Very confused over CC rules

[cotswoldsman]

Perhaps they wanted to send you a 3 month trial licence......

Hehe that would be fun

[rufus2015]

If your licence is refused or terminated does that mean you can never licence your boat ever again ?

 

Is the owner barred from a licence or just the boat ?

 

Unless you move to the limited EA waters or private water marina, where you can never leave, your home would then be worthless to you, and I think most people would sell up.

 

Applying for a new licence via someone else's name and address would be a option I suppose.

[abraxus]

But let's for a moment, accept that when a licence is renewed, the "applicant" must satisfy the trust.... As you say, during the period of the current licence, the burden is on the trust to show that the licencee has failed to use the boat bona fide, etc. If the trust cannot show that, what must the "applicant" do to satisfy the trust? In particular, what must they do which is different from what they did to satisfy the trust at the first application?

 

Why must they provide to the trust, evidence of the actual use of the boat when the burden is on the trust to determine that for itself?

 

And if they are required to collect such evidence, and to provide it when a licence is renewed, surely that can, and should be made a requirement in the licence T&C?

It is a requiremnt of the licence t&c's, as it says the following in Schedule 2:

 

"Enforcement of the legal requirements will be based on observations by the Trust. If initial observations indicate insufficient movement to meet the legal requirements, the boater(s) will be advised why the observed movement is considered insufficient and be asked to keep adequate evidence of future movements. Failure then to meet the movement requirements, or to provide evidence of sufficeient movement when requested by the Trust, can be treated as a failure to comply with s.17 of the 1995 Act."

 

So it seems from the way it reads that CRT appear to take the initial burden of proof, and only after that do they require the boater to keep evidence of future compliance.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Thanks Mike.

 

And I would be glad to answer.

 

During the period of a licence, the burden is on CRT to show that the boater has failed to CC

 

When a licence is renewed, the burden is on the boater to satisfy CRT that they will CC.

 

In the example on the other thread, CRT aren't threatening to revoke a licence. They are saying that at the point of renewal, they will need to be satisfied.

 

 

mayalld, thank you.

 

I have to say, I'm in no way convinced that when a licence is renewed that the licencee is considered an applicant. In every other licencing regime I can think of, you are a licencee until you cease to renew, or until such times as the licence is cancelled or revoked or the licencing authority declines to renew it.

 

But let's for a moment, accept that when a licence is renewed, the "applicant" must satisfy the trust.... As you say, during the period of the current licence, the burden is on the trust to show that the licencee has failed to use the boat bona fide, etc. If the trust cannot show that, what must the "applicant" do to satisfy the trust? In particular, what must they do which is different from what they did to satisfy the trust at the first application?

 

Why must they provide to the trust, evidence of the actual use of the boat when the burden is on the trust to determine that for itself?

 

And if they are required to collect such evidence, and to provide it when a licence is renewed, surely that can, and should be made a requirement in the licence T&C?

I'm afraid Dave falls into the usual trap of saying 'CC' when the law says 'bona fide for navigation'.

 

However, he is essentially correct that the boater must satisfy the board on application.

 

He is also essentially correct that the burden is on the Trust to show 'the vessel has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation' during the period of a licence.

 

What, of course, Dave does not say is that the Trust must then 'give notice requiring the holder of the relevant consent to remedy the default within such time as may be reasonable (not being less than 28 days)'.

 

I would suggest, that upon renewal of a licence, it would be difficult for the Trust to suggest the boater has failed to satisfy them in the absence demonstrating that during the previous licence period 'the vessel has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation' and that notice had been given to remedy this.

 

 

[mayalld]

 

I'm afraid Dave falls into the usual trap of saying 'CC' when the law says 'bona fide for navigation'.

 

However, he is essentially correct that the boater must satisfy the board on application.

 

He is also essentially correct that the burden is on the Trust to show 'the vessel has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation' during the period of a licence.

 

What, of course, Dave does not say is that the Trust must then 'give notice requiring the holder of the relevant consent to remedy the default within such time as may be reasonable (not being less than 28 days)'.

 

I would suggest, that upon renewal of a licence, it would be difficult for the Trust to suggest the boater has failed to satisfy them in the absence demonstrating that during the previous licence period 'the vessel has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation' and that notice had been given to remedy this.

 

 

I say CC because it is easier to type, and readily understood.

 

You raise an interesting point, but I wouldn't agree.

 

CRT would argue (and it is a reasonable argument) that the hurdle to withdraw a licence is high, and it isn't worth the effort.

 

Waiting for renewal and making the boater prove it is a more efficient process.

 

You could reasonably argue that they if they were satisfied at the last renewal, then they should advise a boater in good time if they are potentially not going to be satisfied next time.

 

Happily, this would appear to be exactly what they are doing

[Iain_S]

 

I'm afraid Dave falls into the usual trap of saying 'CC' when the law says 'bona fide for navigation'.

 

However, he is essentially correct that the boater must satisfy the board on application.

 

He is also essentially correct that the burden is on the Trust to show 'the vessel has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation' during the period of a licence.

