canal and river trust stating none sighting

[bassplayer]

I think he's highlighted them to raise the question of how can they conclude his cruising pattern is unacceptable when they've previously stated that they have insufficient data to make any decisions.

 

He has a fair point in that the wording of the email is terrible to the point of being nonsensical.

Sorry, it was a late night attempt at humour..fail. Tony is right, it is nonsense.

[abraxus]

Sorry, it was a late night attempt at humour..fail. Tony is right, it is nonsense.

The late night failure was on my part for not seeing it, but in my defence I was a little distracted by your later call for mass "fornal" complaint, and trying to picture what such a thing would look like.

[robert anthony]

 

Because while we are all fighting each other over CCing, home mooring, overstaying, quiet moorings, residential complaints etc, etc we are not concentrating on fundamental things like maintenance and investment in the canal network.

The phrase "divide and conquer" comes to mind.

[bassplayer]

The late night failure was on my part for not seeing it, but in my defence I was a little distracted by your later call for mass "fornal" complaint, and trying to picture what such a thing would look like.

For starters we'd need some figures.

 

How much have CRT spent on everything connected with enforcement?

 

How much revenue have they recovered as a result of enforcement?

 

What is the overall loss to the trust? (or gain..lol)

[Tony Dunkley]

I think he's highlighted them to raise the question of how can they conclude his cruising pattern is unacceptable when they've previously stated that they have insufficient data to make any decisions.

 

He has a fair point in that the wording of the email is terrible to the point of being nonsensical.

 

Sorry, it was a late night attempt at humour..fail. Tony is right, it is nonsense.

 

Not only is it nonsense, but it's written evidence of intent to make an arbitrary decision not to renew his Licence in the total absence of any proof that either the 1995 Act, or even their unlawful 'new rules', have been contravened. Very useful to the boater concerned, and very damaging to any argument that C&RT may have to put forward as justification for refusing a Licence.

Nice of C&RT to start painting themselves into a corner at such an early stage, . . . . ever decreasing circles and desperation !

Edited August 20, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[abraxus]

Not only is it nonsense, but it's written evidence of intent to make an arbitrary decision not to renew his Licence in the total absence of any proof that either the 1995 Act, or even their unlawful 'new rules', have been contravened. Very useful to the boater concerned, and very damaging to any argument that C&RT may have to put forward as justification for refusing a Licence.

Nice of C&RT to start painting themselves into a corner at such an early stage, . . . . ever decreasing circles !

Whilst I agree that the wording is ridiculous, and I can't believe someone sent out such an email without seeing how stupid it sounds, doesn't the 1995 Act put the burden of proof on the boater to satisfy the board?

 

Taken on that basis, and wording aside, it's not arbitrary, and just going by the letter of the law in asking for the boater to provide that satisfaction.

Edited August 21, 2015 by abraxus

[Tony Dunkley]

Whilst I agree that the wording is ridiculous, and I can't believe someone sent out such an email without seeing how stupid it sounds, doesn't the 1995 Act put the burden of proof on the boater to satisfy the board?

 

Taken on that basis, and wording aside, it's not arbitrary, and just going by the letter of the law in asking for the boater to provide that satisfaction.

 

 

Yes, but the wording in the Act doesn't give C&RT 'carte blanche' to not be satisfied without having reasonable grounds for being so.

As to the idiotic E-mails . . . . that's something C&RT specialize in. I've got some beauties.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[abraxus]

Yes, but the wording in the Act doesn't give C&RT 'carte blanche' to not be satisfied without having reasonable grounds for being so.

As to the idiotic E-mails . . . . that's something C&RT specialize in. I've got some beauties.

I appreciate that but, purely speaking of this instance, so far what they've done is ask the boater to provide that satisfaction, albeit in fluent gibberish, as they're saying they don't have enough data to know whether they should satisfied or not. Seemingly then, all he has to do is get in touch and provide it and, as long as it meets the requirements, and doesn't conflict with what little data they have, then they'd have no reasonable grounds to not be satisfied.

 

Not doing so however, would then give them reasonable grounds to be not satisfied by default.

 

Presently though, they're the waterways equivalent of Shrodinger's cat, neither satisfied or not, until the boater responds.

Edited August 21, 2015 by abraxus

[NilesMI]

I agree with Tony Dunkley. The email is nonsensical.

