I am beginning to be concerned

[cotswoldsman]

 

sometimes you confuse me

One minute you bite into this info I share on the forum...and it fuels your current anger at CRT, and next minute you turn your anger at me, because I refuse to take CRT to task, while I've quite clearly said I may do, once I have log records etc. This thread is a part of my own world...it's all real life stuff..it happened just this afternoon...only a few hours ago...it's all very real...but forgive me for sharing that I received such an email..I thought it would be of interest to some...and to you.

Anger at CRT yes

ANGER AT YOU NO just frustration

[DeanS]

Dean, you knew you were going to take the pee this summer. You even did a thread on it. You played a game and lost.

 

I have no idea what you are on about.

[DeanS]

 

 

You illustrate there are two separate levels to this.

 

1) My view that a licence must be issued if the terms of 17, 3, C, (i) are met, even if the standard T&Cs are not met. The harder line. A judicial review may be necessary to force a licence to be issued.

 

2) Acceptance of the CRT licence T&Cs, in which case the squabble is over whether or not Dean is meeting them. The softer line. In this case a record of Dean's movements will be essential in his effort to convince CRT his data is right and theirs is wrong.

 

Telling them he's going on holiday, his job is local, there are lots of locks simply won't cut it!

 

although it seems to frustrate John (I think), my plan is to simply go on holiday, come back, and go back to my marina as was my original plan, and then after some time, go cruise again...I'm not "scurrying back" anywhere...I'm continuing to do what I feel is within my boating rights, knowing that I'll be safe back in my marina anyway for a few months over winter which will reset the clock.....yes I don't like conflict, so will try to avoid it, mainly because I don't really have a lot of spare time in my life....I'm not seeking any agreement from anyone...I have always gone out and done what I feel is best......yes I might share more on the forum than I should...but that's not the end of the world I don't think.....I meet a lot of people on the canals...who know me from the forum...mainly because of the purple boat...

[Jim Riley]

In deans position I would have made the journey he made in good faith, thinking that it would fulfill even the new T&C's, not wanting any 5h1t,travelling over 4 different boroughs, 2 counties, many neighborhoods and parishes, a few miles between each stop of no more than 14 days, a summer trip out and back from a home mooring. No p155 taking intended. Then the non compliance email arrives, but no clear specification of what compliance is, how far between stops. Who wouldn't despair! I wouldn't want to be the guinea pig (or more likely the doomed smoking beagle) for the test case. You have my sympathy Dean. Boat on.

[MtB]

Given you seem steadfastly set against accepting any advice, and seem to have already decided what you're going to do, i.e. try and engage CRT in some email debate over it, what IS the point of this thread?

[jenlyn]

Given you seem steadfastly set against accepting any advice, and seem to have already decided what you're going to do, i.e. try and engage CRT in some email debate over it, what IS the point of this thread?

Totally agree.

[Jim Riley]

Given you seem steadfastly set against accepting any advice, and seem to have already decided what you're going to do, i.e. try and engage CRT in some email debate over it, what IS the point of this thread?

A warning to us all of the state of play with cart?

[DeanS]

Given you seem steadfastly set against accepting any advice

 

sorry if something I said gave you that idea..All I'm saying is that my holiday etc already just a few days away, I'm leaving it well alone, and then carrying on with my original plans....but I have already sent an email asking for my logs....which I'll be happy to share if I receive them...the last thing I need is anything escalating while I'm away......I always try to take advice....I didn't really post the thread asking for advice..(although it's very welcome),...I was just sharing that I got a letter...

[Jim Riley]

While Dean has been over the hill and back other boats have remained on moorings in Littleborough, I'm curious whether they have had similar mail, one at least frequents the forum now and again. And yes I know all about "he was speeding too ocifer" arguments etc, but it does contribute to the despair felt.

[MtB]

A warning to us all of the state of play with cart?

 

Good point!

[mark99]

There has to be a predetermined point to a thread?

 

The thread is a discourse leading to a point perhaps.

 

I see no devils apart from highlighting a non fit for purpose dumb recording system.

