C&RT Enforcement Procedure Document

[NigelMoore]

. . . when they were made a charity were they allowed to make rules . . .

 

 

Exceptionally, and against the House of Lords advice, CaRT were permitted to retain BW’s ability to promote secondary legislation as a way to impose new ‘rules’. That still requires a consulted stage of course, open to public scrutiny and objections as it passes through the Parliamentary process.

 

But for so long as the majority believe them to have the power to set enforceable rules outwith that process, they will not bother with it – they will continue to rely on their interpretation of the ’62 Act as superceding all and any later, incompatible [with their interpretation only] legislation. They know that there will always be enough members of the public taking the view that, as the authority, their say-so holds true.

[peterboat]

 

Exceptionally, and against the House of Lords advice, CaRT were permitted to retain BW’s ability to promote secondary legislation as a way to impose new ‘rules’. That still requires a consulted stage of course, open to public scrutiny and objections as it passes through the Parliamentary process.

 

But for so long as the majority believe them to have the power to set enforceable rules outwith that process, they will not bother with it – they will continue to rely on their interpretation of the ’62 Act as superceding all and any later, incompatible [with their interpretation only] legislation. They know that there will always be enough members of the public taking the view that, as the authority, their say-so holds true.

Thank you Nigel you can always be relied on to produce a sound and correct answer I remember you posting something about it ages ago or maybe it was someone else I think CRT do need to sort things out properly in one go instead of bits and bobs dribbling out piecemeal just a thought

 

Peter

[StarUKKiwi]

I am not sure about this when they were made a charity were they allowed to make rules, just a thought somewhere in the small print someone might have slipped it in. I am sure it would then be allowed in court when the judge made a ruling on the rules ha ha

 

Peter

But they weren't made a charity; they are a private company with charitable status - a whole different thing, no matter what they try and tell you

[kris88]

But they weren't made a charity; they are a private company with charitable status - a whole different thing, no matter what they try and tell you

Maybe you could explain the difference because I'm not sure?

Regards kris

[peterboat]

But they weren't made a charity; they are a private company with charitable status - a whole different thing, no matter what they try and tell you

probably but to be honest I dont care as I ex forces I always worked under the benign dictatorship system which for 99 percent of the people worked well the other one percent suffered from trying to bend break the rules/laws. Can you see the similarity here.

 

Peter

[Jerra]

Maybe you could explain the difference because I'm not sure?

Regards kris

I am sure others will know more about it and correct me but as I understand it the main differences are:

 

They don't have to have "charitable purposes" there is a defining list of what are charitable purposes e.g.

 

• relieving poverty
• education
• religion
• health
• saving lives
• citizenship or community development
• the arts
• amateur sport
• human rights
• religious or racial harmony
• the protection of the environment
• animal welfare
• the efficiency of the armed forces, police, fire or ambulance services

 

They get certain tax breaks as a charity would.

[DeanS]

So I finally found a new cruising area, on the Rochdale, above Rochdale......between Smithy Bridge and Walsden. It's currently taking me 35mins into Manchester each day by car, costing a pretty penny, but well worth it....unable to go back to my marina at the moment due to it turning into a no-go area, especially with all this hot weather. I went past New Islington Marina yesterday , and saw 6 yoof rocking a visiting boat, and then throwing the ropes off to let it float around the marina unaided. In the past other boaters would have shouted etc, but this year, the yoof have won....no one's bothered any longer... With my recent hassles visiting the Bridgewater canal longer than 7 days, the Rochdale (above Rochdale) and within 35mins drive to work, is the only bit of canal I can enjoy for the summer. I'm doing my best to spend 14 days...move a little...another 14days...move a little....but no idea if I'm in trouble with CRT or not.... I suspect not. Let's hope I'm left alone till I finally get the courage to return down the mountain in a few months. It's heaven up here.

[kris88]

Glad you have found somewhere to cruise your enjoying dean.

Regards kris

[cotswoldsman]

probably but to be honest I dont care as I ex forces I always worked under the benign dictatorship system which for 99 percent of the people worked well the other one percent suffered from trying to bend break the rules/laws. Can you see the similarity here.

 

Peter

Sorry Peter I can't. CRT are simply the guardians of the waterways. They don't own them they like all of us are subject to laws. I agree that at times they act like dictators by only consulting with groups of people that they appoint. In the meantime I pay £800 a year to be thought of as somebody who should be subject to ill thought out rules.

CRT simply think they are the guardians of the waterways for their own benefit and listen to badly informed people. I started the Boating Buddy scheme to try and get people within CRT to get a better understanding of boating in that respect it seems to have failed. I would have liked one of them to have cruised with me from Burscough to Stourton this year and actually see how they are taking the enjoyment out of what I consider to be a very special lifestyle.

Edited July 2, 2015 by cotswoldsman

[peterboat]

Sorry Peter I can't. CRT are simply the guardians of the waterways. They don't own them they like all of us are subject to laws. I agree that at times they act like dictators by only consulting with groups of people that they appoint. In the meantime I pay £800 a year to be thought of as somebody who should be subject to ill thought out rules.