 

Yes, in respect of an application for a licence for a boat without a home mooring, it is for the applicant to satisfy the trust that the boat will be used, bona fide, etc during the period of the licence. Once the applicant has done that, the licence is issued. The licencee must then make sure the boat is used, bona fide, etc.

 

What is clear is that if the boat is not being used bona fide, etc, and CRT has sightings records to show that, it has grounds to take enforcement action against the licencee.

 

But, where CRT has insufficient information to know how the boat is being used, that is their problem to resolve, not the licencee's. Under the terms of the licence they issue, it is not incumbent on the the licencee to keep records and supply them to the trust in order to prove that the boat is being used bona fide, etc. They have no business issuing emails asking for chapter and verse of the boat's movements just because their monitoring system is not fit for the purpose of detecting non-compliance with the latest version of their guidance.

 

Same applies to suggestions that a boat might have remained moored in the same place for more than 14 days when the actual sightings only show that the boat was seen twice, in the same "general area" on dates more than 14 days apart. It clearly isn't sufficient to show that the boat has actually overstayed. Yet CRT are now sending out emails, asking the licencee to clarify or explain where the boat has been when not logged on their sightings records.

 

If we accept that CRT can write to us in these terms, what we are accepting is that we must all keep a detailed log of our movements and agree to submit them to CRT whenever they demand it. Personally, I find that an imposition too far. Whereas I do actually keep a detailed log of my boating, providing I keep to the terms of my licence, it is none of CRT's business. If they want to make it their business, they should make the keeping of a detailed daily log book and making it available for inspection on demand, conditions in their licence agreement. But that will be the day I decide not to renew my CRT licence and take my boat and boating elsewhere.

[Dave Clinton]

They are not a voluntary organisation, they are the navigation authority.

 

If your son wants to licence as a CCer, he has to satisfy them that he is moving around. It is for him to satisfy them that he is, not for them to prove that he isn't.

 

So, he doesn't have to tell them, but if he won't tell them, then they can decline to issue him with a licence.

for someone who places so much store on legalities that's an incredibly sloppy reading of the law.

 

With just a hint of your bias showing?

[Dave Clinton]

 

I agree with Tony Dunkley. The email is nonsensical.

 

Yes, in respect of an application for a licence for a boat without a home mooring, it is for the applicant to satisfy the trust that the boat will be used, bona fide, etc during the period of the licence. Once the applicant has done that, the licence is issued. The licencee must then make sure the boat is used, bona fide, etc.

 

What is clear is that if the boat is not being used bona fide, etc, and CRT has sightings records to show that, it has grounds to take enforcement action against the licencee.

 

But, where CRT has insufficient information to know how the boat is being used, that is their problem to resolve, not the licencee's. Under the terms of the licence they issue, it is not incumbent on the the licencee to keep records and supply them to the trust in order to prove that the boat is being used bona fide, etc. They have no business issuing emails asking for chapter and verse of the boat's movements just because their monitoring system is not fit for the purpose of detecting non-compliance with the latest version of their guidance.

 

Same applies to suggestions that a boat might have remained moored in the same place for more than 14 days when the actual sightings only show that the boat was seen twice, in the same "general area" on dates more than 14 days apart. It clearly isn't sufficient to show that the boat has actually overstayed. Yet CRT are now sending out emails, asking the licencee to clarify or explain where the boat has been when not logged on their sightings records.

 

If we accept that CRT can write to us in these terms, what we are accepting is that we must all keep a detailed log of our movements and agree to submit them to CRT whenever they demand it. Personally, I find that an imposition too far. Whereas I do actually keep a detailed log of my boating, providing I keep to the terms of my licence, it is none of CRT's business. If they want to make it their business, they should make the keeping of a detailed daily log book and making it available for inspection on demand, conditions in their licence agreement. But that will be the day I decide not to renew my CRT licence and take my boat and boating elsewhere.

Well said. Edited August 21, 2015 by Dave Clinton

[mayalld]

for someone who places so much store on legalities that's an incredibly sloppy reading of the law.

 

With just a hint of your bias showing?

 

Not at all.

 

The law says that it is for him to satisfy the board. It is indisputably his responsibility to show that he intends to fulfil those requirements.

