Section 8

[DeanS]

Dataloggers noted a boat I had bought...called A

I licenced the boat...and gave it a new name....B

3 weeks later I was still being asked about A

 

I had to explain over the phone that A and B were the same boat.

Luckily I had emailed them pics of B....during the licencing process.

The lady on the phone had to compare "their" pics of A....with "my" pics of B......in order to understand they were the same boat.

 

all because I had left the old name on the boat...very confusing for all.

Even more confusing was that the data logger had told me they had last seen this boat in another part of the country....what he missed was that the boat had never actually been on CRT waters before....I had bought it from a marina on the Bridgewater.

 

so confusing....and at times a little worrying.

[Paul C]

CRT do recommend a CCer keeps a log of their boat movements; its not a legal requirement, but I believe the law is worded such that the onus is on the boat owner to prove they've complied with the rules. Even so, certain CCers pride themselves in NOT keeping a log, for some reason.

[Sabcat]

As CRT are subject to the FOI act it would be interesting to try and get some information from them over a specific case - I wonder if by use of FOI and data protection Mr Dunkley and Wreckferret could get details of all emails and internal correspondence about their respective cases.

 

You can tell a lot about an organisation by the way they handle FOI requests.

[MtB]

As CRT are subject to the FOI act it would be interesting to try and get some information from them over a specific case - I wonder if by use of FOI and data protection Mr Dunkley and Wreckferret could get details of all emails and internal correspondence about their respective cases.

 

You can tell a lot about an organisation by the way they handle FOI requests.

 

I read on here one of the objections to the creation of CRT was that as a charitable trust, unlike BW they would not be obliged to respond to FOI requests.

 

I dunno if this is true, but I bet Nige does!

 

MtB

[Sabcat]

 

I read on here one of the objections to the creation of CRT was that as a charitable trust, unlike BW they would not be obliged to respond to FOI requests.

 

I dunno if this is true, but I bet Nige does!

 

MtB

 

 

From their own website "The term 'public authority' is defined in the Act and includes all public bodies and Government departments in the UK. We have obligations in respect of the statutory functions we inherited from British Waterways." which I read as "we're the kind of people do our level best not to release any information that we don't want people to see" I'm guessing as their enforcement powers are statutory they can't dodge requests but that doesn't mean they won't try.

 

I've read a lot of Nigel's posts on here. Hugely informative.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Sabcat

[NigelMoore]

 

I read on here one of the objections to the creation of CRT was that as a charitable trust, unlike BW they would not be obliged to respond to FOI requests.

 

The outcry was sufficient to provoke DEFRA into running a consultation specifically on the subject, the outcome of which was that CaRT would be held subject to the FoI Act is respect of all those functions it inherited from BW.

 

That limited application has been sadly subverted by some twisted reasoning that has unfortunately been upheld by the Information Commissioner. CaRT claimed successfully that they are not liable for releasing any historic information relating to BW on the grounds that BW were removed from the list of bodies subject to the Act by way of amendment following the 2012 Transfer Order.

 

Even worse, CaRT further claim [on the back of Johnson’s argument that the day to day management and running of the network is NOT based on the functions inherited from BW, but is based instead on the Articles of Association of the limited company] that most enquiries for information likewise fall outside the scope of the Act.

 

Their stated position is that such info as they are pleased to impart is given out purely because they are nice transparent people. “I’m doing it because I want to do it, not because you told me to”.

 

Sabcat is right – “You can tell a lot about an organisation by the way they handle FOI requests.” Just read through the WhatDoTheyKnow website.

[Tuscan]

Of course not.

 

The towpath-spotter is in a position to instantly verify the licence status of a boat; .

 

 

Actually that's not the case the current equipment just logs the index number and sends it presumably to a Central PC not sure if this is through internet or downloaded. There is no feedback to the data logger as to whether the boat is licensed or has overstayed. I understand that the enforcement case to upgrade the equipment to feed back the information to the data logger - not sure what the volunteer would be expected to do with this information.

[NigelMoore]

Actually that's not the case the current equipment just logs the index number and sends it presumably to a Central PC not sure if this is through internet or downloaded.

 

He doesn't have to rely on his specialised hand-held equipment. Any member of the public can enter the Index number on CaRT's website via smartphone, and get the instant answer.