 

What, of course, Dave does not say is that the Trust must then 'give notice requiring the holder of the relevant consent to remedy the default within such time as may be reasonable (not being less than 28 days)'.

 

I would suggest, that upon renewal of a licence, it would be difficult for the Trust to suggest the boater has failed to satisfy them in the absence demonstrating that during the previous licence period 'the vessel has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation' and that notice had been given to remedy this.

 

 

 

The word used in Sec. 17 (4) (c ) is "may", not "must".

 

(edited to ditch the © sign )

Edited August 23, 2015 by Iain_S

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

The word used in Sec. 17 (4) (c ) is "may", not "must".

 

(edited to ditch the © sign )

Good point Ian.

 

Having established that 'the vessel has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation' the trust may give notice.

 

However, if the Trust has not established the fact, how do grounds exist for refusing a future licence?

 

Edited August 23, 2015 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Dave Clinton]

 

Your licence will show if you are a CCer or a HMer from the number.

If you are registered s a HMer it will have a 2 letter prefix then some 'numbers' to show the location of your mooring (eg RT 012 21, which shows them your mooring is on the River Trent, 12 miles from the start point, near asset number 21)

 

Edit - following your post :

 

So you can now tell from the number if C&RT have you listed as a CCer or a HMer

not true - as I deduce Mr biscuit knows from his wind up attempts

[NilesMI]

You could reasonably argue that they if they were satisfied at the last renewal, then they should advise a boater in good time if they are potentially not going to be satisfied next time.

 

Happily, this would appear to be exactly what they are doing

 

Except, as recent developments have shown, that is not what they are doing, is it?

 

Writing to licencee to ask them to provide evidence that they have been CC-ing, where CRT's own records are insufficient to show how the boat has been used, is not at all the same as writing to them to advise them that CRT's records show the boat has not been CC-ing.

 

It is the former action which I object to and can find no justification for.

 

Plus... What Allan(nb Albert) said. #158.

 

 

Plus... this is not just about CC-ers. Since the new licence T&C commenced in May, CRT have started emailing licencees of boats with a home mooring as well. Not in such accusatory tones, but informing the licencee that their sightings records "suggest" the boat has overstayed beyond 14 days and asking the licencee to have a "chat" with the local enforcement officer. It is pretty clear that "chat" is going to be along the lines of; "Can you provide an explanation of where the boat was, between these dates, when we believe it was at X?" And being a "chat", it is all conveniently undocumented.

Edited August 24, 2015 by NilesMI

[Tony Dunkley]

I say CC because it is easier to type, and readily understood.

 

You raise an interesting point, but I wouldn't agree.

 

CRT would argue (and it is a reasonable argument) that the hurdle to withdraw a licence is high, and it isn't worth the effort.

 

Waiting for renewal and making the boater prove it is a more efficient process.

 

You could reasonably argue that they if they were satisfied at the last renewal, then they should advise a boater in good time if they are potentially not going to be satisfied next time.

 

Happily, this would appear to be exactly what they are doing

 

I don't follow the reasoning behind that. What great effort is there in one letter and a 28 day wait.

It seems to me like just another example of C&RT's preference for using imaginary powers instead of the appropriate and correct statutory powers. Could it be because they're fully aware that their 'new rules', as well as good many of the old ones, go beyond the intentions behind the existing legislation and the powers they actually do have ?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I don't follow the reasoning behind that. What great effort is there in one letter and a 28 day wait.

It seems to me like just another example of C&RT's preference for using imaginary powers instead of the appropriate and correct statutory powers. Could it be because they're fully aware that their 'new rules', as well as good many of the old ones, go beyond the intentions behind the existing legislation and the powers they actually do have ?

It would certainly be simpler to use the law as intended ...

[mayalld]

Good point Ian.

 

Having established that 'the vessel has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation' the trust may give notice.

 

However, if the Trust has not established the fact, how do grounds exist for refusing a future licence?

 

Because during the licence period the burden is on the trust to show non-compliance.

 

At renewal the burden is on the boater to satisfy CRT that they will comply

[Martin Megson]

not true - as I deduce Mr biscuit knows from his wind up attempts

 

It is in fact true. In fact not only if you are a CC'er but if you have a home mooring it indicates on which water way your home mooring is and the closest CRT asset (eg: bridge).

 

BW-065-007 indicates a boat with no home mooring.

[ROBDEN]

Is this the only place where "The burden of proof is on the accused" instead of the accuser?

 

Rob....

[mayalld]

 

I don't follow the reasoning behind that. What great effort is there in one letter and a 28 day wait.

It seems to me like just another example of C&RT's preference for using imaginary powers instead of the appropriate and correct statutory powers. Could it be because they're fully aware that their 'new rules', as well as good many of the old ones, go beyond the intentions behind the existing legislation and the powers they actually do have ?

As I think you know very well, the great effort comes because a boater can repeatedly remedy the problem and then go back to his old ways.

 

Let's say I licence as a CCer and don't, in fact, move sufficiently.

