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

[NigelMoore]

 

. . . became a member of the club today . . .

 

As an aside, somewhat within topic [more than the previous half dozen contributions anyway] – the fact that I got one of these letters is confirmation of something I had always maintained throughout extended court pleadings, and which BW as consistently denied: that their system automatically classifies any craft not declaring a home mooring “in system” as a CC’er.

 

Throughout my s.8 case from beginning to end, BW insisted that narrowboat ‘Gilgie’ had declared itself as a CC’er and failed to comply with those terms, when all along it had had a declared, legitimate home mooring out on the tidal Thames which for the duration of the proceedings it did not avail itself of. When, for the second time in those proceedings, it was established that their classification was wrong, they still insisted that it was some isolated administrative oversight rather than acknowledge the truth.

 

My recent CC letter was in regard to ‘Mudskipper’, a craft declared as a “portable unpowered craft”. At the expiry of the first year of registration some years ago now, I received a letter demanding a £250 excess penalty on the £35 annual fee for having failed to renew in time. On that occasion I rang the licensing department to query how they could insist that I had ‘kept’ the craft on their waters without a valid license when it had been at the bottom of a wardrobe. I also informed them that I was not renewing the licence, because in future I was going to be using it on non-BW waters which were far cleaner than the grotty Grand Union [use of it demands an rather more intimate contact with the canal than normal].

 

Now I have learnt via this letter that it has been classified as a CC’er all this time!

 

The last time it was actually licensed with them was back in 2007. I am only surprised that they have not attempted to somehow s.8 that one as well, for non-compliance with the CC rules, let alone for failure to maintain the licence.

 

Note to enforcement division - I am without a current licence, and I am failing to abide by the CC'ing rules of whatever variant; come and get me if you think you're hard enough! [sorry, but the catchphrase was irresistible].

[MtB]

I'd be careful there Nige, they might try to recover from you the cost of a crane to lift it out, and the lorry to take it to their clearing yard at Chester !

 

 

 

MtB

[NigelMoore]

I'd be careful there Nige, they might try to recover from you the cost of a crane to lift it out, and the lorry to take it to their clearing yard at Chester !

 

 

 

MtB

 

Sounds about right - so long as Chester isn't too close, otherwise they'd want to choose somewhere else.

 

I'd like to see them try to lift it out of the locked garage where it is currently kept - they couldn't even get a lorry down the track.

 

The last time it travelled extensively was as baggage in a plane to Sri Lanka and back. Using it in the lagoon there was not a success - the bottom was almost as close to the top as lengths of the Grand Union above Brentford.

[bassplayer]

As an aside, somewhat within topic [more than the previous half dozen contributions anyway] – the fact that I got one of these letters is confirmation of something I had always maintained throughout extended court pleadings, and which BW as consistently denied: that their system automatically classifies any craft not declaring a home mooring “in system” as a CC’er.

 

Throughout my s.8 case from beginning to end, BW insisted that narrowboat ‘Gilgie’ had declared itself as a CC’er and failed to comply with those terms, when all along it had had a declared, legitimate home mooring out on the tidal Thames which for the duration of the proceedings it did not avail itself of. When, for the second time in those proceedings, it was established that their classification was wrong, they still insisted that it was some isolated administrative oversight rather than acknowledge the truth.

 

My recent CC letter was in regard to ‘Mudskipper’, a craft declared as a “portable unpowered craft”. At the expiry of the first year of registration some years ago now, I received a letter demanding a £250 excess penalty on the £35 annual fee for having failed to renew in time. On that occasion I rang the licensing department to query how they could insist that I had ‘kept’ the craft on their waters without a valid license when it had been at the bottom of a wardrobe. I also informed them that I was not renewing the licence, because in future I was going to be using it on non-BW waters which were far cleaner than the grotty Grand Union [use of it demands an rather more intimate contact with the canal than normal].

 

Now I have learnt via this letter that it has been classified as a CC’er all this time!

 

The last time it was actually licensed with them was back in 2007. I am only surprised that they have not attempted to somehow s.8 that one as well, for non-compliance with the CC rules, let alone for failure to maintain the licence.

 

Note to enforcement division - I am without a current licence, and I am failing to abide by the CC'ing rules of whatever variant; come and get me if you think you're hard enough! [sorry, but the catchphrase was irresistible].

The problem is they don't do 'Think outside of the box' training courses. It's all a bit of a muddle isn't it?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

The problem is they don't do 'Think outside of the box' training courses. It's all a bit of a muddle isn't it?

I'm thinking 'inside the wardrobe' training courses would be more appropriate.

[churchward]

I'm thinking 'inside the wardrobe' training courses would be more appropriate.

Is that the one where you get to see the lion and the wich?