Very confused over CC rules

[ROBDEN]

 

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.

You could try taking more water with it .

[ROBDEN]

Why would you pay for a home mooring but then declare to CRT that you are a continuous cruiser? Doesn't that get you the worst of both worlds?

That's a bit like cheating the railways.

Buy a return ticket, and don't go back. Doh!

[mayalld]

 

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.

OK, move after 27 days.

 

If at the end of the notice period, you have moved to a different place, the notice is dead in the water.

[TheBiscuits]

 

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.

 

 

I think that on the new system the codes have changed, so that the first number is now the Reference KM on that waterway.

 

The club moorings code is LL-077-009, and is located just after Bridge 82 and Lock 58, but is located on Reference Km 77 on the L&L.

 

Someone posted a link to the reference maps the other week - sorry I can't remember who - and that is https://canalrivertrust.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapTools/index.html?appid=b46e3e0bda4a44a0be267df7674139a5

[Tony Dunkley]

OK, move after 27 days.

 

If at the end of the notice period, you have moved to a different place, the notice is dead in the water.

 

So, if the boat stays in one place again for more than 14 days, print off another 28 day Notice and serve it.

Still can't see much effort, or cost.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Alan de Enfield]

That's a bit like cheating the railways.

Buy a return ticket, and don't go back. Doh!

 

Or ordering and paying for your takeaway and giving them a fictitious address for delivery

[TheBiscuits]

Boaters are supposed to declare if the do or do not have a home mooring.

 

This is sloppy thinking John, you can do better that this. The licence application is for a boat, not a boater.

 

The actual answer is that I have two boats. One of the boats is on a club mooring, and the other continuously cruises.

 

I therefore have a home mooring and am a continuous cruiser; the two positions are not exclusive.

[MtB]

 

This is sloppy thinking John, you can do better that this. The licence application is for a boat, not a boater.

 

The actual answer is that I have two boats. One of the boats is on a club mooring, and the other continuously cruises.

 

I therefore have a home mooring and am a continuous cruiser; the two positions are not exclusive.

 

 

Good answer!

 

 

Which raises another question I've often mused over. If I rent a mooring, could I use the same mooring for both my two boats, given I'm generally out cruising in one or the other all the time? (Given the exact wording of that 'home mooring' question on the licence application form...)

[TheBiscuits]

Which raises another question I've often mused over. If I rent a mooring, could I use the same mooring for both my two boats, given I'm generally out cruising in one or the other all the time? (Given the exact wording of that 'home mooring' question on the licence application form...)

 

"Where will the boat be kept when not being used for cruising?"

 

As we are now all aware that the T&Cs outrank the various pieces of legislation, I'd say you probably could.

 

You might want to consider moving the other boat back to the shared home mooring occasionally though, to reset the unspecified clock.

[Paul C]

 

 

Good answer!

 

 

Which raises another question I've often mused over. If I rent a mooring, could I use the same mooring for both my two boats, given I'm generally out cruising in one or the other all the time? (Given the exact wording of that 'home mooring' question on the licence application form...)

 

That's an interesting logic question. I'd say "no", given the actual wording of the law says "can reasonably be kept" - you can't reasonably fit 2 boats onto one mooring (let's assume the mooring you own/rent is not long or wide enough to allow this - if it was, then its different). BUT Nigel Moore has previously insisted that the home mooring doesn't need to be available all year round - so you could argue from this point that for half the time you're out and about on one boat with the other on the mooring, and the other half, the other boat.

[abraxus]

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

 

Rob....

Not by a long way.

 

People seem to be getting confused with the difference between committing a criminal act, and its consequences, and applying for a service, which are two entirely different things. Not least because one is after the fact, and the other before the fact. There is a significant difference between being accused of wrongdoing, and being asked to provide assurance that you wont commit a future wrong.

 

The burden of proof rests with accuser if they seek to remove an existing right, such as the police wanting to imprison someone or, in this case, the removal of a licence.

 

However, in the application for the provision of a service, the burden of proof often rests with the applicant. There are many examples in normal life, ranging from quite minor things, like wanting to buy a drink, to more important matters, such as a mortgage, a rental tenancy, or a passport application. In each case the burden of proof rests entirely with the applicant to show that he's eligible for that service, and will meet the required terms and conditions.

Edited August 24, 2015 by abraxus

[abraxus]

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.

