So What To Do Now?

[Jess--]

Kris, to use the car parked at the side of the road analogy you must also include that the road the car is parked on has parking restrictions over how long a car can be parked.

 

to follow the analogy through and using a 2 hour restriction for parking (in place of a 2 week restriction on the canal) you might expect a little leeway (say 2 hours 10 minutes) in normal use and possibly a lot of leeway in case of a breakdown (say 6 hours) but if you were to leave your car there for 36 hours you can expect a parking charge or your car to have been removed

[kris88]

Jess the car parking analogy doesn't work, which I was pointing out. If your car is taxed and insured you can keep it parked at the side of some roads(not car parks).

[MtB]

Jess the car parking analogy doesn't work, which I was pointing out. If your car is taxed and insured you can keep it parked at the side of some roads(not car parks).

 

 

But not your boat, so the analogy doesn't work.

 

Was that your point?

[Southern Star]

Jess the car parking analogy doesn't work, which I was pointing out. If your car is taxed and insured you can keep it parked at the side of some roads(not car parks).

But with all due respect, that's like comparing apples and cheese. Boats and cars are subject to different rules, and the fact that something may be possible to do with a car does not mean that it could or should be possible to do it with a boat, and vice versa. I do sympathise with your plight, but the simple fact is that the conditions of the licence require a boat owner to move the boat. I do hope you get something sorted out, but I fear you are putting yourself in an "I fought the law, and the law won" situation.

[kris88]

But with all due respect, that's like comparing apples and cheese. Boats and cars are subject to different rules, and the fact that something may be possible to do with a car does not mean that it could or should be possible to do it with a boat, and vice versa. I do sympathise with your plight, but the simple fact is that the conditions of the licence require a boat owner to move the boat. I do hope you get something sorted out, but I fear you are putting yourself in an "I fought the law, and the law won" situation.

If you had read what I wrote you would see I'm saying the same thing! The car analogy doesn't work

Do people not read what is written, oh yes they read it from there own point of view, ie read into it what they want. It was Daniel who used the car analogy I was pointing out it doesn't work. Which I thought I'd made clear but obviously not .

So just to be sure THE ANALOGY WITH CARS IS NOT RELEVANT.

Hope that clears that up for you.

It still remains if your car is taxed and insured you can keep it on the road.

[Southern Star]

To reduce it to the bare bones, as I understand it you are facing enforcement action because CRT are not satisfied with your cruising pattern. The only way you can resolve this is by changing your cruising pattern so that they are satisfied with it. Anything else is just "noise". I hope you sort something out, numerous people have offered to tow your boat to a different place every couple of weeks, I haven't seen any response to that suggestion?

 

Edit, typo.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Southern Star

[valrene9600]

If you had read what I wrote you would see I'm saying the same thing! The car analogy doesn't work

Do people not read what is written, oh yes they read it from there own point of view, ie read into it what they want. It was Daniel who used the car analogy I was pointing out it doesn't work. Which I thought I'd made clear but obviously not .

So just to be sure THE ANALOGY WITH CARS IS NOT RELEVANT.

Hope that clears that up for you.

It still remains if your car is taxed and insured you can keep it on the road.

[onionbargee]

The OP is lucky he's not looking at a court order, and seizure. If he's got no money for a mooring he can get housing benefit. If he can't use the engine he can get a tow. If he can't afford the spare part boating is not a viable lifestyle for him if he has no maintenance budget.

[kris88]

Another one who hasn't read the thread!

 

Regards kris

[lexicon]

Kris

Is there a reason you seem bot to be listening to anyone on this issue?

Having had a recent experience with crt enforcement you seem hell bent on making it worse.

If you think they are being unreasonable then I really cant see how? 11 months on the towpath?

I was broken down for 3 months and had several emails/calls from cry about moving and that is with a home mooring with cry.

I honestly think if you had asked/accepted the hel on offer via the forum which in my experience you only have to ask for. People would give up time and skills to help a boater in trouble.

[DHutch]

It was late, and maybe the apology could have been better, but my only real underlying point was that while sometimes it works, you cant always rely on being able to ignore rules just because you doht like them or disagree with the way they are being policed.

 

It's still the case that you cant restore a vintage car in the roadside if it doesn't have tax+not. The same way you can't it appears restore a boat on a cc agreement if you can't cc.

 

 

Daniel

[Machpoint005]

>> It's still the case that you cant restore a vintage car in the roadside if it doesn't have tax+not. The same way you can't it appears restore a boat on a cc agreement if you can't cc.

 

 

Daniel

 

You can't do either if you can't afford it. Brutal, but nonetheless true.

[larkshall]

I wish Kris would tell us his current situation with the boat, ie what engine?, what further needs doing, where he is at. the long circular discussion really ceased to be relevant after 50 posts or so.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

It was late, and maybe the apology could have been better, but my only real underlying point was that while sometimes it works, you cant always rely on being able to ignore rules just because you doht like them or disagree with the way they are being policed.

 

It's still the case that you cant restore a vintage car in the roadside if it doesn't have tax+not. The same way you can't it appears restore a boat on a cc agreement if you can't cc.

