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

[Graham Davis]

Another Mayall riddle?

 

The fact that the end user says he cannot do this is not evidence that either the facility is missing, or that the data to support such a query doesn't exist."

 

When he considers later that actually that would be useful informations, he can go to his IT department and ask the same question, and they will say "yeah, cost about a grand to develop that guv".

No riddle; perfectly understandable, and I'm not a statistician

 

a system that has inadequate data (a situation that cannot be rectified down the line)

 

The system asked certain questions but you want an answer to a question that wasn't asked and therefore the information wasn't recorded.

 

a system that has inadequate reporting of the data that it has (a situation that CAN be rectified down the line)

 

The system has asked all the correct questions but you haven't asked it to give you all the answers, only some of them.

 

But never mind, you'll keep giving the cheap insults.

[Guest]

Hmmmm, and the national health service is in a hell of a state too.......

Well straying back off topic for a second that is not quite true, at least at a local level it isn't. We do of course get to hear about the things that go badly wrong especially when it involves lots of people (eg Stafford) however on a day to day basis the NHS continues to grind out excellent care to many thousands of patients which doesn't make the headlines because it's just not news worthy.

 

Emma (my eldest) has just had excellent maternity care and community follow up care from the maternity services at JCUH Middlesbrough by way of just one tiny example. It is easy to run the NHS down, which opposition politicians do all the time but as soon as they are back in power they are all of a sudden presiding over something that they spout off as being 'worthy of the envy of the world'. Just watch the labour hypocrites when they get back in who will of course start carping on about creeping privatisation in the NHS under the Con Dems when they were one of the biggest advocates of the policy when they were in power.

 

I still maintain though the NHS is overly burdened with bureaucracy. I heard a figure recently that 75% of employees employed in large hospital Trusts are non - clinical, which by anyone's standards seems astounding (if true). I cant ever recall it being like that 3-4 years ago.

 

Let non of us forget the NHS is a convenient political football and the media love a good 'bad news' story when it involves the NHS cocking something up, sometimes it pays to see through the political and media bull.

[jenlyn]

As one of the resident geeks, can I offer an answer?

 

From the information that we have, it is clear that CRT's systems contain the data that is required to provide that information.

 

It is not clear whether;

a) The information can be extracted by the end user, but the particular person asked didn't understand how.

Extracting the information is not a part of the user-facing functionality, and requires either an IT person to extract the data or an IT person to add that functionality.

 

What is clear is that if the functionality exists or is now added the underlying data would support the extract of that information for historic data as well as new sightings.

Your sidestepping again. If my boat is logged at giffard whilst I motor through, but is not inputted as moving, can your it expert get that information out of the system? Straight yes or no.

[NigelMoore]

It was in #541 that Tony quoted the email he had received referring to “the pattern of movement that led to your licence being revoked”.

 

To the extent that the exhibited logging records are used to demonstrate non-compliance with the ‘14 day rule’, they are inadequate to the purpose.

 

To the extent that they are relied on to demonstrate non-compliance with the published Continuous Cruising guidelines, they are [arguably] adequate.

 

If the latter is stipulated, Tony must show that compliance with Continuous Cruiser Guidelines is not a statutory requirement for pleasure boats with Home Moorings, hence that revoking his licence was unlawful.

 

The other equally [if not more] significant allegation he has to address is the nonsensical re-classification as a “Houseboat” – because in such a case the authority IS entitled to place extra conditions on issue of the Certificate, and they consequently always have an arguable case for refusing it on the grounds of non-compliance with the T&C's.

 

To clarify: - [all emphasis in bold being mine]

 

BWA 1995 Schedule 1 [“General Terms of Houseboat Certificates”], Part III, s.6 [“determination of certificate”] (1)

 

“The certificate shall remain in force for the period or until the date specified therein unless –

( b ) the certificate is withdrawn pursuant to section 17 . . . or

( d ) the certificate is determined in accordance with sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) below.”

 

So - for "Houseboats" [only] there are additional legitimate reasons for revocation, other than the 3 listed in s.17.

