Jump to content

Overstaying and Sighting Record


dmr

Featured Posts

With 8 sightings in a year, if they'd all been in the same place it would have flagged you up! As they obviously weren't, it's quite enough to tell CRT not to worry about you. 99% of the time the system works fine. 99% of the rest of the time, a short communication sorts it out. The ones you hear about are the other ones, and you never, ever, get the full story...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myself & my partner gave up our mooring at the end of March & became CCers. We have received nothing untoward from CRT so far. Is it because they are incompetent & don't get around to all the new CCers or do we have that to look forward to I wonder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With 8 sightings in a year, if they'd all been in the same place it would have flagged you up! As they obviously weren't, it's quite enough to tell CRT not to worry about you. 99% of the time the system works fine. 99% of the rest of the time, a short communication sorts it out. The ones you hear about are the other ones, and you never, ever, get the full story...

 

Are you suggesting the story that was told in the very first post of this thread is somehow being "economical with the truth" then?

 

I am very prepared to believe the story as posted, and I think it is being discourteous to "dmr" to do otherwise.

 

IMO, CRT need to understand what of the limited data they manage to collect about many boats can actually fairly be used as evidence, and should not be going after large numbers of compliant people because their data is only a very partial record of the cruising they have actually done.

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.

 

................ .............. ..... ...... .........

 

Can you post up the text of this 'Welcome, we'll be watching you' document ? I would be interested in seeing the most recent list of whatever 'obligations' C&RT are fantasizing over now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With 8 sightings in a year, if they'd all been in the same place it would have flagged you up! As they obviously weren't, it's quite enough to tell CRT not to worry about you. 99% of the time the system works fine. 99% of the rest of the time, a short communication sorts it out. The ones you hear about are the other ones, and you never, ever, get the full story...

 

Of course you are right - in one respect. From the few sighting that they had over the two years, CRT told me that "it was clear" that I would have complied with the CC guidelines, if I had been a CCer.

 

But, given the number of time I have heard of spurious sightings being used to flag possible breaches of either 14 day overstaying or non-compliance with CCing (by being sighted on several occasions "in the same general area"*) I really don't hold with your view that the system works fine 99% of the time. If sightings "suggest" an over stay or breach of CC guidelines and an email is sent obliging the boater to provide extra information, that is not a system which is working.

 

* "General Area" is yet a further designation of "Place" that seems to have crept into CRT usage. My "Welcome" email told me that I must not remain within a "neighbourhood". When I asked what specific places where in which so-called neighbourhood, I was told my local enforcement officer would be in touch to explain. That was in January. Needless to say, I remain to be enlightened on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Are you suggesting the story that was told in the very first post of this thread is somehow being "economical with the truth" then?

 

I am very prepared to believe the story as posted, and I think it is being discourteous to "dmr" to do otherwise.

 

IMO, CRT need to understand what of the limited data they manage to collect about many boats can actually fairly be used as evidence, and should not be going after large numbers of compliant people because their data is only a very partial record of the cruising they have actually done.

 

I very much hope this was a general observation, where it might have some truth, rather than aimed at myself.

I responded to the CaRT warning explaining that we had cruised the Caldon, Macc and Peak Forest between the two sightings at Stone, and also that we would need to remain in this general region for a bit longer for hospital appointments.

The response from CaRT was to grant us an overstay for 14 days!!!! but warn that a doctors note would be needed if we wanted a longer overstay. We are still moving, that's what we do, but at least we hopefully won't get another warning when we pass through Stone yet again later this week on our way to Birmingham (I just can't go through Stone without stopping for a night or two).

 

I have pondered this a bit more and accept that making multiple stops at a popular location whilst on a meandering journey is likely to generate a warning. It would be nice if CaRT looked at the more general cruising pattern of a boat before issuing warnings but others would say that would be unfair.

 

................Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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?

