CRT extended stay

[CDS]

There is not meant to be any conflict in what I have said. I have just stated what I think the law says. The boater or the EO can create a conflict out of it if they want, the former by not informing the EO, the latter by overstepping their "authority". If both parties know where they stand everything should work out fine.

There is a lot of Continuous Cruisers who live aboard,work in low paid jobs and can't afford a mooring who

are moving every 14 days and covering the CRT recommendation of a minimum of twenty miles in a license

period.The boaters that really annoy me are the ones that say "Get a mooring"or "Get a house"absolutely pointless

observations,especially in the South East.Canals aren't housing estates some will say,well to some users they are.

It was government policy to get more people living afloat a few years back,isn't it now perhaps the case that CRT

are now a Landlord as much as a Navigation Authority.

[Athy]

I do hope that "flowery emotive language" is not discouraged. It's such an advance on just sitting here going "Ug".

[KroSha]

There is no "permissible " overstay, as no one gives permission. The CRT has no authotity to give any permission. The enforcement officer has no authority, anymore than a lollypop lady. Nor are you required to provide evidence, if CRT are not happy they have the option of presenting evidence to a court. If you abuse the right to overstay you could find yourself in court with no evidence or any defence, and you loose. Its fair all round.

 

Whilst I personally agree with you, CRT does not. When I informed them of our overstay, they were very accommodating. The EO came round the next day, with some little slips to put in the window, to inform those interested that we were overstaying "legally". Whilst I don't remember the exact wording, it was something along the lines of "...has our permission to stay until 29/02...". The word "permission" was definitely in there.

[bassplayer]

I do hope that "flowery emotive language" is not discouraged. It's such an advance on just sitting here going "Ug".

Well I've been thinking.

 

It seems for some, unless something is black or white factually, it is not worthy of discussion. Maybe it's a side effect of this digital world or something. Emotion is also regarded a weakness.

 

Take the example of the legality of charging for extra overnight moorings on the tow path. If it ever went to court there may well be hours of discussion and debate before it is deemed legal or illegal. That is what debate is for. That's what forums are all about too.

 

I'm left wondering whether the P & R subjects have been pulled from this forum because of the lack of blackness and whiteness. If everything was in a box there would be nothing to discuss. That seems to be where we're heading hence the remaining long threads on the VP disappearing up their own orifice.

[Athy]

.

 

I'm left wondering whether the P & R subjects have been pulled from this forum because of the lack of blackness and whiteness. If everything was in a box there would be nothing to discuss. That seems to be where we're heading hence the remaining long threads on the VP disappearing up their own orifice.

I think it was rather because a few posters quickly descended to the use of personal abuse against anyone whose views did not coincide with their own. "You think this, so you are an uter wet and a wede" as Molesworth might have said. To me, once a person introduces personal insults into a discussion, they have lost.

 

As for the V.P., many of us are unaware of which threads originate there, as pressing "view new content" shows new posts from all departments.

[Jerra]

I think it was rather because a few posters quickly descended to the use of personal abuse against anyone whose views did not coincide with their own. "You think this, so you are an uter wet and a wede" as Molesworth might have said. To me, once a person introduces personal insults into a discussion, they have lost.

 

As for the V.P., many of us are unaware of which threads originate there, as pressing "view new content" shows new posts from all departments.

I agree with the last paragraph but find it particularly sad (and IMO misguided) that the whole of the forum should be controlled by the actions of a very small minority.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

There is a lot of Continuous Cruisers who live aboard,work in low paid jobs and can't afford a mooring who

are moving every 14 days and covering the CRT recommendation of a minimum of twenty miles in a license

period.The boaters that really annoy me are the ones that say "Get a mooring"or "Get a house"absolutely pointless

observations,especially in the South East.Canals aren't housing estates some will say,well to some users they are.

It was government policy to get more people living afloat a few years back,isn't it now perhaps the case that CRT

are now a Landlord as much as a Navigation Authority.

