|
|
Post by kris on Nov 29, 2018 10:26:02 GMT
I was just reading this on Facebook m.facebook.com/groups/73933281285 it seems cart have dropped the you can't turn around until you have done A,B,C,D nonsense. If so good because it was illegal and an infringement on people's rights. If the elsan,rubbish disposal or water point where behind you what where you suppose to do? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2018 10:29:29 GMT
They did away with it about two years ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2018 10:34:13 GMT
The latest scam from them is "area's". You must not stay in an area for more than 14 days. They take an area such as Leighton Buzzard, (where you can quite easily do 3 lots of 14 days owing to its canal length) and simply state you can only do the 14 days in that whole area.
Total bollocks of course, but nothing unusual from them.
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 29, 2018 10:46:10 GMT
They did away with it about two years ago. Doh trust me to be behind the times. It did seem t be nonsense when they announced it. |
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 29, 2018 10:47:45 GMT
The latest scam from them is "area's". You must not stay in an area for more than 14 days. They take an area such as Leighton Buzzard, (where you can quite easily do 3 lots of 14 days owing to its canal length) and simply state you can only do the 14 days in that whole area. Total bollocks of course, but nothing unusual from them. Hence the letters with "your still in the same area" continue your journey bollocks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2018 11:10:36 GMT
The face to face level staff have been much easier to deal with since Denise Yelland left. I've recently had good easy communication and results with Lisa Jarvis.
I think generally the ground staff are making a genuine effort, but sometimes are hampered by lack of knowledge, common sense and intelligence from the upper tier management.
Getting rid of Denise Yelland was a sensible move which will in my view reap rewards for all.
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 29, 2018 11:16:23 GMT
The face to face level staff have been much easier to deal with since Denise Yelland left. I've recently had good easy communication and results with Lisa Jarvis. I think generally the ground staff are making a genuine effort, but sometimes are hampered by lack of knowledge, common sense and intelligence from the upper tier management. Getting rid of Denise Yelland was a sensiblet move which will in my view reap rewards for all. Having met Denise yelland I tend to agree she was definately stuck in the past. Herself and Clare Mara where the main instigators of all the hassle I had with them. A lot of which seems to be that they had been having hassle with the previous owners. This then got continued by them with me the new owner. They had been after the boat for along time ( their words.) personally I think they are going to try more restrictive rules for cc'ers and price the "undesirerable" boats off the water. |
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 29, 2018 11:44:50 GMT
The face to face level staff have been much easier to deal with since Denise Yelland left. I've recently had good easy communication and results with Lisa Jarvis. I think generally the ground staff are making a genuine effort, but sometimes are hampered by lack of knowledge, common sense and intelligence from the upper tier management. Getting rid of Denise Yelland was a sensiblet move which will in my view reap rewards for all. . . . . . . . . . They had been after the boat for along time ( their words.) C&RT Enforcement, or whatever they're calling themselves this week, seem obsessed with taking action against inanimate objects. The Injunctions they ask the County Courts for, and get, pursuant to their beloved Section 8 and 13 Notices are invariably aimed at the boat, and somewhat oddly, exclude the owner if he or she were to turn up and commit the same heinous crimes with another, different vessel. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2018 11:48:44 GMT
Its very odd that is. I wonder if they will seek to change that at some point to increase the deterrent effectiveness.
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 29, 2018 11:54:37 GMT
. . . . . . . . . They had been after the boat for along time ( their words.) C&RT Enforcement, or whatever they're calling themselves this week, seem obsessed with taking action against inanimate objects. The Injunctions they ask the County Courts for, and get, pursuant to their beloved Section 8 and 13 Notices are invariably aimed at the boat, and somewhat oddly, exclude the owner if he or she were to turn up and commit the same heinous crimes with another, different vessel. It was definately the boat they where after, I was just its current owner. It's good Denise yelland has gone but I think Clare Mara still works for them. The mentality of a lot of their employees didn't change when the name changed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2018 11:57:49 GMT
Its very odd that is. I wonder if they will seek to change that at some point to increase the deterrent effectiveness. Nothing odd about it. One of the court cases resulted in CRT being told that they were acting contrary to that particular piece of legislation, they then had to abandon it. |
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 29, 2018 12:19:33 GMT
Its very odd that is. I wonder if they will seek to change that at some point to increase the deterrent effectiveness. Now that would be interesting, were they to be so foolish. Their statutory powers certainly do not extend to excluding UK citizens from publicly owned facilities. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2018 12:25:44 GMT
Its very odd that is. I wonder if they will seek to change that at some point to increase the deterrent effectiveness. Now that would be interesting, were they to be so foolish. Their statutory powers certainly do not extend to excluding UK citizens from publicly owned facilities. I realise that. Just wondered if that may change in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 29, 2018 13:08:49 GMT
The phrase being used is "general area". Since I know more about the smaller areas close to home I can subdivide their general area to confuse them, "I've moved from the general Area of Todmorden (centre😉) to the general area of Walsden". In a recent letter I also said I was doing my best to fulfil the terms of the Act for boats with a home mooring, - They had refered me to the t&cs, with a link. I had overstayed by 2 days, smbo wasn't up to moving at the time, apparently the system triggers it. A request for my sightings record told me what day the man comes by, useful to know!
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 29, 2018 13:28:02 GMT
. . . . . . . . . They had been after the boat for along time ( their words.) C&RT Enforcement, or whatever they're calling themselves this week, seem obsessed with taking action against inanimate objects. The Injunctions they ask the County Courts for, and get, pursuant to their beloved Section 8 and 13 Notices are invariably aimed at the boat, and somewhat oddly, exclude the owner if he or she were to turn up and commit the same heinous crimes with another, different vessel. If I may correct that: in my own case they obtained a High Court Order (later quashed) banning me personally, under s.8 powers, from bringing ANY boat - to include anybody acting under my influence – onto the Grand Union and using a mooring they had approved as a home mooring for decades – even though the boat was licensed! I was otherwise allowed to use the boat on BW waterways as permitted by the licence, but could have the boat seized if I moored on that particular spot. Other boaters doing so were exempt. It was quite the most extraordinary and twisted achievement imaginable. I hope I have paraphrased the effect of the Order correctly; I cannot locate it while on the move with the laptop I am using. It was, admittedly, an exception to the rule. Targetting the boat rather than the owner is uniform across other navigation Acts, and it was one of the points I made as being a weakness in the Middle Level Bill proceedings – though the Committee failed to grasp the point fully. |
|
