|
Post by kris on Jul 4, 2017 9:20:23 GMT
some of you may remember when I was broken down and I fitted a new engine, gearbox and stern gear. During this period my communications with crt consisted of them ringing me and threatening to take me to court and steal my boat, this was almost on a daily basis. They accused me of lying about the work involved in getting the boat mobile again. The thread I started on cwdf with photos of the progress on the boat, seemed to quieten them down, maybe because of the fact that I sent a link to it to all of the relevant people within crt. So I took the issue out of the hands of the local enforcement officer. This officer seems to have taken exception to this and took it personally. Whilst on the telephone to me, they stated they where not going to liscence my boat and would be taking me to court to take the boat off me. The officer in question took great delight in this and was vindictive with it. So because I couldn't really face a drawn out legal battle with crt. I think it would have sapped my motivation to spend money and energy on renovating a boat that I might end up losing to an over zealous authority. I got an online mooring, which meant they where obliged to liscence my boat. So for the last two years I've paid for a mooring that I don't really need and have never been on. To me this amounts to protection money paying to be left alone, this really annoys me as I'm due to pay for the third year £1750 so I've given crt £5000 just to be able to live a peaceful life without threatening and menacing phone calls. It's annoying because that money would have gone a long way to finishing all the steel work on my boat. So the navigation authority is directly hampering the renovation of an historic vessel. This is wrong on so many levels, so when the apologists for crt tell me I'm making it up or am Paranoid they are not taking into account the personal experience involved. I had no strong views about crt before all of this and indeed was working for them during this period,now I'm a sworn enemy and will oppose their oppressive, aggressive bully tactics with every breath.
ps. The said enforcement officer couldn't help themselves and rang me up the other week to try and menace me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2017 9:29:22 GMT
some of you may remember when I was broken down and I fitted a new engine, gearbox and stern gear. During this period my communications with crt consisted of them ringing me and threatening to take me to court and steal my boat, this was almost on a daily basis. They accused me of lying about the work involved in getting the boat mobile again. The thread I started on cwdf with photos of the progress on the boat, seemed to quieten them down, maybe because of the fact that I sent a link to it to all of the relevant people within crt. So I took the issue out of the hands of the local enforcement officer. This officer seems to have taken exception to this and took it personally. Whilst on the telephone to me, they stated they where not going to liscence my boat and would be taking me to court to take the boat off me. The officer in question took great delight in this and was vindictive with it. So because I couldn't really face a drawn out legal battle with crt. I think it would have sapped my motivation to spend money and energy on renovating a boat that I might end up losing to an over zealous authority. I got an online mooring, which meant they where obliged to liscence my boat. So for the last two years I've paid for a mooring that I don't really need and have never been on. To me this amounts to protection money paying to be left alone, this really annoys me as I'm due to pay for the third year £1750 so I've given crt £5000 just to be able to live a peaceful life without threatening and menacing phone calls. It's annoying because that money would have gone a long way to finishing all the steel work on my boat. So the navigation authority is directly hampering the renovation of an historic vessel. This is wrong on so many levels, so when the apologists for crt tell me I'm making it up or am Paranoid they are not taking into account the personal experience involved. I had no strong views about crt before all of this and indeed was working for them during this period,now I'm a sworn enemy and will oppose their oppressive, aggressive bully tactics with every breath. ps. The said enforcement officer couldn't help themselves and rang me up the other week to try and menace me. Did you ever get a chance to talk to someone else in CRT face to face (other than that EO)? I wonder if you'd had a chance to meet one of the CRT EO management team to explain everything and mention the harassment what would have happened?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 4, 2017 9:32:41 GMT
That's why I started the thread on cwdf, to bring the issue to the wider attention of senior crt staff. Also once you bring the light of public attention onto an issue they tend to be a bit more cautious. Publicising the things crt get up to is the best weapon against them, if the general public knew half of the reality about crt then I think their game would be up.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 4, 2017 9:35:07 GMT
No, it is just the law. You were in breach of the law which is why you were hassled by CRT and I think you were lucky they didn't cancel your licence since you were in breach of the laws under which the licence was issued, and have you remove, or remove by force, your boat from their waters. You may feel the law is "so unfair" or whatever, but if so your beef should be with the law, not with CRT.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 4, 2017 9:40:07 GMT
No, it is just the law. You were in breach of the law which is why you were hassled by CRT and I think you were lucky they didn't cancel your licence since you were in breach of the laws under which the licence was issued, and have you remove, or remove by force, your boat from their waters. You may feel the law is "so unfair" or whatever, but if so your beef should be with the law, not with CRT. Would you like to quote the waterways legislation I was in breach of? Seen as your so knowledgeable.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jul 4, 2017 9:41:37 GMT
Even in ye olde days cargo boats had to pay tolls to use the canals. But I do think mooring fees are overly-expensive. Milk that cow until it dies! Treble bonuses all round!
