I am beginning to be concerned

[Midnight]

"please continue your journey to avoid action for overstaying."

 

Which is fair enough had he been overstaying, The truth of the matter is he wasn't and when he informed them so they accepted it. The problem is with the logging system not the letter, which is a response to a real issue but perhaps not on the Rochdale - a tracker would benefit both sides but I reiterate 'optional'.

[GUMPY]

Firstly no such thing as a cc1. Secondly in the days they issued such things the first was a pre cc1 and thirdly Dean is not a ccer otherwise your post was very good

Oh and enforcement did not start until cc3

There changed that ....

[DeanS]

Perhaps the letter should be worded something like this.

 

Our logger walks the stretch of canal in the general area you're currently visiting, and logs boats every 14 days, however he isn't able to log the direction of boats, and he's not able to log anywhere else in the area, so there is a good chance that our system will mistakenly believe you haven't moved, when quite possibly you have. As this is a customer service mail and has nothing to do with enforcement of any kind, if you believe you haven't overstayed, please feel free to completely ignore it. Have a great cruise. Thanks.

[cotswoldsman]

There changed that ....

Yes about a year ago

[Southern Star]

"please continue your journey to avoid action for overstaying."

CRT's remit is to allow the canal network to be used for navigation, rather than permanent residence. They sent Dean a generic email, he responded to it, CRT accepted his explanation of his mooring pattern, where is the problem so great that you feel the need to amass a "fighting fund"?

[cotswoldsman]

CRT's remit is to allow the canal network to be used for navigation, rather than permanent residence. They sent Dean a generic email, he responded to it, CRT accepted his explanation of his mooring pattern, where is the problem so great that you feel the need to amass a "fighting fund"?

What fighting fund? I know nothing about that.

[Tony Dunkley]

CRT's remit is to allow the canal network to be used for navigation, rather than permanent residence. They sent Dean a generic email, he responded to it, CRT accepted his explanation of his mooring pattern, where is the problem so great that you feel the need to amass a "fighting fund"?

 

How does it feel to have just got yourself moved up close to the top of C&RT's soft target list ?

[Murflynn]

...... and so the over-reaction goes on ............... and on.

 

No boater should have to phone the enforcement officer, if they haven't done anything wrong. Simples.

in an ideal world, maybe not.

 

get real - this world will never be perfect, and phoning an enforcement officer is really no big deal.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Murflynn

[Midnight]

Yawn - time for bed said Zebedee

[cotswoldsman]

Yawn - time for bed said Zebedee

Yes it is getting that way I blame the crap on TV

[GreyLady]

But they didn't ask him to prove anything, he told them they were wrong, and they happily took his word for it.

 

Given the inadequacies in the logging system, along with Dean's own admission that he wasn't sure and that he might have overstayed, and that he would have overstayed while on holiday if they didn't give him permission, then the whole issue of "how" CRT handled it seems to be a bit of a storm in a teacup as, on the face of it, the matter at hand was dealt with swiftly, politely, and amicably, with a positive outcome for the boater concerned.

 

I do accept thought that there's a "why" issue, regarding whether Dean, as a boater with a home mooring, should have been subject to the same rules of movement as a continous cruiser. That seems to be a perfectly valid question, and a genuine concern, which I can understand people wanting clarity on.

 

I think though that in some cases, the "how" and the "why", are getting a little muddled up, which clouds the issues somewhat.

 

At least that's how I see it.

 

On this ocasion they took Deans word for it?

 

I bet you he has a marker on file.

 

Do you really think they always 'take somebody's word for it'???

 

Maybe not :-/ hmmmm

[Heffalump]

Yes it is getting that way I blame the crap on TV

 

I agree

 

 

Snigger

 

PS sorry about the corona in the photo my lens is scratched.

 

PPS do you think my TV will fit on a boat? Sirius question

Edited August 16, 2015 by Heffalump

[Emerald Fox]

 

Unless a very small part of the large license fee provided a small GPS Tracker, capable of sending an sms with location at predetermined intervals.

 

All husbands should be fitted with trackers so their wives can see when they're in the pub!

[Southern Star]

 

How does it feel to have just got yourself moved up close to the top of C&RT's soft target list ?

Perhaps you could expand on this? In the last seven weeks I've covered 360 miles and been through 204 locks, the majority single-handed. I'm now at Nuneaton on my way to London.

 

What makes you think I am about to become a CRT "soft target"?

[mark99]

 

It isn't even that is it, it's telling you that, on the basis of insufficient evidence, they don't know that you are not breaking the rules.

 

There-in lies the ridiculous position of CaRT logging.

 

"Please show us our logging is crap or not in this instance"

 

Can you imagine other enforcement agencies/depts working on this basis?

 

I can't, I would expect a system where you do not rely upon the "perp" id/target explaining he did not or did contravene.

