Anyone just received CRT letter 'reminding' CC'ers to move?

[Joelsanders]

The problem with fear tactics is that it usually only affects those who are reasonable. I agree with Jenlyn, the whole thing is a joke. I think it's a massive own goal for those who put pressure on CRT, but we'll have to wait and see.

You're right!

 

However , the vast majority of people are reasonable. Consequently, even though it's not legally binding, I think it will have a huge effect.

 

If that turns out to be the reality, the minority of unreasonable people would then stand out a lot more and be much easier to target.

 

I think we're all conditioned to believe that - in order to invoke quick change - you need to target the opposition ring leaders first (the big troublemakers), rather than the soft targets. That's what armies do , right?

 

However, low level non-military campaigns - the stuff of everyday life - don't usually work that way. It's hard to sort out stubborn hardcore rebels without violence or terror tactics so, consequently, it usually starts with the soft targets.

[Paul C]

Are you?

 

I'm not the one who got the letter.....and there's thousands of others who haven't got the letter either.....

[mayalld]

...and what do you think would happen if it's their only home? Maybe find a nice warm boat to kip in...

 

 

 

 

Well, that's a new angle.

 

Might as well let them get away with breaking the rules, because if you actually tell them they can't have a boat if they can't pay for one, they are just going to break into yours.

 

Or to put it another way, they want what they can't afford, and they are going to take it one way or another

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Write back and ask them what they consider far enough.

I did it on behalf of all boaters over a week ago such that the response be placed in the public domain -

 

FOIA request here.

 

It seems to me that, to some extent, those that represent us were were badly misled by Richard Parry/Denise Yelland suggesting that it would be made clear to boaters how far the need to move to comply.

 

[Hawthorn]

If anyone is really sympathetic to CCs they should not be encouraging them to insist that CRT define 'distance' . It really is the difference between 'cruising' and not 'cruising'. You are not 'cruising' if you are dragging your boat 30 metres down the tow-path. You are not 'cruising if you catch a tow 200 yards to a water point, and then catch one back to where you were. You are not cruising if you are not moving. However in the terms of the licence you are allowed to take a break from 'cruising' for up to 14 days? If you book a cruise, you would, quite rightly, demand a refund if you embarked at Dover, were turned round every day, but didn't leave Dover.

 

As to whether CRT can offer anyone a contract which is contravention of British Law. They shouldn't but they have. They are in contravention of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which states that any site that is occupied as a residence for more than 28 days is subject to planning permission. This includes boats. Strictly speaking I believe that the Winter Towpath permits are actually illegal. The following is copied from the advisory document produced in 2011 by the Association of Inland Navigation Authorities called 'the Residential Use of Waterways.

 

Failure to obtain planning permission: Planning Enforcement

A mooring operator should always make clear to the boater, as part of the mooring agreement, the planning designation of the mooring (and hence the permitted use) and that they are responsible for complying with local authority planning requirements.

Where the local planning authority believes there is unauthorised residential use and there has been a breach of planning control, either by the carrying out of development without planning permission or the carrying out of development in breach of a planning condition, they may consider it ‘expedient’ to commence enforcement proceedings. The relevant powers are set out in Part VII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

A number of parties may become involved in resolving cases of unauthorised residential use of moorings:

 The local planning authority;

 The mooring operator (in some cases, this might be the navigation authority);

 The navigation authority (where there are navigational issues);

 The occupier of the houseboat or floating structure; and

 The local authority as housing and environmental health authority.

The local planning authority should first contact the mooring operator, if necessary through the navigation authority, in order to seek to resolve the issue. They may serve a planning enforcement notice upon the owner or occupier of the land and on any other person having an interest in the land, which may include the occupier of the vessel or structure, the mooring operator, the landowner and the navigation authority, requiring the unauthorised use to cease.

[Paul C]

Maybe some of them can't afford it.

 

Housing and other benefits are available.

[Hawthorn]

Just to clarify. The winter towpath moorings are legal, providing you don't live on your boat.

[bassplayer]

 

Housing and other benefits are available.

