Minimum distance? The enforcement officers have it in black and white.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

serious question:

 

where does the law say that boats with a home mooring can't stay in the same place for more than 14 days? I'm aware that the license T&Cs say that but have never seen a waterways act or associated document which says it.

I suspect you already know the answer to this.

 

In the Bill that became the BW 1995 Act, BW asked for powers to limit mooring times by -

 

- Erecting notices.

 

- Being able to fine for contravention of mooring restrictions imposed by those notices.

 

Neither clause made it into the Act.

 

The only restriction that made it into the 1995 Act was the general one imposed on owners without a home mooring who are restricted to 14 days (or longer if reasonable) in one place.

 

No 14 day restriction was placed on those with a home mooring.

 

Edited July 5, 2015 by Allan(nb Albert)

[matty40s]

Oh my god is this new action from C&RT going to cause the end of the world

No I thought not.

 

but when someone receives an invoice for £100 for an "extended stay charge", when during that period, her and her boat have been photographed at a waterway partnerships event at an entirely different location, it does make you question what the bloody hell is going on.

Edited July 5, 2015 by matty40s

[Starcoaster]

Quite, I had never met anyone before who had received a charge as threatened.

[Ssscrudddy]

Well CaRT reckon they don't use volunteers for data collection or enforce ment.

I had this response from Peter Palmer re a paid position in the Braunston area

 

Volunteers are important to the Canal & River Trust but the enforcement team do not use them for Data collecting as we need a strict sighting regime to ensure full and accurate coverage, plus this post is tied in with a second member of staff.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Ssscrudddy

[Nightwatch]

Oh! That's okay then!

 

The chap I spoke to a week or so ago taking our boats details told me its for boat movement figures. Yeah! Right.

 

Maybe he just inputs the info and CRT do whatever they want to with this info. If it's just for movement details why name and number then?

[Tuscan]

Well CaRT reckon they don't use volunteers for data collection or enforce ment.

I had this response from Peter Palmer re a paid position in the Braunston area

Volunteers are important to the Canal & River Trust but the enforcement team do not use them for Data collecting as we need a strict sighting regime to ensure full and accurate coverage, plus this post is tied in with a second member of staff.

Quoting a recent CRT email "

"At the moment we are using volunteer mooring rangers and issuing extended stay charges routinely (where they apply) at.........."

[alan_fincher]

Well CaRT reckon they don't use volunteers for data collection or enforce ment.

I had this response from Peter Palmer re a paid position in the Braunston area

 

Volunteers are important to the Canal & River Trust but the enforcement team do not use them for Data collecting as we need a strict sighting regime to ensure full and accurate coverage, plus this post is tied in with a second member of staff.

 

If Peter Palmer seriously said that, he is in my view deliberately trying to mislead.

 

The enforcement team, specifically may not consider volunteer data gatherers to come under their personal remit, but very definitely CRT are using volunteers to gather data about boats at a growing number of sites, and Palmer will be very well aware of that.

 

What we are told is that those volunteers will not have a role in enforcement, only in data gathering, but from some of the stories now emerging some seem to be overstepping that mark. If a volunteer is telling you you may not moor somewhere, or giving you a deadline for moving on, then it my view they are either overstepping their remit, or CRT has misled us about how much they are supposed to get involved in.

 

It's hard to take this up weith CRT though given that much of what people are saying seems to often be anecdotal, rather than accurate personal experience, but if I personally found myself in these situations, I would certainly protest, simply because I have been in meetings where we have been assured volunteers will not be used in this way.

 

I'm increasingly disgusted by the way things are going - not the canal system I want to be boating on.

[Nightwatch]

How can we protest though? If they do not listen to individuals,then maybe the media ought or could be brought in, a boat rally? Mass writing to the chap mentioned a few days ago?

 

I don't know in all honesty. It's certainly getting to a 'them and us' situation. It's not just liveaboards either.

 

Any suggestions?

 

Martyn

[Tuscan]

How is a boater meant to distinguish between a CRT volunteer and a CRT employee ?

[alan_fincher]

Quoting a recent CRT email "

"At the moment we are using volunteer mooring rangers and issuing extended stay charges routinely (where they apply) at.........."

 

And of course they are recruiting volunteer rangers at sites that currently have nothing but 14 day towpath moorings, but where they seem keen to make a case for short stay times, and overstay charges. Berkhamsted is one of an increasing number of sites where this applies, but as far as I know, the volunteers only remit at these places is to record data. They should not be engaging boaters on any matter relating to stay times, or how far they need to go to have been considered to have "moved on". Only CRT employed enforcement staff should be doing this.

 

The wrong data is being recorded anyway, in my view. If you wish to establish a case for shorter stay times, or overstay charges, you need to record not what boats are at a site, but how many useable mooring spaces remain available at times of peak usage. It doesn't actually matter that (say) 50 boats are at a site, if there is always room for 20 more, does it? However they seem intent only on recording actual boats present.

