|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 11, 2019 23:30:45 GMT
At this juncture it is appropriate to quote the exact wording of clause 5.3 in C&RT's 'wish list' T&C's :
5.3 You agree that we may contact your insurance provider to check the validity of your policy, and you consent to the insurance provider giving us such information as we may reasonably require.
Having made the issuing of a boat Licence conditional on agreement to this clause one has to ask why C&RT's Customer Services (sic) have now chosen to adopt the quite different approach of e-mailing the Licence holder with what amounts to an implied assumption that the boat owner/keeper doesn't have current, valid 3rd party insurance cover, . . and backing up that assumption with the threat of unlawfully revoking the current Licence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2019 23:33:17 GMT
At this juncture it is appropriate to quote the exact wording of clause 5.3 in C&RT's 'wish list' T&C's : 5.3 You agree that we may contact your insurance provider to check the validity of your policy, and you consent to the insurance provider giving us such information as we may reasonably require.Having made the issuing of a boat Licence conditional on agreement to this clause one has to ask why C&RT's Customer Services (sic) have now chosen to adopt the quite different approach of the implied assumption that the boat owner/keeper doesn't have current, valid 3rd party insurance cover, and backing up that assumption with the threat of unlawfully revoking the current Licence. Why would anybody other than an awkward twat have an issue with this?
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Apr 11, 2019 23:40:26 GMT
Tom Deards, C&RT's head of legal & governance services and company secretary threatened legal action against me. As I say, I thought you might be better informed. Why would I be better informed Allan? Ive already said some people dont read everything you write, why would i be any different? Not what I write but rather what C&RT write. As I have previously said, I would expect you to be better informed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2019 23:53:03 GMT
Why would I be better informed Allan? Ive already said some people dont read everything you write, why would i be any different? Not what I write but rather what C&RT write. As I have previously said, I would expect you to be better informed. Now what on earth are you on about? You must be really desperate to make some idiotic point because in the time its taken you to waffle on in this thread you could readily and easily have complied with a very simple request.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Apr 11, 2019 23:55:15 GMT
At this juncture it is appropriate to quote the exact wording of clause 5.3 in C&RT's 'wish list' T&C's : 5.3 You agree that we may contact your insurance provider to check the validity of your policy, and you consent to the insurance provider giving us such information as we may reasonably require.Having made the issuing of a boat Licence conditional on agreement to this clause one has to ask why C&RT's Customer Services (sic) have now chosen to adopt the quite different approach of the implied assumption that the boat owner/keeper doesn't have current, valid 3rd party insurance cover, and backing up that assumption with the threat of unlawfully revoking the current Licence. Why would anybody other than an awkward twat have an issue with this? mjg, perhaps deliberately, misses Tony's very valid point. Why Are C&RT demanding that boaters produce evidence of insurance when they have agreed that they may approach the insurance company to ensure validity?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 0:02:43 GMT
Why would anybody other than an awkward twat have an issue with this? mjg, perhaps deliberately, misses Tony's very valid point. Why Are C&RT demanding that boaters produce evidence of insurance when they have agreed that they may approach the insurance company to ensure validity? No point missed here Mr Awkward. Maybe its just easier to ask boaters for it? Untill they meet an awkward twat like you of course.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Apr 12, 2019 0:27:05 GMT
mjg, perhaps deliberately, misses Tony's very valid point. Why Are C&RT demanding that boaters produce evidence of insurance when they have agreed that they may approach the insurance company to ensure validity? No point missed here Mr Awkward. Maybe its just easier to ask boaters for it? Untill they meet an awkward twat like you of course. I have learnt to rise above the name calling which often disguises a lack of argument. It is very simple. C&RT can refuse to issue a licence if the applicant fails to convince them that the boat is insured. Out side of that, the onus is on them to show that the boat is uninsured. The only effective way of doing that is to approach the insurer.