 

 

Daniel

I think that you car analogy is actually quite good since under this legislation http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/16/section/4you actually only have 72 hours to repair your car on the road, not nine months

Edited June 24, 2015 by Wanderer Vagabond

[Delta9]

I think that you car analogy is actually quite good since under this legislation http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/16/section/4 you actually only have 72 hours to repair your car on the road, not nine months

"page not found"

 

What about if the legislation said you could leave your car on the road 'for a reasonable amount of time'?

[DHutch]

I wish Kris would tell us his current situation with the boat, ie what engine?, what further needs doing, where he is at. the long circular discussion really ceased to be relevant after 50 posts or so.

There is info on this in other threads by the users, and I think a blog.

 

But its a full engine/gearbox/stearngear change.

 

Daniel

[Idunhoe]

I think that kriss's stand is made all the weaker (if that were possible) by the fact that at some stage the boat moved into a dry dock and some time later moved to it's current position. Therefore it would seem reasonable to assume that the boat is capable of moving and thus capable of complying with CRT's conditions, or have I missed something?

[DHutch]

What about if the legislation said you could leave your car on the road 'for a reasonable amount of time'?

And that's the crux of the matter, like so many other rules of the canals, the wording is deliberately open ended. Thus saves the time of writing in the details, and typically works in the boaters favour as I would say it has here, but it does also make it vauge, hard to work 'to the letter of the law' and hard to police without length dispute.

 

Daniel

I think that kriss's stand is made all the weaker (if that were possible) by the fact that at some stage the boat moved into a dry dock and some time later moved to it's current position. Therefore it would seem reasonable to assume that the boat is capable of moving and thus capable of complying with CRT's conditions, or have I missed something?

It was moved under tow I think.

 

But also, yes indeed.

 

 

Daniel

[Athy]

 

I think probability theory is a branch of maths rather than statistics, innit?

Probably, in theory.

[kris88]

Again thanks for all the replies.

Daniel I think the car analogy was always comparing apples with pears.

Anybody you thinks I have created this situation to "get something for free" or "to be able to stay in one place", because "I want to be here" is sadly deluded.

As I have stated before the only thing I feel I've got wrong, is underestimating the amount of work involved. I'm on the home stretch now, so will keep going until the boat is moving again.

The boat did indeed get poled into the nearest dry dock and out again. So yes it does float !

Regards kris

[Jamboat]

I think Kris should go into politics, he's pretty good at never answering even direct questions

Edited June 24, 2015 by Jamboat

[larkshall]

is there a blog link for you boat Kris?, Im after an old boat

[kris88]

I think Kris should go into politics, he's pretty good at never answering even direct questions

There's nothing in the forum terms and conditions that say I have to answer questions. Too many people think the internet is like a magic lantern. "They just have to rub it and the genie has to grant them there wish instantly .

 

Regards kris

is there a blog link for you boat Kris?, Im after an old boat

 

??? What are you saying, you want to buy my boat?

I'm working on a blog, along with everything else.

Regards kris

[larkshall]

There's nothing in the forum terms and conditions that say I have to answer questions. Too many people think the internet is like a magic lantern. "They just have to rub it and the genie has to grant them there wish instantly .

 

Regards kris

LOL fair point sorry to ask.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Indeed.

 

I have the feeling that it doesn't matter what any of us thinks. What matters is what Kris thinks, what CRT thinks, and who the judge decides is right.

 

Because that's where it's leading. The boat is going to be subject to a Section 8 court case and if Kris sticks to his guns.

 

In fact, I think it's highly unlikely that this will go that far.

Firstly, consider the time period before that can happen. Kris said at the start of this thread that his current Licence expires on 31 July, and the C&RT letter has indicated an intention to issue a 3 month licence, so that takes it to at least 31 October before C&RT can contemplate issuing a Section 8 Notice, in reality Mon 2 November ( 31 Oct is a Saturday) , . . . . some 18 weeks and 5 days from now. Add on the 28 day notice period in the S.8 process, and it's Tuesday 1 Dec before C&RT can, or will, instruct Shoosmiths to prepare the Court papers for a Declaration and Injunction. Realistically, the Court papers, with a Hearing date, would not be served on Kris until sometime in Jan 2016, following which Kris will be able ruin C&RT / Shoosmiths day at the Hearing by filing a Defence. This will result in C&RT not getting their Application 'rubber stamped' by the Court, and the Judge fixing a date for a Directions Hearing, at which no Judgment will be handed down, but the Judge will give directions on how the case will be heard at some future date.

By now, at least 2 or 3 more months will probably have passed, and Shoosmiths will be several thousand pounds better off, then in either Spring or early Summer 2016 Kris will be able to pull the rug out from under C&RT completely by re-applying for a Licence on the basis of his complicity with the requirements laid down in the 1995 Act, these being the sole criteria upon which C&RT can lawfully refuse a Licence on the grounds of non compliance.

The Licence Application and complicity with the 1995 Act will render the Injunction Application groundless and worthless, leaving C&RT with no option but to discontinue the action, and hand over a lot more money to Shoosmiths in the course of doing so.

Although they are not noted for their ability to acknowledge, or learn lessons from, their past stupidity, I think that even Parry and the brain dead hierarchy within the Enforcement Team may hesitate to go down this road again, particularly as Kris may well be just one of many who are going to find themselves and their boats under threat from this latest bit of C&RT nonsense.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Tony Dunkley