WARNING - CRT licence computer telling lies

[valrene9600]

Tony

We had a similar experience. I renewed online, the money left our bank on 28/11/14 for our licence expiring on 31/12/14.

The licence hadn't arrived by 28/12/14, so I gave them a ring. The woman I spoke to apologised and said the licence would be issued soon. Still not arrived by 10/01/15, so I email customer services. The reply said that yes they had our money, but it hadn't been allocated to our account. The licence would be issued shortly. On 15/01/15 we received a demand for the full amount without the early payment discount. I rang again and gave them the whole story. More apologies, the licence arrived on 18th Jan!!

 

Steve

If you re new on line you get a e mail and reference number stating your boat is licenced. Just forward this to them and let them sort it out.

 

Following their unsuccessful attempt to have me abolished they sent me two Licences to replace the one they had revoked . . . . you're very welcome to have one them.

Perhaps you should have tried to get a refund on one.

[Lady Muck]

I got sent two licenses this January - a river only and a gold license! I'm now extra poor while I wait for a refund for the river only!

[Alan Saunders]

I have always found the CRT staff in the Leeds office efficient, friendly and helpful when I renew my licence. However, they do seem to have to cope with a disjointed computer system. Having identified the boat that I wish to re-licence and being advised of the fee there is a delay, "Please wait while I transfer to our payment system". Maybe the operator has to remember the amount and re-enter it? I guess that if it is insufficient, even by a penny, a licence will not be issued, it is considered a 'payment on account'.

 

Further, I am aware of other shortcomings in the CRT system, last year they happily renewed my licence but had to call me on my mobile telephone a few days later as they had lost my address - 19 years a customer and ten years at the same address. I guess the office staff must have referenced other CRT resources to get a mobile number and email address.

 

Similar to my comment in the 'DVLA' thread, I immediately check that the system shows my boat as 'licenced' via the link given by Meggars https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/boating/licensing/boat-check.

 

It is of concern that CRT are wasting money chasing non-offenders but I am certain that Tony has nothing to fear.

 

Alan

[Tony Dunkley]

If you re new on line you get a e mail and reference number stating your boat is licenced. Just forward this to them and let them sort it out.

Perhaps you should have tried to get a refund on one.

 

It was very tempting, but I had only paid one Licence fee and I didn't really want to descend to their level, although I am getting a couple of months free of charge because one ran from 1 July and the other one from 1 September.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

In the last ten years, I have had three problems in licencing nb Albert. First problem, was a renewal notice which did not quote correct licence amounts due to a VAT change. The second was a undated letter that demanded that I produce evidence that the boat was licensed within thirty days of the letters date (this despite me having already provided the information). The third was a renewal notice showing incorrect information.

All three problems quickly resolved, indeed two of them were quite trivial, but I feel that three in ten years is too many. I also wonder how many boaters overpaid when the VAT rate changed ...

[alan_fincher]

I also wonder how many boaters overpaid when the VAT rate changed ...

I had the reverse.....

 

When I took out a tendered mooring at a fixed contract price for tree years VAT was lower, but under threat of going up.

 

I was told the one increase I could expect on my fixed contract was that VAT increase.

 

In practice they never charged it, so I effectively was asked only for the lower rate for the whole three years.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I had the reverse.....

 

When I took out a tendered mooring at a fixed contract price for tree years VAT was lower, but under threat of going up.

 

I was told the one increase I could expect on my fixed contract was that VAT increase.

 

In practice they never charged it, so I effectively was asked only for the lower rate for the whole three years.

I'm pleased to hear that.

 

I am something of a 'special case' in that it is a condition of my mooring that I licence through a BW/CaRT agent rather than direct. Having informed my agent, Black Buoy Cruising Club, that I thought that the lower rate applied because it was the rate in force at the time of sale, I left it up to them to sort out saying that if I was correct then the difference should go to club funds.

 

The end result was that BW conceded that early payment should be at the old VAT rate and the club pocketed the difference.

 

I still wonder how many boaters simply paid what they were asked and how much BW made by overcharging on VAT.

 

Now you have me wondering how much they lost by not applying the VAT increase elsewhere!

[matty40s]

 

I am something of a 'special case'

Could someboddy sticky this please.....

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Could someboddy sticky this please.....

Moderator baiting?

[matty40s]

Moderator baiting?

2nd time you have mentioned that, I didn't realise you were a moderator.

I shall lick your jesus docs and pray to the mod of goderators.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

2nd time you have mentioned that, I didn't realise you were a moderator.

I shall lick your jesus docs and pray to the mod of goderators.

Deleted as I do not want to be accused of moderator baiting!

Edited January 19, 2015 by Allan(nb Albert)

[luctor et emergo]

Deleted as I do not want to be accused of moderator baiting!

 

of course not. there's no connection to the other side..

