Don't trust the Trust anymore.

[David Schweizer]

Thank you all for your replies, they have been interesting reading.

 

The point I am interested in is that if you are constantly cruising and through no fault of your own become ill, are the trust going to help you or harrass you ? I don't want them to come round with flowers and chocolates, but allowing an overstay costs them nothing, and affects no one else. Its just common courtesy.

 

What I want to do is get a mooring for the rest of this year, but there are none anywhere near where I am now, it is not an easy option. And I am already getting treatment at the hospital here, as you know that takes weeks to set up. In the end it will come down to whether the trust allows me to stay in the area for my medical treatment or not, if they don't I will take them to court. There can't be a situation where constant cruisers are denied medical treatment, or enforcement officers personal opinions on whether someone can move boats by just looking at them overrides doctors recommending they don't.

 

To make it clear, I don't want to stay here, and I am not trying to engineer a free mooring. I had planned to be 100 miles away by now.

You do not say in either of your posts how, or from whom you sought permission to overstay during your medical difficulties, other than conversations with the Enforcement Officer, and I would suggest that he is not the appropriate person, even if he/she was the most understanding person, as he does not carry the authority tio give that consent. Authoristation to overstay needs to be given in writing by the local Area Office, who will notify the Enforcement Officer that such consent has been granted.

 

If you have not communicated your request to the Area Office, may I suggest that you do so before the situation with the Enforcement Officer gets any more difficult. In the meantime may I also suggest that you record carefully anything that he tells you. Whilst he can advise of the possible long term consequences of not moving sufficiently, as I understand it, he has no authority to make that decision, that is the responsibility of the area office, and is preceeded by a cumbersome proceedure of written advice and warning before any action is taken. The Enforcement Officer's role in this process is procedural administartion, issuing authorised notices, not decision making.

Edited September 15, 2015 by David Schweizer

[bassplayer]

There you go, fixed it for you.

 

In fact many authorities exist which are tasked with enforcing different laws. For example, I work for a local authority. Local Authorities have various enforcement powers across a range of legal areas, such as parking offences, fly tipping, anti-social behaviour (sometimes in partnership with the police, sometimes not), noise complaints, the movement of gypsies and travellers.. I could go on...

 

Other authorities include, the Highways Agency, the DVLA, The HSE, HMRC, The serious fraud office, and, of course, Navigation Authorities (of which CRT is one)

All of those involve the police unless settled beforehand....and please don't misquote my posts it's against forum rules and misleading.

[mango]

 

I don't think that we can assume that it is 100% inaccurate, or that it is 100% accurate.

 

It is certainly the case that enforcement type roles are sometimes plagued by people with the wrong approach, or people who had the right intentions, but have become jaded and worn down by doing the job.

 

Equally, it would be foolish to pretend that no boater is ever in a position where they should be subject to enforcement, and those in enforcement are apt to cry foul.

 

The fact that you don't LIKE what is happeneing doesn't mean that what is happening is actually wrong.

 

It is clear that the OP has a desired outcome. The fact that the EO hasn't delivered that outcome may not suit him, but it doesn't mean that the EO has done the wrong thing.

 

The rest of it is pretty subjective stuff about the attitude of the EO, and it is entirely possible that what the OP is talking about isn't the EO behaving badly and talking down to him, or talking in riddles. It is just the EO not giving the answers that the OP wants to hear.

Precisely. We need more information to be able to make any useful comment.

 

I am aware of a recent problem with licensing a boat. CRT did not issue a licence promptly and enquiry revealed that there was a problem with the BSS certificate. The examiner had made a mistake, the owner had failed to spot the obvious and CRT had procrastinated about notifying the owner of the problem. All apologised, the licence was issued and hopefully lessons will be learned by all concerned.

[Hawkmoth]

That's open to interpretation and I think accusing CRT of theft is a bit dodgy myself. I'm sure you are well up on the legal side so probably OK.

 

What do you think the medium term outcome will be (say 2025) if people in large numbers ignore CRT enforcement procedures - the ultimate example being if a lot of boaters chose mooring spots they liked and never moved at all just sticking two fingers up and exercising their right to do what they like.

 

Surely at some point something will break.

 

Or do you advocate relying on people on boats to behave in a reasonable manner in general? That's not really human nature is it.

Just like it was around Bath a few year ago.

Bob

[johnswateryadventures]

If it helps, Ian Rogers is responsible for enforcement ian.rogers@canalrivertrust.org.uk. Sean Williams is the welfare officer sean.williams@canalrivertrust.org.uk

 

I'm not sure if this is exactly their remit, the Mark Chester, Senior Waterways Chaplain is Mark Chester markwith29@gmail.com. You might find some help through him

 

Richard

I found that email for the waterways chaplain was "invalid".

[Guest]

I found that email for the waterways chaplain was "invalid".

 

I have just sent a 'test' email (also from a gmail address) which has been sent OK.

 

you didn't inadvertently include the . at the end by any chance?

