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

[Quinafloat]

Could it be the same person, now employed by C&RT?

 

Sadly no, the story dates back a bit too far, to the days of sail. Mind you, he could have had children.

[Grace and Favour]

 

Is this case of another 'porky' from C&RT, or a mistake by NC ?

 

Email from C&RT

 

Dear Mr Dunkley

 

I refer to your email below.

 

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

CRT certainly checks the boats in King's Marina on a regular basis!

[cotswoldsman]

CRT certainly checks the boats in King's Marina on a regular basis!

I think you need to look at the complete sentence I presume Kings Marina is on CRT Waterways or maybe I am reading it wrong

 

 

 

we do not check marinas or other moorings where boats are moored off the waterway

[Puddlejumper]

I think you need to look at the complete sentence I presume Kings Marina is on CRT Waterways or maybe I am reading it wrong

 

Correct and run by British waterways marinas ltd part of CRT

[BruceinSanity]

I think you need to look at the complete sentence I presume Kings Marina is on CRT Waterways or maybe I am reading it wrong

 

The quoted sentence is ambiguous, naturally. AIUI it's part of the NAA to allow CRT patrols access to the marina. We certainly see them around Mercia from time to time.

 

 

I guess it means they don't patrol non NAA marinas where the water space is not within the CRT network.

[Grace and Favour]

I think you need to look at the complete sentence I presume Kings Marina is on CRT Waterways or maybe I am reading it wrong

 

Of course! You're right - I hadn't read the sentence correctly.

 

 

(will now go and chastise myself)

[cotswoldsman]

Of course! You're right - I hadn't read the sentence correctly.

 

 

(will now go and chastise myself)

That sounds a bit drastic!!!

[Naughty Cal]

 

Is this case of another 'porky' from C&RT, or a mistake by NC ?

 

Email from C&RT

 

Dear Mr Dunkley

 

I refer to your email below.

 

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

 

12387334

18/03/2013

111623

NAUGHTY - CAL

Sighted

Burton Waters Marina - L6 Mooring

 

11905201

21/03/2012

111623

NAUGHTY - CAL

Sighted

Burton Waters Marina - L6 Mooring

 

11469024

14/03/2011

111623

NAUGHTY - CAL

Sighted

Burton Waters Marina - L6 Mooring

11381262

05/01/2011

111623

NAUGHTY - CAL

Sighted

Burton Waters Marina - L6 Mooring

 

11298263

20/09/2010

111623

NAUGHTY - CAL

Sighted

Burton Waters Marina - L6 Mooring

10993030

19/11/2009

111623

NAUGHTY - CAL

Sighted

Burton Waters Marina - L6 Mooring

CRT certainly checks the boats in King's Marina on a regular basis!

 

And ours.

[Alan de Enfield]

The 'checkers' I have seen at Kings are actually wearing BWML shirts/jackets, as a requirement of mooring you must keep an indate licence, and when I've questioned them they tell me that is the reason for their visit - mind you - they could be acting on behalf of C&RT as well.

 

I certainly read the sentenence :

 

.... sections of rivers and waterways that are not within our ownership and control and we do not check marinas ...

 

As meaning :-

 

1) We do not check sections of Rivers and waterways that are not within our ownership and control

 

2) We do not check marinas

 

Why would they want to check marina's ? If a boat is in a marina then it is not causing any problems on the waterway (overstaying, not cruising, not moving to the next parish, etc etc)

Thanks NC - so they are checking you (approx) once a year - does tend to show that you cannot always believe what C&RT tell you

Edited August 14, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[MtB]

Why would they want to check marina's ?

 

To see if the boats in them are licenced, silly!

 

If a boat is in a marina then it is not causing any problems on the waterway (overstaying, not cruising, not moving to the next parish, etc etc)

 

This sounds as though you think marina-stored boats should be excused having a license. A high ideal but not in accordance with the NAAs most marinas are governed by.

 

 

MtB

[David Mack]

Why would they want to check marina's ? If a boat is in a marina then it is not causing any problems on the waterway (overstaying, not cruising, not moving to the next parish, etc etc)

To check if it is licenced? (All boats in marinas subject to the standard NAA are required to be licenced.)

[Alan de Enfield]

I know that !!!!

 

But as a condition of being in an NAA marina, you must be licenced, the Marina check you are licenced and are obliged to tell C&RT of any unlicenced boats*, and, 'evict' any such boats from their marina, so why are C&RT wasting time and money duplicating effort

 

Sorry - forgot - thats what C&RT do.

 

 

Edit * Maybe thats why C&RT say WE DO NOT check marinas

Edited August 14, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[bassplayer]

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.

I don't know if you're a member of an organisation like NABO, but if this is a legit case of bullying by CRT I think it would be a good case for them to take up on your behalf.

 

If CRT are successful then it could pave the way for many others to be unfairly accused and have their licences revoked for no reason.

[NigelMoore]

The cardinal point is that whatever areas they check, as being relevant to them, these have not revealed the presence of Halcyon Daze since 17 July. If the whole point of the s.8 process was to achieve that result, and it has been achieved by voluntary action instead of enforcement proceedings – why would the Court proceedings be continued, and why would not the complaint be withdrawn in the interests of economy and avoiding the waste of court time?

