CART Threatening Letter.

[Sea Dog]

Sometimes you just can't be "opted out" with impunity, eh? See what happens if you're so cavalier about a road fund licence!

[OptedOut]

I doubt that a human being was involved in the sending of this letter, the 'computer' will have a program that prints and sends them unless a human puts in the data that a licence has been paid or C&RT have been informed that the boat has been removed from their waters.

 

You did not inform, computer prints letter and envelope, machine puts letter in envelope, envelope is placed in sack,Royal mail collects sack, letter delivered to address.

 

Now all hell lets loose because instead of thinking oops! I forgot to tell them.

 

I will have a go at C&RT for my mistake.

 

I can only repeat, any conditions expired with the licence!

[Guest]

 

I can only repeat, any conditions expired with the licence!

 

Clearly, though how about just dealing with the problem with CRT instead?

[David Mack]

 

You miss the point, they have already attempted to 'fine' us £150.

 

No they haven't. They have simply said that if your boat is to be relicensed then a late payment charge will be incurred if you pay after 1 November. But since you don't need or want to relicense the boat, then clearly no such charge is payable.

 

But it is in your interest to tell them that the boat is off CRT waters, and will be so for the rest of the winter. That way, when you do want to go back onto CRT waters you can apply for the next licence before you do so, and get the early payment discount.

[Naughty Cal]

 

Clearly, though how about just dealing with the problem with CRT instead?

Because then he can't throw his teddy out of the pram in public?

[bottle]

 

I can only repeat, any conditions expired with the licence!

 

Yes but you had a licence and so the terms and conditions were in force, you knew you would be taking your boat of their waters.

 

They would have sent you a reminder one month before the existing one ceased, so again the terms and conditions applied, you should have informed them then.

 

Still your fault.

[David Mack]

 

I can only repeat, any conditions expired with the licence!

 

But surely it is reasonable for CRT to assume that when a boat licence expires, the owner intends to renew the licence (unless he/she notifies them otherwise). Hence the issue of a renewal notice before the old licence expires, followed by a letter like the one you got pointing out that the early payment discount has been missed, but that renewal at that point will avoid the late payment charge. How else should they do it?

[Graham.m]

 

I can only repeat, any conditions expired with the licence!

 

Partly agree with you. But you received a renewal whuch it would have been good to acknowledge to them saying the boat was no longer on CRT waters.

 

Where is the boat?

[OptedOut]

Because then he can't throw his teddy out of the pram in public?

 

I did speak to Cart first but I was not convinced that this matter could be sorted as there appeared to be no 'Manager' available who could explain any policy. I still await a requested letter to finally clarify this issue sorted permanently.

 

My original post was to enquire if this had happened to anyone else, a simple yes/no would seem more appropriate than vitriolic comments.

[Guest]

 

I did speak to Cart first but I was not convinced that this matter could be sorted as there appeared to be no 'Manager' available who could explain any policy. I still await a requested letter to finally clarify this issue sorted permanently.

 

My original post was to enquire if this had happened to anyone else, a simple yes/no would seem more appropriate than vitriolic comments.

 

And referring to a non threatening letter as threatening wasn't vitriolic then? Or is it only you that is allowed to do that?

[MoominPapa]

We got something similar when our 6-month CRT license expired, after we'd returned to our home mooring on the Middle Level (ie away from the CRT system.) I just went online and changed the status of the boat to "out of the water".

 

CRT knows that our home mooring is not on CRT water, so I suppose that they could be expected to infer that the boat is no longer on CRT water, but on the other hand it's as likely for the boat to still be on the canals but unlicensed.

 

MP.

[Sir Nibble]

 

I did speak to Cart first but I was not convinced that this matter could be sorted as there appeared to be no 'Manager' available who could explain any policy. I still await a requested letter to finally clarify this issue sorted permanently.

 

My original post was to enquire if this had happened to anyone else, a simple yes/no would seem more appropriate than vitriolic comments.

Not seen any vitriol either. Everything seems entirely reasonable to me. How long have you felt this way?

[jenlyn]

Since around 2001 we have only ever licenced our boat for six months from May-October and moored in private water for the winter, BW were made aware of this fact on at least two occasions; they eventually apologized in writing for their mis-handling of a relatively simple situation.

 

This year I received a rather threatening letter from CaRT and would inquire if anyone else has suffered similar harassment?

