CART Threatening Letter.

[nicknorman]

That sloppily worded Form appears to be primarily intended to be used when a boat is sold to a new owner, or possibly if the owner's 'details' change. Using it to notify changes related to mooring is stated to be optional and not compulsory. Unlike a road vehicle SORN Declaration, there is no section to be filled in if the Licence is not being renewed.

 

Whilst I cannot agree that the letter in the OP is threatening in itself, it is, nevertheless, the standard prelude to the threatening letter that follows.

I got one just like it in September after I temporarily ceased using my boat in the main navigable channel of the river Trent, and therefore, had no need to renew the 'Rivers only Licence' which had expired at the end of August.

Due to C&RT's rather strange ideas, inherited from BW, about the imaginary powers that enable them to demand that any vessel of their choosing must be licensed, irrespective of it being moored on private waters, or waters where the Public Right of Navigation is extant, they followed up with a letter which could not be construed, even by the most fervent of C&RT apologists, as anything but threatening.

The situation is not so very different from that in the OP.

So out of interest, when you got the first letter, did you inform them that the boat was no longer on waters where a licence was required, or did you just ignore it?

[Loafer]

Advantage, Norman.

[Tony Dunkley]

So out of interest, when you got the first letter, did you inform them that the boat was no longer on waters where a licence was required, or did you just ignore it?

 

No, I had no need to inform them as the boat is sighted by C&RT every fortnight, on its mooring, in PRN waters.

[nicknorman]

No, I had no need to inform them as the boat is sighted by C&RT every fortnight, on its mooring, in PRN waters.

No need, perhaps, but on the other hand it is a bold assumption that CRT is an entity within which one hand knows what the other hand is doing. Like nearly all largish organisations it probably doesn't ie enforcement doesn't know what licensing are doing and vice versa. We will never know, but perhaps the reaction would have been different if you had responded to the first letter with a clear statement of your position, and why.

 

My point is that ignoring such a letter is rarely the best course of action to get a peaceful life. Then again perhaps you wanted a fight anyway!

Edited November 27, 2015 by nicknorman

[Dave-Shrop]

 

 

 

That sloppily worded Form appears to be primarily intended to be used when a boat is sold to a new owner, or possibly if the owner's 'details' change. Using it to notify changes related to mooring is stated to be optional and not compulsory. Unlike a road vehicle SORN Declaration, there is no section to be filled in if the Licence is not being renewed.

 

Whilst I cannot agree that the letter in the OP is threatening in itself, it is, nevertheless, the standard prelude to the threatening letter that follows.

I got one just like it in September after I temporarily ceased using my boat in the main navigable channel of the river Trent, and therefore, had no need to renew the 'Rivers only Licence' which had expired at the end of August.

Due to C&RT's rather strange ideas, inherited from BW, about the imaginary powers that enable them to demand that any vessel of their choosing must be licensed, irrespective of it being moored on private waters, or waters where the Public Right of Navigation is extant, they followed up with a letter which could not be construed, even by the most fervent of C&RT apologists, as anything but threatening.

The situation is not so very different from that in the OP.

 

 

 

 

 

SECTION D – HOME MOORING: TICK ONE OPTION BELOW

□ The boat has a home mooring (as defined in the General Terms and Conditions for Boat Licences – 1.3)

□ The boat is stored out of the water when it is not being used for cruising

□ The boat cruises continuously and in accordance with the British Waterways Act 1995 (see footnote)

Home Mooring details (if applicable):

Site / operator name: Waterway: Address (if not a Canal & River Trust site

□ The boat has been removed from our waters

[mayalld]

Does as far as I'm concerned as it seems to imply that my next 6 month licence will be subject to an additional £150 charge.

 

As I've already spoken to CaRT expressing my concerns I'm sure they will write to confirm how they intend to address said concerns.

I feel that perhaps you should reserve your ire for whoever taught you English, as it must surely be their fault that you failed to properly comprehend what the letter said

[Loafer]

I feel that perhaps you should reserve your ire for whoever taught you English, as it must surely be their fault that you failed to properly comprehend what the letter said

 

Split infinitive warning.

