Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 11:21:46 GMT
Trade plates? I'd have thought the previous owner was responsible for the licence, what's it got to do with the broker? Genuine question. When we sold our boat it had a portion of the licence left so we left it on to give the new buyer time to sort one. As it happened it didn't sell before the license expired so Dominic at Rugby boats arranged for it to go on Trade plates whilst it remained on brokerage (only a broker can do this). They then passed the cost of this onto us when the boat sold. I however also rang CRT to confirm that it had gone onto trade plates with the exact date as I didn't want the scenario that BFG's parents had because I wasn't sure the right arm within CRT would communicate with the left arm. As it happened she confirmed it had gone on to trade plates. One brokerage that I belive trade plates are not required is Whilton (actually at Whilton Marina) because of a long standing historical arrangement boats in there don't require a licence unless they come out onto the canal (Unless that has changed recently).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 11:24:36 GMT
CRT's own rules state your boat does not need to be licensed whilst on brokerage. Bugger, I wish I'd known that when I sold my old boat, I'd have cashed the licence in pronto. Luckily it sold in a week but it might not have. Your broker would still likely have passed the cost onto you when it sold - though granted a 'trade plate' is cheaper than a normal boating licence. I cant recall the cost now but a figure something like £30 pcm sticks in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 27, 2018 11:29:51 GMT
Ooh I missed the squabbling and bickering. I think that , to ask for further info about the situation, to inform the discussion, is reasonable. The problem is that some then see that as evidence that the evidence is to be used to the detriment of the poster with the problem. After several pages of drivel by all concerned Kris then posted a clear picture. Fair enough, he is in the right, stuck in floods, CaRT are wrong. What is wrong with us seeing the evidence, the complete picture in the first place. It's a discussion forum. Ohhhhh I'm a twat! I've only posted this to up my votes in the Best Twat competition BTW. The thread was never about whether Kris should have moved, the exact situation was irrelevant. The only reason to ask for these details would be if you thought kris was lying. Even if he was it's still irrelevant. CRT's response to this general situation of black marking people who can't move safely as overstayers, then refusing to remove the unwarranted black mark was the topic and Kris used his experience as an example. Had he not done so, no doubt the naysayers would accuse him of making it up and demand details of his personal experience of this. once again you've summed it up very succinctly. The thing I wonder about is how many ov these motices do you need to receive before you have problems liscencing your boat?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 11:39:27 GMT
Ooh I missed the squabbling and bickering. I think that , to ask for further info about the situation, to inform the discussion, is reasonable. The problem is that some then see that as evidence that the evidence is to be used to the detriment of the poster with the problem. After several pages of drivel by all concerned Kris then posted a clear picture. Fair enough, he is in the right, stuck in floods, CaRT are wrong. What is wrong with us seeing the evidence, the complete picture in the first place. It's a discussion forum. Ohhhhh I'm a twat! I've only posted this to up my votes in the Best Twat competition BTW. The thread was never about whether Kris should have moved, the exact situation was irrelevant. The only reason to ask for these details would be if you thought kris was lying. Even if he was it's still irrelevant. CRT's response to this general situation of black marking people who can't move safely as overstayers, then refusing to remove the unwarranted black mark was the topic and Kris used his experience as an example. Had he not done so, no doubt the naysayers would accuse him of making it up and demand details of his personal experience of this. Nail on the head again. I wish I could have said this in so few words Rog
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jan 27, 2018 11:42:55 GMT
Trade plates? I'd have thought the previous owner was responsible for the licence, what's it got to do with the broker? Genuine question. The only brokerage that I belive trade plates are not required is Whilton (actually at Whilton Marina) because of a long standing historical arrangement boats in there don't require a licence unless they come out onto the canal (Unless that has changed recently). Shardlow Marina
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 11:49:49 GMT
The only brokerage that I belive trade plates are not required is Whilton (actually at Whilton Marina) because of a long standing historical arrangement boats in there don't require a licence unless they come out onto the canal (Unless that has changed recently). Shardlow Marina Edited to correct.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Jan 27, 2018 11:53:58 GMT
