Jump to content

Unusual query from C&RT


colmac

Featured Posts

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Very broadly speaking, in the UK legal system, you don't need "legal permission" to do anything. It works the other way round, there needs to exist legislation which forbids you doing something spelled out in that legislation.

Whilst I agree with the principle you are stating (and that is exactly what the house of Lords reiterated) we are talking about 'private property',there is no legislation stopping an individual from Pitching a tent on your front garden, from camping in a farmers field but it is not 'acceptable' ( I hesitate to say 'legal')

Gypsies are moved on when they set up camp in a lay-by or a farmers field, is there any legislation that says they cannot do so ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure that the canal towpath is private property; and that the rules/laws which apply to private property with respect to trespass, can be applied in the same way.

I don't know the details of other legislation relating to lay-bys so I can't comment on that. Obviously, a farmer's field is private property (and additionally, will undoubtedly have a crop growing in it, which has a monetary value - grass is a crop; so is meadow; so could fallow be argued to be a crop).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

I don't know the details of other legislation relating to lay-bys so I can't comment on that

The following probably (almost) supports your argument "you can do anything you like if it is not actually illegal".

 

There is no legislation stopping travellers using a lay-by as an encampment, but they can be moved on using 'Public Order Acts'.

 

Travellers cannot be forced to leave 'a lay-by' by the council, if the travellers refuse to leave then the only way is for the Police to get a court order if certain specific conditions are met :

 

The Police may activate their powers under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to require Gypsies and Travellers to leave.

The Police are able to activate these powers where they are satisfied that two or more people are trespassing on the land, and the landowner has taken reasonable steps to make them leave (and they have failed to do so). In addition, one of the following also has to apply:

  • damage has been caused to the land or property, or

  • threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour has been used against the occupier, his family or agent, or

  • the trespassers have six or more vehicles.

Any enforcement of section 61 requires considerable resourcing and consideration has to be given to having sufficient police officers available etc., which may in itself take some time to arrange.

If the travellers are not causing a problem, the Government has asked that consideration be given to tolerating encampments.

It is not worth the problems & costs of getting a court order for the travellers then to just move on the day before enforcement take place

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having read all the posts, I am puzzled by the need for the question in the first place. As far as I know, you have to give full details of your 'home' mooring in order to obtain a licence - so that should be entered on the list by CRT, so why ask?

It seems an unnecessary question  -  or is it linked to fraudulent applications with fictitious home moorings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Horace42 said:

Having read all the posts, I am puzzled by the need for the question in the first place. As far as I know, you have to give full details of your 'home' mooring in order to obtain a licence - so that should be entered on the list by CRT, so why ask?

It seems an unnecessary question  -  or is it linked to fraudulent applications with fictitious home moorings.

It sounds like at some point, CRT probably tried to tidy up their underlying "list" of home moorings (which the end user would select from), and in doing so, it lost the association from what the OP had previously entered in the preceding 5 years, to the current (and presumably, believed to be up-to-date, accurate and thus useful-to-CRT list) mooring. If their list was compiled simply from what home moorers had entered on the form in a freeform way, there would no doubt be many variations of spelling or names/descriptions, rendering the list as useful as a chocolate fireguard - thus some amount of data input tidying up is probably necessary. 

Still sounds like an IT/data entry cock-up though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2018 at 15:09, Paul C said:

His opinion is legally meaningless because it was made in a county court, which cannot set a precedent. So, any other judge's (slightly different) opinion in any other case, would be of equal or greater weight.