CRT simply think they are the guardians of the waterways for their own benefit and listen to badly informed people. I started the Boating Buddy scheme to try and get people within CRT to get a better understanding of boating in that respect it seems to have failed. I would have liked one of them to have cruised with me from Burscough to Stourton this year and actually see how they are taking the enjoyment out of what I consider to be a very special lifestyle.

Serious question here John how are they taking your enjoyment out of the waterways I am not trying to get at you and I know you are a long time boater. Because for me nothing has changed in the 10 plus years I have boated

 

Peter

[cotswoldsman]

Serious question here John how are they taking your enjoyment out of the waterways I am not trying to get at you and I know you are a long time boater. Because for me nothing has changed in the 10 plus years I have boated

 

Peter

Firstly you have boater longer than me I am a fairly newbie at 10 years.

It is an accumulation of small things. Prolofication of 48 hour moorings where I used to be able to stay longer, I have lost count of the number of 48 hour moorings I have stopped at where myself and Stan were the only 2 boats for the duration. Places where we used to stay in the countryside that are now just overgrown. While they concentrate on bringing out new petty rules and regulations people are forgetting CRT's primary job maintaining the system that seems to be getting worse. I speak to a lot of boaters that are completely confused as to what they can and can not do. The complete reiance on outside contractors for example being stuck for 3 days above Walsall Lock waiting for a contract water pump, I find it amazing that the people charged with looking after our waterways do not own a water pump. A supposed policy where Long Term Mooring are supposed to be decided by the market not being sold because the reserve price is to high and then spending a fortune chasing boats with enforcement when many would be on moorings if they did actually allow the market to set the price.

[magnetman]

I think the problem is that CRT are "taking the piss" more than BW used to with regards to the 1995 act and its actual meaning. In 21 years on the cut I can not remember a time when enforcement was so "heavy handed" so perhaps this is what is being eluded to. When I got my first boat I am pretty sure I wasn't being logged Every few days by a man with a gps...

My theory is it all ends up just becoming a "problem" and gets sold off to asset strippers but that's another subject

[GUMPY]

sure years ago there was little enforcement because most folk played by the rules. However today is a completely different game

[Naughty Cal]

sure years ago there was little enforcement because most folk played by the rules. However today is a completely different game

Exactly. And the people who play by the rules now still have nothing to worry about.

 

It is those who try to bend the rules to suit their requirements that are feeling the pinch.

[cotswoldsman]

sure years ago there was little enforcement because most folk played by the rules. However today is a completely different game

I think years ago people just got on with their lives. I also think Social Media has a lot to do with making the problem seem a lot worse.

[Ronniesonic]

I think the problem is that CRT are "taking the piss" more than BW used to with regards to the 1995 act and its actual meaning. In 21 years on the cut I can not remember a time when enforcement was so "heavy handed" so perhaps this is what is being eluded to. When I got my first boat I am pretty sure I wasn't being logged Every few days by a man with a gps...

My theory is it all ends up just becoming a "problem" and gets sold off to asset strippers but that's another subject

 

Were at Hawkesbury Junction on the Coventry. We've had ZERO enforcement since April. Glyn moved to another area.

One boat moored on the same 7 day mooring for over 10 weeks & a few move moving back & forth 200yrds.

Glyn was a fantastic Enforcement Officer & we want him back! Very fair & conducted himself professionally.

[KenK]

Were at Hawkesbury Junction on the Coventry. We've had ZERO enforcement since April. Glyn moved to another area.

One boat moored on the same 7 day mooring for over 10 weeks & a few move moving back & forth 200yrds.

Glyn was a fantastic Enforcement Officer & we want him back! Very fair & conducted himself professionally.

The above just about sums it up, C&RT would not need enforcement if it was not for the actions of a few selfish individuals.

The minute enforcement stops the nonsense starts.

These people do not cause problems for C&RT they cause problems for other boaters.

 

Ken

[peterboat]

Firstly you have boater longer than me I am a fairly newbie at 10 years.

It is an accumulation of small things. Prolofication of 48 hour moorings where I used to be able to stay longer, I have lost count of the number of 48 hour moorings I have stopped at where myself and Stan were the only 2 boats for the duration. Places where we used to stay in the countryside that are now just overgrown. While they concentrate on bringing out new petty rules and regulations people are forgetting CRT's primary job maintaining the system that seems to be getting worse. I speak to a lot of boaters that are completely confused as to what they can and can not do. The complete reiance on outside contractors for example being stuck for 3 days above Walsall Lock waiting for a contract water pump, I find it amazing that the people charged with looking after our waterways do not own a water pump. A supposed policy where Long Term Mooring are supposed to be decided by the market not being sold because the reserve price is to high and then spending a fortune chasing boats with enforcement when many would be on moorings if they did actually allow the market to set the price.

