NBTA Press Release : The continuous cruising case CRT couldn't win

[Alf Roberts]

If they were brave bringing this to public attention why did it take them 8 months to pluck up the courage to do so?

 

In their press release they state they were aware of this on the 18th June 2014, yet they didn't issue a press release until the 22nd February 2015. I've questioned (post 49) why they've kept this quiet for 8 months and only chosen now to release it. Unfortunately no one, especially the OP (who has been on the site since I posted) has chosen to answer this. A reason for the delayed press release might go some way to understanding NBTA's motivation (other than just bashing C&RT).

My sincere apologies; I overlooked your question. I shall now answer it.

 

I have no idea, why don't you ask them.

[cotswoldsman]

I can assure you I'm not lost (in fantasy land or anywhere else). I just put forward an alternative view (I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with it) as to why there might be a confidentiality clause. I assume you accept there might be more than one reason for a confidentiality clause or is it a case that whatever C&RT do they are automatically in the wrong in your eyes?

Ok let's look at the facts that are in the public domain

 

1 CRT took him to court

2 After 2 days the case was dropped

3 both parties agreed a settlement

4 Andy is on his boat with a licence

5 Andy now has a home mooring

 

Do you know many cases where CRT looked like winning and decided to withdraw from removing the boat from the waterways. The CRT website is full of cases they have won and removed boats, they state that boaters not following the guidelines will have their boat removed. They took him to court because they wanted to remove his boat and after 2 days it seems they did not go to the end and get a judgement

Edited February 23, 2015 by cotswoldsman

[BrumSaint]

You don't think the home mooring was part of the settlement then? As in CRT gave him a home mooring

I wrote my possible alternative scenario* before I'd read the posts about the home mooring (I think they may have been posted after mine). However if the agreement was for him to pay for and move to a permanent mooring in exchange for keeping his licence he may well have asked for the confidentiality clause to save face, and before TD jumps in, I have no idea why C&RT would agree to keep quiet, unless of course (yet another scenario) there was some agreement about the costs which C&RT didn't want to disclose.

 

 

 

*Definition of scenario - a postulated sequence or development of events

[cotswoldsman]

I wrote my possible alternative scenario* before I'd read the posts about the home mooring (I think they may have been posted after mine). However if the agreement was for him to pay for and move to a permanent mooring in exchange for keeping his licence he may well have asked for the confidentiality clause to save face, and before TD jumps in, I have no idea why C&RT would agree to keep quiet, unless of course (yet another scenario) there was some agreement about the costs which C&RT didn't want to disclose.

 

 

 

*Definition of scenario - a postulated sequence or development of events

But that is not how it works after 2 days in court CRT do not suddenly decide let him off he has said he will get a home mooring so we will kiss goodbye to winning this case and all the money we have spent.

 

Here is another scenario Mr Wingfield if you sign this Non Dissclosure we will give you your licence back and find you a home mooring

[Arthur Marshall]

They took him to court because they wanted to remove his boat and after 2 days it seems they did not go to the end and get a judgement

I would have thought it more likely they took him to court because they wanted him to comply with (their version of) the rules and he was refusing to do so. When he agreed to do so they stopped pursuing him, which implies that in this case their version was correct (we know it isn't always). This makes more sense than implying CRT's prime consideration is getting boats off the canal.

[PaulG]

Ok let's look at the facts that are in the public domain

 

1 CRT took him to court

2 After 2 days the case was dropped

3 both parties agreed a settlement

4 Andy is on his boat with a licence

5 Andy now has a home mooring

 

Do you know many cases where CRT looked like winning and decided to withdraw from removing the boat from the waterways. The CRT website is full of cases they have won and tempted boats, the state that boaters not following the guidelines will have their boat removed. They took him to court because they wanted to remove his boat and after 2 days it seems they did not go to the end and get a judgement

It does depend on your point of view, John.

 

Everybody seems to think that, unless some poor sod's boat is taken and removed from the water, it is a "loss" for CRT.

