Jump to content

CRT disgruntled staff


GoodGurl

Featured Posts

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Does that not support the argument that their systems are not fit for purpose ?

You have a home mooring and yet as soon as you moved off it you were asked why you were not following cruising guidelines.

Not everyone is a roughy-tuffy, some can get upset by the accusation and frightened by the consequences.

Hi Alan

We cross posted there. As my latter post I think I have agreed with you here. Yes the system is certainly not fit for purpose, yes some people will be far more concerned than I was and indeed could be frightened. Also though if confronted with the facts and you like me are in the right CART are quick to apologise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the past couple of months we have been no further West nor further east than Great Bedwyn and Newbury. We have moored on VMs and 14 day moorings in the sticks so to speak. We have moved often as we need water etc. We have noticed CRT people taking our details on numorious occasions. I spoke to one of the guys to say I would be seen in this area as we had house sitting for stag dos and a wedding in London. There have also been stoppages on the summit (water or lack there of). We have not had any bullying or gestapo tactics. I have had in the past an email that I was potentially overstaying as I had been somewhere for 13 days. It wasn't a polite notice but it did explain the Canals are getting busier and busier so overstaying is unfair or words to that effect. I replied that I'm potentially going to die and be dead but I'm not. I got an apology. That was three years ago.

enforcement seems to have got into a rhythm and not as aggressive as it was.

My opinion.

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Victor Vectis said:

Retiring is what old people do.

I prefer the expression 'escaped from wage slavery'.

As for management bollockspeak, anyone else watching W1A?

My favourite quote quote is:

What we need to do is identify what we do well and do less of it better"

 

Wife tells people she is having a year out, I tell them I am on the dole...

Ian.

Edited by ianali
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

It is perfectly clear that if I  abide by the rules AND not be able to "prove to the satisfaction of the Board" that I am abiding by their terms and conditions then my boat and license is at risk. The question is is it reasonable to assume someone is guilty of not abiding by the rules when the system that flags the alleged non-compliance is so useless?

What about innocent until proven guilty? A letter or email that asks you to give information the CaRT system SHOULD (but does not) already hold is a threat, however nicely they word it. It matters not a jot if they accept what you tell them or not, they have in effect started their procedure that could eventually result in a loss of license or boat.

Explain why it should be necessary to  explain yourself when abiding by their rules?

 

Hmmm. I've had such a letter on several occasions and the letter courteously states why they have written and invites me to tell them if their data is wrong. Given they know their systems are flawed what more do you expect them to do? Spend £15m they don't have on a new data gathering you consider fit for purpose? I get the feeling you think they should not being enforcing anything as their current data system is less than perfect. Is that your view?

Each time I've made a call to their offices to explain how their records are wrong, the person I've spoken to has amended my records without question and thanks me for my call. I find this 100% acceptable.

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 

As for CRT staff feeling badly done by, I think they are - certainly the Harecastle tunnel staff were when they had their pay and hours cut. But that's just modern work practices, same everywhere. It all stemmed from the weird idea that management was a skill in itself and you didn't need any knowledge of the actual work you were managing.  Everyone except managers knows that that's rubbish. But then, managers get hired by other managers... 

Of course, this doesn't apply if the 'managers' are female as they must never be criticised, questioned or challenged - or got rid off. Therein lies the main problem - unaccountable

'placewomen' with no knowledge or experience of what they are overseeing.

And who is to blame for that? People like you with your hysterical pseudo liberal, truth denying, agenda.

23 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Irrespective of the implementation of the new ‘rule’ C&RT do not have the power to just write into their T&Cs any T&C which over rides the law.

 

Perfectly ok to invent the concept of continuous cruising though, and the requirement for a continuous journey travelling in one direction. But that doesn't affect you does it so it's all right.

The change - re boats with a mooring -  was made because the judge in my 'trial' said that all I had to do was get a 'false' mooring and then I could do as I liked. CRT were not going to allow me that 'get out' (as they, subsequently, did not abide by an undertaking to the court) so they changed the rules for everyone. Such is the extent of their spite against someone they were determined to 'get rid off' at all costs. Speaking of costs - £125,000 and rising. My crime being my daring to question what was unlawful, agreed by the judge in my case and the case of Paul Davies.  But, of course, I made it all up, didn't I. Or is it I'm 'mentally ill'?   

26 minutes ago, Midnight said:

From what I've read in the past this bullying amounts to the boater receiving a polite letter asking them for an explanation. In most cases the explanation is accepted and the matter ends there. P*ss takers excepted!

You still haven't got a clue have you. If you'd spent about 8000 days and nights living on the towpath observing the changes in enforcement/harassment and questioned  what was happening in meetings, correspondence and complaints procedures and subsequently become a target then you might have a better understanding of things.