Edited August 16, 2015 by mark99

[Emerald Fox]

It's staggering how so many on this subject seem to have gotten their knickers in a twist. To sum things up in my mind I'd say:

 

1. If I received such a letter I'd give CRT an e-mail or phonecall ASAP to get it sorted, expecting no problems, and knowing that it doesn't always matter if they're just checking, there has to be a bit of give-and-take, and large organisations can't always get everything 100% correct. I would bear in mind my original letter to CRT stating why we were applying for a licence - they seemed happy with our intentions then, and so should be now - providing we have stuck to what we said we'd do and haven't blatantly made abuses.

 

2. Tony Dunkley's comments are worth printing out and saving in the event that things get nasty. He seems to cut through all this nonsense with clarity.

 

It will be interesting to see, say in 5 or 10 years' time, how things have gone with CRT and their supervisions. They do seem to be damned if they do, and damned if they don't!

Perhaps in 10 years time CRT will be owned by Deutsche Bahn (Germans), or Virgin (Branston Pickle's Rocket Failures), or Abellio (the Dutch), or Serco (the Americans), none of these giving 2 hoots what boaters think. Perhaps Mondelez will be handed the canals on a plate, and CRT's offices shifted to Poland to save on expenses?

[TheBiscuits]

Hah! Greenie for Emerald Fox.

 

Are we ABSOLUTELY sure we want Serco or Capita or G4S running the canals instead of CRT?

 

The old adage of be careful what you wish for comes to mind.

[abraxus]

Some of the contents of the letter :~

 

" respect the movement requirements and cruise to a new place at least once a fortnight."

 

"We’ve been looking at our sighting records and they suggest that your boat ***** has been moored in the same general area for more than 14 days."

 

"give your local enforcement officer a ring"

 

"please continue your journey to avoid action for overstaying."

 

. . . . . . . . Innocuous ?? . . . . . not in the least, but a warning of impending 'enforcement' for non compliance with that not required by the law.

Yes, entirely innocuous within the context in which it was sent. I already said that there's a seperate issue of whether such rules should be applied to someone with a home mooring.

 

As such there are two issues. The first being how CRT handled the matter within the context of their interpretation of the rules, which was initiated with an innocuous letter, and then quickly and amicably resolved. The second issue being the validity of that interpretation of the rules, which I've already accepted is open to question.

 

My point being that CRT dealt with the matter at hand in a fairly innocuous way, but I equally accept your point that you feel there shouldn't have been a matter to handle in the first place.

[abraxus]

On this ocasion they took Deans word for it?

 

I bet you he has a marker on file.

 

Do you really think they always 'take somebody's word for it'???

 

Maybe not :-/ hmmmm

Maybe, maybe not. I was just commenting on the facts at hand, and so it's up to you to speculate on that.

 

If they're like every other large organisation on the planet, then whether they put a marker on someone's file, or take their word it, will be more about how that person interacts with them, rather than a matter of policy.

 

It's a flawed logging system, which they can either trust implicitly, and act accordingly; or rely on feedback and interaction before making any decisions. The fact that they do the latter seems to me to be a positive rather than a negative.

[magpie patrick]

Maybe, maybe not. I was just commenting on the facts at hand, and so it's up to you to speculate on that.

 

If they're like every other large organisation on the planet, then whether they put a marker on someone's file, or take their word it, will be more about how that person interacts with them, rather than a matter of policy.

 

It's a flawed logging system, which they can either trust implicitly, and act accordingly; or rely on feedback and interaction before making any decisions. The fact that they do the latter seems to me to be a positive rather than a negative.

 

 

It is so badly flawed they shouldn't even be using it.

[GUMPY]

Yes about a year ago

I meant I changed the wording of my post!

[cotswoldsman]

I meant I changed the wording of my post!

Ah ok but still no such thing as cc1 that letter replaces the pre cc1

[rufus2015]

I have told the enforcement officer that if they are going to send me passive aggressive letters and texts, then I am going to request they give me a regular update on if I have moved enough " in their opinion" or not, and how far and when and where I need to move to comply with their interpretation of the rules. I will be covered by written evidence, email, which they will have to provide, not me.

 

I had a big engine breakdown, and it took weeks to fix, I have a copy of their email that confirms this time is excluded from any records of CC'ing they have on me. Every time I need to overstay for any reasonable reason I will be doing this in future so they can never surprise me with a refusal of my licence renewal. I really don't want that as a surprise gift.

[MtB]

I have told the enforcement officer that if they are going to send me passive aggressive letters and texts, then I am going to request they give me a regular update on if I have moved enough " in their opinion" or not, and how far and when and where I need to move to comply with their interpretation of the rules. I will be covered by written evidence, email, which they will have to provide, not me.

 

 

And if they don't provide it (a racing certainty IMO), what will you do?

[Alan de Enfield]

........ I will be covered by written evidence, email, which they will have to provide, not me.

 

 

 

C&RT have to provide "nothing" to you.

According to the law (1995 Act) it is the obligation of the boater "to satisfy the board"

 

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

Your stance ("I have told the enforcement officer ....") would appear to be as aggressive as C&RTs