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

[mayalld]

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

 

Insufficient information available to form an opinion.

 

Clearly, there are a number of options;

 

1) Mr Garner has made an error.

2) The system has recorded the boat incorrectly

3) Somebody is out to get the boater.

4) The boat was there on Monday morning (or possibly earlier) when Mr Garner last checked, and is there now. Mr Garner has assumed that it hasn't moved, when it has in fact been away.

[Tony Dunkley]

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.

You're quite right and thanks for the thought, but if this attempt in the "Abolish Tony Dunkley Campaign" doesn't work then the nasty little gang within C&RT whose wrath I have incurred will just invent some other heinous crime for me to commit.This time they have tried it hung on the back of C&RT's desire to make boats with Home Moorings abide by CC'er rules . . next time, who knows, but you can be sure they will dream up something.

Edited August 13, 2014 by tony dunkley

[Mike Todd]

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.

As I understand it (Nigel M will corrct I am sure) that EoG charges are principally to do with canal moorings where CRT own the canal bed and the charge is, effectively, for mooring in the water adjacent to the land. It is up to the land owner as to whether they charge additionally for the right to use the land to access the boat or for securing mooring ropes.

 

The situation on rivers is always a bit different and, as was found in the case regarding the River Brent, may hinge on quite complex hsitory of riparian rights - ie who owns the rights to use the water.

[Mike Todd]

 

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.

 

A long time ago (decades!) I started to design a SQL based system in which customer name was the key field. Seemed initiallys ensible as the principal suage was to look information about that person. I soon learnt the error of my ways when a customer insisted that his name was (and always should have been) xxx despite having put yyy on all previosu documentation.

 

A system has to recognise that some things have an identity that transcends any of its characteristics, such as name. In this case, the registration number is intended to be unique and never changing. It will run into difficulties if it ever happens that it too becomes yet another name and not immutable. For this reason, most databases systems will allocate unique key fields even if that number is never displayed to the users. (For those who know about these things it is an essential part of achieving at least third normal form and important part of which is ensuring that the same data is never stored in more than one place)

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Bearing in mind that CaRT initiated this action in such a manner as minimise the chances of it being defended, I suspect that the judge would have taken the report as showing that Tony had been declaring a ghost home mooring for 10 years.

 

I do not believe that CaRT would have made it clear that the report was misleading.

[Mike Todd]

 

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!

As I understand it, CRT's issue is not with whether the boater had a home mooring but whether, in the terms of the legislation he had one in the terms described. One of the trends which CRT is clearly trying to counter is that of claiming a home mooring that is largely a matter of fiction (although it exists and may be paid for it does not represent a home mooring for the boat concerned in the terms decsribed in the legislation). In short, ghost moorings.

 

This is a reasonable (in my view) objective for CRT as uncontrolled mushrooming of such a practice could clearly lead to all sorts of undesirable consequences - like everyone sharing just a single paid for mooring that they never visit) - but, given the degree to which legislation was written for very different circumstances, is going to lead to all sorts of complex cases. Even if CRT lose this one it does not mean either that they should not have brought it in the first place or that they will necessarily lose future cases which are equally ambiguous.

[Alan de Enfield]

To be honest - whilst I thought I 'had it' I seem to have lost the plot as to what the actual accusation is :

 

1) Doesnt have a home mooring (but then C&RT acknowledge he does)

2) Overstays on visitors moorings (but then C&RT acknowledge he hasnt)

3) Does not return to his home mooring often enough.

4) Doesnt comply with the CC requirements, even though he has a home mooring (acknowledged by C&RT)

 

So due to an infringement in one of the above, (which one ?) the boat licence is revoked.

 

The boat now has no licence , and, as an unlicensed boat becomes subject to enforcement (section 8)

 

Tony D - can you please help me - what is the actual (cited) reason behind the revocation of the licence ?

[NigelMoore]

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.

 

Hence the saying - "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client"!

 

It is not quite as true for Litigants in person, because as has been said, the court usually tries its best to accommodate the natural disadvantages of an untrained person, and they can get away with things the professional cannot. The advice is still sound, however.

[Tony Dunkley]

To be honest - whilst I thought I 'had it' I seem to have lost the plot as to what the actual accusation is :

 

1) Doesnt have a home mooring (but then C&RT acknowledge he does)

2) Overstays on visitors moorings (but then C&RT acknowledge he hasnt)

3) Does not return to his home mooring often enough.

4) Doesnt comply with the CC requirements, even though he has a home mooring (acknowledged by C&RT)

 

So due to an infringement in one of the above, (which one ?) the boat licence is revoked.

 

The boat now has no licence , and, as an unlicensed boat becomes subject to enforcement (section 8)

 

Tony D - can you please help me - what is the actual (cited) reason behind the revocation of the licence ?