 

Sub-paragraph (2) provides:

 

“If the holder has contravened or failed to comply with any of the terms or conditions applicable to the certificate the Board may give notice . . .”

 

While sub-paragraph (3) goes on to say:

 

“If the holder does not comply with any notice served pursuant to sub-paragraph (2) above the certificate shall determine on the date on which the notice expires.”

 

For “Houseboats” on the move, section 15(2) provides:

 

“While the houseboat is in the course of being moved the certificate shall be deemed to be –

(i) a pleasure boat certificate . . . or
(ii) a pleasure boat licence . . .

and its use at such times shall be subject to any conditions for the time being in force for the control of pleasure boats . . .”

 

Whether or not the all of the General Terms and Conditions can be described as “being in force” absent legislative power, it is, as I say, at least arguable that they apply [to houseboats"], because the final bit of that sub-section goes on to say:

 

“. . . and the holder shall comply with any requirements made by or under any enactment applicable to pleasure boats.”

 

The fact that statutory requirements are listed additionally to “any conditions” would tend to suggest that a differentiation is being made, and that all the T&C’s can be legitimately imposed on “Houseboats” whenever they move away from their Home Mooring. Section 6(1)( b ) refers to the s.17 reasons for refusal as well as these. [Equally, of course, the explicit provision made here as to houseboats only, would have to militate against this free hand applying to anything else i.e. Pleasure Boats.]

 

Of course, all s.8’d boats are only ever re-classified after revocation of the Pleasure Boat Certificate/Licence, so application of the above would be dubiously retrospective. It nonetheless is an issue that demands to be addressed once the purported re-classification has taken place in the course of court proceedings. What the authority cannot be allowed to do is play a game with the registration classes, swapping from one to the other of mutually exclusive definitions, according as it serves their purpose.

 

At last count, only about 80 out of the tens of thousands of registered boats are classified as "Houseboats" - but any boat at all becomes one the moment they choose to s.8 it!

[GUMPY]

Your sidestepping again. If my boat is logged at giffard whilst I motor through, but is not inputted as moving, can your it expert get that information out of the system? Straight yes or no.

Was your boat logged whilst moving down the canal or whilst at/tied to the bank taking on water/disposing of effluent?

From what I understand they do not log actual moving boats but if you are stopped at a water point.....

Edited September 1, 2014 by Loddon

[mayalld]

Your sidestepping again. If my boat is logged at giffard whilst I motor through, but is not inputted as moving, can your it expert get that information out of the system? Straight yes or no.

 

If it is recorded at an incorrect location, then it is recorded at an incorrect location.

 

As I understand it, a length of canal has a different location code to a mooring that lies alongside that length of canal, and as such a boat that is passing Little Snoring VM would be recorded as being in the location that represents that secment of canal rather than the moorings.

[alan_fincher]

 

As one of the resident geeks, can I offer an answer?

 

From the information that we have, it is clear that CRT's systems contain the data that is required to provide that information.

 

It is not clear whether;

a) The information can be extracted by the end user, but the particular person asked didn't understand how.

Extracting the information is not a part of the user-facing functionality, and requires either an IT person to extract the data or an IT person to add that functionality.

 

What is clear is that if the functionality exists or is now added the underlying data would support the extract of that information for historic data as well as new sightings.

 

Yes, I agree.

 

It is hard to think of any circumstance, (however bad the design of the current system and supporting software), where what Dave has written will not be correct.

 

(I think a very possible likelihood, if someone in CRT has said that they cannot obtain the information John mentions, is that someone else has wrongly told them this, or they have misunderstood what someone else has told them - it is after all the easiest answer to give, and the person being told may accept it, because they don't understand things enough to see that it is unlikely to actually be true.)

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

 

(I think a very possible likelihood, if someone in CRT has said that they cannot obtain the information John mentions, is that someone else has wrongly told them this, or they have misunderstood what someone else has told them - it is after all the easiest answer to give, and the person being told may accept it, because they don't understand things enough to see that it is unlikely to actually be true.)

