Overstaying and Sighting Record

[MissMax]

I'm overstaying. I did email CRT to inform them I am waiting on a instructor, I was told my message would be passed onto the local CRT.

Haven't heard from them yet.

[dogless]

My experience with C&RT has always been, that provided I keep them informed of my situation, they are very amenable.

 

I'd be interested to hear their response when you have one.

 

Rog

[Dave_P]

 

 

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?

I don't know for you, and it sounds like you don't either. I imagine CRT have some intended purpose for logging boats and that a suspicion of overstaying which begins with a logging record could well end with the removal of a boat.

 

It's definitely a worry.

I'm overstaying. I did email CRT to inform them I am waiting on a instructor, I was told my message would be passed onto the local CRT.

Haven't heard from them yet.

Aiming for the quickest enforcement notice of all time?

[matty40s]

No they (boat loggers) have little tablets in our neck of the woods.

They must have nipped to Boots for some more as I havnt seen any.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Aiming for the quickest enforcement notice of all time?

 

No - she already got that when she was told to leave the marina within the next 24 hours

[Horace42]

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 traveled that distance on our other navigations and not been sighted there at all

If it was me, and the consequences of the accusation of overstaying has serious repercussions, I would go back to CRT and demand an explanation why their records do not show a sighting at Harecastle.

In this instance Harecastle is more than an incidental point at which boats pass. It is a detailed record of boats passing the tunnel, and for your boat not to be recorded would be a critical violations of CRT essential safety procedures. Make a fuss.

[Jerra]

But are CRT interested in logging the 20,000 or so with Home Moorings? As far as I know, it's only the 5000

OK so restrict it to 5000. How many cases do you hear of in one year? Not counting long running sagas which spread over a period just counting the year it first came to CRT's notice.

[Mike Todd]

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

Reciprocal? And not if you go even 1 m off the end of the BC

[Mike Todd]

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.

The evidence earlier in this thread indicates that the sightings on their own are never used to take court action.

[Arthur Marshall]

If it was me, and the consequences of the accusation of overstaying has serious repercussions, I would go back to CRT and demand an explanation why their records do not show a sighting at Harecastle.

In this instance Harecastle is more than an incidental point at which boats pass. It is a detailed record of boats passing the tunnel, and for your boat not to be recorded would be a critical violations of CRT essential safety procedures. Make a fuss.

The Harecastle records have never been included on the CRT records, same as the Anderton Lift ones aren't. I think the tunnel record is for their H&S purposes only - they aren't supposed to let you through without safety cert, and the only way to know if you have one is if you have a licence.

ETA I agree it's daft, though!

Edited September 13, 2016 by Arthur Marshall

[Jerra]

I don't know for you, and it sounds like you don't either. I imagine CRT have some intended purpose for logging boats and that a suspicion of overstaying which begins with a logging record could well end with the removal of a boat.

 

It's definitely a worry.

Surely it is only a worry if you can't (or wont ) "satisfy the board" as to your moving. As discussed earlier a record which should satisfy the board isn't too onerous to keep.

 

Do the basics and get on and enjoy boating I would suggest works for the vast majority of people.

[Dave_P]

The evidence earlier in this thread indicates that the sightings on their own are never used to take court action.

They form part of the enforcement process and are then used as evidence in court. That's enough of a problem for me.

 

Apart from anything else, it leads to a waste of money when CRT pursue compliant boaters due to their piecemeal records, such as the OP found here.

[GoodGurl]

If it was me, and the consequences of the accusation of overstaying has serious repercussions, I would go back to CRT and demand an explanation why their records do not show a sighting at Harecastle.

In this instance Harecastle is more than an incidental point at which boats pass. It is a detailed record of boats passing the tunnel, and for your boat not to be recorded would be a critical violations of CRT essential safety procedures. Make a fuss.

to be clear i wasn't accused of overstaying i was just curious to see my cruising records, i did email them back at the time with all of the dates they had missed including Frankton locks onto the Montgomery and Anderton lift onto the weaver (both are bookable passages only), they didn't reply.

[Tuscan]

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

 

The new software introduced last year was meant to be able to record the direction of the boat and whether it was moving when sighted.

