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

[MtB]

TD is a boater being taken to court and may well loose his home as a result. I don't care if he bites my head off for every post I make. I will continue to offer any help I can. Let this not descend into a personality issue.

 

I don't think he'll be losing his home as a result. Nigel mentioned a few posts back that Mr Dunkley has already removed his boat from the relevant waterway (whatever that means!)

 

"There are two things in favour of Tony Dunkley which did not apply to Mayers:

 

1) He was still within time to apply for Judicial Review from the time his renewal application was refused to the issue of the s.8, and

2) He has since removed [i believe] the boat from the relevant “river waterway” while awaiting trial."

 

 

See post 212.

 

MtB

[NilesMI]

 

I doubt Tony will be answering it, because your question shows you up as not buying into his CRT-bashing stance, and therefore not worthy of a response.

 

The thing is, CRT might be bullying and Tony may well have some vaild points to make - but only if the court is prepared to listen to him.

 

To get to that point he will need to shut up for a minute, listen, take advice when it's offered and understand how to use the process to his advantage. His posts on here suggest that far from being receptive to advice or understand a diferent point of view to his own, he will simply ignore or complain about anything which doesn't fit his preconceptions of how the world should be.

 

It would be tragic if that attitude resulted in him no longer being able to live on or enjoy the waterways, but it's up to him how he wants to proceed.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

There is nothing "wrong"in CRT producing a printout which happens to show the same value in the location column for each transaction record, where that value corresponds to the home mooring at the time the printout is produced. Obviously, they could just have shown it in a single field, or as you say, shown it for just one transaction, leaving it blank in other lines. But you could say exactly the same for the boat name and registration.

 

It may not be the way you would have chosen to arrange the information, but so what? It's rather like arguing about how to arrange a CD collection. Just because you do it alphabetically by artist, subdivided by genre, doesn't make it "wrong" that someone else arranges it by album title, with completely sepatate sections for male/female solo artist.

 

The prinout is only "wrong"or "inaccurate" if CRT have told you, or claimed in the submission of their evidence that data the Floc column represents your home mooring on the date of the recorded transaction. Have they done that Tony? It's a simple question, let's see if you can answer it.

No they haven't said that, but they have ducked answering any questions I have asked about the printout. As for any Invoices for moorings(lines with ZM code) . . these have never existed for moorings at Barton-in-Fabis because C&RT don't own or control any moorings there. However, they do charge for moorings in Holme Lock Cut and the amounts shown on the lines with the ZM Codes in 2011 are mooring charges I paid BW for a mooring in Holme Lock Cut at that time. The figures shown for other years against a ZM code and Barton-in-Fabis are pure fiction. This printout shows financial transactions that never happened whilst omitting to show some transactions that did take place, but that BW/C&RT have a couple of reasons for preferring to keep quiet about. Firstly, for a considerable amount of the time they claim I was overstaying at Holme Lock VMs, I was moored on, and paying them for, a Long Term Mooring elswhere in Holme Lock Cut. Secondly, that same Long Term Mooring I was paying BW for has now been confirmed by the Environment Agency to belong to them. There is no agreement in place between BW/C&RT and the EA for C&RT to charge for boats mooring to EA land in Holme Lock Cut, and there is no lawful basis for C&RT to charge anyone for mooring to EA owned land.

Edited August 12, 2014 by tony dunkley

[NilesMI]

No they haven't said that,

 

Thanks Tony. That's all I wanted to know.

 

 

but they have ducked answering any questions I asked about the printout. As to any Invoices for moorings(lines with ZM code) . . These have never existed . . . they have never rented me a mooring at Barton-in-Fabis for a very simple reason . . . they don't own or control any moorings there . . but they do charge for moorings at Holme Lock and are doing their best to hide the fact that for a considerable amount of the time they claim I was overstaying at Holme Lock VMs, I was moored on, and paying them for, a Long Term Mooring further along in Holme Lock Cut. By way a bit more relevant information for you, the LT Mooring I was paying BW for has now been confirmed by the Environment Agency as belonging to them . . . just think about that, and then have a look in C&RT's Licence Terms & Conditions at Schedule 2 Para.1. They have no control over, or Rights to charge for, mooring to property or land they do not own.

