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

[muddywaters]

Just out of curiosity but do CRT bank staff such as lock keepers at the likes of the Bingley Five Rise or tunnel keepers at Harecastle Tunnel log boats going through such places.

It would be logical and dare I say economical.

And it would be a fairly accurate record of a boats movement.

As long as of course you take your boat through such places

[Nige G]

 

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.

 

How do you get to that conclusion?

 

Where does it state that for a home mooring to be "legitimate" that it must be chargeable by CRT?

[Bod]

 

 

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?

 

If I recall correctly, this all started with the "Home Mooring" licence being refused.

Paul G is right, was that refusal correct under statute?

That is the only question that will get you the "right" answer.

Keep the court focussed on that, all else will be very very expensive chatter!!

 

In your favour, you've had the home mooring for, how many years?

Your boat usage has been the same for how long?

Why was'nt this action done earlier?

The home mooring is suitable for the boat. (Your access via car or foot, to the mooring is irrelvant.)

You have BSS/Insurance in place.

Does your boat use conform with the statutory requirements for a boat with "home mooring"

 

Use the K.I.S.S. method (Keep It Stupidly Simple)

 

Bod

 

PS The proof for most of this is in the print outs as they are!

Edited August 12, 2014 by Bod

[Paul C]

 

If I recall correctly, this all started with the "Home Mooring" licence being refused.

Paul G is right, was that refusal correct under statute?

That is the only question that will get you the "right" answer.

Keep the court focussed on that, all else will be very very expensive chatter!!

 

In your favour, you've had the home mooring for, how many years?

Your boat usage has been the same for how long?

Why was'nt this action done earlier?

The home mooring is suitable for the boat. (Your access via car or foot, to the mooring is irrelvant.)

You have BSS/Insurance in place.

 

Does your boat use conform with the statutory requirements for a boat with "home mooring"

 

Use the K.I.S.S. method (Keep It Stupidly Simple)

 

Bod

 

PS The proof for most of this is in the print outs as they are!

 

See post #22, sorry its so far back. TD doesn't need to worry about movement records if he had a home mooring (that CRT were satisfied with). He does need to worry if he's paying for a home mooring but CRT aren't satisfied. Or if TD and CRT disagree that he has a satisfactory home mooring (which is a subtly different thing).

[Paul G2]

How do you get to that conclusion?

 

Where does it state that for a home mooring to be "legitimate" that it must be chargeable by CRT?

Nowhere! However, if Tony argues that CRT has no right to rent him that mooring, and they agree, then he is suddenly a boater with no home mooring. (I'm assuming he hasn't had written permission from the EA to use the mooring all these years.) His only defense, as Bod noted in post 303, is that he is a boater with a legitimate home mooring and that CRT unlawfully denied him a license renewal.

 

Why on earth would he want to say anything that would argue that his home mooring is anything but 100% legitimate?

[Bod]

The question is....Why are C&RT now unsatisfied with TD's home mooring arrangements?

I can see no reason under statute, unless C&RT are able to create their T&C's or must they follow statute?

Their own paperwork, shows previous satisfaction.

C&RT cannot refuse a home mooring and charge for it!

If they've been charging in the past, they must be satisfied by it! (If nothing has changed)

 

Bod

[Naughty Cal]

Just out of curiosity but do CRT bank staff such as lock keepers at the likes of the Bingley Five Rise or tunnel keepers at Harecastle Tunnel log boats going through such places.

It would be logical and dare I say economical.

And it would be a fairly accurate record of a boats movement.

As long as of course you take your boat through such places

The lockies on the tidal Trent and Ouse locks make a note of all boats going through the locks.

 

They don't appear to be logged on the system though as our boat has only ever been logged on its home mooring!

[Paul C]

The question is....Why are C&RT now unsatisfied with TD's home mooring arrangements?

I can see no reason under statute, unless C&RT are able to create their T&C's or must they follow statute?

Their own paperwork, shows previous satisfaction.

C&RT cannot refuse a home mooring and charge for it!

If they've been charging in the past, they must be satisfied by it! (If nothing has changed)

 

Bod

 

Remember the film "There's something about Mary"? Well, in this topic, a variation on the film title could be "There's something about Tony Dunkley's home mooring".

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

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 would take this even further and ask what purpose the enforcement officer had in submitting evidence (i.e. the report of financial transactions) that at face value does not seem pertinent to CaRT's case.

 

Quite simply, financial transactions between Tony and BW/CaRT do not form part of CaRT's case as they maintain that his boat was licenced and they revoked that licence. Quite simply the report would only be relevant if CaRT wished to show that he had been licencing his boat and had stopped doing so.

 

I don't really think Tony should be asking -

 

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

 

but rather

 

Why has evidence been submitted that suggests that he has been declaring a 'home mooring' at Barton In Fabis since 2003 when that evidence is not relevant to the case?