Will soon find out as I have now asked for number of boats on certain moorings that have been changed to 48 hour this year to establish the number of boats on those moorings during June, July, August last year on any of the dates they were monitored

[Paul G2]

 

The other equally [if not more] significant allegation he has to address is the nonsensical re-classification as a “Houseboat” – because in such a case the authority IS entitled to place extra conditions on issue of the Certificate, and they consequently always have an arguable case for refusing it on the grounds of non-compliance with the T&C's.

 

To clarify: - [all emphasis in bold being mine]

 

BWA 1995 Schedule 1 [“General Terms of Houseboat Certificates”], Part III, s.6 [“determination of certificate”] (1)

 

“The certificate shall remain in force for the period or until the date specified therein unless –

( b ) the certificate is withdrawn pursuant to section 17 . . . or

( d ) the certificate is determined in accordance with sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) below.”

 

So - for "Houseboats" [only] there are additional legitimate reasons for revocation, other than the 3 listed in s.17.

 

Sub-paragraph (2) provides:

 

“If the holder has contravened or failed to comply with any of the terms or conditions applicable to the certificate the Board may give notice . . .”

 

While sub-paragraph (3) goes on to say:

 

“If the holder does not comply with any notice served pursuant to sub-paragraph (2) above the certificate shall determine on the date on which the notice expires.”

 

For “Houseboats” on the move, section 15(2) provides:

 

“While the houseboat is in the course of being moved the certificate shall be deemed to be –

(i) a pleasure boat certificate . . . or

(ii) a pleasure boat licence . . .

and its use at such times shall be subject to any conditions for the time being in force for the control of pleasure boats . . .”

 

Whether or not the all of the General Terms and Conditions can be described as “being in force” absent legislative power, it is, as I say, at least arguable that they apply [to houseboats"], because the final bit of that sub-section goes on to say:

 

“. . . and the holder shall comply with any requirements made by or under any enactment applicable to pleasure boats.”

 

The fact that statutory requirements are listed additionally to “any conditions” would tend to suggest that a differentiation is being made, and that all the T&C’s can be legitimately imposed on “Houseboats” whenever they move away from their Home Mooring. Section 6(1)( b ) refers to the s.17 reasons for refusal as well as these. [Equally, of course, the explicit provision made here as to houseboats only, would have to militate against this free hand applying to anything else i.e. Pleasure Boats.]

 

Of course, all s.8’d boats are only ever re-classified after revocation of the Pleasure Boat Certificate/Licence, so application of the above would be dubiously retrospective. It nonetheless is an issue that demands to be addressed once the purported re-classification has taken place in the course of court proceedings. What the authority cannot be allowed to do is play a game with the registration classes, swapping from one to the other of mutually exclusive definitions, according as it serves their purpose.

 

At last count, only about 80 out of the tens of thousands of registered boats are classified as "Houseboats" - but any boat at all becomes one the moment they choose to s.8 it!

 

The British Waterways Act of 1971, Part 1, Section 3-1 States:

 

"Houseboat" means any boat or barge... whether or not the same shall be used or intended to be used for human habitation but does not include any boat, barge, vessel or structure -

(a) which is bona fide used for navigation; or...

 

Tony has an email from CRT telling him that he does not cruise whilst he is navigating. By CRT's own admission he is navigating his boat. This would again seem to be a case of simply pointing out to the judge that CRT has admitted he navigates his boat, asking, therefor, under what premise they have classified him as a houseboat and then sitting down and shutting up whilst enjoying the silence from CRT's attorneys.

[Tuscan]

If only he got rid of his home mooring and took a 5 month winter mooring as just released , this way he would never be away from his home mooring and there would be no requirement to cruise as the whole towpath is his mooring. Worth having a chat with judge about this option........

[NigelMoore]

 

The British Waterways Act of 1971, Part 1, Section 3-1 States:

 

"Houseboat" means any boat or barge... whether or not the same shall be used or intended to be used for human habitation but does not include any boat, barge, vessel or structure -

(a) which is bona fide used for navigation; or...