 

There may be a point or two in there which is relevant to the enforcement action, but for the life of me, I can't see them becuase it just reads like a rant.

 

Seriously... you really need to get your arguments thought through, ordered and structured in such a way that a judge can't fail understand why you think CRT have failed to deal with you properly. You have said you are posting here, looking for people to disagree with. If you take that approach with a Crown Court, you will hand all the cards to CRT's lawyers and getting the judge to grant the order will be the easiest day's pay they will ever earn.

 

You might take your blinkers off and spot some good advice when it's offered, but I won't hold my breath.

 

Good luck Tony. You definitely need it.

Edited August 11, 2014 by NilesMI

[cotswoldsman]

Ok here is a good one a CCER left Beeston this morning arrived in Nottingham at 12:30 on 48 hour moorings has just returned to his boat with a ticket for overstaying issued by one Stuart Garner

[NigelMoore]

 

the relevant waterway (whatever that means!)

 

“relevant” as pertaining to the waterway in which the alleged and actual offences were committed. The claims in s.8 actions ask for expulsion on 2 levels for some reason: a ) expulsion from the ‘place’ where the boat is [or was] i.e. in this instance Holme Lock cut on the River Trent, and b ) for good measure, every bit of waterway nationwide that is under their control.

 

“river waterway” as defined in the 1971 Act [s.4(1)] as relevant to the above immediate location, is “the main navigation channel of . . . [“The Trent Navigation from the tail of Meadow Lane Lock, Nottingham, to Gainsborough Bridge”] . . . which channel so specified is in this Act referred to as a ‘river waterway’.”

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Thanks Tony. That's all I wanted to know.

 

 

 

There may be a point or two in there which is relevant to the enforcement action, but for the life of me, I can't see them becuase it just reads like a rant.

 

Seriously... you really need to get your arguments thought through, ordered and structured in such a way that a judge can't fail understand why you think CRT have failed to deal with you properly. You have said you are posting here, looking for people to disagree with. If you take that approach with a Crown Court, you will hand all the cards to CRT's lawyers and getting the judge to grant the order will be the easiest day's pay they will ever earn.

 

You might take your blinkers off and spot some good advice when it's offered, but I won't hold my breath.

 

Good luck Tony. You definitely need it.

Don't think I need to shed any blinkers. If you can't follow what I said in Post 253 then it's probably because you don't want to believe what is there. I can understand that. C&RT are sometimes beyond belief, so it's not really a surprise if what's said about them sounds a bit unbelievable too.

[GUMPY]

Ok here is a good one a CCER left Beeston this morning arrived in Nottingham at 12:30 on 48 hour moorings has just returned to his boat with a ticket for overstaying issued by one Stuart Garner

Need more facts.

When was he last in Nottingham would be a good start.

For all we know he might have spent 48hrs on that mooring and only went to Beeston for the night.

[cotswoldsman]

Need more facts.

When was he last in Nottingham would be a good start.

For all we know he might have spent 48hrs on that mooring and only went to Beeston for the night.

Yes have asked the same question will revert

[Guest]

Need more facts.

When was he last in Nottingham would be a good start.

For all we know he might have spent 48hrs on that mooring and only went to Beeston for the night.

But.........unless there is a no return within rule, that might not matter.

[cotswoldsman]

But.........unless there is a no return within rule, that might not matter.

I think the point was is he just shuffling between 2 points. My point in mi OP was more about the speed these things happen sometimes Edited August 11, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[NilesMI]

If you can't follow what I said in Post 253 then it's probably because you don't want to believe what is there.

 

Not true. Go back to the first post of mine on this thread and you'll see that I do want to understand you. Even the judge will want to understand you.

 

Whether you can be understood is up to you.

[Captain Zim]

But.........unless there is a no return within rule, that might not matter.

Yes, that is an interesting one. If Beeston was the end of his cruise in that direction, it might make perfect sense to stop on the 48 hour mooring on the way back. If we can get some accurate facts on exactly what's happened I think this could be really helpful in trying to understand exactly what the problem seems to be.