 

Could it be that what CRT actually want to achieve is compliance?

 

In this case it appears that the owner of the boat is now licenced and has a home mooring.

 

I'm struggling to think how this represents a "loss" to CRT.

[cotswoldsman]

I would have thought it more likely they took him to court because they wanted him to comply with (their version of) the rules and he was refusing to do so. When he agreed to do so they stopped pursuing him, which implies that in this case their version was correct (we know it isn't always). This makes more sense than implying CRT's prime consideration is getting boats off the canal.

Yes that does make a lot more sense.

It does depend on your point of view, John.

 

Everybody seems to think that, unless some poor sod's boat is taken and removed from the water, it is a "loss" for CRT.

 

Could it be that what CRT actually want to achieve is compliance?

 

In this case it appears that the owner of the boat is now licenced and has a home mooring.

 

I'm struggling to think how this represents a "loss" to CRT.

Yes Paul they do want compliance and unfortunately they do that by making examples of boaters by removing their boats. Under your scenario why did they not go into the public domain as example of how nice they are and just as important why did they not go into the public domain with the comments the Judge made leading up to the case being stopped

[mayalld]

Ok let's look at the facts that are in the public domain

 

1 CRT took him to court

2 After 2 days the case was dropped

3 both parties agreed a settlement

4 Andy is on his boat with a licence

5 Andy now has a home mooring

 

Do you know many cases where CRT looked like winning and decided to withdraw from removing the boat from the waterways. The CRT website is full of cases they have won and removed boats, they state that boaters not following the guidelines will have their boat removed. They took him to court because they wanted to remove his boat and after 2 days it seems they did not go to the end and get a judgement

 

Do you know of many cases where CRT looked like winning, and the boater decided at the 11th hour to say "Fair cop, I was bang out of order, I'll pay up and be a good boy and we will say no more about it"

 

Essentially, whether an enforcement issue is sorted early in the proceedings or late in the proceedings to the mutual satisfaction of both parties, it is entirely up to them to agree to no publicity.

[IanD]

NBTA are not telling lies they are stating their view of the facts .

 

The issue of boat dwellers is a part of the whole that is the housing crisis. It's a great pity that an advanced Western country cannot get its act together and ensure that the greater majority of its citizens are decently housed .

London is a particular area of concern with the stocks of affordable housing shrinking year on year. It's not acceptable but who do we vote in who have the guts to tackle it.

 

NBTA have my support in keeping the cause of boat dwellers in the public domain and also for participating in the campaigns in support of all persons who need an affordable place to live.

 

Not a lot to ask really is it, a suitable place to live . We are all different and one size doesn't fit all . Diversity Rocks as far as I'm concerned.

Please don't confuse the personal "I would like an affordable place to live" -- who wouldn't? -- with the altruistic-sounding "opening up the canals to people to live on would solve the affordable housing crisis".

 

Because it wouldn't. At best in London it might solve 1% of the problem -- see the "38 degrees petition" thread. Great for the 1%, not so great for the other 99%, Hang on, that sounds familiar...

[Sabcat]

I would have thought it more likely they took him to court because they wanted him to comply with (their version of) the rules and he was refusing to do so. When he agreed to do so they stopped pursuing him, which implies that in this case their version was correct (we know it isn't always). This makes more sense than implying CRT's prime consideration is getting boats off the canal.

 

Yes that does make a lot more sense.

 

Yes Paul they do want compliance and unfortunately they do that by making examples of boaters by removing their boats. Under your scenario why did they not go into the public domain as example of how nice they are and just as important why did they not go into the public domain with the comments the Judge made leading up to the case being stopped

 

 

Do you know of many cases where CRT looked like winning, and the boater decided at the 11th hour to say "Fair cop, I was bang out of order, I'll pay up and be a good boy and we will say no more about it"

 

Essentially, whether an enforcement issue is sorted early in the proceedings or late in the proceedings to the mutual satisfaction of both parties, it is entirely up to them to agree to no publicity.

