Jump to content

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


Tony Dunkley
 Share

Featured Posts

Absolutely correct. I found this out years ago when Nigel Johnson threatened to sue me for libel, saying that my comments about him might prevent him getting a job outside BW.

 

Johnson was ever a touchy soul. One of my annotations on the WhatDoTheyKnow website was very swiftly edited by the administrators after an immediate reaction from either Johnson or Evans some years back. I can’t remember what I had written, which even the site crew thought innocuous, but they were very polite about it and kept the gist of the comment while explaining how careful they needed to be.

 

What surprised me was how fast BW’s reaction had been, but it never happened again, even when I commented in that same venue on the proven Land Registry fraud. [Of course, in that instance they could hardly deny it, given that the CEC had just published the relevant documentation, but even so they usually protested.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

C&RT's difficulties with accurate recording of boat locations and movements have been extensively aired on this Forum, but the problem now seems to have progressed to afflict their solicitors in respect of supplying addresses to the Courts for service of papers. Shoosmiths have applied on behalf of C&RT for an Order, to be made without a hearing, that no costs be awarded against them following the Discontinuance of their case against me. One of the reasons for them not now wanting to proceed is that they have now had to recognize and agree that their claim that my boat was a houseboat permanently moored to their property in Holme Lock Cut without permission was, and is, completely untrue. They have now omitted in their 'no costs' Application to inform the Court of this and to admit that giving that location as my address never was correct, alleging that only the renewal of my Licence has made their Claim "worthless and academic", resulting in an Order made on 8 October 2014 being sent by the Court to an address that C&RT know will not find me.

The Judge did not agree to their request for the matter to be disposed of without a hearing and made an Order for a hearing on 24 November 2014 and a statement setting out my position on the Application within 14 days. It was also ordered, as is usual, that no response within 14 days would result in an Order being made in the terms sought by the Applicant, which would have been a very welcome outcome for C&RT and Shoosmiths in return for their rather convenient oversight about my address in their Application paperwork.

Fortunately, having been on the receiving end of some rather wayward and incomplete paperwork from Shoosmiths at the outset of this case, I had been in regular contact with the Court since C&RT reneged on their written assurances that they would file Notice of Discontinuance after renewing my boat Licence.

Edited by tony dunkley
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A funny situation was reported by a boater in London (so this should be treated as hearsay) which makes me curious about how their system works.

 

They were logged in one spot and five months later they were logged nearby and they were then placed in the enforcement process. The boater was apparently told that because their boat wasn't sighted elsewhere on the system in between the two sightings the assumption was that they were in the same place for 5 months.

 

If this report is correct that's some funny database logic going on there.

This happened in the case of Ralph Freeman. He was accused of overstaying when he'd actually cruised the Caldon Canal and elsewhere. Could CaRT I wonder have thought him to be well-known and that having a go at him would would serve to warnothers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C&RT's difficulties with accurate recording of boat locations and movements have been extensively aired on this Forum, but the problem now seems to have progressed to afflict their solicitors in respect of supplying addresses to the Courts for service of papers. Shoosmiths have applied on behalf of C&RT for an Order, to be made without a hearing, that no costs be awarded against them following the Discontinuance of their case against me. One of the reasons for them not now wanting to proceed is that they have now had to recognize and agree that their claim that my boat was a houseboat permanently moored to their property in Holme Lock Cut without permission was, and is, completely untrue. They have now omitted in their 'no costs' Application to inform the Court of this, alleging only that the renewal of my Licence has made their Claim "worthless and academic", resulting in an Order made on 8 October 2014 being sent by the Court to an address that C&RT know will not find me.

The Judge did not agree to their request for the matter to be disposed of without a hearing and made an Order for a hearing on 24 November 2014 and a statement setting out my position on the Application within 14 days. It was also ordered, as is usual, that no response within 14 days would result in an Order being made in the terms sought by the Applicant, which would have been a very welcome outcome for C&RT and Shoosmiths in return for their rather convenient oversight about my address in their Application paperwork.

Fortunately, having been on the receiving end of some rather wayward and incomplete paperwork from Shoosmiths at the outset of this case, I had been in regular contact with the Court since C&RT reneged on their written assurances that they would file Notice of Discontinuance after renewing my boat Licence.

Off to court again then rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sadly it is unavailable on the 24th November so you cant borrow it.

Brilliant repartee. You really should be on the stage. Perhaps a landing stage somewhere in Antarctica. The penguins may appreciate you. But then of course you could be charged with disturbing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brilliant repartee. You really should be on the stage. Perhaps a landing stage somewhere in Antarctica. The penguins may appreciate you. But then of course you could be charged with disturbing them.

Aye Up Dick.

 

Who rattled your cage?

 

Sweeping it , maybe ?

No. Back drops and scenery are more my thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just spotted 2 of CRT officers going round the Marina .

This will be 3rd time that I will have been recorded in marina this year only recorded in 2 places on system.

To me this is a waste of money let marina owners forward this info at possibly 2 dates in the year .

Put these people on the towpath with other responsibilities for them to report and maybe do minor tasks.

Then maybe they would be value for money.

If they where to have an accident on marina private property who would be sued ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just spotted 2 of CRT officers going round the Marina .

This will be 3rd time that I will have been recorded in marina this year only recorded in 2 places on system.

To me this is a waste of money let marina owners forward this info at possibly 2 dates in the year .

Put these people on the towpath with other responsibilities for them to report and maybe do minor tasks.

Then maybe they would be value for money.

If they where to have an accident on marina private property who would be sued ?

 

 

A timely bump, court hearing was yesterday - any news??

 

 

sorry, I was on topic!!!

 

The Judge did not agree to their request for the matter to be disposed of without a hearing and made an Order for a hearing on 24 November 2014 and a statement setting out my position on the Application within 14 days.

Edited by matty40s
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

Put these people on the towpath with other responsibilities for them to report and maybe do minor tasks.

Then maybe they would be value for money.

[...]

 

Beware what you wish for ... smile.png

 

This could be done much more efficiently via mobile apps and the web.

 

(Not for b0atman, but this has to be added: such a system could be easily complemented with alternative means for people who can operate cars and narrow boats but are unable to use cameras, phones, the web, or the postal system - for example http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149 )

Edited by Gordias
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.