...after all it's someone else's problem if you meet hard times. There is a difference between being unreasonable and being unfortunate. I wish some of you would see that...

[cotswoldsman]

 

Housing and other benefits are available.

Lol have you tried as a boater without a home mooring? Maybe you would be prepared to help I have 3 boaters I am trying to help claim benefits at present and your expertise would be very helpful

[Paul C]

...after all it's someone else's problem if you meet hard times. There is a difference between being unreasonable and being unfortunate. I wish some of you would see that...

 

 

Lol have you tried as a boater without a home mooring? Maybe you would be prepared to help I have 3 boaters I am trying to help claim benefits at present and your expertise would be very helpful

 

I didn't say it was easy, I know its a bit of a minefield but the fact remains, that this country DOES have a welfare system, living on a boat IS legal and such boaters ARE ENTITLED to benefits. Send me all their details and I'll be happy to help.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

I thought the trial letters and licence non-renewals are only going to NEW CCers, but soon they'll be expanded to all CCers?

 

It is now expanded to all CCers.

 

"Hardly moved" is less than 5 miles per year (Classed as a Red flag on your records)

"Moved, but not enough" is less than 12 miles per year.(classed as an amber flag on your records)

 

It was all explained a few days ago when someone posted an 84 page response to a FOI showing the new procedures.

 

Anyone receiving the letter is 'on the radar' for having not met the requirements - if you get one then you are under review.

 

BassPlayer - can you provide evidence to satisfy the board that you are moving sufficiently ?

[Paul C]

 

It is now expanded to all CCers.

 

"Hardly moved" is less than 5 miles per year (Classed as a Red flag on your records)

"Moved, but not enough" is less than 12 miles per year.(classed as an amber flag on your records)

 

It was all explained a few days ago when someone posted an 84 page response to a FOI showing the new procedures.

 

Anyone receiving the letter is 'on the radar' for having not met the requirements - if you get one then you are under review.

 

BassPlayer - can you provide evidence to satisfy the board that you are moving sufficiently ?

 

Is it 12 miles movement per year, or "moving but only within a 12 mile range" per year? There is a MASSIVE difference!

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

 

I didn't say it was easy, I know its a bit of a minefield but the fact remains, that this country DOES have a welfare system, living on a boat IS legal and such boaters ARE ENTITLED to benefits. Send me all their details and I'll be happy to help.

Thanks will do that when I am on my laptop

[Tony Dunkley]

Sounds reasonable to me. Good to see CART using some common sense.

 

Ian.

 

You think that sounds reasonable . . . . comply with an ill-defined and unlawful distance requirement that we can change on a whim at any time or we'll force you off the canal system . . . . . as an example of moveable goal posts, that's one of the best you'll see.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Is it 12 miles movement per year, or "moving but only within a 12 mile range" per year? There is a MASSIVE difference!

 

My interpretation is that it is 12 miles movement per annum - ie move 2 miles, moor for 14 days, move 2miles, moor ......... etc etc.

It is NOT Moor for 14 days at A, move 12 miles and moor at B, for 14 days, move back 12 miles to A, moor 14 days ................

It is NOT Moor for 6 months at A, move 12 miles and moor at B for 6 months. .......................

 

Maybe I am wrong you would need to ask C&RT for a definition - they have defined it for the K&A by detailing 14 'places' within a 20km (12 mile) stretch and said you must be seen in a certain number of 'places' during the year

[jenlyn]

 

Anyone receiving the letter is 'on the radar' for having not met the requirements - if you get one then you are under review.

 

Not true....

All declaring cc will receive them upon new, or renewal of licence.

[MtB]

I think it's jolly decent of bassplayer to have flagged himself up on CRT's radar and become a CCer 'under review'.

 

Now we'll get to see compare bassplayer's records of his movements with what CRT are telling him their records show (ssuming he is willing to share the info), and see how it all unfolds which should be very interesting and illuminating.

 

 

MtB

[jenlyn]

I think it's jolly decent of bassplayer to have flagged himself up on CRT's radar and become a CCer 'under review'.