[OptedOut]

 

 

 

That sloppily worded Form appears to be primarily intended to be used when a boat is sold to a new owner, or possibly if the owner's 'details' change. Using it to notify changes related to mooring is stated to be optional and not compulsory. Unlike a road vehicle SORN Declaration, there is no section to be filled in if the Licence is not being renewed.

 

Whilst I cannot agree that the letter in the OP is threatening in itself, it is, nevertheless, the standard prelude to the threatening letter that follows.

I got one just like it in September after I temporarily ceased using my boat in the main navigable channel of the river Trent, and therefore, had no need to renew the 'Rivers only Licence' which had expired at the end of August.

Due to C&RT's rather strange ideas, inherited from BW, about the imaginary powers that enable them to demand that any vessel of their choosing must be licensed, irrespective of it being moored on private waters, or waters where the Public Right of Navigation is extant, they followed up with a letter which could not be construed, even by the most fervent of C&RT apologists, as anything but threatening.

The situation is not so very different from that in the OP.

 

Been there twice before, hence my stubborn stance on the issue.

Edited November 27, 2015 by OptedOut

[Guest]

Been there twice before, hence my stubborn stance on the issue.

So in fact you don't have a low threshold to feeling threatened at all, you are simply being awkward.

[OptedOut]

So in fact you don't have a low threshold to feeling threatened at all, you are simply being awkward.

I always appear awkward when dealing with poorly managed and/or dictatorial public authorities.

Edited November 27, 2015 by OptedOut

[boathunter]

So in fact you don't have a low threshold to feeling threatened at all, you are simply being awkward.

No, he's fed up going through the same circle year after year when what he's doing should be no more complicated than buying a cinema ticket. Informing them of the situation expecting them to make a note of it appears as useful as telling your cat about it. Must be pretty annoying if not the end of world.

[Guest]

No, he's fed up going through the same circle year after year when what he's doing should be no more complicated than buying a cinema ticket. Informing them of the situation expecting them to make a note of it appears as useful as telling your cat about it. Must be pretty annoying if not the end of world.

No, he earlier agreed that he possibly had a low tolerance to feeling threatened. He is now saying he is just being stubborn.

 

I do wish that you would follow a thread properly and read my posts before jumping on them. That's the second time you have done this in the last couple of days.

I always appear awkward when dealing with poorly managed and/or dictatorial public authorities.

That's fine we have cleared up then that you were not feeling threatened at all. So as said earlier your thread title is nonesense.

[OptedOut]

No, he's fed up going through the same circle year after year when what he's doing should be no more complicated than buying a cinema ticket. Informing them of the situation expecting them to make a note of it appears as useful as telling your cat about it. Must be pretty annoying if not the end of world.

 

Very well said, thank you.

[Guest]

Very well said, thank you.

 

Lol

[jenlyn]

No, he earlier agreed that he possibly had a low tolerance to feeling threatened. He is now saying he is just being stubborn.

 

I do wish that you would follow a thread properly and read my posts before jumping on them. That's the second time you have done this in the last couple of days.

 

That's fine we have cleared up then that you were not feeling threatened at all. So as said earlier your thread title is nonesense.

Tis very funny how those that spend so much time feigning insult and injury on here, suddenly have skins like rhinos when it suits them. I'm pretty sure I am not the only one who notices this.

 

The letter is poorly written, amateurish even, much what you expect from government led bodies.

[Guest]

Tis very funny how those that spend so much time feigning insult and injury on here, suddenly have skins like rhinos when it suits them. I'm pretty sure I am not the only one who notices this.

 

The letter is poorly written, amateurish even, much what you expect from government led bodies.

