CaRT define "place"

[mayalld]

No, no, no, no, no etc. Jesus! Seriously? Can I have one of your 'I love CRT' t-shirts? I've accidentally thrown mine in the bin.

 

The board have to be satisfied of three things laid down in statute. They can't redefine or amend those three things to suit themselves.

 

I agree that this type of thing is a good idea. But they should not present it as law. It is wrong.

I have never had an I love CRT anything.

 

Indeed I have had a couple of level 2 complaints and taken one to the ombudsman.

 

They are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

The law says they have to be satisfied of a vaguely defined thing. In the absence of anything definitive if is for them to define what will satisfy them if what they demand is excessive a court can say "you have exceeded your powers".

 

All they have done is been very clear as to what will satisfy them. If you play by these rules you will be OK. If you choose not to then CRT will take the position that they are not satisfied and act accordingly. You are free to challenge that in any particular case and ask a court to rule that you were acting within the law.

 

Clearly a number of CMers will not be happy, but if they reckon this will affect them they weren't CCing anyway

[John Williamson 1955]

John, in the one area I have highlighted, there are probably 80plus liveaboard boats now cruising between Whilton and Gayton Junction, some of these have been doing this for years.

Moving from the Weedon centre - to the church steps to the stowe hill water point and on to the high house caravan park is 2 months movement.

This has been encouraged by the Enforcement teams in the area, to keep boaters within the guidlelines.

All of a sudden, the T&C has changed dramatically for some of these people - some aged, some "challenged" and some with kids schooled locally.

It doesn't affect me, but it does affect a large group of people in just one area I have highlighted.

It will affect a lot of people in London too. Have you contacted CRT with your concerns? What was their response? This map is not set in stone, it's just a pattern of ones and zeroes on a computer screen, and can be altered if the will is there. Complaining on here about others not realising that your area is badly affected won't change anything, but complaining through official channels might.

 

I refer you to a page linked to from the map:-

 

https://places.crtrust.org.uk/places-info/places_what_they_mean.pdf

 

My advice is to get your feedback in as soon and as often as possible, folks.

 

So, to re-cap

•

If we see a continuous cruiser in the same place (as described in the maps) on two consecutive occasions 14

days apart, we’re likely to contact the licence holder by phone, text or email asking them to move on or to

contact us.

If after warning we see evidence from our sightings that the boat is not being used bona fide for

navigation, we’ll have no option but to issue the first formal enforcement notification.

•

We’ll be taking feedback on the place maps between now and the end of December 2014 and, if appropriate,

we will revise the maps in the light of the feedback to take effect in Spring 2015.

To log your feedback, send

an email to

places@canalrivertrust.org.uk

, being sure to include the name of the canal or river, and the place.

Edited August 14, 2014 by John Williamson 1955

[GoodGurl]

 

Indeed, marinas are overpriced. Maybe if boaters who currently moor in marinas now realise they can comply with cruising guidelines they will quit their moorings. The marinas would then need to reduce their prices to attract them back. That can't be a bad thing. Unless you own a marina that is.

how can you reduce further than free? free would be by having a CC license.

[mayalld]

 

 

I think you may have answered your own question. Those things have happened because people are railroaded into it.

 

 

 

 

So am I mike. I don't know why. I think this is a fairly pragmatic approach. It's going to help a lot of people and that's fine. But I suppose after all the recent threads on CRT and boat logging and moorings etc, I'm getting a bit fed up with things being presented with such spin. I just wish they would be a little more honest about things and then maybe those accusations of underhandedness would start to go away. I suppose I'm also getting a bit fed up with so many complicated ways of dealing with issues. There are far easier ways as discussed numerous times on other threads. Now we all have to check a map before mooring just in case we haven't crossed the border? To be honest, it doesn't affect me. I travel far more than this. But the freedoms of the 1995 Act were hard won. People will be disappointed when they wake up to find they've given them away bit by bit.

Those freedoms may have been hard won, but if they are lost they will be lost because people were given an inch but took a mile (or perhaps the other way round)

[Paul G2]

 

Will it be sealed off until the "grand opening"

 

Grand opening? What part of "virgin" do you not understand?

 

 

 

...I'll get my coat.

[Captain Zim]

Being picky, it's been introduced because there was no clear definition of a place as mentioned in the CC licence. While not part of the locence contract yet, it will be read by a court in conjunction with the licence agreement should there be a dispute.

