Proving Boat Location (Acceptable Proof for Crt)

[tidal]

I've just been given a pukka Adlard Coles log-book as an early birthday present which will make a nice change from my usual A4 lined hardback cheapie from the local stationer.

 

I've only had about three proper log-books in over 40 years of boating

[Arthur Marshall]

I suspect you will derive a lot of pleasure looking back over the log in years to come. That is why we keep ours.

I wish I'd kept one, so it's a good idea.

[Naughty Cal]

I suspect you will derive a lot of pleasure looking back over the log in years to come. That is why we keep ours.

We have ours dating back to 2010. We didn't keep one for the first couple of years which is a shame.

 

They are indeed interesting to look back on and also handy for planning repeat trips to places.

[Arthur Brown]

There was indeed a thread a while ago, someone had cruised from Nottingham through Gunthorpe and overnighted at Newark returning the same way next day. This was followed by CART complaining that two days on the mooring at Gunthorpe was too long, despite the fact that they had been to Newark between passing both ways through Gunthorpe on different days.

 

Til CART can get enforcement right there is a lot of reason to have adequate evidence or position and movement. If you have been to "nice pub/restaurant" twice CART will assume you overstayed there unless they have collected proof otherwise.

[Dharl]

We have ours dating back to 2010. We didn't keep one for the first couple of years which is a shame.

 

They are indeed interesting to look back on and also handy for planning repeat trips to places.

Always kept logs, I suspect because trained to do so at work, its second nature to do so when afloat! On Honeystreet, as a shared boat, we have an A5 diary to record the activates on the boat, but also I have an Imray Navigators Logbook which I keep a track of trips and when not afloat is nice to look back at trips and plan for future trips!

[Mike Todd]

Is their any known acceptable way of Recording Boat movement that Crt would accept as valid proof of Boat movement / Nights Moored in one location ?

As is well known, there is no way under the current legislation for CaRT to be specific about what is acceptable and what is not, other than that 'The Board has to be satisfied that it is reasonable in the circumstances'.

 

It sort of follows that they cannot explicitly state what will constitute sufficient evidence of a cruising pattern. It is very likely that the issue will, in the present circumstances, only really arise with boats that have already come onto the radar for whatever reason. Given that, it is also likely that CaRT will examine any evidence very closely especially if they have already had to cope with some rather curious cited reasons for the reasonableness of the six week stay on a popular short term mooring. (I am still struggling to find a supplier of a standard 10mm bolt)

 

But it is also important to bear in mind that both the cruising pattern and any evidence of it, may also be subject to test by the courts if the boater fails to 'satisfy the Board'. In that context it may well be that a very different set of criteria are used in both matters. Nigel M may well be able to be more specific, but I would be surprised if in court the case could depend on the boater having to prove that he/she moved sufficiently in the absence of positive evidence to the contrary. If there were scant evidence that a boat had actually stayed in one place for a specified time that pretty much any evidence to the contrary is likely to persuade a judge that depriving you of your home (such is the effect of not re-issuing a licence). The more complex case is where CaRT claim some evidence that the boat had not moved sufficiently for the Board reasonably not to renew the licence, but it is inconclusive and that the boater also advances some patchy evidence - I call my mate in Lancaster who can say that I definitely traveled there this year and it is not relevant that there is no record of me booking the Ribble Link, sort of thing.

 

Much will depend I suspect on the effort that it would take to fake the cited evidence. If you have a set of photos, consistent with your claimed cruise, which have dates recorded and that you have contemporaneous notes (ie a log) which go with them, it would probably take a much more serious case for a judge to think that you had faked it all. As many a policeman has discovered (and also care homes, I might add) it is quite hard to create a log retrospectively that passes muster as contemporaneous.

[mayalld]

Ow thats good to hear captain birdseye, its hard to know whats norty or nice at the moment and reading the forum as my only outlook on boating I guess I am over worrying, the 4 day pub runs sound spot on.

 

Sound like it was no issue with your breakdown and crt too.

 

Thanks CB cool forum name.

Forum Name?

 

That's what he's called in real life!

[MtB]

Is their any known acceptable way of Recording Boat movement that Crt would accept as valid proof of Boat movement / Nights Moored in one location ?

