Jump to content

Tadworth versus CRT.

onionbargee

By onionbargee
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

Arthur Marshall Veteran II

Arthur Marshall

Posted
Posted

He hasnt said he licensed it on line, you did in post 289!! I know he did it at Milton keynes because he told me, also he hints in post 359 and in post502 he mentions license office. I have had to read the whole thing from end to end to answer your question when you invented it very painful Mike cheers

On 19 November 2015 he said in a post on thread "well done CRT - licence renewal" about the online system that he renewed in 5 minutes and that it was an excellent system. Sorry, I have no idea how to post a link. Facts appear to be mutable, don't they?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
peterboat Veteran II

peterboatDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

On 19 November 2015 he said in a post on thread "well done CRT - licence renewal" about the online system that he renewed in 5 minutes and that it was an excellent system. Sorry, I have no idea how to post a link. Facts appear to be mutable, don't they?

He licensed it 25 02 16 first post

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PaulG Experienced

PaulG

Posted
Posted

On 19 November 2015 he said in a post on thread "well done CRT - licence renewal" about the online system that he renewed in 5 minutes and that it was an excellent system. Sorry, I have no idea how to post a link. Facts appear to be mutable, don't they?

See

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=80730

Post #4

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NigelMoore Veteran

NigelMoore

Posted
Posted

On 19 November 2015 he said in a post on thread "well done CRT - licence renewal" about the online system that he renewed in 5 minutes and that it was an excellent system. Sorry, I have no idea how to post a link. Facts appear to be mutable, don't they?

Understandable confusion may arise over this because he has 2 boats; one licensed (presumably last November) and on the canal, one off the canal with licence issued this year, status debated.

 

The facts are not changing despite appearances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
onionbargee Influencer

onionbargee

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I have had a reply, but there is no further info, and nothing has happened of any interest except they have offered to refund my licence fee, which I have not agreed to, as that would be an acceptance of them breaking the law. Unless they want to give me a free licence, but somehow I doubt that !

 

This thread is about a principle that CRT cannot be allowed to get away with illegally revoking a licence, if they do, every boater will then be at risk of falling foul of an enforcement officer for any reason, who can then just tear up your licence on the spot. In fact if there are no consequences for the EO breaking the law in this way, anything is then possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PaulG Experienced

PaulG

Posted
Posted

Understandable confusion may arise over this because he has 2 boats; one licensed (presumably last November) and on the canal, one off the canal with licence issued this year, status debated.

 

The facts are not changing despite appearances.

Well that certainly is a little confusing.

 

If I understand the situation correctly, the OP registered one boat last November using the online system without any problems. I assume that this licence is still current.

 

Subsequently, he licenced "Tadworth" in February of this year at a CRT office, and in March he was informed that this licence had been cancelled/rescinded or otherwise made invalid.

 

In the light of this, the scenario that CRT are creating licencing difficulties because of past history seems to me to be unlikely.

 

I can envisage CRT being a bit miffed with an individual person; however, I cannot see any reason to pursue a vendetta against an inanimate object such as an individual boat.

 

Perhaps CRT really do have genuine concerns regarding the condition of "Tadworth"?

 

Of course, I may (not for the first time) be misunderstanding the situation.

 

By this I mean that their concerns are genuine, even if there is no foundation for them in fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Arthur Marshall Veteran II

Arthur Marshall

Posted
Posted

People read what they want to read & see what they want to see.

Unfortunately we read what we are told, and actually finding out any details have been like drawing hen's teeth. We have to discuss from the facts available to us as few are endowed with psychic powers.

It does by now appear to be impossible to really know any of the truth behind this story so there's little to be gained in any discussion.

Understandable confusion may arise over this because he has 2 boats; one licensed (presumably last November) and on the canal, one off the canal with licence issued this year, status debated.

 

The facts are not changing despite appearances.

But his comment in November was that after this satisfactory licence application he then got a letter from Shoesmiths. This seems to have stopped making any sense at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . This seems to have stopped making any sense at all.

