Very confused over CC rules

[Dave Clinton]

 

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.

I repeat: not true.

 

Please don't spread misinformation. It might be important to somebody.

[mayalld]

 

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 ?

Tony,

 

I'm afraid that I'm going to fail to disagree with you.

 

Sorry!

 

I would agree that it would be a splendid way to proceed, spend the whole period of the licence issuing 28 day letters, then at the renewal count them as a reason to not be satisfied (subject to the boater convincing you otherwise) and decline a licence.

 

To be fair though, CRT have actually been more generous here.

 

Having reached renewal, and being in a position where they COULD simply say "not satisfied", they grant a 3 month licence.

 

As the boater has already reached the point where they are in enforcement, it seems entirely reasonable that the boater should understand a need to demonstrate compliance

[mayalld]

I repeat: not true.

 

Please don't spread misinformation. It might be important to somebody.

No matter how many times you repeat it the fact remains.

 

BW-065-007 is a code used on licences to indicate a boat licenced on the basis that it will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence, commonly known as a CCer.

 

A boat with that code was recorded at its last licensing as such.

 

A boat with other BW-xxx-007 codes has a home mooring on non-CRT waters with the xxx indicating the navigation authority.

 

A boat with a home mooring will have a code that relates to that location.

[abraxus]

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.

Regarding the first part, I'm not sure what you're saying, so don't want to draw conclusions, as I have no idea why he took a mooring rather than demonstrating that he'd moved enough.

 

As for the second part, the reasoning is, if you believe that CRT are unable to monitor boats sufficiently to pass judgement, then it's immaterial whether it's regulating non movement, or managing undefined minimum movement, they would still require adequate resources or means to do so.

 

As it happens, I agree with you that they shouldn't be imposing minimum movement requirements, but equally feel that others shouldn't be breaking the spirit of the law in order to effectively be non movers.

 

I guess we disagree on that, but that's just my opinion on it.

Edited August 24, 2015 by abraxus

[bassplayer]

Random question, honest answers only please. When is the last time you went out cruising on a boat?

 

Not judging, just curious..

[Guest]

Random question, honest answers only please. When is the last time you went out cruising on a boat?

Not judging, just curious..

If you claim not not to be 'judging' then why mention the word?

 

Of course you are judging.

[bassplayer]

If you claim not not to be 'judging' then why mention the word?

 

Of course you are judging.

Good point. Ok, I'm secretly judging..

[matty40s]

This morning

[MtB]

I repeat: not true.

 

Please don't spread misinformation. It might be important to somebody.

 

 

Which bit is not true then, and how so?

 

Your challenge would carry a little weight if you explained instead of just making an unsupported assertion.

 

It might be important to somebody.

[bassplayer]

This morning

[costalot]

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.

I suspect you have confused yourself. In the quoted email on the other thread CRT reputedly stated

"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 is implicit in the above that CRT have sighted the boat during the 3 month period. Indeed, they may have sighted it at least once every 14 days (or less). These sightings suggest the boater hasn't moved sufficiently. CRT are affording the boater the opportunity to provide evidence that they moved further during the period they were not sighted before making a decision on their future action.

 

This all seems quite logical to me.

[Tony Dunkley]

I suspect you have confused yourself. In the quoted email on the other thread CRT reputedly stated

"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 is implicit in the above that CRT have sighted the boat during the 3 month period. Indeed, they may have sighted it at least once every 14 days (or less). These sightings suggest the boater hasn't moved sufficiently. CRT are affording the boater the opportunity to provide evidence that they moved further during the period they were not sighted before making a decision on their future action.

 

This all seems quite logical to me.

 

Not when you consider the wording of another paragraph.

How about the admission that's implicit in this para. from the same E-mail ?

"If, as we approach expiry of the period of your current licence, we consider that the overall cruising pattern during the entirety of your current licence period is satisfactory and has met the requirements of the Guidance, we will be willing to offer you a new six month licence and thereafter will continue to monitor your boat as we do for all boats without a home mooring."

