Is C&RT's Boat/Location Logging System Fit for Purpose?

[Sabcat]

That email exchange is baffling. Is it incompetent stupidity or an attempt at climbing down from a position that confidence has been lost in?

 

I think a better question than the one in the thread title would be "Is C&RT fit for purpose?".

[Quinafloat]

I have just posted a new topic "CaRT define place" in general boating. It may have some bearing on non movement cases.

[MtB]

I have just posted a new topic "CaRT define place" in general boating. It may have some bearing on non movement cases.

 

But this isn't one of them AIUI.

 

It's a 'we think your home mooring is a sham so we're classing you as a CCer, and because you aren't CCing, we've cancelled your license' case. Isn't it?

 

 

MtB

[Quinafloat]

 

But this isn't one of them AIUI.

 

It's a 'we think your home mooring is a sham so we're classing you as a CCer, and because you aren't CCing, we've cancelled your license' case. Isn't it?

 

 

MtB

 

I guess that depends, I think that the new "place" document is quite specific to boaters with no home mooring. In TD's case, he has a home mooring and CaRT agree to that fact. I believe that it is a valuable document to convince a judge of the major differences between the two classes of licence. I would certainly use it to demonstrate the differences as it is so clear cut, precise, and public, should I ever need to convince a judge of the difference between 17,3.c,i and ii.

[Paul G2]

 

As I thought.

 

Many years of writing & reading contracts has given me a rather peculiar view of what people say and what they mean - generally thay can be read in several ways,

 

So C&RT are saying -

 

Acknowledge you will change, and we will let you back onto our waterways - no hard feelings

 

but what they mean is :-

 

Admit you were in the wrong and that we had the authority to revoke your licence (and can do so again at anytime should you not meet our - unspecified - requirements for cruising), then you can 'come back' onto our waterways.

 

One does need to consider donning a tinfoil hat whilst reading that email exchange. However, CRT might not be quite as clever as they think they are. Aside from the fact that they have de facto invited Tony to cruise on their waterways without a license, they have admitted that he navigates his boat off his mooring. CRT is insisting that he should do more cruising when he leaves his mooring, but having a home mooring he is not required to cruise, he is only required to have a boat bona fide for navigation.

 

Essentially it seems that CRT has inadvertently admitted that they have no cause whatsoever to declare him a houseboat, and the CRT emails might just be sufficient to get the houseboat part of the charges dismissed. It might even be enough of an admission to get the whole case dismissed, or ruled for in Tony's favor. After all, if he has a home mooring and engages in bona fide navigation, then he is in compliance with the laws as they are written, isn't he?

 

ETA - Those two emails do make CRT appear to be a bunch of unprofessional stumble bums who are much more interested in getting their way than they are in enforcing or complying with legal statutes. In light of what is contained in the emails, it seems it would be difficult for CRT to argue to a judge that they believe that the statutes should be enforced in the strictest interpretation possible. CRT are portraying themselves as the Keystone Kops and Tony should make sure he takes full advantage of that fact.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Paul G2

[Tony Dunkley]

That email exchange is baffling. Is it incompetent stupidity or an attempt at climbing down from a position that confidence has been lost in?

 

I think a better question than the one in the thread title would be "Is C&RT fit for purpose?".

Yes, I agree. The letter copied below was sent to CEO, Richard Parry on 23 July 2014. So far, there has been no response. The e-mail exchange seems even more strange when read in conjunction with, particularly the first paragraph, of this. The C&RT Statement referred to below is their EO's Witness Statement for the Court proceedings.

 

Mr. Parry,

I am curious as to whether or not you are aware of, and agree with, why it has been deemed to be necessary to remove me and the boat I live on from all waterways under C&RT control, in order to , and I quote from a C&RT statement to be used against me in Court . . . " to enable C&RT to comply with it's statutory duty to ensure that the inland waterways controlled by C&RT are safe, well managed and properly conserved."

The implications of this remarkable statement are, of course, that my continued presence, beyond this the 50th year since I began living and working on this country's waterways, will result in those very same waterways becoming unsafe, mis-managed and falling into decline . . . something a great many of your boat owning customers believe to have already occurred under C&RT's stewardship.

It may be that you sincerely believe that my continued presence constitutes a very real and serious threat to the future of our waterways . . . after all you will be claiming this in open Court having already submitted it in writing. If, however, you really think, as everyone who has seen it up to now does, that it is one of the most ridiculous statements ever made, then the question arises of why you are intending to rely upon it in Court as credible evidence?

Please refrain from time wasting and stalling by responding with any red herrings such as . . . "sub judice so we can't comment" . . . or any thing similar. I am not asking questions about the expensive, unwarranted, disproportionate and legally inappropriate action that C&RT is taking against me, but I am questioning whether C&RT and the personnel responsible for it's day to day operation and administration are, in fact, fit for purpose.

If this e-mail is ignored or your reply is ether evasive or in any other way as unsatisfactory as your previous responses to matters I have raised, then I will ask the same questions, and related others, in the form of an open letter.