But that isn't what they're doing, at least not in reference to the other thread.

 

They haven't just randomly written to a boater and said we don't know what you've been doing, so you have to provide evidence. They seemingly have noted what he was doing sufficiently to put him under enforcement, and restrict his licence to three months, and only after that have they asked him to provide evidence of his subsequent movements.

 

Now of course you may not like that either, but the justification for it comes from the licence t&c's which state:

 

"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."

 

Assuming they advised the boater at the time of initial enforcement, then it seems the justification is there, at least if one accepts the licence t&c's. However, if they gave the boater no such advice, then it isn't.

Edited August 24, 2015 by abraxus

[jenlyn]

But that isn't what they're doing, at least not in reference to the other thread.

 

They haven't just randomly written to a boater and said we don't know what you've been doing, so you have to provide evidence. They seemingly have noted what he was doing sufficiently to put him under enforcement, and restrict his licence to three months, and only after that have they asked him to provide evidence of his subsequent movements.

 

Now of course you may not like that either, but the justification for it comes from the licence t&c's which state:

 

"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."

 

Assuming they advised the boater at the time of initial enforcement, then it seems the justification is there, at least if one accepts the licence t&c's. However, if they gave the boater no such advice, then it isn't.

The same has been used on boaters not under any form of enforcement, one of which posts on here (i will let him decide whether to give his side or not).

It's becoming annoying to some, because they are doing absolutely nothing wrong. They are merely caught up in a tangled, mismanaged and inefficient use of authority.

[NilesMI]

But that isn't what they're doing, at least not in reference to the other thread.

 

Assuming they advised the boater at the time of initial enforcement, then it seems the justification is there, at least if one accepts the licence t&c's. However, if they gave the boater no such advice, then it isn't.

The form of letter sent informing the lcencee of the Basis on which they are having their licence renewed for 3 months is thus one https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/10989.pdf

 

It does state that the boat must establish an acceptable pattern of movement in order to have the licence further renewed for 6 months. Failing that, to renew, the licencee must obtain a home mooring for the boat. It does not state that the liencee should furnish evidence of the boat's movements during the period of the 3 month licence.

[abraxus]

The same has been used on boaters not under any form of enforcement, one of which posts on here (i will let him decide whether to give his side or not).

It's becoming annoying to some, because they are doing absolutely nothing wrong. They are merely caught up in a tangled, mismanaged and inefficient use of authority.

And that's a different matter to the point I was answering, and if true then I don't disagree with you on it.

[NilesMI]

They are merely caught up in a tangled, mismanaged and inefficient use of authority.

I usually subscribe to the cock-up rather than conspiracy explanation of things. But in this instance, given that the changes to licence T&C are still recent, and that these letters asking the licence holder to provide details of their boat's use, both CC-ers and those suspected of overstaying beyond 14 days have started appearing as soon as the changes have come into effect, I am wondering if this is part of a change of direction in respect of enforcement.

 

Perhaps CRT has finally deduced that the sighting/logging system can't reliably detect which boats are or aren't being used in accordance with the rules, but realised that partial records and sporadic sightings are quite capable of checking whether a licencee who is asked to supply their own account of their boat's movements is being accurate and truthful.

 

So is self-declaration of a boat's use, coupled with random sightings of boats across the system, the way forward for enforcement?

Edited August 24, 2015 by NilesMI

[abraxus]

The form of letter sent informing the lcencee of the Basis on which they are having their licence renewed for 3 months is thus one https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/10989.pdf

 

It does state that the boat must establish an acceptable pattern of movement in order to have the licence further renewed for 6 months. Failing that, to renew, the licencee must obtain a home mooring for the boat. It does not state that the liencee should furnish evidence of the boat's movements during the period of the 3 month licence.

The letter does state:

 

If you think that the decision is incorrect and that you feel you have been continuously cruising in line with our Guidance please get in touch with your local enforcement officer. You will need to tell us your reasons and we will ask you to provide evidence."

 

Whilst that paragraph appears to refer the initial licence restriction, it does seem to set the expectation that any disagreement over a future decision would also require supporting evidence, as they have made it clear they will ask for evidence if you disagree. So, whilst it doesn't specifically state one should keep evidence of the 3 month licence period, common sense would suggest that it's a reasonble expectation if one was under enforcement.

