Jump to content

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


Tony Dunkley
 Share

Featured Posts

It refers to what is said in the next few sentences, but perhaps I should have added that my current home mooring is at Bis arton-in-Fabis,as it has been since BW/C&RT stopped renting me a long term mooring at Holme Lock (some 10 miles away) at the end of September 2011. Now C&RT's records( printout) show my boat as not having a home mooring anywhere other than Barton-in-Fabis since 2003.

It's incidental to this thread, but C&RT are at present refusing to renew my Licence because they don't believe Barton-in-Fabis is a genuine home mooring. Hardly surprising that C&RT disbelieve their own records though, after all who would be better placed than them to know how unreliable they are.

 

The home mooring entry is probably better titled "entry made for home mooring by boat licencee on most recent licence application".

 

Since yours is a fairly unique case where the home mooring you have entered has not been accepted/CRT isn't satisfied with it/CRT says it isn't genuine, then you can see that in your case this produces an anomoly, but in 99.99% of the cases the home mooring entered by an applicant is also the home mooring that CRT accept the boat has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What do you think?

I don't know...which is why I asked. If he doesn't want to answer the question thats fine...

 

I do think there is a certain amount of spin on this forum so it's not always easy to see what's genuine and what's fear mongering....

Edited by bassplayer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that is not what you say in the OP, you talk there only about your home mooring, nothing about boat movements. You really need to make it clear exactly what you are complaining about, and perhaps then you will get more sympathy, but right now you are just causing confusion.

I am not complaining . . . just the opposite really. I'm sorry if you are finding this confusing, but I am simply passing on information, given to me by a C&RT EO. If you are not at all concerned that C&RT may be recording inaccurate information about your boat,it's LIcence,it's moorings and movements, then that is entirely a matter for you, and all is well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not complaining . . . just the opposite really. I'm sorry if you are finding this confusing, but I am simply passing on information, given to me by a C&RT EO. If you are not at all concerned that C&RT may be recording inaccurate information about your boat,it's LIcence,it's moorings and movements, then that is entirely a matter for you, and all is well.

 

I don't know whether the system is fit for purpose or not.

 

Neither do I know if what the EO told you is an accurate summary of what happens in the system.

 

As a techie, I would say that sometimes system users are not very aware of how fields that they don't use themselves are used, and tend to try to figure out how they work (and often get it wrong).

 

You are trying to analyse the system and tell that that this and that is wrong with it. Why? Your concern is merely to rebut any items in the printout that you dispute.

 

Certainly, if I were looking at a requirements analysis of boat movement datalogging, I would include the following;

 

1) Direction facing.

2) Whether moving or not

3) When the datalogger closes out recording at a particular recording location, he/she should be presented with a list of boats which;

a) were logged at that location last time AND

B) have not been subsequently logged as being elsewhere on the system

for confirmation that the boat is no longer present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The home mooring entry is probably better titled "entry made for home mooring by boat licencee on most recent licence application".

 

Since yours is a fairly unique case where the home mooring you have entered has not been accepted/CRT isn't satisfied with it/CRT says it isn't genuine, then you can see that in your case this produces an anomoly, but in 99.99% of the cases the home mooring entered by an applicant is also the home mooring that CRT accept the boat has.

I haven't entered any home mooring location into C&RT's records, they have, as only they can, for the last eleven years at Barton-in-Fabis on their computer records and since 2012 on Licence Renewals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't . . . but I am quoting what C&RT's EO Stuart Garner told me . . . their system does it. Why should we not believe him?

 

It's quite possible that it's "the system" which changes the data.

 

It's also possible that thre is something going wrong external to "the system". It's not really a question of not believing him, but unless Garner was involved in specifying the system or designing it or implementing it, or has tested it, I'm not sure he's in a better positon than you to decide exactly what the problem is, frankly.

 

Of course I'm concerned if incorrect information is being used in enforcement action, but being concerned means I want to understand exactly why incorrect information is being used. If you are the one who is faced with dealing with the effects, it's very understandable that you will just lash out at the first thing which comes to hand, especially if it's something as ill defined as "the system".

 

Given that there are concerns, we should all seek to get hold of the information which CRT hold about our boat's movements and check it for errors. Incorrect information relating to a single boat's sightings could quite reasonably be put down to an oversight, a human error, a glitch, or whatever. Records of 100 individual boats with a significant proportion having incorrect information is far stronger evidence that something systematic is going wrong, even if it is not "the systerm" itself which is not fit for purpose.