Signed A.K.Dunkley.

Edited August 15, 2014 by tony dunkley

[costalot]

If I were Richard Parry, I wouldn't reply either.

 

Para 1 is OK

 

Para 2 is OK, except for the last sentence

 

Para 3 starts getting nasty

 

Para 4 is "demanding"

 

Para 5 is threatening

 

It would appear from your email that you are looking for a fight rather than conciliation. It's a high risk win-lose strategy!

[MtB]

^^ ^^ THIS.

 

 

I wouldn't have replied either.

 

I can't imagine Pr Parry seeing any upside to attempting to respond to such a vague and rambling and badly written email, so I doubt he ever will.

 

Publishing it as an open letter will say more about Mr Dunkley than about Mr Parry.

[RLWP]

Publishing it as an open letter will say more about Mr Dunkley than about Mr Parry.

 

And is a pretty empty threat anyway. In what way is it different to starting this thread on an open forum

 

Richard

[Tony Dunkley]

^^ ^^ THIS.

 

 

I wouldn't have replied either.

 

I can't imagine Pr Parry seeing any upside to attempting to respond to such a vague and rambling and badly written email, so I doubt he ever will.

 

Publishing it as an open letter will say more about Mr Dunkley than about Mr Parry.

I'm glad you don't like it . . anything that met with your approval would lead to me having serious concerns about it. Just as a matter of interest, can you tell me which part of you has been boiled?

[MtB]

Cor blimey, all I did was mildly criticise your badly written letter.

 

If you take this tone in your private emails to CRT staff, no wonder they've got it in for you.

 

MtB

[Tony Dunkley]

If I were Richard Parry, I wouldn't reply either.

 

Para 1 is OK

 

Para 2 is OK, except for the last sentence

 

Para 3 starts getting nasty

 

Para 4 is "demanding"

 

Para 5 is threatening

 

It would appear from your email that you are looking for a fight rather than conciliation. It's a high risk win-lose strategy!

You obviously haven't noticed, but it's C&RT that's looking for a fight, and in one of their very rare successes, they've found one.

[bassplayer]

You obviously haven't noticed, but it's C&RT that's looking for a fight, and in one of their very rare successes, they've found one.

 

I don't know if I've missed your answer or you didn't catch my earlier question...but have you thought of asking NABO for assistance?

[costalot]

You obviously haven't noticed, but it's C&RT that's looking for a fight, and in one of their very rare successes, they've found one.

 

I probably have the luxury of not being emotionally involved in the issue. But it takes two to fight. Perhaps I missed, it but I've not read anything in your correspondence to CRT which makes any effort to be conciliatory and reach an amicable out of court solution. It appears that you want your day in court? The problem with this approach is you have very little control of the outcome.

[Guest]

You obviously haven't noticed, but it's C&RT that's looking for a fight, and in one of their very rare successes, they've found one.

 

File,

 

B1n.

[rubblequeen]

I'm glad you don't like it . . anything that met with your approval would lead to me having serious concerns about it. Just as a matter of interest, can you tell me which part of you has been boiled?

Sorry MtB but TD's reply did make me laugh not because of the repy but the attitude. Tony you really do need to be a bit more tactful I think and I still think if I was you I'd try and sort it with CRT before your court case. Do you know when it is?

[mark99]

"What we have here, is a failure to communicate".

 

Anyone remember that line?

[Tony Dunkley]

I don't know if I've missed your answer or you didn't catch my earlier question...but have you thought of asking NABO for assistance?

Yes, some weeks ago, but they don't assist non-members. I've asked for a Membership Form, but I'm still waiting for it.

[Paul G2]

"What we have here, is a failure to communicate".

 

Anyone remember that line?

 

"Sometimes nuthin' can be a real cool hand."

[Tony Dunkley]

Sorry MtB but TD's reply did make me laugh not because of the repy but the attitude. Tony you really do need to be a bit more tactful I think and I still think if I was you I'd try and sort it with CRT before your court case. Do you know when it is?

Thanks for that, most people seem to think I should be a lot more tactful.

Sorry MtB but TD's reply did make me laugh not because of the repy but the attitude. Tony you really do need to be a bit more tactful I think and I still think if I was you I'd try and sort it with CRT before your court case. Do you know when it is?

It's already started really. There was a very short Hearing on 4 July 2014 when C&RT attempted to get a Declaratory Relief (boat removal) and Injunction Application past the Court by means of an inappropriate County Court Procedure (for uncontested Applications), the paperwork for which was served on me by their Solicitors without a Response Form or the explanatory Notes for Defendant. The outcome expected by C&RT, as they confidently told me before going in to the Court ( they've done this before) was that they would be granted their Relief and Injunction and I would not be permitted to offer any kind of defence. I won't go into the reasons here, but this time it didn't work. The Judge made an Order for the case to be transferred to the correct procedure and time for me to prepare and file a Defence. A preliminary Hearing in the form of a Case Management Conference has been fixed for 1 September 2014.

