CRT enforcement

[Ricco1]

One of many threads on this; I know.

 

As someone who has come under the radar recently, so to speak, and having spoken to others in a similar position, I'm starting to draw some conclusions. And following that, an idea or two.

 

It seems to me that CRT are concentrating their efforts on new or newish boaters. Those who have 'played the system' for years seem to be left alone, mostly. I was told that a CRT employee confirmed this with something along the lines of: "we're concentrating on new boaters to prevent them adopting the behaviour of etablished boaters"

 

Another observation is that CRT appear to favour enforcement when the boater in question attempts to comply with the law/ 'guidelines' by altering their cruising patterns.

 

On the other hand those who take a bullish attitude; questioning CRT's interpretation of the law, tend to get left alone.

 

It seems therefore that CRT are going for a number of easy wins against boaters who are perhaps a little scared, a little vulnerable. These boaters don't have the confidence, time or means to fight their corner.

 

I think there exists the scope for an organisation to protect the rights of these individuals. An annual fee to be paid for the assurance that if a boater is bullied in this way, the organisation will use its expertise and resources to prevent the boater suffering an injustice.

 

I don't think an organisation like this exists, please correct me if I'm wrong?

[Guest]

One of many threads on this; I know.

 

As someone who has come under the radar recently, so to speak, and having spoken to others in a similar position, I'm starting to draw some conclusions. And following that, an idea or two.

 

It seems to me that CRT are concentrating their efforts on new or newish boaters. Those who have 'played the system' for years seem to be left alone, mostly. I was told that a CRT employee confirmed this with something along the lines of: "we're concentrating on new boaters to prevent them adopting the behaviour of etablished boaters"

 

Another observation is that CRT appear to favour enforcement when the boater in question attempts to comply with the law/ 'guidelines' by altering their cruising patterns.

 

On the other hand those who take a bullish attitude; questioning CRT's interpretation of the law, tend to get left alone.

 

It seems therefore that CRT are going for a number of easy wins against boaters who are perhaps a little scared, a little vulnerable. These boaters don't have the confidence, time or means to fight their corner.

 

I think there exists the scope for an organisation to protect the rights of these individuals. An annual fee to be paid for the assurance that if a boater is bullied in this way, the organisation will use its expertise and resources to prevent the boater suffering an injustice.

 

I don't think an organisation like this exists, please correct me if I'm wrong?

 

If that is correct it is wholly wrong.

 

All boaters who don't follow the requirements should be treated equally.

[nicknorman]

I think you could be right, but is it that surprising? Put yourself in CRT's shoes, why go for the difficult targets when you can send out your message loud and clear by going for the easy ones? Unfair? Perhaps. But human nature? Definitely.

 

CRT have certainly admitted that they are trying to prevent more people coming onto the system as CCers who don't know about the rules, or don't intend to follow them. I think that's a good thing.

 

But ultimately if you are compliant with spirit and letter of the law, do you have anything to worry about? If you have been treading on thin ice, perhaps it is just that your sins are finally catching up with you.

 

You are sounding a bit like the shoplifter who complains that the police should be catching rapists and murderes and not wasting time on a bit of robbery.

[Ricco1]

If that is correct it is wholly wrong.

 

All boaters who don't follow the requirements should be treated equally.

 

Well

 

I think you could be right, but is it that surprising? Put yourself in CRT's shoes, why go for the difficult targets when you can send out your message loud and clear by going for the easy ones? Unfair? Perhaps. But human nature? Definitely.

 

CRT have certainly admitted that they are trying to prevent more people coming onto the system as CCers who don't know about the rules, or don't intend to follow them. I think that's a good thing.

 

But ultimately if you are compliant with spirit and letter of the law, do you have anything to worry about? If you have been treading on thin ice, perhaps it is just that your sins are finally catching up with you.

 

You are sounding a bit like the shoplifter who complains that the police should be catching rapists and murderes and not wasting time on a bit of robbery.

 

Well I was thinking about others more than myself. I do feel great sympathy with those who have little or no way of protecting themselves and/ or lack the means/ confidence to do so.

[kris88]

"Sins"?

[nicknorman]

"Sins"?

Turn of phrase. I'm sure you "get it" really.

 

Or if you like, "infractions of the law".

[kris88]

Oh okay I thought you'd come over all religious, or know something about Richard parry we don't.

[MtB]

One of many threads on this; I know.

 

As someone who has come under the radar recently, so to speak, and having spoken to others in a similar position, I'm starting to draw some conclusions. And following that, an idea or two.

