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

[Bod]

 

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.

 

 

Tony

Do you have invoices/reciepts, to show what was paid, and for what?

I fear it will be down to you to prove, by BW/C&RT paperwork, that the print out is incorrect.

You will also need a clear map, showing all the mooring points,claimed by both sides, and the ownership of those moorings.

 

Bod

[mayalld]

 

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.

 

 

You appear to be trying to argue against the legality of EOG mooring charges.

[matty40s]

You appear to be trying to argue against the legality of EOG mooring charges.

Completely different scenario being put across in my eyes.

Edited August 12, 2014 by matty40s

[NigelMoore]

 

You appear to be trying to argue against the legality of EOG mooring charges.

 

The comments regarding the legality of BW charging for EA moorings are more of an ‘aside’ I suspect, expressing indignation as to their conduct rather than claiming it needs to be fought over in this case – especially being so long past. The legality or otherwise is actually quite irrelevant to the core issues; moreover, whether legal or not, it is of advantage to the defence, if it is possible to demonstrate from BW’s own records - because of these charges - that the boat could not be classed as overstaying there for that relevant period.

 

It was never unusual for BW to charge for mooring to other people’s land even without any reference to the owners. On the Brent the approach has historically been tentative and inconsistent; they applied the charges universally, but didn’t argue if the boater decided to stop paying to moor to land not in BW’s proven ownership.

 

Ordinarily, BW/CaRT would take the approach that they were entitled to charge EoG fees, and that if the landowner wanted his ‘slice of the action’ then that was between the owner and the boater – nothing to do with them. Whatever the landowner’s arrangement was with boaters was immaterial to them, and the EA in this instance could supply the mooring facilities for free or at a charge.

 

Especially in circumstances where an owner like the EA was providing the facilities as a public benefit, those owners were in fact unlikely to care less about the BW charges, so long as they weren’t asked to pay BW themselves.

 

My predecessors at our online moorings didn’t want to get involved in hassle with BW, and allowed boats to moor online without charging; the timber yard further along likewise didn’t want to get into hassle, but in their case decided at one point to ban mooring altogether. [Their stance has fluctuated over time, and with new management they have recently been persuaded to allow a barge to moor there once again.]

 

I haven’t asked what the new arrangements are, one hopes that some more amicable relationship has developed since Bensted’s initial days of naked aggression. The timber yard were being charged at one point for the overhanging part of the old warehouse, for occupying BW waterspace [or airspace above the waterspace]. They had been paying the historically modest fee, but then BW demanded a swingeing increase into 4 figure sums per annum, and they baulked. They were riparian owners on a natural part of the river and didn’t need to pay anything at all anyway, but when they told BW this, they were met with the threat of legal action backed by a formidable legal team, and decided a fight was not worth it even if they won – so they pulled the overhang down instead!

 

It was a tragic vandalisation of an historic structure, but one can understand. It happens more often than we usually get to know, that over-arching greed ends up losing BW/CaRT lucrative but illegal charges. I recently came across an article on the background to the Swan Hill Developments fight, and learnt that the developers had initially been quite willing to pay BW for the right to build a bridge across the canal, and only when BW would not budge from the extortionate amounts demanded, did they decide to pay nothing – as was their right under the Act.

 

http://www.thelawyer.com/ancient-canal-act-rocks-the-boat/78326.article

 

The same irrational approach still goes on, according to developers I know in Brentford who have to deal with them.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

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.

I don't know why the report (or printout as I call it) was produced. It came to me amongst a pile of paperwork labelled as an Exhibit for use as evidence against me in Court. I've asked C&RT and Shoosmiths to explain it, and what it is meant to prove. C&RT pretend not to understand what I am asking and Shoosmiths say that they included it on C&RT's instructions, but they don't know what it proves either.As someone who knows very little about computers(this laptop I have had since last April is my first one)the printout is, to me, just a sheet of paper with a lot of misleading info and outright lies printed on it, produced by C&RT's computer system. Having said that, I am very pleased that they have put it in as evidence, it certainly does me no harm, but it's high fictional content does need explaining and that is why I asked the question that began this thread.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Tony

Do you have invoices/reciepts, to show what was paid, and for what?

I fear it will be down to you to prove, by BW/C&RT paperwork, that the print out is incorrect.

You will also need a clear map, showing all the mooring points,claimed by both sides, and the ownership of those moorings.

 

Bod

Yes, I've kept all the BW invoices for my mooring in Holme Lock Cut, and the Environment Agency have provided me with a drawing/map of all their land there.

