I am beginning to be concerned

[Phil.]

I believe CRT had a very subtle warning about this a while back.

 

If that is correct, then I suspect they would be very very careful about instigating proceedings as once on this list it is seriously problematic to commence any legal action thereafter.

[NilesMI]

Just out of interest what law would they use if he did stay an extra week?

The power given to CRT to issue licences and charge fees subject to such terms and conditions as they see fit, is provided by s.43(3) Transport Act 1962.

 

Section 3.2 of the latest licence T&C says the licence does not allow a boat with a home mooring to be left on the waterway other than for short periods of up to 14 days.

 

CRT cannot use the 1962 Act to take action against Dean, but they could cancel or refuse to renew his license if he breaks the T&Cs. It would then be up to Dean to take action against CRT on the basis that they have behaved unreasonably in denying him a licence and/or that their T&C are unreasonable, discriminatory, disproportionate... etc. and therefore, unlawful. That is the legal position as I understand it.

[Midnight]

 

I'm not breaking any laws.

I will slightly ignore the new T&Cs for 3 days (which I haven't actually signed agreement on till my next licence renewal), if they force me to.

Hopefully I won't need to, as I've done the right thing, and asked their permission. (which I really legally don't have to), however I'm trying to be a good person

 

Dean if CaRT read this and no doubt they will, it could be deemed confrontational. Why bother will all this challenging stuff? If permission is not given in writing, I would just fill the water tank move to the next place, go on holiday then on return go back to Littleborough and refill. Unless of course you want the chew.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Midnight

[TheBiscuits]

And if Dean is *really* unlucky, then CRT might use their statutory powers to tow his boat back to his marina!

[Murflynn]

 

I'm not breaking any laws.

I will slightly ignore the new T&Cs for 3 days (which I haven't actually signed agreement on till my next licence renewal), if they force me to.

Hopefully I won't need to, as I've done the right thing, and asked their permission. (which I really legally don't have to), however I'm trying to be a good person

Laws were not mentioned in #570.

 

How can you 'slightly ignore' something?

 

My dear old Dad used to say 'the road to Hell is paved with good intentions'.

I have found that to be very true, in all walks of life.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Murflynn

[bassplayer]

Laws were not mentioned in #570.

 

How can you 'slightly ignore' something?

 

My dear old Dad used to say 'the road to Hell is paved with good intentions'.

I have found that to be very true, in all walks of life.

Probably the same road as ignoring bad intentions...

[cotswoldsman]

I think raising the money would be the easy bit, the hard bit would be determining which case(s) to support since it would seem unreasonable spending other people's money defending the indefensible. Of course you would get one side of the story, but sometimes in these sorts of cases the boater's version misses out some small but crucial detail. I somehow doubt you would be able to get CRT's side of the story in advance of a trial, and even if you did you would have to have a mini pre-trial trial, probably by social media. Tricky.

I agree and I have said I think Crowd Funding should be done on a case by case basis then people can decide if they wish to fund it.

[NilesMI]

The trouble with funding individual cases is not choosing which to fund, but that if you do manage to make a good case, CRT will just fold up their tents, quit or settle and move on. No legal precedent is created and the show continues as if nothing happened. The individual boater may benefit, but the boating community is in exactly the same position it is now.

 

Better to challenge CRT's behaviour by means of a judicial review of their licence conditions, guidelines and definitions.

[NigelMoore]

 

In obtaining a transcript, is it possible to find out if another party has obtained one?

 

If a transcript has already been made, one would expect the transcriber [if the same firm of course] to inform you of who held a copy.

 

If two parties applied, one soon after the other prior to completion, the costs would be split between them [and if a different firm had been engaged they would quickly tell you that the recording was out on another order].

 

Presumably, however, only the court could tell you whether any previous requests for the recordings had been made.

[bassplayer]

If a transcript has already been made, one would expect the transcriber [if the same firm of course] to inform you of who held a copy.

 

If two parties applied, one soon after the other prior to completion, the costs would be split between them [and if a different firm had been engaged they would quickly tell you that the recording was out on another order].

 

Presumably, however, only the court could tell you whether any previous requests for the recordings had been made.

