Overstaying and Sighting Record

[MtB]

WRONG - If they aren't satisfied they will contact you and give you a chance to remedy the situation first.

 

It is a long process between first contacting a boater expressing their concerns and revoking/refusing a licence.

 

 

This is my impression too.

 

The trouble is, even their first polite and tentative contact mentioning a 'potential' problem comes across as provocative to a diligently compliant boater, e.g. the OP.

 

 

(Punctuation edit.)

Edited September 15, 2016 by Mike the Boilerman

[Naughty Cal]

 

 

This is my impression too.

 

The trouble is, even their first polite and tentative contact mentioning a 'potential' problem comes across as provocative to a diligently compliant boater, e.g. the OP.

 

 

(Punctuation edit.)

Some people need to learn to just calm down a little. As has already been stated in this thread many times, a simple phone call to CRT is more often then not all that is needed to clarify the situation and set matters straight if you are a compliant boater.

[Tony Brooks]

But does that result in the record being am mended or do CaRT just discontinue any action. If its the former its fine but if the latter the record could be put before a court at some time in the future.

[MtB]

 

But does that result in the record being am mended or do CaRT just discontinue any action. If its the former its fine but if the latter the record could be put before a court at some time in the future.

 

 

But could it though Tony? Under what circumstances?

 

CRT refuse to issue a licence without recourse to a court, then they use the courts to evict you from their waterways for having no licence.

 

The reasons (or otherwise) for no licence never get aired in court, just the uncontested fact that you don't have one.

 

 

 

(Edit to improve clarity.)

Edited September 15, 2016 by Mike the Boilerman

[Paul C]

 

But does that result in the record being am mended or do CaRT just discontinue any action. If its the former its fine but if the latter the record could be put before a court at some time in the future.

 

 

But there isn't a "crime" of overstaying - the way the law is written, means that the boater is required to prove their movements satisfy the board; conversely, CRT can use any method they like to infer they're not satisfied, so long as its reasonable.......then cancel or not renew a licence. Only after the no licence, and a s.8, are the courts involved. And the facts in question in court relate to whether there is a licence or not, not the underlying reasons for CRTs previous action.

 

It would only be if a boater themselves started a judicial review upon their licence cancellation or non-renewal, when the movement record might come up in court. AFAIK the only time this occurred (Nick Brown) the case was halted half way through and no movement information had been heard in court.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

But there isn't a "crime" of overstaying - the way the law is written, means that the boater is required to prove their movements satisfy the board; conversely, CRT can use any method they like to infer they're not satisfied, so long as its reasonable.......then cancel or not renew a licence. Only after the no licence, and a s.8, are the courts involved. And the facts in question in court relate to whether there is a licence or not, not the underlying reasons for CRTs previous action.

 

It would only be if a boater themselves started a judicial review upon their licence cancellation or non-renewal, when the movement record might come up in court. AFAIK the only time this occurred (Nick Brown) the case was halted half way through and no movement information had been heard in court.

 

It was for this reason I asked the question to which Nigel Moore answered,

 

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

 

so, if you have, in the past, received a 'naughty boy' letter which, although issued in error, may still be offered in court at any future date.

 

Post #64 in this thread.

[NilesMI]

 

But there isn't a "crime" of overstaying - the way the law is written, means that the boater is required to prove their movements satisfy the board; conversely, CRT can use any method they like to infer they're not satisfied, so long as its reasonable.......then cancel or not renew a licence.

 

The way the law is written means the boater must satisfy CRT and where CRT's logging/sightings records show that the boat hasn't been used bona fide, etc., CRT may say that they are not satisfied.

 

Also, it must be the case that where CRT's logging/sightings records show that the boat has been used bona fide, etc., CRT must say that they are satisfied.

 

 

But, where CRT's logging/sightings records don't show whether or not the boat has been used bona fide, etc. would CRT be acting reasonably by stating that they were not satisfied and revoking/refusing a licence?

 

Or, in the same situation, rather than stating that they are not satisfied, would CRT be acting reasonably by requiring the boater to prove that the boat has been used bona fide, etc.?

 

Even if it is reasonable to require a boater to provide proof of the boat's use, is it reasonable to selectively require this (from boaters for whose boats CRT's logging/sightings records don't show whether or not the boat has been used bona fide, etc.) rather than from all boaters?

 

And even if it is reasonable for CRT selectively to require certain boaters to provide proof of their boat's use, how can any boater know, in advance, whether they will be selected?

[dogless]

"We few, we sad few, we band of mother's" - the St. Shipman's Day speech ?Note the abbreviation so it scans ...

Well I liked it.

 

And my boat got a new boat safety today.

 

I'm a happy chap with a glass of red

 

Rog

 

Greenie.....would have given two but I can't

Edited September 15, 2016 by dogless

[ditchcrawler]

Got clocked today by a chap on a bike on the Stratford

[Señor Chris]

Got clocked today by a chap on a bike on the Stratford

 

CRT staff are the only people I've seen cycling while wearing life jackets.