Not normally one to defend Government policy, but can you be a bit more specific? Which Government Department was promoting living on the canals because I can't remember any sort of 'policy' such as that

[Athy]

I agree with the last paragraph but find it particularly sad (and IMO misguided) that the whole of the forum should be controlled by the actions of a very small minority.

The only small minority which controls the forum is (are?) the moderators - which is as it should be.

[Sir Nibble]

Edited due to rank stupidity

Edited March 31, 2016 by Sir Nibble

[bassplayer]

The only small minority which controls the forum is (are?) the moderators - which is as it should be.

Ah, but who controls them?

[jenlyn]

Not normally one to defend Government policy, but can you be a bit more specific? Which Government Department was promoting living on the canals because I can't remember any sort of 'policy' such as that

A member of cabinet created a hoo ha a couple of years ago by promoting living on boats, and on canals, rivers etc. Housing minister, I think maybe Grant Schnaps, not 100% sure on the name.

There was even a thread on here about it.

Edited March 31, 2016 by jenlyn

[bassplayer]

A member of cabinet created a hoo ha a couple of years ago by promoting living on boats, and on canals, rivers etc. Housing minister, I think maybe Grant Schnaps, not 100% sure on the name.

There was even a thread on here about it.

With the amount of flooding we seem to get after a days rain, he might have had a point...

[Bod]

I think we are getting a bit pedantic about this right to overstay.Permission is not needed for an overstay only a valid reason.

Its only by furnishing CRT with that valid reason that makes the overstay permissible.

 

Change the last word, for "hassle free"

Then it works for for everyone.

You know why your there, C&RT know why your there, nobody has to ask questions.

 

Bod

[Steilsteven]

OK, so you're not required by law to seek permission but you are required to seek agreement that your overstay is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

You can do so as soon as you are aware of said circumstances, or you can argue the toss about it at a later date.

 

If you plump for the former, the staff are likely to ''be nice about it'', of course they will, because you've made an effort to ensure that their working day is pleasant.

If you plump for the latter, you've then made yourself a pain in their side and possibly caused yourself a lot of grief, what for?

 

Keith

[MtB]

Not normally one to defend Government policy, but can you be a bit more specific? Which Government Department was promoting living on the canals because I can't remember any sort of 'policy' such as that

 

 

ISTR seeing a govt fillum promoting converting 'surplus to requirements' wooden narrow boats into residences to address the severe post-war housing shortage. This was back in the 1950s. Some very nicely converted NBs at Woodham, Surrey were shown in the fillum.

[onionbargee]

 

Whilst I personally agree with you, CRT does not. When I informed them of our overstay, they were very accommodating. The EO came round the next day, with some little slips to put in the window, to inform those interested that we were overstaying "legally". Whilst I don't remember the exact wording, it was something along the lines of "...has our permission to stay until 29/02...". The word "permission" was definitely in there.

There is a constant pressure from CRT to imply they have powers they do not have, over time these lies become the norm . I doubt they have just innocently used the wrong word "permission", you cannot seek permission from anyone for something that is already your legal right. CRT has no say in whether you can or cannot overstay, unless they can prove in court you have no reasonable reason to do so. "Reasonable" in this case is not their decision either it is the courts. A loose legal term based on what the average person would find reasonable. An overstay is innocent until proven guilty.

[Paul C]

Its easy to say "innocent until proven guilty" but as I understand it, the law doesn't work that way in this instance.

 

1. You overstay/stay longer than 14 days without informing CRT

2. Over time, CRT decide from sightings data that they are no longer satisfied, ie look at the legislation wording "the board is satisfied..." etc

3. They do not reissue a licence once it expires

4. (boater does not challenge this in the correct manor - ie by immediately raising a judicial review)

5. CRT take action against the boat/boater on account of its being unlicenced. During this process, point 1 is inadmissable in court

[Allan(nb Albert)]

A member of cabinet created a hoo ha a couple of years ago by promoting living on boats, and on canals, rivers etc. Housing minister, I think maybe Grant Schnaps, not 100% sure on the name.