It's also very dodgy to rely on anything said by a lawyer or a judge in a court of law, as, to put it frankly, mostly it seems to be bollocks and more or less random in its interpretation.  The word "learned" has a different meaning than the usual when applied to judges. It's not a description, it's sarcasm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2018 at 18:50, colmac said:

Can anyone shed light on a recent e-mail enquiry I have had from CRT licensing, perhaps even had a similar experience. We have held a boat license for 5 years, permanent mooring, renewed annually obviously. I received an e-mail today from the licensing people in Leeds asking me to update where we moor. I would have thought that the last 5 years would have answered that. The e-mail went on to say that if I didn't tell them where we moor within 28 days we would be classed as continuous cruisers despite being on the same mooring for 5 years. I tried to do this on the link attached to the mail and could not enter the actual mooring we are on as I had to choose from a drop down list and our mooring was not on this list. We moor in the upper basin at Stourport on the moorings owned by Limekilns chandlers. I will phone them tomorrow and clarify things but was just curious as to whether anyone else has had a similar situation.

Thank you

Was it similar to this? -

Our Ref: MAC1
Your Ref: 8078992

 

Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

RE: Boatname (Index)

We are carrying out a routine check of boat licensing records and find that we have a query in respect of the above boat, for which you are shown as the registered keeper.   We’d be most grateful if you could help us update or validate our information.

First, if you have sold the boat, or it is no longer on our waters, please inform us. If you are still responsible for this boat, please would you confirm its home mooring location or, if there is no home mooring, whether it cruises continuously. 

To do this, you can register on our online licensing site, https://licensing.canalrivertrust.org.uk and update your mooring status or inform us of the status of your boat there.

If we do not hear from you within the next 28 days, we will change your mooring status to Continuous Cruiser, in line with our Terms and Conditions:

2.2 We only issue a licence if we are satisfied that you either have a Home Mooring for the Boat or you will use the Boat as a Continuous Cruiser and we may seek to verify with third parties any information you provide to us. We will treat you as a Continuous Cruiser if you do not declare a Home Mooring for the Boat or if you decide to no longer have a Home Mooring.

I am sorry we cannot take telephone instructions on this particular matter, but of course if you have any queries, feel free to call me on  

Many thanks for your help.

Yours sincerely,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Licence Support Advisor
XXXXXXX@canalrivertrust.org.uk
01908681277

PO Box 162 Leeds LS9 1AX T 0303 040 4040 or Use our contact form Here
Mon to Fri, 8am to 6pm www.canalrivertrust.org.uk/licensing

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Was it similar to this? -

Our Ref: MAC1
Your Ref: 8078992

 

Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

RE: Boatname (Index)

We are carrying out a routine check of boat licensing records and find that we have a query in respect of the above boat, for which you are shown as the registered keeper.   We’d be most grateful if you could help us update or validate our information.

First, if you have sold the boat, or it is no longer on our waters, please inform us. If you are still responsible for this boat, please would you confirm its home mooring location or, if there is no home mooring, whether it cruises continuously. 

To do this, you can register on our online licensing site, https://licensing.canalrivertrust.org.uk and update your mooring status or inform us of the status of your boat there.

If we do not hear from you within the next 28 days, we will change your mooring status to Continuous Cruiser, in line with our Terms and Conditions:

2.2 We only issue a licence if we are satisfied that you either have a Home Mooring for the Boat or you will use the Boat as a Continuous Cruiser and we may seek to verify with third parties any information you provide to us. We will treat you as a Continuous Cruiser if you do not declare a Home Mooring for the Boat or if you decide to no longer have a Home Mooring.

I am sorry we cannot take telephone instructions on this particular matter, but of course if you have any queries, feel free to call me on  

Many thanks for your help.

Yours sincerely,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Licence Support Advisor
XXXXXXX@canalrivertrust.org.uk
01908681277

PO Box 162 Leeds LS9 1AX T 0303 040 4040 or Use our contact form Here
Mon to Fri, 8am to 6pm www.canalrivertrust.org.uk/licensing

The only objection I can see with that letter is that it does not specify what their query is in respect of the boat. It could be anything although the rest implies it is about mooring. But such approaches are notorious in questioning as they can lead someone to offer information about an entirely different matter from that which sparked of the query and in so doing initiate a whole new line of issues.

To me, the proper response - especially in these days of precautionary advice regarding unsolicited communications - would be to respond by asking for specific details of their query. That is not being awkward, just playing safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

To me, the proper response - especially in these days of precautionary advice regarding unsolicited communications - would be to respond by asking for specific details of their query. That is not being awkward, just playing safe.

