Tadworth versus CRT.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

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.

 

 

As the OP still holds his licence it should be easy to see if C&RT has him classified as 'CCer'.

Boats with 'no home mooring' (I believe) have their licence ending in 007, in lieu of a 'location' code.

[bargemast]

 

As the OP still holds his licence it should be easy to see if C&RT has him classified as 'CCer'.

Boats with 'no home mooring' (I believe) have their licence ending in 007, in lieu of a 'location' code.

 

The famous James Bond licences

 

Peter.

[Dave Payne]

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 ?

 

You had a licence granted as you met the three points that were required, they cancelled it and you now have no licence, so what happens if you enter CRT waters, they will go for another court order to have your boat removed?

 

At this point would any court actually agree with CRT or take the boaters side based on him meeting the three points?

 

I understand its not something that most would want to risk, i wouldnt....

[PaulG]

 

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 moor off CRT waters and I can confim that I was, at one time, classed as a CC-er on my BW licence.

This would have been around 2006/7.

Of course, I don't know if this was standard practice at the time or just an isolated instance.

[Arthur Marshall]

I'm not sure how to link to other articles on here, but in a thread called "Well done CRT", onionbargee, who appears to be the same person as the OP (or at least the boat owner), says "I did my renewal in about 5 mins, it is an excellent system.

However, CRT instructed Shoesmiths to send me a threatening letter, which at the end said"please ignore this letter if you have already paid" I already had, and letters from legal firms like that cost hundreds of quid, so my licence money went to greedy lawyers rather than greedy CRT."

I've quoted in its entirety to avoid being accused of cherry picking.

If this is the same boat, same licence and same incident, it appears that the licence was bought online, when obviously it would go through automatically with no human intervention, It would appear that as soon as it was spotted, CRT raised some kind of objection and involved Shoesmiths. What their letter actually said remains unknown, but it cannot be argued that (assuming this is the same case, of course) that months later is the first time that the licence was questioned by CRT, or that the first intervention was by an unnamed EO.

If this IS the same case, it rather throws the original post in a different light as far as straightforwardness is concerned. If it isn't, sorry for bringing it up, but I do like to do a bit of my own research.

[Hawkmoth]

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

Whilst I (think) I understand what's going on with the different views here and can see both sides, it has been said many times, but I'll repeat: "first they came for the (insert group).........."

Bob

[nicknorman]

Whilst I (think) I understand what's going on with the different views here and can see both sides, it has been said many times, but I'll repeat: "first they came for the (insert group).........."

Bob

But equally if the OP's earlier behaviour is repeated, and if more folk jump on that bandwagon, CRT will have a much reduced licence income and have to spend most of that on trying to fix the problem through the courts. So there are two choices here, a CRT that is squeaky clean but unable to maintain the system and has to close many canals to navigation, or a CRT that bends the rules in order to compensate for its limited powers in statute, with the aim of ensuring that all boats are licenced continuously so that they are able to afford to maintain the system.

 

Or of course the third option, which is that people conform to their legal and moral obligation and licence their boats without fuss. This of course is the preferable solution but every post on here anti-CRT and sympathetic with evasion reduces that likelihood.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I'm not sure how to link to other articles on here, but in a thread called "Well done CRT", onionbargee, who appears to be the same person as the OP (or at least the boat owner), says "I did my renewal in about 5 mins, it is an excellent system.

However, CRT instructed Shoesmiths to send me a threatening letter, which at the end said"please ignore this letter if you have already paid" I already had, and letters from legal firms like that cost hundreds of quid, so my licence money went to greedy lawyers rather than greedy CRT."

I've quoted in its entirety to avoid being accused of cherry picking.

If this is the same boat, same licence and same incident, it appears that the licence was bought online, when obviously it would go through automatically with no human intervention, It would appear that as soon as it was spotted, CRT raised some kind of objection and involved Shoesmiths. What their letter actually said remains unknown, but it cannot be argued that (assuming this is the same case, of course) that months later is the first time that the licence was questioned by CRT, or that the first intervention was by an unnamed EO.

If this IS the same case, it rather throws the original post in a different light as far as straightforwardness is concerned. If it isn't, sorry for bringing it up, but I do like to do a bit of my own research.

I'm not sure of the relevance of how the licence application was made.