 

Tony has an email from CRT telling him that he does not cruise whilst he is navigating. By CRT's own admission he is navigating his boat. This would again seem to be a case of simply pointing out to the judge that CRT has admitted he navigates his boat, asking, therefor, under what premise they have classified him as a houseboat and then sitting down and shutting up whilst enjoying the silence from CRT's attorneys.

 

They wouldn’t be silent in such a position. They have it all worked out: -

 

If a boat is not following guidelines on “used bona fide for navigation” then it is not being “used bona fide for navigation”; therefore, as de-facto NOT a vessel “used bona fide for navigation”, it cannot be a pleasure boat and [not being commercial or a pontoon] can only be a houseboat.

 

Ridiculous as that might sound to you, it is their line of argument, and believe me, it is the first thing that enters the mind of most judges. The judge in Brown v CaRT was the only one I know of who immediately saw through to a correct understanding of the definitions without assistance.

 

The reductio ad absurdum is that on their argument, every one of the pleasure boats sitting in marinas or on long term moorings [as the pleasure boat licence demands for non-CC’ers] is a de facto houseboat until it is taken out for a spin, and reverts to being a houseboat once moored up again. Given that houseboat CAN be moved under the legislation as I have quoted, it doesn’t even have to change classification while moving – so, there is no such thing as a pleasure boat! Every vessel on the system is a houseboat.

[Paul G2]

 

They wouldn’t be silent in such a position. They have it all worked out: -

 

If a boat is not following guidelines on “used bona fide for navigation” then it is not being “used bona fide for navigation”; therefore, as de-facto NOT a vessel “used bona fide for navigation”, it cannot be a pleasure boat and [not being commercial or a pontoon] can only be a houseboat.

 

Ridiculous as that might sound to you, it is their line of argument, and believe me, it is the first thing that enters the mind of most judges. The judge in Brown v CaRT was the only one I know of who immediately saw through to a correct understanding of the definitions without assistance.

 

The reductio ad absurdum is that on their argument, every one of the pleasure boats sitting in marinas or on long term moorings [as the pleasure boat licence demands for non-CC’ers] is a de facto houseboat until it is taken out for a spin, and reverts to being a houseboat once moored up again. Given that houseboat CAN be moved under the legislation as I have quoted, it doesn’t even have to change classification while moving – so, there is no such thing as a pleasure boat! Every vessel on the system is a houseboat.

 

For the purpose of the upcoming hearing, Tony might be able to convince the judge that the only question for trial is if, in fact, he did break any laws. Once at trial, though, it will take some pretty sharp arguing to overcome what CRT espouses, as the judge will no doubt consider them the authority on the law.

 

His best argument would probably be that Parliament designated various classifications of vessels and it is not within the authority of CRT to reclassify vessels simply to suit their purposes. Again, this gets back to the fact that CRT has acknowledged that Tony navigates his boat, meaning his boat is bona fide for navigation, and, as long as it is bona fide for navigation, it isn't a houseboat per black-letter law.

 

I just don't see how CRT can hope to win this argument in light of the fact that they have acknowledged in writing the Tony navigates his boat. They may make the argument, but it seems that they themselves have provided all the evidence Tony needs to prove that their argument is specious.

[NigelMoore]

Granting a Pleasure Boat Certificate in the first place [as they had done for many years] might reasonably be considered demonstration enough of the correct classification. But even that doesn't stop their use of the argument I have quoted.

 

It helps though; it was possibly only the fact that 'Gilgie' in my case had been properly registered as a Pleasure Boat, that won the day against the 'houseboat' element of their argument, much to the dismay of the judge. The leeway they have in relation to "houseboats" is lethal to almost any defence, which is why that has to be dispensed with at the outset.

 

In this, as with most such cases, it is so important to both understand the ramifications of their approach, and to have the necessary material with which to gainsay it where inaccurate or blatantly false to fact &/or law. Placing everything out in the open in a public discussion as on here, is one of the best means of ensuring that many more are acquainted with the facts and with the law - and vitally, ensuring that the authority knows the knowledge and information is out there, and widely disseminated.