There was even a thread on here about it.

It was Grant Shapps,Housing Minister in 2011. He attempted to to encourage the provision of residential moorings as a partial solution to the housing shortage.

[gaggle]

I am not stuck, I could go back up the Oxford towards Banbury but choose not to do so because I want to go to Lechlade

 

Should you find yourself in conflict with CRT due to your attitude I'm afraid that sympathy from this direction will be very thin on the ground

So you could have gone back towards Banbury , to what purpose ? in order you did not fall foul of enforcement perhaps , certainly you did not want to go back that way so you felt you needed to consult with enforcement in order to avoid having to go back up the oxford , not under any duress at all then .

[Athy]

So you could have gone back towards Banbury , to what purpose ? in order you did not fall foul of enforcement perhaps , certainly you did not want to go back that way so you felt you needed to consult with enforcement in order to avoid having to go back up the oxford , not under any duress at all then .

He thoughtfully kept the licensing authority aware of his intentions. Where's the duress in that?

[CDS]

Not normally one to defend Government policy, but can you be a bit more specific? Which Government Department was promoting living on the canals because I can't remember any sort of 'policy' such as that

Your points are already answered by the good ship Jenlyn. Grant Shapps was the minister in question.

[magpie patrick]

It was Grant Shapps,Housing Minister in 2011. He attempted to to encourage the provision of residential moorings as a partial solution to the housing shortage.

 

Singularly misguided - the capacity of the waterways even with wall to wall moorings is a drop in the ocean of housing requirements.

 

For example, Stockport's Strategic Housing Land Allocation is for 9000 dwellings over the next 20 years - this would require 85 miles of canal assuming 50 foot boats moored nose to tail. The borough has about six miles of canal which includes Marple Locks where one can't moor.

 

Edited to add - I suspect well over half of planning authorities don't have any canal at all

 

 

He thoughtfully kept the licensing authority aware of his intentions. Where's the duress in that?

 

Indeed - as a general rule in life I find transparency works best. I respond best to it and others respond better to me. Transparency can be interpreted as telling before one has to be asked.

 

"I'm going to be late home" is better than "Why are you late home"

 

"I can't pay until my client pays" is better than "Our invoice is now overdue"

 

"I'm heading for the river and it's in flood" is better than "why have you been here for more than 14 days"

Edited March 31, 2016 by magpie patrick

[onionbargee]

Its easy to say "innocent until proven guilty" but as I understand it, the law doesn't work that way in this instance.

 

1. You overstay/stay longer than 14 days without informing CRT

2. Over time, CRT decide from sightings data that they are no longer satisfied, ie look at the legislation wording "the board is satisfied..." etc

3. They do not reissue a licence once it expires

4. (boater does not challenge this in the correct manor - ie by immediately raising a judicial review)

5. CRT take action against the boat/boater on account of its being unlicenced. During this process, point 1 is inadmissable in court

Yes you're right, that's why you need to keep them INFORMED, but to be clear no permission, or authorisation is given like they are implying.

[magpie patrick]

Yes you're right, that's why you need to keep them INFORMED, but to be clear no permission, or authorisation is given like they are implying.

 

Indeed - but a sticker issued by them saying they know about it and are happy should shut other people up

 

Presumably if you emailed them and said you wanted to stay in one spot because the beer was good, or because you liked the sunrise hereabouts, they may not issue a sticker saying they're happy with it

[gaggle]

He thoughtfully kept the licensing authority aware of his intentions. Where's the duress in that?

Well thoughtfully or not for some reason he felt he should inform them of his intentions , was he lawfully obliged to do so ? if not what compelled him to inform them if it was not the fear of coming under enforcement.