[Tony Brooks]

An update.

 

I emailed yesterday and had an answer from Sarina Young today.

 

It seems, as I suspected, that it resulted from changing from a Rivers & Canals license to a gold license this time. Reading between the lines its seems as if this is a known problem.

 

I also requested the checking data they hold on the boat. This shows that in November it was supposedly in Ventnor Farm Marina when I know it was still in Calcutt and still is (as far as I know). I do not wish to open up the whole debate again but it seems that the CaRT data is far from accurate and infallible so how they can rely on it in court is beyond me.

[pearley]

My son emailed me a couple of days ago to say we had received a letter stating we hadn't relicenced when we had. The inline checker said we were licenced so I did no more about it. I did wonder if it was because we went for a Gold licence this year rather than standard. You have confirmed it Tony. If you are heading for the Fens we might meet.

[madcat]

The system obviously has its problems , it is to be hoped that CRT can fix it and be sensible about sorting out any problems that arise due to the oddities it seems prone to.

[Mike Todd]

The system obviously has its problems , it is to be hoped that CRT can fix it and be sensible about sorting out any problems that arise due to the oddities it seems prone to.

I believe that it is well understood that the computer systems inherited from BW were barely fit for purpose then and even more so now. In today's society, any system needs continuous investment and one that customers often find hard to understand - even more so when the customers are more used to much more basic technologies (LTRU!)

 

It is likely that an objective review of the existing IT indicated a need for wholesale replacement at some enormous cost estimate. Probably well outside what CRT can afford right now. Bigget companies have found themselves in this situation, especially if financial restrictions have led to IT cut backs over several years (it always works at first . . . )

 

In any case, if at all possible, continuous evolution is always a better strategy but if you inherit a mish-mash of barely compatible stuff (with lots of manual re-entry of data from one bit to another) it can be a hard call.

 

In this case I suspect that the lack of money is the determining factor. Just spare a thought for the staff who have to use it!

[Tony Brooks]

I agree with all that but anyone who holds personal data, especially it they may use such data in court proceedings, has a legal duty to ensure that data is accurate. That is it - full stop, but it is now clear such data is very likely not to be accurate so it is not for us to accept the situation because CaRT have never been sufficiently funded. It is up to CaRT to ensure they meet their statutory obligations - even if it means they have to send written details of that data to all boaters each year so any errors can be rectified. (On another tack I would like to see the credit reference agencies subject to similar demands).

 

CaRT must know the financial situation is unlikely to get any better and will probably get worse. They should also know that they can not keep on propping up a failing system. Maybe a bit of publicity about what they intend to do would go a long way to helping.

 

However none of this explains how my boat location got misidentified. Either the checkers GPS system is inaccurate to hundreds of yards or their checkers are incompetent and neither have anything to do with their main computer systems.

 

It might be a good idea for all members in Calcutt or Ventnor Farm to ask for their recorded location so CaRT can be made aware if this is more systemic than a one off error.

[Machpoint005]

I believe that it is well understood that the computer systems inherited from BW were barely fit for purpose then and even more so now. In today's society, any system needs continuous investment and one that customers often find hard to understand - even more so when the customers are more used to much more basic technologies (LTRU!)

 

It is likely that an objective review of the existing IT indicated a need for wholesale replacement at some enormous cost estimate. Probably well outside what CRT can afford right now. Bigget companies have found themselves in this situation, especially if financial restrictions have led to IT cut backs over several years (it always works at first . . . )

 

In any case, if at all possible, continuous evolution is always a better strategy but if you inherit a mish-mash of barely compatible stuff (with lots of manual re-entry of data from one bit to another) it can be a hard call.

 

In this case I suspect that the lack of money is the determining factor. Just spare a thought for the staff who have to use it!

 

I understand and agree with all this, but I do wonder whether a lot of problems are caused by the people entering the data in anything other than an agreed standard format? Misspellings, misplaced punctuation marks, shortcomings in geographical knowledge, and the right data in the wrong field are all too common in any database (not just CRT's!). The Post Office has no end of trouble with this, as you will readily see if you go to the postcode finder web site. There are just so many mistakes waiting to happen. Manual data re-entry can only compound the problem, of course.

 

To err is human, but to really foul (euphemism) things up requires a computer.

I agree with all that but anyone who holds personal data, especially it they may use such data in court proceedings, has a legal duty to ensure that data is accurate. That is it - full stop,

 

CRT are not the only offenders. In fact it might be difficult to find any body that fulfills chapter and verse of its legal duty.

[madcat]

I'm very sympathetic towards the poor souls that have to use it , my interactions with licensing dept have always been cordial and occasionally funny . The sex change was best, Mr Madcat anybody ? That was sorted with a bit of mutual mirth.