 

Because, at the end of the day, & much as we may argue, it is legally the boaters responsibility to 'satisfy the board', not the boards responsibility to prove the boater has, or has not, not complied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The response from CaRT was to grant us an overstay for 14 days!!!! but warn that a doctors note would be needed if we wanted a longer overstay"

 

Seems a ridiculous response , but all the more scary if you consider the spread of the £25 day charge or 'no return within x days'. I can only imagine that they are counting the time in dry dock etc as a towpath stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The response from CaRT was to grant us an overstay for 14 days!!!! but warn that a doctors note would be needed if we wanted a longer overstay"

 

Seems a ridiculous response , but all the more scary if you consider the spread of the £25 day charge or 'no return within x days'. I can only imagine that they are counting the time in dry dock etc as a towpath stay.

 

No, you are pretty much invisible in the drydock so would not be sighted there. It was simply that we returned to Stone three weeks later and got sighted for a second time without getting any sightings elsewhere between these two visits.

 

But on the subject of the £25 change; £48 gets the use of a covered wet dock, with water and electricity and even the use of a little workshop, plus if you are really lucky, a bit of help from the boatyard staff. Makes £25 for nothing look a bit like a fine to me.

 

................Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Because, at the end of the day, & much as we may argue, it is legally the boaters responsibility to 'satisfy the board', not the boards responsibility to prove the boater has, or has not, not complied.

 

Well we sure do argue.

 

But as I read the legislation, while the onus is on an applicant for a license to 'satisfy the board', I don't see the requirements for a licencee to continue to satisfy the board that they have complied and are complying with licence T&Cs.

 

Of course I recognise that where there is an application to renew a licence, the board may at that stage declare that they are not satisfied, because the licencee has not complied with their licence T&Cs in the past, e.g. by overstaying or not using the boat bona fide, etc. But even in that eventuality, it is for the board to determine that licence T&Cs have not been complied with, and thus that they are not satisfied, rather than for the licencee to show that they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

.........................., it is for the board to determine that licence T&Cs have not been complied with, and thus that they are not satisfied, rather than for the licencee to show that they have.

 

I would argue the reverse :

 

If C&RT (from their 'sporadic' logging) decide that the boater has not complied, then IT IS the boaters responsibility to 'satisfy' C&RT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you really heard of that many? There have been odd ones on the forum but given that there are somewhere in the region of 30,000+ boats have you really heard of a lot?

But are CRT interested in logging the 20,000 or so with Home Moorings? As far as I know, it's only the 5000 or so boats that CC, that this overstay thing is relevant to. Also, your boat is much more likely to get logged in popular areas than in remote ones which is what would appear to have happened in dmr's case. If his boat was logged twice in Stone, 3 weeks apart, with no other recorded sightings between, why would CRT think the boat had overstayed in Stone rather than been elsewhere? Especially as there are lots of possible "elsewheres" within a week or twos cruise of Stone.

Also also, this forum represents only a very small portion of canal users, so the few odd ones on the forum are only going to be a small percentage of the true number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Are you suggesting the story that was told in the very first post of this thread is somehow being "economical with the truth" then?

 

I am very prepared to believe the story as posted, and I think it is being discourteous to "dmr" to do otherwise.

 

IMO, CRT need to understand what of the limited data they manage to collect about many boats can actually fairly be used as evidence, and should not be going after large numbers of compliant people because their data is only a very partial record of the cruising they have actually done.

Firtsly, of course not. You may not have noticed that the discussion has broadened out a bit. Won't bother to answer second para.

I would however like to know why you think CRT are going after large numbers of boaters. In years of boating, meeting and chatting with boaters, I've only ever met one, and that was Dave Mayers,and I'm not sure he counts as compliant. Can you let me know the number of compliant boaters approached (which you obviously know) so we can get a better idea of the percentages? I accept my estimates are based on experience and anecdotal evidence only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I very much hope this was a general observation, where it might have some truth, rather than aimed at myself.

 

................Dave

My observations were to the general discussion - if it looked like anything else I apologise. Of course I accept the truth of what your OP said - be no point in posting it otherwise.

But are CRT interested in logging the 20,000 or so with Home Moorings?.

With the new T&Cs, they are now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I told my example above.

 

I have also just been to Lincoln from Stowe Hill leaving last Tuesday at 10 am.

As I was leaving the diesel point the boat checker came past and took my details.

I can guarantee that if I am back there next Tuesday, I will get an overstaying email as I havnt seen a boat checker since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I find e-canalmapp very good for logging my, admittedly currently very short, journeys - roll on retirment and ccing. The main problem is remembering to keep the phone plugged in for charging all the time as it does drain the battery very quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I'm missing something here. If you are logged incorrectly as overstaying, you have really been somewhere else.