 

If, however, CaRT wished these proceedings to test their interpretation of the non-statutory wording of their T&C’s; if they wanted the court to pronounce on their ability to withhold licences on extra-statutory grounds; if they wanted the court to decided on whether home moorers must use and/or intend to use their home moorings for those to be valid, and if they wanted the court’s interpretation of whether “bona fide for navigation” requirements apply to boaters once off their home mooring – then they will want the trial to continue regardless.

 

So, quite where in all this does the email exchange enter in, inviting the boat back into their jurisdiction on unquestionably illegal terms for long enough to build a logged new history?

 

“Come into my parlour . . .”?

[Alan de Enfield]

Could it be that by "agreeing to adhere to C&RT's definition / requirements / T&C's", you are agreeing that in the past you have not met your licence T&Cs, & now accept that you were at fault and that C&RT have valid T&C's ?

[Bod]

Is Tony in County Court, or a higher Court?

What level of Court would have to be used to create a legal precedence?

 

Bod

[NigelMoore]

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.

 

I know this is a slight detour from the topic, but just adding a couple of more notes to my previous response for completeness:

 

If there is NO right of navigation, then the mere presence of a boat floating over the land regardless of attachment will indeed be trespass, absent the riverbed owner’s consent.

 

As to the extent to which temporary attachment to the riverbed of a navigable river constitutes actionable trespass, it seems only the States delve into this with any degree in modern times.

 

It has been held that scraping the bed in shallows does not constitute trespass such as to prevent boats navigating, nor even [departing from English precedent] does portering craft around shallows or obstruction.

 

In this country the tension between the public and the landowners over the extent of such rights has not yet been brought into the courts. The strength of the landed establishment respecting the illegal barring of the public from exercise of PRN’s is highlighted in this article –

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2013/apr/04/right-rivers-richard-benyon-interests

[NigelMoore]

Is Tony in County Court, or a higher Court?

What level of Court would have to be used to create a legal precedence?

 

He is in a County Court, where all CaRT's actions are brought.

 

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Judicial-precedent.php

 

There exists a hierarchy of the courts. The basic rule is that a court must follow the precedents from a higher court, but they are not bound to follow decisions from courts lower in the hierarchy. A basic outline of the hierarchy is:

 

European Court of Justice

 

Supreme Court (formerly House of Lords)

 

Court of Appeal

 

Divisional Courts

 

 

All other courts (County, Crown, Magistrates, tribunals - these have no power to create precedents)

[NigelMoore]

Could it be that by "agreeing to adhere to C&RT's definition / requirements / T&C's", you are agreeing that in the past you have not met your licence T&Cs, & now accept that you were at fault and that C&RT have valid T&C's ?

 

What the 23 July email said was that they wanted his “assurance that you would not be reverting back to what has been the pattern of movement that led to your licence being revoked.”

 

That would indeed constitute acceptance that his pattern of movement was unlawful, although the reference to the T&C’s is not explicit.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

What the 23 July email said was that they wanted his “assurance that you would not be reverting back to what has been the pattern of movement that led to your licence being revoked.”

 

That would indeed constitute acceptance that his pattern of movement was unlawful, although the reference to the T&C’s is not explicit.

 

As I thought.

 

Many years of writing & reading contracts has given me a rather peculiar view of what people say and what they mean - generally thay can be read in several ways,

 

So C&RT are saying -

 

Acknowledge you will change, and we will let you back onto our waterways - no hard feelings

 

but what they mean is :-

 

Admit you were in the wrong and that we had the authority to revoke your licence (and can do so again at anytime should you not meet our - unspecified - requirements for cruising), then you can 'come back' onto our waterways.

[NigelMoore]

Worse. They are not resting content with his mere assurances, they want him to give practical demonstration of his acceptance [somehow, given that they won't licence him until he does so.]

 

p.s. I wouldn’t be too sure about the “no hard feelings” either. Those they prosecute and win against, fall into deeply polarised camps: those that rage against them ever after, and those that fiercely defend them come what may [to justify where they ended up, presumably].

 

But equally, on their side, if they prosecute and lose, there are very hard feelings indeed, and no effort will be spared to find alternative means to evict you. It is quite understandable, of course, that that seems to be paranoid delusionism to those who have never experienced it.

 

Even I can read some of Tony’s characterisations in the “abolish Tony Dunkley campaign” posts, and feel that it DOES come across as self-centred paranoia – only the fact that I know what it is to be in his shoes, enables me to appreciate that [as someone else has posted] “just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.”

 

There is a sore need for some dispassionate professionalism to be recruited into the Legal and Management departments.

Edited August 14, 2014 by NigelMoore

[Naughty Cal]

Which is all irelevant anyway. If Tony is so sure he has done nothing wrong he will take his case to court and prove the point (or not)

[NigelMoore]

Not so. As he has brought no counter-claim in the action, whether it gets dropped or not is not within his control.

[Captain Zim]

Which is all irelevant anyway. If Tony is so sure he has done nothing wrong he will take his case to court and prove the point (or not)

Cos nobody innocent ever got convicted of a crime they didn't commit right? Have you never heard of the A Team?

 

On Nigel's point, do the legal team ever venture out to public meetings?

Edited August 14, 2014 by Captain Zim

[Naughty Cal]

But Tony seems so sure he is right.

 

What could possibly go wrong.............