Maybe CRT will split the cost with us

[NigelMoore]

Is the number of cases started and then subsequently halted by CRT known. If the number is very high I would think an application to have CRT ruled as vexatious litigants would be a good move. This would then prevent them from instigating legal actions without first obtaining court permission.

 

I only know of two, and those within the last two years - so while a nice suggestion, it is not a tactic that will play.

 

Besides which, to be branded a vexatious litigant demands more than just a withdrawal - there needs to be a minimum two strikes against you for bringing a case determined as being "totally without merit".

[NigelMoore]

. . . the hard bit would be determining which case(s) to support . . .

 

Most all cases would now be referred in the first instance to the Community Law Partnership, who have been specialising in these sort of cases [where legal aid was available].

 

They would very quickly determine for themselves whether a case deserved fighting, and if so, having private funding available where public funds were unavailable, they would be able to arrange professional representation.

 

The obvious choice for those administering a slush fund would be to refer all applicants for support to that firm of solicitors first.

 

No need for pre-trial by peers.

[Emerald Fox]

 

I've never used Bridge numbers

 

 

"We are not numbers, we have names!" say the bridges of the Calder & Hebble Navigation.

so...as long as you move from RD-001-something, to RD-002-something within 14days, , and are not logged their again without first being logged elsewhere (how would you know) , their computer wont spit a letter at you.

 

Is my thinking correct.

 

Am I correct in thinking your Minion looks a bit like R2-D2 ?

Edited August 14, 2015 by Emerald Fox

[NigelMoore]

The trouble with funding individual cases is not choosing which to fund, but that if you do manage to make a good case, CRT will just fold up their tents, quit or settle and move on. No legal precedent is created and the show continues as if nothing happened. The individual boater may benefit, but the boating community is in exactly the same position it is now.

 

Better to challenge CRT's behaviour by means of a judicial review of their licence conditions, guidelines and definitions.

 

It can be made impossible for CaRT to back off – you either bring the Claim yourself, or if they have got in first, file a Counter Claim. They could still back off from their own Claim, but they would then have to face you in court with your Counter Claim.

 

The Judicial Review path is becoming increasingly vexed, and [in my opinion] the Administrative Court is becoming more and more biased against complainers.

 

No legal precedent is set by County Courts anyway. In certain cases, such as mine and Leigh Ravenscroft's, the High Court can be claimed as the only one able to make the determination to begin with [the County Court simply does not have the jurisdiction]; in most, an appeal to the High Court would be necessary, whereupon THAT decision would set a precedent.

[Emerald Fox]

You are making it much harder to retain sympathy with your situation. Now you are actually over staying and it isn't going to help with being on CRTs radar either.

 

3 days 'overstaying' on a canal that hardly anyone uses. What does it matter? Dean pays his CRT licence and a whole barrowful of his money goes into supporting the canals one way or another.

This is Britain, not Germany. A bit of flexibilty and "country sense" is missing here, surely?

[DeanS]

 

Dean if CaRT read this and no doubt they will, it could be deemed confrontational. Why bother will all this challenging stuff? If permission is not given in writing, I would just fill the water tank move to the next place, go on holiday then on return go back to Littleborough and refill. Unless of course you want the chew.

 

I'm not trying to be confrontational at all. Father in law is old, and get's lost easily (he's boat sitting.) I've put the boat near the shops and station so he's ok while I'm away...I didn't plan it too well..but was in a rush not to overstay in Walsden I was going to spend some time on the summit but had a day off work, so decided it was best to move the boat 3 days early, but seem to have got my numbers wrong. ...but your point is very valid. I promise I will try harder.

[b0atman]

Between the devil and the deep blue sea if CRT made mooring areas out in the sticks 28 days then some would still overstay.

Dean explain to local office a need to overstay and get permission a relative boat sitting for a few days extra is probably a valid reason.

[Richard10002]

 

I'm not trying to be confrontational at all. Father in law is old, and get's lost easily (he's boat sitting.) I've put the boat near the shops and station so he's ok while I'm away...I didn't plan it too well..but was in a rush not to overstay in Walsden I was going to spend some time on the summit but had a day off work, so decided it was best to move the boat 3 days early, but seem to have got my numbers wrong. ...but your point is very valid. I promise I will try harder.

It only matters if you get "caught", and they decide to take some kind of action - same as for any rules, regulations, terms and conditions, and laws.