 

Now, the board cannot arbitrarily set unreasonable requirements for satisfaction, but I see nothing wrong with;

• Deciding that past compliance with the rules, particularly after being warned that your compliance is being scrutinised, is indicative of a future intent to comply or not.
  • If somebody has been put on a 3 month licence, and warned that their cruising pattern isn't satisfactory, then if they don't improve it over those 3 months, the board can reasonably conclude that they don't intend to do so.
• Requiring a boater to give an account of where he has travelled to decide if the movement pattern is adequate.
  • It is the boater's responsibility. The fact that in some cases CRT will have sufficient data that they don't need to ask for proof doesn't alter the burden of proof.

[mayalld]

The wording of Para. 3 in the C&RT e-mail is nothing short of priceless : -

 

"We have been monitoring your boat’s cruising pattern since renewal of your licence and presently consider that we have insufficient sightings data to make a decision regarding your recent cruising. If you dispute our conclusions to date, please provide evidence of the frequency of your boat’s movements and mooring locations so that we can consider matters further and if necessary update our records."

 

It gets even better in Para. 6 : -

 

"However, if at the expiry of your current licence we consider that you did not maintain a cruising pattern throughout the period of that licence which was sufficient to meet the requirements of our Guidance, you will, in the absence of any exceptional circumstances, be unable to renew your licence on a continuous cruiser basis when your current licence period expires and will be required to remove your boat from the inland waterways managed by us or alternatively secure a home mooring before a new licence can be issued."

 

Begs an obvious question, doesn't it ?

 

Interestingly, I have just finished doing the annual reviews for the members of my team (you may not immediately see the relevance, but give it a few more lines!)

 

These are an assesment of their performance over the past year. They are important to them, because if their review says that their performance isn't up to scratch, and they don't improve by next year, their continued employment is at risk.

 

More immediately important, you may recall that a couple of years ago, the "end of automatic increments in the NHS" was announced. If the review isn't satisfactory, they won't get that increment. It will hurt them in the pocket.

 

Now, an important aspect of the annual review is that it isn't a one off event, but the end of a process of 1:1 meetings with feedback about performance through the year. There should be "no surprises". Nobody should go into the review believing that they are to be marked "excellent", and come out with "poor", because the feedback through the year will tell them whether they are on track.

 

Turning back to the licencing issue. Here we are looking at a boater who has previously not cruised enough on a CCer licence. He has been told that he needs to improve, and that at the end of 3 months he will be reviewed again.

 

I would suggest that it is entirely appropriate that this boater receives regular feedback on whether his performance has improved sufficiently or not. That is surely better than waiting until the end of the three months and saying "nope, still not good enough", and I would lay odds that if that was what happened, then the usual suspects would be whinging that a licence had been refused despite them giving no feedback that there was a problem in the making.

 

Turning to the content of the letter, I'm not sure that Para 6 is in any way objectionable. It merely sets out what the worst outcome is, after Para 5 sets out the best outcome. The carrot and stick are (in my view) in the correct order here.

 

So, we are down to Para 3, which is accurate enough in what it says, but I would have to agree (shock, horror) could be better worded. As could Para 4.

 

In essence, Para 3 is telling the boater that they don't have enough sighting data to conclude one way or the other, and Para 4 is reminding the boater that they are the ones who have to "satisfy the board".

 

Looking at the original text of para 3 and 4;

 

We have been monitoring your boat’s cruising pattern since renewal of your licence and presently consider that we have insufficient sightings data to make a decision regarding your recent cruising. If you dispute our conclusions to date, please provide evidence of the frequency of your boat’s movements and mooring locations so that we can consider matters further and if necessary update our records.

Your current licence period has not yet expired and as such there remains a final opportunity for you to demonstrate an acceptable cruising pattern so as to meet the Guidance and satisfy us at the point of renewal that you should be entitled to a new continuous cruiser licence. If you are not already doing so, you should keep evidence of the frequency of your boat’s movements and mooring locations.

 

if I were composing the letter, I would have worded it differently (it does appear that CRT pay too little attention to fine tuning the content of a standard letter. I would expect that a number of people should have been involved in drafting and revising that letter, and that feedback should have been sought externally).

 

I would have said;

 

We have been monitoring your boat’s cruising pattern since renewal of your licence and presently consider that we have insufficient sightings data to make a decision regarding your recent cruising. There are many reasons why we might have insufficient data, and it is important to note that we have not reached any firm conclusion about your compliance or otherwise. If you dispute our conclusions to date, In order to assist us in evaluating your compliance, please provide evidence of information regarding the frequency of your boat’s movements and mooring locations so that we can consider matters further and if necessary update our records.

