Tadworth versus CRT.

[jenlyn]

I don't have to answer anything in the same way the OP can decide not to answer my original question. Mind you I see no question the OP asked he supplied a status of his situation and opinion on what should happpen and in fact he said he would answer questions. Ho Hum.

 

I explained why what went before is relevant to me and I can reflect on why the OP may choose not to give the info requested.

 

I agree as things stand that CRT probably should grant the licence but I am also saying that I can understand the reluctance to do so.

 

Put another way if you ran a shop and someone kept coming in and asking for credit but never paid you back would you continue to give them the goods on credit?

Good job you ain't a judge.

[churchward]

Good job you ain't a judge.

Perhaps so otherwise we might get some just outcomes.

 

But apart from that I don't really see your point given that although I have reservations about the fairness of the outcome that CRT probably should grant the licence.

[jenlyn]

Perhaps so otherwise we might get some just outcomes.

 

But apart from that I don't really see your point given that although I have reservations about the fairness of the outcome that CRT probably should grant the licence.

Well, as usual, we had to go around all the roundabouts, but hey, we got there in the end.

[onionbargee]

Perhaps so otherwise we might get some just outcomes.

 

But apart from that I don't really see your point given that although I have reservations about the fairness of the outcome that CRT probably should grant the licence.

You are in effect saying CRT should probably comply with the law.

[churchward]

You are in effect saying CRT should probably comply with the law.

Yes indeed they should of course just like you and me. But as I said given what has been discussed I can also understand their reluctance to grant a licence.

Edited April 13, 2016 by churchward

[Loafer]

 

I kind of believe it is though.... matters not anyway i guess.

 

I pay my licence and will keep moving as required, hopefully i shall never get into this situation.

 

You won't get into that situation. It's not 'hopefully', it is for certain. I'm the same, and I have never heard from CRT. I just don't understand what's difficult about the rules of the 'game'.

Not quite, i cant see them cancelling my licence....

 

Nor me.

[churchward]

Well, as usual, we had to go around all the roundabouts, but hey, we got there in the end.

Not at all I said the same thing in Post #60 which you first responded to. Accept you just picked out the bits you didn't like to make your usual cryptic and silly remarks. Also in Post #75 and so on. Not round the roundabouts but consistent.

 

I stand by what I said in that post.

Edited April 13, 2016 by churchward

[jenlyn]

Sometimes, I'm reminded of the saying "it's like pulling teeth" when these threads come up.

[NigelMoore]

 

 

That could have led to the situation of being on board Tadworth many miles away from its mooring, and finding the licence has been cancelled. In effect being tricked into being in contempt of court.

 

( contempt of CRT being my normal state)

 

I understand the concern, but I would never have let the enforcement people know I had renewed my licence; the chances of them coming to realise the situation would have been scant, and if at some point they did, then their action in revoking the legitimate licence would have been unsustainable in court under the circumstances; you would have been seen to have acted in perfect good faith, even if the judge were to have been persuaded that they were correct to revoke the licence. But as I say, your concern was understandable and most would probably applaud the openness of what you did.

 

One possible explanation for their rationale would be that [although they have denied this under oath] they at least used to classify all boats licensed with moorings off CaRT waters, as CC’ers – as has been verified in my own experience more than once, with Court pleadings to prove it.

 

If they still do this, they could conceivably have relied on that to consider themselves justifiably unsatisfied that you would cruise continuously based on past performance. Seems unlikely, but a remote possibility – and it would still be wrong. The fact, however, that they have remained silent on the subject to date, tends to support the idea of the rationale being simple disinclination to see you enjoying the benefit of a licence ever again.

 

[jenlyn]

I understand the concern, but I would never have let the enforcement people know I had renewed my licence; the chances of them coming to realise the situation would have been scant, and if at some point they did, then their action in revoking the legitimate licence would have been unsustainable in court under the circumstances; you would have been seen to have acted in perfect good faith, even if the judge were to have been persuaded that they were correct to revoke the licence. But as I say, your concern was understandable and most would probably applaud the openness of what you did.

One possible explanation for their rationale would be that [although they have denied this under oath] they at least used to classify all boats licensed with moorings off CaRT waters, as CC’ers – as has been verified in my own experience more than once, with Court pleadings to prove it.

