Story's a bit mixed up, who won again?

[bigcol]

Thought the below might be interesting to some

Also the comments left

 

http://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2015/12/21/continuous-cruiser-wins-battle-canal-eviction/

[StarUKKiwi]

It poses some interesting questions, doesn't it? Note the usual suspects have commented

[peterboat]

their is never winners in these situations only losers thats all of us who want to cc but might find it difficult as the rules end up more vigorously enforced

[Allan(nb Albert)]

It poses some interesting questions, doesn't it? Note the usual suspects have commented

It suggests to me that CaRT do respond to negative publicity.

 

The question it raises is how CaRT can refuse a licence but then give a second chance by issuing a restricted licence. Either the 'board is satisfied' or it is not.

[bigcol]

It suggests to me that CaRT do respond to negative publicity.

The question it raises is how CaRT can refuse a licence but then give a second chance by issuing a restricted licence. Either the 'board is satisfied' or it is not.

Allan

what I was thinking

Don't makes sense ?

 

Col

Edited December 22, 2015 by bigcol

[DHutch]

To be honest, if your not meeting the requirements of cc'ing you have to leave or get a mooring. Not that.unreasonable?

 

With some campaigning and or proof you have compiled, your given a second chance in the form of a 6 month license. Also not unreasonable.

 

Have I missed something?

 

 

Daniel

[Allan(nb Albert)]

To be honest, if your not meeting the requirements of cc'ing you have to leave or get a mooring. Not that.unreasonable?

 

With some campaigning and or proof you have compiled, your given a second chance in the form of a 6 month license. Also not unreasonable.

 

Have I missed something?

 

 

Daniel

Well the first thing you have missed is that there is no requirement to CC according to law.

[Burgiesburnin]

Well the first thing you have missed is that there is no requirement to CC according to law.

 

True but if you buy a CC license then surely it's not unreasonable that cart expect you to CC.

[matty40s]

You don't, you get a licence for a boat with no home mooring.

CC is a new term invented by Sally Ash or Carlt.

[Steilsteven]

The article doesn't give much detail about this case, there was a petition calling for CaRT to think again and renew Jeff's licence, which they have for a further six months.

 

CaRT had issued a six month restricted licence after Jeff had over stayed due to his boat needing repairs, fair enough so far.

After four months, Jeff was told that his licence wouldn't be renewed because they considered that he'd been ''shuffling''.

During this four months, Jeff had cruised from Uxbridge to Hartford, approximately 60 miles. As the article says, he found it necessary to retrace his steps on occasion to get fuel ( no doubt water etc. too ), it is these occasions that CaRT considered that he was shuffling.

 

At this point I have to say that I don't know Jeff and that the information above is second hand.

What this case points out to me is how silly and out of hand these situations can become and to absolutely no one's benefit.

 

Keith

[sueb]

Cart are 'overlooking ' the reasonable bit of the act.

[MtB]

The article doesn't give much detail about this case, there was a petition calling for CaRT to think again and renew Jeff's licence, which they have for a further six months.

 

CaRT had issued a six month restricted licence after Jeff had over stayed due to his boat needing repairs, fair enough so far.

After four months, Jeff was told that his licence wouldn't be renewed because they considered that he'd been ''shuffling''.

During this four months, Jeff had cruised from Uxbridge to Hartford, approximately 60 miles. As the article says, he found it necessary to retrace his steps on occasion to get fuel ( no doubt water etc. too ), it is these occasions that CaRT considered that he was shuffling.

 

At this point I have to say that I don't know Jeff and that the information above is second hand.

What this case points out to me is how silly and out of hand these situations can become and to absolutely no one's benefit.

 

Keith

 

 

I disagree.

 

CRT drawing a line in the sand and stopping this type of behaviour benefits the canals and by extension boaters, fishermen and everyone using the cut.

 

Looking at the bigger picture if CT stopped enforcement the cut would rapidly be filled up with CMers, in my opinion.

 

You may disagree, but in my view if there is going to be enforcement at all, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and Jeff happens to have fallen on just the wrong side of the arbitrary line.

 

So if you agree any degree of enforcement is necessary at all, the debate is actually about where the line should be drawn.

 

I'd be interested to hear who here honestly considers there should be NO enforcement.

[Bod]

Thought the below might be interesting to some

Also the comments left

 

http://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2015/12/21/continuous-cruiser-wins-battle-canal-eviction/

To me the most telling part is that, when his boat movement record(created by C&RT) was examined the Trust withdrew and granted a 6 month licence.

 

Bod

[jenlyn]

 

 

I disagree.

 

CRT drawing a line in the sand and stopping this type of behaviour benefits the canals and by extension boaters, fishermen and everyone using the cut.

 

Looking at the bigger picture if CT stopped enforcement the cut would rapidly be filled up with CMers, in my opinion.

 

You may disagree, but in my view if there is going to be enforcement at all, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and Jeff happens to have fallen on just the wrong side of the arbitrary line.

 

So if you agree any degree of enforcement is necessary at all, the debate is actually about where the line should be drawn.

 

I'd be interested to hear who here honestly considers there should be NO enforcement.

Who mentioned anything about "no enforcement"?

Oh, you did.

[MtB]

(And if you consider there should be a degree of enforcement, where the line should be drawn as CRT seem to be getting it wrong in Jeff's case.)

[Chewbacka]

 

The question it raises is how CaRT can refuse a licence but then give a second chance by issuing a restricted licence. Either the 'board is satisfied' or it is not.