So, C&RT are admitting that " satisfaction" with regard to issuing a Licence under S.17[3]{c}(ii) of the 1995 BW Act does not necessarily follow adherence to their "Guidance".

.

[mayalld]

 

Not when you consider the wording of another paragraph.

How about the admission that's implicit in this para. from the same E-mail ?

"If, as we approach expiry of the period of your current licence, we consider that the overall cruising pattern during the entirety of your current licence period is satisfactory and has met the requirements of the Guidance, we will be willing to offer you a new six month licence and thereafter will continue to monitor your boat as we do for all boats without a home mooring."

So, C&RT are admitting that " satisfaction" with regard to issuing a Licence under S.17[3]{c}(ii) of the 1995 BW Act does not necessarily follow adherence to their "Guidance".

.

 

I suspect that this is about poor drafting of the letter, rather than any deep meaning

[Tony Dunkley]

 

I suspect that this is about poor drafting of the letter, rather than any deep meaning

 

Yes, I think poor drafting has a lot to do with it, but I also think it's a good indicator that C&RT know full well that 'satisfaction' in respect of Licensing is not a matter of complying with their so-called Guidance.

[MtB]

 

Yes, I think poor drafting has a lot to do with it, but I also think it's a good indicator that C&RT know full well that 'satisfaction' in respect of Licensing is not a matter of complying with their so-called Guidance.

 

 

Another way of looking at it is if you comply with their published guidance (not difficult), they can hardly claim to not be 'satisfied'.

Easy win for all.

[bassplayer]

 

 

Another way of looking at it is if you comply with their published guidance (not difficult), they can hardly claim to not be 'satisfied'.

 

Easy win for all.

You can comply with the guidance but still end up on CRT's radar. Logging system unfit for purpose...

[MtB]

You can comply with the guidance but still end up on CRT's radar. Logging system unfit for purpose...

 

 

In which case they ask you where you've been, and accept what you say without question.

 

The bastads, its so unfair!

[Bettie Boo]

Random question, honest answers only please. When is the last time you went out cruising on a boat?

 

Not judging, just curious..

 

This morning (till it started raining) .... I hold my hands up to being a fair weather cruiser

[cuthound]

Random question, honest answers only please. When is the last time you went out cruising on a boat?

 

Not judging, just curious..

This morning, from 07:45 until 14:00.

[bassplayer]

 

 

In which case they ask you where you've been, and accept what you say without question.

 

The bastads, its so unfair!

Maybe.

 

So I take it you are happy CRT are using a loggging system which is unfit for purpose then making judgements about us from it?

[Midnight]

Maybe.

 

So I take it you are happy CRT are using a loggging system which is unfit for purpose then making judgements about us from it?

 

It seems they just ask polite questions and reserve judgement until after they receive your answers. I can live with that even though I agree the logging system is by no means perfect.

[cotswoldsman]

 

It seems they just ask polite questions and reserve judgement until after they receive your answers. I can live with that even though I agree the logging system is by no means perfect.

I wonder how many answer"fair cop I have been non compliant, where would you like me to deliver the boat?"

[Midnight]

I wonder how many answer"fair cop I have been non compliant, where would you like me to deliver the boat?"

 

but none-the-less CaRT seem happy to accept the explanations although I guess it could be three (or more) strikes and you're out. Which seems fair enough to me.

[cotswoldsman]

 

but none-the-less CaRT seem happy to accept the explanations although I guess it could be three (or more) strikes and you're out. Which seems fair enough to me.

So three inadequate logging data means it is ok to take away a licence?

[Midnight]

So three inadequate logging data means it is ok to take away a licence?

 

 

to issue a 3 month license - but if you get 3 or more requests for information you would probably either be taking the pi55, pushing the limits or very, very unlucky.

 

edited cos it didn't make sense to me either

 

edited cos still ambiguous

Edited August 25, 2015 by Midnight