 

But it strikes me that boaters aren't generally the sort of people who wil co-operate in this way, make requests of CRT and pool the results.

 

BTW, Tony, I am aware of your current action with CRT and wish you all the best. Though I have not had such a fight with CRT I have had to go through something similar and I know how stressful it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't entered any home mooring location into C&RT's records, they have, as only they can, for the last eleven years at Barton-in-Fabis on their computer records and since 2012 on Licence Renewals.

 

You didn't enter it "into their records" but you did enter it on the application form for a licence:

 

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/1194.pdf section 6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't know whether the system is fit for purpose or not.

 

Neither do I know if what the EO told you is an accurate summary of what happens in the system.

 

As a techie, I would say that sometimes system users are not very aware of how fields that they don't use themselves are used, and tend to try to figure out how they work (and often get it wrong).

 

You are trying to analyse the system and tell that that this and that is wrong with it. Why? Your concern is merely to rebut any items in the printout that you dispute.

 

Certainly, if I were looking at a requirements analysis of boat movement datalogging, I would include the following;

 

1) Direction facing.

2) Whether moving or not

3) When the datalogger closes out recording at a particular recording location, he/she should be presented with a list of boats which;

a) were logged at that location last time AND

cool.png have not been subsequently logged as being elsewhere on the system

for confirmation that the boat is no longer present.

I haven't been trying to analyse anything, nor do I need to "rebut" anything in C&RT's printout, in which they list me with a home mooring at Barton-in-Fabis (with their Invoices/Charges for that mooring) at the same time they were Invoicing me for one of their moorings at Holme Lock. They actually included copy Invoices for the Holme Lock LT Mooring with the Barton-in-Fabis printout . . . helpful of them, wasn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You didn't enter it "into their records" but you did enter it on the application form for a licence:

 

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/1194.pdf section 6

No I didn't . . . they did, when they were renting me an LT mooring at Holme Lock and subsequently after I began renting a mooring at Barton-in-Fabis. Licence Renewals are sent out with mooring and other details already filled in by C&RT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I didn't . . . they did, when they were renting me an LT mooring at Holme Lock and subsequently after I began renting a mooring at Barton-in-Fabis. Licence Renewals are sent out with mooring and other details already filled in by C&RT.

 

Were they the correct details pre-filled? If not, did you still sign the form?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why all the nit-picking folks? I think Tony is raising a perfectly valid concern that legal action action could be taken against boaters using innacurate or misleading information and a system which is flawed. Can't we try to see the bigger picture rather than getting bogged down in semantics as usual?

Edited by Dave_P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why all the nit-picking folks? I think Tony is raising a perfectly valid concern that legal action action could be taken against boaters using innacurate or misleading information and a system which is flawed. Can't we try to see the bigger picture rather than getting bogged down in semantics as usual?

Thank you Dave have been wondering the same there is a bigger picture as your post clearly shows and mine showed that the system is flawed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't been trying to analyse anything, nor do I need to "rebut" anything in C&RT's printout, in which they list me with a home mooring at Barton-in-Fabis (with their Invoices/Charges for that mooring) at the same time they were Invoicing me for one of their moorings at Holme Lock. They actually included copy Invoices for the Holme Lock LT Mooring with the Barton-in-Fabis printout . . . helpful of them, wasn't it.

 

Au contraire, you have been trying to analyse their system, and have come here to offer your opinion that it is not fit for purpose.

 

As to whether you need to rebut anything, could I ask whether you understand what is meant by "rebut";

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rebut

 

CRT have produced a print-out that you claim contains inaccuracies.

 

I believe that you will shortly be encountering CRT in court and that the details from that print out are important to their case.

 

In effect, they will tell the court that the printout is an accurate log of your movements. If you contend that it is not, and you can show that it is not, you will want to produce evidence to that effect. That is to rebut the printout.

 

If you fondly imagine that going to court and saying "the logging system isn't fit for purpose, the EO told me" will work, you are not going to get very far!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of being slightly off-topic, would not the keeping of a Log Book showing the movements of your boat be sufficient proof of the movement of your boat?

 

And slightly more off-topic, what happens with Shared Ownership boats as they are likely to be recorded at the same VMs in a short period of time and be accused of overstaying, when in fact they have returned to base and had a crew change in-between?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why all the nit-picking folks?

 

It could have something to do with the way Tony started the thread.