It certainly is rather a muddle, and C&RT themselves seemed to be more than a little uncertain of what they needed to accuse me of. In the end they settled for none of the four options you have listed, but decided that I was not complying with Clauses 2.1 and 3.1 of the Licence T&C's by mooring while not cruising. The correspondence in which they have attempted to explain and justify this reads a bit like part of a script from the TV sitcom Yes Minister and they have been careful not to include it in their evidence for the Court, opting instead to present me as an unlicenced Houseboat.

In an even more bizarre follow up to C&RT initiating Court proceedings, they have now suggested that if I demonstrate to them that I am prepared, in future, to comply with their Licence T&C's by "cruising" with my unlicenced (House)boat, then they will consider renewing my Licence and dropping the "enforcement" proceedings.

If anyone can confirm that I would not be infringing copyright law by posting the relevant correspondence on this Forum, then I would be pleased to do so.

Edited August 13, 2014 by tony dunkley

[NigelMoore]

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

 

Found the paper files at last. I hadn’t realised that I had these, because they were so meaningless to me I hadn’t really registered them! As NilesMI said #314, these too will have been submitted purely “for completeness”.

 

Gilgie’s Report –

 

 

It seems strangely incomplete, given that she was s.8'd in July 2007, and frequently cruised up to the Fox and back thereafter. One might have expected records from 2007 on.

 

I have a number of others which I will post up for you, in case comparison with known facts helps analysis. There are also variants on called-up Reports.

[cotswoldsman]

 

Insufficient information available to form an opinion.

 

Clearly, there are a number of options;

 

1) Mr Garner has made an error.

2) The system has recorded the boat incorrectly

3) Somebody is out to get the boater.

4) The boat was there on Monday morning (or possibly earlier) when Mr Garner last checked, and is there now. Mr Garner has assumed that it hasn't moved, when it has in fact been away.

I did do a follow up post stating that CRT have withdrawn the Patrol Notice with an apology and that is fair enough I do not have any more details but as I have always said a quick contact with CRT often sorts these things out. My original post as I have also said was about the speed the ticket was issued at

[Naughty Cal]

You're quite right and thanks for the thought, but if this attempt in the "Abolish Tony Dunkley Campaign" doesn't work then the nasty little gang within C&RT whose wrath I have incurred will just invent some other heinous crime for me to commit.This time they have tried it hung on the back of C&RT's desire to make boats with Home Moorings abide by CC'er rules . . next time, who knows, but you can be sure they will dream up something.

 

If you truly believe that why would you want to stay on their waterways?

 

What do you actually aim to achieve out of this case?

It certainly is rather a muddle, and C&RT themselves seemed to be more than a little uncertain of what they needed to accuse me of. In the end they settled for none of the four options you have listed, but decided that I was not complying with Clauses 2.1 and 3.1 of the Licence T&C's by mooring while not cruising. The correspondence in which they have attempted to explain and justify this reads a bit like part of a script from the TV sitcom Yes Minister and they have been careful not to include it in their evidence for the Court, opting instead to present me as an unlicenced Houseboat.

 

Tony you have somewhat skipped the question asked of you there!

 

You must have the wording of why CRT revoked your licence. What does it say?

[Tony Dunkley]

 

If you truly believe that why would you want to stay on their waterways?

 

What do you actually aim to achieve out of this case?

 

Tony you have somewhat skipped the question asked of you there!

 

You must have the wording of why CRT revoked your licence. What does it say?

I have not become involved in this because of any aims of any sort. C&RT initiated this nonsense so you really should be asking them that question.

[Alan de Enfield]

It certainly is rather a muddle, and C&RT themselves seemed to be more than a little uncertain of what they needed to accuse me of. In the end they settled for none of the four options you have listed, but decided that I was not complying with Clauses 2.1 and 3.1 of the Licence T&C's by mooring while not cruising. The correspondence in which they have attempted to explain and justify this reads a bit like part of a script from the TV sitcom Yes Minister and they have been careful not to include it in their evidence for the Court, opting instead to present me as an unlicenced Houseboat.

In an even more bizarre follow up to C&RT initiating Court proceedings, they have now suggested that if I demonstrate to them that I am prepared, in future, to comply with their Licence T&C's by "cruising" with my unlicenced (House)boat, then they will consider renewing my Licence and dropping the "enforcement" proceedings.

If anyone can confirm that I would not be infringing copyright law by posting the relevant correspondence on this Forum, then I would be pleased to do so.

 

2. Use of the boat

2.1. The Licence allows you to use the Boat in any Waterway including mooring for short periods while

cruising. ‘Short period’ means up to 14 days or less where a local restriction applies. The Licence

does not permit mooring for any longer period. Daily charges may be applied for staying longer than

the maximum time allowed.

