CRT extended stay

[NigelMoore]

Which of course is covered by the licence fee. I suggest that is what it means. . .

 

Not so, though you have a good underlying point. However the wording could never have been meant to apply to boat licences and associated fees, because those could never have been imposed under the situation then obtaining.

 

At the time this Act was passed, British Waterways managed over 250 miles of public navigable rivers including tidal sections, and the entirety of the canal network was subject to PRN’s. That remained the situation until 6 years later.

 

On the prima facie reading explicitly [or sometimes merely implicitly] promoted with the usual references to s.43, BW ought to have been able to mandate compulsory boat licences for all these waterways regardless of PRN’s; to have made such licences subject to whatever T&C’s they wished, and to charge what they liked for them, from 1962 onwards.

 

But that was never true; they still cannot, to this day - they are constrained in this by several geographic limitations and price-cappings, acknowledged and specified in subsequent Acts.

 

There is in fact no definition of "services and facilities" in the Act explicated in s.43(8) nor is it really needed; that merely clarifies that the services and facilities for which BW were empowered to charge included those which they were empowered to charge relating to use of the waterways by boats - as in tolls for carrying cargo on the water as well as for using locks, BW wharves etc etc.

[valrene9600]

I guess that the legal jargon from Nigel means CRT only have to provide the water and a bank to charge fees be they £25 or wintermoorings. Trying to cope with all these signs I find it easier to not stop. In the case of places like Stoke Bruerne let the locals keep control of everything i' ll find another pub or restaurant to spend my money.

[jenlyn]

Not so, though you have a good underlying point. However the wording could never have been meant to apply to boat licences and associated fees, because those could never have been imposed under the situation then obtaining.

At the time this Act was passed, British Waterways managed over 250 miles of public navigable rivers including tidal sections, and the entirety of the canal network was subject to PRNs. That remained the situation until 6 years later.

 

On the prima facie reading explicitly [or sometimes merely implicitly] promoted with the usual references to s.43, BW ought to have been able to mandate compulsory boat licences for all these waterways regardless of PRNs; to have made such licences subject to whatever T&Cs they wished, and to charge what they liked for them, from 1962 onwards.

But that was never true; they still cannot, to this day - they are constrained in this by several geographic limitations and price-cappings, acknowledged and specified in subsequent Acts.

 

There is in fact no definition of "services and facilities" in the Act explicated in s.43(8) nor is it really needed; that merely clarifies that the services and facilities for which BW were empowered to charge included those which they were empowered to charge relating to use of the waterways by boats - as in tolls for carrying cargo on the water as well as for using locks, BW wharves etc etc.

Throwing my own theory in, I suspect it was all such a hash up at the time, it left them not knowing what had been discussed and agreed from one day to the next.

Given that many from BW still work within the "CRT", and having experienced how they work from close up, I can give my theory some credit I think.

 

My own view is that CRT are not fit for purpose, and I would prefer it back in government hands. At least than we would have a say.

Edited March 30, 2016 by jenlyn

[NigelMoore]

Throwing my own theory in, I suspect it was all such a hash up at the time, it left them not knowing what had been discussed and agreed from one day to the next.

Given that many from BW still work within the "CRT", and having experienced how they work from close up, I can give my theory some credit I think.

 

My own view is that CRT are not fit for purpose, and I would prefer it back in government hands. At least than we would have a say.

Not denying anything you say above - but don't forget that the 1962 Act was primary legislation promoted by the government, not BW nor BTC.

[jenlyn]

Not denying anything you say above - but don't forget that the 1962 Act was primary legislation promoted by the government, not BW nor BTC.

Point acknowledged.

[onionbargee]

You only need to inform CRT of your overstay so that they can add it to your sightings record, and you don't receive a bad mark. They don't actually "authorise" your overstay, as you are entitled to it by law. Which makes peoples stories of " how nice CRT are and always let me overstay" a joke, of course they do, its the law. Strangley they follow this part of the law but not others. They like words like "authorise", " terminate " and "crushed" because it sounds like they have authority over people, they don't.

 

Naturally its courtesy to inform them, if you don't you might have to argue over an overstay months later with no evidence, and your licence account is blocked.

[jenlyn]

You only need to inform CRT of your overstay so that they can add it to your sightings record, and you don't receive a bad mark. They don't actually "authorise" your overstay, as you are entitled to it by law. Which makes peoples stories of " how nice CRT are and always let me overstay" a joke, of course they do, its the law. Strangley they follow this part of the law but not others. They like words like "authorise", " terminate " and "crushed" because it sounds like they have authority over people, they don't.

 

Naturally its courtesy to inform them, if you don't you might have to argue over an overstay months later with no evidence, and your licence account is blocked.

