Jump to content

CRT has to say sorry - I think this is really bad


Rambling

Featured Posts

 

That's the way the world works. If you seriously expect the boat owners who are paying an extra grand not to complain, you're daft.

 

Yes sadly it is how the world and money works today... along the lines of ..'hey I'm bleeding, but its okay I'll just go and stab somebody else and make them bleed too'

and whats even worse, it isn't just about money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not about people avoiding Council Tax but the way BWML went about trying to rectify the situation. Did you read the OP?

Surely asking the council to check is the correct way to rectify the situation. It is after all the councils who decide the situation. I fail to see why there is anything wrong in them approaching the correct authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes sadly it is how the world and money works today... along the lines of ..'hey I'm bleeding, but its okay I'll just go and stab somebody else and make them bleed too'

and whats even worse, it isn't just about money.

I agree it's a shame. The best thing for the boaters to do would have been, like the snark (unless it was the boojum), just to have quietly relocated themselves to another marina where they wouldn't be asked to pay CT rather than risking getting other people into a mess. But it is also possibly that they liked being in the marina they were in and just grumbled among themselves which was then overheard and the marina's action taken off it's own bat. The "residential" rules are so complex anyway, i doubt if the majority of affected boaters even understand them - I know i didn't when i lived on and I don't think any of us on that mooring did. (We didn't pay CT, either)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wh is it a strange thing, private water?

I think Higgs meant it is strange that people are charged money by CRT when the boat is in a marina.

 

What these people blatantly fail to appreciate (to quote Monty python) is that without access to the canal it ain't a marina - it is a lake with a questionable water supply. Obviously there may be differences for river fed areas but I think you may know that anyway :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its in this months Canal Boat Magazine News, page 9, doesn't say who wrote it.

 

 

To me it shows CRT BWML's attitude against residential boaters or in fact, anyone that they see not under their control. It seems that they are making it so difficult and unpleasant to live on a boat, or continuously cruise, that they want to put people off doing it. Dobbing rivals in to the authorities is just another bullying tactic.

 

The whole point of the joy of boating is that feeling of freedom, not creating a culture of fear , for accidentally overstaying, or accidentally mooring in the wrong place, or getting all the new rules (that seem to change at random) correct. Even the people who are desperately trying to get it all right, are often confused by the changing new T&Cs.

 

It is creating an atmosphere of stress and dividing communities between CC's and leisure boaters. CaRT seem to hold all the power and like to wield it. I think one of the latest developments was that they recruited someone on the board to represent boaters, who had very little to do with boating, was not on any of the forums and did not live on a boat. I can check that detail so it's correct, but I seem to remember reading it.

 

If they are unpopular, then there is a reason for it. In fact the reasons for it are mounting by the month. They have done it to themselves and there is a major lack of confidence in the organisation.

Edited by Rambling
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has apologised so he must think he has not done the right thing

 

No can't be bothered

Or he thinks it is better PR.

 

So I can take that as no valid reason can I?

Obviously a higher moral standard than you possess I suppose.

What is immoral about asking the authority who is in charge to check things? More immoral not to do so.

 

I take it you have no explanation. Thank you that shows it was the right thing for them to do.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

its in this months Canal Boat Magazine News, page 9, doesn't say who wrote it.

 

 

To me it shows CRT BWML's attitude against residential boaters or in fact, anyone that they see not under their control. It seems that they are making it so difficult and unpleasant to live on a boat, or continuously cruise, that they want to put people off doing it. Dobbing rivals in to the authorities is just another bullying tactic.

 

The whole point of the joy of boating is that feeling of freedom, not creating a culture of fear , for accidentally overstaying, or accidentally mooring in the wrong place, or getting all the new rules (that seem to change at random) correct. Even the people who are desperately trying to get it all right, are often confused by the changing new T&Cs.

 

It is creating an atmosphere of stress and dividing communities between CC's and leisure boaters. CaRT seem to hold all the power and like to wield it. I think one of the latest developments was that they recruited someone on the board to represent boaters, who had very little to do with boating, was not on any of the forums and did not live on a boat. I can check that detail so it's correct, but I seem to remember reading it.

 

If they are unpopular, then there is a reason for it. In fact the reasons for it are mounting by the month. They have done it to themselves and there is a major lack of confidence in the organisation.

At the last Crt-associations meeting, I asked parry outright how he felt about the way he and CRT were making some boat owners feel. He couldn't, or wouldn't answer. Just sat there looking down at his shoes.

One banana skin after another. Give it back to government, at least then we can lobby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or he thinks it is better PR.

 

So I can take that as no valid reason can I?

What is immoral about asking the authority who is in charge to check things? More immoral not to do so.

 

I take it you have no explanation. Thank you that shows it was the right thing for them to do.

Like I said, looks to me like he at least has a moral standard that is higher than yours, which given we are referring to gw, says a lot about you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, looks to me like he at least has a moral standard that is higher than yours, which given we are referring to gw, says a lot about you.

So you think not dealing with something through the proper channels and then northing possible being done is moral. To apologise for doing the right thing is not a sign of higher morals.

 

I am afraid in that case you don't know what moral is and it is no reflection on me. To not deal with things through the proper channels smacks of dodgy dealing. fair enough you favour dodgy dealing. At least I know what type of person is trying to suggest my morals are wrong|!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think not dealing with something through the proper channels and then northing possible being done is moral. To apologise for doing the right thing is not a sign of higher morals.

 

I am afraid in that case you don't know what moral is and it is no reflection on me. To not deal with things through the proper channels smacks of dodgy dealing. fair enough you favour dodgy dealing. At least I know what type of person is trying to suggest my morals are wrong|!

Your just being silly. Looking to get out of a hole you have dug yet again. The fact is quite clear, bwml apologised because they "realized" they had done something not quite above board. Thank goodness some don't wear tinted specs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must say I assumed that CRT is a temporary management structure while the best options are explored for a future sell-off of inland waterways assets.

 

A sort of 'fall guy' situation. They are there to fail but in the process if they can help to identify the potential business opportunities available they are quite handy.

 

Just my theory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm spilt on this one

If BWML weren't a "wholly owned subsidiary of CRT" this action would be a slightly sneaky but reasonably legitimate business move.

If I was losing money because a rival company was undercutting me by non-legitimate means I'd certainly consider raising the matter with the appropriate authority

 

Because it is a "wholly owned subsidiary of CRT" it does raise legitimate question about the "political" connection between the two and whether this is just another move to reduce the numbers of liveaboards on the network.

And as such it does leave a nasty taste in the mouth.

 

Is there a national planning regulation that defines what is and isn't classed as residential use of a mooring?
is it, as many park homes are, limited by the number of days one stays?

Whilst I could look these up it's often best to simply ask (given the level of expert knowledge on here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.