 

What's the worst they can do - probably slapped wrists, and a note on your file? so no big deal in the real world.

[Emerald Fox]

 

I'll be safely back in my marina all winter anyway which will reset their clocks I expect...unless their system retains last years naughtiness into the next and the next....

 

And keep well away from tunnels, they're now keeping an eye on you, and you could end up as a Boggart...

Edited August 14, 2015 by Emerald Fox

[churchward]

 

3 days 'overstaying' on a canal that hardly anyone uses. What does it matter? Dean pays his CRT licence and a whole barrowful of his money goes into supporting the canals one way or another.

This is Britain, not Germany. A bit of flexibilty and "country sense" is missing here, surely?

It doesn't matter to me at all. But it does seem to matter to Dean going by how he thinks he is hard done by and CRT are picking on him and more importantly it matters to CRT. Why give them more reason to keep an eye on him when with a bit of effort and planning it could be avoided.

 

What has Germany got to do with it?

Edited August 14, 2015 by churchward

[Emerald Fox]

Rules & regulations and 'obeying orders'. Waiting for the pedestrian crossing light to change to green at 2 in the morning despite the street being devoid of traffic. Taking everything far too seriously. I'd say this whole issue has gotten out of hand; if people are not happy with CaRT's silliness/over-zealousness then go round to their offices and have a damned good shout at those responsible.

You'd think the courts would have more important things to deal with.

Things just go round and round though, and even that's difficult to achieve in a country that rarely has a decent mobile phone signal in the year 2015 (and a half)!

Also, Britain's trains are filthy.

And the churches are locked. Very Christian.

[churchward]

Rules & regulations and 'obeying orders'. Waiting for the pedestrian crossing light to change to green at 2 in the morning despite the street being devoid of traffic. Taking everything far too seriously. I'd say this whole issue has gotten out of hand; if people are not happy with CaRT's silliness/over-zealousness then go round to their offices and have a damned good shout at those responsible.

You'd think the courts would have more important things to deal with.

Things just go round and round though, and even that's difficult to achieve in a country that rarely has a decent mobile phone signal in the year 2015 (and a half)!

Also, Britain's trains are filthy.

And the churches are locked. Very Christian.

Perhaps it is because folk won't respect things that the trains are dirty putting their feet up on the seats and generally leaving rubbish all over the place. Churches have ( I agree very sad that it is so) had to be locked due to the scum who will not obey laws of decency and respect of such places who otherwise would come into the church and vandalise or steal. That I submit is not very Christian or indeed basic decent human standards if you will.

 

The sad truth is the less respect for others and public property folk have the more rules are imposed where if people respect and care for the environment and take care not to damage or pollute it the fewer rules are needed. We need more people to take responsibility for taking care of what and who are around them rather than assuming it is someone elses problem to resolve.

[Emerald Fox]

Perhaps it is because folk won't respect things that the trains are dirty putting their feet up on the seats and generally leaving rubbish all over the place.

 

It is mostly because private companies such as Northern, Arriva, Virgin and the Dutch company that runs Scotland's trains are only interested in ripping off the public, and don't want to waste a penny having reasonably-paid and competent cleaners. Have a look under the seats - disgusting! Never seen a vacuum cleaner or a mop. I wonder how the Department of Transport allows this. (oh yes, silly me, they drive around in their new cars, they don't use the cattlewagons trains).

 

(otherwise I agree with the rest you say)

[Naughty Cal]

Rules & regulations and 'obeying orders'. Waiting for the pedestrian crossing light to change to green at 2 in the morning despite the street being devoid of traffic. Taking everything far too seriously. I'd say this whole issue has gotten out of hand; if people are not happy with CaRT's silliness/over-zealousness then go round to their offices and have a damned good shout at those responsible.

You'd think the courts would have more important things to deal with.

Things just go round and round though, and even that's difficult to achieve in a country that rarely has a decent mobile phone signal in the year 2015 (and a half)!

Also, Britain's trains are filthy.

And the churches are locked. Very Christian.

Are they?

 

We often visit churches when we are out on the boat as we like to see the architecture. Can't remember the last one we visited that was locked!

[StarUKKiwi]

Apparently another case was withdrawn/lost by CRT only yesterday? Or so I read