Monitoring cruising patterns

[Jerra]

 

A boater has recently won a negligence case against BW/CaRT for £11,000 for carelessness over a boat they s.8’d, having refused consent for an EoG mooring that they have since had to recognise. Where is the publicity over that?

It might help a little if there had been a thread on here drawing attention to the fact and any news reports there had been.

[NigelMoore]

It might help a little if there had been a thread on here drawing attention to the fact and any news reports there had been.

True. Sadly that is about all I have been told by the person concerned. I am hoping to glean more useful info and details, but I think he is being cautious because of ongoing issues still being pursued.

[valrene9600]

we were logged whilst moving, i asked him why he was doing that, he just shrugged his shoulders, when i got my sightings log it wasn't on the list, this was on the tame valley.

Being logged while moving shows you in a different place from last sighting ,a good thing in my opinion. Nothing wrong with different locations being recorded.

[waterworks]

In my experience CRT's own formal complaints process is a long multi stage affair that takes months, and ends in them sending the case to a random CRT manager who knows nothing about it, and telling him what to say. Case closed.

 

Mine took eight months, and was a waste of time, except for the hilarious letters they sent me with crazy made up waffle, like for instance ' two narrow boats breasted up would need 2 steerers and two engines running to be safe.'

[Mike Todd]

 

There is no effective ombudsman, but neither is there any effective oversight by government.

 

You can complain regardless – if sufficient numbers of complaints/petitions/publicity were generated, there could be some effect a long way down the line, but I wouldn’t count on it. Should you have the energy for that, MP’s and House of Lords committee members would be an obvious starting point for targetting, and Prince Charles should be included in all such correspondence [for all that he will never read it personally] given that he is Patron.

 

Your first line of defence is always to ensure that you are acting lawfully yourself, and so to be in a legally defensible position should you have to face court action by CaRT seeking to justify any unlawful acts. Self-education and indomitable will is key to success should that transpire, and while that may be little comfort, it is all that there is.

 

It can work, [even via the ombudsman, albeit that strains credulity] for all that rare victories are very successfully played down, thus contributing to the credible illusion of invincibility. A boater has recently won a negligence case against BW/CaRT for £11,000 for carelessness over a boat they s.8’d, having refused consent for an EoG mooring that they have since had to recognise. Where is the publicity over that? Hopefully it will assist Geoff Mayers in his own battle for compensation over the loss of ‘Pearl’, but it has taken that other boater several years of intense campaigning and fighting to succeed.

 

Best of all, if possible, is to ward off unlawful seizures and/or court action with the help of educated numbers forming a coherent group; NBTA London, as an example, achieve numerous successes in this way, thus never having to enter a courtroom. That is where the strength of solidarity shows - but it is a difficult state to achieve amongst us is it not?

But always beware: car owners have long discovered that if a policeman wants to stop you or even to find an offence to detain you, there is almost always something that could be argued as outwith the rules even if just a bit too much mud on your number plate. "Sir, I don't think your sidelight is bright enough" or "Madam, your windscreen wiper appears to be rather worn"

 

If you want to challenge authority in this way, you have to be squeaky clean, literally as well as metaphorically - I doubt whether many boats would be invulnerable to such responses.

[Loafer]

In my experience CRT's own formal complaints process is a long multi stage affair that takes months, and ends in them sending the case to a random CRT manager who knows nothing about it, and telling him what to say. Case closed.

 

Mine took eight months, and was a waste of time, except for the hilarious letters they sent me with crazy made up waffle, like for instance ' two narrow boats breasted up would need 2 steerers and two engines running to be safe.'

 

We took another boat down the Thames breasted together, due to crew illness on the other boat. It was superbly manoeuvrable, and only needed one helmsman with access to both throttles. The other rudder was never needed - it just trailed in the slipstream. We went separate after Teddington for the tidal bit to Lighthouse, or whatever it's called.

[waterworks]

CRT will never publicise the cases they lose, its up to us to do it for them. Social media is the tool to do this, and the waterways newspapers and magazines.

