Don't trust the Trust anymore.

[RLWP]

(Not a joke BTW as I believe it is important information and would benefit from being freely available rather than typed or copy/pasted again and again)

Which information?

 

Richard

[magnetman]

[kris88]

And your nominations for the latest puppeteer are?

So every time someone posts something you don't like your going to accuse them of being a doppel?

[magnetman]

So every time someone posts something you don't like your going to accuse them of being a doppel?

Must say I was a bit surprised someone so recently on the forum would so confidently describe it as Analworld.

 

I would have thought it'd take a lot longer than 4 days to work that out

 

Edit to add a little bit

Edited September 15, 2015 by magnetman

[Emerald Fox]

As someone keeps reminding me I do talk a lot of nonsense, but here goes:

 

In the last few days I've been thinking of copying some of Carlt's and Tony Dunkley's comments onto WORD, saving them for myself to browse through sometime(s) in the future. I do like Carlt's precise remarks about eg. religions, and his style, and I wonder if Tony's facts might help to get us out of trouble if we ever have any issues with CRT pestering us (not that they have, or have reason to, but forewarned is forearmed as they say) (and I think he writes well too with flair for getting rid of the chaff).

 

An extension of this, and I may have suggested this before, is that someone or some people may like to trawl through Canalworld's forums' threads and sift the sensible-looking stuff into sections and make a proper Boater's Manual? There was a boat which had sprung a leak a month ago in London, and there was a flood (heh, geddit?!) of very good suggestions about how to fix it temporarily; at least, I was impressed, nay, astounded at the ingenuity of some members here.

 

It would be a lot of work and very time-consuming, but if such a book were to be produced surely it would be the bestist guide around?

It might make a fine winter project for someone...

[tidal]

 

No, that is not the situation, at all.

I did outline the true situation earlier in the thread, but you may have missed it, so here it is again.

It's 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 make 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.

The EO you've been dealing with is relying on bluffing his way through all this with the customary mix of bluster, intimidation and lies, and it seems that having accepted and believed most of the incorrect and irrelevant garbage that's been posted here by the C&RT chorus line, you're now happy to join the ranks of those who believe it best to submit to the bullying and encourage C&RT to continue to threaten and intimidate as they wish.

Don't be under any illusions that by meekly complying with their unlawful demands you will avoid any further unwelcome attention, if you're known to be an easy target the bullies are sure to be back.

 

I know you have some expertise in this area Tony (far more than I do) but I think it is possible that because the wording is so vague a court might be able to determine what " is reasonable in the circumstances" without resorting to a new act of parliament.

 

That could either strengthen or weaken CRTs interpretation (and/or everyone else's) and similarly vaguely worded acts have been challenged in the past and precedents set.

 

I suspect that most judges would try to avoid doing so but you never know.

And I'm not at all sure if such an action would assist or hinder most boaters

[Graham Davis]

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 !

 

Sorry, but lots of us have to use buses and trains to get to hospitals. That is not a valid excuse!

[RLWP]

 

I know you have some expertise in this area Tony (far more than I do) but I think it is possible that because the wording is so vague a court might be able to determine what " is reasonable in the circumstances" without resorting to a new act of parliament.

 

That could either strengthen or weaken CRTs interpretation (and/or everyone else's) and similarly vaguely worded acts have been challenged in the past and precedents set.

 

I suspect that most judges would try to avoid doing so but you never know.

And I'm not at all sure if such an action would assist or hinder most boaters

 

I would have thought the court would determine who it was that decided what was reasonable, not what was reasonable itself. In other words, my uninformed, barrack room lawyer opinion is they would decide CRT were responsible for deciding what was reasonable

 

And I did my degree in mechanical engineering, not the law - you would be mad to rely on my opinion in court

 

Richard

[kris88]

Sorry, but lots of us have to use buses and trains to get to hospitals. That is not a valid excuse!

 

The compassion and caring for a fellow boater are overwhelming, I can feel the warmth of human kindness from here.

[Erie Canal]

John, I've sent you a PM, regards,

[johnswateryadventures]

 

No, that is not the situation, at all.

I did outline the true situation earlier in the thread, but you may have missed it, so here it is again.

It's 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 make 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.

The EO you've been dealing with is relying on bluffing his way through all this with the customary mix of bluster, intimidation and lies, and it seems that having accepted and believed most of the incorrect and irrelevant garbage that's been posted here by the C&RT chorus line, you're now happy to join the ranks of those who believe it best to submit to the bullying and encourage C&RT to continue to threaten and intimidate as they wish.

Don't be under any illusions that by meekly complying with their unlawful demands you will avoid any further unwelcome attention, if you're known to be an easy target the bullies are sure to be back.

 

Yes but, who is going to enforce the enforcers to stick to the law ?