Still not threatening by the stretch of any ones imagination. Edited November 27, 2015 by MJG

[Tony Dunkley]

 

 

 

 

 

SECTION D – HOME MOORING: TICK ONE OPTION BELOW

□ The boat has a home mooring (as defined in the General Terms and Conditions for Boat Licences – 1.3)

□ The boat is stored out of the water when it is not being used for cruising

□ The boat cruises continuously and in accordance with the British Waterways Act 1995 (see footnote)

Home Mooring details (if applicable):

Site / operator name: Waterway: Address (if not a Canal & River Trust site

□ The boat has been removed from our waters

 

If you're suggesting that I should have claimed that the boat had been removed from waters over which C&RT has jurisdiction, then that would not be true. The boat is still on C&RT waters, but waters where the PRN remains, and so is not required to have current Pleasure Boat Certificate, or Licence, unless and until it is either kept or used within the main navigable channel of a Scheduled river.

Edited November 27, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[jenlyn]

Still not threatening by the stretch of any ones imagination.

CRT intimidate, as did BW. John Dodwell once told me BT took 10 years to get away from its government department mentality. The way CRT is going, I doubt very much it will last ten years in its present format.

[OptedOut]

No, he earlier agreed that he possibly had a low tolerance to feeling threatened. He is now saying he is just being stubborn.

 

I do wish that you would follow a thread properly and read my posts before jumping on them. That's the second time you have done this in the last couple of days.

 

That's fine we have cleared up then that you were not feeling threatened at all. So as said earlier your thread title is nonesense.

I did not say that I felt threatened, I stated the letter appeared threatening.

 

Quite frankly I'm amazed you posts are not jumped on more frequently

[Guest]

CRT intimidate, as did BW. John Dodwell once told me BT took 10 years to get away from its government department mentality. The way CRT is going, I doubt very much it will last ten years in its present format.

The letter still isn't threatening though, by the stretch of any ones imagination, however it is spun twisted or manipulated it's a simple reminder to renew a licence.

 

I did not say that I felt threatened, I stated the letter appeared threatening.

 

Quite frankly I'm amazed you posts are not jumped on more frequently

Trust me they are jumped on a lot. It's what happens when you don't pander to the 'CRT are the devil's spawn' mentality.

 

As to what you have said, have you now actually forgotten what the title of the thread you started is?

Edited November 27, 2015 by MJG

[OptedOut]

Tis very funny how those that spend so much time feigning insult and injury on here, suddenly have skins like rhinos when it suits them. I'm pretty sure I am not the only one who notices this.

 

The letter is poorly written, amateurish even, much what you expect from government led bodies.

 

I do not spend a lot of time on here and after 37 years in management my skin is almost bullet proof, Lol.

[Tony Dunkley]

I always appear awkward when dealing with poorly managed and/or dictatorial public authorities.

 

And good for you.

High handed, arrogant and shambolic organizations such as C&RT are all too frequently allowed to get away with their aggressive incompetence, encouraged no doubt by the blinkered support available to them on sites such as this.

Are you expecting C&RT to start claiming that you have to be licensed whilst on the private water during Winter?

Edited November 27, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Jerra]

No, he's fed up going through the same circle year after year when what he's doing should be no more complicated than buying a cinema ticket. Informing them of the situation expecting them to make a note of it appears as useful as telling your cat about it. Must be pretty annoying if not the end of world.

The problem is that if they took notice and didn't remind him (or others in a similar situation) of the need to re-licence he or somebody else in a similar situation would be complaining when they varied what they did, and as a result didn't get a reminder.

 

Damned if they do and damned if they don't comes to mind. CRT can not possibly know that things in his life haven't changed and so (particularly if he has a history of not informing them) take the safest way out (for them) and send a reminder. Which incidentally ins't in anyway threatening.

[Guest]

And good for you.

High handed, arrogant and shambolic organizations such as C&RT are all too frequently allowed to get away with their aggressive incompetence, encouraged no doubt by the blinkered support available to them on sites such as this.

Very well said.

 

(Oops I stole OptedOut's line)

[jenlyn]

 

I do not spend a lot of time on here and after 37 years in management my skin is almost bullet proof, Lol.

Not aimed at you. I am in agreement with you that the letter is rubbish, I find it intimidating.