 

Makes absolutely no sense at all. CRT have gone to the time and expense of court action to then, before a judgement, agree a settlement does make sense, if the boater in question has agreed to also contribute to CRT's costs. There's no way in this example CRT would agree to it being confidential - They'd want the victory and the reasonable light it shows them in to be shouted from the roof tops. There's also no motivation for them to accept such a settlement with a confidentiality claise as by this version of events they simply wait for a judge to give them everything they want in the case.

[BrumSaint]

My sincere apologies; I overlooked your question. I shall now answer it.

 

I have no idea, why don't you ask them.

Sorry Alf, as the OP I thought you would know something about it. I have emailed the NBTA and when they reply I will share with the forum.

[Naughty Cal]

 

 

 

Makes absolutely no sense at all. CRT have gone to the time and expense of court action to then, before a judgement, agree a settlement does make sense, if the boater in question has agreed to also contribute to CRT's costs. There's no way in this example CRT would agree to it being confidential - They'd want the victory and the reasonable light it shows them in to be shouted from the roof tops. There's also no motivation for them to accept such a settlement with a confidentiality claise as by this version of events they simply wait for a judge to give them everything they want in the case.

Which is?

[PaulG]

Yes that does make a lot more sense.

 

Yes Paul they do want compliance and unfortunately they do that by making examples of boaters by removing their boats. Under your scenario why did they not go into the public domain as example of how nice they are and just as important why did they not go into the public domain with the comments the Judge made leading up to the case being stopped

Perhaps they've realised that achieving compliance is better than trying to "punish" the boat owner concerned?

Obviously I'm not CRT management, but in my book, it would be.

Maybe they've realised that taking the strongest possible sanctions in circumstances where it can be avoided is bad for their public image?

[Gordias]

Perhaps they've realised that achieving compliance is better than trying to "punish" the boat owner concerned?

Obviously I'm not CRT management, but in my book, it would be.

Maybe they've realised that taking the strongest possible sanctions in circumstances where it can be avoided is bad for their public image?

 

AFAIK the enforcement process is not being accurately represented in this thread.

 

This isn't a great source (incomplete and not easy to read) but has some interesting information:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/continuous_cruising_enforcement#incoming-613637

(NB: It's from a FOI request regarding a different situation, previously linked in CWDF, but there's interesting and relevant material scattered through it - for example the flowchart at page 73)

 

My impression after I read it was that even if CaRT really wanted to punish a specific boater for some reason, their own internal routines would force them to offer the "target" ways to avoid a court case and/or removal of the boat at multiple points in the process. Of course this doesn't mean they always act fairly, or even follow their own internal guidelines at all times, but I doubt they're as vindictive as they're sometimes claimed to be (or if they are, they have processes stop themselves acting on their impulses due to PR concerns

 

 

If anyone has more comprehensive documentation about the process, please link it.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Gordias

[Tony Dunkley]

Perhaps they've realised that achieving compliance is better than trying to "punish" the boat owner concerned?

Obviously I'm not CRT management, but in my book, it would be.

Maybe they've realised that taking the strongest possible sanctions in circumstances where it can be avoided is bad for their public image?

 

If they had 'realized' either of those two thing you suggest, can you explain why, just over 3 months later, they began County Court proceedings against me for not 'cruising' sufficiently whilst away from my home mooring ?

[NigelMoore]

 

Do you know of many cases where CRT looked like winning, and the boater decided at the 11th hour to say "Fair cop, I was bang out of order, I'll pay up and be a good boy and we will say no more about it"

 

Not I. I know of two instances as listed on the current CaRT website, where it is noted that a Consent Order was agreed – both in 2012. From memory, it was also recorded in the Court Orders relating to some of the other cases, that the boater had agreed to pay by specified installments, and it was so ordered. No mention of saying no more about it though.

[PaulG]

 

If they had 'realized' either of those two thing you suggest, can you explain why, just over 3 months later, they began County Court proceedings against me for not 'cruising' sufficiently whilst away from my home mooring ?