 

The upshot being that you can either demonstrate they were wrong in the first place, in which case matter closed, or be expected to demonstrate your future compliance.

 

I get your point though, but it would seem to be a picky one as, whilst one shouldn't have to jump through hoops for no reason, it's not unreasonable to be expected to jump through one or two after you've been shown to be transgressing.

 

I also understand how some may feel that the onus should be entirely be on CRT, but that could just as easily lead to them getting sufficient evidence first time round, ditching the 3 month licence, and simply refusing to renew. To me it seems preferable from a boaters perspective to have some dialogue and input, and be able to provide one's own evidence, rather than have your fate entirely in the hands of another. That's just my opinion though.

Edited August 24, 2015 by abraxus

[mayalld]

 

 

I think that on the new system the codes have changed, so that the first number is now the Reference KM on that waterway.

 

The club moorings code is LL-077-009, and is located just after Bridge 82 and Lock 58, but is located on Reference Km 77 on the L&L.

 

Someone posted a link to the reference maps the other week - sorry I can't remember who - and that is https://canalrivertrust.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapTools/index.html?appid=b46e3e0bda4a44a0be267df7674139a5

 

That isn't a change.

 

The codes (or to use the BW/CRT parlance, "Functional Locations") have long consisted of a km length, followed by a serial number in that length

[TheBiscuits]

 

That isn't a change.

 

The codes (or to use the BW/CRT parlance, "Functional Locations") have long consisted of a km length, followed by a serial number in that length

 

Fair enough.

 

I was under the impression they used to be based on bridge numbers, not distances in Km from one end of a waterway, but I don't know where I got that from.

[mayalld]

 

So, if the boat stays in one place again for more than 14 days, print off another 28 day Notice and serve it.

Still can't see much effort, or cost.

 

Or actual results!

 

The fact that enforcement during the licence requires CRT to prove non-compliance, and that the boater can REPEATEDLY not comply, then wipe out all the effort of proving non-compliance simply by moving for a few days to reset the clock means that it is a hopeless process.

[NilesMI]

I get your point though, but it would seem to be a picky one as, whilst one shouldn't have to jump through hoops for no reason, it's not unreasonable to be expected to jump through one or two after you've been shown to be transgressing.

Just to be clear, I am not objecting to a situation where CRT can show that a boat, on the face of it, has not been used in compliance with their guidance, and writes to the licencee, inviting them to provide evidence to the contrary.

 

I am not even objecting to CRT requiring a licencee to provide evidence of the use of the boat, but to be reasonable, the requirement for the licencee to make a log, take photographs, fit a tracking device, etc must be made up front, at the point the licence is being applied for, or renewed, so the licencee knows what is expected of them. Therefore it needs to be included in the licence T&C.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Or actual results!

 

The fact that enforcement during the licence requires CRT to prove non-compliance, and that the boater can REPEATEDLY not comply, then wipe out all the effort of proving non-compliance simply by moving for a few days to reset the clock means that it is a hopeless process.

 

That depends on what you regard as being results.

Firstly the boat that isn't complying with the 1995 Act has been forced to move, and secondly the process of documenting and recording that non-compliance has begun.

Secondly, if this inexpensive and simple process has to be repeated over similar periods of time until the expiry date of the current Licence, then that well documented, and to all intents and purposes, unchallengeable record of non-compliance will be a fair and reasonable basis on which C&RT could base doubts, and '' unsatisfaction'', about that boaters intention to comply throughout the term of the next Licence. Certainly a much fairer and more reasonable process than forcing a CC'er into taking a mooring because he hasn't been sighted enough and they don't know where he is , . . . . as has just happened to Bux's son in the thread running concurrently with this.

Why do C&RT,and you, prefer unproveable assumptions over the same time period as a better option upon which to base Licence sanctions, and why do you continue to refer to printing and serving 28 day Notices as ''all the effort''? Just what effort does that entail, over and above that required by the C&RT preferred process ?

Edited August 24, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[abraxus]

Just to be clear, I am not objecting to a situation where CRT can show that a boat, on the face of it, has not been used in compliance with their guidance, and writes to the licencee, inviting them to provide evidence to the contrary.

 

I am not even objecting to CRT requiring a licencee to provide evidence of the use of the boat, but to be reasonable, the requirement for the licencee to make a log, take photographs, fit a tracking device, etc must be made up front, at the point the licence is being applied for, or renewed, so the licencee knows what is expected of them. Therefore it needs to be included in the licence T&C.