Your current licence period has not yet expired and as such there remains a final opportunity for you to demonstrate is your opportunity to demonstrate to us that you will maintain an acceptable cruising pattern so as to meet the Guidance and satisfy us at the point of renewal that you should be entitled to a new continuous cruiser licence. If you are not already doing so, you should keep evidence of the frequency of your boat’s movements and mooring locations. I would emphasise that whilst we will use our sighting data to inform our decision, it is your responsibility to satisfy us that your cruising pattern is acceptable.

 

Much has been made of the need for evidence, and evidence is useful. However, a simple account of where you cruised, provided that it doesn't conflict with where you HAVE been sighted should be adequate.

[MtB]

Yes it strikes me too that CRT are bending over backwards to be helpful then getting roasted for it.

 

They were under no obligation to issue the three month license in the first place given that previously, the boater had failed to satisfy the board. The three month license is a last gasp opportunity for the boater to satisfy the board, a further and final probationary period CRT are not obliged to grant. So if the boater disappears from their radar during this period I think it is more than reasonable for CRT to ask where s/he's been.

 

Agreed the email is clumsily drafted though, which looks very unprofessional.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Mike the Boilerman

[Paul C]

 

Also, if CRT are only issuing 6 month licences to whoever they see fit to are they not forcing customers to pay more ? What's the cost of two 6 month licences, compared to a 12 month one ? If that's the case they are profiting by every licence they restrict, and there is no oversight or proof their sightings are correct.

 

Its worse, if you consider they're issuing multiple 3 month licences, instead of a 12 month licence. I don't think they're profiting because the differential cost is soaked up in admin, therefore no overall (extra) profit, although of course its more expensive this way for the boater.

 

Nobody has said this is illegal though. Unfair, maybe....illegal no.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Its worse, if you consider they're issuing multiple 3 month licences, instead of a 12 month licence. I don't think they're profiting because the differential cost is soaked up in admin, therefore no overall (extra) profit, although of course its more expensive this way for the boater.

 

Nobody has said this is illegal though. Unfair, maybe....illegal no.

I believe CaRT agreed with NBTA that these restricted licences would be charged at a quarter or half a twelve month licence rather than the full amount.

 

**** edited to add, I think NBTA told CaRT it was both unfair and illegal but the illegal bit was disputed ...

Edited August 21, 2015 by Allan(nb Albert)

[bassplayer]

Yes it strikes me too that CRT are bending over backwards to be helpful then getting roasted for it.

 

They were under no obligation to issue the three month license in the first place given that previously, the boater had failed to satisfy the board.

...given CRT's proven inability to log data which is fit for purpoae and draw invalid conclusions from the data, what evidence do we have to show that the board were correct to issue a 3 month licence?

 

It's understandable to see why they get a roasting. We hear more and more examples of CRT getting it wrong. Who's next?

[Paul C]

I can't see how it would be illegal - its an issue of a licence, after all - but would welcome contructive input on its illegality.

I believe CaRT agreed with NBTA that these restricted licences would be charged at a quarter or half a twelve month licence rather than the full amount.

**** edited to add, I think NBTA told CaRT it was both unfair and illegal but the illegal bit was disputed ...

...given CRT's proven inability to log data which is fit for purpoae and draw invalid conclusions from the data, what evidence do we have to show that the board were correct to issue a 3 month licence?

It's understandable to see why they get a roasting. We hear more and more examples of CRT getting it wrong. Who's next?

 

When is the issuing of a 3 month licence incorrect, or indeed correct? It is not defined externally and its available as a legal option which CRT can do.

[MtB]

...given CRT's proven inability to log data which is fit for purpoae and draw invalid conclusions from the data, what evidence do we have to show that the board were correct to issue a 3 month licence?

 

 

Surely that's between the boater and CRT. We the public will never be privy to the reasons CRT find it necessary to put any individual boater a three month license.

 

Nor should we be. Can you imagine the uproar if CRT published an explanation for each three month license issued?!

 

 

 

(Edit as I misunderstood the point initially.)

Edited August 21, 2015 by Mike the Boilerman

[jenlyn]

Yes it strikes me too that CRT are bending over backwards to be helpful then getting roasted for it.

 

They were under no obligation to issue the three month license in the first place given that previously, the boater had failed to satisfy the board. The three month license is a last gasp opportunity for the boater to satisfy the board, a further and final probationary period CRT are not obliged to grant. So if the boater disappears from their radar during this period I think it is more than reasonable for CRT to ask where s/he's been.