 

CRT write to me, and require me to rectify that.

 

So, I do nothing about it for 28 days, and then at the 11th hour, I do something, and set off on a week long cruise round the Cheshire Ring returning (as I am entitled to) to the place where I started.

 

I have rectified my failure, and the notice is dead in the water.

 

I stay put, legally, for 14 days, then don't move on.

 

Let's say CRT are on the ball, and on day 15 serve me another 28 day notice. I wait for 28 days again they do another week long trip.

 

Basically, enforcement during the licence period. means that the boater can get away with staying 42 days in a row on a repeated basis, with a cruise in between.

 

Only at renewal can the trust take a view as to whether they are satisfied.

[Tony Dunkley]

Is this the only place where "The burden of proof is on the accused" instead of the accuser?

 

Rob....

 

No, not by any means.

It's quite normal in countries and states that today exist under the thumb of a Dictator, and historically in police states such as the USSR, under the KGB, East Germany, under the Stasi, and of course Nazi Germany in the 1930's.

Going back a few centuries in this country, those accused of witchcraft were treated similarly, and now C&RT with their undoubted commitment to heritage and history are applying the same principles to their paying customers.

[Krusty]

Hi.

Haven't read all this thread yet but what proof will C&RT accept that I'm obeying the rules?

 

K.

[Alan de Enfield]

Hi.

Haven't read all this thread yet but what proof will C&RT accept that I'm obeying the rules?

 

K.

 

Do you watch QI ?

 

"Nobody Knows"

 

There was a thread some time ago where C&RT suggested to someone under enforcement that a log and photographs would be acceptable.

[Tony Dunkley]

As I think you know very well, the great effort comes because a boater can repeatedly remedy the problem and then go back to his old ways.

 

Let's say I licence as a CCer and don't, in fact, move sufficiently.

 

CRT write to me, and require me to rectify that.

 

So, I do nothing about it for 28 days, and then at the 11th hour, I do something, and set off on a week long cruise round the Cheshire Ring returning (as I am entitled to) to the place where I started.

 

I have rectified my failure, and the notice is dead in the water.

 

I stay put, legally, for 14 days, then don't move on.

 

Let's say CRT are on the ball, and on day 15 serve me another 28 day notice. I wait for 28 days again they do another week long trip.

 

Basically, enforcement during the licence period. means that the boater can get away with staying 42 days in a row on a repeated basis, with a cruise in between.

 

Only at renewal can the trust take a view as to whether they are satisfied.

 

Anyone trying that routine would be liable to a Byelaw prosecution for no Licence from day 29.

Can't see any great 'effort' in that.

[ROBDEN]

 

Do you watch QI ?

 

"Nobody Knows"

 

There was a thread some time ago where C&RT suggested to someone under enforcement that a log and photographs would be acceptable.

That's me off the cut then.

 

Never ever kept a log and don't own a camera.....Mind you though, I could create a log on the laptop in a couple of hours. Would that do?

 

Rob....

[cotswoldsman]

That's me off the cut then.

 

Never ever kept a log and don't own a camera.....Mind you though, I could create a log on the laptop in a couple of hours. Would that do?

 

Rob....

 

As I have said before I have no intention of keeping a log, taking photos for the benefit of CART. I know where I start the year and I know where I finish the year the bit in between is a big blur.

[Alan de Enfield]

That's me off the cut then.

 

Never ever kept a log and don't own a camera.....Mind you though, I could create a log on the laptop in a couple of hours. Would that do?

 

Rob....

 

If you are not under enforcement (or likely to come under enforcement) then you have no need to keep a log.

 

C&RTs suggestion to the affected boater was that if they keep a log showing their movements (and that they actually moved) they would be 'satisfied'.

The boater concerned lived aboard and due to 'commitments' was only prepared to travel 18 miles out & back.

 

C&RT accepted this movement as long as there was evidence that she moved at least 2 miles every 14 days. It was entirely acceptable to them if she spent 36 weeks doing the trip.

 

It wouldn't meet my definition of a CCer but I guess its good that we are not all the same.

[Tam & Di]

 

There was a thread some time ago where C&RT suggested to someone under enforcement that a log and photographs would be acceptable.

 

I thought it was de rigueur for CCers to have piles of logs on the roof - would a photo of that suffice?

[David Schweizer]

not true - as I deduce Mr biscuit knows from his wind up attempts

 

Being obtuse again Dave. What Alan has stated may not be strictly correct but the principal is still correct, Licences for boats declaring a place where their boat is kept will have a code comprising of two letters indicating the waterway followed by two sets of numbers, the firdt indicating the property reference number for the nearest CaRT structure, and the second (I believe) indicating its proximity to the mooring.

Edited August 24, 2015 by David Schweizer

[bassplayer]

Isn't the problem to law abiding boaters simply the fact that CRT's logging system is causing a lot of stress because it is unfit for purpose?

 

I was wondering whether it's possible to apply to thw courts to have the system removed. There must be plenty of evidence by now to show their system has been used to produce incorrect conclusions when applying enforcement.