Very confused over CC rules

[bigste]

I am getting more and more confused over C&RT's licencing rules and reading another thread. On the other thread the boater has been told that C&RT can't find him on the water. It seems they issued a 3 month licence because he wasn't cruising enough and now they can't check his cruising pattern because they can't find him. They tell him that if his cruising pattern is ok at the end of his 3 months they will issue a new licence otherwise he must take up a home mooring.

Not too long ago it seems that C&RT were saying that cruising rules are the same for home moorers as it is for CCers. In other words a home moorer still has to cruise and not loiter around.

If this is the case then why do C&RT insist on issuing a 3 month licence unless the boater takes a home mooring. The CCer who is not moving enough would still fall foul even if he had a home mooring.

It does seem the C&RT are not sure what the rules are so they invent something to get round the situation.

[Naughty Cal]

I am getting more and more confused over C&RT's licencing rules and reading another thread. On the other thread the boater has been told that C&RT can't find him on the water. It seems they issued a 3 month licence because he wasn't cruising enough and now they can't check his cruising pattern because they can't find him. They tell him that if his cruising pattern is ok at the end of his 3 months they will issue a new licence otherwise he must take up a home mooring.

Not too long ago it seems that C&RT were saying that cruising rules are the same for home moorers as it is for CCers. In other words a home moorer still has to cruise and not loiter around.

If this is the case then why do C&RT insist on issuing a 3 month licence unless the boater takes a home mooring. The CCer who is not moving enough would still fall foul even if he had a home mooring.

It does seem the C&RT are not sure what the rules are so they invent something to get round the situation.

So that they use that mooring rather then the towpath as a home base?

[jenlyn]

It really is crazy isn't it. Lord knows where it will all end.

Edited August 21, 2015 by jenlyn

[MtB]

It really is crazy isn't it. Lord knows where it will all end.

 

 

It will never end. This is how it's going to be, in perpetuity,

 

Constant uncertainty as parliament have said it's not important enough for time to be allocated to a new bill.

 

And I think they have a point. It's not hard to CC compliantly. Most seem to manage it. It's the limit testers and those who willfully misunderstand that find themselves in 'enforcement'.

[jenlyn]

 

 

It will never end. This is how it's going to be, in perpetuity,

 

Constant uncertainty as parliament have said it's not important enough for time to be allocated to a new bill.

 

And I think they have a point. It's not hard to CC compliantly. Most seem to manage it. It's the limit testers and those who willfully misunderstand that find themselves in 'enforcement'.

I like your sig, very fitting

[Bettie Boo]

The bit I don't quite get is....

 

If he hasn't been recorded much in the past 3 months, wouldn't that in itself suggest that he has indeed been moving about.

 

Yes, I appreciate the boat may not even be on CRT waters and maybe that is why they haven't much data collected on it, but if that's the case then they have no worries of movement anyway.

 

For example, I asked for a record of our sightings in Feb and they sent me the info they had from the previous 6 months. It showed very few sightings for Aug - Nov. Now during that period we were moving regularly every 3 - 5 days, then from Dec - Feb there were quite regular sightings, but during that period of time we were moving every 10 - 14 days.

 

So I took that as implying the more frequently you move the less you are sighted. Hence, I don't understand why they seem concerned about not having enough data to make a decision about renewing his license. Even if they only have one or two records for the 3 months, if he's not been sighted in the same location than surly that would mean he's been moving.

 

I do find it quite confusing myself.

[bassplayer]

 

 

It's not hard to CC compliantly. Most seem to manage it. It's the limit testers and those who willfully misunderstand that find themselves in 'enforcement'.

You can also appear non complient due to CRT's incompetence. As one day you may discover for yourself if you ever become a CC'er.

[mayalld]

I am getting more and more confused over C&RT's licencing rules and reading another thread. On the other thread the boater has been told that C&RT can't find him on the water. It seems they issued a 3 month licence because he wasn't cruising enough and now they can't check his cruising pattern because they can't find him. They tell him that if his cruising pattern is ok at the end of his 3 months they will issue a new licence otherwise he must take up a home mooring.

Not too long ago it seems that C&RT were saying that cruising rules are the same for home moorers as it is for CCers. In other words a home moorer still has to cruise and not loiter around.

If this is the case then why do C&RT insist on issuing a 3 month licence unless the boater takes a home mooring. The CCer who is not moving enough would still fall foul even if he had a home mooring.

 

The CCer who wasn't actually moving about very much probably didn't really want to move about at all.

 

If compelled to get a home mooring, they will be free to stay at that home mooring for as long as they want.

[carlt]

I would write back to CRT asking if they could list the exact times and locations he hasn't been sighted in order to compare them to his boating log.

 

 

Edited: sorry, wrong(ish) thread.

Edited August 21, 2015 by carlt

[RLWP]

The bit I don't quite get is....

 

If he hasn't been recorded much in the past 3 months, wouldn't that in itself suggest that he has indeed been moving about.