 

The authority claims to embrace transparency - I fully support that ambition.

 

Once they appreciate that they must now start to rely only on demonstrable fact, and on unassailable legal interpretation [because too many people have become educated], then we will have arrived at a situation where they will stop trying to put one over on people just to make a point or to satisfy their sense of power. The positive aspect to that even for those who support any enforcement measures regardless of legality, is that resources will be freed up to manage the waterways properly - should they choose to do so.

[Tony Dunkley]

This isn't strictly on topic for this thread, but it is a really good example of C&RT's talent for turning something quite innocuous into what could be presented as evidence of wrong doing. These photographs were taken by C&RT, at the same time and on the same day, to be used in Court in support of their contention that my too frequent mooring at Holme Lock Visitor Moorings was depriving others of the use of those facilities.

In the event, only one of the three was submitted to the Court as evidence. There are no prizes on offer for correctly guessing which one.

It should also be noted that C&RT's designated, but unsigned VM's are beyond the narrowboat visible in the distance in the upriver shot, and the length of low wall where I am moored was declared, in writing, by BW to be an unsafe and unsuitable location for people to board or leave boats due to a protruding underwater ledge which prevents vessels mooring close in to the wall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NigelMoore]

 

I just don't see how CRT can hope to win this argument . . .

 

They won’t – not in the long run, and Tony has the rare steel to go the necessary distance to ensure that. This was always a very poor choice for the test case they have been looking for.

 

CaRT’s optimal course is to back off and grant the Certificate/Licence after all. They really cannot afford another quarter million pound PR humiliation.

 

That would fly in the face of tradition and would take some alteration of ingrained mind-set, but there seems to be new blood in the legal department, and maybe Jackie Lewis will find the backbone to assert her own views. She needs to. Mr Parry needs to realise that there is not much point in having in-house Counsel with her specialist knowledge and experience if you are going to disregard her.

[Captain Zim]

Granting a Pleasure Boat Certificate in the first place [as they had done for many years] might reasonably be considered demonstration enough of the correct classification. But even that doesn't stop their use of the argument I have quoted.

 

It helps though; it was possibly only the fact that 'Gilgie' in my case had been properly registered as a Pleasure Boat, that won the day against the 'houseboat' element of their argument, much to the dismay of the judge. The leeway they have in relation to "houseboats" is lethal to almost any defence, which is why that has to be dispensed with at the outset.

 

In this, as with most such cases, it is so important to both understand the ramifications of their approach, and to have the necessary material with which to gainsay it where inaccurate or blatantly false to fact &/or law. Placing everything out in the open in a public discussion as on here, is one of the best means of ensuring that many more are acquainted with the facts and with the law - and vitally, ensuring that the authority knows the knowledge and information is out there, and widely disseminated.

 

The authority claims to embrace transparency - I fully support that ambition.

 

Once they appreciate that they must now start to rely only on demonstrable fact, and on unassailable legal interpretation [because too many people have become educated], then we will have arrived at a situation where they will stop trying to put one over on people just to make a point or to satisfy their sense of power. The positive aspect to that even for those who support any enforcement measures regardless of legality, is that resources will be freed up to manage the waterways properly - should they choose to do so.

Quite often in these threads (I don't mean specifically you Nigel so apologies but it just highlighted my point) there is a mention of CRT being power hungry and wanting to demonstrate their power. It is quite rare in my experience that individuals really turn out to be such megalomaniacs. It's as if they are actual real life bond villains. I think it is more about slight incompetence which then gets worse as no person likes to admit they are wrong. So a sort of creeping balls-up rather than a deliberate effort to wield control over us. At least I hope this is true otherwise each year I am paying a licence fee to to the inland waterways equivant of Smersh. I think they just need to get better at holding their hands up when things aren't right and I do think they are getting better at this. And we need to e gracious in accepting their apologies rather than gloating. Edited September 1, 2014 by Captain Zim