 

 

You don't need to prove anything to them. Just tell them if asked. They'll only ask if their data has gaps which they need to fill, so they'll be in no position to call you a liar.

[Señor Chris]

it is quite hard to create a log retrospectively that passes muster as contemporaneous.

 

Precisely - keep a log and if it comes to court you can call on bank transactions and even mobile phone records to validate it.

 

Nothing to worry about really.

[captain birdseye]

We have always kept a log of hours run and number of locks just so we can look back when we go somewhere we haven't been for a while and check how long to allow for trips. We also put in reminders of good moorings and pubs etc. Helps as we get older, to jog the memory

[ditchcrawler]

If it was a problem they would have a field day at Braunston and bridge 104 if the sun shines.

[Tony Dunkley]

As is well known, there is no way under the current legislation for CaRT to be specific about what is acceptable and what is not, other than that 'The Board has to be satisfied that it is reasonable in the circumstances'.

 

It sort of follows that they cannot explicitly state what will constitute sufficient evidence of a cruising pattern. It is very likely that the issue will, in the present circumstances, only really arise with boats that have already come onto the radar for whatever reason. Given that, it is also likely that CaRT will examine any evidence very closely especially if they have already had to cope with some rather curious cited reasons for the reasonableness of the six week stay on a popular short term mooring. (I am still struggling to find a supplier of a standard 10mm bolt)

 

But it is also important to bear in mind that both the cruising pattern and any evidence of it, may also be subject to test by the courts if the boater fails to 'satisfy the Board'. In that context it may well be that a very different set of criteria are used in both matters. Nigel M may well be able to be more specific, but I would be surprised if in court the case could depend on the boater having to prove that he/she moved sufficiently in the absence of positive evidence to the contrary. If there were scant evidence that a boat had actually stayed in one place for a specified time that pretty much any evidence to the contrary is likely to persuade a judge that depriving you of your home (such is the effect of not re-issuing a licence). The more complex case is where CaRT claim some evidence that the boat had not moved sufficiently for the Board reasonably not to renew the licence, but it is inconclusive and that the boater also advances some patchy evidence - I call my mate in Lancaster who can say that I definitely traveled there this year and it is not relevant that there is no record of me booking the Ribble Link, sort of thing.

 

Much will depend I suspect on the effort that it would take to fake the cited evidence. If you have a set of photos, consistent with your claimed cruise, which have dates recorded and that you have contemporaneous notes (ie a log) which go with them, it would probably take a much more serious case for a judge to think that you had faked it all. As many a policeman has discovered (and also care homes, I might add) it is quite hard to create a log retrospectively that passes muster as contemporaneous.

 

In saying that a ''cruising pattern'' may have to be demonstrated or proved to a Court, you're merely adding to the much followed false trail that C&RT have so successfully laid.

The only bit of Law on the Statute books that concerns itself with boat movement requires that a boat does not stay in any one place for more than 14 days without a good reason for doing so, and nothing more.

Virtually everything published by C&RT with regard to Licence T&C's is intended to divert attention from that which they actually do have Statutory powers to require or demand, onto something which they can only wish lawfully to be able to demand.

It suits them, and their warped agenda, very well if their potential victims are foolish enough to believe that any arguments in their own defence must be on C&RT's terms.

[Ajna]

I'm experiencing an interesting state of affairs with CRT and find myself on a 3 month license because according to them my boat has not been moved in a year!

This as anyone who knows me it total tosh as I often moan about the Marple locks I've been up and down and the shallow Macc canal and the traffic noise up at Bugsworth basin but according to CRT I have not moved!

The most interesting thing is how can they legally prove it when they don't take pics of my boat and there is no name on it or numbers as its gone through a paint refurb this last year which I paid for in full in advance I might add.

A total waste of resources employing people to do a pointless job along with the other PR nonsense they spend thousands on rather than dredge the damn canal!

CRT were on North West tonight asking people to visit Manchester while stood on the Bridewater they don't own, absolute idiots.

[johnswateryadventures]

It has yet to be proven that boaters are under no obligation to prove where they have been, until it is that will be CRT's version of the rules. The question is how is it going to be proven ?