 

As the places and your recorded cruising pattern will be used to work out whether or not you comply with the cruising conditions in your CC licence, then cancelling your licence on those grounds is both within CRT's powers and easier to enforce.

 

 

I think things are getting muddled up between terms and conditions and what the law says. CRT can revoke a licence for failing to satisfy the board (law). They cannot revoke a licence or failing to abide by terms and conditions. They will argue that their definition of place is reasonable. The judge may agree (probably will). All I'm saying is that I have worked with, and been up against, some very good barristers. And I have given up thinking I've got a stone cold victory in court. Because you just never know. And whilst CRT might like their definition of place, it's not set in statute. Pay someone enough money (a lot) and they will likely win this because 'place' is simply that. A place. Anyway, hooray for the new map. I hope it brings us all some peace and quiet.

[mayalld]

how can you reduce further than free? free would be by having a CC license.

A marina doesn't need to be free to be an attractive option.

[GoodGurl]

A marina doesn't need to be free to be an attractive option.

i'm afraid it would have to be free for me to use one, in fact they would have to pay ME to moor in one.

[matty40s]

I can't see m

 

 

It will affect a lot of people in London too. Have you contacted CRT with your concerns? What was their response? This map is not set in stone, it's just a pattern of ones and zeroes on a computer screen, and can be altered if the will is there. Complaining on here about others not realising that your area is badly affected won't change anything, but complaining through official channels might.

 

I refer you to a page linked to from the map:-

 

https://places.crtrust.org.uk/places-info/places_what_they_mean.pdf

 

"We’ll be taking feedback on the place maps between now and the end of December 2014 and, if appropriate we will revise the maps in the light of the feedback to take effect in Spring 2015."

 

My advice is to get your feedback in as soon and as often as possible, folks.

To log your feedback, send

an email to

places@canalrivertrust.org.uk

, being sure to include the name of the canal or river, and the

So, to re-cap

•

If we see a continuous cruiser in the same place (as described in the maps) on two consecutive occasions 14

days apart, we’re likely to contact the licence holder by phone, text or email asking them to move on or to

contact us.

If after warning we see evidence from our sightings that the boat is not being used bona fide for

navigation, we’ll have no option but to issue the first formal enforcement notification.

•

We’ll be taking feedback on the place maps between now and the end of December 2014 and, if appropriate,

we will revise the maps in the light of the feedback to take effect in Spring 2015.

To log your feedback, send

an email to

places@canalrivertrust.org.uk

, being sure to include the name of the canal or river, and the

 

 

I can't see me complaining John, just highlighting how daft the new map "zones" are. They are not places, they are just making life easy for the enforcement teams to target certain areas.

If you didn;t have internet, and werent aware of any changes - how, as a moorer in the area I have highlighted, would you know something has changed or was being changed.

You wouldn;t.

 

So all of a sudden, next January/Spring, you find your life as you know it is under threat as you get notices on your boat when previously what you were doing was OK with BW/CRT

[Ricco1]

how can you reduce further than free? free would be by having a CC license.

 

Marinas offer better security and the option to not move the boat at all. Plus they often have facilities not available on the towpath. That's definitely worth something to many, but as compliance now seems generally easier than it was, is it worth as much to the boaters who moor there as they charge?

As CRT monitor boats every 14 days, rather than 13 or 15 does that not give an 'enterprising' boater the opportunity to leave their one favourite place a day before the due visit then return the day after, thereby spending over 40 weeks a year in one place?

[John Williamson 1955]

 

If you didn;t have internet, and werent aware of any changes - how, as a moorer in the area I have highlighted, would you know something has changed or was being changed.

You wouldn;t.

 

So all of a sudden, next January/Spring, you find your life as you know it is under threat as you get notices on your boat when previously what you were doing was OK with BW/CRT

Maybe, but it's likely that all boaters without a home mooring will be getting a letter at their registered home address before too long. I won't get any letters as I'm on an official mooring, but this doesn't affect me until I move off to take up continuous cruising. I reckon the towpath telegraph will already be passing the message on, too. It should also be mentioned in the spam I get from CRT about what's happening on the cut.

[Paul C]

how can you reduce further than free? free would be by having a CC license.