The thread was never about whether Kris should have moved, the exact situation was irrelevant. The only reason to ask for these details would be if you thought kris was lying. Even if he was it's still irrelevant. CRT's response to this general situation of black marking people who can't move safely as overstayers, then refusing to remove the unwarranted black mark was the topic and Kris used his experience as an example. Had he not done so, no doubt the naysayers would accuse him of making it up and demand details of his personal experience of this. once again you've summed it up very succinctly. The thing I wonder about is how many ov these motices do you need to receive before you have problems liscencing your boat? You? Or all the people who get one, phone up, and are told not to worry about it? If I were cynical I would say they are tucked away as ammo for when they decide to harass someone, at which point they will appear in court as without any details as "previous warnings for overstaying" to demonstrate how patient crt have been, trying to help and advise you how to boat within the terms of your licence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 11:58:12 GMT
once again you've summed it up very succinctly. The thing I wonder about is how many ov these motices do you need to receive before you have problems liscencing your boat? You? Or all the people who get one, phone up, and are told not to worry about it? If I were cynical I would say they are tucked away as ammo for when they decide to harass someone, at which point they will appear in court as without any details as "previous warnings for overstaying" to demonstrate how patient crt have been, trying to help and advise you how to boat within the terms of your licence. Exactly this. It has been done often.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 27, 2018 11:58:51 GMT
Exactly, and as it's not mentioned on the letter where or when the offence is supposed to have taken place it would be very difficult at some stage in the future to prove that you were in the right to stay put in the circumstances.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 12:01:40 GMT
On two occasions now I've received contact from C&RT re overstaying (wrongly) and suffered several days of trying to make contact with the named persons on the numbers they provided.
One occasion it took numerous wasted calls over three days, one over two days, before I was able to speak to someone.
Each time I have insisted I receive an e mail or text confirming the sighting was wrong and that no record has been retained.
My concern was never about over staying (cos I don't) but rather how many erroneous reports will it take before C&RT progress to restricting my licence.
An unnecessary and totally avoidable worry borne of their errors.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jan 27, 2018 12:02:07 GMT
once again you've summed it up very succinctly. The thing I wonder about is how many ov these motices do you need to receive before you have problems liscencing your boat? You? Or all the people who get one, phone up, and are told not to worry about it? If I were cynical I would say they are tucked away as ammo for when they decide to harass someone, at which point they will appear in court as without any details as "previous warnings for overstaying" to demonstrate how patient crt have been, trying to help and advise you how to boat within the terms of your licence. That is the thing. They have proven that they are a bunch of immoral devious sods ..... I don't believe that Shoosmiths can use the tactics they do, without CRT management conniving.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 27, 2018 12:07:06 GMT
Your right john, Crt wouldn't hire shooosmiths if they didn't approve of their tactics. They are both complicit in the illegal goings on. Unfortunately they are being backed up by the courts at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 27, 2018 12:09:18 GMT
once again you've summed it up very succinctly. The thing I wonder about is how many ov these motices do you need to receive before you have problems liscencing your boat? You? Or all the people who get one, phone up, and are told not to worry about it? If I were cynical I would say they are tucked away as ammo for when they decide to harass someone, at which point they will appear in court as without any details as "previous warnings for overstaying" to demonstrate how patient crt have been, trying to help and advise you how to boat within the terms of your licence. I would say realistic rather than cynical, . . . past performances, and the blatant lying/bullshitting they indulge in when compiling written evidence for contrived legal action against selected victims, suggest that's just what the scheming bastards will do if and when it suits them.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 27, 2018 12:20:43 GMT
Bit of a sad state of affairs really, that such a bunch of devious, lying idiots are in charge of the waterways and seem determined to ruin them for future generations.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Jan 27, 2018 12:22:41 GMT
"A cynic is not merely one who reads bitter lessons from the past; he is one who is prematurely disappointed in the future. Cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth. Those who are too weak to make a stand against reality have no choice but to obliterate themselves by identifying with it."
|
|