 

OK, but the trust will not accept Tony's version, they have their own, and backed up by their own lawyers, how do I prove that the EO is not allowed to interfere with my medical treatment ?

[sueb]

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.

 

When my husband was in hospital I paid Crt for a visitor mooring. I stayed on the towpath for a fee. I didn't look for a mooring I just stayed where I was with no problems

[jenlyn]

 

When my husband was in hospital I paid Crt for a visitor mooring. I stayed on the towpath for a fee. I didn't look for a mooring I just stayed where I was with no problems

Evidently, you can claim that back, being as it was an illegal act.

[johnswateryadventures]

It does say somewhere that the trust reserves the right to charge for moorings, is this not legal ?

[Graham Davis]

The compassion and caring for a fellow boater are overwhelming, I can feel the warmth of human kindness from here.

 

Whatever!

[jenlyn]

It does say somewhere that the trust reserves the right to charge for moorings, is this not legal ?

Evidently not, but then maybe. Like most things with the trust, each day brings a new dawn.

[kris88]

 

Whatever!

What a highly intelligent we'll thought out reply.

[Dick Dastardly]

Yes but, who is going to enforce the enforcers to stick to the law ?

OK, but the trust will not accept Tony's version, they have their own, and backed up by their own lawyers, how do I prove that the EO is not allowed to interfere with my medical treatment ?

I think Mr T D has a very good point and reasonable is handing over sick notes, keeping them up to date.....which is what you have done so far. You have the law and reasonable on your side, what do they have? What is their argument? Try not to get stressed about it it won't help you. Personally I would put a letter of complaint in. Good luck with it all, I for one would be interested about how they deal with this - hope that doesn't seem too imposing.

[Tony Dunkley]

Yes but, who is going to enforce the enforcers to stick to the law ?

 

OK, but the trust will not accept Tony's version, they have their own, and backed up by their own lawyers, how do I prove that the EO is not allowed to interfere with my medical treatment ?

 

The answer to your first question is, you do.

Written notice to the effect that you intend to remain within a very limited area for the duration of your treatment will leave C&RT with two options. Either they can leave you in peace whilst under hospital or doctor treatment, or they apply the one statutory sanction available to them in Section17(4)[c](ii) of the 1995 Act in respect of non compliance with Section 17(3)[c](ii) of the same Act, which states :~

 

4[c](ii)

If : . . . . (in the case of a vessel in respect of which a relevant consent is issued pursuant to subsection (3)[c](ii) above) the vessel has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation in accordance with the said subsection (3)[c](ii);

the Board may 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)

Note the wording in the second line, . . . . 'has not ............been' rather than 'is not being', and also the absence of any requirement to 'satisfy' anyone about anything.

As for your second question, you won't need to prove anything of the sort. In the event that a 28 day Notice to 'remedy the default' is served, then you would simply do exactly that by moving your boat a short distance, and after 14 days at your new location they would again be obliged to either leave you in peace or issue a fresh 28 day Notice, and so on, and so on until your treatment has finished.

If you, verbally, and most definitely not in writing, make your intention to do this sufficiently plain to them, then they may well decide that harassing and attempting to intimidate someone with a demonstrably good reason for staying put is more trouble than it's worth. If they don't give up, at least you'll only need to move a short distance once every six weeks, but above all, whatever they do, you remain in control of events and C&RT are running around chasing their own tails and filling in forms and paperwork that you can render worthless at any time of your choosing within the 28 day period.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Beaker]

What a highly intelligent we'll thought out reply.

 

<cough, splutter>

[bassplayer]

It does say somewhere that the trust reserves the right to charge for moorings, is this not legal ?

Oh but you seemed such a victim at first..

[NigelMoore]

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

 

HHJ Pugsley gave some steerage on the question: -

 

“I think it has to lay down that the phrase “continuous movement” or travel or whatever it is, cruising, has to be seen in the context of a particular individual and, in this case, the individual has certain problems and that it is reasonable to construe the context in the light of his particular needs, which would not apply if anyone was free from those particular inhibiting health difficulties.” [my bold]

[Allan(nb Albert)]

The answer to your first question is, you do.

Written notice to the effect that you intend to remain within a very limited area for the duration of your treatment will leave C&RT with two options. Either they can leave you in peace whilst under hospital or doctor treatment, or they apply the one statutory sanction available to them in Section17(4)[c](ii) of the 1995 Act in respect of non compliance with Section 17(3)[c](ii) of the same Act, which states :~

 

4[c](ii)

If : . . . . (in the case of a vessel in respect of which a relevant consent is issued pursuant to subsection (3)[c](ii) above) the vessel has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation in accordance with the said subsection (3)[c](ii);

the Board may 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)

 

Note the wording in the second line, . . . . 'has not ............been' rather than 'is not being', and also the absence of any requirement to 'satisfy' anyone about anything.