[spadefoot]

Got clocked today by a chap on a bike on the Stratford

Bluddy cyclists. Well I hope you stuck up for yourself and clocked him one back.

[MtB]

Bluddy cyclists. Well I hope you stuck up for yourself and clocked him one back.

 

 

Interesting thought though. Shall we start our own survey of data loggers? We could record when and where we see them so we know where and when our boats should have been logged...

[plainsman]

Been following this with interest and have discovered that CRT will only chase you if they have your up to date boat and personal details. I have a home mooring but due to a health issue I had to overstay and notified CRT of my situation. Despite been given a 'sympathetic' response I was 'required' to provide a letter (not a sick note) from my 'health professional' and even then I still accumulated overstay notices. YET, five boats, no licence or number displayed, and within yards of me were allowed to stay, according to locals one had been there for at least THREE YEARS. The only difference being CRT had all my details, latest address, up to date email and phone contact. I was told by CRT the other boats had been allowed to overstay as CRT didn't have reliable contact details of the owners so couldn't send overstay notices. My subsequent emails and telephone calls remain unanswered. Seems being up front and honest doesn't count for much with CRT, think I will provide a bogus email and phone number on next licence renewal, or maybe not bother renewing

 

Glad to say I have recovered and continuing my cruising

[ditchcrawler]

 

 

Interesting thought though. Shall we start our own survey of data loggers? We could record when and where we see them so we know where and when our boats should have been logged...

When I said clocked I meant sighted and recorded, not a ouch in the eye as suggested by an earlier post

 

Punch not ouch

Edited September 16, 2016 by ditchcrawler

[Paul C]

Been following this with interest and have discovered that CRT will only chase you if they have your up to date boat and personal details. I have a home mooring but due to a health issue I had to overstay and notified CRT of my situation. Despite been given a 'sympathetic' response I was 'required' to provide a letter (not a sick note) from my 'health professional' and even then I still accumulated overstay notices. YET, five boats, no licence or number displayed, and within yards of me were allowed to stay, according to locals one had been there for at least THREE YEARS. The only difference being CRT had all my details, latest address, up to date email and phone contact. I was told by CRT the other boats had been allowed to overstay as CRT didn't have reliable contact details of the owners so couldn't send overstay notices. My subsequent emails and telephone calls remain unanswered. Seems being up front and honest doesn't count for much with CRT, think I will provide a bogus email and phone number on next licence renewal, or maybe not bother renewing

 

Glad to say I have recovered and continuing my cruising

 

Sounds like complete bollocks, CRT wouldn't - and have no incentive to - tell you about enforcement action for anyone else. Indeed the law prevents them from doing so, making it even less likely.

[plainsman]

Sounds like complete bollocks, CRT wouldn't - and have no incentive to - tell you about enforcement action for anyone else. Indeed the law prevents them from doing so, making it even less likely.

You weren't there so you don't know what the patrol person said! As for the law preventing them from disclosure, what the law says and what people (and CRT for that matter) do isn't always the same thing. Comment and challenge by all means but keep your bollocks to yourself! I am sure your vocabulary isn't so limited to rely on such offensive words

[Arthur Marshall]

It's certainly quicker and easier to get a result from someone you can trace, but it doesn't mean things aren't going on under the radar for the hard to trace boats . Though , judging by the number who seem permanently ensconced in certain places, it probably isn't.

[MtB]

It's certainly quicker and easier to get a result from someone you can trace, but it doesn't mean things aren't going on under the radar for the hard to trace boats . Though , judging by the number who seem permanently ensconced in certain places, it probably isn't.

 

 

My impression too.

 

I suspect the stealth boats with no name, number or licence get away with years on end of licence evasion and CMing before CRT finally nail them.

 

I also suspect CRT actually do feck all about them unless they are making a right royal PITA of themselves.

[Tuscan]

S8 for boats that are lived on takes a long time but it can be quick when not the case (whether it's an appropriate tool is another discussion). I would be in favour of CRT taking immediate action to remove or impound boats that do not display a name or index number.

[spadefoot]

S8 for boats that are lived on takes a long time but it can be quick when not the case (whether it's an appropriate tool is another discussion). I would be in favour of CRT taking immediate action to remove or impound boats that do not display a name or index number.

I expect that CRT are far too busy chasing Home Moorers who are not cruising "bona fide" whilst away from their mooring. I met a bloke the other day who got a patrol notice for going to the water-point and back.

 

I might have made that up.

[MtB]

I expect that CRT are far too busy chasing Home Moorers who are not cruising "bona fide" whilst away from their mooring. I met a bloke the other day who got a patrol notice for going to the water-point and back.

 

I might have made that up.

 

He might have got a patrol notice if he took three weeks to make the round trip!

[stovepipe]

I went cruising last weekend, but I didn't really want to, but the wife insisted, I now feel guilty that I was not bona fide cruising, my heart wasn't in it and I wanted to watch the footy instead. I may have to attend confession with my local enforcement officer, I feel dirty now.