 

Where I start to worry is in the area of enforcement because going to court with inaccurate data is not good . Problems renewing a licence where a prompt payment discount can be affected is another area of concern .

 

I'm hoping CRT will manage to resolve any issues that arise and keep going without having to throw cash at the problem that is best spent on maintaining the canals.

[David Mack]

However none of this explains how my boat location got misidentified. Either the checkers GPS system is inaccurate to hundreds of yards or their checkers are incompetent and neither have anything to do with their main computer systems.

 

It might be a good idea for all members in Calcutt or Ventnor Farm to ask for their recorded location so CaRT can be made aware if this is more systemic than a one off error.

More likely that in manually transferring the checker's data into the system the person entering the data has used the wrong location code. I imagine that as nearby locations their codes are probably similar.

[Mike Todd]

I agree with all that but anyone who holds personal data, especially it they may use such data in court proceedings, has a legal duty to ensure that data is accurate. That is it - full stop, but it is now clear such data is very likely not to be accurate so it is not for us to accept the situation because CaRT have never been sufficiently funded. It is up to CaRT to ensure they meet their statutory obligations - even if it means they have to send written details of that data to all boaters each year so any errors can be rectified. (On another tack I would like to see the credit reference agencies subject to similar demands).

 

CaRT must know the financial situation is unlikely to get any better and will probably get worse. They should also know that they can not keep on propping up a failing system. Maybe a bit of publicity about what they intend to do would go a long way to helping.

 

However none of this explains how my boat location got misidentified. Either the checkers GPS system is inaccurate to hundreds of yards or their checkers are incompetent and neither have anything to do with their main computer systems.

 

It might be a good idea for all members in Calcutt or Ventnor Farm to ask for their recorded location so CaRT can be made aware if this is more systemic than a one off error.

GPS is not always as accurate as some think! Just because it gives locations to upteen decimal points does not mean that it is that accurate. I also find that when a device first locates a satellite it can take a few moments to be better than approximate - depends on how many satellites are used. Also, some devices can revert to a mobile phone location if, for some reason, they cannot lock on to a satellite. That is very approximate.

 

I understand and agree with all this, but I do wonder whether a lot of problems are caused by the people entering the data in anything other than an agreed standard format? Misspellings, misplaced punctuation marks, shortcomings in geographical knowledge, and the right data in the wrong field are all too common in any database (not just CRT's!). The Post Office has no end of trouble with this, as you will readily see if you go to the postcode finder web site. There are just so many mistakes waiting to happen. Manual data re-entry can only compound the problem, of course.

 

To err is human, but to really foul (euphemism) things up requires a computer.

 

CRT are not the only offenders. In fact it might be difficult to find any body that fulfills chapter and verse of its legal duty.

Of course a good system design will seek to minimise data entry errors. Various technicques can be used. For example, most entry errors are single character or adjacent character tarnspositions (eg). Coding systems can be designed to contain an error check mechanism which will pick up most errors (but never all of them!) In any case, what a computer cannot do is detect valid but incorrect data. Even so, if its is sufficiently important then there are things which can be done, such as feeding back a check. For wample, if a location code is used then displaying its human understandable form before confirming the entry can help.

I'm very sympathetic towards the poor souls that have to use it , my interactions with licensing dept have always been cordial and occasionally funny . The sex change was best, Mr Madcat anybody ? That was sorted with a bit of mutual mirth.

 

Where I start to worry is in the area of enforcement because going to court with inaccurate data is not good . Problems renewing a licence where a prompt payment discount can be affected is another area of concern .

 

I'm hoping CRT will manage to resolve any issues that arise and keep going without having to throw cash at the problem that is best spent on maintaining the canals.

Sadly I expect that the only way to improve is by spending money - but choose the solutions wisely.

[johnmck]

Sorry to resurrect an old post, but out of curiosity, have just entered our index number into CRT's online checker. This is the result.

 

"Our system does not recognise this boat. You can submit a sighting report by completing the form below to help our enforcement efforts."

 

Our boat is licenced until the years end and passed the BSS last month.

 

Somewhat concerned and surely a breach of data protection?

[matty40s]

Sorry to resurrect an old post, but out of curiosity, have just entered our index number into CRT's online checker. This is the result.

 

"Our system does not recognise this boat. You can submit a sighting report by completing the form below to help our enforcement efforts."

 

Our boat is licenced until the years end and passed the BSS last month.

 

Somewhat concerned and surely a breach of data protection?

 

I think you should stop pussyfooting around and report yourself immediately!!

 

(see what response you get... ...)

[Alan de Enfield]

John - just put in our two index numbers, neither boat is 'recognised'.

 

Interesting - so, not only can C&RT not manage to log boat movements correctly, they cannot even develop an index number 'spreadsheet' with a search function.

[johnmck]

How can I report myself...I do not exist!!!