[NilesMI]

But.........unless there is a no return within rule, that might not matter.

 

But... the alleged overstaying may not be in relation to the 48hr mooring in Nottingham. The poster wasn't specifc.

 

We have been given a few facts, been invited to fill in the blanks and to find fault.

 

All the facts please. Which is the location and when were the alleged sightings which relate to the overstaying? Where does the boater say the boat was during the period between the sightings?

 

If it's alleged overstaying on a 48hr spot, the fact he's a CCer is irrelevant... Isn't it?

 

 

Edit: Irrelevant to having a notice for overstaying. Could it be a notice for something else?

Edited August 11, 2014 by NilesMI

[Guest]

But... the alleged overstaying may not be in relation to the 48hr mooring in Nottingham. The poster wasn't specifc.

 

We have been given a few facts, been invited to fill in the blanks and to find fault.

 

All the facts please. Which is the location and when were the alleged sightings which relate to the overstaying? Where does the boater say the boat was during the period between the sightings?

 

If it's alleged overstaying on a 48hr spot, the fact he's a CCer is irrelevant... Isn't it?

I think gave few of us have misunderstood the point being made by Cotswoldsman, see subsequent post....

[NilesMI]

I think gave few of us have misunderstood the point being made by Cotswoldsman, see subsequent post....

 

Righto. It was the word "overstaying".

[cotswoldsman]

 

Righto. It was the word "overstaying".

Was really surprised how quickly he was ticketed but anyway I did go back and ask for more information but do not want to make a big issue on here as a complaint is going to CRT he had been in Beeston for less than 14 days and was last in Nottingham on 9 September 2013 he is a boater that keeps a log with photos

[NilesMI]

he is a boater that keeps a log with photos

 

I appreciate you don't want to make a big issue of it right now as the complaint has gone in, but it would be well worth letting us know how he gets on with the complaint and in particular whether CRT accept they've made a mistake if/when they see the log/photos.

[MtB]

Ok here is a good one a CCER left Beeston this morning arrived in Nottingham at 12:30 on 48 hour moorings has just returned to his boat with a ticket for overstaying issued by one Stuart Garner

 

 

What does a ticket for overstaying actually say?

 

I've never been able to get to the bottom of this. I've a rough idea about a pre-cc1, a cc1 and a cc2, but I'm flummoxed about the ticket for overstaying mentioned on here from time to time.

 

Is it actually a pre-cc1, described using sloppy language?

 

 

MtB

[NigelMoore]

What does a ticket for overstaying actually say?

 

With apologies for poor reproduction -

 

[MtB]

Fanx Nige, but it's really hard to read.

 

Is this what's known as a 'pre-cc1'?

 

How many of these tickets for overstaying may one receive before it escalates to a 'pre-cc1'?

 

just intrigued about how much rope I have available with which to hang myself

 

 

MtB

 

 

 

(Edit to fiddle with the detail of my typing.)

Edited August 11, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[NigelMoore]

it's really hard to read.

 

Is this what's known as a 'pre-cc1'?

 

How many of these tickets for overstaying may one receive before it escalates to a 'pre-cc1'?

 

Sorry, it is a bit hard to read, but all I could find with a quick search through the laptop [no idea why it is such poor quality] and I would have to unearth the paper files from somewhere to get a decent copy of the original.

 

It is nothing to do with ‘pre-cc’s' of any sort; it is [was?] a standard generic Patrol Notice with various alternatives for the Officer to choose from. There would be no need for them to repeat the exercise before any escalation - and of course, if not a Continuous Cruiser, the "cc" series of warnings won't apply anyway. It is actually a sensible form of notice to give, because it alerts you to the alleged offence and gives you the ability to instantly contact the officer with any queries - all without getting unnecessarily peremptory about it [unless of course, as in this instance, it is deliberately overwritten to be just that].