 

 

 

[Tony Dunkley]

The lockies on the tidal Trent and Ouse locks make a note of all boats going through the locks.

 

They don't appear to be logged on the system though as our boat has only ever been logged on its home mooring!

Not at all surprising. Logging boats when moving could deprive Stuart Garner and his Enforcement Gang colleagues of opportunities to accuse people of overstaying and slapping tickets, or worse, on their boats. Maybe it's not C&RT's Boat Logging System that's unfit for purpose, but the C&RT staff who use it.

A really helpful bit of information was that. Thanks very much.

Edited August 12, 2014 by tony dunkley

[NilesMI]

at face value does not seem pertinent to CaRT's case.

 

 

We don't actually know what CRT's case is. We only know what various others have told us about what CRT's case is.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

We don't actually know what CRT's case is. We only know what various others have told us about what CRT's case is

I'm not sure that this matters unless you can conceive of a case where this evidence would be relevant.

 

Can you?

 

 

 

 

[Naughty Cal]

Not at all surprising. Logging boats when moving could deprive Stuart Garner and his Enforcement Gang colleagues of opportunities to accuse people of overstaying and slapping tickets, or worse, on their boats. Maybe it's not C&RT's Boat Logging System that's unfit for purpose, but the C&RT staff who use it.

A really helpful bit of information was that. Thanks very much.

I'm not sure how that is helpful but hey ho!

[NilesMI]

The document/printout may not have been submitted as evidence of anything. It is a document which relates to the boat concerned, so I could imagine it has been given to the court for completeness.

 

If it hadn't been given to the court (and Tony) I can imagine there would be complaints that CRT were trying to hide something.

 

I could speculate how it could conceivably be evidence of something upon which CRT are relying to take action against Tony's boat, but I don't see what is gained by such speculation. We were originally told that the action against Tony's boat arose because CRT were applying CC guidelines to a boat with a home mooring. Having followed the discussion on this and other threads, it seems apparent to me that there is more to it than that, but we won't know until CRT make their formal application before the judge. I'm quite happy to wait and see what they do claim when it gets to court.

[mayalld]

 

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.

 

 

Yes, your design is fine.

 

However, it appears NOT to have been the design used.

 

You are also bob on with the effort required.

 

HOWEVER, you know as well as I do that it never works like that on IT projects!

 

By the time you've added in analysis, spec, project management, test plan, testing etc that one day change has cost 5 man-days. Multiply that up by a dozen reports that weren't well designed in the first place, and you have a PM throwing stuff out left right and centre muttering darkly about specification creep.

 

It has all the hallmarks of PRINCE management techniques! PRINCE a system that does bog all to ensure good results, but ensures that crap results are exquisitely documented.

 

Pound to a penny, they opted for the cheap option. Bung in a reporting engine and leave the creation of actual reports to some "power users" who went on a 1-day course. When they leave, they never send anybody on another course, and Bob's your uncle. Crap reports that can't be fixed.

 

The reports may be poor, but that proves nowt about the data.

[Tony Dunkley]

The question is....Why are C&RT now unsatisfied with TD's home mooring arrangements?

I can see no reason under statute, unless C&RT are able to create their T&C's or must they follow statute?

Their own paperwork, shows previous satisfaction.

C&RT cannot refuse a home mooring and charge for it!

If they've been charging in the past, they must be satisfied by it! (If nothing has changed)

 

Bod

In reality, BW/C&RT have never Invoiced me for my home mooring at Barton-in-Fabis. There is no basis on which they can charge, so they can't invoice for it because it's private land rented from the Riparian owner. Only on this quite strange printout do there exist any BW/C&RT Charges for mooring at Barton-in-Fabis. The truth of the matter is that this document is nothing more than a mistake, produced in the course of an "evidence" manufacturing process, and then foolishly included in their evidence for the Court, by a group of aggressive, vindictive and, above all, stupid people within C&RT who are determined to have their revenge on me for past refusals to comply with their unreasonable, unlawful and, frequently `made up on the spot` demands and instructions. C&RT's wish to impose CC'ing rules on boats when away from their home moorings presented them with what they saw as an ideal opportunity.

Edited August 12, 2014 by tony dunkley

[mayalld]

In reality, BW/C&RT have never Invoiced me for my home mooring at Barton-in-Fabis . . they can't charge me for it because it's private land rented by me from the Riparian owner. Only on this quite strange printout do there exist any BW/C&RT Charges for mooring at Barton-in-Fabis. The truth of the matter is that this document is nothing more than a mistake, produced in the course of an "evidence" manufacturing process, and then foolishly included in their evidence for the Court, by a group of aggressive, vindictive and, above all, stupid people within C&RT who are determined to have their revenge on me for past refusals to comply with their unreasonable, unlawful and, frequently `made up on the spot` demands and instructions. C&RT's wish to impose CC'ing rules on boats when away from their home moorings presented them with what they saw as an ideal opportunity.