In that case why not reply to the CRT enforcement team by email or letter, very politely, along the lines of "no, we went to Macclesfield on Tuesday, Ashton on Wednesday, Castlefield on Thursday and my credit card/debit card records will show that I visited those places on those dates" (unless you never buy anything).

Kick the ball firmly back into CRT's 22. All they are saying is that you weren't seen anywhere other than where you were logged.


If the OP's boat was logged twice at Stone, three weeks apart, is there any record of which way it was pointing on each occasion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If the OP's boat was logged twice at Stone, three weeks apart, is there any record of which way it was pointing on each occasion?

 

 

No. Just the boat number is recorded at a location when logged.

 

I wonder how far apart these loggings have to be before a letter like Dave received is not generated. 4 weeks? 5 weeks? 6 weeks?

 

I wonder because a passing comment by a CRT 'warden' I know was that once a boat has been on a 14 day towpath mooring for more than 'a couple of months', 'the office' starts to take an active interest in it. I'm then wondering if the letter I received demanding I give written and signed confirmation of the location of my home mooring was a result of me being logged say twice in in the same place several weeks apart when I change directions. (I currently chug up and down the K&A between Newbury and Devizes.)

Had I not had a home mooring I might have had the same letter as Dave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone really, really, want a CRT boat tracking system that is 100% efficient and accurate? I suppose a camera on every bridge with registration plate recognition could be arranged - it works on motorways, after all.. Either you want no tracking whatsoever, or you have to have a system which you meet halfway with your own records and be prepared to have the odd discussion and maybe one or two heated arguments. Thirty years ago nobody cared (for many reasons) much if you hardly/never moved, but now they do.

The endless "not fit for the purpose" chorus is getting a bit dull - I've not seen a constructive alternative suggested yet.

I'm not sure anyone is demanding 100% accuracy or cameras on all bridges. However, using a very dubious logging system as a basis for court action is clearly wrong. This is important as people risk losing their homes. When i requested my log a couple of years back, there was one glaring error and a lot of long blank periods where my boat wasn't logged at all. Two of those periods involved me travelling the Trent and the Severn and having my index number taken at locks by CRT staff. None of those sighting showed up on my official log so information is clearly not shared within CRT as it should be. This means that people risk losing their homes due to the court action of an organisation which seems incapable of gathering the necessary information to bring valid prosecutions.

 

That's the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure anyone is demanding 100% accuracy or cameras on all bridges. However, using a very dubious logging system as a basis for court action is clearly wrong. This is important as people risk losing their homes. When i requested my log a couple of years back, there was one glaring error and a lot of long blank periods where my boat wasn't logged at all. Two of those periods involved me travelling the Trent and the Severn and having my index number taken at locks by CRT staff. None of those sighting showed up on my official log so information is clearly not shared within CRT as it should be. This means that people risk losing their homes due to the court action of an organisation which seems incapable of gathering the necessary information to bring valid prosecutions.

 

That's the problem.

We have often wondered why the boat in't logged with CRT when we go through the Trent locks and Boston. It surely wouldn't be too difficult to give the lockies the same devices that the boat loggers have to log boats going through the locks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure anyone is demanding 100% accuracy or cameras on all bridges. However, using a very dubious logging system as a basis for court action is clearly wrong. This is important as people risk losing their homes. When i requested my log a couple of years back, there was one glaring error and a lot of long blank periods where my boat wasn't logged at all. Two of those periods involved me travelling the Trent and the Severn and having my index number taken at locks by CRT staff. None of those sighting showed up on my official log so information is clearly not shared within CRT as it should be. This means that people risk losing their homes due to the court action of an organisation which seems incapable of gathering the necessary information to bring valid prosecutions.

 

That's the problem.

 

 

But it's NOT used as a basis for court action. It's used to generate 'computer says' style warning letters, and eventually refusal of licences. I'll be amazed if evictions are initiated without a great deal of personal attention to each case by CRT staff in the legal department.

 

Or are you saying you know that evictions are initiated on incomplete CRT sightings records alone?

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.