That applies to all of you. You are ignorant of what goes on and refuse to listen to evidence that doesn't suit your entrenched and preferred viewpoint. 

Cue personal insults. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, pearlygeoff said:

Of course, this doesn't apply if the 'managers' are female as they must never be criticised, questioned or challenged - or got rid off. Therein lies the main problem - unaccountable

'placewomen' with no knowledge or experience of what they are overseeing.

And who is to blame for that? People like you with your hysterical pseudo liberal, truth denying, agenda.

Perfectly ok to invent the concept of continuous cruising though, and the requirement for a continuous journey travelling in one direction. But that doesn't affect you does it so it's all right.

The change - re boats with a mooring -  was made because the judge in my 'trial' said that all I had to do was get a 'false' mooring and then I could do as I liked. CRT were not going to allow me that 'get out' (as they, subsequently, did not abide by an undertaking to the court) so they changed the rules for everyone. Such is the extent of their spite against someone they were determined to 'get rid off' at all costs. Speaking of costs - £125,000 and rising. My crime being my daring to question what was unlawful, agreed by the judge in my case and the case of Paul Davies.  But, of course, I made it all up, didn't I. Or is it I'm 'mentally ill'?   

You still haven't got a clue have you. If you'd spent about 8000 days and nights living on the towpath observing the changes in enforcement/harassment and questioned  what was happening in meetings, correspondence and complaints procedures and subsequently become a target then you might have a better understanding of things.

That applies to all of you. You are ignorant of what goes on and refuse to listen to evidence that doesn't suit your entrenched and preferred viewpoint. 

Cue personal insults. 

I take exception to that comment.

I like to think that I maintain an objective view of these matters, but you can't blame people for drawing conclusions based on their own experience, as you have done.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, pearlygeoff said:

The change - re boats with a mooring -  was made because the judge in my 'trial' said that all I had to do was get a 'false' mooring and then I could do as I liked.

I am not sure that is quite what the Judge said, I believe that it was :

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

 

But - hey - don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I am not sure that is quite what the Judge said, I believe that it was :

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

 

But - hey - don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant.

I am not questioning your post.

however  are they still trying to control boaters, even after a judge has cleared the matter up for them.

Now is this controlling just a way of managing the waterways for everyone's benefit or is  this bullying from power happy control freaks

now I am not anti crt but I can see why people would get scared receiving a letter and may not be happy or comfortable challenging that letter. some people will panic or get stressed over it. that could constitute harassment or bullying.

However I cant see the benefit to Crt unless its a personal thing, which I am sure will happen. or used to inflate targets and justify jobs. I.e we had 2000 overstayers and the enforcement team dealt with them all and 1995 carried on navigating. so lets have a big bonus. in reality they told 1500 people to get on boating that they had no legal right to tell.

 

 

 

Edited by thebfg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I am not sure that is quite what the Judge said, I believe that it was :

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

 

But - hey - don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant.

Why is anything said that you don't agree with a rant? A common, and overused 'putdown' by people who don't like to hear the other's point of view and are seeking to provoke..

Anyway, the next bit after what you quoted says:-

6.4 The result is that CRT require GDM to acquire and pay for a home mooring which he cannot afford and would not use at all. He could then do exactly what he wants to do. It was conceded on behalf of CRT in the course of argument that if GDM acquired a home mooring for Pearl he would be left undisturbed provided he did not infringe the 14 day requirement which would be the case if he behaved as he wished to as described at the end of para 5.8.

6.5 This would be of no advantage whatever to CRT. They charge exactly the same  for a continuous cruising licence as they do for a home mooring licence. The home mooring would most probably be in a private marina so the fees for that would not benefit CRT. They would be payable to the marina owners (Marina owners do pay a small charge to CRT for the water supply via the canal but it is not significant).

6.6 The result would be that by paying about £25 a week (which he can ill afford) to a third party with no significant advantage to CRT, for a mooring he does not want and would not use, GDM would be free to do what he told me he wants to do. So would any other resident boat owner who could afford a mooring. This would do nothing to ease the overcrowding in certain areas which is causing the concern.

In practice, as I know from living permanently on the towpath for 20+ years, is that if you have a mooring you are left alone ( and most boats claimed to be overstaying 'continuous moorers' were boats with a home mooring or claiming to have one but the agenda was to blame it all on those without a home mooring).

The fact that this was of no advantage to CRT indicates that the intention was, as I know, to push people into marinas to encourage marina development. (Marinas then taken over by BWML).