Its not as black and white as that. Some people simply want the cheapest style of mooring, and will happily CC (within the rules) at a cost of £0. Others will baulk at paying eg £2500 but may be happy paying £1500 for a marina, and will want facilities such as car parking, nearby water, rings to moor onto, etc.

[Tuscan]

CRT, well at least Richard Parry, believes that 95% or so of boaters are actually normal, law-abiding people and will seek the guidelines then try their best to adhere to them. So, now the guidelines have been further clarified, it follows that compliance should be in the region of 95%. Yes unfortunately there is a minority of piss-takers but its important to emphasise that it is a minority, and there is also an element of peer pressure too. Thus, just because there might be new guidelines or rules about visitor mooring times, CCer journey styles, etc it doesn't automatically follow that this needs a step change in the amount of enforcement too.

Guess what we need to understand is what % of CC'ers have accepted the concept and moved through 6 neighbourhoods/places in the first 3 months of the K&A pilot scheme and what enforcement action has been taken if any. As one assumes and I hope I am proved wrong this is where this is leading.

[tillergirl]

what a load of bowlocks some of you are talking, you ask CRT to define a place and they have, now get on with boating, if you seriously can't CC within the map they have given you then you really are taking the piss and deserve all they throw at you.

 

Well said that woman! I cannot see that anyone who "genuinely" CC's will have a problem with their "Guidelines"

 

 

Marinas offer better security and the option to not move the boat at all. Plus they often have facilities not available on the towpath. That's definitely worth something to many, but as compliance now seems generally easier than it was, is it worth as much to the boaters who moor there as they charge?

As CRT monitor boats every 14 days, rather than 13 or 15 does that not give an 'enterprising' boater the opportunity to leave their one favourite place a day before the due visit then return the day after, thereby spending over 40 weeks a year in one place?

 

CRT also monitor boats in marinas too............we have overwintered for a couple of months in two different marinas in two different parts of the country and they do come round at least once a month and licence check.

[mark99]

Legal Hierarchy

1. Act – sets out high level principles
2. Regulations – detailed stature from Act
3. Approved Codes of Practise – expands upon high level to set out more detail on how to comply with Regulations
4. Industry Standards – published best practise etc
5. Guidance notes etc – formally published to aid day to day compliance in absence of specifics in either Act or Regulations, ACOP’s or Industry Standards.

1,2 are legally binding you must comply.

3,4,5 not legally binding but as published support 1.2, unless in a court you can defend why you have not complied, or demonstrate compliance at am equivalent or higher level, you will be hard pressed to defend action upon you.

 

You choose to take a CaRT licence, they now define “place” via guidance or published notes– if you fail to follow guidance, in absence of specific clause in either Act or Regulations, or absence of ACOPS or Standards you may be in trouble and sanctions/actions may well follow.

[Pen n Ink]

I have to say I'm with goodgurl on this one. We've just worked out that on a stretch we have regularly cruised in a week (there and back again) there are a total of 30 "places". Thus meaning that if we wanted to take our time over it we could actually spend over a year on a journey which can be comfortably done in a week.

 

Not what I would call overly prescriptive or onerous.

[mark99]

Begs the questions,

 

1) Were ACC consulted? and if not why not?

 

2) What is their view?

Edited August 14, 2014 by mark99

[MtB]

I have to say I'm with goodgurl on this one. We've just worked out that on a stretch we have regularly cruised in a week (there and back again) there are a total of 30 "places". Thus meaning that if we wanted to take our time over it we could actually spend over a year on a journey which can be comfortably done in a week.

 

Not what I would call overly prescriptive or onerous.

 

Quite.

 

Any anyone who has been 'CCing' in a very limited locality needs to remember that in life, things change. We all need to remember this in fact.

 

Cruising a short stretch of canal and calling it CCing for the last ten years does not automatically endow the right to cruise it for the next ten years and have CRT continue to accept it as CCing.

 

MtB

[Paul G2]

 

As CRT monitor boats every 14 days, rather than 13 or 15 does that not give an 'enterprising' boater the opportunity to leave their one favourite place a day before the due visit then return the day after, thereby spending over 40 weeks a year in one place?

 

CRT is not going to be able to enforce this by checking every 14 days. Just from the standpoint of mathematical probability, checking every 14 days meaningless unless you could get everyone moored on the canals to move on the same day. With or without this map, checking every 14 days is just plain silly. It makes no sense and proves nothing. There are several ways available to monitor mooring and movement more efficiently.