 

But you are right that the bigger picture is the number of individuals who are reporting factually incorrect information being recorded against their boats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of being slightly off-topic, would not the keeping of a Log Book showing the movements of your boat be sufficient proof of the movement of your boat?

 

And when the written log conflics with a recorded sighting...?

 

Not only does the recorded sighting show the boat was at X when it probably shouldn't have been, but it also shows that the log is incorrect - no, it has been deliberately falsified and therefore the peson keeping the log is not acting in good faith.

 

Perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why all the nit-picking folks? I think Tony is raising a perfectly valid concern that legal action action could be taken against boaters using innacurate or misleading information and a system which is flawed. Can't we try to see the bigger picture rather than getting bogged down in semantics as usual?

 

TD himself is nit-picking over the minute details of what's occurred with his records at CRT, relating to how they store and interpret the home mooring. If TD's legal action is based on flawed records/evidence, then it should be easy to show its worthless, and thus with no evidence the case against him will collapse.

 

If we're talking about how they record MOVEMENT data (home moorings don't move - they are a fixed position - and a separate thing) then yes the granularity of the data is poor, and thus a lot of interpretation is put onto the (lack of) info, and this interpretation may well be flawed. Once again though, if TD is saying he has a valid home mooring then movement data is irrelivent.

 

IF this is a case that TD has a perfectly valid home mooring like 99.99% of others with a home mooring, and uses it in a perfectly normal way, but due to some humongous admin cock-up he's facing court action, one wonders why 29,999 other boaters haven't been similarly caught out by the same poor admin issues and also face legal action? Is TD just unlucky here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Au contraire, you have been trying to analyse their system, and have come here to offer your opinion that it is not fit for purpose.

 

As to whether you need to rebut anything, could I ask whether you understand what is meant by "rebut";

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rebut

 

CRT have produced a print-out that you claim contains inaccuracies.

 

I believe that you will shortly be encountering CRT in court and that the details from that print out are important to their case.

 

In effect, they will tell the court that the printout is an accurate log of your movements. If you contend that it is not, and you can show that it is not, you will want to produce evidence to that effect. That is to rebut the printout.

 

If you fondly imagine that going to court and saying "the logging system isn't fit for purpose, the EO told me" will work, you are not going to get very far!

Could I ask you to read what I have said?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And when the written log conflics with a recorded sighting...?

 

Not only does the recorded sighting show the boat was at X when it probably shouldn't have been, but it also shows that the log is incorrect - no, it has been deliberately falsified and therefore the peson keeping the log is not acting in good faith.

 

Perhaps?

 

IS it not the boat owners responsibility to show that their boat has been moving as per the terms of the license?

if a log book is updated as the vessel moves along then this should be no hardship and infact is a good way of justifying the cruising habits of the vessel, weither a CC, vessel with home mooring etc. It is relatively easy to spot a 'flogged log' (looks to good to be true). It is very hard work to make a fake log look accurate, in fact it is easier to keep a real on in the first place.

 

nb read Log Book for Cruise diary / Blog etc

 

IS it not the boat owners responsibility to show that their boat has been moving as per the terms of the license?

if a log book is updated as the vessel moves along then this should be no hardship and infact is a good way of justifying the cruising habits of the vessel, either a CC or a vessel with home mooring etc. It is relatively easy to spot a 'flogged log' (looks to good to be true). It is very hard work to make a fake log look accurate, in fact it is easier to keep a real on in the first place.

 

nb read Log Book for Cruise diary / Blog etc

ETA for my bad spelling!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

IS it not the boat owners responsibility to show that their boat has been moving as per the terms of the license?

if a log book is updated as the vessel moves along then this should be no hardship and infact is a good way of justifying the cruising habits of the vessel, weither a CC, vessel with home mooring etc. It is relatively easy to spot a 'flogged log' (looks to good to be true). It is very hard work to make a fake log look accurate, in fact it is easier to keep a real on in the first place.

 

nb read Log Book for Cruise diary / Blog etc

ETA for my bad spelling!

 

Its funny in how all the high-profile court cases bringing CCers to justice, not one of them has kept an up-to-date log of their movements and contested that their log is correct while CRTs records aren't. All except TD's upcoming one, possibly.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

TD himself is nit-picking over the minute details of what's occurred with his records at CRT, relating to how they store and interpret the home mooring. If TD's legal action is based on flawed records/evidence, then it should be easy to show its worthless, and thus with no evidence the case against him will collapse.

