|
Post by tadworth on Apr 30, 2016 20:17:08 GMT
I don't agree with the NBTA if they are trying to defend boaters demanding to stay in one place without a mooring, or demand a mooring is created where they choose, because they have a job or children at school, or a pedal powered boat FFS !
The word "traveller" in the name is a massive fail, none of the general public will support anything to do with that. No way will I join it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 20:21:56 GMT
I don't agree with the NBTA if they are trying to defend boaters demanding to stay in one place without a mooring, or demand a mooring is created where they choose, because they have a job or children at school, or a pedal powered boat FFS ! The word "traveller" in the name is a massive fail, none of the general public will support anything to do with that. No way will I join it. I think we have to see on the 10th
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on May 1, 2016 10:11:57 GMT
regret not continuing in this discussion, Internet connection appalling makes even reading posts hard and proper posting impossible. will get involved again when possible cheers all Johnv
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 2, 2016 14:41:12 GMT
If CRT try to claim they have the lawful authority to decide who is able to overstay or not, then it will be a judicial review that needs to be set up unless the complaints process or ombudsman stops this, which I doubt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2016 15:04:20 GMT
If CRT try to claim they have the lawful authority to decide who is able to overstay or not, then it will be a judicial review that needs to be set up unless the complaints process or ombudsman stops this, which I doubt. Are they deciding who is allowed to stay or the validity of the reason?
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on May 2, 2016 15:13:58 GMT
Our friends boat broke its driveplate yesterday we towed them back to Sprotborough. CRT informed, [lockkeeper] and all is well until it can be sorted, nothing unreasonable no hassle just no probs mate I will tell the EO and we will keep an eye on it for you
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 4, 2016 0:21:27 GMT
As far as I understand it, overstaying "such period as is reasonable in the circumstances" ( section 17 (3) (ii) 1995 canal act) is a statutory right, and nothing CRT say or do, or invent can over ride that, no terms and conditions or rules affect ones statutory rights, as all reputable contracts state, ( the CRT licence T&C's dont of course ) I think they are trying to con boaters into believing they have the power to decide this so that ultimately they can close down this loophole, and set up daily charges, with no mercy. .
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 4, 2016 6:01:25 GMT
As tadworth has pointed out, there is a statutory right to overstay . Crt can't take this away or impose unreasonable terms upon it. An EO is not a medical professional so has no legal standing to judge on the persons condition. Yet another example of Crt trying to overstep their legal powers. They might wish it was such but it isn't. As for NBTA, the idea they are campaigning for people to be able to stay put is bollocks. I agree the name is a little unfortunate, buts it's a group that's up and running that does a lot of good supporting vunerable boaters and raising awareness of the issues. Not everyone is able to stand up for themselves. If we are going to stand any chance, we need a flag to rally around there's is as good as any. I don't think any group will be perfect, even if we started another one from scratch. ( which personally I don't have time to do)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2016 7:03:21 GMT
No one is questioning the validity of what Tadworth Is saying but being refused an overstay is not the Experience of most boaters.If anyone is then saying That you can't be refused because you don't need to Obtain permission then that's just a nonsense because What intelligent boater wouldn't inform Crt if only out Of courtesy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2016 7:12:47 GMT
CRT aren't taking this away as far as I can make Out and if it's a case of the local EO behaving like An idiot then perhaps you have to box clever and Just bypass him.Just inform by email or perhaps Phone head office noting of course who your speaking To.Like most things it's on a case by case basis,where Are these maligned boaters?
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 4, 2016 16:01:35 GMT
It is true that overstays are "authorised" as a matter of course now, but when boaters are conned into accepting that EO's have the power to "authorise" an overstay thenΒ CRT have set a precedent for the future, that is open to abuse.
They tried the same with the court order on Tadworth, trying to imply that no new licence could be applied for, which has failed. They said they had no plans to charge anyone at the "2 days free" visitor moorings, and now they have. They are I think also going to attempt to charge for any overstaying for any reason in the future, in exactly the same SOP, EO's are saying this now, but not acting on it yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2016 16:19:31 GMT
It is true that overstays are "authorised" as a matter of course now, but when boaters are conned into accepting that EO's have the power to "authorise" an overstay then CRT have set a precedent for the future, that is open to abuse. They tried the same with the court order on Tadworth, trying to imply that no new licence could be applied for, which has failed. They said they had no plans to charge anyone at the "2 days free" visitor moorings, and now they have. They are I think also going to attempt to charge for any overstaying for any reason in the future, in exactly the same SOP, EO's are saying this now, but not acting on it yet. I honestly don't know where you are going with this, and believe me when I say, I wish there was some place to go. If the overstays are authorised as a matter of course as you say above,then what the Fuck is the issue with the EO? Its getting a bit like Penis envy with you and these EO,s. I genuinely do not think these EO,s are taking the piss any more than some Continuous Cruisers.The real issue for me and every other continuous cruiser I know is the discrepancies of sighting records,the uneven application and interpretation of the 20 mile recommendation and the appalling climate of fear thats been created by CRT.I am happy to hear anyones thoughts on this including your own. Where are these boaters that have been denied an overstay.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 4, 2016 17:00:57 GMT
The issue is that the rules are being changed behind your back, while at the same time most overstays are being waved away as "authorised" , so it looks like there is nothing to worry about, there is no such thing as "authorised" CDS, you are falling for it apparently. CRT has not gone to the bother of creating this procedure for no reason, they want to decide in future who can and can't overstay, which is beyond their legal powers.
Being "authorised" to overstay is great, no problem, except that you just accepted something unlawful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2016 17:29:17 GMT
The issue is that the rules are being changed behind your back, while at the same time most overstays are being waved away as "authorised" , so it looks like there is nothing to worry about, there is no such thing as "authorised" CDS, you are falling for it apparently. CRT has not gone to the bother of creating this procedure for no reason, they want to decide in future who can and can't overstay, which is beyond their legal powers. Being "authorised" to overstay is great, no problem, except that you just accepted something unlawful. If you read my earlier post you will see that I am falling for nothing. I am well aware that legally an EO doesn't authorise anything I said so, its not unreasonable however to inform him over the phone if you want to as a matter of courtesy.Are you actually suggesting someone just moors up and stays four weeks without speaking to anyone? What procedure have CRT created regarding an overstay ? because I will tell you what my experience has been over the last 35 years and also the experience of others that I know and can produce to back up what I am saying. I arrive at Peartree Bridge intending to stay 14 days,on the 12th day I am admitted to Hospital where I shall be for a week.I inform CRT what has happened and they say OK give us a call when you get out and if you can advise us of any changes we would be grateful. A week later I come out and give Bumford a call and tell him I am on my way.He wishes me well and I move off.This is how people behave towards each other. Where does authorisation enter the discussion ? It doesn't because its not required. If in the future CRT go beyond their Legal Powers then thats a Judicial Matter in my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2016 17:32:46 GMT
The issue is that the rules are being changed behind your back, while at the same time most overstays are being waved away as "authorised" , so it looks like there is nothing to worry about, there is no such thing as "authorised" CDS, you are falling for it apparently. CRT has not gone to the bother of creating this procedure for no reason, they want to decide in future who can and can't overstay, which is beyond their legal powers. Being "authorised" to overstay is great, no problem, except that you just accepted something unlawful. Rules are being changed,ignored,misinterpreted all the time but the majority of boaters here and on the other channel have no problems with Overstaying when necessary because they know how to behave and treat people with respect. That is a fact.
|
|