 

I guess the majority of boaters are not to fussed about the accuracy given that you just need two or three sightings that demonstrate your range complies with CRTs guidance. However CRT have previously that the whole network is patrolled every 2 weeks., so allowing for sickness , holidays etc every 4 weeks should be easily achievable.

[Machpoint005]

If it was me, and the consequences of the accusation of overstaying has serious repercussions, I would go back to CRT and demand an explanation why their records do not show a sighting at Harecastle.

In this instance Harecastle is more than an incidental point at which boats pass. It is a detailed record of boats passing the tunnel, and for your boat not to be recorded would be a critical violations of CRT essential safety procedures. Make a fuss.

 

I would refer to CRT and ask them politely, as that's the approach more likely to yield positive results.

If you were a CRT grunt, would you rather deal with a pleasant customer, or a rude one full of his own sense of entitlement?

[Naughty Cal]

 

I would refer to CRT and ask them politely, as that's the approach more likely to yield positive results.

If you were a CRT grunt, would you rather deal with a pleasant customer, or a rude one full of his own sense of entitlement?

Indeed.

[GoodGurl]

 

I would refer to CRT and ask them politely, as that's the approach more likely to yield positive results.

If you were a CRT grunt, would you rather deal with a pleasant customer, or a rude one full of his own sense of entitlement?

exactly, demanding anything gets you nowhere.

[dmr]

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

 

The new software introduced last year was meant to be able to record the direction of the boat and whether it was moving when sighted.

 

I guess the majority of boaters are not to fussed about the accuracy given that you just need two or three sightings that demonstrate your range complies with CRTs guidance. However CRT have previously that the whole network is patrolled every 2 weeks., so allowing for sickness , holidays etc every 4 weeks should be easily achievable.

 

Its probably a good job they don't record direction, it would only make things worse for us.

On first visit came out of dry dock and went down lock to mooring so facing South but the intention was to turn as we were travelling North.

After the second visit (wet dock) we reversed down the lock so facing North, but plan was to turn and travel South. Went to Aston Marina for a pump out then back to Stone for one night (now heading North and facing North). Tomorrow will have one final visit to Stone (now need to see a vet!) heading South and facing South. (Its no surprise really that we confuse the CaRT system). In a months time we will be 150 miles away and won't visit Stone again till next year.

 

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

Edited September 13, 2016 by dmr

[MtB]

 

Its probably a good job they don't record direction, it would only make things worse for us.

On first visit came out of dry dock and went down lock to mooring so facing South but the intention was to turn as we were travelling North.

After the second visit (wet dock) we reversed down the lock so facing North, but plan was to turn and travel South. Went to Aston Marina for a pump out then back to Stone for one night (now heading North and facing North). Tomorrow will have one final visit to Stone (now need to see a vet!) heading South and facing South. (Its no surprise really that we confuse the CaRT system). In a months time we will be 150 miles away and won't visit Stone again till next year.

 

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

 

 

As Alan often points out, the failing in CRT's record keeping is to attach no significance to the absence of a boat on a survey of a particular place, between two sightings of that boat in that place.

 

Given you were spotted twice in three weeks, they probably survey Stone once a week. If so, there will be at least one survey of Stone in between your two spottings which failed to spot you there. CRT appear to have failed to consider this intermediate survey result which showed you not there.

[NigelMoore]

 

 

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

 

It HAS happened; how often, and how geographically widespread, I could not say [nor could anyone other then the authority itself – perhaps].

 

If you read the cross-examinations of the London Patrol Officer in my case, he affirmed that he used to s.8 boats simply as a means of getting a boater’s attention, instead of going through the rigmarole of finding out who they were and giving warnings.

 

He justified a “move on or else” notice on one of my clients, after they had been tied up for less than 48 hours on private moorings, on the stated grounds that they had been there more than 14 days. Challenged as to what records he had establishing that, he agreed he had none – but asserted his probity as a BW employee who would not have placed such a notice unless he knew that the boat HAD been there too long.

 

The judge told me that unless I could prove otherwise, the BW “evidence” [the unsupported word of the Patrol Officer] would have to stand!