Edited August 11, 2015 by mark99

[Ricco1]

Harassment can be either a civil or criminal offence. I've just been thinking: I wonder if anyone has tried something along these lines:

 

Send a letter addressed to the individual who sent the 'non compliance' letter to you. Make it clear that you are not breaking any rules and that you consider that he/ she is harassing you, and that harassment is a criminal offence in law. Advise the individual concerned that if you receive further letters whilst keeping within the law that you will make a formal complaint to the police, naming the individual concerned.

 

I know the police would tend not to be interested but as far as I know, the police are obliged to record all complaints. If this were publicised it wouldn't be great p.r. for CRT.

[chubby]

Youre right to not get involved in an escalation with CRT Dean . Im not sure anyones engouraging an escalation as such & conflict is rarely constructive .

 

My comments have been meant that instead of requesting CRT s logging details etc , waiting for them , then emailing back to say this or thats incorrect etc etc etc you just send them a reply stating exactly where you were on such a date until ...xxxx date .

Remove the ambiguity , confidently tell them where you were & when , remind them of the illegality of thier actions , and state your belief that uou have complied with your obligations .

Dont ask them , tell them .

Otherwise when uou repeat the same cruising pattern next time & you get the letter again you won t have a leg to stand on .

Its going to erode your chosen lifestyle Dean . Its not about conflict , its not about being a legal guinea pig its not going to go that far is it , but it is about standing up for your beliefs and playing your part in reminding CRT that they are overstepping thier authority .

[abraxus]

Harassment can be either a civil or criminal offence. I've just been thinking: I wonder if anyone has tried something along these lines:

 

Send a letter addressed to the individual who sent the 'non compliance' letter to you. Make it clear that you are not breaking any rules and that you consider that he/ she is harassing you, and that harassment is a criminal offence in law. Advise the individual concerned that if you receive further letters whilst keeping within the law that you will make a formal complaint to the police, naming the individual concerned.

 

I know the police would tend not to be interested but as far as I know, the police are obliged to record all complaints. If this were publicised it wouldn't be great p.r. for CRT.

 

I don't know if you read the letter quoted in the OP, but it went along the lines of saying our records suggest that you might not have moved, and went on to say "If this is not the case, or you have any questions please give your local enforcement officer a ring so you can have a chat to them about your circumstances."

 

A pain in the arse? Yes. Incompetence? Maybe. But hardly harassment. Writing to them to suggest so would likely see him branded a paranoid looney.

 

The simplest thing to do is accept their invitation to contact them and have a chat about it. Any reaction required can be determined after the outcome of the aforementioned "chat".

[Guest]

I don't know if you read the letter quoted in the OP, but it went along the lines of saying our records suggest that you might not have moved, and went on to say "If this is not the case, or you have any questions please give your local enforcement officer a ring so you can have a chat to them about your circumstances."

A pain in the arse? Yes. Incompetence? Maybe. But hardly harassment. Writing to them to suggest so would likely see him branded a paranoid looney.

The simplest thing to do is accept their invitation to contact them and have a chat about it. Any reaction required can be determined after the outcome of the aforementioned "chat".

This is the most sensible post in this thread so far....

[Tony Dunkley]

The only way to respond to the letter you've had is to tell C&RT, in writing, that both this and any future communications along similar lines will be filed for future reference, and that you have no intention of regulating the keeping and use of your boat on their waters over and above that which you are required to do under the 1995 Act and the current General Canal Byelaws.

Any response lacking sufficient clarity as to your understanding of the fact that they are attempting to impose terms and conditions well beyond their statutory powers will only encourage them to persist with their attempts, both against you and numerous others.

This nonsense will not stop unless sufficient numbers of boaters make it quite clear to C&RT that it will neither be accepted nor complied with.

[Midnight]

 

I don't know if you read the letter quoted in the OP, but it went along the lines of saying our records suggest that you might not have moved, and went on to say "If this is not the case, or you have any questions please give your local enforcement officer a ring so you can have a chat to them about your circumstances."

 

A pain in the arse? Yes. Incompetence? Maybe. But hardly harassment. Writing to them to suggest so would likely see him branded a paranoid looney.

 

The simplest thing to do is accept their invitation to contact them and have a chat about it. Any reaction required can be determined after the outcome of the aforementioned "chat".

 

 

 

This is the most sensible post in this thread so far....

 

I agree what's the big problem here?