 

Excusing the CRT "apologists" for a moment, and looking at the letter sensibly, it could well be written in a more "customer friendly" format.

I see your point in it coming across as "harassing".

 

Sadly, this sort of communication format seems to be the norm these days, and the apologists are only to keen to score some brownie points when anyone attempts to question the need for such poor writing.

 

I would write back, explaining how the communication made you feel when received, give the information asked for and then suggest a more user friendly approach that would be acceptable.

[Naughty Cal]

We got something similar when our 6-month CRT license expired, after we'd returned to our home mooring on the Middle Level (ie away from the CRT system.) I just went online and changed the status of the boat to "out of the water".

 

CRT knows that our home mooring is not on CRT water, so I suppose that they could be expected to infer that the boat is no longer on CRT water, but on the other hand it's as likely for the boat to still be on the canals but unlicensed.

 

MP.

Perhaps the OP could take a leaf out of your book instead of just ranting about a none issue.

Excusing the CRT "apologists" for a moment, and looking at the letter sensibly, it could well be written in a more "customer friendly" format.

I see your point in it coming across as "harassing".

 

Sadly, this sort of communication format seems to be the norm these days, and the apologists are only to keen to score some brownie points when anyone attempts to question the need for such poor writing.

 

I would write back, explaining how the communication made you feel when received, give the information asked for and then suggest a more user friendly approach that would be acceptable.

How would you prefer to see it written?

[Guest]

Excusing the CRT "apologists" for a moment, and looking at the letter sensibly, it could well be written in a more "customer friendly" format.

I see your point in it coming across as "harassing".

 

Sadly, this sort of communication format seems to be the norm these days, and the apologists are only to keen to score some brownie points when anyone attempts to question the need for such poor writing.

 

I would write back, explaining how the communication made you feel when received, give the information asked for and then suggest a more user friendly approach that would be acceptable.

 

LOL

[Sir Nibble]

I'm not an apologist. It just seems to me that putting "Canal and river trust" at the top of a letter does not automatically make it evil and the letter is quite clear, none threatening and not close to harrassment. Just a opinion that CaRT don't pay me to hold.

[OptedOut]

Not seen any vitriol either. Everything seems entirely reasonable to me. How long have you felt this way?

 

Since the first time BW threatened to tow my boat from private waters.

[OptedOut]

Excusing the CRT "apologists" for a moment, and looking at the letter sensibly, it could well be written in a more "customer friendly" format.

I see your point in it coming across as "harassing".

 

Sadly, this sort of communication format seems to be the norm these days, and the apologists are only to keen to score some brownie points when anyone attempts to question the need for such poor writing.

 

I would write back, explaining how the communication made you feel when received, give the information asked for and then suggest a more user friendly approach that would be acceptable.

Thank you for the very sensible and reasonable post.

[Guest]

 

Since the first time BW threatened to tow my boat from private waters.

 

I do love a good 'back story' pray tell.

[bottle]

So they made a mistake and as I understand it you had an apology twice.

 

The solution is and has always been in your hands.

Thank you for the very sensible and reasonable post.

 

Oh! dear

 

I will leave you to wallow.

[Laurie Booth]

Seems threatening to us as it appears to imply that they had already 'fined' us £150! We also have two written apologies from BW so the fact the issue continues= harassment?

What would you do if you did have a real threatening letter?

[OptedOut]

 

I do love a good 'back story' pray tell.

 

A long story. A BW manager sent a minion to enter a private boat yard and affix a threatening letter to our boat stating that we were on BW water and our boat would be towed away if we did not pay up. We thought the matter would rest there as the legal implications were fully explained to BW. Unfortunately the matter still continues.

[Theo]

Certainly a cock up but I can't see the threat.

Me too.

[OptedOut]

What would you do if you did have a real threatening letter?

 

The same as we did when the local electricity authority threatened to forcibly enter our property, (with police back-up) to install a 'smart meter', fight the case and win!

[jenlyn]

 

A long story. A BW manager sent a minion to enter a private boat yard and affix a threatening letter to our boat stating that we were on BW water and our boat would be towed away if we did not pay up. We thought the matter would rest there as the legal implications were fully explained to BW. Unfortunately the matter still continues.

A read of the link below may give you a starting point for some research, and could well be of interest to the boatyard owner.

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/8553-thames-marinas-exempt-from-licensing