I think my response would be along the lines of :

"I am sorry I think you may have sent this to the wrong person, my name is not XXXXXXXXXX & my boat name is not (INDEX)"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If I did not reply due to my site not being on the list, a lack of reply would automatically class me as a continuous cruise, that I can see from a copy of the enquiry now posted.

I avoid the time and nuisance of going to the additional trouble of contacting CRT using a means designed for their convenience (seemingly to save one person in the office having to compile proper records from info already provided) I wonder what difference it makes to me.

Will I find myself in trouble in the future for staying more than 14 days at my home mooring ?

On balance, it is not a well thought out form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I think my response would be along the lines of :

"I am sorry I think you may have sent this to the wrong person, my name is not XXXXXXXXXX & my boat name is not (INDEX)"

But if correctly addressed, I would probably try to answer the questions and draw their attention to the anomalies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, colmac said:

Yes Allan that was the same mail.Have you rectified things yet ?

 

2 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

The only objection I can see with that letter is that it does not specify what their query is in respect of the boat. It could be anything although the rest implies it is about mooring. But such approaches are notorious in questioning as they can lead someone to offer information about an entirely different matter from that which sparked of the query and in so doing initiate a whole new line of issues.

To me, the proper response - especially in these days of precautionary advice regarding unsolicited communications - would be to respond by asking for specific details of their query. That is not being awkward, just playing safe.

The MAC1 is a standard letter sent out by C&RT if the home mooring showing on their system is not in accord with other information (boat sightings or mooring validation scheme). The letter I received was as a direct result of a mooring validation trial before the new system went live -

 https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/mooring-validation-scheme-rolled-out

I went for the robust approach. I emailed them pointing out that they were saying they had a query in respect of Albert but failed to say what that query was [Mike makes this point above]. I also pointed out that I had supplied the information required when licencing 'Albert' and they could check that against computerised records to correct any mistake which would have been of there own making. Furthermore, I suggested that they should know that Albert had a home mooring because they claim to boat check all waterways every two weeks (Albert is moored online) and, of course, they carried out a national boat check recently.

Within hours, I was told that the MAC1 had been issued 'in error'.



 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

The only objection I can see with that letter is that it does not specify what their query is in respect of the boat. It could be anything although the rest implies it is about mooring. But such approaches are notorious in questioning as they can lead someone to offer information about an entirely different matter from that which sparked of the query and in so doing initiate a whole new line of issues.

To me, the proper response - especially in these days of precautionary advice regarding unsolicited communications - would be to respond by asking for specific details of their query. That is not being awkward, just playing safe.

Doesn't the second paragraph set out the query? I.e. do you still own the boat? What is your home mooring (if you have one)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Mack said:

Doesn't the second paragraph set out the query? I.e. do you still own the boat? What is your home mooring (if you have one)?

 

That's how I read it too!

I think some are looking for problems that aren't there. I think the letter is drafted perfectly well.

Besides why does it matter a toss if they class you as a CCer? We all have to follow the same 'cruising guidelines' now anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, David Mack said:

Doesn't the second paragraph set out the query? I.e. do you still own the boat? What is your home mooring (if you have one)?

Not on my reading ...

My reading of the letter sent was that I had been making false declarations on licence applications for the last 12 years and I was being invited to incriminate myself:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Not on my reading ...

My reading of the letter sent was that I had been making false declarations on licence applications for the last 12 years and I was being invited to incriminate myself:P

That sounds paranoid. Having re-read the letter, it doesn't do anything except ask you to confirm the details. As said previously, it has all the hallmarks of an IT cock-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

That sounds paranoid. Having re-read the letter, it doesn't do anything except ask you to confirm the details. As said previously, it has all the hallmarks of an IT cock-up.

Certainly it was C&RT cock-up. However, it was not an IT cock-up. My mooring status has been correctly recorded for over 12 years!