As for your second question, you won't need to prove anything of the sort. In the event that a 28 day Notice to 'remedy the default' is served, then you would simply do exactly that by moving your boat a short distance, and after 14 days at your new location they would again be obliged to either leave you in peace or issue a fresh 28 day Notice, and so on, and so on until your treatment has finished.

If you, verbally, make your intention to do this sufficiently plain to them, then they may well decide that harassing and attempting to intimidate someone with a demonstrably good reason for staying put is more trouble than it's worth. If they don't give up, at least you'll only need to move a short distance once every six weeks, but above all, whatever they do, you remain in control of events and C&RT are running around chasing their own tails and filling in forms and paperwork that you can render worthless at any time of your choosing within the 28 day period.

I think the important wording here is 'in fact' in addition to what Tony has emphasised in bold.

 

Surely the only reason for not renewing a licence must be that during the previous licence period the boat 'has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation in accordance with the said subsection(3)[c](ii)' and that this has not been remedied within the required timescale.

 

***** edited to add - or that several occurrences had taken place during the previous licence period.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Allan(nb Albert)

[johnswateryadventures]

 

The answer to your first question is, you do.

Written notice to the effect that you intend to remain within a very limited area for the duration of your treatment will leave C&RT with two options. Either they can leave you in peace whilst under hospital or doctor treatment, or they apply the one statutory sanction available to them in Section17(4)[c](ii) of the 1995 Act in respect of non compliance with Section 17(3)[c](ii) of the same Act, which states :~

4[c](ii)

If : . . . . (in the case of a vessel in respect of which a relevant consent is issued pursuant to subsection (3)[c](ii) above) the vessel has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation in accordance with the said subsection (3)[c](ii);

the Board may 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)

Note the wording in the second line, . . . . 'has not ............been' rather than 'is not being', and also the absence of any requirement to 'satisfy' anyone about anything.

As for your second question, you won't need to prove anything of the sort. In the event that a 28 day Notice to 'remedy the default' is served, then you would simply do exactly that by moving your boat a short distance, and after 14 days at your new location they would again be obliged to either leave you in peace or issue a fresh 28 day Notice, and so on, and so on until your treatment has finished.

If you, verbally, and most definitely not in writing, make your intention to do this sufficiently plain to them, then they may well decide that harassing and attempting to intimidate someone with a demonstrably good reason for staying put is more trouble than it's worth. If they don't give up, at least you'll only need to move a short distance once every six weeks, but above all, whatever they do, you remain in control of events and C&RT are running around chasing their own tails and filling in forms and paperwork that you can render worthless at any time of your choosing within the 28 day period.

I appreciate your comprehensive replies but I don't understand the law, I would need a legal professional to decipher the letters I would get from the trust, they are experts at making the rules as confusing as possible. And where would I find legal help that has even heard of the canal act ?

 

 

This is their guidance on overstaying.

 

" 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances"

Circumstances where it is reasonable to stay in one neighbourhood or locality for longer than 14 days

are where further movement is prevented by causes outside the reasonable control of the boater.

Examples include temporary mechanical breakdown preventing cruising until repairs are complete,

emergency navigation stoppage, impassable ice or serious illness (for which medical evidence may

be required).

Such reasons should be made known immediately to local Trust enforcement staff with a request to

authorise a longer stay at the mooring site or nearby. The circumstances will be reviewed regularly

and reasonable steps (where possible) must be taken to remedy the cause of the longer stay eg

repairs put in hand where breakdown is the cause.

Where difficulties persist and the boater is unable to continue the cruise, the Trust reserves the right

to charge mooring fees and to require the boat to be moved away from popular temporary or visitor

moorings until the cruise can recommence.

Edited September 15, 2015 by johnswateryadventures

[tidal]

 

HHJ Pugsley gave some steerage on the question: -

 

“I think it has to lay down that the phrase “continuous movement” or travel or whatever it is, cruising, has to be seen in the context of a particular individual and, in this case, the individual has certain problems and that it is reasonable to construe the context in the light of his particular needs, which would not apply if anyone was free from those particular inhibiting health difficulties.” [my bold]

He did indeed.

And having avidly read the extracts you have posted, I found his comments to be eminently sensible, at times amusing and very indicative of his thought-processes.

I would hope that both the relevant authority and their legal team took note of them. Though iirc you pointed out that they were just comments and held no real legal weight(?)

 

I would also hope that CRT take a sensible stance about the real needs of the opening poster and apply a modicum of good sense and a reasonable attitude to dealing with his problems.

After all the bad press they get it might be, if nothing else, a good PR move.

But I'm not holding my breath