|
|
Post by kris on Jan 26, 2018 11:58:49 GMT
So I received the letter that Crt send out if they think you've overstayed. Yes I had stayed at the location for more than 14days. But only because the rive was in flood so it was impossible to move safely. I thought I would ring up the name on the bottom of the letter to query it. As now days you don't need to many of these letters before they start to give you hassle liscencing your boat. The Crt representative Melanie Ackerman who took three days to return the call was useless and basicly said there was nothing she could do about it. She would put notes on the computer but the letter couldn't be removed. I ended up talking to her manager Amanda crossland who kept insisting that she was trying to help me. When I pointed out that I wasn't looking for help, that all I wanted was for her to do her job, the thing she gets paid for. She refused to talk to me any more. I have no qualms about naming these two individuals because of their sheer incompetence .
Do the enforcement dept really have no idea of when the rivers in their area are in flood and can't be navigated? Surely this letter was sent out on the imformation gained by a data collector. Didn't they notice the river was in flood the day they where there? I've had a few of these letters in error now, it's quite unbelievable that someone could lose their boat on the basis of such inacurrate imformation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 26, 2018 12:09:50 GMT
So I received the letter that Crt send out if they think you've overstayed. Yes I had stayed at the location for more than 14days. But only because the rive was in flood so it was impossible to move safely. I thought I would ring up the name on the bottom of the letter to query it. As now days you don't need to many of these letters before they start to give you hassle liscencing your boat. The Crt representative Melanie Ackerman who took three days to return the call was useless and basicly said there was nothing she could do about it. She would put notes on the computer but the letter couldn't be removed. I ended up talking to her manager Amanda crossland who kept insisting that she was trying to help me. When I pointed out that I wasn't looking for help, that all I wanted was for her to do her job, the thing she gets paid for. She refused to talk to me any more. I have no qualms about naming these two individuals because of their sheer incompetence . Do the enforcement dept really have no idea of when the rivers in their area are in flood and can't be navigated? Surely this letter was sent out on the imformation gained by a data collector. Didn't they notice the river was in flood the day they where there? I've had a few of these letters in error now, it's quite unbelievable that someone could lose their boat on the basis of such inacurrate imformation. Who is the actual enforcement officer for the area? Best to deal direct. When you say you couldn’t move because the river was in flood, could you have moved the other way, or not at all? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 12:12:42 GMT
It's so frustrating when you know you aren't in the wrong.
When I've incorrectly received texts from C&RT in the past, and had to chase them up, the usual response has been "oh don't worry about it, it's nothing"
If it's nothing to worry about WHY send out the stupid messages in the first place!
I feel your pain kris.
Too many C&RT staff are now just data collectors/inputers and too much of the water based skills and knowledge has been lost for ever.
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 12:14:44 GMT
So I received the letter that Crt send out if they think you've overstayed. Yes I had stayed at the location for more than 14days. But only because the rive was in flood so it was impossible to move safely. I thought I would ring up the name on the bottom of the letter to query it. As now days you don't need to many of these letters before they start to give you hassle liscencing your boat. The Crt representative Melanie Ackerman who took three days to return the call was useless and basicly said there was nothing she could do about it. She would put notes on the computer but the letter couldn't be removed. I ended up talking to her manager Amanda crossland who kept insisting that she was trying to help me. When I pointed out that I wasn't looking for help, that all I wanted was for her to do her job, the thing she gets paid for. She refused to talk to me any more. I have no qualms about naming these two individuals because of their sheer incompetence . Do the enforcement dept really have no idea of when the rivers in their area are in flood and can't be navigated? Surely this letter was sent out on the imformation gained by a data collector. Didn't they notice the river was in flood the day they where there? I've had a few of these letters in error now, it's quite unbelievable that someone could lose their boat on the basis of such inacurrate imformation. Who is the actual enforcement officer for the area? Best to deal direct. When you say you couldn’t move because the river was in flood, could you have moved the other way, or not at all? I never knew rivers only flood in one direction  Rog |
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 26, 2018 12:25:55 GMT
Who is the actual enforcement officer for the area? Best to deal direct. When you say you couldn’t move because the river was in flood, could you have moved the other way, or not at all? I never knew rivers only flood in one direction Rog Of course rivers flood in one direction - down hill! But my point was that there are plenty of places on the network where there is a river in one direction and a canal or cut in the other direction. If a boater wants to continue the journey in the direction they were going which takes them onto the river, but can’t because it’s in flood, is it reasonable to stay put for >14 days, or should the boater turn round (assuming there is room) and head off the way they came for a bit until the river comes out of flood? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 12:28:15 GMT
Running downstream on a river in flood is not usually a good idea.
running upstream requires plenty of poke, but may be a wste of time if air draft is restricted at sluices, locks, bridges and other structures that cross the river.
EA advice for rivers on Strong Streams.
What is Strong Stream Advice?
