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

[John V]

I have been going round and round with this thread for ages trying to understand the various concepts.

Going back to the original question....has anyone yet defined what the purpose was that this system was designed for? not what it is necessarily being attempted to be used for now........or have I finally got terminal brain fade

[NigelMoore]

My mind has been boggled enough already thanks...!

 

Mainly by Nigel's posts

 

Hey, unfair! [as much of life of course, but] and I don’t believe you anyway.

 

All I have been observing is that apparent experts seem to be in agreement that the information as supplied to the court is inadequate to the purpose of establishing the pattern of movement [or lack thereof], which that information is purportedly intended to establish.

 

I may have misunderstood them, but I doubt that you do.

[Quinafloat]

TD has received an email saying that CaRT can't find him. This casts some doubts on the comments on the logging system. Are CaRT really saying that they record absence of boats? If that is so, as a generality, then the system must be good and it is only the frequency of logging that can be challenged. Personally I doubt that this is so and it is only the fact that they are actively chasing him that allows them to make such a comment. Naturally a logging system that is fit for purpose would notice a boat being absent from it's previous position.

Edited August 30, 2014 by Quinafloat

[Alan de Enfield]

The only way to prove you were not there is to prove you were somewhere else.

[cotswoldsman]

The only way to prove you were not there is to prove you were somewhere else.

Correct

TD has received an email saying that CaRT can't find him. This casts some doubts on the comments on the logging system. Are CaRT really saying that they record absence of boats? If that is so, as a generality, then the system must be good and it is only the frequency of logging that can be challenged. Personally I doubt that this is so and it is only the fact that they are actively chasing him that allows them to make such a comment. Naturally a logging system that is fit for purpose would notice a boat being absent from it's previous position.

I was last logged in Norbury in early July so if CRT wanted to know where I am now the best they could do would be "he was last seen in Norbury early July and has not been seen since" they could not categorically state I am not still in Norbury

[Naughty Cal]

As a third party it suggests that you were at Braunston on the 3rd and 29th of August.

That is obviously what CRT want it to record, and it does.

Therefore it meets the requirements of their system.

 

You seem to be demanding that there is a system in place that records your position every 24 hours, so how do you propose to write, set up and pay for such a system?

Perhaps you would like every boat to be chipped and to have chip readers on nearly every bridge, lock or water point, since that would obviously meet your requirement?

Or perhaps there should be lots more Boat Recording people employed to do this?

And who will pay the vastly increased licence fees that would incur?

Whilst what you said was of course in jest, how difficult would it really be to fit boats with GPS trackers that record the boats where abouts?

[Paul C]

Whilst what you said was of course in jest, how difficult would it really be to fit boats with GPS trackers that record the boats where abouts?

 

It would be impossible to require it unless the law was changed, thus it would be ridiculously easy for someone who wanted to break the rules to continue to do so. If there was a massive number of people who (believed they) obeyed the rules but were constantly fending off enforcement action, they may be able to justify it - but there isn't.

[MtB]

Whilst what you said was of course in jest, how difficult would it really be to fit boats with GPS trackers that record the boats where abouts?

 

 

Fitting them doesn't look that much of a problem. Keeping them powered up would be though. Also CRT would need to be sure they stay installed on the boat allocated and aren't shared around by the CMing 'community' i.e. lots of them collected and loaded on to one moving boat for an excursion.

 

They could turn out to be a great way of CMing whilst being able to 'prove' you've been on the move!

 

MtB

[cotswoldsman]

Whilst what you said was of course in jest, how difficult would it really be to fit boats with GPS trackers that record the boats where abouts?

It would be easy but do not think the current law (not talking BW ACT here) allows them to do that

[MtB]

It would be easy but do not think the current law (not talking BW ACT here) allows them to do that

 

Looking from the other end of the telescope, if boaters voluntarily had them (securely) fitted, CRT could then concentrate their monitoring efforts on those who refused to have one. The point being that those who 'probe the limits' are among those likely to resist.

 

(Just playing Devil's Advocate, yersee...)

 

MtB

[cotswoldsman]

 

Looking from the other end of the telescope, if boaters voluntarily had them (securely) fitted, CRT could then concentrate their monitoring efforts on those who refused to have one. The point being that those who 'probe the limits' are among those likely to resist.

 

(Just playing Devil's Advocate, yersee...)