If they still do this, they could conceivably have relied on that to consider themselves justifiably unsatisfied that you would cruise continuously based on past performance. Seems unlikely, but a remote possibility – and it would still be wrong. The fact, however, that they have remained silent on the subject to date, tends to support the idea of the rationale being simple disinclination to see you enjoying the benefit of a licence ever again.

 

I did have a copy of a court order served on a boat a few years ago, or should I say the owner of the boat. It went along the lines of he could not licence a boat on bw waters again. I've searched everywhere to find it. I think it may be on my old laptop. I'll have another go tomorrow.

[Arthur Marshall]

Thanks for the various clarifications. On the facts now known, there seems no justification for CRT's actions. presumably the OP is taking this to appeal etc.

[NigelMoore]

I did have a copy of a court order served on a boat a few years ago, or should I say the owner of the boat. It went along the lines of he could not licence a boat on bw waters again. I've searched everywhere to find it. I think it may be on my old laptop. I'll have another go tomorrow.

That would be interesting to see. I may have missed it from those on the relevant cart webpage - if only a few years ago, it ought to have been listed there?

[jenlyn]

That would be interesting to see. I may have missed it from those on the relevant cart webpage - if only a few years ago, it ought to have been listed there?

I'll pm it to you if I find it. There was a bit of an uproar at the time. Its not on CRT website, I looked, because I can't remember the name of the boat, but would if I saw it.

[churchward]

Sometimes, I'm reminded of the saying "it's like pulling teeth" when these threads come up.

 

.... and sometimes all too familiar from the usual sources but then of course the seagulls do indeed follow the crab boats.

[matty40s]

 

.... and sometimes all too familiar from the usual sources but then of course the seagulls do indeed follow the crab boats.

That sounds like Eric C(a)RTorNaa

[Mike Todd]

The original post gave the relevant information to form an opinion on where it stood in law.

If you stood in front of a judge for having no licence, he will only be interested in the facts. Who you are, and all the other twaddle on this thread would have no bearing on the judge with regard the law set before him.

In the laws eyes, the criteria to apply for a licence has been fulfilled, CRT and some on here are looking for a get out clause that does not exist.

I canonly wish that bringing court cases were this simple . . .

[Loafer]

I canonly wish that bringing court cases were this simple . . .

 

First I'd heard of them, is here. Court cases? About narrowboating? Ridiculous! Just follow the feckin ROOLS and shurrup!

[kris88]

 

First I'd heard of them, is here. Court cases? About narrowboating? Ridiculous! Just follow the feckin ROOLS and shurrup!

Who's rools?

[Loafer]

CRT's. It's quite easy. We do, and we never heard a squeak from CRT.

[kris88]

Do you mean the waterways legislation or crt's interpretation of such ?

 

Regards kris

Edited April 13, 2016 by kris88

[jenlyn]

Do you mean the waterways legislation or crt's interpretation of such ?

Regards kris

I'm pretty certain he's talking about the "carry on trusts" interpretation.

[kris88]

I'm pretty certain he's talking about the "carry on trusts" interpretation.

You mean the make it up as you go along trust. Then see if you can get away with it.

[CDS]

 

You won't get into that situation. It's not 'hopefully', it is for certain. I'm the same, and I have never heard from CRT. I just don't understand what's difficult about the rules of the 'game'.

 

Nor me.

You make the mistake of thinking that because you haven't heard from CRT so far,you will never hear from them.

The rules of the game are open to misinterpretation and change so following what you believe to be correct practise

may not suffice.I also have not heard from CRT.Whats the old saying? Ignorance is bliss

[onionbargee]

CRT's. It's quite easy. We do, and we never heard a squeak from CRT.

Well they have just made a new rule that they can cancel a licence without any due process, no reason given, and contrary to the law. Also threaten to seize a boat by lying about the intent of court orders, and prevent you getting a licence because they don't think you are "appropriate ". How do you think you are exempt from this new rule ? Because you won't say anything you will not be next ?

[zenataomm]

Well they have just made a new rule that they can cancel a licence without any due process, no reason given, and contrary to the law. Also threaten to seize a boat by lying about the intent of court orders, and prevent you getting a licence because they don't think you are "appropriate ". How do you think you are exempt from this new rule ? Because you won't say anything you will not be next ?

 

However we only have your side of the story to collaborate that .... minus all of the answers to the relevant questions that have been shoved your way in an attempt to clarify.

I tire of this glory seeking thread, good night and good bye.

Sweet dreams