 

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/boating/licensing/boat-check

Edited July 29, 2014 by NigelMoore

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Actually that's not the case the current equipment just logs the index number and sends it presumably to a Central PC not sure if this is through internet or downloaded. There is no feedback to the data logger as to whether the boat is licensed or has overstayed. I understand that the enforcement case to upgrade the equipment to feed back the information to the data logger - not sure what the volunteer would be expected to do with this information.

What other information is captured?

 

Obviously, the position of the boat but is this some GPS co-ordinates captured directly from the data capture device or does this require manual input?

 

Is data captured regarding which way the boat is facing?

 

Is data captured regarding if the boat is moving or not?

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Sabcat is right – “You can tell a lot about an organisation by the way they handle FOI requests.” Just read through the WhatDoTheyKnow website.

 

It is worthwhile reading the WhatDoTheyKnow site regarding the Trust's responsibilities -

 

Canal & River Trust is subject to Environmental Information Regulations and also subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 with respect to functions inherited from British Waterways. The Canal & River Trust have undertaken to voluntarily release information where they can regardless of whether they are obliged to do so.

 

 

..... and compare it with the way they respond.

[Paul C]

 

It is worthwhile reading the WhatDoTheyKnow site regarding the Trust's responsibilities -

 

 

..... and compare it with the way they respond.

 

You mean like this one?

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/money_spent_on_answering_questio#incoming-303441

[NilesMI]

CRT do recommend a CCer keeps a log of their boat movements; its not a legal requirement, but I believe the law is worded such that the onus is on the boat owner to prove they've complied with the rules. Even so, certain CCers pride themselves in NOT keeping a log, for some reason.

 

With CRT taking action against people who don't return to their declared home mooring often enough, it's not just CCers who need to have a log of their boat movements.

[Tuscan]

He doesn't have to rely on his specialised hand-held equipment. Any member of the public can enter the Index number on CaRT's website via smartphone, and get the instant answer.

 

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/boating/licensing/boat-check

True but I'm pretty sure they don't otherwise they would do this in every instance, I suspect taking any action with the information obtained is specifically excluded from the job description. Probably one of the reasons CRT appears so remote to many.

[cotswoldsman]

If you have a decent camera phone that geotags the picyure just take a photo of your boat everytime you stop. You dont even need any sceneary, allthough that makes it easier. All the pictures will be stored with the date/time and location in the metadata and can be placed on a map with ease.

Well for someone came onto the canals for just a few years to relax and get away from the pressures of life and is now done 8 years I feel the life I found is being taken away. Take photos to show the authorities where I have been!!! This after I have spent hours studying maps to ensure I am moving to another neighbourhood. Is this now becoming boating with fear. Is this really the new life I thought I was going to get with CRT? No wonder a lot of the ordinary law abiding boaters I meet who do not do forums and Facebook many don't do Internet feel their chosen lifestyle is being taken away

Edited July 29, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[MtB]

Well for someone came onto the canals for just a few years to relax and get away from the pressures of life and is now done 8 years I feel the life I found is being taken away. Take photos to show the authorities where I have been!!! This after I have spent hours studying maps to ensure I am moving to another neighbourhood. Is this now becoming boating with fear. Is this really the new life I thought I was going to get with CRT? No wonder a lot of the ordinary law abiding boaters I meet who do not do forums and Facebook many don't do Internet feel their chosen lifestyle is being taken away

 

Time to buy a motorhome and see how you get on parking up in AOONB laybys for a fortnight if you think CRT are draconian.

 

The trouble is, when the cut was a disaster area in terms of maintenance and the general public saw canals are a Bad Thing, they were a great place for living under the radar. Now they are a mainstream recreation playground and teeming with boats which all need regulating or chaos will result.

 

Can you imagine what the cut would be like if CRT never took ANY enforcement action? I imagine not actually, from the stance you take.

 

MtB

[cotswoldsman]

It is interesting that CRT spent £4.5 million a month on staff salaries during 2013/14 shame not much of that is spent on employing some proper customer focused enforcement who can spend some time actually talking to customers and by that I mean actually explaining to customers what is expected and having a sensible conversation to sort out any misunderstandings but hey we are only boaters.

 

Time to buy a motorhome and see how you get on parking up in AOONB laybys for a fortnight if you think CRT are draconian.