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 4, 2017 9:43:55 GMT
1995 act section 17 para (3) (c)
ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 4, 2017 9:53:28 GMT
Sorry nickolarse I haven't got time to have this debate with you right now I'll get back to you later.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 4, 2017 10:13:56 GMT
Sorry nickolarse I haven't got time to have this debate with you right now I'll get back to you later. No problem. But I think you should be careful of publishing libellous statements on the internet - libellous because they are defamatory and untrue. If CRT were so minded they could demand you withdraw your defamations, giving you a time limit or face prosecution - a prosecution that you would lose, and it could cost you everything. Just trying to be helpful...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2017 10:21:50 GMT
1995 act section 17 para (3) (c) 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances. That's the important bit, and the one Kris was legally allowed to use. He even showed courtesy by involving crt in the process. It's a shame he hit two brickheads, the EO, and head of enforcement. Both of whom seem to hide away behind telephones and emails, from the people they deal with. Then of course we have the twat, the one that gets bored playing with his willy whilst left on his own, and consequently ends up on forums looking for some form of excitement. Perhaps we should club together and get Nick a bird, perhaps a budgie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2017 10:23:35 GMT
some of you may remember when I was broken down and I fitted a new engine, gearbox and stern gear. During this period my communications with crt consisted of them ringing me and threatening to take me to court and steal my boat, this was almost on a daily basis. They accused me of lying about the work involved in getting the boat mobile again. The thread I started on cwdf with photos of the progress on the boat, seemed to quieten them down, maybe because of the fact that I sent a link to it to all of the relevant people within crt. So I took the issue out of the hands of the local enforcement officer. This officer seems to have taken exception to this and took it personally. Whilst on the telephone to me, they stated they where not going to liscence my boat and would be taking me to court to take the boat off me. The officer in question took great delight in this and was vindictive with it. So because I couldn't really face a drawn out legal battle with crt. I think it would have sapped my motivation to spend money and energy on renovating a boat that I might end up losing to an over zealous authority. I got an online mooring, which meant they where obliged to liscence my boat. So for the last two years I've paid for a mooring that I don't really need and have never been on. To me this amounts to protection money paying to be left alone, this really annoys me as I'm due to pay for the third year £1750 so I've given crt £5000 just to be able to live a peaceful life without threatening and menacing phone calls. It's annoying because that money would have gone a long way to finishing all the steel work on my boat. So the navigation authority is directly hampering the renovation of an historic vessel. This is wrong on so many levels, so when the apologists for crt tell me I'm making it up or am Paranoid they are not taking into account the personal experience involved. I had no strong views about crt before all of this and indeed was working for them during this period,now I'm a sworn enemy and will oppose their oppressive, aggressive bully tactics with every breath. ps. The said enforcement officer couldn't help themselves and rang me up the other week to try and menace me. Social cleansing?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 4, 2017 10:43:21 GMT
1995 act section 17 para (3) (c) 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances. That's the important bit, and the one Kris was legally allowed to use. He would be allowed to use it under some circumstances, but wasn't applicable in this case. In my opinion, in CRT's opinion, but ultimately it would have to be tested in court of course. In my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of "the man on the Clapham omnibus", bearing in mind the basic concept behind the alleviation of not requiring a home mooring is "...using the boat bona fida for navigation..." it is not reasonable to remain in one place for a very extended period (over a year) whilst a major refurbishment takes place in slow time due to lack of funds and spare time. If it were the case that anything concocted by a boater must be taken as "reasonable under the circumstances", all CCers who don't want to use their boats bona fida for navigation (which seems to be quite a lot of CCers!) would apply that alleviation and thus it would be carte blanche to towpath hog as much as one wanted. In London, it would be "reasonable under the circumstances" for boaters to remain static because they had a job in the vicinity, because their engine had a flat battery, because they couldn't afford any diesel, etc. The law would be pointless if any old excuse were adequate, and that is why Kris's case would be very likely to fail in court in my opinion. I have to say that I dislike the idea that just by purchasing a ghost mooring one can remain in one place (a nice honeypot site eg London or Bradford on Avon) indefinitely. But that is unfortunately the law as it stands. Of course in Kris' case it doesn't really matter as there seems to be plenty of space on the L&L. Presumably he isn't hogging one of the few honeypot sites.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 4, 2017 10:51:23 GMT
Sorry nickolarse I haven't got time to have this debate with you right now I'll get back to you later. No problem. But I think you should be careful of publishing libellous statements on the internet - libellous because they are defamatory and untrue. If CRT were so minded they could demand you withdraw your defamations, giving you a time limit or face prosecution - a prosecution that you would lose, and it could cost you everything. Just trying to be helpful... This is ridiculous Nick there is nothing I have posted that is libellous. I'm beginning to think your In the pay of crt. You and your opinions would be really laughable, if the issues weren't so serious and didn't effect people's lives so drasticly.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 4, 2017 10:57:16 GMT
No problem. But I think you should be careful of publishing libellous statements on the internet - libellous because they are defamatory and untrue. If CRT were so minded they could demand you withdraw your defamations, giving you a time limit or face prosecution - a prosecution that you would lose, and it could cost you everything. Just trying to be helpful... This is ridiculous Nick there is nothing I have posted that is libellous. I'm beginning to think your In the pay of crt. You and your opinions would be really laughable, if the issues weren't so serious and didn't effect people's lives so drasticly. "Threatening to steal my boat" - untrue, they threatened to take you to court which may have resulted in them removing your boat from their waters. That is not stealing, which would be a criminal offence, but rather acting in accordance with the law. "The officer ... took great delight in this and was vindictive with it". You have no evidence to support this assertion which of course, is just your impression and opinion, but stated as if it were fact. and lots more. It's quite clear that the whole purpose of your thread is to defame CRT when in fact it is you who have acted unlawfully (IMO), not them.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 4, 2017 10:59:30 GMT
It's idiots like you that are going to sit and watch crt ruin the waterways for future generations. You by supporting them are complicit in their illegal actions.
|
|