[mayalld]

I don't know why the report (or printout as I call it) was produced. It came to me amongst a pile of paperwork labelled as an Exhibit for use as evidence against me in Court. I've asked C&RT and Shoosmiths to explain it, and what it is meant to prove. C&RT pretend not to understand what I am asking and Shoosmiths say that they included it on C&RT's instructions, but they don't know what it proves either.As someone who knows very little about computers(this laptop I have had since last April is my first one)the printout is, to me, just a sheet of paper with a lot of misleading info and outright lies printed on it, produced by C&RT's computer system. Having said that, I am very pleased that they have put it in as evidence, it certainly does me no harm, but it's high fictional content does need explaining and that is why I asked the question that began this thread.

 

Tony,

 

despite your beligerent attitude, please try to understand that I'm trying to give you sound advice.

 

The fact that the piece of paper doesn't make sense to you is down to the fact that you wouldn't set it out like that. It doesn't actually mean that it is misleading or lies.

 

I would suggest that you press them as to the meaning of the TE code. It isn't a location code that I've ever heard of before.

[cotswoldsman]

Tony if I was you I would spend some money on an IT expert show him what you have explain to him what you are trying to prove and then let him.tell you the questions you need to ask

[Tony Dunkley]

 

You appear to be trying to argue against the legality of EOG mooring charges.

No, I was saying that BW had no right to charge me, or anyone else for that matter, for mooring to property or land they do not own, but if you would like me to argue against the legality of EOG mooring charges, then I am quite happy to do so.

BW/C&RT's powers to charge for mooring are no different from any other property/land owners. They are entitled to charge for vessels moored to (or against) their land but not for vessels moored to land not owned by them. They justify their EOG charges by claiming that the charge is for the waterspace at the mooring. This is rubbish, and they know it is. Any Licenced boat is paying to use/occupy its own waterspace by paying it's Licence Fee, and occupies that same waterspace whether it is underway or moored. Being charged for waterspace at a mooring is, in fact, being charged for the same thing twice.

[Naughty Cal]

Tony. I hope you have your argument more organised before you appear in court

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Tony,

 

despite your beligerent attitude, please try to understand that I'm trying to give you sound advice.

 

The fact that the piece of paper doesn't make sense to you is down to the fact that you wouldn't set it out like that. It doesn't actually mean that it is misleading or lies.

 

I would suggest that you press them as to the meaning of the TE code. It isn't a location code that I've ever heard of before.

I'm sorry you think I am being belligerent . . I thought I was being fairly congenial today.

The printout (piece of paper) does make sense to me . . . it's the content that's misleading and incorrect, not the way it's set out.

I am somewhat reluctant to press C&RT further on the meaning of the TE code (in the other printouts) for fear of appearing belligerent.

[mayalld]

No, I was saying that BW had no right to charge me, or anyone else for that matter, for mooring to property or land they do not own, but if you would like me to argue against the legality of EOG mooring charges, then I am quite happy to do so.

BW/C&RT's powers to charge for mooring are no different from any other property/land owners. They are entitled to charge for vessels moored to (or against) their land but not for vessels moored to land not owned by them. They justify their EOG charges by claiming that the charge is for the waterspace at the mooring. This is rubbish, and they know it is. Any Licenced boat is paying to use/occupy its own waterspace by paying it's Licence Fee, and occupies that same waterspace whether it is underway or moored. Being charged for waterspace at a mooring is, in fact, being charged for the same thing twice.

 

So you ARE arguing against the legality of EOG charges.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

So you ARE arguing against the legality of EOG charges.

Well alright then, yes I am . . . but not belligerently.

[mayalld]

I'm sorry you think I am being belligerent . . I thought I was being fairly congenial today.

The printout (piece of paper) does make sense to me . . . it's the content that's misleading and incorrect, not the way it's set out.

I am somewhat reluctant to press C&RT further on the meaning of the TE code (in the other printouts) for fear of appearing belligerent.

 

Perhaps belligerent is the wrong word.

 

I would suggest, however, that your utter conviction that CRT are "wrong" here leads you to an inability to accept that any particular example of their wrongness that you have found could actually be a mistake on your part.

 

You say that the printout makes sense to you. Unfortunately what has happened is that you have come to a view of what the printout means that is at odds with what the printout actually means.

 

If the printout was supposed to show the information that you think it is supposed to show then it would indeed be wrong.

 

However, as you haven't understood what it is supposed to say, your view that it contains incorrect information is flawed.

 

I really don't see that pressing them on the TE code would be belligerent.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

 

 

Perhaps belligerent is the wrong word.

 

I would suggest, however, that your utter conviction that CRT are "wrong" here leads you to an inability to accept that any particular example of their wrongness that you have found could actually be a mistake on your part.

 

You say that the printout makes sense to you. Unfortunately what has happened is that you have come to a view of what the printout means that is at odds with what the printout actually means.

 

If the printout was supposed to show the information that you think it is supposed to show then it would indeed be wrong.

 

However, as you haven't understood what it is supposed to say, your view that it contains incorrect information is flawed.