The '£25 per week' mooring fee was suggested by CRT. As I have a 72ft boat the charge would be at least £50). Incidentally I had a mooring in a marina paid by housing benefit because we were forced to do this, and the payment was stopped as I was open with them that we were forced to have a mooring which we didn't need or want, and was strictly speaking 'unlawful' and had no choice but to claim housing benefit as it was a rental charge for a residential use but I was not going to permanently occupy it. It was necessary to be allowed to stay in an 'area' and not be compelled to traverse the waterway system like some 19th century vagrant or the Wandering Jew as a licence requirement. 

I was perfectly entitled to remain in the area due to medical appointments and investigations, which was my argument (not as presented by my legal representatives) but was not allowed this as I was questioning the reasonableness and legality of their actions. In other words their actions became spiteful and personal as is their common practice.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

I certainly feel threatened by CaRT as per Alan's 2 above - especially as their boat reporting system is not fit for the purpose of enforcing cruising rules. It has had me in moored in a totally different marina to where I actually was and in a feeder channel. It is not comprehensive enough to ensure that if, for example, you leave your boat in a marina for a week or so and then start cruising again (all within the rules) you are not logged as overstaying in an area because you were logged the evening before you went into the marina and then when you came out again. It certainly does not give a full picture of your cruising pattern. I have travelled from Calcutt to Liverpool, Leeds, Keadby, Nottingham, Leicester, and back to Calcutt and despite using manned locks and the Liverpool link was only shown as being logged in two or three places.

When I moor up away from the marina for a few days to paint the boat I feel under pressure to always choose a differents places a fair distance apart just in case their logging fails to show the boat back in the marina between times.

BUT what if someone has cloned your boat by putting your number on theirs the those sightings could be accurate .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, b0atman said:

BUT what if someone has cloned your boat by putting your number on theirs the those sightings could be accurate .

 

That is also a problem. How do I "satisfy the Board" when their checkers and systems say my boat was at XYZ but I say it was not.

Really you just emphasise how unfit for purpose the CaRT system are.  If that did happen and the systems were up to the job it would immediately show two boats with the same number. It would also show that one has been moored at a certain place/area for years so is unlikely to be the culprit. That could and should then lead to a special look out being kept in the area the rouge boat was spotted but less than monthly recording means its not possible.

For ordinary boaters taking the legal path is very expensive and exceptionally uncertain as to outcome. It must reflect badly on CaRT if at least some of their customers feel that may be the only way to put things straight.

Anyway the question was about CaRT bullying and whether boaters feel bullied. Feelings are personal and I find it interesting that that people are happy to leap to the defence of CaRT just because they do not feel threatened. Its even more worrying that speed cameras that in all but a minuscule number of cases are shown to only "catch" those in violation of the speed limit so who are actually doing it with a well proven record in courts should be used to excuse the way CaRT apparently go on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pearlygeoff said:

Why is anything said that you don't agree with a rant? A common, and overused 'putdown' by people who don't like to hear the other's point of view and are seeking to provoke..

Anyway, the next bit after what you quoted says:-

6.4 The result is that CRT require GDM to acquire and pay for a home mooring which he cannot afford and would not use at all. He could then do exactly what he wants to do. It was conceded on behalf of CRT in the course of argument that if GDM acquired a home mooring for Pearl he would be left undisturbed provided he did not infringe the 14 day requirement which would be the case if he behaved as he wished to as described at the end of para 5.8.

6.5 This would be of no advantage whatever to CRT. They charge exactly the same  for a continuous cruising licence as they do for a home mooring licence. The home mooring would most probably be in a private marina so the fees for that would not benefit CRT. They would be payable to the marina owners (Marina owners do pay a small charge to CRT for the water supply via the canal but it is not significant).

6.6 The result would be that by paying about £25 a week (which he can ill afford) to a third party with no significant advantage to CRT, for a mooring he does not want and would not use, GDM would be free to do what he told me he wants to do. So would any other resident boat owner who could afford a mooring. This would do nothing to ease the overcrowding in certain areas which is causing the concern.

In practice, as I know from living permanently on the towpath for 20+ years, is that if you have a mooring you are left alone ( and most boats claimed to be overstaying 'continuous moorers' were boats with a home mooring or claiming to have one but the agenda was to blame it all on those without a home mooring).

The fact that this was of no advantage to CRT indicates that the intention was, as I know, to push people into marinas to encourage marina development. (Marinas then taken over by BWML).

The '£25 per week' mooring fee was suggested by CRT. As I have a 72ft boat the charge would be at least £50). Incidentally I had a mooring in a marina paid by housing benefit because we were forced to do this, and the payment was stopped as I was open with them that we were forced to have a mooring which we didn't need or want, and was strictly speaking 'unlawful' and had no choice but to claim housing benefit as it was a rental charge for a residential use but I was not going to permanently occupy it. It was necessary to be allowed to stay in an 'area' and not be compelled to traverse the waterway system like some 19th century vagrant or the Wandering Jew as a licence requirement. 

