6 month licences ?

[Paul C]

Well my licence restricted to six months ( because I my overstays were unauthorised ) has just been paid at the full six month licence rate

 

60 ft - £961.13

÷ 2 = £480.56

My six month invoice just paid £580.27

Difference £199.41

 

 

Did you apply for a 12 month licence, or a 6 month licence (possibly online)?

 

As I see it, you must have authorised the payment somehow, so why did you authorise what would have been (in your mind) a wrong amount? Or did you authorise/pay the 12 month rate then receive a too-small refund and 6 month licence instead of the 12 month one?

[Arthur Marshall]

It just isn't fair, is it. You do your best to follow the rules but just forget to licence your boat for a few years and then the cursed authority keeps picking on you. Can't imagine why. You have my sympathy and that of everyone on here who has paid their dues every year.

[magnetman]

Didn't CRT recently say they had stopped offering short term licences to sinners, or did I imagine that?

I thought so too - maybe its just the 3 month thing they stopped

[alan_fincher]

Didn't CRT recently say they had stopped offering short term licences to sinners, or did I imagine that?

You imagined it.

 

They have ceased issuing the three month variant, but are still issuing the six month ones.

 

CRT don't use the term sinners AFAIK.

[magnetman]

Edit to remove religious reference

Edited June 22, 2016 by magnetman

[Cosmic]

Seems this was a win for the NBTA linky

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Seems this was a win for the NBTA linky

Yes it was.

[onionbargee]

If they charged extra they would be challenged on its legality, possibly in court, and they do not want their invented rules being scrutinised. Or the fact that they are conning licence holders about the legality of the T&C's document.

[valrene9600]

Did you apply for a 12 month licence, or a 6 month licence (possibly online)?

 

As I see it, you must have authorised the payment somehow, so why did you authorise what would have been (in your mind) a wrong amount? Or did you authorise/pay the 12 month rate then receive a too-small refund and 6 month licence instead of the 12 month one?

Be nice to get a truthful answer. How can anyone make a decision on crt actions if only part of the story is told.

[Arthur Marshall]

Be nice to get a truthful answer. How can anyone make a decision on crt actions if only part of the story is told.

You have to make an informed guess. Have your dealings with the parties been straightforward in the past? To your knowledge, has either party deliberately flouted the rules/law in the past? If so, do you think this was deliberate or accidental? Etc etc.

But you'll never get all the data from either party, especially on a forum where one party isn't. Doesn't stop any discussion from being interesting, though,and you can learn a lot from posts from the knowledgeable even if the original premise is false.

[Jess--]

combining what has been said in the other thread (tadworth vs crt) and this one perhaps we can now see the reason that crt were unwilling to license tadworth.

 

 

tadworth was previously removed from crt waters by court order after a period with no license.

another boat (presumably owned by the same person) is appearing on enforcements radar for overstaying to an extent that will lead to it only being offered a short license

tadworth reappears and applies for a 12 month license

 

it could appear to crt that licensing tadworth was an attempt to circumvent the enforcement process (by removing a boat that is under enforcement and replacing it with one that wasn't)

if this was the case it may be reasonable for the board to "not be satisfied" that the boat was going to be used for bona fide navigation throughout the period of the license (I know this wasn't the reason given for tadworth's licensing fun but perhaps it played a part)

[onionbargee]

combining what has been said in the other thread (tadworth vs crt) and this one perhaps we can now see the reason that crt were unwilling to license tadworth.

 

 

tadworth was previously removed from crt waters by court order after a period with no license.

another boat (presumably owned by the same person) is appearing on enforcements radar for overstaying to an extent that will lead to it only being offered a short license

tadworth reappears and applies for a 12 month license

 

it could appear to crt that licensing tadworth was an attempt to circumvent the enforcement process (by removing a boat that is under enforcement and replacing it with one that wasn't)

if this was the case it may be reasonable for the board to "not be satisfied" that the boat was going to be used for bona fide navigation throughout the period of the license (I know this wasn't the reason given for tadworth's licensing fun but perhaps it played a part)

Pure fantasy.

[onionbargee]

Be nice to get a truthful answer. How can anyone make a decision on crt actions if only part of the story is told.

I haven't asked anyone to make decesions on CRT, my post asked if CRT had said the restricted licence was pro rata or not, so I can then have the correct information to ask for the amount to be corrected. I put it down to a simple mistake that's all.

 

You can all stop weaving theories now, CRT just told me the wrong amount when I renewed it, and the correct pro rata amount has been taken from my account.

Edited June 24, 2016 by onionbargee

[ditchcrawler]

Pure fantasy.

As good as any other fantasy that often turns up on here.

[alan_fincher]

As good as any other fantasy that often turns up on here.

 

Not really!

 

OB's query made it very obvious he was taling about a boat 60 feet long, so unless he has now cut 11 feet 6 inches out of Tadworth, it is hard to see how this relates to that boat.