 

Now we'll get to see compare bassplayer's records of his movements with what CRT are telling him their records show (ssuming he is willing to share the info), and see how it all unfolds which should be very interesting and illuminating.

 

 

MtB

Read post 41...

[Alan de Enfield]

Not true....

All declaring cc will receive them upon new, or renewal of licence.

 

That is not what was said in the FOI response.

 

Lets see if BassPlayer has renewed his licence recently - BassPlayer ?

[Boat&Bikes]

 

You think that sounds reasonable . . . . comply with an ill-defined and unlawful distance requirement that we can change on a whim at any time or we'll force you off the canal system . . . . . as an example of moveable goal posts, that's one of the best you'll see.

Yes I think it sounds reasonable. It is giving fair warning that action may be taken if you do not comply. If the above 12 miles mentioned above is anywhere near correct then I am amazed that anyone can claim to be a CC yet fail to cruise 12 miles?

 

Ian.

[cotswoldsman]

I think it's jolly decent of bassplayer to have flagged himself up on CRT's radar and become a CCer 'under review'.

 

Now we'll get to see compare bassplayer's records of his movements with what CRT are telling him their records show (ssuming he is willing to share the info), and see how it all unfolds which should be very interesting and illuminating.

 

 

MtB

Um how do you come to that conclusion?

[jenlyn]

Yes I think it sounds reasonable. It is giving fair warning that action may be taken if you do not comply. If the above 12 miles mentioned above is anywhere near correct then I am amazed that anyone can claim to be a CC yet fail to cruise 12 miles?

 

Ian.

Perhaps they were sold a cc licence for the river stort.

[David Schweizer]

I have no idea what distances CaRT actually consider to be "Hardly moved" or "Moved but not enough" and frankly nor does anyone else on this forum. What we all have is our own interpretation of those terms, however, CaRT clearly do have an idea. and that is what they will use to take further action. What is also fairly clear is that some boats appear to move so infrequently or such short distances that CaRT believe they are not complying with the requirememnts of the Waterways Act. and that is whathey are trying to resolve.

 

As for the Wateways Act, and what is legal, and what is not, that will, The Act is quite clear, and was obviously written in a way that those who have to enforce it can make judgements, but if people continue to challenge those judgements it will, if neccesary, be defined by Judges and Case Law. which is how the meaning of ill defined terms are settled in this country, whwere there is dispute.

Edited March 3, 2015 by David Schweizer

[DeanS]

So there are now 3 groups of CC-ers.

 

Those who already enjoy the luxury of being able to cruise non stop in one direction....stopping in an area for a small amount of time and never to be in that radar area again.

 

Those who cannot stand the idea of living tied up, not moving, with other boats on either side, (a marina) but do need to circle around a wide area (eg Birmingham, London), in order to stay within reach of work.

 

Those who may have been CC-ing, (let's say a young couple), love the boating lifestyle, but have now had a new child. Not earning enough to pay marina fees, but needing to put the kid in a nursery, they will try to move "enough" to retain their boating lifestyle for as long as possible.

 

 

The first group of CC-ers will look at what CRT are doing and say..."no one should moan"...if you're a genuine CC-er it wont affect you.

The 2nd group of CC-ers will feel guilty they aren't in the 1st group, but will be happy they aren't in the 3rd group.

The 3rd group of CC-ers will feel guilty all the time, even though they're doing their best under the circumstances.

[Bettie Boo]

Could it be that a letter posted is deemed to be delivered (at least I think that is the legal situation) and you have no excuse email on the other hand isn't as reliable and much easier to claim it never reached you?

 

I "think" that would apply if it was sent via registered/recorded mail or where a signature was required for delivery. However, if a piece of post was sent via normal snail mail, there would be no proof it actually reached you.

 

Email can be set up to show it was "read/opened", we had this at the last company I worked for so the technology is defiantly out there, you could also request an automatic reply to show the email was opened.

 

But at the end of the day, they wouldn't be able to get anything to me that required a signature anyway, unless it was hand delivered via the towpath, as we live on the boat and are proper ccer's (not meant to be as condescending as it could sound) just that we move around a fair bit