 

It seems to me that CRT are concentrating their efforts on new or newish boaters. Those who have 'played the system' for years seem to be left alone, mostly. I was told that a CRT employee confirmed this with something along the lines of: "we're concentrating on new boaters to prevent them adopting the behaviour of etablished boaters"

 

Another observation is that CRT appear to favour enforcement when the boater in question attempts to comply with the law/ 'guidelines' by altering their cruising patterns.

 

On the other hand those who take a bullish attitude; questioning CRT's interpretation of the law, tend to get left alone.

 

It seems therefore that CRT are going for a number of easy wins against boaters who are perhaps a little scared, a little vulnerable. These boaters don't have the confidence, time or means to fight their corner.

 

I think there exists the scope for an organisation to protect the rights of these individuals. An annual fee to be paid for the assurance that if a boater is bullied in this way, the organisation will use its expertise and resources to prevent the boater suffering an injustice.

 

I don't think an organisation like this exists, please correct me if I'm wrong?

 

 

NBTA surely. Isn't this exactly what they do?

 

An organisation offering help, advice and support for CCers who would prefer to stay put. This is how they come across for me anyway.

[Guest]

Well

 

Well what?

 

You asked for an opinion I gave one.

[Towcutter]

 

 

NBTA surely. Isn't this exactly what they do?

 

An organisation offering help, advice and support for CCers who would prefer to stay put. This is how they come across for me anyway.

I've just had a look at the National Baton Twirling Association's website and I can't find anything about canals or boats ;)0

[Burgiesburnin]

He who has not sinned fears not the knock on the door at midnight.

[cotswoldsman]

One of many threads on this; I know.

 

As someone who has come under the radar recently, so to speak, and having spoken to others in a similar position, I'm starting to draw some conclusions. And following that, an idea or two.

 

It seems to me that CRT are concentrating their efforts on new or newish boaters. Those who have 'played the system' for years seem to be left alone, mostly. I was told that a CRT employee confirmed this with something along the lines of: "we're concentrating on new boaters to prevent them adopting the behaviour of etablished boaters"

 

Another observation is that CRT appear to favour enforcement when the boater in question attempts to comply with the law/ 'guidelines' by altering their cruising patterns.

 

On the other hand those who take a bullish attitude; questioning CRT's interpretation of the law, tend to get left alone.

 

It seems therefore that CRT are going for a number of easy wins against boaters who are perhaps a little scared, a little vulnerable. These boaters don't have the confidence, time or means to fight their corner.

 

I think there exists the scope for an organisation to protect the rights of these individuals. An annual fee to be paid for the assurance that if a boater is bullied in this way, the organisation will use its expertise and resources to prevent the boater suffering an injustice.

 

I don't think an organisation like this exists, please correct me if I'm wrong?

You are correct but in all fairness to CRT they were quite open about this (new boaters) plan one was to stop the increase of boaters declaring no home mooring and then not moving. This does make sense to me no point in carrying on as before and just letting the numbers increase.

As for picking on easy targets I think this is down to local enforcement and how much of a quite life they want. I know boaters who have not moved for years in fact passed and talked to one yesterday when I said to him "I see you are still here" he said "yes 4 years now" as he was displaying an up to date licence can only assume if under enforcement it must be the very early stages. His licence is 1/16 so not even a 6 month licence

[mrsmelly]

One of many threads on this; I know.

 

As someone who has come under the radar recently, so to speak, and having spoken to others in a similar position, I'm starting to draw some conclusions. And following that, an idea or two.

 

It seems to me that CRT are concentrating their efforts on new or newish boaters. Those who have 'played the system' for years seem to be left alone, mostly. I was told that a CRT employee confirmed this with something along the lines of: "we're concentrating on new boaters to prevent them adopting the behaviour of etablished boaters"

 

Another observation is that CRT appear to favour enforcement when the boater in question attempts to comply with the law/ 'guidelines' by altering their cruising patterns.

 

On the other hand those who take a bullish attitude; questioning CRT's interpretation of the law, tend to get left alone.

 

It seems therefore that CRT are going for a number of easy wins against boaters who are perhaps a little scared, a little vulnerable. These boaters don't have the confidence, time or means to fight their corner.

 

I think there exists the scope for an organisation to protect the rights of these individuals. An annual fee to be paid for the assurance that if a boater is bullied in this way, the organisation will use its expertise and resources to prevent the boater suffering an injustice.

 

I don't think an organisation like this exists, please correct me if I'm wrong?