 

Fortunately I WAS able to prove he was lying in respect of how long the other boats were moored before being served with s.8’s, but I could not have done so with the other one – so it is a concrete example of a need to be able to prove yourself against the mere word of the authority. All those boats were examples of s.8’s being served in the absence of any evidence whatsoever as to the length of stay [and without any prior notice to rectify the situation before service of the eviction notices.]

 

[furnessvale]

The Harecastle records have never been included on the CRT records, same as the Anderton Lift ones aren't. I think the tunnel record is for their H&S purposes only - they aren't supposed to let you through without safety cert, and the only way to know if you have one is if you have a licence.

ETA I agree it's daft, though!

To be pedantic, in a highly unlikely situation where I was prosecuted for overstaying, I would be demanding Harecastle, Anderton and any other similar records be produced to me for court purposes as "unused material".

 

It is no longer just the choice of the prosecutor which evidence he produces in a case.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[dmr]

 

 

As Alan often points out, the failing in CRT's record keeping is to attach no significance to the absence of a boat on a survey of a particular place, between two sightings of that boat in that place.

 

Given you were spotted twice in three weeks, they probably survey Stone once a week. If so, there will be at least one survey of Stone in between your two spottings which failed to spot you there. CRT appear to have failed to consider this intermediate survey result which showed you not there.

 

I think this is exactly what a lot of people are asking for...the concept of a "non-sighting" (Stone checked and the boat was not there). Once away from the K&A it does appear very easy to go weeks without getting sighted so under the current system we could appear to be living at Stone. We have been sighted on the the Oxford and Shroppie but I did not notice any sightings North of Middlewhich all the way to Liverpool (I think no sightings on the Bridgewater too but that belongs in a different thread).

Once we get off the K&A in spring I am always pleased when we get sighted on the Oxford otherwise CaRT probably think we're still outside the pub at Pewsey.

 

........Dave

[mayalld]

 

I think this is exactly what a lot of people are asking for...the concept of a "non-sighting" (Stone checked and the boat was not there). Once away from the K&A it does appear very easy to go weeks without getting sighted so under the current system we could appear to be living at Stone. We have been sighted on the the Oxford and Shroppie but I did not notice any sightings North of Middlewhich all the way to Liverpool (I think no sightings on the Bridgewater too but that belongs in a different thread).

Once we get off the K&A in spring I am always pleased when we get sighted on the Oxford otherwise CaRT probably think we're still outside the pub at Pewsey.

 

........Dave

 

I would agree that this would be a very sensible addition, as would including the data from Harecastle, Anderton (in fact every manned structure) in the dataset.

 

Unfortunately, I think that there is a reluctance to do this, as there is a feeling within CRT that operation staff should not be involved in enforcement.

 

I did get to thinking that as CRT are using volunteers to do non-jobs playing with locks, would they be interested in volunteers making their analysis of sightings data fit for purpose?

[Dharl]

Well the pub at Pewsey isn't a bad one to be stuck outside....however can see why you could be concerned if not sighted! Of course when you buy your Thames License at Reading would give you additional support!

 

For all those who are concerned about not being logged enough below is an example of a 'overnight mooring log'. 1 page per month and IF the "powers that be" send you a strongly worded email about non compliance then you have a bit of evidence to back up your reply!

 

 

 

 

Am sure others have much better ideas but a simple solution for what should be a simple problem!

 

 

 

[KevMc]

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 . . .

 

I would have thought it simple enough to be able to use the existing data to decide if someone with widely separated sightings at a location had moved or not.

 

Boat A is sighted at location A on 1 Jan

Boat A moves on 2 Jan

Boats B thru G are sighted at location A on between 3 Jan and 28 Feb

Boat A returns to location A and is sighted on 1 Mar.

 

As Boat A wasn't sighted for a long period at that location then it musty have been somewhere else - i.e. it has moved.

 

Unless the system allows recording of no boats, a problem occurs if Location A has no other visitors at all during the period and as such no sightings recorded to show that Boat A wasn't there (have to assume that is the case because it appears to be what happened); so as a working fix to get around that issue without a major rewrite of the software, every time a checker visits a site they enter a ficticious boat as well as the ones that are actually there - now you can say when a site was empty as well as when it had Boat A there.