Best pay your CRT licence

[Sabcat]

 

As I've never owned my own boat, or lived on one other than on holiday, am I therefore precluded from being on this forum?

I don't think so.

Perhaps you need to rethink your ideas!

 

Nope, no one is saying you or people in your position should be excluded. It's a fact though that the usefulness of a person's ideas and opinions on a subject are directly related to the experience they have of that subject.

[b0atman]

So what are your thoughts on the bulk of CRT office staff do they have to know the history of the canals to know that CMers who declare CC are in the wrong.

[Sabcat]

So what are your thoughts on the bulk of CRT office staff do they have to know the history of the canals to know that CMers who declare CC are in the wrong.

 

They need to know nothing of the history of the canals, they do need to have an understanding of what's going on on the canals right now - that isn't filtered through the lens of middle class moaning in the form of the outpourings of certain groups - to know how significant the issue of CMers is and what resources are needed to tackle them rather than say, shift a sunken boat, burnt out boat that's been sat in the cut for over a month. Other wise we'll have CRT wasting time trying to publish maps of places they have no legal authority to define, monitoring people who may not be causing any problems at all, restricting mooring to 48 hours in places it's not necessary and leaving sunken, burnt out boats sat in the cut for a month.

[mrsmelly]

Dearie me. The situation on the K&A is well documented on various forums. I have seen the mooring situation in the East End and Islington for myself, and read many complaints about it and the lack of facilities from boaters based in the area. I travel round London a lot, just not so much by boat.

 

My point about the coal boat questions isn't that I disagree with using the coal boats, as I use them myself when they are the most convenient way of doing the job, but the attitude that means a self confessed continuous cruiser can't be bothered to travel for half an hour to buy coal, diesel and gas. I have personal experience of one CC'er whose family now live on 2widebeams, who had been moored for 3 weeks on a 48 hour mooring bemoaning the fact that he was running low on diesel, and seemingly unaware that there is a petrol station within 100 metres of where he was moored, and if he travelled for 40 minutes one way, there was diesel and gas for sale, if he travelled the other way for just over an hour there was gas and diesel for sale, but he was about to run out of diesel because the diesel boat hadn't come past while he was on board. I've also seen these 2 boats moored breasted up with many hundreds of metres of clear towpath fore and aft of them.

 

Now, what is your idea of the solution? I see you don't admit to owning a boat in your profile.

 

Mr W having read several of your posts of late on this forum sometimes in agreement and sometimes not I must say I do like your style of posting

 

Tim

[StarUKKiwi]

The boat's name is Grandma Molly, the owner (A) renamed it when he fitted it out. It was moored further down the Trent on a private mooring witb mooring and fishing rights.

The owner, A, says he sold it in 2011 to someone else ( but didn't tell CRT. Apparently, the new owner didn't bother registering it and it had letters each year. Then he offered it back to owner A in Jan 2013, but the BSS had run out.

So, instead of letting CRT know, he carried on, refitted the boat and got a letter, but he is illiterate and didn't understand.

 

I am now in a conversation with a person who is trying to help him, he is adamant CRT have stolen his boat.

 

CRT have said that if he had let them know he was sorting the boat out for the BSS, they would have held off and questioned as to why they didn't seize the boat earlier, they said it took them 18 months to find out who owned the mooring.

Either way, in Jan 2013, it wasn't worth what it is now and it's a holiday boat, not a liveaboard

 

Any thoughts welcome. The person working with him is trying to get him the boat back and allow CRT to licence it. However, she has owner A who has listened to people on property law, so is struggling to get him to understand

[GoodGurl]

The boat's name is Grandma Molly, the owner (A) renamed it when he fitted it out. It was moored further down the Trent on a private mooring witb mooring and fishing rights.

The owner, A, says he sold it in 2011 to someone else ( but didn't tell CRT. Apparently, the new owner didn't bother registering it and it had letters each year. Then he offered it back to owner A in Jan 2013, but the BSS had run out.

