not used.

 

As the chair of the Commons Select Committee once observed – “operationally, you are OK” [with then existing legislation]. But perhaps enforcing those powers is insufficiently glamorous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

The flaw in your theory is that CRT data loggers would have to only be at the mooring in question at 15 day intervals, and that you (anyone) would just happen to be unlucky enough to moor there on the first and fifteenth day.

 

For surely, if CRT is logging data on a daily basis, then their own data logs would be the only proof you would need of the days you weren't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The flaw in your theory is that CRT data loggers would have to only be at the mooring in question at 15 day intervals, and that you (anyone) would just happen to be unlucky enough to moor there on the first and fifteenth day.

 

For surely, if CRT is logging data on a daily basis, then their own data logs would be the only proof you would need of the days you weren't there.

 

Your point is obviously very valid, but, playing devils advocate - if there are 20,000 vistors moorings on the system, each of these would need checking daily ( some will of course be 24 or 48 hour moorings anyway).

Anywhere along the towpath you can moor for 14 days - this would need checking daily

 

There are (about) 2,000 miles of waterway - how many miles can each enforcement officer cover 5 miles, 10 miles a day ? so lets say we need 200 enforcement officers working 5 days a week, and we'd need another 200 working 'part time' for two days per week.

 

As C&RT cannot legally apply fines, the enforcement officers are not going to generate any income. Their wages and other costs will have to come from the general pot.

 

We will not get daily or even weekly enforcement.

 

At best there will be some enforcement at the 'hot-spots' that are 24 or 48 hours, and totally random enforcement elswhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel fairly certain that CRT are really just targetting people with paper moorings but nevertheless it does make you feel slightly uneasy.

One thing I just realised (and I appreciate not everyone will want to do this) people who are friends with me on facebook know I tend to update friends on progress when on the move. Last night I tagged a pic of the sunset at Tixall Wide then today I have checked in at Rugeley, Fradley and Alrewas.

I figure if ever we had a problem that would be great evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need . . . clarity of the rules (independant or professional interpretation) . . .

 

Actually, clarification of the “14 day rule” was exhaustively canvassed during introduction of what became the 1995 Act. Mr Drabble QC explained the effect of Section 17(3)( c ) with all the clarity that anyone might wish, in persuading Parliament of its desirability. I have pasted relevant excerpts below – it needs to be understood that as it appeared in the draft Bill, what we now have as s.17 was there s.14.

 

scccrulesa_zps7cc3b04d.jpg

scccrulesb_zps499503d0.jpg

scccrulesc_zps871fa0d2.jpg

 

From the above, it may be apparent why BW/CaRT have resisted use of the Minutes in all court cases on the subject. There is a world of difference between current interpretations, and the "professional interpretation" which they presented to Parliament to get the law in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it all but unbelievable that CaRT seem in certain cases to be operating in guilty until you prove that you are innocent mode. C-R may well be right that her facebook entries would be taken as good evidence but why should anyone who obeys the rules feel obliged to do that or keep logs. It is up to CaRT to prove then guilty.

 

IF there is even a grain of truth in NM's assertions about the River Brent mooring situation (in the other similar thread) we really do need to be worried. IT seems CaRT may choose to ignore the law and precedent if it decides to hound people. Also consider what has been alleged on here. You will note tha CaRT have not chosen to allay any fears and by that I assume they want their customers to be fearful of unlawful action possibly based on bad data by CaRT.

 

I am not talking about a straight forward Section 8 procedure but about the alleged situation where CaRT has either canceled a license or refused to issue a new one and then starting S8 base on the boat having no license. The two recent cases I have read about causes me concern. However I accept that I do not know the full story but CaRT seem to be disinterested in putting their side forward so their customers can make an informed decision.

Edited by Tony Brooks
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.