 

Agreed the email is clumsily drafted though, which looks very unprofessional.

I think they had to be pragmatic. After all, they had for many years instructed some as to how far was acceptable. In some cases this was not very far at all. People built their lives around this, under belief that the authority were telling them what was expected.

The authority then changed its mind, and somewhat moved the goal posts.

 

This of course has been explained many many times, but for some, does not sink in, or it's just simpler to sit at the top of that fence, playing to the crowd.

[bassplayer]

 

 

Surely that's between the boater and CRT. We the public will never be privy to the reasons CRT find it necessary to put any individual boater a three month license.

 

Nor should we be. Can you imagine the uproar if CRT published an explanation for each three month license issued?!

 

 

 

(Edit as I misunderstood the point initially.)

No the point I'm trying to make is that we don't know all the facts and given CRT's proven poor record on handling data we are not in a position to judge either way.

 

What we do know is that there are examples of CRT's mishandling of data. To be fair there have also been examples of boaters stretching the rules too.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

When is the issuing of a 3 month licence incorrect, or indeed correct? It is not defined externally and its available as a legal option which CRT can do.

Its the catch 22 situation regarding the wording of 1995 Act. How can a boater not satisfy the board in regard to a 12 month licence yet satisfy the board with regard to a three month licence?

 

However, its water under the bridge. Ian Rogers agreed to pro rata fees on the basis that it was unfair and those few boaters who paid higher fees have been advised to make complaints so that refunds can be issued.

[RLWP]

However, its water under the bridge. Ian Rogers agreed to pro rata fees on the basis that it was unfair and those few boaters who paid higher fees have been advised to make complaints so that refunds can be issued.

 

Water under the bridge for who? Who does Ian Rogers represent?

 

Richard

[ditchcrawler]

I don't know how precise these GPS trackers are, but if they're so accurate that you can tell whether the tracker was on the boat or the towpath, that would show whether the log was faked. Even if not, as MtB says it would be a lot of effort to create a fake log that would stand up to scrutiny.

 

But it seems rather unfair if someone whose cruising pattern meets the legal requirements has to buy equipment to prove it; is the burden of proof really on the boater here?

I'd have thought a letter along the lines of "I've been moving about all over the place, your logging system appears not to be fit for purpose if you haven't spotted me; see you in court if you disagree" might be sufficient if it's really up to CRT to show you haven't moved much.

 

This leads me on to another aspect of all this which bothers me; if I were Richard Parry, my guiding principles in deciding enforcement policy would be:

(1) Protect income by making sure everyone boating on CRT waters has paid for a licence. I think I read somewhere that about 4% of boats have not, and that CRT consider that acceptable. Why? If they're really walking the entire system every two weeks it shouldn't be difficult to spot anyone who hasn't paid, so long as their IT systems are good.

(2) Don't worry much about someone overstaying if they're doing it in places where there are plenty of spare moorings and not creating any sort of nuisance to other boaters or the general public; this is a waste of resources, just turn a blind eye there and concentrate on making sure the rules are followed in the hotspots. CRT would still need to check boats everywhere to cover principle (1), but could just regard anyone in out of the way places as fi they were moving about. Just because the 14 day rule is in the law, doesn't mean they have to pursue every breach of that law.

So on Monday I leave Braunston heading for Oxford just after the data checker logs me, he starts walking from Braunston south but is day ahead of me so I dont see him again. . When I get to Oxford I turn back and the following weekend I pass the point where I would have met the check so he misses me again, its now a month since I have seen him, I stay in Braunston for the weekend and on Monday morning he logs me again. The only sightings he has of me in a month are 2 in Braunston. so what does he think

[Paul C]

Its the catch 22 situation regarding the wording of 1995 Act. How can a boater not satisfy the board in regard to a 12 month licence yet satisfy the board with regard to a three month licence?

 

However, its water under the bridge. Ian Rogers agreed to pro rata fees on the basis that it was unfair and those few boaters who paid higher fees have been advised to make complaints so that refunds can be issued.

Indeed. One wonders why someone who has asked for a 12 month licence, but been offered a 3 month one, hasn't dug their heels in an insisted on the full one - there's been enough issued now, after all. And if the data logging is that flawed then some of those issued with the short licence would be justified in being upset enough to act upon it.