 

I am not sure this is entirely right. I have many many longterm liveaboard friends non of whom are forum users and non of them have ever mentioned to me problems with CART in any way. They do however mention increasing numbers of plonkers overnighting in idiot places and one good friend a liveaboard of well over 40 years now says bullish behaviour by some boaters is what he is noticing. Does this minority of boaters forum overstate any perceived issues?

 

Tim

[mayalld]

One of many threads on this; I know.

 

As someone who has come under the radar recently, so to speak, and having spoken to others in a similar position, I'm starting to draw some conclusions. And following that, an idea or two.

 

It seems to me that CRT are concentrating their efforts on new or newish boaters. Those who have 'played the system' for years seem to be left alone, mostly. I was told that a CRT employee confirmed this with something along the lines of: "we're concentrating on new boaters to prevent them adopting the behaviour of etablished boaters"

 

Another observation is that CRT appear to favour enforcement when the boater in question attempts to comply with the law/ 'guidelines' by altering their cruising patterns.

 

On the other hand those who take a bullish attitude; questioning CRT's interpretation of the law, tend to get left alone.

 

It seems therefore that CRT are going for a number of easy wins against boaters who are perhaps a little scared, a little vulnerable. These boaters don't have the confidence, time or means to fight their corner.

 

I think there exists the scope for an organisation to protect the rights of these individuals. An annual fee to be paid for the assurance that if a boater is bullied in this way, the organisation will use its expertise and resources to prevent the boater suffering an injustice.

 

I don't think an organisation like this exists, please correct me if I'm wrong?

 

Your assesment of the situation would seem fairly close to what is happening.

 

At a superficial level, the "NOT FAIR" reaction is natural.

 

However, comparisons with other people aren't always helpful.

 

Ask yourself the question; "Ignoring totally what other people do and don't get away with, am I being treated unfairly?" On that measure, the answer is "no, it's a fair cop".

 

CRT are faced with an increasing number of people who want to register as a CCer, but not actually move very far at all. The increase can't continue indefinitely, so they are tackling it.

 

There is no point going after the difficult an intractable cases first. They take up a lot of time and resource, and having devoted all your resources to them, you find that for every long-term major-league urine-extractor you deal with, three more have joined the club. By the time you get round to the new boaters, they have actually become entrenched in their behaviours.

 

So, what you actually do is target a proportion of your efforts on preventing people adopting bad ways in the first place. You never let people drift into those bad ways, and you rely on the fact that most people would rather NOT spend their lives in conflict with CRT. You rely on the fact that for the most part, early action will lead to future compliance. You enforce, knowing that if you leave somebody to become entrenched in bad ways, they will genuinely find it more difficult to comply when you get round to them.

 

That isn't to say that you ignore the long term problems or those who are very happy to be in conflict. You just don't put all your effort there.

 

If I were doing this;

• 50% of my effort would be devoted to getting newly non-compliant boaters back compliant within 6 months of them coming on radar, and I would want 90% of all new non-compliances to be fixed, or transfered as welfare cases, in this first-line enforcement. First line enforcement would be exclusively about encouraging compliance. It would have the tools of limited licences, but crucially wouldn't be looking at s8.
• 30% of my effort would be in second line enforcement, looking to deal with those who have come through first line without resolution (whether due to processes being exhausted or due to it becoming clear that the boater has no intention of complying), or have been referred back from welfare, or have been in first line repeatedly before. It would have the full range of options, and a target of compliance or removal within 18 months of entry.
• 20% of the effort is third line, dealing with anybody who is non-compliant for 2 years or more.

[matty40s]

Someone I know has had a nose bleed caused by CRT and its new T&C/enforcement this week.

He has come up Buckby Locks for the first time in almost 2 years and is suffering from altitude sickness.

[Mike Todd]

 

 

Your assesment of the situation would seem fairly close to what is happening.

 

At a superficial level, the "NOT FAIR" reaction is natural.

 

However, comparisons with other people aren't always helpful.

 

Ask yourself the question; "Ignoring totally what other people do and don't get away with, am I being treated unfairly?" On that measure, the answer is "no, it's a fair cop".

 

CRT are faced with an increasing number of people who want to register as a CCer, but not actually move very far at all. The increase can't continue indefinitely, so they are tackling it.

 

There is no point going after the difficult an intractable cases first. They take up a lot of time and resource, and having devoted all your resources to them, you find that for every long-term major-league urine-extractor you deal with, three more have joined the club. By the time you get round to the new boaters, they have actually become entrenched in their behaviours.