It is pretty clear that you know quite a bit more about your case than I do, Tony, so I can't see how I can possibly comment.

Nowhere did I say that they have decided not to take court action. What I said was taking "the strongest possible sanctions", i.e. seeking the seizure of a boat.

This could mean, for example, that the boat owner accepted that he/she should have a home mooring and agreed to purchase one, and CRT, having proved their point, agreed to drop the action.

It's possible to go to court in order to establish a principle, rather than necessarily seeking vengeance.

[mayalld]

 

Not I. I know of two instances as listed on the current CaRT website, where it is noted that a Consent Order was agreed – both in 2012. From memory, it was also recorded in the Court Orders relating to some of the other cases, that the boater had agreed to pay by specified installments, and it was so ordered. No mention of saying no more about it though.

 

In which case, can we reach a (rare) consensus that once CRT take a case to court, the outcome is normally either win or lose.

 

Hitherto, there have been few cases where having got that far there is an agreed settlement, and as such there is little to go on as to what the normal practice is in these cases

[NigelMoore]

 

In which case, can we reach a (rare) consensus that once CRT take a case to court, the outcome is normally either win or lose.

 

Of course.

 

It is not the case, by the way, that consensus is rare between us: I often agree with your comments and normally only interject when I feel that either a balance needs to be struck, or a perceived error needs a countermanding argument.

 

Regardless of agreement or disagreement, I consider you to be the most valuable contributor to my increase in understanding in certain areas, precisely because disagreement – if with cogent argument - provokes re-appraisal of my viewpoints with associated research. For all that humanly speaking I value support, I can only learn from those who disagree – and gain much needed practice in putting my perceptions across with sufficient lucidity.

 

For that reason I am still interested to read your responses to my previous questions on the s.43 issue.

[mayalld]

 

Of course.

 

It is not the case, by the way, that consensus is rare between us: I often agree with your comments and normally only interject when I feel that either a balance needs to be struck, or a perceived error needs a countermanding argument.

 

Regardless of agreement or disagreement, I consider you to be the most valuable contributor to my increase in understanding in certain areas, precisely because disagreement – if with cogent argument - provokes re-appraisal of my viewpoints with associated research. For all that humanly speaking I value support, I can only learn from those who disagree – and gain much needed practice in putting my perceptions across with sufficient lucidity.

 

For that reason I am still interested to read your responses to my previous questions on the s.43 issue.

 

Yes, I saw that question whilst idly browsing on the phone, and thought it was an interesting thing to consider.

 

I will do so tomorrow!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

CaRT have told me that in this case the court order (actually a consent order) was not published because 'we only do so where we have enforced boat removals'.

However, as Nigel states, they have previously published two consent orders ....

[Paul C]

CaRT have told me that in this case the court order (actually a consent order) was not published because 'we only do so where we have enforced boat removals'.

 

However, as Nigel states, they have previously published two consent orders ....

 

Am I right in thinking that you can't actually force its publication?

[Martin Megson]

I must admit I'm having difficulty understanding CARTs actions in some of these cases - based on the information as presented. I have occasionally had to overstay into winter due weather conditions and have found the local enforcement teams very helpful and understanding. To be fair I didn't abuse they're goodwill and moved on as soon as it was possible.

[NigelMoore]

they have previously published two consent orders ....

 

- and, a significant number of the other Orders did NOT enforce removal of the boat, except in the event that the agreed payments were not complied with, or the voluntary removal from CaRT waters did not take place. I can't take the time to download and look through them again just now, but certainly anyone can see for themselves. Plus, they published the final Court Order in my case, which refused their power to enforce removal of the boats - so I am interested to know how they would justify such a comment.

[Paul C]

 

Am I right in thinking that you can't actually force its publication?

 

To clarify, I don't mean you personally, but anyone except the people or bodies who already know about it; and with them, it might possibly involve breaking the confidentiality clause.