[Grace and Favour]

Quite often in these threads (I don't mean specifically you Nigel so apologies but it just highlighted my point) there is a mention of CRT being power hungry and wanting to demonstrate their power. It is quite rare in my experience that individuals really turn out to be such megalomaniacs. It's as if they are actual real life bond villains. I think it is more about slight incompetence which then gets worse as no person likes to admit they are wrong. So a sort of creeping balls-up rather than a deliberate effort to wield control over us. At least I hope this is true otherwise each year I am paying a licence fee to to the inland waterways equivant of Smersh. I think they just need to get better at holding their hands up when things aren't right and I do think they are getting better at this. And we need to e gracious in accepting their apologies rather than gloating.

I think you're right on many counts, unfortunately I believe there are far too many boaters who can only fight and gloat, and i=of course, whether they win or lose, cannot ever admit they are wrong.*

 

*This is not a reference to any particular members on this thread.

[NigelMoore]

I think it is more about slight incompetence which then gets worse as no person likes to admit they are wrong. So a sort of creeping balls-up rather than a deliberate effort to wield control over us.

 

No apologies needed, you make perfectly sound points. It is just that a very small minority of us have experienced first hand exactly what you aptly describe as megalomania [and big organisations being what they are, the effects of the actions those people take rumbles on regardless even of the responsible individual’s departure].

 

It is understandable that the majority cannot believe that such behaviour goes on, and without doubt a lot of ‘stuff’ is attributable to your “creeping balls-up” syndrome.

 

As for graciously accepting apologies, I for one look forward to having some opportunity to do so, but will not be holding my breath.

I think, however, that you may just be right about their getting better at admitting when wrong, though perhaps the PR department are slowest to catch on to the merits of that.

[MtB]

I'm inclined to agree with Nige.

 

When have CRT ever admitted they were wrong? I can't think of any such occasion.

 

MtB

[John V]

IMO a proportion of managers in all companies suffer from "empire builder" complexes.

This is a root cause of departments expansion, they make work for themselves, often by exaggerating problems, in order to show how important is their department.

If these managers believe their own arguments and are persuasive, sometimes more senior management has difficulty spotting and calling a halt.

This also seems to go hand in hand with an inability to admit they are wrong.

[Bod]

IMO a proportion of managers in all companies suffer from "empire builder" complexes.

This is a root cause of departments expansion, they make work for themselves, often by exaggerating problems, in order to show how important is their department.

If these managers believe their own arguments and are persuasive, sometimes more senior management has difficulty spotting and calling a halt.

This also seems to go hand in hand with an inability to admit they are wrong.

 

That explains so much that I have seen and suffered from in my career in industry!

May I copy, and send to a friend who is suffering greatly, from the result of this?

 

Bod

[John V]

 

That explains so much that I have seen and suffered from in my career in industry!

May I copy, and send to a friend who is suffering greatly, from the result of this?

 

Bod

 

Of course you are very welcome

[Bod]

Thank you

Bod

[Captain Zim]

I'm inclined to agree with Nige.

 

When have CRT ever admitted they were wrong? I can't think of any such occasion.

 

MtB

Yeah. Fair enough. I was really trying to be positive about it last night but I accept never having been on the end of it I can't really comment. I agree with the empire building stuff but in my opinion that is also a sign of a lack of confidence and/or incompetence rather than out and out lex Luther style ambition.

[John V]

Yeah. Fair enough. I was really trying to be positive about it last night but I accept never having been on the end of it I can't really comment. I agree with the empire building stuff but in my opinion that is also a sign of a lack of confidence and/or incompetence rather than out and out lex Luther style ambition.

 

I suspect You might be right with some incidences. I haven't worked in a large corporation since my 20's but my observation is based on a period of some 30 years, when as a contractor I worked with several very large companies. Mostly I was dealing with upper management at director or CEO level and some companies I was associated with for many, many years. This gave me a good view point as neither an insider nor as a complete outsider looking in.

.