So, instead of letting CRT know, he carried on, refitted the boat and got a letter, but he is illiterate and didn't understand.

 

I am now in a conversation with a person who is trying to help him, he is adamant CRT have stolen his boat.

 

CRT have said that if he had let them know he was sorting the boat out for the BSS, they would have held off and questioned as to why they didn't seize the boat earlier, they said it took them 18 months to find out who owned the mooring.

Either way, in Jan 2013, it wasn't worth what it is now and it's a holiday boat, not a liveaboard

 

Any thoughts welcome. The person working with him is trying to get him the boat back and allow CRT to licence it. However, she has owner A who has listened to people on property law, so is struggling to get him to understand

who/what are you referring to?

[thunderbird]

CRT will tell you they go to court in the case only of a liveaboard as a 'matter of courtesy'! That there is no requirement for them to do so, as in this case, when they didn't. They seem a bit 'shocked' I'm told to hear of any discussion of the four year debt - we can only wonder why. The mooring ropes were cut to avoid stepping onto private land.

I agree I don't think the men in question did themselves any favours, but where was the paperwork. As I understand it anyone carrying out the orders of the court should have a copy of those orders present when carrying them out.
Unless of course CRT have decided they don't need to go to court to seize a boat anymore.
Regards kris

[Paul C]

The boat's name is Grandma Molly, the owner (A) renamed it when he fitted it out. It was moored further down the Trent on a private mooring witb mooring and fishing rights.

The owner, A, says he sold it in 2011 to someone else ( but didn't tell CRT. Apparently, the new owner didn't bother registering it and it had letters each year. Then he offered it back to owner A in Jan 2013, but the BSS had run out.

So, instead of letting CRT know, he carried on, refitted the boat and got a letter, but he is illiterate and didn't understand.

 

I am now in a conversation with a person who is trying to help him, he is adamant CRT have stolen his boat.

 

CRT have said that if he had let them know he was sorting the boat out for the BSS, they would have held off and questioned as to why they didn't seize the boat earlier, they said it took them 18 months to find out who owned the mooring.

Either way, in Jan 2013, it wasn't worth what it is now and it's a holiday boat, not a liveaboard

 

Any thoughts welcome. The person working with him is trying to get him the boat back and allow CRT to licence it. However, she has owner A who has listened to people on property law, so is struggling to get him to understand

 

At least we now know why CRT have beefed up their terms and conditions regarding informing them if/when a boat is sold.

 

I'm not sure illiteracy is a valid defence for not having licence or BSS.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Paul C

[Radiomariner]

The boat's name is Grandma Molly, the owner (A) renamed it when he fitted it out. It was moored further down the Trent on a private mooring witb mooring and fishing rights.

The owner, A, says he sold it in 2011 to someone else ( but didn't tell CRT. Apparently, the new owner didn't bother registering it and it had letters each year. Then he offered it back to owner A in Jan 2013, but the BSS had run out.

So, instead of letting CRT know, he carried on, refitted the boat and got a letter, but he is illiterate and didn't understand.

 

I am now in a conversation with a person who is trying to help him, he is adamant CRT have stolen his boat.

 

CRT have said that if he had let them know he was sorting the boat out for the BSS, they would have held off and questioned as to why they didn't seize the boat earlier, they said it took them 18 months to find out who owned the mooring.

Either way, in Jan 2013, it wasn't worth what it is now and it's a holiday boat, not a liveaboard

 

Any thoughts welcome. The person working with him is trying to get him the boat back and allow CRT to licence it. However, she has owner A who has listened to people on property law, so is struggling to get him to understand

 

i dont think it makes much difference to the above tale, but I understand that the BSS Cert. was valid until June 2014

[StarUKKiwi]

i dont think it makes much difference to the above tale, but I understand that the BSS Cert. was valid until June 2014

Really? That isn't what I was told. I was told it ran out in Jun 2013. with

The person helping him isn't a boater, so talks about an MOT, I shall check.