 

Exactly. Have a greenie

[valrene9600]

You only need to inform CRT of your overstay so that they can add it to your sightings record, and you don't receive a bad mark. They don't actually "authorise" your overstay, as you are entitled to it by law. Which makes peoples stories of " how nice CRT are and always let me overstay" a joke, of course they do, its the law. Strangley they follow this part of the law but not others. They like words like "authorise", " terminate " and "crushed" because it sounds like they have authority over people, they don't.

Naturally its courtesy to inform them, if you don't you might have to argue over an overstay months later with no evidence, and your licence account is blocked.

Now you have a decision to make. Are going to NOT inform them because the law is on your side and you rich enough to fight it out in court.

Or are you as your second suggestion inform them out of courtesy perhaps because your skint or just want to boat in peace.

You give two choices, which one will you go with.

Oh and can you tell me why is it that crt ticket boats or e mail or text to say a boat is overstaying if it's legal to do so. Why do they bother. Do away with EO,s and use the money for other things along the cut.

Please explain this, is it a game they play if so tell me the rules.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

To put the £25 penalty charge into perspective "Since January 2015 we have invoiced 19 customers for overstay charges and

continue to do so. Of these 19, 7 have paid in full, 1 has paid in part under a payment plan, 5 have not paid yet and 6 invoices were subsequentlycancelled with a credit note for various reasons.

I was going to post whether anyone knew of anyone who had been subject of such a charge, you've pre-empted the question and it does seem that, legal or not, the £25 overstay charge is a bit of a red herring really. If your data is correct (I have no reason to suggest otherwise) over a period of 15 months 8 boaters have paid the charge, either fully or partly, with an estimated boat population of say, 25,000 boats (there may well be many more) that give a percentage of about 0.036% of boaters have been hit with the charge, I would suggest that is some way below trivial! The actual purpose of the the charge is to discourage overstaying on popular moorings and, to be honest, I have no problem with that. Those who may wish to overstay should do so where it doesn't impact on others.

 

On a similar tack however, in conversation with another boater at Banbury he advised me that the Environment Agency are now aggressively pursuing their mooring charges on the Thames. The account he gave me was that there was a charge to either be paid to an EO staff member or it was possible to pay by mobile. If neither of these options were taken then the EO handed the civil debt to a debt collection agency to pursue and a letter would be sent to the address that you use as land based address for mail. He said he was quite miffed because his land based address was his elderly mother's house and is had worried her receiving a letter (addressed to him) from a debt collection agency. Before anyone bites my head off and tells me this is a load of crap, I accept that it is hearsay from another boater which may or may not be correct, but if correct it is way more aggressive than anything I've come across from CRT. Anyone have any experience of this?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

You only need to inform CRT of your overstay so that they can add it to your sightings record, and you don't receive a bad mark. They don't actually "authorise" your overstay, as you are entitled to it by law. Which makes peoples stories of " how nice CRT are and always let me overstay" a joke, of course they do, its the law. Strangley they follow this part of the law but not others. They like words like "authorise", " terminate " and "crushed" because it sounds like they have authority over people, they don't.

 

Naturally its courtesy to inform them, if you don't you might have to argue over an overstay months later with no evidence, and your licence account is blocked.

In my original post I did specifically state that I had not asked permission to stay, I had told them what I was intending to do and they didn't make any mention of 'authorise' in either the phone call or the subsequent e-mail.All that she said was that she, "would create an extended stay for your boat" which I assume is merely an attachment to their record of my boat. I felt that this would be so much easier than returning to my boat after a three weeks to find a Patrol Notice and then having to retrospectively tell them why I had chosen to remain there.

 

Like most things in life communication is key to avoiding conflict. There was no legal requirement for me to notify CRT but a couple of minutes spent sending a brief e-mail saves a lot of future bother. I seem to recall another poster on this site found that when he applied for his Winter Mooring one year it was initially refused on the grounds that he had been overstaying at some location. It was an error on the part of CRT that he quickly resolved but let us say that I remained at my current location for the month without picking up a Patrol Notice then come October when I apply for a Winter Mooring (have never done so yet, so purely hypothetical) it was refused on the grounds of overstaying back here in March/April. I may well have reasonable grounds for staying here but will it sound quite so convincing in October when no-one will remember what the river state was?

[CDS]

Now you have a decision to make. Are going to NOT inform them because the law is on your side and you rich enough to fight it out in court.

Or are you as your second suggestion inform them out of courtesy perhaps because your skint or just want to boat in peace.

You give two choices, which one will you go with.

Oh and can you tell me why is it that crt ticket boats or e mail or text to say a boat is overstaying if it's legal to do so. Why do they bother. Do away with EO,s and use the money for other things along the cut.

