general terms and conditions.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

I have said multiple times that it is a procedure wide open to abuse, not that it is being abused, you must admit that before it is abused is a better time to look at it then after it is. Tell me who you are going to appeal to or complain to if your perfectly legitimate overstay is refused ?

 

There is also another point here, that if your overstay is not "authorised" you are according to CRT liable to pay mooring fees, this is in the terms and conditions. Something that has never happened yet, but charging for overstaying on visitor moorings has crept in, after CRT said they had no plans to do it, and trying to claim a VM is a "facility" to get around the law.

 

Can you point me in the general direction of where CRT have actually said that? If you are overstaying for no valid reason you are in breach of the terms and conditions, paying some mythical 'mooring fee' isn't going to change that is it?

 

The 'charges' on VM's (not much evidence of many people paying them ) is purely as a vehicle to discourage people from hogging VM's, I'm relaxed about that to be honest if it works.

[onionbargee]

Can you point me in the general direction of where CRT have actually said that? If you are overstaying for no valid reason you are in breach of the terms and conditions, paying some mythical 'mooring fee' isn't going to change that is it?

 

 

.

Page 12 terms and conditions "if dificulties persist the trust reserves the right to charge mooring fees ".

Edited May 30, 2016 by onionbargee

[onionbargee]

Without pre-judging the contents, it would depend on what the doctor's letter said. If the doctor is sympathetic and the boater isn't stupid, it should be pretty simple to ask the doctor to write a letter to the effect of:

 

"this person has health needs which means he is unable to move the boat for xx weeks"

 

and CRT would be pretty daft to go against the specific advice of a doctor.

 

However if it were sufficiently vague to be meaningless.............lets see the letter onionbargee.

I will need to get a scan edited to remove names and addresses, which I can do in Xodo app, and onto photobucket ? No idea how to do that on android yet.

[Jerra]

I would like to see some alternatives proposed to the current system,but I can't think of a better one to be honest.

When a letter from a Doctor is produced and the overstay refused,I would think that would be easily challenged by

another Doctors Letter stronger than the first and escalating the issue above the EO,s head.

As far as I can see the system as it appears to work in most parts of the country, but for some reason not in the area onionbargee is works well.

 

Reading a number of posts about peoples experience of overstaying the system seems to be Contact CRT and the notification is passed to the Enforcement Team Leader who makes a note on your record so that an EO will see that the overstay is known about and I assume why and possibly how long it is expected to be. It is only when the EO gets involved that there is the potential for personal grudges, misinterpretations etc. That system going by the posts I have read seems to work well CRT are notified and reply OK made a note of it keep us informed or words to that effect.

 

I am still interested in which area it is that leaves it up to the EO on the cut side. Is anyone going to tell me please?

[magnetman]

As far as I can see the system as it appears to work in most parts of the country, but for some reason not in the area onionbargee is works well.

 

Reading a number of posts about peoples experience of overstaying the system seems to be Contact CRT and the notification is passed to the Enforcement Team Leader who makes a note on your record so that an EO will see that the overstay is known about and I assume why and possibly how long it is expected to be. It is only when the EO gets involved that there is the potential for personal grudges, misinterpretations etc. That system going by the posts I have read seems to work well CRT are notified and reply OK made a note of it keep us informed or words to that effect.

 

I am still interested in which area it is that leaves it up to the EO on the cut side. Is anyone going to tell me please?

GU south is my guess but don't know exactly where.

I will need to get a scan edited to remove names and addresses, which I can do in Xodo app, and onto photobucket ? No idea how to do that on android yet.

If you can get it into an image format you can attach it to a post - I explained how to do this a bit earlier on. I use an android phone for all my internet

If you had access to a paper copy you could take a picture of it and just put bits of white paper over the offending personal details

Or just transcribe it in text in a post on the forum ? (I realise it may be a bit long winded so that may be a slight pita)

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Page 12 terms and conditions "if dificulties persist the trust reserves the right to charge mooring fees ".

You do seem uncommonly selective in your cut and paste from relevant documents. If you read the page 12 of the terms and conditions there is no reference to being charged for 'unauthorised' overstays. What they are saying is that if you have notified them of an overstay for which the cause is reasonable they then state (in full) ,"....Where difficulties persist and the boater is unable to continue the cruise, the Trust reserves the right to charge mooring fees and to require the boat to be moved away from popular temporary or visitor moorings until the cruise can recommence....". Somewhat different from your assertion, "....that if your overstay is not "authorised" you are according to CRT liable to pay mooring fees,...." I would suggest .

