canal and river trust stating none sighting

[abraxus]

I'm speechless! Could you explain how an inaccurate meter reading could lead to someone losing their home?

I don't recall suggesting it did. I wasn't comparing outcomes, just the practical mechanics. It's not CRT's responsibility to provide housing, that's up to the homeowner who, if he chooses to base his home on a canal, is obliged to adhere to certain terms and conditions.

[abraxus]

Ummm you call that comparing like for like or have things changed since I moved onto my boat. Do they cut you off based on an estimate. When I lived in my house it was benificial to give a correct reading as the estimate was always more than the actual. Or do they now say we don't think you are using enough gas so we are going to cut you off unless you prove otherwise

No, but they'll cut you off if you either don't meet their conditions (ie pay the estimated bill), or provide evidence that the estimate is wrong. The product may be different, but the analogy is the same.

[cotswoldsman]

No, but they'll cut you off if you either don't meet their conditions (ie pay the estimated bill), or provide evidence that the estimate is wrong. The product may be different, but the analogy is the same.

So just pay the estimate. Don't see the comparison

[Guest]

Not flawed as such, more incomplete.

 

When I get a gas bill, based on a "estimated" reading, it may not reflect my actual usage, and is simply an assumption based on my past usage. Of course I could feel outraged and write to my MP, and demand that they send a meter reader every day. Alternatively I could take up their offer of taking my own reading and submitting it, so they can adjust their records (and my bill) accordingly. It's the same here.

 

That is the reality of sampling systems, which are based on a balance of cost and effectiveness, and so they ocassionally require a bit of user input/feedback to keep them on track. It's not malicious, it's just a practical reality.

Have it your way; it was not me who said it was flawed. Either way the evidence is inadmissible. Similar to a gas meter if it were proved to be inaccurate.

[abraxus]

I'm despairing now. Another ludicrous comparison. If I went into a benefits office seeking sick pay and it was refused, I wouldn't then end up in court for it!

 

A better example would be: I apply for sick pay. I have a doctors certificate showing that I'm not fit for work. The benefits office then sends someone to come and spy on me on a daily basis to make sure I don't get any better. That's the principle on which CRT are enforcing.

Speaking of ludicrous comparisons.

 

That's no example at all, as you're providing evidence in the form of a doctors certificate, and yet saying that a boater has to provide no evidence at all, and should simply be assumed to be compliant.

 

If you went into a benefits office and were refused due to no evidence, then you wouldn't blame the benefits office either, and yet you're blaming CRT for requiring evidence.

 

Nor would you end up in court for not supplying CRT with with evidence, you'd simply be refused a licence, in exactly the same way you'd be refused benefits.

 

My comparison stands.

[valrene9600]

My gas meter is full of bells and whistles. It just gave me a printout of my boat sightings. It seems I have not been sighted since kensal green gas works on the Paddington arm in 2013.

Does anyone know of a gas works canal side towards Birmingham that I can get sighted at. Would hate to lose my continuous gassing licence.

[abraxus]

So just pay the estimate. Don't see the comparison

I agree, but in this case, the estimate is that CRT think that the boaters usage warrants that he should take a home mooring, unless he provides his own reading to the contrary.

 

That's the comparison.

Edited August 21, 2015 by abraxus

[ditchcrawler]

 

A better example would be: I apply for sick pay. I have a doctors certificate showing that I'm not fit for work. The benefits office then sends someone to come and spy on me on a daily basis to make sure I don't get any better.

That's what they do, and they video you for evidence that you are fit

[Dave_P]

Speaking of ludicrous comparisons.

 

That's no example at all, as you're providing evidence in the form of a doctors certificate, and yet saying that a boater has to provide no evidence at all, and should simply be assumed to be compliant.

 

If you went into a benefits office and were refused due to no evidence, then you wouldn't blame the benefits office either, and yet you're blaming CRT for requiring evidence.

 

Nor would you end up in court for not supplying CRT with with evidence, you'd simply be refused a licence, in exactly the same way you'd be refused benefits.

 

My comparison stands.

It doesn't. The boater in question here just wants to be left alone. They aren't trying to 'get something'. If they were looking for a rebate on their licence then your comparison would be excellent. But they aren't, so it isn't.

[mayalld]

 

But the point remains that CRT has no evidence that the boater was not complying, neither does it have any evidence that he was.

In other words, nobody can tell, so there is no alternative but to accept the word of the boater. As far as I can see, we don't even have that in this particular case!

CRT doesn't have sufficient information as it stands, so it has as you say, little alternative but to accept the word of the boater (with certain caveats)

 

The first caveat is that they don't have to accept "I am compliant", they can require the boater to explain HOW he is compliant.

 

The second is that if the boater claims to have been in one place, but the sparse log data says he was somewhere else, they need to establish whether there is a data error in logging, or whether the boaters account of his cruising is false

[abraxus]

Have it your way; it was not me who said it was flawed. Either way the evidence is inadmissible. Similar to a gas meter if it were proved to be inaccurate.

In this case it's neither inadmissable nor inaccurate, merely incomplete. Hence the reason for asking the boater to fill the gaps.

 

My point is that it's no more intrusive or unreasonable than asking someone to accept an estimate or provide their own reading

[Dave_P]

That's what they do, and they video you for evidence that you are fit

There may be some examples were people have been watched, following some evidence or a tip off. It does not happen as standard practice. How many people do you think work for the benefits agency?