 

I didn't make any sense from the moment that C&RT started all the nonsense by lying to Tadworth's owner and falsely claiming to have revoked the new and correctly issued Licence without first completing the statutory process for doing so.

 

If you accept the fact that C&RT are devious, stupid, incompetent, dishonest, petty-minded and spiteful, then it all makes perfect sense.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NigelMoore Veteran

NigelMoore

Posted
Posted

In the light of this, the scenario that CRT are creating licencing difficulties because of past history seems to me to be unlikely.

 

I can envisage CRT being a bit miffed with an individual person; however, I cannot see any reason to pursue a vendetta against an inanimate object such as an individual boat.

 

Perhaps CRT really do have genuine concerns regarding the condition of "Tadworth"?

 

I suspect that any inconsistency between treatment of the different boats with the same owner is due to the fact that the EO relied to begin with on the Injunction, and that was specific to Tadworth. The other boat has presumably not been affected by any Court Order, and it is evident that both boats were treated equally by the Licensing Department to begin with.

 

Now that the EO’s initial belief [that it simply would be “inappropriate” to issue a new licence in light of the history in gaining the Injunction] has been laid to rest, some new justification must be found for the subsequent fait accompli initiated by the EO once he was informed by the OP of the new licence. I doubt that there could be any serious dubiety over Tadworth’s condition - which cannot possibly be known to them beyond the current BSSC – so I strongly suspect that the OP is just dealing with a face-saving exercise at this stage.

 

If that is right, then I would personally tend to play along with it, but I do understand the OP's reaction, and the position he is taking on this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NigelMoore Veteran

NigelMoore

Posted
Posted

But his comment in November was that after this satisfactory licence application he then got a letter from Shoesmiths. This seems to have stopped making any sense at all.

 

That may have been simply due to a hiccup in processing the payment for it, which is what the portion of the Shoosmiths letter quoted indicates. That is an entirely different scenario to the present situation, where the payment is not in doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
magnetman Veteran II

magnetman

Posted
Posted

Sorry if it's been mentioned but have CRT noticed that Tadworth is a historic vessel? I have not been in the back cabin and I know she doesn't have the original engine but she is substantially intact which is rare.

 

"Keeping people history and nature connected"

 

Would it be better if this boat was scrapped? Surely not.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Paul C Veteran II

Paul C

Posted
Posted

 

 

I received an email today saying that they will now issue a licence for Tadworth, however they do not admit any wrong of course.

Official complaint going in ASAP of course, and much more work to do to bring them to account.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HaulierP Contributor

HaulierP

Posted
Posted

This is Great News,I hope people on here the usual CRT Apologists hang their head in shame

just the same way CRT should.I applaud Nigel Moore and Tony Dunkley for the advice they have

undoubtedly given and Onionbargee for having the Balls and the Principles to argue his case to

a successful conclusion,its more than most of the posters on here would have done.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
nicknorman Veteran II

nicknormanDonate to Canal World

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Onionbargee for having the Balls and the Principles to argue his case to

a successful conclusion,its more than most of the posters on here would have done.

 

But most on here wouldn't need to have the balls and principles to argue the case to successful conclusion since, having not abused the system in the past, CRT would be delighted to issue the licence in quick time without any drama.

  • Greenie 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Theo Veteran

TheoDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted (edited)

Those who have been reading the topic in the past couple of days will realise that lots of yesterday's posts have been removed. Some from one side and some from the other. I don't propose to explain myself and justify the decisions but it was obvious that the discussion was going nowhere useful. I have left just suffcient for it to be clear to any reader that there are two polarised opinions.

 

I have had a request that the topic be reopened and the suggestion that due warning is given to keep the discussion civilised. I think that this is a reasonable request but would invite free use of the Report button if things get out of hand. I am busy enjoying the Basinstoke Canal at the moment and will not be watching the topic at all times.

 

Theo

Edited by Theo
To correct punctuation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
magnetman Veteran II

magnetman

Posted
Posted (edited)

Shame you took my reply to nicknorman away :( most greenies I have ever had for a single post !! (7)

And I wasnt rude and did not take sides.

 

Ho hum

Edited by magnetman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.