 

As I said earlier they are hardly going to tell you that your grounds for overstaying are unacceptable then allow you to stay if you pay some 'mooring fee'. As far as I'm aware these fees have yet to be fully tested in Court (since so few people end out paying any) and I would think that trying to argue that they don't agree with your grounds for overstaying whilst then trying to charge you a mooring fee for doing so would fatally undermine any case they may wish to bring.

[onionbargee]

You do seem uncommonly selective in your cut and paste from relevant documents. If you read the page 12 of the terms and conditions there is no reference to being charged for 'unauthorised' overstays. What they are saying is that if you have notified them of an overstay for which the cause is reasonable they then state (in full) ,"....Where difficulties persist and the boater is unable to continue the cruise, the Trust reserves the right to charge mooring fees and to require the boat to be moved away from popular temporary or visitor moorings until the cruise can recommence....". Somewhat different from your assertion, "....that if your overstay is not "authorised" you are according to CRT liable to pay mooring fees,...." I would suggest .

 

 

As I said earlier they are hardly going to tell you that your grounds for overstaying are unacceptable then allow you to stay if you pay some 'mooring fee'. As far as I'm aware these fees have yet to be fully tested in Court (since so few people end out paying any) and I would think that trying to argue that they don't agree with your grounds for overstaying whilst then trying to charge you a mooring fee for doing so would fatally undermine any case they may wish to bring.

 

Well my assertion is what I think CRT may well read into that, "where difficulties persist and the boater is unable to continue the cruise" gives no hint as to what is a reasonable time to be broken down or ill. If you are not "authorised" to overstay then you are liable to an overstay charge, at present only at a few selected sites, but if it works that's going to be rolled out Nationwide I would think.

 

Edited May 30, 2016 by onionbargee

[Paul C]

I think the fact that CRT might choose to, or legally have the ability to, charge an overstayer is a red herring. If the extended stay is not on reasonable grounds (could say...not authorised) then a charge would seem a much milder deterrent than the threat of section 8, craning the boat out etc etc. They can't do nothing, they've got to do something otherwise the piss-takers would have a field day.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Well my assertion is what I think CRT may well read into that, "where difficulties persist and the boater is unable to continue the cruise" gives no hint as to what is a reasonable time to be broken down or ill. If you are not "authorised" to overstay then you are liable to an overstay charge, at present only at a few selected sites, but if it works that's going to be rolled out Nationwide I would think.

 

So it is all supposition and assumption then . What do you want from them, a tariff of acceptable times? 2 days for a broken alternator, a week for a replacement gearbox, 5 days for a sprained back, not really very practical is it? I might fix an alternator within a day but if it is a bank holiday it could take nearly a week. I might be up in a couple of days after a mildly sprained back or I might still be in bed with it a fortnight later.

 

And since you keep repeating the (wrong) assertion that,"... If you are not "authorised" to overstay then you are liable to an overstay charge...." I will keep posting the counter assertion that if they haven't accepted your grounds for overstaying as reasonable they are not going to then charge you a mooring fee since, by doing so, they would then be saying that your grounds are acceptable in direct contradiction of their stated position. There is a general agreement that these charges are civil charges, since they cannot impose fines, so it would be a bit like a car park telling you that you cannot park there but then accepting payment for doing so

[Jerra]

I think the fact that CRT might choose to, or legally have the ability to, charge an overstayer is a red herring. If the extended stay is not on reasonable grounds (could say...not authorised) then a charge would seem a much milder deterrent than the threat of section 8, craning the boat out etc etc. They can't do nothing, they've got to do something otherwise the piss-takers would have a field day.

What a shame I can't give you a "greenie".

[Tony Dunkley]

I think the fact that CRT might choose to, or legally have the ability to, charge an overstayer is a red herring. If the extended stay is not on reasonable grounds (could say...not authorised) then a charge would seem a much milder deterrent than the threat of section 8, craning the boat out etc etc. They can't do nothing, they've got to do something otherwise the piss-takers would have a field day.

 

On what grounds do you think a Section 8 Notice could be issued, or a vessel craned out of the waterway, as a means of dealing with an alleged 'overstay' ?

[onionbargee]

I think the fact that CRT might choose to, or legally have the ability to, charge an overstayer is a red herring. If the extended stay is not on reasonable grounds (could say...not authorised) then a charge would seem a much milder deterrent than the threat of section 8, craning the boat out etc etc. They can't do nothing, they've got to do something otherwise the piss-takers would have a field day.

Overstay charges are in effect on selected sites, they are charges or fees for breaking the signed time limits, which is licence condition 7.2.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Overstay charges are in effect on selected sites, they are charges or fees for breaking the signed time limits, which is licence condition 7.2.