 

There is an agenda here I still really can't get my brain around - they seem setermined to introduce further restrictions at locations where I can see no evidence oif need.

[cotswoldsman]

 

If Peter Palmer seriously said that, he is in my view deliberately trying to mislead.

 

The enforcement team, specifically may not consider volunteer data gatherers to come under their personal remit, but very definitely CRT are using volunteers to gather data about boats at a growing number of sites, and Palmer will be very well aware of that.

 

What we are told is that those volunteers will not have a role in enforcement, only in data gathering, but from some of the stories now emerging some seem to be overstepping that mark. If a volunteer is telling you you may not moor somewhere, or giving you a deadline for moving on, then it my view they are either overstepping their remit, or CRT has misled us about how much they are supposed to get involved in.

 

It's hard to take this up weith CRT though given that much of what people are saying seems to often be anecdotal, rather than accurate personal experience, but if I personally found myself in these situations, I would certainly protest, simply because I have been in meetings where we have been assured volunteers will not be used in this way.

 

I'm increasingly disgusted by the way things are going - not the canal system I want to be boating on.

I don't think CRT have proper control on their own staff based on some of the emails and pms I receive so having control on volunteers IMO is impossible.

 

We seem to be moving away from the original concept of volunteering that I support 100% and that is to help CRT make the system a better expierence for all users. So yes Lockie, maintance, visitor centres etc. Enforcement, Data collection etc. should be dome by paid employees who are accountable

[alan_fincher]

How is a boater meant to distinguish between a CRT volunteer and a CRT employee ?

 

Well if you want to challenge it, I think you can insist on seeing ID. Some of the volunteers wear CRT sweat shirts, but many do not, and are not really identifiable as such, unless challenged.

 

Mark, Will NABO be taking up with CRT what the total remit of a "towpath ranger" is, and what a boater should do when they exceed their authority? It seems to be becoming an increasingly hot issue, but not one easily taken up by individuals, particularly if they are to be fobbed off by answers like the one it is claimed Peter Palmer gave.

[Tuscan]

From an email I received from one of my NABO questions as part of the SE visitor mooring consultation.

 

My question

 

I understand that the moorings in question will be visited daily by " canal mooring rangers working on behalf of CRT" can you advise whether these will be CRT employees or volunteers empowered by CRT to take action on their behalf

 

 

The answer

·

 

"Hi Mark,

 

I've had some feedback now - we're already advanced with monitoring plans for Thrupp and Stoke Bruerne. We're costing on a worst case fall-back scenario which has us directly employing more data checkers using normal process. Its our great hope that by introducing an efficient and credible deterrent to overstaying, well build respect for the rules and that peer pressure as much as monitoring and enforcement will eventually become the sustainable solution.

 

Hope that clarifies it,"

 

Alan I will attempt to get further clarity

Edited July 6, 2015 by Tuscan

[alan_fincher]

I don't think CRT have proper control on their own staff based on some of the emails and pms I receive so having control on volunteers IMO is impossible.

 

We seem to be moving away from the original concept of volunteering that I support 100% and that is to help CRT make the system a better expierence for all users. So yes Lockie, maintance, visitor centres etc. Enforcement, Data collection etc. should be dome by paid employees who are accountable

 

Can't disagree with any of that.

 

But what can many of us acting as individuals actually do to protest, John?

 

Do we all need to be contacting Parry directly for example, on the basis that answers given throughout his organisation are inconsistent, and frequently ignored or subsequently contradicted?

 

Even if we do, "Three Locks" still springs to mind(!)

[Tony Dunkley]

How is a boater meant to distinguish between a CRT volunteer and a CRT employee ?

 

Simply ask their opinion of the people they're working for . . . . .

The volunteer will believe that they are working for a worthwhile cause, whilst the employee, with the exception of Enforcement Orifices, will believe that they are working for a bunch of complete pillocks.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Sabcat]

 

Simply ask their opinion of the people they're working for . . . . .

The volunteer will believe that they are working for a worthwhile cause, whilst the employee will believe that they are working for a bunch of complete pillocks.

 

I only know one person who works for CRT (maintenance) and he does indeed think he's working for a bunch of complete pillocks. He doesn't even have a drill....

[bassplayer]

How can we protest though? If they do not listen to individuals,then maybe the media ought or could be brought in, a boat rally? Mass writing to the chap mentioned a few days ago?

I don't know in all honesty. It's certainly getting to a 'them and us' situation. It's not just liveaboards either.

Any suggestions?

Martyn

It's worth remembering that the only threat CRT ultimately have is to remove your boat. The battle is played out by a few brave individuals in court. Maybe supporting these individuals is one answer, after all it could be one of us one day.