Oh ok, and I actually agree with you that such requirements should be clear from the outset.

 

I guess I just feel that they are clear in the t&c's at the point of application, in the form of "the boater(s) will be advised why the observed movement is considered insufficient and be asked to keep adequate evidence of future movements.".

 

I take that you feel that they should reiterate that requirement in any further correspondence with someone under enforcement, and not just within the t&c's?

 

If so, fair enough, that doesn't sound unreasonable.

[abraxus]

That depends on what you regard as being results.

Firstly the boat that isn't complying with the 1995 Act has been forced to move, and secondly the process of documenting and recording that non-compliance has begun.

Secondly, if this inexpensive and simple process has to be repeated over similar periods of time until the expiry date of the current Licence, then that well documented, and to all intents and purposes, unchallengeable record of non-compliance will be a fair and reasonable basis on which C&RT could base doubts, and '' unsatisfaction'', about that boaters intention to comply throughout the term of the next Licence. Certainly a much fairer and more reasonable process than forcing a CC'er into taking a mooring because he hasn't been sighted enough and they don't know where he is , . . . . as has just happened to Bux's son in the thread running concurrently with this.

Why do C&RT,and you, prefer unproveable assumptions over the same time period as a better option upon which to base Licence sanctions, and why do you continue to refer to printing and serving 28 day Notices as ''all the effort''? Just what effort does that entail, over and above that required by the C&RT preferred process ?

Bear with me, as this is as much a question as it is comment.

 

I don't think that's a fair representation, as what you're saying is not entirely the case. They aren't forcing him to take a home mooring because they haven't sighted him enough, they're asking him to confirm that his movements don't warrant one, as they don't know but suspect otherwise. A situation which is catered for in the licence t&c's. Whether he is then forced to take a home mooring will be dependent upon his response, or lack thereof.

 

A more accurate comparison would be to say that you think it's unfair for a boater under enforcement to be asked about his movements, and more fair that CRT do all the logging themselves.

 

Regardless of all that, the long and short of it is, either one asks a boater under enforcement to provide details of his movements, or for CRT to provide all the evidence. The latter, whilst not an unreasonable wish, would ultimately involve a substantial number of extra loggers, or some kind of technology, such as tracking. Either of which have as much opposition.

 

Whilst I can see your point, if we assume that a free for all isn't an option, then I'm genuinely curious as to what you consider the alternatives to be.

[Tony Dunkley]

Bear with me, as this is as much a question as it is comment.

 

I don't think that's a fair representation, as what you're saying is not entirely the case. They aren't forcing him to take a home mooring because they haven't sighted him enough, they're asking him to confirm that his movements don't warrant one, as they don't know but suspect otherwise. A situation which is catered for in the licence t&c's. Whether he is then forced to take a home mooring will be dependent upon his response, or lack thereof.

 

A more accurate comparison would be to say that you think it's unfair for a boater under enforcement to be asked about his movements, and more fair that CRT do all the logging themselves.

 

Regardless of all that, the long and short of it is, either one asks a boater under enforcement to provide details of his movements, or for CRT to provide all the evidence. The latter, whilst not an unreasonable wish, would ultimately involve a substantial number of extra loggers, or some kind of technology, such as tracking. Either of which have as much opposition.

 

Whilst I can see your point, if we assume that a free for all isn't an option, then I'm genuinely curious as to what you consider the alternatives to be.

 

Bux's son has, in fact, applied for a short term mooring while he considers whether he wants to sell his boat or to keep it and continue to live aboard under the threat of so-called 'enforcement' action which may result in him losing his property and his home. Given C&RT's track record, this is entirely understandable.

As to the need for additional data loggers, I'm afraid I can't follow the reasoning behind that at all. Perhaps, like C&RT, you're approaching this from the wrong direction. Surely, the issue as regards boat movements should adopt the same approach as the 1995 Act, and regulate non movement, as they have the statutory powers to do, rather than attempting to impose an undefined minimum amount of movement, which they definitely don't have the statutory powers to do.

Static boats, which is what all the fuss is about, will always be far easier to locate and record than boats that are on the move, and therefore require many less man hours and personnel to do so.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Tony Dunkley