 

If we're talking about how they record MOVEMENT data (home moorings don't move - they are a fixed position - and a separate thing) then yes the granularity of the data is poor, and thus a lot of interpretation is put onto the (lack of) info, and this interpretation may well be flawed. Once again though, if TD is saying he has a valid home mooring then movement data is irrelivent.

 

IF this is a case that TD has a perfectly valid home mooring like 99.99% of others with a home mooring, and uses it in a perfectly normal way, but due to some humongous admin cock-up he's facing court action, one wonders why 29,999 other boaters haven't been similarly caught out by the same poor admin issues and also face legal action? Is TD just unlucky here?

Tony probably has a right to nit-pick since he's in the firing line. But I'm not seeing that here. He's raised a valid and worrying issue.

 

For example: I just calculated that in the last 12 months I did 799 miles and 561 locks. But from the data held by CaRT you would have little idea of that. Luckily for me, my movements were over a very wide area. But it's been stated recently by CaRT that it's possible to cc and comply on a fairly limited geographic area which means that there won't be much geographical spread in the logging. If they're only logging your boat about once a month and they tend to only log in certain areas near towns and villages, it's hardly surprising that their data can show a boat to be hardly moving and therefore lead to enforcement action. Especially when CaRT assume that a boat hasn't moved until it's logged elsewhere.

 

I personally don't keep a log of my movements (a log can be faked anyway) but I am an avid poster of pictures on facebook, which of course show the date of when the picture was uploaded. Any accusations to me and I would use that as evidence.

It is relatively easy to spot a 'flogged log' (looks to good to be true). It is very hard work to make a fake log look accurate, in fact it is easier to keep a real on in the first place.

 

I'd like to see if CaRT could win a court case based on the defendant's evidence being too neat and tidy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony probably has a right to nit-pick since he's in the firing line. But I'm not seeing that here. He's raised a valid and worrying issue.

 

For example: I just calculated that in the last 12 months I did 799 miles and 561 locks. But from the data held by CaRT you would have little idea of that. Luckily for me, my movements were over a very wide area. But it's been stated recently by CaRT that it's possible to cc and comply on a fairly limited geographic area which means that there won't be much geographical spread in the logging. If they're only logging your boat about once a month and they tend to only log in certain areas near towns and villages, it's hardly surprising that their data can show a boat to be hardly moving and therefore lead to enforcement action. Especially when CaRT assume that a boat hasn't moved until it's logged elsewhere.

 

I personally don't keep a log of my movements (a log can be faked anyway) but I am an avid poster of pictures on facebook, which of course show the date of when the picture was uploaded. Any accusations to me and I would use that as evidence.

 

....Thus leading to a case collapse, if TD can demonstrate the records are meaningless. It depends what interpretation is placed upon the data held by CRT. They're going to know that if they record sightings at 2 weeks, or monthly, or longer, intervals, that its possible to travel (quite significantly) between them. In fact I'd go so far as to say it would be pretty dumb to not realise this. And, I don't believe CRT are in the business of launching expensive legal action against the average boater, based on massive assumptions such as if they don't record a sighting for over a month and the 2 sightings are in the same place, it must mean the boat hasn't moved. Basically I reckon the "raw" data held recording all boat movements must be looked at very closely and checked themselves for robustness during preparing the evidence for a prosecution.

 

Maybe one could look at it the other way, and ask how many CCers aren't moving enough but because CRT isn't logging enough data, or well enough, etc, they're getting away with it rather than being in the enforcement process?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Its funny in how all the high-profile court cases bringing CCers to justice, not one of them has kept an up-to-date log of their movements and contested that their log is correct while CRTs records aren't.

 

And yet we also have reports from people who have no reason to be challenged by CRT regarding their movements, that logged sightings of their boat are incorrect.

 

I am all for bringing CCers to justice, but if it's being done on the basis of information which isn't correct, there will inevitably be situations where someone who is abiding by the rules gets accused or worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And yet we also have reports from people who have no reason to be challenged by CRT regarding their movements, that logged sightings of their boat are incorrect.

 

I am all for bringing CCers to justice, but if it's being done on the basis of information which isn't correct, there will inevitably be situations where someone who is abiding by the rules gets accused or worse.

 

But the point I'm making is there is a difference between the raw data (which they are able to access) and the interpretation of the available data which leads to an accusation/action etc. Yes there's reports of people who look at the raw data and say its incorrect, but up until now, these people aren't having action taken against them. So its inconsequential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.