 

What CRT should do, not just in regards to mooring enforcement but also with respect to the more important issue of canal maintenance, is to completely dump the practice of using contractors and have CRT employees and teams that take care of and monitor certain sections of the canals. Using contractors to provide government services is an experiment that failed. Countries need to get back to hiring government (or quasi-government) employees to maintain their infrastructure.

[mark99]

 

CRT is not going to be able to enforce this by checking every 14 days. Just from the standpoint of mathematical probability, checking every 14 days meaningless unless you could get everyone moored on the canals to move on the same day. With or without this map, checking every 14 days is just plain silly. It makes no sense and proves nothing. There are several ways available to monitor mooring and movement more efficiently.

 

What CRT should do, not just in regards to mooring enforcement but also with respect to the more important issue of canal maintenance, is to completely dump the practice of using contractors and have CRT employees and teams that take care of and monitor certain sections of the canals. Using contractors to provide government services is an experiment that failed. Countries need to get back to hiring government (or quasi-government) employees to maintain their infrastructure.

 

Lengthsman?

[micky1010]

This is great, as I work near Fradley junction, I can ditch my expensive, noisy marina and just CC around Fradley junction since there are 3 places just there, I don't even have to travel a mile in any direction to comply with their places rule.

[Richard10002]

 

So all of a sudden, next January/Spring, you find your life as you know it is under threat as you get notices on your boat when previously what you were doing was OK with BW/CRT

Have you read what was written?

 

The first thing that will happen is that they will get a phone call or a text asking them to move on, or contact CRT - All of a sudden, there will not be any notices on their boats.

 

If they ignore the phone call or text, and don't move on, or don't contact CRT and get some kind of exception, they may then receive the first formal notice.

 

I don't know how many notifieable steps there are before CRT remove a boat from the water..... but it will be several more than one.

 

Upon receiving the phone call or text, the boater has a choice of several things:

 

They could say to themselves, "It's a fair cop guv'", and move on

 

They could say to themselves, "I didn't know that was how it works, but now I do", and move on

 

They could call CRT to explain why they can't move on, and CRT might grant a dispensation for a period, or they may not. In the latter case the boater could move on. In the former they could move on at the end of the dispensation period, or renegotiate.

 

Or they could do nothing .... And the notices might start..... But they won't start "all of a sudden".

 

If they don't receive the calls or texts that CRT make/send...... Perhaps they don't have a phone anymore, ,(not really much of an excuse for this these days ), ...... they will get a notice all of a sudden. They can then move on.

 

If a boater ignores all of the notices they get before actually being evicted, then that is a matter for them. Nothing detrimental will have happened "all of a sudden".

 

I don't think anyone can say that what some boaters were doing was OK with BW/CRT, merely that the rules the boater happily agreed to weren't enforced effectively.

[Ricco1]

 

CRT is not going to be able to enforce this by checking every 14 days. Just from the standpoint of mathematical probability, checking every 14 days meaningless unless you could get everyone moored on the canals to move on the same day. With or without this map, checking every 14 days is just plain silly. It makes no sense and proves nothing. There are several ways available to monitor mooring and movement more efficiently.

 

What CRT should do, not just in regards to mooring enforcement but also with respect to the more important issue of canal maintenance, is to completely dump the practice of using contractors and have CRT employees and teams that take care of and monitor certain sections of the canals. Using contractors to provide government services is an experiment that failed. Countries need to get back to hiring government (or quasi-government) employees to maintain their infrastructure.

 

It's a difficult one. If they don't visit every 14 days (exactly) it's difficult to make a case against a boat owner. If it is 14 days, and everyone knows that, boaters so inclined can work around that. What exactly would you suggest?

[mark99]

This is great, as I work near Fradley junction, I can ditch my expensive, noisy marina and just CC around Fradley junction since there are 3 places just there, I don't even have to travel a mile in any direction to comply with their places rule.

 

But will you sleep at night when you are away from the boat? or worry about the scrotes jemmying the doors open.

[isatis]

It all seems quite straight forward to me and simplifies the whole situation looking at the map of the Llangollen it makes quite good sense given the landscape

Not sure what the we are on but add me to the back of the queue.