 

I really don't see that pressing them on the TE code would be belligerent.

So, what does it actually mean?

Edited August 12, 2014 by tony dunkley

[mayalld]

Well alright then, yes I am . . . but not belligerently.

 

You may well be making a tactical error.

 

That battle is long fought and lost. No matter how much you feel that the result should be the other way, muddying the waters with a lost cause is going to do your core case no good at all.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

You may well be making a tactical error.

 

That battle is long fought and lost. No matter how much you feel that the result should be the other way, muddying the waters with a lost cause is going to do your core case no good at all.

Do you think C&RT may try to charge me for the waterspace that gets muddied?

[NigelMoore]

As an example of the perhaps obvious fact that inputting and processing can go wrong and stay wrong despite widespread knowledge – this is from Denise Yelland’s first-level response to Gilly’s complaint over ‘Gilgie’s Licence refusal back in October 2012 -

 

“During the hearing in the case of Nigel Moore v British Waterways Board we became aware of inaccuracies in the information we held for the boat ‘Gilgie’. The computer records held by British Waterways (now Canal & River Trust) at the time of trial and indeed at present continue to record ‘Gilgie’ as having been issued with a licence on the basis of continuous cruising when it became apparent during the trial at the High Court that your original August 2007 licence application specified ‘Gilgie’ to have a home mooring at Ciconia, The Hollows, Brentford but that we had wrongly inputted the vessel as a continuous cruiser. It is clear that the vessel was never continuously cruising as confirmed by the Judge in the Approved Judgment in the High Court case (copy enclosed) and I refer you to paragraphs 58 and 183 of this Judgment. It is further clear from correspondence which passed between you and Debbi Figueiredo in August and September 2009 (which was put into evidence by Mr Moore during the trial) that our licensing and enforcement team were aware from 2009 that the inaccuracy with regard to the computer records existed and that the error was not due to any fault on your part.”

 

I never have believed that this was mistaken inputting at all; from other evidence I was always certain that they automatically classified ALL vessels with home moorings off their system as CC'ers. It is fair to say, however, that this was always vigorously denied by them.

[NigelMoore]

 

You may well be making a tactical error.

 

That battle is long fought and lost. No matter how much you feel that the result should be the other way, muddying the waters with a lost cause is going to do your core case no good at all.

 

It is not really a battle long fought and lost in any significant sense, because the battles never progressed from the County Court level. The arguments there, in part relied on a false presentation to the court of the effect of a boat licence, and in part on since-discredited [by the Appeal Court] arguments as to abolition of statutory riparian rights, with some common law nonsense thrown in alongside acknowledgement that the authority needs and wants the power, so should have it.

 

I would be as confident as anyone can be, of a properly prepared argument demonstrating how flawed those early judgments were, if taken to the High Court instead. Nonetheless, I quite agree that it would be a mistake to seek to introduce it as yet another element within this case. Lost cause or not, it definitely counts as muddying already murky waters. Give the court too many facets of a situation and they simply will not have time enough to give each the consideration properly needed.

[mayalld]

So, what does it actually mean?

 

It means CURRENT home mooring.

 

In an Ideal world, the report might say;

 

====

Boat: Kingfisher

Index: 37678

Home Mooring: Little Snoring Wharf

 

Date Invoice No Value Description Customer

1/1/2012 12345678 £300 Licence 12M 8765432

1/1/2012 12398765 £200 Mooring 3M 8765432

1/4/2012 12456789 £200 Mooring 3M 8765432

====

 

Putting some data into headers is harder (and more expensive), so what you actually get is;

 

Date Invoice No Value Description Customer Boat Index Home Mooring

1/1/2012 12345678 £300 Licence 12M 8765432 Kingfisher 37678 Little Snoring Wharf

1/1/2012 12398765 £200 Mooring 3M 8765432 Kingfisher 37678 Little Snoring Wharf

1/4/2012 12456789 £200 Mooring 3M 8765432 Kingfisher 37678 Little Snoring Wharf

 

I suspect that if we looked at a similar report for a boat that had changed name, it would show the new name on every line.

As an example of the perhaps obvious fact that inputting and processing can go wrong and stay wrong despite widespread knowledge – this is from Denise Yelland’s first-level response to Gilly’s complaint over ‘Gilgie’s Licence refusal back in October 2012 -

 

“During the hearing in the case of Nigel Moore v British Waterways Board we became aware of inaccuracies in the information we held for the boat ‘Gilgie’. The computer records held by British Waterways (now Canal & River Trust) at the time of trial and indeed at present continue to record ‘Gilgie’ as having been issued with a licence on the basis of continuous cruising when it became apparent during the trial at the High Court that your original August 2007 licence application specified ‘Gilgie’ to have a home mooring at Ciconia, The Hollows, Brentford but that we had wrongly inputted the vessel as a continuous cruiser. It is clear that the vessel was never continuously cruising as confirmed by the Judge in the Approved Judgment in the High Court case (copy enclosed) and I refer you to paragraphs 58 and 183 of this Judgment. It is further clear from correspondence which passed between you and Debbi Figueiredo in August and September 2009 (which was put into evidence by Mr Moore during the trial) that our licensing and enforcement team were aware from 2009 that the inaccuracy with regard to the computer records existed and that the error was not due to any fault on your part.”

