Jump to content

Overstaying and Sighting Record


dmr

Featured Posts

 

 

Indeed, and there are plenty of them about. I'm sure they would object to your proposals. I was answering your assertion that surely no-one would object (although you didn't actually complete the sentence. Maybe you were going to write something else).

Whoops! Of course I was along the lines of:

 

is difficult,onerous or intrusive.

 

Thanks for pointing that out I will do an edit.

 

Back after the edit. Obviously the ones with the 30 consecutive days couldn't use anything as proof they were sticking to the T & Cs. 'Cos they aren't!

Edited by Jerra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's awful, have you got a court transcript when they got found out to be falsifying records?

 

Unfortunately, no, . . . . C&RT dropped the action just before it was listed for trial, so there was never any opportunity to air this, or any of the other flaws and blatant untruths in their evidence, before a Judge in open Court.

 

I did pass copies of all of it to the [very un-independent] Waterways Ombiasman as supporting evidence in a formal complaint, but after conferring with C&RT's 'in-house' lawyers in the course of his so-called 'investigation', the whole matter was glossed over and dismissed as inconsequential in the Final Report, which, quite understandably, he felt needed labeling as 'Confidential'.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, no, . . . . C&RT dropped the action just before it was listed for trial, so there was never any opportunity to air this, or any of the other flaws in their evidence, before a Judge in open Court.

Does falsifying evidence come under a similar crime as perjury if they actually present it in court?

Edited by Bewildered
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting! So perjury only applies to criminal court cases?

If that is the case that means that in a civil case that you are likley to lose, you have nothing to lose by falsifying whatever you want in order to try and win. Nothing except perhaps your reputation that is.

Or does the judge have anything they can do if you are caught out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The crime of perjury can be committed at any judicial proceedings, by making statements under oath in knowledge of the fact that they are false.

 

e.g. Jonathan Aitken, who was convicted of perjury for making false statements under oath in a civil case of libel, which he had brought against The Guardian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting! So perjury only applies to criminal court cases?

If that is the case that means that in a civil case that you are likley to lose, you have nothing to lose by falsifying whatever you want in order to try and win. Nothing except perhaps your reputation that is.

Or does the judge have anything they can do if you are caught out?

 

Perjury can only be committed verbally.

 

But, of course, there will only be 'something to lose' if the deception is exposed and proven in Court.

As for penalties a Judge can impose in these circumstances, again I'm not sure, . . . perhaps Nigel [Moore] will enlighten us.

 

 

The crime of perjury can be committed at any judicial proceedings, by making statements under oath in knowledge of the fact that they are false.

 

 

Doesn't help as regards falsified written material filed as evidence though, does it !

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you ask the towpath trackers about the wide areas they have to cover you realise how easy it is to be missed. In fact, perversely, I would say that the more you move about the less likely you are to be recorded. So if you return to point A a month after you're recorded there it would be all too easy to be seen again without any record of where you've been between.

 

This is pretty much my assessment of the situation, and is backed up by the data I received when I asked for our own for the two boats we owned at the time.

 

We were able to pass hundreds of miles across multiple canals without being recorded once.

 

I think CRT should never use two consecutive sigtings taken (say) three weeks apart as evidence of a "potential overstay", as Dave says they have in his case. If they want to establish genuine overstaying on (say) 14 day moorings, they need to be monitoring them on a much more frequent basis in order to prove you have not been miles away elsewhere in the meantime.

 

"Satisfy the board" should not mean you have to create an audit trail of your own movements when they are regularly inapable of dong so themselves.

 

 

There appears to be a great deal of paranoia about the need to prove you have moved. Over my time of reading this forum the majority of times there has been a problem people have said ! rang up and told them they were wrong and they amended the log.

 

If by "amend the log" you mean "amend the actual sightings recorded for your boat", then I do not think CRT can do this. I do not believe they will add your own declaration that you were somewhere else between two of their sightings to their actual sightings database.

 

It is more likely they will record a note against your account to say that a conversation has taken place and you "satisfied the board", but I imagine anybody else who just pulls out the recorded data for the period in question will still see no more than caused you to get questioned in the first place.

 

Hardly a satisfactory way forward IMO. If they are going to use their data to suggest you are an overstayer, then that data needs to be fit for purpose. Undoubtedly at some locations it is, (e.g. those where volunteers record boats daily), but these are few and far between, and where you get a situation where two consecutive sightings are (say) 3 weeks apart, and in the same place IMO CRT should never extrapolate that to say you have probably been nowhere else in the meantime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what Serina said.