 

The trouble is, when the cut was a disaster area in terms of maintenance and the general public saw canals are a Bad Thing, they were a great place for living under the radar. Now they are a mainstream recreation playground and teeming with boats which all need regulating or chaos will result.

 

Can you imagine what the cut would be like if CRT never took ANY enforcement action? I imagine not actually, from the stance you take.

 

MtB

Firstly I do not want to be on the road. Secondly can you point me in the direction where I have ever said I do not support enforcement. I just ask for consistent and decent enforcement not one where I have to take photos to prove where I have been andwhen I moved.

[GUMPY]

Well for someone came onto the canals for just a few years to relax and get away from the pressures of life and is now done 8 years I feel the life I found is being taken away. Take photos to show the authorities where I have been!!! This after I have spent hours studying maps to ensure I am moving to another neighbourhood. Is this now becoming boating with fear. Is this really the new life I thought I was going to get with CRT? No wonder a lot of the ordinary law abiding boaters I meet who do not do forums and Facebook many don't do Internet feel their chosen lifestyle is being taken away

Im afraid you arrived to late the "golden age of the canals" ended about 2005

 

A photo a day is like an insurance policy.

As and when I leave my moorings for good I will be doing a photo a day not for CRT but as a referance for me.

OH and I will also tweet my photo with geotag on as a backup.

Unless of course a better sytem has been developed by then.

[MtB]

Secondly can you point me in the direction where I have ever said I do not support enforcement.

 

Can you point me to a post where you say you DO?

 

You always seem to me to side with the piss-takers against CRT, and you constantly criticise me for being a hard liner, which I'm not. I just want consistent enforcement.. For example in my recent survey you suggested it was fine to evade paying for a licence if you've 'fallen on hard times'. In what way could that be classed as supporting consistent enforcement?

 

MtB

[cotswoldsman]

 

Can you point me to a post where you say you DO?

 

You always seem to me to side with the piss-takers against CRT, and you constantly criticise me for being a hard liner, which I'm not. I just want consistent enforcement.. For example in my recent survey you suggested it was fine to evade paying for a licence if you've 'fallen on hard times'. In what way could that be classed as supporting consistent enforcement?

 

MtB

So you can not find anywhere then. Sorry you feel that supporting people who have fallen on hard times means I support piss takers might be your definition of a piss taker is different to mine.

[jenlyn]

Can you point me to a post where you say you DO?

 

You always seem to me to side with the piss-takers against CRT, and you constantly criticise me for being a hard liner, which I'm not. I just want consistent enforcement.. For example in my recent survey you suggested it was fine to evade paying for a licence if you've 'fallen on hard times'. In what way could that be classed as supporting consistent enforcement?

 

MtB

What's a piss taker?

[MtB]

What's a piss taker?

 

Join up the dots and figure it out, if you can.

[jenlyn]

Join up the dots and figure it out, if you can.

I just did, and guess what, it came back to you :-)

[Sabcat]

I've seen big changes in the 15 years I've lived on the cut, mainly in attitude. It's gone hand in hand with the general attitude in the rest of society that's seen people increasingly identify as "tax payers" and the droll "as a tax payer I think....". Others clearly think differently but put it this way; if you identify as a "tax payer" or in our specific case "a licence payer" then you aint never going to be a friend of mine.

[carlt]

For example in my recent survey you suggested it was fine to evade paying for a licence if you've 'fallen on hard times'.

 

 

Perhaps the wording of the survey was slanted in your favour and maybe there should have been a box to tick that said..."I don't think those who have fallen on hard times should have to evade paying for a licence in order to keep their home."

 

If I was poor enough I would steal to feed myself and yes I would "evade" my obligations to pay if it meant keeping my home.

 

I would hope, however, in our civilised society that there would be no need to break the law to retain the minimum requirements for maintaining one's health and home, in cases of extreme hardship

[MtB]

So you can not find anywhere then. Sorry you feel that supporting people who have fallen on hard times means I support piss takers might be your definition of a piss taker is different to mine.

 

There you go, being inconsistent. You say everyone has to pay for a license EXCEPT the peeps who have 'fallen on hard times'. Is that your stance on license evasion? Inconsistent. See?

 

How do you define 'fallen on hard times'?

 

MtB