 

So, what you actually do is target a proportion of your efforts on preventing people adopting bad ways in the first place. You never let people drift into those bad ways, and you rely on the fact that most people would rather NOT spend their lives in conflict with CRT. You rely on the fact that for the most part, early action will lead to future compliance. You enforce, knowing that if you leave somebody to become entrenched in bad ways, they will genuinely find it more difficult to comply when you get round to them.

 

That isn't to say that you ignore the long term problems or those who are very happy to be in conflict. You just don't put all your effort there.

 

If I were doing this;

• 50% of my effort would be devoted to getting newly non-compliant boaters back compliant within 6 months of them coming on radar, and I would want 90% of all new non-compliances to be fixed, or transfered as welfare cases, in this first-line enforcement. First line enforcement would be exclusively about encouraging compliance. It would have the tools of limited licences, but crucially wouldn't be looking at s8.
• 30% of my effort would be in second line enforcement, looking to deal with those who have come through first line without resolution (whether due to processes being exhausted or due to it becoming clear that the boater has no intention of complying), or have been referred back from welfare, or have been in first line repeatedly before. It would have the full range of options, and a target of compliance or removal within 18 months of entry.
• 20% of the effort is third line, dealing with anybody who is non-compliant for 2 years or more.

 

And by the time they get to the more established cases, there will be a build up of experience and, potentially, case law, on which to base their action more accurately.

[mrsmelly]

Someone I know has had a nose bleed caused by CRT and its new T&C/enforcement this week.

He has come up Buckby Locks for the first time in almost 2 years and is suffering from altitude sickness.

 

[Tuscan]

The new enforcement regime regarding the length of licences being offered based on your previous cruising pattern came into effect for new/renewed licences from today. New boaters who have had a license (without a home mooring) from Jan 2014 are the ones that have been written to ( throughout the year) regarding their cruising pattern and potentially offered a short term license on renewal from end January this year I believe.

[cuthound]

Someone I know has had a nose bleed caused by CRT and its new T&C/enforcement this week.

He has come up Buckby Locks for the first time in almost 2 years and is suffering from altitude sickness.

Brilliant.

 

Laugh I had tears rolling down my legs

 

By the way Matty I have sent you a PM.

[onionbargee]

My concern is what legal means will you use to defend yourself if CRT decide to take action against you. Legal aid is not available for such matters, of do you have faith no enforcement officer would ever doctor the sightings to get rid of you ? the CRT complaints process end stage is they send your case to a random CRT manager , and tell him what to say, case closed.

 

I feel boaters are on shaky ground at the present time, and don't realise how vulnerable they are.

[mayalld]

My concern is what legal means will you use to defend yourself if CRT decide to take action against you. Legal aid is not available for such matters, of do you have faith no enforcement officer would ever doctor the sightings to get rid of you ? the CRT complaints process end stage is they send your case to a random CRT manager , and tell him what to say, case closed.

 

I feel boaters are on shaky ground at the present time, and don't realise how vulnerable they are.

 

Oddly enough, I have found that the Level 2 complaints process is anything but a rubber stamp exercise.

[gaggle]

Oddly enough, I have found that the Level 2 complaints process is anything but a rubber stamp exercise.

Tell us about it.

[jenlyn]

My concern is what legal means will you use to defend yourself if CRT decide to take action against you. Legal aid is not available for such matters, of do you have faith no enforcement officer would ever doctor the sightings to get rid of you ? the CRT complaints process end stage is they send your case to a random CRT manager , and tell him what to say, case closed.

 

I feel boaters are on shaky ground at the present time, and don't realise how vulnerable they are.

There is some merit to what you are saying, and anyone denying there is, is just being argumentative for the sake of it.

However, if you have no history of overstaying, and you genuinely have not taken the piss, Crt have, and will struggle to follow through. If your genuine, they will back down pretty rapidly.

I can see there are going to be a few issues, but in the long run, CRT will get a little more consistent than they probably are at the moment.

I think some of the issues coming through at present, is down to the individual EO taking it upon him-herself to interpret what their managers are telling them. That needs to stop.

[mayalld]

Tell us about it.

 

I had an issue, the NW Regional Manager brushed it off, and sided with certain vested interests. I took it to Level 2 and another senior manager completely overturned his decision.

[nipper]

Someone I know has had a nose bleed caused by CRT and its new T&C/enforcement this week.

He has come up Buckby Locks for the first time in almost 2 years and is suffering from altitude sickness.

 

There'll be ok, cus they will probably join the residents who are settling in, just above The Watford Flight!