Thank you for your e-mail.

I’ve looked at your sightings again, and double checked them with my colleague in our enforcement team, and they definitely represent all the information we hold for this period.

When and how often you’re sighted will be dictated by the work pattern of the local enforcement officers – inevitably that means that there’ll be some gaps between sightings. Though it would be very unusual if you had travelled that distance on our other navigations and not been sighted there at all

I don't think this is that unusual.

 

A couple of years back we asked for a record of our sightings just out of interest and we had not been logged in an 18 month period despite travelling extensively, CRT checking our marina 2-3 times each year and being logged in and out of the Trent locks and Boston at various points during that time period.

 

We have seen more boat loggers this year whilst out on our travels and know that we have been clocked on several occasions whilst out and about.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is pretty much my assessment of the situation, and is backed up by the data I received when I asked for our own for the two boats we owned at the time.

 

We were able to pass hundreds of miles across multiple canals without being recorded once.

 

I think CRT should never use two consecutive sigtings taken (say) three weeks apart as evidence of a "potential overstay", as Dave says they have in his case. If they want to establish genuine overstaying on (say) 14 day moorings, they need to be monitoring them on a much more frequent basis in order to prove you have not been miles away elsewhere in the meantime.

 

"Satisfy the board" should not mean you have to create an audit trail of your own movements when they are regularly inapable of dong so themselves.

 

 

 

If by "amend the log" you mean "amend the actual sightings recorded for your boat", then I do not think CRT can do this. I do not believe they will add your own declaration that you were somewhere else between two of their sightings to their actual sightings database.

 

It is more likely they will record a note against your account to say that a conversation has taken place and you "satisfied the board", but I imagine anybody else who just pulls out the recorded data for the period in question will still see no more than caused you to get questioned in the first place.

 

Hardly a satisfactory way forward IMO. If they are going to use their data to suggest you are an overstayer, then that data needs to be fit for purpose. Undoubtedly at some locations it is, (e.g. those where volunteers record boats daily), but these are few and far between, and where you get a situation where two consecutive sightings are (say) 3 weeks apart, and in the same place IMO CRT should never extrapolate that to say you have probably been nowhere else in the meantime.

Are we sure to what purpose they actually use the data? That is to say, how many actual legal actions have come to court using such data unsupported by any other evidence?

 

It seems to me that as it stands they largely use the data in a process of warning boaters in an effort to persuade them to be compliant.

 

As such, it could be described as being 'fit for purpose', albeit that it can occasionally lead to adverse feedback. The question really is the cost-benefit ratio for developing and installing anything that is suitable for routine use on its own as court evidence. My guess is that it would be at least a six figure cost against which would have to be set a nebulous benefit.

 

Whilst, for all sorts of reasons, my instincts (as a systems person) would be for something a lot better than is currently available, I can understand that, in the short term anyway, CaRT have to manage the network with what they have, despite its limitations. One of the consequences is that once this system identifies a case that on first consideration should be passed for formal legal action then they will have to instigate a separate process to establish the evidence, at not a little cost. Hence the focus on the small number of low-hanging fruit cases. Anyone who presses for a better recording system might well have to live with the unanticipated consequences that CaRT would find it easier to take formal action against more boaters . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

........... for developing and installing anything that is suitable for routine use on its own as court evidence. My guess is that it would be at least a six figure cost against which would have to be set a nebulous benefit.

 

 

 

C&RT do not use the 'overstaying' or 'lack of movement' evidence to take anyone to court, or in fact use it in court, hence they do not need to ensure its accuracy as 'evidence'.

 

The C&RT system is :

Using their evidence of non-compliance they revoke your licence, (because they are no longer 'satisfied you will comply') and then take you to court for being 'unlicensed on their waters' (which of course you are).

 

The only time their 'evidence of non-compliance' would come into question is if a boater took C&RT to court for incorrectly / illegally revoking their licence.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As for penalties a Judge can impose in these circumstances, again I'm not sure, . . .

 

I am not familiar with all available remedies at the disposal of judges in these circumstances; they employ them so seldom [if at all?] in dealing with quasi-governmental organisations.

 

What they CAN do, in cases of Contempt of Court, is send the offender to prison. In my experience however, that has never been done with BW/CaRT, even though a Judge has imposed this punishment on at least one boater I know of.