 

Quite simply, the law suggests that CaRT have to provide a licence if the three conditions are met. They did. They have now revoked that licence but not given a plausible explanation for that action. They have also held onto the money.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

Just as Ser Jorah reminds Daenerys Targaryen as she prepares for more bloodshed, ‘It is tempting to see your enemies as evil, but there is good and evil on both sides in every war ever fought.’

[Hawkmoth]

But equally if the OP's earlier behaviour is repeated, and if more folk jump on that bandwagon, CRT will have a much reduced licence income and have to spend most of that on trying to fix the problem through the courts. So there are two choices here, a CRT that is squeaky clean but unable to maintain the system and has to close many canals to navigation, or a CRT that bends the rules in order to compensate for its limited powers in statute, with the aim of ensuring that all boats are licenced continuously so that they are able to afford to maintain the system.

 

Or of course the third option, which is that people conform to their legal and moral obligation and licence their boats without fuss. This of course is the preferable solution but every post on here anti-CRT and sympathetic with evasion reduces that likelihood.

I don't disagree with you there Nick. I was only pointing out a way things can go if CRT continue to evolve their rules (make them up on the fly).

Bob

[Mac of Cygnet]

It's OK! NBW are on the case. An article has appeared there under the OP's real name (or not). You don't have to look - it's word for word the same as post #1 here.

[PaulG]

It's OK! NBW are on the case. An article has appeared there under the OP's real name (or not). You don't have to look - it's word for word the same as post #1 here.

The boating world world holds its collective breath as they await the final, definitve answer from the great Oracle - "The Voice of the Waterways".

[MtB]

But he answer will be meaningless as no-one really knows what the question is!

 

Some Deep Thought will be required...

[PaulG]

But he answer will be meaningless as no-one really knows what the question is!

 

Some Deep Thought will be required...

But hopefully we will not have to wait seven and a half million years...

[MtB]

But hopefully we will not have to wait seven and a half million years...

 

 

I think it will be a lot longer than that!

[wishful]

Surely there is a fourth element to the granting of a licence, the payment of the appropriate fee.

 

Perhaps, though not necessarily, CaRT has retained the application fee for Tadworth to remedy some or all of any prior debt. This would mean that no or an insufficient fee has been received for a new licence, ergo the licence has been revoked.

 

Perhaps.

[RLWP]

It's OK! NBW are on the case. An article has appeared there under the OP's real name (or not). You don't have to look - it's word for word the same as post #1 here.

 

Confirming canon7578 is a dual identity for onionbargee?

 

Richard

[churchward]

But he answer will be meaningless as no-one really knows what the question is!

 

Some Deep Thought will be required...

What we need is clearly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.

[RLWP]

What we need is clearly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.

No we don't, that's exactly what we don't want

 

Richard

[churchward]

No we don't, that's exactly what we don't want

 

Richard

not much of a hitchikers guide to the galaxy fan are you?

 

I demand I may or may not be Magic thighs

[RLWP]

not much of a hitchikers guide to the galaxy fan are you?

 

I demand I may or may not be Magic thighs

 

 

"I am Majikthise!" announced the older one.

"And I demand that I am Vroomfondel!" shouted the younger one.

Majikthise turned on Vroomfondel. "It's alright," he explained angrily, "you don't need to demand that."

"Alright!" bawled Vroomfondel banging on an nearby desk. "I am Vroomfondel, and that is not a demand, that is a solid fact! What we demand is solid facts!"

"No we don't!" exclaimed Majikthise in irritation. "That is precisely what we don't demand!"

 

http://www.earthstar.co.uk/deep1.htm

 

Damn!

 

Richard

[onionbargee]

Surely there is a fourth element to the granting of a licence, the payment of the appropriate fee.

 

Perhaps, though not necessarily, CaRT has retained the application fee for Tadworth to remedy some or all of any prior debt. This would mean that no or an insufficient fee has been received for a new licence, ergo the licence has been revoked.

 

Perhaps.

No, I don't owe CRT any money at all. Edited April 14, 2016 by canon7578

[churchward]

 

 

http://www.earthstar.co.uk/deep1.htm

 

Damn!

 

Richard

Hee hee

[Mike Todd]

Whilst I (think) I understand what's going on with the different views here and can see both sides, it has been said many times, but I'll repeat: "first they came for the (insert group).........."

Bob

That only works if you are really paranoid, but not if you just think that you are.

[Mac of Cygnet]

 

Confirming canon7578 is a dual identity for onionbargee?

 

Richard

 

Dunno. The name on the article is a normal 'first name, second name'. Go on, have a look!