2.2. The Boat must be used only for the purposes specified in the licence description, details of which

are set out in Schedule 3.

3. Mooring

3.1. The Licence does not allow you to moor the Boat in any Waterway except for short periods whilst

cruising (see Condition 2.1 above). This Licence does not give a right to moor that is sufficient to

meet the requirement in the British Waterways Act 1995 for the Boat to have a Home Mooring.

 

I'm not sure that helps me - Am I correct that you are accused of not 'cruising' between mooring's, enough to justify mooring ?

 

Whilst I have previously posted a variety of definitions of cruising does any one have an idea of C&RT's definition ?

 

I wonder if C&RT's offer to 'drop the action' against you is as an acceptance of their weak case ?

[Tony Dunkley]

 

2. Use of the boat

2.1. The Licence allows you to use the Boat in any Waterway including mooring for short periods while

cruising. ‘Short period’ means up to 14 days or less where a local restriction applies. The Licence

does not permit mooring for any longer period. Daily charges may be applied for staying longer than

the maximum time allowed.

2.2. The Boat must be used only for the purposes specified in the licence description, details of which

are set out in Schedule 3.

3. Mooring

3.1. The Licence does not allow you to moor the Boat in any Waterway except for short periods whilst

cruising (see Condition 2.1 above). This Licence does not give a right to moor that is sufficient to

meet the requirement in the British Waterways Act 1995 for the Boat to have a Home Mooring.

 

I'm not sure that helps me - Am I correct that you are accused of not 'cruising' between mooring's, enough to justify mooring ?

 

Whilst I have previously posted a variety of definitions of cruising does any one have an idea of C&RT's definition ?

 

I wonder if C&RT's offer to 'drop the action' against you is as an acceptance of their weak case ?

 

 

2. Use of the boat

2.1. The Licence allows you to use the Boat in any Waterway including mooring for short periods while

cruising. ‘Short period’ means up to 14 days or less where a local restriction applies. The Licence

does not permit mooring for any longer period. Daily charges may be applied for staying longer than

the maximum time allowed.

2.2. The Boat must be used only for the purposes specified in the licence description, details of which

are set out in Schedule 3.

3. Mooring

3.1. The Licence does not allow you to moor the Boat in any Waterway except for short periods whilst

cruising (see Condition 2.1 above). This Licence does not give a right to moor that is sufficient to

meet the requirement in the British Waterways Act 1995 for the Boat to have a Home Mooring.

 

I'm not sure that helps me - Am I correct that you are accused of not 'cruising' between mooring's, enough to justify mooring ?

 

Whilst I have previously posted a variety of definitions of cruising does any one have an idea of C&RT's definition ?

 

I wonder if C&RT's offer to 'drop the action' against you is as an acceptance of their weak case ?

Yes, exactly that.

 

This from C&RT letter in response to my request for specific reason for revoking Licence ; -

 

" I reiterate, as stated in my letter to you of 10^th April 2014 (a copy of which is being sent with this letter for ease of reference) that the licence we issued for 12 months from 1^st July 2013 was validly revoked by us on 3^rd January 2014. Your licence was revoked because of your failure to comply with our terms and conditions.

 

We issued the licence on 1^st July 2013 on the basis that you had a home mooring. You claimed that your home mooring was at Barton-in- Fabis. However we decided to revoke your licence as your boat has remained at Holme Lock visitor mooring or in the vicinity of that location. Consequently whilst away from the home mooring your boat has not been moored for short periods whilst cruising as required by clauses 2.1 and 3.1 of the terms and conditions."

Edited August 13, 2014 by tony dunkley

[Naughty Cal]

I have not become involved in this because of any aims of any sort. C&RT initiated this nonsense so you really should be asking them that question.

 

No. I am asking you.

 

You clearly believe that CRT have some sort of hidden agenda that involves removing you from their waterways.

 

If you somehow manage to win this case (which is somewhat unlikely it would seem) what do you actually think will change?

[NilesMI]

If it is about CC guidelines applying to boats with a home mooring, the case could involve a judgement against CRT making that interpretation.

 

If a judgement was in agreement with CRT applying CC guidelines to boats with a home mooring, it would be a significant change and affect many people who have a home mooring for their boat, even boats such as Naughty Cal.

 

I was prepared to accept that the action against Tony was about CC guidelines and boats with a home mooring. The more I have heard from Tony, the less inclined I am to believe that's what it is about.

 

It would be easy enough for Tony to quote the notice(s) he's had from CRT as Naughty Cal has asked.

[Tony Dunkley]

If it is about CC guidelines applying to boats with a home mooring, the case could involve a judgement against CRT making that interpretation.

 

If a judgement was in agreement with CRT applying CC guidelines to boats with a home mooring, it would be a significant change and affect many people who have a home mooring for their boat, even boats such as Naughty Cal.