[Tony Dunkley]

 

I don't know if you read the letter quoted in the OP, but it went along the lines of saying our records suggest that you might not have moved, and went on to say "If this is not the case, or you have any questions please give your local enforcement officer a ring so you can have a chat to them about your circumstances."

 

A pain in the arse? Yes. Incompetence? Maybe. But hardly harassment. Writing to them to suggest so would likely see him branded a paranoid looney.

 

The simplest thing to do is accept their invitation to contact them and have a chat about it. Any reaction required can be determined after the outcome of the aforementioned "chat".

 

What do you think there is to gain from talking to a bloody minded collection of people who have made it abundantly clear that they are determined to impose their unlawful and unreasonable requirements on whoever is willing to accept them.

History is awash with accounts of negotiation and reasoning failing to persuade the dictatorially minded to change their minds.

[TheBiscuits]

 

What do you think there is to gain from talking to a bloody minded collection of people who have made it abundantly clear that they are determined to impose their [...] unreasonable requirements on whoever is willing to accept them.

History is awash with accounts of negotiation and reasoning failing to persuade the dictatorially minded to change their minds.

Most CWDF threads expertly summarised there!

 

Pump out was it?

[Midnight]

 

What do you think there is to gain

 

Answers

[abraxus]

 

What do you think there is to gain from talking to a bloody minded collection of people who have made it abundantly clear that they are determined to impose their unlawful and unreasonable requirements on whoever is willing to accept them.

History is awash with accounts of negotiation and reasoning failing to persuade the dictatorially minded to change their minds.

 

Well that depends on what unreasonable terms and conditions you're referring to.

 

He doesn't have to negotiate anything, he just needs to point out that their records are inaccurate. The letter stated, in quite mild terms, that CRT believed that Dean didn't move for 14 days, which is a condition of the licence he applied for and accepted. Nothing that Dean has said so far suggests that he has a problem with those terms and conditions, and only that he disputes their record keeping and the he did in fact comply.

 

As such, he has nothing to fight as far as terms and conditions are concerned, and only needs to clarify that he wasn't in breach of them.

 

I get that some may not agree with the terms and conditions in the licence, which is fair enough, but that isn't Dean's problem, and so whether he wishes to be a stalking horse, to pursue the wider political agenda of others, is a matter for Dean to decide for himself.

Edited August 11, 2015 by abraxus

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Answers

 

In this situation answers in themselves will be meaningless in the absence of the desired outcome, and C&RT's answers are wholly predictable, if only for the reason that they announced their intentions to act beyond their lawful powers sometime ago.

[bigste]

Whilst I currently live in Spain and only occasionally use the canals, I will in a year or two be 24/7 on the canals. I'll have a home mooring but do intend to move a lot. I relish the day that cart send me a move or else letter. I have enough bottle and finance to challenge them and I will. I am really upset at the way they have gone since the days of BWB. CART do seem to have an agenda re boaters. It won't work with me, I know the rules and CART obviously don't. Apart from that they have started a monitoring system that is not fit for purpose and results in the harassment of bone-fide boaters.

[MtB]

Writing polite letters to boaters is not 'harassment'.

 

Claiming such is silly hyperbole that just damages your case.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Well that depends on what unreasonable terms and conditions you're referring to.

 

He doesn't have to negotiate anything, he just needs to point out that their records are inaccurate. The letter stated, in quite mild terms, that CRT believed that Dean didn't move for 14 days, which is a condition of the licence he applied for and accepted. Nothing that Dean has said so far suggests that he has a problem with those terms and conditions, and only that he disputes their record keeping and the he did in fact comply.

 

As such, he has nothing to fight as far as terms and conditions are concerned, and only needs to clarify that he wasn't in breach of them.

 

I get that some may not agree with the terms and conditions in the licence, which is fair enough, but that isn't Dean's problem, and so whether he wishes to be a stalking horse, to pursue the wider political agenda of others, is a matter for Dean to decide for himself.

 

That isn't what the letter said.

Quote from the letter, from the OP :~

" 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."

Staying in the same general area is not forbidden for any boat with a mooring, therefore the dispute is concerning T & C's, specifically C&RT's latest unlawful ones.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Tony Dunkley