I suspect the board had not followed their own process - from the link "CRT is supposed to send a mid-point reminder three months before the six-month licence expires, yet Zedic says he received his notice only six weeks before the end of his licence" also there is a claim that his movements were ok - "I had to request the data recorded by British Waterways which shows precisely the movement of my boat to prove they were wrong".

and C&RT wishing to appear reasonable - “Refusing to renew a licence is the last thing we want to do: we’d prefer boaters to play by the rules and we will continue to monitor boaters to ensure fairness.”

 

I suspect the 'board' is not satisfied, but another 6 months makes gives him a chance to show he is complying and if he does it save C&RT the costs of moving to the next stage.

 

This is a win win for C&RT as they have got some free publicity to 'scare' cc boaters to keep moving, saved the costs of legal action and come out looking more than reasonable to most people, though I am sure not all.

[Steilsteven]

 

 

I disagree.

 

CRT drawing a line in the sand and stopping this type of behaviour benefits the canals and by extension boaters, fishermen and everyone using the cut.

 

Looking at the bigger picture if CT stopped enforcement the cut would rapidly be filled up with CMers, in my opinion.

 

You may disagree, but in my view if there is going to be enforcement at all, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and Jeff happens to have fallen on just the wrong side of the arbitrary line.

 

So if you agree any degree of enforcement is necessary at all, the debate is actually about where the line should be drawn.

 

I'd be interested to hear who here honestly considers there should be NO enforcement.

I don't disagree that there needs to be enforcement but only for over staying. If someone is to be denied a licence because they've had to turn back to get fuel/water/ empty their toilet etc. that is something of a ridiculous line that's being drawn, don't you think Mike?

 

Keith

[jenlyn]

Sometimes, CRT make mistakes. (this issue was a mistake) The hard bit is getting them to back away and admit making the mistake. CRT struggle with this.

[MtB]

I don't disagree that there needs to be enforcement but only for over staying. If someone is to be denied a licence because they've had to turn back to get fuel/water/ empty their toilet etc. that is something of a ridiculous line that's being drawn, don't you think Mike?

 

Keith

 

 

Ah, I thought you were arguing against enforcement, at all.

 

So you think overstaying should be stopped. I agree.

 

I also thing shuffling half a mile from one bridge to another, then back to the first bridge again whilst never overstaying should also be stopped. What are your views on that?

[Dave Payne]

I read a lot of these threads about CC'ing and who is right and who is wrong, i have a mooring and will more than likely stay on that mooring for some time as i feel it suits my needs at the minute.

 

Going forward though in the future i would like to CC for a period to explore the system more and get a feel for living on the cut.

 

Question i have though, and it might have been raised before but i dont recall reading it, what is wrong with drifting backwards and forwards, i understand that some people would camp on a lovely spot near all amenities and this should not be encouraged, but would it be so bad if people are allowed to travel where and when they like as long as they do not overstay according to the restrictions applied to each area??

 

Its a genuine question and i am not trying to stoke up anything...

[jenlyn]

I read a lot of these threads about CC'ing and who is right and who is wrong, i have a mooring and will more than likely stay on that mooring for some time as i feel it suits my needs at the minute.

 

Going forward though in the future i would like to CC for a period to explore the system more and get a feel for living on the cut.

 

Question i have though, and it might have been raised before but i dont recall reading it, what is wrong with drifting backwards and forwards, i understand that some people would camp on a lovely spot near all amenities and this should not be encouraged, but would it be so bad if people are allowed to travel where and when they like as long as they do not overstay according to the restrictions applied to each area??

 

Its a genuine question and i am not trying to stoke up anything...

The 1995 act does actually allow for this. However, if everyone did that, it would cause problems.

There is an easy answer that would take away a lot of the need to shuffle, provide more facilities. This is something that is being addressed at the moment, and hopefully will gather support.

[Tony Dunkley]

I read a lot of these threads about CC'ing and who is right and who is wrong, i have a mooring and will more than likely stay on that mooring for some time as i feel it suits my needs at the minute.

 

Going forward though in the future i would like to CC for a period to explore the system more and get a feel for living on the cut.

 

Question i have though, and it might have been raised before but i dont recall reading it, what is wrong with drifting backwards and forwards, i understand that some people would camp on a lovely spot near all amenities and this should not be encouraged, but would it be so bad if people are allowed to travel where and when they like as long as they do not overstay according to the restrictions applied to each area??

 

Its a genuine question and i am not trying to stoke up anything...

 

It's a very good question, and it's one you should be asking C&RT.

Why not do it right now in an E-mail?

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Question i have though, and it might have been raised before but i dont recall reading it, what is wrong with drifting backwards and forwards,................

 

 

The law stops you 'drifting backwards & forwards' - " the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for........"

 

The issue is the various 'understandings' of the meaning of "bona fide".

 

However, if you have a home mooring you do not have to meet " the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for..." requirement.

Even a Judge (HHJ Halbert) came to that conclusion :

 

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

[alan_fincher]

So for those unfamiliar with this case, (and I don't think it is stated here?), how far did CRT's attempts to remove this boat actually go before they were persuaded to grant another restricted licence?

 

Were external solicitors instructed? Did it make it, or nearly make it, to court?

 

It does seem that increasingly that CRT are making substantial spend in cases where they don't get the outcome they are trying for. Money they spend on failed attempts to remove a boat, is of course money they don't have to spend on improvements.

[jenlyn]

So for those unfamiliar with this case, (and I don't think it is stated here?), how far did CRT's attempts to remove this boat actually go before they were persuaded to grant another restricted licence?

 

Were external solicitors instructed? Did it make it, or nearly make it, to court?

 

It does seem that increasingly that CRT are making substantial spend in cases where they don't get the outcome they are trying for. Money they spend on failed attempts to remove a boat, is of course money they don't have to spend on improvements.

It was about to go to the solicitors. It was well advanced.