I agree with all you say here its maybe slightly different the towpaths and banksides have been cut back trees pruned our old enforcement officer has gone sacked for being to good in some ways and maybe being to just. The few problems I have had with commercial boats on lock moorings they have sorted very quickly. The 48 hour mooring in one instance was changed up to a 72hour . Now lock breakdowns have decreased on our big locks but when they break lock keepers take longer to get there and might not be allowed to fix what they previously did.some of our management Kevin Tyson for one leaves a lot to be desired and the lack of real policy to sort problems strikes me as plugging dykes rather than well reasoned costed solutions and yes auctioning moorings rubbish just causes bickering when people realise they have been had. The other afternoon I reported granite setts that had been stolen by that evening hole filled so nobody had an accident. I think its down to areas how well things work are dont

 

Peter

I think years ago people just got on with their lives. I also think Social Media has a lot to do with making the problem seem a lot worse.

Greenie I wont do facebook, twitter or whatever

 

Peter

[Wanderer Vagabond]

As is often the case with these discussions on Enforcement it generates a lot of heat but very little light. Perhaps someone could explain to me what 'enforcement' looks like for someone who has a home mooring but is seen in another location several times over a period of weeks/months? I get the enforcement process for someone without a home mooring (which seem to me what the guidelines at the start of this thread were all about) who loiters around the same area, they will be advised to get themselves a home mooring and if they choose not to do so CRT will not renew their licence and then Section 8 the boat for not having a licence.

 

Now to someone who has a home mooring; he is seen in the same location over a period of weeks, what are CRT actually going to do? They have the option (I suppose) of trying to enforce the civil debt of an overstaying fee (any successes so far on that?) but they can't refuse to issue a new licence because he/she doesn't have a home mooring (because they have). So to reiterate the question, what is 'enforcement' actually going to look like?

[cotswoldsman]

As is often the case with these discussions on Enforcement it generates a lot of heat but very little light. Perhaps someone could explain to me what 'enforcement' looks like for someone who has a home mooring but is seen in another location several times over a period of weeks/months? I get the enforcement process for someone without a home mooring (which seem to me what the guidelines at the start of this thread were all about) who loiters around the same area, they will be advised to get themselves a home mooring and if they choose not to do so CRT will not renew their licence and then Section 8 the boat for not having a licence.

 

Now to someone who has a home mooring; he is seen in the same location over a period of weeks, what are CRT actually going to do? They have the option (I suppose) of trying to enforce the civil debt of an overstaying fee (any successes so far on that?) but they can't refuse to issue a new licence because he/she doesn't have a home mooring (because they have). So to reiterate the question, what is 'enforcement' actually going to look like?

Interesting questions and certainly beyond me and I would imagine any difficult for any Judge.

[alan_fincher]

Now to someone who has a home mooring; he is seen in the same location over a period of weeks, what are CRT actually going to do? They have the option (I suppose) of trying to enforce the civil debt of an overstaying fee (any successes so far on that?) but they can't refuse to issue a new licence because he/she doesn't have a home mooring (because they have). So to reiterate the question, what is 'enforcement' actually going to look like?

 

Well I find it harder and harder to get inside the heads of those in the Department of Tinkering at CRT, so I'm not sure I would like to guess it.

 

However, I'm supposing that for someone that has a home mooring, but CRT are unhappy with their use of the boat when not on it, that they would then refuse to issue a new licence not because you have no home mooring, but because (in their view of things) you are not complying with whatever the latest iteration of their Licence Terms and Conditions says.

 

So we are in my view back to the same old chestnut of what CRT are allowed to do in terms of what they put in T&Cs, and the fact you implicitly agree to the T&Cs each year you re-license the boat.

 

I wonder what would happen if instead of just accerp;ting what the T&Cs happen to say at the time you take out a new licence you instead returned your form and monies, but spelt out which bits you thought CRT had no legal right to have put there in the first place?

[jenlyn]

 

Well I find it harder and harder to get inside the heads of those in the Department of Tinkering at CRT, so I'm not sure I would like to guess it.

 

However, I'm supposing that for someone that has a home mooring, but CRT are unhappy with their use of the boat when not on it, that they would then refuse to issue a new licence not because you have no home mooring, but because (in their view of things) you are not complying with whatever the latest iteration of their Licence Terms and Conditions says.

 

So we are in my view back to the same old chestnut of what CRT are allowed to do in terms of what they put in T&Cs, and the fact you implicitly agree to the T&Cs each year you re-license the boat.

 

I wonder what would happen if instead of just accerp;ting what the T&Cs happen to say at the time you take out a new licence you instead returned your form and monies, but spelt out which bits you thought CRT had no legal right to have put there in the first place?

The T&C's are as worthless as the ones you get from currys. If you stand at the counter and swallow the guff, they win. If you start shouting and screaming the odds, their "numbers game" just takes the loss.

It's all about percentages and numbers.

[GUMPY]

They just wouldn't issue you with a licence if you didn't agree to the T&Cs

[cotswoldsman]

They just wouldn't issue you with a licence if you didn't agree to the T&Cs

That might well be correct they would then have to section 8 you and I guess that is when the fun would start in front of a Judge. I guess in that case it would depend on what part of the T&C you were ot prepared to agree to

[alan_fincher]

They just wouldn't issue you with a licence if you didn't agree to the T&Cs

Yes, I'm sure they would not.

 

However, it would be interesting where it went after that, although unless someone is going to bankroll me, I guess I wouldn't want to be the test case. This seems to be what their current strategy relies on, but I think it stinks.