 

Having identified the boat Name and Index Number, entered the time, date and location, it lists various reasons for why the Notice was issued. Choices to tick are:

 

• The boat is on the waterway without permission [see overleaf]

• Failing to display a current licence

• Overstaying at a designated visitor mooring/location

• Causing an obstruction

• No identifying marks shown

• Staying on a BW long term mooring without permission

 

Having solemnly informed you that This/These are contrary to British Waterways Acts and Bye-Laws, it exhorts you:

 

Please take the following action [in this instance, the “and/or contact us with it” is crossed out and “immediately” scrawled over] with boxes to tick for –

 

• Please continue your journey

• Display your boats name and index number

• Please apply for a BW boat licence

 

It is then signed by the officer whose contact details are given.

 

This example is issued for Overstaying at a designated location, the boater being told to Please continue your journey [immediately].

 

This is the one Ray Farrow issued within 48 hours of the boat’s arrival at our private moorings. He knew the boat had been there longer than 14 days - he told the court under oath – because although he had no written records to show, he had made an observation as to all the affected boats’ arrival on the scene by dictating details including date into his voice recorder - and that was mid-February, some 4 months having been graciously accorded for the boats to sort themselves out before he affixed all the Notices [the others being s.8’s].

 

Plus, he assured the court, he knew it had to have been more than 14 days because he would not have affixed the Notice otherwise! When challenged, he simply observed to the judge that there was obviously a difference of opinion between us.

[Tony Dunkley]

In response to Post 253 NilesMI said : -

 

There may be a point or two in there which is relevant to the enforcement action, but for the life of me, I can't see them becuase it just reads like a rant.

You are quite right, it wasn't at all good. I had tried to keep it short and in doing so had cut out too much info.

See if you think the second attempt is a bit better . . it's had a fairly extensive editing . . here it is : -

No they haven't said that, but they have ducked answering any questions I have asked about the printout. As for any Invoices for moorings(lines with ZM code) . . these have never existed for moorings at Barton-in-Fabis because C&RT don't own or control any moorings there. However, they do charge for moorings in Holme Lock Cut and the amounts shown on the lines with the ZM Codes in 2011 are mooring charges I paid BW for a mooring in Holme Lock Cut at that time. The figures shown for other years against a ZM code and Barton-in-Fabis are pure fiction. This printout shows financial transactions that never happened whilst omitting to show some transactions that did take place, but that BW/C&RT have a couple of reasons for preferring to keep quiet about. Firstly, for a considerable amount of the time they claim I was overstaying at Holme Lock VMs, I was moored on, and paying them for, a Long Term Mooring elswhere in Holme Lock Cut. Secondly, that same Long Term Mooring I was paying BW for has now been confirmed by the Environment Agency to belong to them. There is no agreement in place between BW/C&RT and the EA for C&RT to charge for boats mooring to EA land in Holme Lock Cut, and there is no lawful basis for C&RT to charge anyone for mooring to EA owned land.

Edited August 12, 2014 by tony dunkley

[cotswoldsman]

Fanx Nige, but it's really hard to read.

 

Is this what's known as a 'pre-cc1'?

 

How many of these tickets for overstaying may one receive before it escalates to a 'pre-cc1'?

 

just intrigued about how much rope I have available with which to hang myself

 

 

MtB

 

 

 

(Edit to fiddle with the detail of my typing.)

You seem to be confusing an Overstay Ticket (Patrol Notice) with Pre CC1 etc. If a CCer overstays on a 48 hour mooring (for example) the CCer is not in breach of the Law concerning boaters without a Home Mooring as that law allows them to stay in one place for 14 days they would be in breach of the T&C concerning restricted time moorings. So a CCer overstaying on a 48 hour mooring for say 7 days would receive a Patrol Notice if that CCer stayed there for 15 days they might get a Pre CC1

[mayalld]

That would seem to make it even more nonsensical. There are dates entered on every line giving Barton-in-Fabis as the home mooring back to 2003. If the printout was intended to show the Functional Location at print date only, it should leave the FuncLoc column blank for every other date (line)and not print incorrect and misleading information just to fill the space up.

 

It may well be nonsensical, and if I were designing a report it isn't how I would design it.

 

However (and this is where I am trying to apply my professional knowledge), if the requirement of the report was "A list of financial transactions for a particular boat, and a note of its current home mooring", then what has been produced with the current home mooring on every line would have been quicker to write (and consequently cheaper) than the other possibilities.