BW's bill asked for power to erect signs restricting mooring times. It never made it into the 1995 Act.

[Graham Davis]

So it is all supposition and assumption then . What do you want from them, a tariff of acceptable times? 2 days for a broken alternator, a week for a replacement gearbox, 5 days for a sprained back, not really very practical is it? I might fix an alternator within a day but if it is a bank holiday it could take nearly a week. I might be up in a couple of days after a mildly sprained back or I might still be in bed with it a fortnight later.

 

And since you keep repeating the (wrong) assertion that,"... If you are not "authorised" to overstay then you are liable to an overstay charge...." I will keep posting the counter assertion that if they haven't accepted your grounds for overstaying as reasonable they are not going to then charge you a mooring fee since, by doing so, they would then be saying that your grounds are acceptable in direct contradiction of their stated position. There is a general agreement that these charges are civil charges, since they cannot impose fines, so it would be a bit like a car park telling you that you cannot park there but then accepting payment for doing so

 

Quite! But any excuse for some members of this Forum to have a rant about CaRT.

[MtB]

 

Quite! But any excuse for some members of this Forum to have a rant about CaRT.

 

 

Bear in mind out of about 20,000+ members, there are about 10 noisy ones who have a real problem with CRT. That's all.

 

Who is out of step? The 10 or the 20,000?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Overstay charges are in effect on selected sites, they are charges or fees for breaking the signed time limits, which is licence condition 7.2.

And the number of people who have paid them are???

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

 

Bear in mind out of about 20,000+ members, there are about 10 noisy ones who have a real problem with CRT. That's all.

 

Who is out of step? The 10 or the 20,000?

I thought it was the five CaRT apologists that were the noisy ones and out of step with the 20,000 ...

[Ray T]

I thought * it was the five CaRT apologists that were the noisy ones and out of step with the 20,000 ...

 

Oh the insult, I'm cut to the quick.

 

* http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/2635/where-did-you-know-what-thought-did-come-from

 

It is a concept of human psychology, better results are achieved working with people than working against them.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Ray T

[Paul Evans]

I really think this thread has run its course; no new arguments are being introduced and the antagonists are neve going to agree. It seems as tho' it's about to descend into a slanging match. Perhaps it should be closed.

[Ray T]

?

Edited May 31, 2016 by Ray T

[mayalld]

I really think this thread has run its course; no new arguments are being introduced and the antagonists are neve going to agree. It seems as tho' it's about to descend into a slanging match. Perhaps it should be closed.

 

I see no sign of it descending into anything of the sort.

 

If it does, then moderators can take appropriate action, but it would be a very retrograde move if moderators started closing threads off because everything had been said.

 

If you don't believe that you will read anything new here, you could of course not read it.

[MtB]

I agree. Locking threads for no other reason than they have the potential to descend into a slanging match is not good moderation policy.

[Higgs]

 

It doesn't really matter, your argument is flawed in the same way, whether its to do with NAA or the general T&Cs. You can't simply consider one bit of legislation in isolation, the 1995 Act was written and the 1962 Act was not repealed so both are to be considered.

 

 

The 1995 act wasn't used for the NAA. How did you manage to negotiate a deal with your marina operator, if it wasn't they who had control of the requirements to licence.

 

You are either in a marina that has historical 'rights' or, you and the marina operator are flouting the law as you interpret them.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

The 1995 act wasn't used for the NAA. How did you manage to negotiate a deal with your marina operator, if it wasn't they who had control of the requirements to licence.

 

You are either in a marina that has historical 'rights' or, you and the marina operator are flouting the law as you interpret them.

 

Our marina insists that (as part of its T&Cs) all cars using the car park are 'taxed' (licenced), now, as it is on private land there is no legal requirement for the vehicle to be taxed, but in the contract I have with them, I agree to their T&Cs. Its not a problem.

 

Are you suggesting that both the marina and I are 'flouting the law' ?

[Higgs]

 

Our marina insists that (as part of its T&Cs) all cars using the car park are 'taxed' (licenced), now, as it is on private land there is no legal requirement for the vehicle to be taxed, but in the contract I have with them, I agree to their T&Cs. Its not a problem.

 

Are you suggesting that both the marina and I are 'flouting the law' ?

 

 

A marina can do what it wants, it is their marina. The same as a hotel could say - No Pets. A marina doing what it sees fit to do on its property - not the same as a waterways authority demanding they do it by law. The argument is not about what the marina can do, it's about what CRT can't do.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Higgs