 

Which line on the print out do you contend shows CRT/BW claiming to have charged for the mooring at Barton-in-Fabis?

 

It seems to me that the last mooring entry is for September 2011, and as I have explained several times, the Func Loc alongside that entry appears NOT to be the func loc that the line relates to, but the func loc of the current home mooring

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Which line on the print out do you contend shows CRT/BW claiming to have charged for the mooring at Barton-in-Fabis?

 

It seems to me that the last mooring entry is for September 2011, and as I have explained several times, the Func Loc alongside that entry appears NOT to be the func loc that the line relates to, but the func loc of the current home mooring

The printout has been presented by C&RT as an item of written evidence and as such, what matters is what it does say, not what it should say. Not that this will be of any consequence in any future Court hearings because, as Allan Richards has correctly pointed out, it's irrelevant to C&RT's Injunction Application anyway.

[Quinafloat]

HOWEVER, you know as well as I do that it never works like that on IT projects!

 

 

I fear that we have lived in very different IT environments, I have never had a customer who was prepared to sacrifice quality to save money when it concerned IT systems. Similarly the required reports and other outputs have always been the starting point of any data analysis and system design for administrative systems. I can't think how any other method can work as the reports and other outputs are the only reason for the existence of administrative systems. However all of my customers were in mainland Europe, I can only assume that things work very differently in UK IT shops these days.

[mayalld]

The printout has been presented by C&RT as an item of written evidence and as such, what matters is what it does say, not what it should say. Not that this will be of any consequence in any future Court hearings because, as Allan Richards has correctly pointed out, it's irrelevant to C&RT's Injunction Application anyway.

The thing I am trying to explain is that it doesn't say what you think it says.

 

You have interpreted the meaning of the columns in one way. I have interpreted them in another. The report doesn't say who got it right.

 

However my version is consistent with what we see in other reports from CRT, and this is my area of expertise

[rubblequeen]

Tony, and excuse me if I get anything wrong here, but it seems to me you are taking a big gamble in respect of losing your boat (and home?) is there no way you can sit down with CRT and say "just tell me what you need me to do to get this all sorted" and do it.

Do CRT offer an independent mediator when there is a dispute? If not how about suggesting that avenue?

I would always avoid court if at all possible because unless you are used to going to court then these guys are paid well to win. You may even end up paying their bill.

This world aint fair buddy.

[Mike Todd]

 

This is a boat with a home mooring, Bona Fide cruising is not an issue.

Much the same comment applies. If anyone thinks that they can claim not to have stayed in the same place for more than 14 days (an over-arching requirment for all boats) by saying that they moved less than 100 metres is clearly pushing at boundaries.

[Mike Todd]

 

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.

My understanding is that in civil cases where there is professional legal representation on both sides, the 'facts' of the matter will be agreed well before it comes to court. Some facts may be contested - such as a the veracity of evidence, especially that which is not corroborated but, as Nigel M keeps trying to press, the court will focus on legal interpretation with the principal concern being whether one party or the other was entitled to do what they did.

 

Litigants who represent themselves frequently run into difficulties because they so not understand the conventions of court litigation. In some cases, judges bend over backwards to ensure a fair hearing and, especially in some recent criminal cases, have made very caustic comments on the effects of leagl aid withdrawal on both the costs added to court hearings as a result (they take longer because the judge has to explain much more to the inexperienced litigant) or, in extremis, injustice.

 

It is always worth remembering that fictionalised court cases on flim or television are about as realistic as those about living on a canal boat!

 

The reports are an integral part of the system. If they are inaccurate for whatever reason then the system is not fit for purpose. Think of a chain with a broken link, it is not a good chain.

You can only justify an assessment that something is 'not fit for purpose' once you have established what that purpose is.

 

Of course, many systems are pushed beyond their design limits (like taking a narrowboat across the Channel!) - sometimes it works and sometimes it is a disaster. That is not the fault of the system but the (ab)user.

 

On the other hand, when faced with someone using a system outside its design envelope, you could assert that it was not 'fit for this purpose' but that is a very different matter.

[Mike Todd]

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.

One of the more important reasons that it is good to have a representative when in court (even a Mackenzie Friend) is that many litgants lose their case because they cannot look dispassionately at the facts and opinions being presented. A third party, with no vested interest, is often better able to sort out what will count and what will not. Not every argument that might win friends in the pub will be acceptable to a judge.

 

Sometimes this can lead to helpers having to tell hard truths. Better before court than when in it.

[Mike Todd]

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

Will crucially depend on whether Beeston and Nottingham VM's can be legitimately described as a different 'place' in the context of establishing bona fide cruising. This is just where the more properly contentious debate actually lies and the law gives neither side much assistance. In the end the only people who gain much out of such uncertainty are the lawyers.