|
|
|
Post by patty on Apr 12, 2019 5:27:28 GMT
No point missed here Mr Awkward. Maybe its just easier to ask boaters for it? Untill they meet an awkward twat like you of course. I have learnt to rise above the name calling which often disguises a lack of argument. It is very simple. C&RT can refuse to issue a licence if the applicant fails to convince them that the boat is insured. Out side of that, the onus is on them to show that the boat is uninsured. The only effective way of doing that is to approach the insurer. I had to produce my insurance details for CRT the first year I had my boat...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 7:00:50 GMT
No point missed here Mr Awkward. Maybe its just easier to ask boaters for it? Untill they meet an awkward twat like you of course. I have learnt to rise above the name calling which often disguises a lack of argument. It is very simple. C&RT can refuse to issue a licence if the applicant fails to convince them that the boat is insured. Out side of that, the onus is on them to show that the boat is uninsured. The only effective way of doing that is to approach the insurer. Confucius says- 'Seek confrontation with a public body and you will surely find it'. Or put another way 'be an awkward twat and eventually it could bite you on the arse'.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 12, 2019 7:06:28 GMT
I haven't. Why don't you just forward them the email you will have received from your insurer at renewal containing all of your insurance details and then let them sift through it? I would have thought the chances of finding anybody on here who has recieved the same email are minute. Which suggests Allan is being targeted...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 7:13:49 GMT
I would have thought the chances of finding anybody on here who has recieved the same email are minute. Which suggests Allan is being targeted...? No it doesnt. It suggests the chances of a randomnly distributed letter hitting members of a forum which has a couple of dozen active members set against thousands of boaters are low to zero.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 7:29:39 GMT
I can see why the spot checks save CRT time and money rather than having to check that the insurance reference numbers are genuine and reference valid cover.
It’s also easy to forget to update the insurance reference number when updating the licence on line. In my case the ref number is always the same with a ‘/nn’ being incremented each year (1 or 2 digit change). It would be reasonable for CRT to chase it up if that was the case.
It does sound like the initial email got lost somewhere but I do think the follow up letter is unnecessarily threatening from a ‘loyal customers’ point of view.
It’s good that Allan has shared this publically and it appears that it is practice now for CRT to do spot checks (which seems sensible to me). If it was me, I’d just provide them with the information they request and try not to let any predudice get in the way.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 12, 2019 7:31:28 GMT
For Allan's info, we have received no such extra request from CRT to prove we have insurance.
However, I see no harm in sending copies of the insurance papers to them PROVIDING THAT everyone else has to do the same.
For one person only suggests harrassment, and I'd consider getting in touch with Plod if it continues.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 12, 2019 7:34:23 GMT
Which suggests Allan is being targeted...? It suggests the chances of a randomnly distributed letter hitting members of a forum which has a couple of dozen active members set against thousands of boaters are low to zero. Which suggests Alllan is being targeted. Make yourself a cup of tea and give youself another half an hour to wake up.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 12, 2019 7:36:19 GMT
I have learnt to rise above the name calling which often disguises a lack of argument. It is very simple. C&RT can refuse to issue a licence if the applicant fails to convince them that the boat is insured. Out side of that, the onus is on them to show that the boat is uninsured. The only effective way of doing that is to approach the insurer. Confucius says- 'Seek confrontation with a public body and you will surely find it'. Or put another way 'be an awkward twat and eventually it could bite you on the arse'. It always amazes me that some people fail to see that any authority, and I mean any authority, be it an individual or a group, when given set powers will always attempt to extend and increase those powers.
It seems to be inherrent in human behaviour.
Each and every attempt by an authority to step beyond its bounds needs to be met with resistance. Failure to do so results in the loss of such freedoms and rights that the public posess.
There is already a format available to CRT to check if insurance is valid .... They have the name of your insurer and they can check with them to see if it is valid, a far more reliable method that sending threatening emails.
If investigation shows that your insurance has ceased with that company it would be fair of them to demand details of any new policy with any other company in case you have changed companies.
Suppose that because of problems with boats failing to comply with the bylaws they introduced a T&C that said you had to provide a good behaviour bond of £10, would you pay it ?
If in a further 5 years the bond had been incrementally increased to £500 and you objected ..... well why have you been paying it up till then if it wasn't a "legal"* requirement ?
* in CRT's eyes and also as the past shows, possibly a magistrate's
Any attempt at increase of power needs to meet immediate opposition
|
|