 

MtB

But they would have spent the money and time fitting a system that does nothing. They all ready know the boats that do not move so they could do that now and that is what the Associations have been calling for

[b0atman]

how do we get this record of our boat sightings ?

[Sabcat]

I wouldn't be happy with GPS on my boat. I'm also not happy with the concept of proving where I've been - who's business is it but mine? If C&RT can't provide categoric data to prove that a boat has not moved then that should be their problem, not the poor sap who they're pursuing because they've logged them in the same place weeks apart.

[Alan de Enfield]

I wouldn't be happy with GPS on my boat. I'm also not happy with the concept of proving where I've been - who's business is it but mine? If C&RT can't provide categoric data to prove that a boat has not moved then that should be their problem, not the poor sap who they're pursuing because they've logged them in the same place weeks apart.

 

Much as you may not be 'happy' when you signed your licence application form you agreed to be bound by the T&Cs, one of which states :-

 

The law requires the boater to satisfy the Trust that the bona fide navigation requirement is and will be met.

It is not for the Trust to prove that the requirement has not been met.

[NigelMoore]

 

Much as you may not be 'happy' when you signed your licence application form you agreed to be bound by the T&Cs, one of which states :-

 

The law requires the boater to satisfy the Trust that the bona fide navigation requirement is and will be met.

It is not for the Trust to prove that the requirement has not been met.

 

A few points arising from that:

 

The requirement to show that the boat is “used bona fide for navigation” throughout the term of the licence only applies to 17(3)( c )(ii) not (i).

 

The requirement to show that the boat is “used bona fide for navigation” throughout the period the home moorer spends off their home mooring, is a recent invention used to justify revoking Tony Dunkley’s licence, and without legal basis. As the judge observed in Brown v CaRT, it suffices for classification as a pleasure boat that the boat is one “used bona fide for navigation” – not that, [unlike (ii)], the boat is engaged in navigation throughout the term of the licence or even when away from their mooring.

 

The question of what is reasonable in terms of satisfying the Board is a vexed one that was of considerable concern throughout the Select Committee deliberations. The one thing that came out of it was an acknowledgement that the requirement for reasonableness on the part of BW was paramount. Therefore, regardless of the brash assertions of the T&C’s, when taking someone to court it would have to be held by a competent judge that CaRT DO need to prove that the requirement has not been met.

 

That is especially so when placing the boater’s home and possessions at risk under the s.8 procedure. There could well be less of an onus on the authority did they simply pursue a County Court action for breach with fine, but they still must establish the guilt [in fact, given that breaches of byelaws are criminal, one might expect a more rigorous establishment of guilt].

 

Finally, under contract law you have NOT agreed to be bound by the T&C’s, given that no choice in the matter has been allowed [i posted relevant law previously]. As mayalld has likewise said earlier, the issue of a licence is not a contractual matter.

[Tony Dunkley]

TD has received an email saying that CaRT can't find him. This casts some doubts on the comments on the logging system. Are CaRT really saying that they record absence of boats? If that is so, as a generality, then the system must be good and it is only the frequency of logging that can be challenged. Personally I doubt that this is so and it is only the fact that they are actively chasing him that allows them to make such a comment. Naturally a logging system that is fit for purpose would notice a boat being absent from it's previous position.

I think one of these two must be the one you have in mind, but they're not really very specific about anything :--

 

Dear Mr Dunkley

 

Thank you for your email below. If the current absence of your boat from the vicinity of Holme Lock is an indication that you are starting to cruise that is encouraging. As we explained to you at court on the 4th of July 2014, our interest is in being satisfied that you cruise when you navigate your boat away from your home mooring on inland waterways controlled or managed by CRT. If you are keeping a record of your boats movement and the short periods of not moving your boat whilst on CRTs inland waterways and you provide us with these details, we can take these into account together with our own sightings to satisfy ourselves that you are cruising. It would be as helpful to you as it would be to us if you informed us of the current location of your boat. We would have to monitor the situation over a period and would have to have your assurance that you would not be reverting back to what has been the pattern of movement that led to your licence being revoked. We would only consider suspending the enforcement action if there is demonstrable evidence that you are willing to cruise. This could then progress to the issue of a new licence.

 

or :--

 

Dear Mr Dunkley

 

I refer to your email below.