I would add that, over a twelve year period, C&RT have been informed 24 times regarding my mooring status. It has not changed. They were also informed  of my mooring status prior to a site visit as part of the 'Mooring Validation Scheme' trial. They were also informed during the site visit as to my mooring status.
 

A couple of months back,writing in my clubs magazine, I wondered how many other boaters would be falsely accused of not having a home mooring.

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
repetitition on last sentance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Paul C said:

I don't think it accuses the recipient of the letter that they don't have a home mooring? A case of 2 + 2 = 17

It's an invitation to admit that you have made a false declaration on a licence application.

As I stated earlier - The MAC1 is a standard letter sent out by C&RT if the home mooring showing on their system is not in accord with other information (boat sightings or mooring validation scheme). The letter I received was as a direct result of a mooring validation trial before the new system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

 

The MAC1 is a standard letter sent out by C&RT if the home mooring showing on their system is not in accord with other information (boat sightings or mooring validation scheme). The letter I received was as a direct result of a mooring validation trial before the new system went live -

 

Exactly that ^^^^ but it is CaRT's incompetence or was, seeing how it appears they are trying to sort it out.

I looks to me like when a boater declares a home mooring someone at CaRT takes the data from the form and matches it to the nearest likely location stored in their database. That's how my home mooring appeared incorrectly as a nearby private boatyard. When I spotted that 18 months ago I tried to change it on the online form but the box was readonly. I rang CaRT to point out the error and that's when they changed my home mooring to 'Calder Navigation'. Following the recent validation scheme my home mooring is now correct as 'South Pennine Boat Club'.

I agree CaRT could have got that information from the application form but wonder if perhaps they transfer the data manually and discard the original form data. There is seldom any consistency amongst people filling in forms and the likelyhood of the same location being described differently on form is high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Exactly that ^^^^ but it is CaRT's incompetence or was, seeing how it appears they are trying to sort it out.

I looks to me like when a boater declares a home mooring someone at CaRT takes the data from the form and matches it to the nearest likely location stored in their database. That's how my home mooring appeared incorrectly as a nearby private boatyard. When I spotted that 18 months ago I tried to change it on the online form but the box was readonly. I rang CaRT to point out the error and that's when they changed my home mooring to 'Calder Navigation'. Following the recent validation scheme my home mooring is now correct as 'South Pennine Boat Club'.

I agree CaRT could have got that information from the application form but wonder if perhaps they transfer the data manually and discard the original form data. There is seldom any consistency amongst people filling in forms and the likelyhood of the same location being described differently on form is high.

This why better designed input systems try to define all of the acceptable answers in a list but, if there is any chance that there may be others than a free form entry box called Other is also provided. This means that the human both entering and checking normally has very little to do and they only have to concentrate on the relatively small number of Other cases. This approach also means that it can be introduced even when the full list is not yet determined (and also allows for the option of new ones coming along under the radar) and gradually extended as the info is available and validated. Overall, this should mean that what often happens with totally free form entry, the same place is not given several different names, perhaps based on local history and practice. Of course it does benefit from on-the-ground intelligence that can combine together two or more related locations - such as marina and on-line moorings just outside and jointly administered. All of this will be beneficial as the IT schemes, such as the Mooring Validation Scheme are trolled out, most of which will be motivated by a reduction in staff time rather than some ulterior and covert purpose. IT that neither reduces staff time nor offers an extended service is a waste of time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what C&RT say is the purpose of the mooring validation scheme

Quote

We're working with mooring operators to confirm that the records we hold for boats’ moorings is correct. This will ensure we are monitoring boats against the correct terms and conditions, and will give mooring operators the confidence that their sites aren’t being used fraudulently.

The Mooring Validation Scheme has little to do with C&RT's records being correct and more to do with identifying boaters who are declaring that they have a 'home mooring' when they do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

This is what C&RT say is the purpose of the mooring validation scheme

The Mooring Validation Scheme has little to do with C&RT's records being correct and more to do with identifying boaters who are declaring that they have a 'home mooring' when they do not.

I don't see how your comment follows from the quote . . .

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.