I was perfectly entitled to remain in the area due to medical appointments and investigations, which was my argument (not as presented by my legal representatives) but was not allowed this as I was questioning the reasonableness and legality of their actions. In other words their actions became spiteful and personal as is their common practice.     

I think it's fair to describe opinions that suggest women are running a cartel and phrases like 'wandering Jew' can be safely described as a rant! 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, pearlygeoff said:

You still haven't got a clue have you. If you'd spent about 8000 days and nights living on the towpath observing the changes in enforcement/harassment and questioned  what was happening in meetings, correspondence and complaints procedures and subsequently become a target then you might have a better understanding of things.

That applies to all of you. You are ignorant of what goes on and refuse to listen to evidence that doesn't suit your entrenched and preferred viewpoint. 

Cue personal insults. 

Insult you? - experience suggests you are the master in that art.

As for not having a clue hmmm - all I will say is that it seems to me that you would probably be still living aboard but you have your own idea of what's right and what's illegal. You basically engineered your own demise. You challenged CaRT but were on thin ground and thought you could do it all yourself. You lost and have since written tons of stuff which may make you feel better but to many of us is now just plain boring.

If I win the lottery I will buy and restore Pearl, give her back to you and pay license and mooring fees for your life time. Even then I believe you would still end up in the same place.

Sits back awaits world class insults

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Does that not support the argument that their systems are not fit for purpose ?

You have a home mooring and yet as soon as you moved off it you were asked why you were not following cruising guidelines.

Not everyone is a roughy-tuffy, some can get upset by the accusation and frightened by the consequences.

It is impossible to have a logging system that notes where every boat is every day.  To say that because of that, the system is not fit for purpose is nonsense.  The system is fine - it logs some positions, then if it flags up a query, it contacts the boater and checks with them.  The response is noted and as far as I know, has always been accepted. If a lot of flags get raised, and the boater's responses aren't adequate, there is further checking.  What's not fit for the purpose about that?

The only alternative is an army of amateurs with ipads patrolling the towpath sending in details of every boat they see, every day.  Now that might seem a bit intrusive...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, pearlygeoff said:

Of course, this doesn't apply if the 'managers' are female as they must never be criticised, questioned or challenged - or got rid off. Therein lies the main problem - unaccountable

'placewomen' with no knowledge or experience of what they are overseeing.

And who is to blame for that? People like you with your hysterical pseudo liberal, truth denying, agenda.

Now that is why you aren't taken seriously.  I remember meeting you on the towpath and you telling me, perfectly rationally, about your problems with CRT. I was sympathising as it all seemed convincing until suddenly it turned into this ludicrous misogynistic rant at ever increasing volume about how all the trouble in CRT, business and the world in general was caused by having women in managerial positions as they were congenitally unsuited for it. By the time you'd finished I was seriously worried that you were completely irrational and capable of violence and made damn sure I double locked my boat up when I left it that night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

That is also a problem. How do I "satisfy the Board" when their checkers and systems say my boat was at XYZ but I say it was not.

 

You ring them and tell them. As I explained in post 80, they accept your word without question, amend their records accordingly and thank you for your help in keeping their information up to date.

That's been my personal experience on several occasions anyway. Have you found otherwise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It is impossible to have a logging system that notes where every boat is every day

But surely even the most basic of systems would show if the boat had a home mooring, and to be reminded to keep cruising and 'move on' only 24 hors after you have left your mooring is just unbelievable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

But surely even the most basic of systems would show if the boat had a home mooring, and to be reminded to keep cruising and 'move on' only 24 hors after you have left your mooring is just unbelievable.

Our local coal boats have occasionally received warning notifications due to using the same places to load, the Crt operative logging details obviously unaware of the necessities of their business, wrongly assuming they had been static in that position more than two weeks. Easily sorted out by relaying the correct information though. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

But surely even the most basic of systems would show if the boat had a home mooring, and to be reminded to keep cruising and 'move on' only 24 hors after you have left your mooring is just unbelievable.

I would not expect boat checkers will check marinas and possibly even home moorings on the canal are not recorded as it creates too much data which is probably manually processed.  I suspect they only log when boats are on ‘time limited’ moorings or actually moving.

The Be careful what you wish for when claiming that the current system is not fit for purpose, as the alternative is some form of gps tracker reporting your location to crt every 24hours.  I don’t think we want that, both on cost grounds as well as privacy issues.

Edited by Chewbacka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

You ring them and tell them. As I explained in post 80, they accept your word without question, amend their records accordingly and thank you for your help in keeping their information up to date.

That's been my personal experience on several occasions anyway. Have you found otherwise?

Exactly how I found it to be.

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.