Strong Stream Advice procedure advises boat users that locks may be reversed and that the Environment Agency strongly advises against attempting to navigate.
Locks may not be available for navigation and bridge heights may be restricted. River flows between structures may be too fast for safe manoeuvring.
At times of high river flows some locks are used for water discharge in addition to the adjacent sluices. Lock vee-gates may be chained and locked open so that flood defence personnel can quickly adjust flows using just the guillotine gate. Tampering with the chains or padlocks could cause vee-gates to slam shut with enormous force, is highly dangerous to boaters and flood defence staff and may cause serious damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 26, 2018 12:29:28 GMT
It's so frustrating when you know you aren't in the wrong. When I've incorrectly received texts from C&RT in the past, and had to chase them up, the usual response has been "oh don't worry about it, it's nothing" If it's nothing to worry about WHY send out the stupid messages in the first place! I feel your pain kris. Too many C&RT staff are now just data collectors/inputers and too much of the water based skills and knowledge has been lost for ever. Rog this is exactly the response Rog, "don't worry about it." As you say if it's nothing why go to the expense of sending a letter. The thing that got my goat really is when the first person started spouting the Crt propaganda about having a duty to make sure moorings are available for all users. She obviously hadn't understood what "the river was in flood' actually means. Ie no boats moving. Again when I ended up talking to her manager, rather than addressing the issue she wanted to explain how the enforcement system worked. It was obvious talking to both of these people they had no understanding of the situation in reality. The level of incompetence was staggering, for what should have been simple. These peoples say so can lose people their homes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 12:29:57 GMT
If you're on a river in flood, you stay put.
That's it.
A mate of mine tried to leave the Avon in the flood year (2012?) and get back to Stratford basin.
He his wife and dog ended up helicoptered off, and the boat later recovered from a field 12 months later once a road had been built to get a crane to it.
C&RT are simply wrong.
Why do you struggle to accept that?
Rog
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 26, 2018 12:32:11 GMT
Because he's a Crt apologist.
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 26, 2018 12:49:25 GMT
Running downstream on a river in flood is not usually a good idea. running upstream requires plenty of poke, but may be a wste of time if air draft is restricted at sluices, locks, bridges and other structures that cross the river. EA advice for rivers on Strong Streams. What is Strong Stream Advice? Strong Stream Advice procedure advises boat users that locks may be reversed and that the Environment Agency strongly advises against attempting to navigate. Locks may not be available for navigation and bridge heights may be restricted. River flows between structures may be too fast for safe manoeuvring. At times of high river flows some locks are used for water discharge in addition to the adjacent sluices. Lock vee-gates may be chained and locked open so that flood defence personnel can quickly adjust flows using just the guillotine gate. Tampering with the chains or padlocks could cause vee-gates to slam shut with enormous force, is highly dangerous to boaters and flood defence staff and may cause serious damage. on top of the obvious distress that the owners of this will have undergone, they will probably find that their insurance is invalid as well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 12:50:36 GMT
Kris you could settle the argument by just confirming exactly where you were moored at the time.
If say you were moored on the pontoons outside Torksey lock on the Trent and couldn't get onto the Fossdyke due to the levels, nor move on the Trent due to it being in flood (as an example) then yes CRT are completely in the wrong to penalise you. Same if you were on the VM's at Beale lock.
If however you were say moored at Knottingley and couldn't get back onto the Aire due the Aire being in flood there is actually plenty of scope still to move back towards Goole or onto the South Yorkshire Navigations at least as far as Donny.
If it's the latter then CRT could argue you could still move.
We were once hemmed in on Castleford cut and had to overstay on the VM's - I spoke to CRT and explained and of course there was no problem because as you know each end of the cut at Castleford terminates into the Aire. The working boats were moving but the lock keepers were not letting leisure boats out due to the levels and flow. We literally had no where to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 26, 2018 12:53:17 GMT
Oh yes I see we have both Laural and hardy on this thread now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 12:56:57 GMT
Oh yes I see we have both Laural and hardy on this thread now. Why the silliness. You do yourself no favours. I asked a perfectly civil question in a perfectly civil manner. Why not just answer it.? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 13:04:14 GMT
He doesn't have to settle anything.
Why do people have to make the assumption that kris is wrong and that C&RT are right.
If in my opinion it is not safe to move MY BOAT, that's the only opinion I and anyone else requires.
Rog
ETA I am a sympathetic 'Friend of C&RT' and some would say therefore, an apologist.
But occasionally you just have to accept they are wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 26, 2018 13:07:01 GMT
Oh yes I see we have both Laural and hardy on this thread now. Why the silliness. You do yourself no favours. I asked a perfectly civil question in a perfectly civil manner. Why not just answer it.? do mysel no favours with who? You? Anyway to answer your question because experience has taught me it isn't worth entering into a discussion about issues like this with Nick or yourself. In other words I dint value yours or nicks opinions very highly. |
|