Edited September 15, 2015 by MJG

[johnswateryadventures]

Yep.

[churchward]

 

John, it is not up to the Trust to decide whether or not you can stay close to where you're undergoing treatment. The decision that someone may stay in one place beyond the 14 day limit if circumstances made it reasonable to do so, was made by Parliament in 1995 and cannot be altered except by another Act of Parliament.

You don't need permission from C&RT to stay put whilst undergoing medical treatment, you already have that permission from a higher authority.

A good point of course but it would be a useful and powerful thing to have informed the local CRT Office of the circumstances/intensions and obtain an acknowledgement from them. This then could be used to deflate/prevent any further nastiness with the local EO.

[Guest]

Yep.

 

[mayalld]

 

Yes, it does, and it's the same interpretation that any right thinking and reasonable individual or organization would also place upon it.

 

Reasonable in the circumstances isn't a free pass for ever.

[johnswateryadventures]

I've had some more dealings with them and the best outcome is there are 5 mooring places going north where I can still get back to the hospital, so that's 10 weeks of moorings.

 

It would have been nice to have some goodwill from the enforcement robots, and not have to use buses to travel back to the hospital, but there you are.

 

My volunteering for canal clean ups are over, do it your ******* self CRT !

[bassplayer]

 

Reasonable in the circumstances isn't a free pass for ever.

Should be so long as it's still reasonable..

[Emerald Fox]

 

Indeed anything can be faked.

 

Syrian passports are hot potatoes these days. Any on Ebay?

[mayalld]

 

John, it is not up to the Trust to decide whether or not you can stay close to where you're undergoing treatment. The decision that someone may stay in one place beyond the 14 day limit if circumstances made it reasonable to do so, was made by Parliament in 1995 and cannot be altered except by another Act of Parliament.

You don't need permission from C&RT to stay put whilst undergoing medical treatment, you already have that permission from a higher authority.

 

Who decides whether it is "reasonable in the circumstances"?

[magnetman]

[Emerald Fox]

There you go, fixed it for you.

 

In fact many authorities exist which are tasked with enforcing different laws. For example, I work for a local authority. Local Authorities have various enforcement powers across a range of legal areas, such as parking offences, fly tipping, anti-social behaviour (sometimes in partnership with the police, sometimes not), noise complaints, the movement of gypsies and travellers.. I could go on...

 

It's interesting to see how 'gypsies' and 'travellers' get lumped together with:

anti-social behaviour

noise complaints

fly tipping

parking offences.

Is there a connection?

[Guest]

 

It's interesting to see how 'gypsies' and 'travellers' get lumped together with:

anti-social behaviour

noise complaints

fly tipping

parking offences.

Is there a connection?

 

Grow up EF.

[tidal]

As is usual there will be numerous interpretations of what is and what isn't "reasonable in the circumstances"

 

Even I have one

[magnetman]

What is it?

[Dave_P]

All of those involve the police unless settled beforehand....and please don't misquote my posts it's against forum rules and misleading.

No they don't!!!!!! Sorry for the naughty edit.

 

Just to be clear, you're wrong.

 

It's interesting to see how 'gypsies' and 'travellers' get lumped together with:

anti-social behaviour

noise complaints

fly tipping

parking offences.

Is there a connection?

Yes. they are all (usually) enforced by L.A.s. Sometimes with police involvement. Usually without.

[cotswoldsman]

If C&RT had a copy of the transcript then they may have had to disclose it under a FOI request. No copy, so they have nothing to disclose. That does not mean that their law firm does not have a copy, just that C&RT don't.

The fact that it took 8 working days to type out the transcript would indicate that most probably no one had asked for one before. CART will be able to access the one we have next week.

 

The answer to the FOI request was

 

Quote

 

However, I can confirm that the Trust did not request a transcript of this case.

 

Unquote

[Naughty Cal]

As is usual there will be numerous interpretations of what is and what isn't "reasonable in the circumstances"

 

Even I have one

Each and every one of us will have our own interpretation of what is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

The one that matters to the OP and anyone else in a similar situation though is CRT's interpretation, which is why it is important to open a dialogue with the right person at CRT as soon as you become aware of your need to stay in a particular area and to keep them informed of any changes in your circumstances throughout your stay.

[tidal]

What is it?

Put it this way

Having had a minor stroke whilst living aboard my boat (not on BW/CRT waters) the relevant authority allowed me to continue mooring until such time as they and my doctors considered me fit enough to move it safely. Which was considerably longer than both 14 days and longer than I considered necessary.

 

Which I considered to be most reasonable and for which I was extremely grateful.

[bassplayer]

 

Who decides whether it is "reasonable in the circumstances"?

You do?

[cotswoldsman]

I have just been forwarded an email by a boater (with a home mooring)that has been sent by CART. It makes interesting reading as he is not accused of overstaying or being in one place for more than 14 days. His sin is he has spent to much time in one area. He email CART back to define area and was told they could not do this. CART are really making it up as they go along

Edited September 15, 2015 by cotswoldsman