[Señor Chris]

 

The only bit of Law on the Statute books that concerns itself with boat movement requires that a boat does not stay in any one place for more than 14 days without a good reason for doing so, and nothing more.

 

Doesn't using the boat 'bona fide for navigation' usually require some sort of movement?

[Ajna]

It has yet to be proven that boaters are under no obligation to prove where they have been, until it is that will be CRT's version of the rules. The question is how is it going to be proven ?

and how much money CRT will waste in the process uneccesarily.

[mark99]

I'm experiencing an interesting state of affairs with CRT and find myself on a 3 month license because according to them my boat has not been moved in a year!

This as anyone who knows me it total tosh as I often moan about the Marple locks I've been up and down and the shallow Macc canal and the traffic noise up at Bugsworth basin but according to CRT I have not moved!

The most interesting thing is how can they legally prove it

 

 

SNIP

 

 

CaRT say they "cannot set a universal minimum distance for compliance, we advise that it is very unlikely that someone would be able to satisfy us that they have been genuinely cruising if their range of movement is less than 15-20 miles over the period of their licence. In most cases they would expect it to be greater than this".

 

So if you have been picked, I assume they have said this or something similar to you: and your response was?

 

The onus on "proof" as you say above is not with CaRT. Assuming you are a CC'er.

Edited September 22, 2015 by mark99

[Ajna]

 

 

CaRT say they "cannot set a universal minimum distance for compliance, we advise that it is very unlikely that someone would be able to satisfy us that they have been genuinely cruising if their range of movement is less than 15-20 miles over the period of their licence. In most cases they would expect it to be greater than this".

 

So if you have been picked, I assume they have said this or something similar to you: and your response was?

 

The onus on "proof" as you say above is not with CaRT. Assuming you are a CC'er.

My answer was I have moved my boat the required distance do you have any pictures of the boat you claim has not moved as I believe you are confusing my boat with another boat!

[Alan de Enfield]

The most interesting thing is how can they legally prove it when they don't take pics of my boat and there is no name on it or numbers as its gone through a paint refurb this last year which I paid for in full in advance I might add.

 

 

I should be very careful - by not displaying your number you are actually breaking the law (not C&RTs T&Cs, the real Law). C&RT can fine you for that.

 

I understand that the fine is £100 per offence, and that a new offence is committed everyday.

 

vessels

5. (1) Every vessel on any canal shall have exhibited on the outside thereof so as to be clearly legible at all times at a distance of twenty yards (i) her name and such index mark and number (if any) as the Board shall have assigned to the vessel.

[mark99]

My answer was I have moved my boat the required distance do you have any pictures of the boat you claim has not moved as I believe you are confusing my boat with another boat!

 

Sounds like they may have failed to log you correctly but if they have put you on a 3 month'er, the onus is still on you but now more onerus.

[Tony Dunkley]

Doesn't using the boat 'bona fide for navigation' usually require some sort of movement?

 

Yes, but that's unspecified movement between unspecified places. The only thing in the 1995 Act that is specific is the 14 days in one place limit.

[Ajna]

 

Sounds like they may have failed to log you correctly but if they have put you on a 3 month'er, the onus is still on you but now more onerus.

thats interesting but it's not lawful surely as it contradicts UK law where one is innocent until proven guilty.

Either way i can't be bothered with giving them anymore money so selling up its only going to get worse.

[Señor Chris]

 

Yes, but that's unspecified movement between unspecified places. The only thing in the 1995 Act that is specific is the 14 days in one place limit.

 

And not being specific allows you to ignore it? I know nothing about the law but would have thought it was up to the courts to interpret such vague and non-specific clauses but not ignore them entirely.

[Ajna]

 

And not being specific allows you to ignore it? I know nothing about the law but would have thought it was up to the courts to interpret such vague and non-specific clauses but not ignore them entirely.

why should a boater be specific it's nonsense

[Tony Dunkley]

why should a boater be specific it's nonsense

 

Quite right, especially when the relevant Law itself was made unspecific by Parliament in that ''bona fide [for] navigation'' is something that cannot be defined by distance travelled.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Tony Dunkley