 

Since your boat moved from the Holme Lock vicinity from 17^th July, we have not seen the boat as yet. We endeavour to check our inland waterways every 14 days. If in the course of those checks we do note over a period that any specific boat is not complying with the licence terms and conditions then the enforcement process may be followed; this is what happened in the case of Halcyon Daze resulting in the action we have taken to date. As our licence terms and conditions apply to the inland waterways we own or control, it follows that our checks are confined to those inland waterways. We do not check sections of rivers and waterways that are not within our ownership and control and we do not check marinas or other moorings where boats are moored off the waterway.

 

As stated in my email of 23 July 2014, if we find from our monitoring data going forward that over a period of time Halcyon Daze is cruising when it is on the inland waterway and not overstaying during stops whilst cruising then we would be willing to suspend the enforcement action. If you wish to provide your own evidence of the movement of your boat whilst on the waterway (such as a movement log which may include photographs), we would consider it together with our own monitoring records. The provision of your own supporting evidence is a matter for you, you are not obliged to provide it, but if you wish to show that you are now complying with our rules for using the inland waterways, then you may take the view that your supporting evidence may be of assistance to you.

[Jerra]

 

. Also CRT would need to be sure they stay installed on the boat allocated and aren't shared around by the CMing 'community' i.e. lots of them collected and loaded on to one moving boat for an excursion.

That shouldn't be a problem some form of wire seal similar to that used on electric meters. If the seal is broken at the next safety check refusal to renew the license. Yes I do know that requires a change in the law which is unlikely, as unlikely as a requirement to have a tracker.

[John V]

It might not be such a way out idea, after all commercial vessels even workboats need to be fitted with AIS !

[Quinafloat]

I think one of these two must be the one you have in mind, but they're not really very specific about anything :--

 

Dear Mr Dunkley

 

Thank you for your email below. If the current absence of your boat from the vicinity of Holme Lock is an indication that you are starting to cruise that is encouraging. As we explained to you at court on the 4th of July 2014, our interest is in being satisfied that you cruise when you navigate your boat away from your home mooring on inland waterways controlled or managed by CRT. If you are keeping a record of your boats movement and the short periods of not moving your boat whilst on CRTs inland waterways and you provide us with these details, we can take these into account together with our own sightings to satisfy ourselves that you are cruising. It would be as helpful to you as it would be to us if you informed us of the current location of your boat. We would have to monitor the situation over a period and would have to have your assurance that you would not be reverting back to what has been the pattern of movement that led to your licence being revoked. We would only consider suspending the enforcement action if there is demonstrable evidence that you are willing to cruise. This could then progress to the issue of a new licence.

 

or :--

 

Dear Mr Dunkley

 

I refer to your email below.

 

Since your boat moved from the Holme Lock vicinity from 17^th July, we have not seen the boat as yet. We endeavour to check our inland waterways every 14 days. If in the course of those checks we do note over a period that any specific boat is not complying with the licence terms and conditions then the enforcement process may be followed; this is what happened in the case of Halcyon Daze resulting in the action we have taken to date. As our licence terms and conditions apply to the inland waterways we own or control, it follows that our checks are confined to those inland waterways. We do not check sections of rivers and waterways that are not within our ownership and control and we do not check marinas or other moorings where boats are moored off the waterway.

 

As stated in my email of 23 July 2014, if we find from our monitoring data going forward that over a period of time Halcyon Daze is cruising when it is on the inland waterway and not overstaying during stops whilst cruising then we would be willing to suspend the enforcement action. If you wish to provide your own evidence of the movement of your boat whilst on the waterway (such as a movement log which may include photographs), we would consider it together with our own monitoring records. The provision of your own supporting evidence is a matter for you, you are not obliged to provide it, but if you wish to show that you are now complying with our rules for using the inland waterways, then you may take the view that your supporting evidence may be of assistance to you.

 

Tony, the point I was making is that CaRT have noted your absence from the place you were last moored (the second email). The question is does the system always note a boats absence from the last place it was recorded, or did it take a human to notice that your boat was no longer there?

 

If the system flagged this up automatically then the system, per se, is fine. If it took human observation to discern your absence then the system is not fit for purpose.