 

I never have believed that this was mistaken inputting at all; from other evidence I was always certain that they automatically classified ALL vessels with home moorings off their system as CC'ers. It is fair to say, however, that this was always vigorously denied by them.

 

Do you happen to have a print out which shows what code was entered?

[NigelMoore]

 

Do you happen to have a print out which shows what code was entered?

 

All I will have is what their copies of the online/phone renewals entered. I will look them up for you - but it will be awhile yet, I have to get out into the sunshine and do chores.

[cotswoldsman]

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.

CRT have withdrawn the ticket and before you ask I do not yet have the full story but the boater has had an apology

[Paul G2]

 

True [attitude counts for a lot], and for court purposes the information is only potentially relevant anyway.

 

The Claim is brought on the basis that there is no licence for the boat to be on the waterway, so should be removed.

 

The reason for revocation of the licence was given as failure to abide by the relevant T&C’s of the licence respecting mooring/cruising. The first question to address therefore, is whether that revocation was valid, given that the licence was granted under s.17(3)( c )(i)?

 

It is immaterial, in other words [on one argument], whether he complied with the T&C’s or not. Reasons for legitimately revoking/refusing a licence are limited to those statutorily provided. IF the licence was granted under s.17(3)( c )(ii), then the evidence for breaching the 14 day rule becomes relevant – but ONLY then.

 

In the instant case, the records don’t help CaRT much either. One of the legal letters acknowledging that he moved after 14 days, moored elsewhere for a few days and returned again, claimed that this was not acceptable under the Terms of his licence, because it was not “cruising” as they required – even for those with a home mooring.

 

I may easily have missed it [not really having looked], but it didn’t appear to me that the record was sufficiently detailed to show even that pattern. What will matter will be whatever might be agreed as common ground between the parties.

 

For CaRT’s purposes, they might just as well agree that he moved as per that letter, making the claim, as in that letter, that this was insufficient to qualify under the terms of his licence. I don’t believe there would be any dispute from Tony over such a pattern of use, and it would keep the matter simpler while obviating any need for these records.

 

They would also, of course, still have to justify imposing a non-statutory condition upon licence issue.

 

 

Didn't I read somewhere on this thread that CRT, in a report to Trustees, admitted that they didn't actually have the statutory authority to do what they are doing? It seems like Tony's best bet would be to go for the judicial review and attempt to have the court order that his license be re-instated. If he could limit proceedings to a discussion of statutory authority, it seems he would win hands down.

 

He needs to get the issue of if his license was lawfully revoked before the court and, the way things are going, he may never even get the chance to present that issue.

 

In a British court, can he cross-complain and ask for declaratory relief by way of demurer in the case CRT has brought?

[Paul G2]

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.

 

 

As crazy as this may sound to you, if you try arguing that in court, the judge may well say, "Well then, we are all in agreement that Mr. Dunkley did not in fact have a legitimate home mooring. Let's move on to the next issue then and see if he has been in compliance with the CCer rules."

 

Tony, you really do need to take the blinders off. You have no idea what you are up against and you are on course to hand CRT an easy victory.

[Quinafloat]

Right, The report as I believe it should be, Normalised, human readable and historically accurate to account for change of mooring and change of boat name.

Customer number: 123456

Customer Name: Joe Bloggs

Boat Index: 37678

Date Invoice No Value Description Boat name Mooring

1/1/2012 12345678 £300 Licence 12M Kingfisher

1/1/2012 12398765 £200 Mooring 3M Kingfisher Little Snoring

1/9/2011 12456789 £200 Mooring 3M Kingfisher Big Snoring

1/6/2011 12456799 £200 Mooring 3M Serendipity Big Snoring

*Both the home mooring and the boat name can vary over time.

The only stable items are customer number and boat index number. Customer name may vary over time (marriage, deed poll, etc.) but should always be show as the current value as the customer name changing over time is not important to the subject matter.

The relationship of the boat to the mooring at any one time is the main basis of paying for a mooring and both should be shown as they were at the time. Obviously a licence fee does not relate to a mooring.

I find it hard to believe that the cost of producing a competent report can be cited as a reason for producing an incompetent report. The costs of a court case are massive and any competent coder could produce a such a report in less than a day (provided the data existed, which I doubt) within the database. Naturally such a report could be used for all court cases requiring documentation of financial transactions.