[Tony Dunkley]

The boat's name is Grandma Molly, the owner (A) renamed it when he fitted it out. It was moored further down the Trent on a private mooring witb mooring and fishing rights.

The owner, A, says he sold it in 2011 to someone else ( but didn't tell CRT. Apparently, the new owner didn't bother registering it and it had letters each year. Then he offered it back to owner A in Jan 2013, but the BSS had run out.

So, instead of letting CRT know, he carried on, refitted the boat and got a letter, but he is illiterate and didn't understand.

 

I am now in a conversation with a person who is trying to help him, he is adamant CRT have stolen his boat.

 

CRT have said that if he had let them know he was sorting the boat out for the BSS, they would have held off and questioned as to why they didn't seize the boat earlier, they said it took them 18 months to find out who owned the mooring.

Either way, in Jan 2013, it wasn't worth what it is now and it's a holiday boat, not a liveaboard

 

Any thoughts welcome. The person working with him is trying to get him the boat back and allow CRT to licence it. However, she has owner A who has listened to people on property law, so is struggling to get him to understand

 

Is owner 'A' identifiable on the video, and am I correct in thinking that the boat is now owned by someone else?

Edited February 16, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Radiomariner]

deleted

Edited February 17, 2015 by Radiomariner

[b0atman]

May be 2013 or 2014

[jenlyn]

It could be that BSS database is wrong. Has been known. 1913 or 1914 only a keystroke away.

Hope the database isn't wrong, was that tongue in cheek?

[Radiomariner]

deleted

Edited February 16, 2015 by Radiomariner

[John Williamson 1955]

Comment about database entry design deleted, as it replied to a deleted post.

Edited February 16, 2015 by John Williamson 1955

[bigcol]

Any ideas now what is happening to Grandma Molly now?

Just to confirm this is the boat that was taken away?

 

Col

[Radiomariner]

deleted

.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Radiomariner

[Alf Roberts]

..

Edited February 16, 2015 by Alf Roberts

[NigelMoore]

I am now in a conversation with a person who is trying to help him, he is adamant CRT have stolen his boat.

 

Under the circumstances you have described, they very probably have taken his boat wrongfully, but as mayalld has correctly noted previously: because the employees at least [if not the legal department] believe they are entitled to the action, it does not constitute theft under law.

 

That does not prevent the owner bringing a case against them for taking his boat unlawfully, which he should do, demanding its return and associated damages. The defence against the s.8 action would be that he was not required to register the boat while remaining at his mooring, under the terms of the 1971 Act.

 

At the very least, CaRT should never have acted without first obtaining a Secretary of State authorised map delineating the main navigable channel. Seizure of valuable property while any dissension over cause existed [and regardless of educational issues on either side, there appears to have been legitimate dispute] is outrageous.

 

Even if such a map were eventually to mark out the whole river as the ‘main’ navigable channel, the assumption until then should have been that boats moored to the bank did not occupy the main navigable channel, such that precipitate seizure without such authoritative basis was a very bad decision.

 

Property law does not enter into anything to do with this situation.

CRT will tell you they go to court in the case only of a liveaboard as a 'matter of courtesy'!

 

Not as a matter of courtesy, but as a legal safety measure by reason of the Human Rights Act.

[StarUKKiwi]

 

Is owner 'A' identifiable on the video, and am I correct in thinking that the boat is now owned by someone else?

 

Owner A on video - sold to Owner B and then bought back in Jan 2014; thought as he was moored didn't need a licence as the owner had riparian rights

 

It could be this out at BSS database is wrong. Has been known. 1913 or 1914 only a keystroke away.

 

I am still trying to find this out

Any ideas now what is happening to Grandma Molly now?

Just to confirm this is the boat that was taken away?

 

Col

 

It on hard standing somewhere in north Wales

 

 

Under the circumstances you have described, they very probably have taken his boat wrongfully, but as mayalld has correctly noted previously: because the employees at least [if not the legal department] believe they are entitled to the action, it does not constitute theft under law.