In this case it's neither inadmissable nor inaccurate, merely incomplete. Hence the reason for asking the boater to fill the gaps.

 

My point is that it's no more intrusive or unreasonable than asking someone to accept an estimate or provide their own reading

It's far more intrusive.

[Guest]

In this case it's neither inadmissable nor inaccurate, merely incomplete. Hence the reason for asking the boater to fill the gaps.

 

My point is that it's no more intrusive or unreasonable than asking someone to accept an estimate or provide their own reading

i don't have enoughh signal to go throguh the lot, but from what I understood yesterday, this is not what is happening. Sanctions have been imposed without asking I believe.

[abraxus]

It doesn't. The boater in question here just wants to be left alone. They aren't trying to 'get something'. If they were looking for a rebate on their licence then your comparison would be excellent. But they aren't, so it isn't.

No, they aren't trying to get something, he is, which is my point, and the basis of my comparison. He's trying to live on his boat and be left alone, in which case he is legally obliged to satisfy CRT that he's eligible to do so.

[mayalld]

i don't have enoughh signal to go throguh the lot, but from what I understood yesterday, this is not what is happening. Sanctions have been imposed without asking I believe.

Sanctions were imposed (3 month licence), and the OP has not advanced any arguments about whether that was appropriate or not.

 

The point here is that DURING the sanctions period (a period that allows the boater time to prove they can comply) there haven't been enough sightings and they are asking for information.

 

It is not suggested that any sanctions have been applied without asking the boater about his cruising

[abraxus]

i don't have enoughh signal to go throguh the lot, but from what I understood yesterday, this is not what is happening. Sanctions have been imposed without asking I believe.

Oh I see, fair enough. I'm just referring to what's been said on this thread. No detail has been given about the circumstances leading up to it.

[Guest]

Sanctions were imposed (3 month licence), and the OP has not advanced any arguments about whether that was appropriate or not.

 

The point here is that DURING the sanctions period (a period that allows the boater time to prove they can comply) there haven't been enough sightings and they are asking for information.

 

It is not suggested that any sanctions have been applied without asking the boater about his cruising

thanks

Oh I see, fair enough. I'm just referring to what's been said on this thread. No detail has been given about the circumstances leading up to it.

thanks, my signal is in and out today.

[Machpoint005]

But CART sat they cover the complete system every 14 days your not implying they lie are you?

 

I didn't know that was the claim. Not lying, but perhaps a somewhat jesuitical truth?

 

...Perhaps they have a network of observation points which they regard as representative of the entire system.

[cotswoldsman]

 

I didn't know that was the claim. Not lying, but perhaps a somewhat jesuitical truth?

 

...Perhaps they have a network of observation points which they regard as representative of the entire system.

It has been stated at a number of meetings complete system covered not observation points

[Higgs]

It has been stated at a number of meetings complete system covered not observation points

 

 

Either that's a bit of a porky, on their part, and something you would expect them to say or, the OP's son has found the secret of invisibility. CRT seem to be proving that this "whole system covered" is in fact not a fact.

[Steilsteven]

C&RT have so completely lost sight of the purpose of 'enforcement' that it has become something that is now being exercised in the hope that the targeted victim will provide them with sufficient self damning evidence for them to refuse a Licence for a boat that they haven't seen breaking any rules, and the whereabouts of which are a complete mystery to them.

Were the consequences of this not so potentially serious for the targeted victim, then it would be laughable. Only in the crazy world of C&RT can being inconspicuous and unseen land you in so much trouble.

However this is no joke, and we cannot ignore the fact that the C&RT wished for, and intended, outcome of this is that someone will lose their home and property in the complete absence of any provable wrongdoing.

A disturbing number of members of this Forum seem to find this wholly acceptable.

Run out of greenies, consider yourself greenied for this Tony.

 

Keith

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

Either that's a bit of a porky, on their part, and something you would expect them to say or, the OP's son has found the secret of invisibility. CRT seem to be proving that this "whole system covered" is in fact not a fact.

Or like me he could be off CART waters

On the complete system CART have stated this a few times but it is becoming difficult to know with them what is fact and what is bullshit

[Higgs]

Or like me he could be off CART waters

On the complete system CART have stated this a few times but it is becoming difficult to know with them what is fact and what is bullshit

 

Your own experience of the past, and others on this thread, have exposed CRT as having a less than effective spotting process.

[Steilsteven]

Perhaps then, he could just say that he was elsewhere at the time/s that they didn't know where he was.

 

Keith

[Terryb]

It bugs the hell out of me when people start bitching and complaining about harrasment and data protection in an all too transparent attempt to whip up an argument. Particularly when its them that are in the wrong they just dont have the integrity to admit it!!

 

Forget the wrong email address this is a small matter

 

Your son is in this predicament because he is SUSPECTED of taking the pi55 regarding the movement of his boat. Why has it not been seen?? Well it could be CRT's inefficient data logging but equally it could be that he had moored it in the middle of nowhere thinking that would enable him to continue taking the pi55.

 

Whatever the reasons, if he had used it in the manner that his license conditions required him to then there would be no 3month license and no need to have the worry that his license would be withdrawn!!

 

The world is full of chancers who think they can get something for nothing. Play by the rules of find something else to do!!

 

Rant over.

Greenie. Touche