 

Requesting an up to date review of your movements would clarify the situation. If it still shows you still at the same place then you have clarification of the system not being fit for purpose. You should also request all audit trail transactions to see if your record has been manually adjusted, and if so, by whom. This would indicate that the system, by itself, is not capable of discerning the absence of your boat.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

A few points arising from that:

 

The requirement to show that the boat is “used bona fide for navigation” throughout the term of the licence only applies to 17(3)( c )(ii) not (i).

 

 

 

Finally, under contract law you have NOT agreed to be bound by the T&C’s, given that no choice in the matter has been allowed [i posted relevant law previously]. As mayalld has likewise said earlier, the issue of a licence is not a contractual matter.

 

1) I realise that, and as I was answering SABCAT, whom I believe to be a CCer and was relevant, particularly as he stated that :-

If C&RT can't provide categoric data to prove that a boat has not moved then that should be their problem,

 

2) Good point - so the C&RT's T&C's (that are not enshrined in law) are worthless - has that actually been tested in court ?

[Paul G2]

It would seem that CRT has cut their own throat with those two emails TD posted. The only requirement TD has to meet as a boater with a home mooring is that his boat is bona fide for navigation, and CRT is substantiating the fact that he can and does navigate his boat. As Nigel and others have pointed out, all of the nonsense about cruising is trying to apply CC rules in a manner that is contrary to the way the statutes are written.

 

What TD ideally needs to accomplish at the upcoming hearing is to limit the scope of the trial to whether CRT has the authority to make up the rules as they go along, or if they are constrained by statute. Everything else just muddies the water of what should be nothing more than a simple question of a matter of law. This case is not a question of IF TD has done what CRT accuses him of doing, it is a question of if what he has done is a contravention of any law(s). A careful reading of the applicable statutes would suggest that it is not, and that's the point he needs to get across to the judge.

 

It will be interesting to see if Tony stays on point and applies the KISS principle to his defense. I can't help but wonder, will Nigel be assisting TD with his upcoming appearance?

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Tony, the point I was making is that CaRT have noted your absence from the place you were last moored (the second email). The question is does the system always note a boats absence from the last place it was recorded, or did it take a human to notice that your boat was no longer there?

 

If the system flagged this up automatically then the system, per se, is fine. If it took human observation to discern your absence then the system is not fit for purpose.

 

Requesting an up to date review of your movements would clarify the situation. If it still shows you still at the same place then you have clarification of the system not being fit for purpose. You should also request all audit trail transactions to see if your record has been manually adjusted, and if so, by whom. This would indicate that the system, by itself, is not capable of discerning the absence of your boat.

Both of those two e-mails were sent in response to a request to C&RT to tell me if they knew where my boat had been between two specified dates, so they're not much use in answering your question, but I could ask on Monday for a printout showing my boat location for that period.

I have made an FOI Request which may possibly bring out a bit more useful info, but if there are any additional questions you think would help, then I am more than happy to ask them.

 

Tony Dunkley

Aug 20 (10 days ago)

to Sarina, richard.parry, roger.hanbury, Steven, tracey.bose

Request for Information

I refer to your communication dated 6 August 2014 which neither addresses my concerns or answers the question I asked. My concern is that Canal and River Trust has provided information to the Court (a printout on Page 83 of Exhibit SAG1) which purports to show 19 financial transactions relating to my boat "Halcyon Daze" Index No.52721, a great many of which never took place. The document also indicates that, since 2003 (a period of 11 years), the vessel has always been declared, for Licencing purposes, as having a ‘home mooring’ at Barton In Fabis. This is untrue and seriously misleading, as when read in conjunction with a list of boat sightings at Holme Lock on the River Trent, also contained in Exhibit SAG1 as evidence of "overstaying" at that location, the printout disguises the fact that for part of the period covered by the list of sightings, I was paying BW for a Long Term mooring at Holme Lock.

In the absence of any meaningful response from you regarding the appropriateness of FOI or SAR, I have taken some further advice.

The advice received is that you should have informed me that it it is not necessary to be specific regarding FOI or SAR and that you should have told me that was the case. Perhaps I should be questioning why C&RT, in the person of Stuart Garner, produced this document as evidence knowing that it is inaccurate. However, I am told that this better left to the Court.

The document, which consists of column headers and 19 rows of data was extracted from your database. However, it does not accurately record my financial transactions with the Trust (and its predecessor British Waterways). Neither, does it accurately record declarations of home moorings made in order satisfy you regarding the British Waterways Act 1995 Section 17 (3)©(i).