 

In his case, he was sent to Wormwood Scrubs for several weeks until he employed a barrister to “purge his contempt” in not having submitted evidence/attended a hearing [because, he had said, he was constrained by a parallel criminal hearing on the same/related issues].

 

Conversely, on at least one occasion I was able to catch out a BW Patrol Officer in his lies [recorded in sworn written statements and repeated on oath in the witness stand] and all that happened was that the Judge recorded that his evidence was “clearly wrong”. Big deal.

 

Strangely, the greatest censure of any sort in that trial was reserved for BW's then Legal Director Nigel Johnson – and that was not for anything he did or said dishonestly; it was because he had acted in a way that could be construed as disrespectful of the Court, in NOT saying anything. Until he complied with the Judge’s Order to produce a chronology and explanation of BW’s behaviour, he was “kept on his oath”.

 

Quite frankly, I have no idea to this day what is so stern about that, but obviously it was felt as something onerous, because every day thereafter the Judge was assured that Johnson was working on things assiduously, so could he please be released from his oath – which, as it happened, the Judge kept refusing.

 

Again, the Court will take no notice [in terms of punishment] for any fraudulent behaviour, production of forgeries, etc, if those are not relied upon by the perpetrators in the particular proceedings in which they come to light. Yet again, whatever penalties the Judge can impose, whether he chooses to do so or not is entirely within his discretion, and as we have seen, that discretion is always exercised very gently in BW/CaRT's case..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

C&RT do not use the 'overstaying' or 'lack of movement' evidence to take anyone to court, or in fact use it in court, hence they do not need to ensure its accuracy as 'evidence'.

 

The C&RT system is :

Using their evidence of non-compliance they revoke your licence, (because they are no longer 'satisfied you will comply') and then take you to court for being 'unlicensed on their waters' (which of course you are).

 

The only time their 'evidence of non-compliance' would come into question is if a boater took C&RT to court for incorrectly / illegally revoking their licence.

 

Actually, although that is perfectly correct insofar as such evidence need not be considered by the Judge, it invariable IS brought up by CaRT, by way of background explanation for why the boat has had its licence revoked [where that is the case]. From their point of view it emphasises the sanctity of their processes.

 

The recent case of Andy Wingfield illustrates the point – no matter that nothing he said needed to be considered by the Judge, his version of the facts around his movement and mooring was permitted to be aired. That CaRT’s version was preferred does not detract from the fact that the factual background issue was raised and argued [even if that was contrary to what his Defence team asked!].

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Actually, although that is perfectly correct insofar as such evidence need not be considered by the Judge, it invariable IS brought up by CaRT, by way of background explanation for why the boat has had its licence revoked [where that is the case]. From their point of view it emphasises the sanctity of their processes.

 

 

In the cases where it is 'brought up' by C&RT, is the boater (his 'representative') then able to cross examine C&RT on how the information was obtained, the likely accuracy of the information, to give examples of how wrong the information often is, and generally question the validity of the information ?

Does he boater then get chance to challenge the C&RT logging information ?

 

Or - Do C&RT simply 'bring it up' by saying "we have movement records that show XXY was there for more than 14 days thereby contravening the licence conditions, so we revoked the licence"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely if CART want to have any legal clout behind an allegation that a boater has overstayed, then they need to take similar steps to those proposed by boaters wishing to prove that they have moved.

 

So the CART enforcer would need to take date-stamped pictures?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In the cases where it is 'brought up' by C&RT, is the boater (his 'representative') then able to cross examine C&RT on how the information was obtained, the likely accuracy of the information, to give examples of how wrong the information often is, and generally question the validity of the information ?

Does he boater then get chance to challenge the C&RT logging information ?

 

Or - Do C&RT simply 'bring it up' by saying "we have movement records that show XXY was there for more than 14 days thereby contravening the licence conditions, so we revoked the licence"

 

It is all down to the discretion of the Judge, Alan.

 

Mostly, insofar as the Judge permits any debate over the facts, it will be in order to counter any potential accusation at appeal, that his judgment was unsafe – but of course, in a Part 8 procedure [as with Andy Wingfield and EVERY case brought by BW/CaRT] whether he considers this or not is his or her choice to make.

 

That discretion applies to the extent of any debate over the question permitted; if you read the Wingfield transcripts again, both first and second, you can discern two quite different approaches by the different judges. Even though Andy's Statement was taken into consideration in his second trial, there was no cross-examination of CaRT witnesses permitted, nor any challenge to their veracity.