 

I was prepared to accept that the action against Tony was about CC guidelines and boats with a home mooring. The more I have heard from Tony, the less inclined I am to believe that's what it is about.

 

It would be easy enough for Tony to quote the notice(s) he's had from CRT as Naughty Cal has asked.

Look at Post 340. No formal notice was ever sent.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

 

This from C&RT letter in response to my request for specific reason for revoking Licence ; -

 

" I reiterate, as stated in my letter to you of 10^th April 2014 (a copy of which is being sent with this letter for ease of reference) that the licence we issued for 12 months from 1^st July 2013 was validly revoked by us on 3^rd January 2014. Your licence was revoked because of your failure to comply with our terms and conditions.

 

We issued the licence on 1^st July 2013 on the basis that you had a home mooring. You claimed that your home mooring was at Barton-in- Fabis. However we decided to revoke your licence as your boat has remained at Holme Lock visitor mooring or in the vicinity of that location. Consequently whilst away from the home mooring your boat has not been moored for short periods whilst cruising as required by clauses 2.1 and 3.1 of the terms and conditions."

 

 

Question for NIgel M (or anyone who knows the answer)

 

Do C&RT have the powers/right to put such requirements into their T&Cs ? - is this not just another way around amending the 1995 Act for which they have no authority to do so ?

 

Are they saying that both a boat without a home mooring, and one with a home mooring must 'continually cruise' except for short periods to moor ?

 

2. Use of the boat

2.1. The Licence allows you to use the Boat in any Waterway including mooring for short periods while

cruising. ‘Short period’ means up to 14 days or less where a local restriction applies. The Licence

does not permit mooring for any longer period. Daily charges may be applied for staying longer than

the maximum time allowed.

2.2. The Boat must be used only for the purposes specified in the licence description, details of which

are set out in Schedule 3.

3. Mooring

3.1. The Licence does not allow you to moor the Boat in any Waterway except for short periods whilst

cruising (see Condition 2.1 above). This Licence does not give a right to moor that is sufficient to

meet the requirement in the British Waterways Act 1995 for the Boat to have a Home Mooring.

[Bod]

 

 

Yes, exactly that.

 

This from C&RT letter in response to my request for specific reason for revoking Licence ; -

 

" I reiterate, as stated in my letter to you of 10^th April 2014 (a copy of which is being sent with this letter for ease of reference) that the licence we issued for 12 months from 1^st July 2013 was validly revoked by us on 3^rd January 2014. Your licence was revoked because of your failure to comply with our terms and conditions.

 

We issued the licence on 1^st July 2013 on the basis that you had a home mooring. You claimed that your home mooring was at Barton-in- Fabis. However we decided to revoke your licence as your boat has remained at Holme Lock visitor mooring or in the vicinity of that location. Consequently whilst away from the home mooring your boat has not been moored for short periods whilst cruising as required by clauses 2.1 and 3.1 of the terms and conditions."

 

 

This comes down to the definition of "place".(location)

How far apart are two different places?

 

Are the T&C's enforcable under the statute for granting Home Mooring licences?

C&RT are saying that you did'nt move enough when away from your home mooring.

The question being in my eyes. Which has precedent, T&C's or Statute requriments?

Were C&RT correct to withdraw the home mooring licence, when the requirements for that licence were being met?

 

Bod

 

edit to add my typing is slower than Alan's but basically .the same question

Edited August 13, 2014 by Bod

[NigelMoore]

 

 

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?

 

He could have responded with a Counter-Claim - had he known about options and procedures. Even then, it appears he learnt of the initial hearing with insufficient notice to do very much other than what he did, which was to inform the court that, contrary to the representations of CaRT, he did indeed have material objections and wished to defend, giving a clear outline of the history and arguable grounds for defence.

 

Not sure off the cuff whether pro-active responses are still available. It may be a good idea to enquire of the Court at the case management hearing.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

This comes down to the definition of "place".(location)

How far apart are two different places?

 

 

 

I disagree - the only mention of 'place' in the 1995 Act relates to boats without a home mooring - it was deliberately left out of the legislation for boats with a home mooring.

[NigelMoore]

Here is the record for Kamelya, a boat that spent much of its life off BW waters, and entered only in 2007. It was removed less than a year later back to the Thames, and a portion of the licence fee was refunded.

 

[NigelMoore]

Are the T&C's enforcable under the statute for granting Home Mooring licences?

 

No. The only T&C’s arguably enforceable under the statute for granting a “relevant consent” are those for Houseboat Certificates.

[Bod]

 

I disagree - the only mention of 'place' in the 1995 Act relates to boats without a home mooring - it was deliberately left out of the legislation for boats with a home mooring.

 

Would the word "location" be a replacement, with the same meaning as "place"?

 

Bod