 

No, it suggests he hasn't been recorded much in three months*. There are a variety of reasons why this might be, he's being asked to explain because 1/. they don't know and 2/. he's got himself on the radar

 

It seems reasonable to me to ask. After all, imagine the outcry if they didn't issue a new license and the boat had been being repaired

 

Richard

 

*No news is only no news

[MtB]

I still don't see any problem with CRT saying "We haven't seen you, where have you been please?" to a boater in the enforcement process.

 

 

The manner is which their email asks is not very nice though. Loaded with passive/aggressiveness which could have been written out. Even calling the process 'enforcement' instead of 'compliance' or something like that is aggressive and unpleasant. Reveals the mindset of the managers.

[RLWP]

I would write back to CRT asking if they could list the exact times and locations he hasn't been sighted in order to compare them to his boating log.

 

 

Edited: sorry, wrong(ish) thread.

 

That would fail a DPA request. An infinite amount of paper to list an infinite amount squared of times and locations isn't reasonable

 

Never mind the postage costs

 

Richard

[mayalld]

The bit I don't quite get is....

 

If he hasn't been recorded much in the past 3 months, wouldn't that in itself suggest that he has indeed been moving about.

 

No, it implies that their data logging is concentrated in certain hotspots.

 

Perhaps they log the hotspot every week, but they only log the rural bits monthly.

 

So, they know he hasn't been seen in the hotspot, and that he has been seen twice over two month in a rural area.

 

That data COULD ,mean that he has been moving about a lot (and was possibly in the hotspot for a couple of days when the logger wasn't there), or it could mean that he has been sat somewhere that they don't record very often all along.

[carlt]

I still don't see any problem with CRT saying "We haven't seen you, where have you been please?" to a boater in the enforcement process.

Isn't that a bit like the police saying "We have no evidence against you so you will have to prove your innocence"?

[jenlyn]

 

No, it implies that their data logging is concentrated in certain hotspots.

 

Perhaps they log the hotspot every week, but they only log the rural bits monthly.

 

So, they know he hasn't been seen in the hotspot, and that he has been seen twice over two month in a rural area.

 

That data COULD ,mean that he has been moving about a lot (and was possibly in the hotspot for a couple of days when the logger wasn't there), or it could mean that he has been sat somewhere that they don't record very often all along.

Denise Yelland repeatedly states that 2000 miles of the canal is checked every 14 days.

I reckon someone has invented stealth.

[carlt]

That would fail a DPA request. An infinite amount of paper to list an infinite amount squared of times and locations isn't reasonable

It wouldn't be a DPA request.

 

It would be an appropriate response to an equally ridiculous piece of correspondence.

[RLWP]

Isn't that a bit like the police saying "We have no evidence against you so you will have to prove your innocence"?

 

Sort of - except the boat in question has already slipped into the enforcement process and has a three month license. Kind of on probation and reporting to the cop shop

 

Richard

It wouldn't be a DPA request.

 

I didn't say it was. It was a humorous response to your equally humorous suggestion

 

Richard

Edited August 21, 2015 by RLWP

[jenlyn]

Isn't that a bit like the police saying "We have no evidence against you so you will have to prove your innocence"?

Yes, it is.

It's pathetic.

[carlt]

I didn't say it was. It was a humorous response to your equally humourous suggetsion

 

Richard

I knew that but I am finding that, increasingly, humorous posts are seen by others as deadly serious unless they end with a long line of smiley things.

 

[Paul C]

Isn't that a bit like the police saying "We have no evidence against you so you will have to prove your innocence"?

 

"The boater satisfies the board....."

[RLWP]

I knew that but I am finding that, increasingly, humorous posts are seen by others as deadly serious unless they end with a long line of smiley things.

 

 

I knew you knew that - I think

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

"The boater satisfies the board....."

Ok then.

 

"We granted you a licence on the basis that you satisfied us. We have no evidence that this is not still the case. Please supply some evidence that we are still satisfied. Oh and by the way we only tell you what may not satisfy us. We don't tell you what will will satisfy us"

[Nightwatch]

Just a thought. Why don't CRT ask the elusive boats registered owner where his boat is?

 

He's obviously 'on the radar'. Surely,for his own sake he should stop playing games with CRT. All this monitoring 'is' a pain in the posterior but someone thought it necessary to stop long term 'unofficial' moorers at prime spots. There can't be many remaining. But it is a little petty and not very conducive to the nature of a relaxed boating life.

[Paul C]

Ok then.

 

"We granted you a licence on the basis that you satisfied us. We have no evidence that this is not still the case. Please supply some evidence that we are still satisfied. Oh and by the way we only tell you what may not satisfy us. We don't tell you what will will satisfy us"

Yeah that's the logical progression from the underlying wording of the law that CRT seem to want to follow now - IMHO deeply flawed.

 

Or to put it another way - are CRT allowed to 'raise the bar' on what satisfies them, for any reason?

[larkshall]

It's all very simple, keep on trucking, get fuel/water delivered by fuel boat. Loo, has to be bucket and chuck it... Ok gang is he allowed to stop whilst waiting for lock, or bridge?