[jenlyn]

 

Can't disagree with any of that.

 

But what can many of us acting as individuals actually do to protest, John?

 

Do we all need to be contacting Parry directly for example, on the basis that answers given throughout his organisation are inconsistent, and frequently ignored or subsequently contradicted?

 

Even if we do, "Three Locks" still springs to mind(!)

Send your complaints to:

Sir Tony Baldry MP

Chair All Party Parliamentary Group for the Waterways

House of Commons

London

SW1AA 0AA

As has already been posted.

I have over the last 12 months built a dossier with pictures and statements etc on the whole subject. (maintenance, gardening, enforcement etc).

I've attempted to build it from solid facts, and will in due course send it to the above person.

It has been difficult, because many don't wish to be named obviously for fear of repercussions, (which in itself is pretty ridiculous, but understandable).

However, at some point, perhaps someone may take on board what canal and river trust are doing, and hopefully ask for explanation.

[kris88]

If the volunteer is in uniform, it will all be new. They will have all the correct kit. Also on the blue shirt it says volunteer on the left sleeve.

If your in need if a life jacket by the way a good way to get one would be to volunteer. You will be issued with all the kit, first time you turn up.

You don't need to go again.

Regards kris

[NigelMoore]

It's worth remembering that the only threat CRT ultimately have is to remove your boat.

 

The thing is, it is NOT the only “threat” that they have; it is the simply the only one they care to employ. It suits their taste, and that of the boating onlookers who believe themselves invulnerable because they “obey the few simple to understand rules”.

 

If we can once get the Courts to recognise what s.8 is designedly intended for, and so put an end to its misuse, then perhaps CaRT will begin enforcement of the essential laws by the lawful means available to them.

 

I am not particularly sanguine of that possibility, but it needs to be fought for.

[cotswoldsman]

 

Can't disagree with any of that.

 

But what can many of us acting as individuals actually do to protest, John?

 

Do we all need to be contacting Parry directly for example, on the basis that answers given throughout his organisation are inconsistent, and frequently ignored or subsequently contradicted?

 

Even if we do, "Three Locks" still springs to mind(!)

Alan I just wish I had the answer. From my own experience of trying to work with Parry in a meaningful way it is very short term, as soon as you disagree you are put on the norty step and ignored, conversations stops. CRT and Parry seem to have an agenda that they know best and will listen to those that agree and that seems to be the IWA and the various groups that they appoint. The Association meetings to me seem a complete waste of time as CRT set the agenda and do not take onboard any valid suggestions. I do not blame the more vocal associations as they try very hard but are outnumbered by CRT and their puppets.

[bassplayer]

The thing is, it is NOT the only “threat” that they have; it is the simply the only one they care to employ. It suits their taste, and that of the boating onlookers who believe themselves invulnerable because they “obey the few simple to understand rules”.

 

If we can once get the Courts to recognise what s.8 is designedly intended for, and so put an end to its misuse, then perhaps CaRT will begin enforcement of the essential laws by the lawful means available to them.

 

I am not particularly sanguine of that possibility, but it needs to be fought for.

What else can CRT physically do other than eventually remove your boat? Can an individual be arrested for not complying with rules which CRT make up? Can they even be arrested for not complying with the 14 day law or bona fide navigation?

[Dave_P]

I suspect you already know the answer to this.

 

In the Bill that became the BW 1995 Act, BW asked for powers to limit mooring times by -

 

- Erecting notices.

 

- Being able to fine for contravention of mooring restrictions imposed by those notices.

 

Neither clause made it into the Act.

 

The only restriction that made it into the 1995 Act was the general one imposed on owners without a home mooring who are restricted to 14 days (or longer if reasonable) in one place.

 

No 14 day restriction was placed on those with a home mooring.

 

I thought I knew the answer and you confirmed it. It does seem strange that the vast majority of boaters think the 14 day rule is enforced by law for all boaters (I used to). Clearly CRT have a vested interest in encouraging all boaters to comply, which explains their 'unlawful' terms & conditions.

[Doodlebug]

What else can they do? Well if they decide they dont want you on your boat - and dont want to go through court to get your boat taken from you then they simply refuse you a licence.

 

Not sure of the legality of that?

 

Lets say they refuse you a licence and the reasons for doing so are based on inaccurate facts has have been mentioned above.

 

What can you do? Can you refuse until they take you to court. Refusing to give you a licence then taking you to court for not having one seems alittle unfair - though I expect the court would find in your favour.

 

More importantly:

 

 

No one wants to challenge CRT or see what they might do, because their boat is their home. No one wants to take the risk of loosing their boat. Yet we can't all get together because of the nature of being on a boat.

[bassplayer]

..because many don't wish to be named obviously for fear of repercussions....

You can't sink or confiscate a house!

 

Thanks for the info BTW.