 

That does not prevent the owner bringing a case against them for taking his boat unlawfully, which he should do, demanding its return and associated damages. The defence against the s.8 action would be that he was not required to register the boat while remaining at his mooring, under the terms of the 1971 Act.

 

At the very least, CaRT should never have acted without first obtaining a Secretary of State authorised map delineating the main navigable channel. Seizure of valuable property while any dissension over cause existed [and regardless of educational issues on either side, there appears to have been legitimate dispute] is outrageous.

 

Even if such a map were eventually to mark out the whole river as the ‘main’ navigable channel, the assumption until then should have been that boats moored to the bank did not occupy the main navigable channel, such that precipitate seizure without such authoritative basis was a very bad decision.

 

Property law does not enter into anything to do with this situation.

 

Not as a matter of courtesy, but as a legal safety measure by reason of the Human Rights Act.;

 

Thanks very much everyone; I have done my best to answer your questions

 

Nigel - thanks so much for this response. As so often "in the outside world" people don't realise that boats are different; unfortunately, most of the people helping him are very conversant in property law (of no use here) and the person helping him now is conversant with homelessness and debt. I have dropped on it quite by accident as I know the person from elsewhere but they know I live on a boat.

 

However, they have a meeting with CRT tomorrow and they have now sent an invoice which was sent to me as they couldn't open it. I shall refer them to your post if I may. It might help - the helper has explained to Owner A that he needs to pay the invoice less the three years he didn't own the boat; get the boat back and then go to court - would this be the correct action?

 

I will post more when I find anything else out - edited to add - t when my friend tells me there is a meeting tomorrow so will post when they update me; but they want to to thank Nigel for his post, very useful

Edited February 16, 2015 by StarUKKiwi

[thunderbird]

 

Under the circumstances you have described, they very probably have taken his boat wrongfully, but as mayalld has correctly noted previously: because the employees at least [if not the legal department] believe they are entitled to the action, it does not constitute theft under law.

 

That does not prevent the owner bringing a case against them for taking his boat unlawfully, which he should do, demanding its return and associated damages. The defence against the s.8 action would be that he was not required to register the boat while remaining at his mooring, under the terms of the 1971 Act.

 

At the very least, CaRT should never have acted without first obtaining a Secretary of State authorised map delineating the main navigable channel. Seizure of valuable property while any dissension over cause existed [and regardless of educational issues on either side, there appears to have been legitimate dispute] is outrageous.

 

Even if such a map were eventually to mark out the whole river as the ‘main’ navigable channel, the assumption until then should have been that boats moored to the bank did not occupy the main navigable channel, such that precipitate seizure without such authoritative basis was a very bad decision.

 

Property law does not enter into anything to do with this situation.

 

Not as a matter of courtesy, but as a legal safety measure by reason of the Human Rights Act.

(but as a legal safety measure) Indeed. Then again does not CRT specialise in making words fit their interpretations? I think it needs to be said that three boaters using the Trent have reported on seeing this boat being worked on at this mooring over the last two years at least, certainly not being used within the navigable channel that whether CRT likes it or not does not include the mooring on which this boat was kept.

[StarUKKiwi]

who/what are you referring to?

Three Wise Monkeys referred to in Post 1 is actually Grandma Molly

[StarUKKiwi]

(but as a legal safety measure) Indeed. Then again does not CRT specialise in making words fit their interpretations? I think it needs to be said that three boaters using the Trent have reported on seeing this boat being worked on at this mooring over the last two years at least, certainly not being used within the navigable channel that whether CRT likes it or not does not include the mooring on which this boat was kept.

Hypothetically speaking; what would happen if in fact the pay grades above didn't know what was happening on the ground? It is interesting that this took place in Nottingham with all that is going on in that county with the police and council

[jenlyn]

......

Edited February 16, 2015 by jenlyn