[oarfish]

We were logged more times during 2 months in central London than 2 years on the rest of the system. It's enough to believe I really do have a stealth boat.

[waterworks]

Just got a copy of mine, and I've been spotted in two places on the same day. Unless I overtook the CRT number checker on his bike whilst boating I find it a bit strange.

[GoodGurl]

Being logged while moving shows you in a different place from last sighting ,a good thing in my opinion. Nothing wrong with different locations being recorded.

the point was it wasn't recorded on my sightings list.

[ditchcrawler]

Just got a copy of mine, and I've been spotted in two places on the same day. Unless I overtook the CRT number checker on his bike whilst boating I find it a bit strange.

Possible. Last time we saw a checker he was heading East by bike. Just before Armitage Tunnel he met another checker with a van and they swapped over, so had we been 5 minutes longer in Rugeley we would have been seen by two checkers in the same day.

[Loafer]

Possible. Last time we saw a checker he was heading East by bike. Just before Armitage Tunnel he met another checker with a van and they swapped over, so had we been 5 minutes longer in Rugeley we would have been seen by two checkers in the same day.

 

I can only imagine the excitement!

[kris88]

 

There is no effective ombudsman, but neither is there any effective oversight by government.

 

You can complain regardless if sufficient numbers of complaints/petitions/publicity were generated, there could be some effect a long way down the line, but I wouldnt count on it. Should you have the energy for that, MPs and House of Lords committee members would be an obvious starting point for targetting, and Prince Charles should be included in all such correspondence [for all that he will never read it personally] given that he is Patron.

 

Your first line of defence is always to ensure that you are acting lawfully yourself, and so to be in a legally defensible position should you have to face court action by CaRT seeking to justify any unlawful acts. Self-education and indomitable will is key to success should that transpire, and while that may be little comfort, it is all that there is.

 

It can work, [even via the ombudsman, albeit that strains credulity] for all that rare victories are very successfully played down, thus contributing to the credible illusion of invincibility. A boater has recently won a negligence case against BW/CaRT for £11,000 for carelessness over a boat they s.8d, having refused consent for an EoG mooring that they have since had to recognise. Where is the publicity over that? Hopefully it will assist Geoff Mayers in his own battle for compensation over the loss of Pearl, but it has taken that other boater several years of intense campaigning and fighting to succeed.

 

Best of all, if possible, is to ward off unlawful seizures and/or court action with the help of educated numbers forming a coherent group; NBTA London, as an example, achieve numerous successes in this way, thus never having to enter a courtroom. That is where the strength of solidarity shows - but it is a difficult state to achieve amongst us is it not?

I don't usually quote any of your posts Nigel, but I have to say thats an excellent post. Just about sums the situation up. Thank you for your knowledgable posts about waterways law. It's only through educating ourselves, then acting through solidarity can the life afloat be protected.

 

Regards kris

[waterworks]

The waterways minister won't get involved in any C&RT matters like licencing either. Who is there left ?

[NigelMoore]

It might help a little if there had been a thread on here drawing attention to the fact and any news reports there had been.

 

A little background can be gleaned from the FoI requests made by the person concerned. One of the more pertinent ones is -

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/regulation_and_conditions_that_r#incoming-323586

 

Obviously, subsequent to this the boat was returned and compensation awarded for damages due to insufficient care taken of the boat, but I know no more than what I have passed on from a personal message received last week.

[NigelMoore]

The waterways minister won't get involved in any C&RT matters like licencing either. Who is there left ?

 

The only body with any oversight powers of which I am aware is -

 

Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

 

Contact details for the Committee are as follows:

 

Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

House of Lords

London

SW1A 0PW

Telephone number: 020 7219 8821

Email: hlseclegscrutiny@parliament.uk

 

I did contact this committee some time ago [October 2013] with a report on the performance of CaRT following the Transfer Order 2012, and one of the members requested a hard copy be sent to the HL, which I duly sent. I heard nothing further, but at least there was that much I suppose, entered into the record. Perhaps if there were more voluminous representations made there would be more impact.