 

I took it to relate to a second boat that he owns.

[ditchcrawler]

 

Not really!

 

OB's query made it very obvious he was taling about a boat 60 feet long, so unless he has now cut 11 feet 6 inches out of Tadworth, it is hard to see how this relates to that boat.

 

I took it to relate to a second boat that he owns.

But Alan, now you are on facts not fantasy

[MtB]

 

Not really!

 

OB's query made it very obvious he was taling about a boat 60 feet long, so unless he has now cut 11 feet 6 inches out of Tadworth, it is hard to see how this relates to that boat.

 

I took it to relate to a second boat that he owns.

 

 

Raises an interesting question. Do you have to own a boat to licence it?

 

You don't have to own a piece of land to apply for planning permission to develop it. I wonder if a third party can apply for and obtain for a licence on a boat they use but don't own.

[alan_fincher]

 

 

Raises an interesting question. Do you have to own a boat to licence it?

 

You don't have to own a piece of land to apply for planning permission to develop it. I wonder if a third party can apply for and obtain for a licence on a boat they use but don't own.

 

i may be misreading this, but if I am not, why do you assume OB has only one boat.

 

I don't

You don't

I think he probably doesn't.

 

All that said, I'm not sure we have fully been given the reasons why he apparently paid CRT at the "usaual" (marked up) 6 month rate, rather than just half the annual rate. Did he not check the arithmetic before making the payment. (Apologies if this has already been explained - I'm on an intermittent connection).

[Paul C]

 

i may be misreading this, but if I am not, why do you assume OB has only one boat.

 

I don't

You don't

I think he probably doesn't.

 

All that said, I'm not sure we have fully been given the reasons why he apparently paid CRT at the "usaual" (marked up) 6 month rate, rather than just half the annual rate. Did he not check the arithmetic before making the payment. (Apologies if this has already been explained - I'm on an intermittent connection).

 

It hasn't been explained - I asked the question some days ago. Apologies to the OP if its been skimmed over and missed - but I feel its crucial here.

 

Basically, to repeat: If it was the wrong amount, why did you pay it?

[onionbargee]

 

i may be misreading this, but if I am not, why do you assume OB has only one boat.

 

I don't

You don't

I think he probably doesn't.

 

All that said, I'm not sure we have fully been given the reasons why he apparently paid CRT at the "usaual" (marked up) 6 month rate, rather than just half the annual rate. Did he not check the arithmetic before making the payment. (Apologies if this has already been explained - I'm on an intermittent connection).

There is no mystery, I just paid what they said, in the end they just quoted the wrong figure but debited the correct one in the end. As far as I'm concerned it is finished. I will leave you all to weave more theories about this.

[Paul C]

There is no mystery, I just paid what they said, in the end they just quoted the wrong figure but debited the correct one in the end. As far as I'm concerned it is finished. I will leave you all to weave more theories about this.

 

Good on CRT for retrospectively debiting the correct (12 months/2) figure. I don't think you have a valid complaint against CRT here, but you might wish to be more aware of where your money is going in future transactions - its up to you really.

[MtB]

 

i may be misreading this, but if I am not, why do you assume OB has only one boat.

 

You are misreading.

 

I'm not assuming anything, I'm asking the general question "Must you own a boat to licence it?"

 

Because if it turns out that 'anyone' can licence a given boat, this has the potential to drive a coach and horses through the Section 8 procedure and CRT's policy of refusing non-complaint boaters a licence.

[churchward]

 

You are misreading.

 

I'm not assuming anything, I'm asking the general question "Must you own a boat to licence it?"

 

Because if it turns out that 'anyone' can licence a given boat, this has the potential to drive a coach and horses through the Section 8 procedure and CRT's policy of refusing non-complaint boaters a licence.

I don't know the complete answer but I do know that when we had a boat share some years ago BW as was then needed 1 person from the group of (12) owners to be the nominated licence holder and responsible for paying the licence fee etc.

 

So at least they will allow a part owner to pay a licence.

[David Mack]

I don't know the complete answer but I do know that when we had a boat share some years ago BW as was then needed 1 person from the group of (12) owners to be the nominated licence holder and responsible for paying the licence fee etc.

 

So at least they will allow a part owner to pay a licence.

CRT aren't really interested in whether you are a part owner. As far as they are concerned that one person is the owner, who is responsible for ensuring that all other users of the boat comply with the 'rules'.

[churchward]

CRT aren't really interested in whether you are a part owner. As far as they are concerned that one person is the owner, who is responsible for ensuring that all other users of the boat comply with the 'rules'.

I think that is what I said but more a nominated person than that person being the owner of the whole boat BW or CRT could not make that judgement given the boat is collectively owned rather than other users.

Edited June 26, 2016 by churchward