 

That lack formed part of CLP's grounds for Appeal - which was, however, dismissed because within the Judge's discretion. Had CLP filed an Acknowledgement of Service with a Defence and opposition to the Part 8 procedure, it might all have been a different story.

 

In the Geoff Mayers example, the facts over lack of movement were not in fact disputed, so the initial dispute over restricted movements under reasonable circumstances likewise received no airing. Even so, the fascinating choice by the Judge in that case to air his obiter opinions in the forthright way he chose to, was an implicit indictment of the procedural choices made by the authority.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely if CART want to have any legal clout behind an allegation that a boater has overstayed, then they need to take similar steps to those proposed by boaters wishing to prove that they have moved.

 

So the CART enforcer would need to take date-stamped pictures?

Can't see how that would help. The problem is more to do with how CRT collate the information that they have got, especially across regional boundaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely if CART want to have any legal clout behind an allegation that a boater has overstayed, then they need to take similar steps to those proposed by boaters wishing to prove that they have moved.

 

So the CART enforcer would need to take date-stamped pictures?

 

No, for the reason Alan has brought up – that in the Part 8 procedures employed by CaRT, the only issue for determination on allegedly undisputed facts, is whether CaRT are entitled to demand removal of the boat from the waterways on the grounds of it being unlicensed.

 

The fact of it being unlicensed will itself be an indisputable fact, ergo, they are entitled [as the Court will see it] to demand removal. They do not have to justify the background reason for revocation of the licence.

 

That situation only changes definitively when/if the boater challenges the Part 8 procedure and files an appropriate Defence. Better still, if there are certain relevant issues they wish aired [such as the inadequacy of the Patrol reports], files a counter-claim. Then and only then, could the boater freely challenge and cross-examine the opposition witnesses and the data collation relied upon.

 

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, for the reason Alan has brought up – that in the Part 8 procedures employed by CaRT, the only issue for determination on allegedly undisputed facts, is whether CaRT are entitled to demand removal of the boat from the waterways on the grounds of it being unlicensed.

 

The fact of it being unlicensed will itself be an indisputable fact, ergo, they are entitled [as the Court will see it] to demand removal. They do not have to justify the background reason for revocation of the licence.

 

 

 

 

That was really what I was getting at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I think that is the problem, CaRT do not have a good system to record boat movements whilst it is still us the boaters who have to "convince the board" of our vessels movements and meeting the terms of the license.

 

Agree with billybobboth that there should be a standard way of recording your position. Maybe not on line as not all boaters have access to the Internet whilst cruising, but perhaps there should be an official "Boaters Log Book" which is issued with our license? Needs to be fairly simple with the idea that the overnight position of the boat is recorded, 1 line per entry which would lost the canal that boat is on as well as closest structure such as bridge or lock.

You could make a nice app for a smartphone, which would atleast require you to get the phone to a new location.

 

A paper version for those without phone would be required, and the technically aware could frig the gps using developper tool, but yeah....

 

...still only one word against another....

 

 

...also,is it reallya step forward ?

 

 

Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....So, the locals had interpreted "Two hour limit, no return with three hours" in a different fashion to the parking company. We've now got it (I think) agreed as "no more than two hours in any three hour period" - whether they can actually reprogram the computer to action this correctly is anyone's guess.

Very similar to the discussions on how to interpret the change in enforcement on the Bridgewater, where you could well transit the canal once in each direction, within the maximum time allowed on the reciprocal agreement.

 

 

Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a newly declared CCer this year, I got the "Welcome" email from CRT, telling me sternly what my obligations were and that they would be watching me closely from now on.

 

So I asked for their sightings records of my boat for the previous two years, and enquired whether my previous cruising history would satisfy them if I was to carry on in the same manner.

 

In each of those years I had been cruising around for 7-8 months, covering well over 1500 lock-miles each year. You would have thought that if CRT really were watching they'd have noticed, but no. 8 sightings in one year and 6 in the other. Of which not quite half were of sightings of the boat while it was moored in a marina or boatyard.

 

What I saw from the meagre sightings records that CRT provided makes me concur with alan_fincher. If you move your boat regularly, it is very likely that CRT haven't got the foggiest where you have actually been.

 

The way I satisfy CRT that I am complying with the terms of my licence, is to actually comply with the terms of my licence. If they can't be bothered to look and see that's what I'm doing, why am I obliged to do anything else?

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 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.