[waterworks]

I have emailed CaRT for an explanation of why their guidance for overstaying is unlawful, if that's the right word. I doubt they will reply though.I will go for a formal complaint to highlight it if necessary.

 

A. The trust has no authority to authorise or not authorise an overstay,

B, No evidence HAS to be provided, it is voluntary.

C. CaRT has no authority to charge mooring fees for any overstay.

D. There is no time limit. Within reasonable bounds.

[valrene9600]

I have emailed CaRT for an explanation of why their guidance for overstaying is unlawful, if that's the right word. I doubt they will reply though.I will go for a formal complaint to highlight it if necessary.

A. The trust has no authority to authorise or not authorise an overstay,

B, No evidence HAS to be provided, it is voluntary.

C. CaRT has no authority to charge mooring fees for any overstay.

D. There is no time limit. Within reasonable bounds.

They will probably seek legal guidance before replying. More licensing money wasted. Edited February 10, 2016 by valrene9600

[Arthur Marshall]

I rather expect they'll regard it as rubbish from an obviously vexatious litigant and ignore it. Not worth wasting their time on. Serious questions might get a serious answer.

ETA I await the usual abuse in response, which will rather prove my point.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Arthur Marshall

[churchward]

I have emailed CaRT for an explanation of why their guidance for overstaying is unlawful, if that's the right word. I doubt they will reply though.I will go for a formal complaint to highlight it if necessary.

 

A. The trust has no authority to authorise or not authorise an overstay,

B, No evidence HAS to be provided, it is voluntary.

C. CaRT has no authority to charge mooring fees for any overstay.

D. There is no time limit. Within reasonable bounds.

Sounds to me like a recipe for staying anywhere you want as long as you want.

I rather expect they'll regard it as rubbish from an obviously vexatious litigant and ignore it. Not worth wasting their time on. Serious questions might get a serious answer.

ETA I await the usual abuse in response, which will rather prove my point.

I think you may be right.

[Loafer]

I rather expect they'll regard it as rubbish from an obviously vexatious litigant and ignore it. Not worth wasting their time on. Serious questions might get a serious answer.

ETA I await the usual abuse in response, which will rather prove my point.

 

No abuse from me, Arthur.

[Jerra]

 

No abuse from me, Arthur.

Or me.

[waterworks]

I rather expect they'll regard it as rubbish from an obviously vexatious litigant and ignore it. Not worth wasting their time on. Serious questions might get a serious answer.

ETA I await the usual abuse in response, which will rather prove my point.

Tell me what is factually incorrect about my post, rather than pouring scorn at everything, and I might take you seriously.

 

I contacted the commitee and got this reply

 

"In 2012, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee considered the Public Bodies Order (PBO) which transferred functions from the British Waterways Board to the Canal and River Trust.

 

However, the Committee has no further role in relation to bodies created or affected by PBOs once those Orders have come into force.

 

(The Committee only considers legislation as it is coming through the system and we have no scope to look back at prior legislation).

 

Unfortunately, this means that we cannot help with your concerns.

 

Kind regards,"

Edited February 10, 2016 by waterworks

[NigelMoore]

. . . the Committee has no further role in relation to bodies created or affected by PBOs once those Orders have come into force.

 

 

Odd. That runs counter to the reaction I got from Lord Scott of Foscote, fully a year after the Transfer Order came into force. They are [or were] supposed to keep tabs on how the transfers successfully operated or not.

 

That scrutiny of performance has nothing to do with reviewing the prior legislation. But it is not so surprising that they deny this. DEFRA also, retain a [small] measure of oversight as to financial performance, yet give much the same answer - i.e. nothing to do with them.

[Higgs]

They will probably seek legal guidance before replying. More licensing money wasted.

 

 

I pay a licence fee. It'll pay for some of Waterworks' questions of CRT. I've got no use for the licence fee at the moment. Get your FOI questions in, but I rather think my licence fee won't pay for too many.

 

They will sidestep, though, the questions that are not in reference to their statutory powers. So, don't ask them which marinas require/don't require boats to have a licence; it's considered a commercially sensitive question and an answer will be refused.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Higgs