In this request, I will refer to several database terms which are in common usage. However, I understand that sometimes different terminology is used so please contact me immediately if you are unsure about the information I am requesting.

Please provide the following:-

1. The metadata for each column header in the attached document.
2. The SQL (or similar) used for the query which produced the document.
3. The database schema as it relates to the document (i.e. tables, together with columns within those tables, indexes and relationships etc). Please note, I am only asking for the part of the schema that relates to the query that produced the document.

I note from other information that you have supplied to the Court (a licence renewal document) that my customer number is 8040832. This number only appears in the last 10 rows of the ‘Sold to’ column (rather than all 19 rows). Please provide -

4. The customer information relating to the first nine rows (or confirm that the first nine rows do not relate to financial transactions between us or declarations I have made in regard to the BW 1995 Act).

I note that the ‘SaTY’ (Sales Type?) consists of a two digit alpha code optionally followed by an optional two digit numeric code.

5. I believe that ‘ZL’ is is the code for licence transaction and ‘ZM’ the code for a mooring transaction. Also that the numeric code represents the number of months and its absence one month. Please confirm this or provide corrected information.

 

6. I note that five ‘ZM’ rows (mooring transactions) contain the code ‘ - L6 Mooring’ after Barton In Fabis. Please provide a list of these mooring codes with their meanings.

7. Please provide details of any audit or historical information logged when data relating to the columns in the document is created, amended or deleted.

 

Please treat this as a request, in all or part, as a request under the FOI, EIR and DPA as appropriate.

Signed A.K.Dunkley.

[NigelMoore]

 

1) I realise that . . .

 

2) . . . so the C&RT's T&C's (that are not enshrined in law) are worthless - has that actually been tested in court ?

 

1) I know you do, I was being thorough for the sake of the record.

 

2) They are not “worthless” Alan, except insofar as they purport to lay down ‘extra-curricular’ conditions for issue of the licence. Most of them are but re-iterations of byelaws or statute, together with worthwhile advisory information as to desired behaviour.

 

It is when they suggest that compliance with what is purely advisory is legally compulsory, and that they can revoke the licence for breach of them, that they enter into bullying and illegal nonsense. Plus, there is careless [?] wording that suggests you are not allowed to moor anywhere without their permission – which the Appeal Court has ruled is contrary to fundamental constitutional principles.

 

To that extent the T&C’s have been tested in court and found wanting [even Hildyard J at the High Court commented on the limitations]. As to more specific applications beyond that, they allegedly desired this to be tested in Tony’s case, given that the initial revocation of the licence was based on lack of compliance with the extra-statutory conditions respecting boats with home moorings.

[NigelMoore]

This case is not a question of IF TD has done what CRT accuses him of doing, it is a question of if what he has done is a contravention of any law(s).

 

Exactly

[Tony Dunkley]

If anyone from NABO is following this, may I invite them to compare the wording in the C&RT e-mails (originating from C&RT's own Solicitors) on Post 541,with the following extract from NABO News published on 27 June 2014.

Maybe a bit less friendly and a lot more critical would be appropriate here.

 

"We intend to remain a ‘critical friend’ of CRT and to be proactive in our dialogue. In this spirit we also publish this month the response from CRT’s Jackie Lewis to the issues raised in May by our legal-beaver, Geoffrey Rogerson. Of serious importance is the unequivocal statement that if you have a home mooring then you are NOT subject to any continuous cruising requirements. This, incidentally, blows a hole in the present interim trial arrangements on the K&A, where boaters with home moorings on this canal have been asked (told?) to comply with the trial proposals relating to continuous cruisers."

 

I have raised this with Parry, but his reply did nothing other than confirm that their issue with me, as someone with a home mooring, is solely with mooring and boat movement when away from my home mooring.

 

Richard Parry <Richard.Parry@canalrivertrust.org.uk>

Jul 1

to me

Dear Tony

My answer was given in response to a question posed at Leicester, which said we should check, in advance of issue, that a licence applicant (without a home mooring) didn’t have children in school or some other such personal circumstance that would, in the view of the questioner, make it very difficult to undertake bona fide navigation.

As I understand it, this is rather different from your case which is concerned with your actual pattern of mooring and movement.

Regards

Richard

 

 

Richard Parry

Chief Executive

Canal & River Trust

 

Edited August 30, 2014 by tony dunkley