Please explain this, is it a game they play if so tell me the rules.

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.

Edited March 30, 2016 by CDS

[valrene9600]

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.

Your probably quite right there but I'll leave others to comment further.

I just find it works to advise a reason and give some idea of future moving. Boating is much more fun than conflict.

[onionbargee]

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.

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.

Edited March 30, 2016 by canon7578

[CDS]

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.

What have I said that you don't agree with? As regards an EO and his authority,that depends what you mean by authority

and of course the context in which the EO is acting.I note in your post above you say you don't have to provide evidence

but in a previous post you say it is courteous to do so.Which course of action do you recommend?

Edited March 30, 2016 by CDS

[Jerra]

Why are so many people so so desperate to cause others problems rather than being courteous and notifying CRT?

 

It seems totally counter productive and plain bloody minded to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes I do know it will be an unpopular view.

[MtB]

Why are so many people so so desperate to cause others problems rather than being courteous and notifying CRT?

 

It seems totally counter productive and plain bloody minded to me.

 

 

Yes I do know it will be an unpopular view.

 

 

The thing is, although most people like a harmonious life there is a small proportion of people out there who really get off on conflict, and seek it out at every opportunity because they enjoy it.

 

There are several of this type on here, no doubt you have noticed who they are!

[CDS]

Why are so many people so so desperate to cause others problems rather than being courteous and notifying CRT?

 

It seems totally counter productive and plain bloody minded to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes I do know it will be an unpopular view.

Its not unpopular with me and no doubt like yourself I struggle to understand posts like

the one I was replying to.

[Loafer]

 

 

The thing is, although most people like a harmonious life there is a small proportion of people out there who really get off on conflict, and seek it out at every opportunity because they enjoy it.

 

There are several of this type on here, no doubt you have noticed who they are!

 

Who, me?

[jenlyn]

 

 

The thing is, although most people like a harmonious life there is a small proportion of people out there who really get off on conflict, and seek it out at every opportunity because they enjoy it.

 

There are several of this type on here, no doubt you have noticed who they are!

From the forum rules and guidelines

 

"Our aim is to provide a forum for focused, high quality discussion. We therefore request that with the exception of the 'Virtual Pub' forum, all posts should be kept on topic and free from 'banter' or similar other such material. This facilitates quality discussion and is for the benefit of all members. Users may only use this facility if they agree to the above."

[Nightwatch]

Heard back from the EO regarding my notification to CRT that I may have to stay around for longer than normal.

 

We have come to an amicable agreement.

Martyn

[bassplayer]

 

 

The thing is, although most people like a harmonious life there is a small proportion of people out there who really get off on conflict, and seek it out at every opportunity because they enjoy it.

 

There are several of this type on here, no doubt you have noticed who they are!

Well why not offer up some constructive counter arguments instead of trying to be smug and make out that anyone with an alternative view to to yours is trying to create conflict?

[MtB]

From the forum rules and guidelines

 

"Our aim is to provide a forum for focused, high quality discussion. We therefore request that with the exception of the 'Virtual Pub' forum, all posts should be kept on topic and free from 'banter' or similar other such material. This facilitates quality discussion and is for the benefit of all members. Users may only use this facility if they agree to the above."

 

 

QED.

[jenlyn]

 

 

QED.

Not quite.

[onionbargee]

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.

[bassplayer]

Aaah yes, the "apologists" label is wheeled out again! Predictable and basically not true, because I am remaining neutral on this. You seem to have come up with a far-from-neutral point of view and are happy to distort facts to make your point. I've been careful to accurately quote you, I resent the suggestion I've misquoted you. You wrote it, it can be seen above what you wrote.

 

 

 

The point I am making is not so much the particular issue itself, but that you feel its okay to distort facts and rely on flowery emotive language to prop up half baked arguments, rather than properly considering the facts and arguing the point based on this.

 

I think you're also quite insulting to those who can & do take out winter moorings. Its a service, they've paid for it, and they've made use of that service. They had the choice to not take a CRT winter mooring, or take a winter mooring in a marina/other private provider too.

Not that I think I have used 'flowery emotive language', emotional and logical are equally important and it's insulting to suggest otherwise. So where has it been used to 'prop up half baked arguments'? Maybe you haven't experienced frustration with signage or incorrectly applied enforcement.

 

Which facts have I distorted? The fact that nobody knows for sure whether the charges are legal?

 

I've got no idea why you highlighted the bit in my post then try to twist it to justify your rant.

 

How am I being insulting to those who took out a winter mooring? I've seen posts on here from winter moorers complaining about the lack of facilities and poorly located sites.

 

If you are going to have a rant, get your facts right first and maybe take a deep breath before hitting the post button.