As far as trying to sort it out with C&RT, well I applied to renew my Licence in June (the unlawfully revoked one expired on 30 June anyway) but C&RT refused to issue a new one (unlawfully) and then on 23 and 28 July 2014 they sent the e-mails (the ones on Post 367) inviting me to cruise around in my unlicenced houseboat in order to convince them that I would comply with their T&C's in future and that they should issue me with a new Licence. Since the two e-mails there has been nothing but a brief notification that they need more time to reply to my response and the prohibition on C&RT staff communication with me, imposed by CEO Richard Parry in April, remains in place.

Edited August 15, 2014 by tony dunkley

[Alan Saunders]

I have followed this thread with interest on the basis that "there, but for fortune go I" especially now that C&RT have published their restrictive definition of 'place'.

 

I and many others, with or without a 'home mooring', believed we were cruising within the terms of our licence. A reasonable police force warns, caution's and reprimands those suspected of disdemeanours. As a parallel, none of us have a right to park a vehicle on the public highway, even in front of our own property, but even if we park in a clearly marked restricted place we do not have our licences revoked. The powers apparently invested in C&RT and often, apparently, missaplied by them are dispraportionate to any inconvenience caused. All backed up by their aggressive attitude; my car tax reminder is very polite; C&RT say "Licence it or Lose It!" Who would not want to kick back against such a belligerent organisation? Even though they are now, supposedly, an independent body they continue to demonstrate the assured, overpaid jobs for the boys attitude that has expanded our inefficient Civil Service (the real Government) way beyond our means.

 

I wish Tony D well, but he has not contradicted in this thread the C&RT case that whilst declaring a valid, non C&RT mooring his boat was permanently moored near Holme Lock. Whilst this may be within the letter of the law I doubt it was the intention of the law. Personally I would accept their offer which may leave you in peace or, at least, delay proceedings and allow you to put forward a good case. I am particularly concerned by their accusation that you misused a houseboat - a boat without an engine or means of propulsion.

 

Alan

[NigelMoore]

It's a 'we think your home mooring is a sham so we're classing you as a CCer, and because you aren't CCing, we've cancelled your license' case. Isn't it?

 

Not quite. That’s sort of where it has ended up, not how it began - or rather, it's a mirror image of the scenario.

 

It began with 'because you aren't CCing, we've cancelled your license' half way through the year, because the T&C’s relating to boat movement were applied as though CC’ing rules were enforceable against boats while away from their home mooring.

 

The “we think your home mooring is a sham” – because of violating CC rules and not returning to that mooring “on completion of a journey” - only entered the picture 6 months later, on the renewal application.

[NigelMoore]

Personally I would accept their offer which may leave you in peace or, at least, delay proceedings and allow you to put forward a good case. I am particularly concerned by

 

Unfortunately, it is not actually a firm offer.

 

If he undertook to document a period of cruising within sight of their enforcement staff, they would consider granting a new licence [on what basis is not immediately clear.] This was within days of the Defence needing to be filed. Only a month between that and the case management – what were they going to be able to say to the court at that stage, even if Tony had done what they asked?

 

Even if it was an explicit offer, it would not constitute one they could deliver their end on. Either they drop the case or continue – they can’t just suspend it and keep it hovering.

 

The judge himself, in this instance, had already delayed proceedings to allow a good defence to be prepared, much to their dismay.

[NigelMoore]

If, however, you really think, as everyone who has seen it up to now does, that it is one of the most ridiculous statements ever made, then the question arises of why you are intending to rely upon it in Court as credible evidence?

 

It is not being presented as evidence, but rather as a government conferred “mission statement” wherein your recalcitrant attitude is deleterious to maintaining an effective appearance of control in order that it be achieved. Historically the courts will always nod sagely in acceptance of the proposition. They did with me, even while finding BW to be in the wrong, and being unable to determine how the requested eviction helped their objectives!

[NigelMoore]

 

And is a pretty empty threat anyway. In what way is it different to starting this thread on an open forum

 

It is not quite empty, although it will have been regarded with contemptuous dismissal as to any ill effect. It is not different to starting this and other threads – they are all means of exposing the proceedings to the light of public scrutiny. Unfortunately, Mr Parry firmly believes that litigation and removal of dissident boaters from his bailiwick is the most appropriate and effective avenue for asserting control.

 

He also has grounds for confidence that many boaters will cheer him on as he pursues this course, so in his eyes the “threat” is just a “promise” to publicise the CEO’s commitment to meeting boater demands for a crack-down on the 'non-compliant'. So if he is genuine in his belief that he is doing the right thing, in other words, then all this is excellent publicity he doesn't have to pay for.

 

As for boaters caught up in this maelstrom of anxieties and distress - just how many avenues of recourse do they have [i speak only of those believing they are legitimate and law-abiding], other then throwing the situation open to the world for their observations? It is natural in such circumstances to believe that the executive would fear that, but it is a sadly naïve belief. One positive way of looking at the 'threat', therefore, is to see it as an expression of jejune confidence in the morality of the chief executive.