|
Post by JohnV on Apr 12, 2019 10:54:11 GMT
No .... his motives are transparent .... as normal I realise disagreeing with the Thunderboat 'massif' doesn't go down well with some members and marks me out for stupid comments like that but I'm afraid if I disagree with someone I will say so, regardless of yours (and others) efforts to suppress them. What a strange post ..... I disagree with Foxy (who was claiming you were being opaque) and quote him.
You take it as an attack on you.
As if
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 10:59:51 GMT
I realise disagreeing with the Thunderboat 'massif' doesn't go down well with some members and marks me out for stupid comments like that but I'm afraid if I disagree with someone I will say so, regardless of yours (and others) efforts to suppress them. What a strange post ..... I disagree with Foxy (who was claiming you were being opaque) and quote him.
You take it as an attack on you.
As if Disingenuous.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 12, 2019 11:02:08 GMT
What a strange post ..... I disagree with Foxy (who was claiming you were being opaque) and quote him.
You take it as an attack on you.
As if Disingenuous. Hardly ..... you yourself told foxy that his post was nonsense .... all I did was post the same thing .... but differently
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 11:04:23 GMT
Hardly ..... you yourself told foxy that his post was nonsense .... all I did was post the same thing .... but differently Then if I have misunderstood my apologies. (I'm still not sure I have though)
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 12, 2019 11:06:58 GMT
Hardly ..... you yourself told foxy that his post was nonsense .... all I did was post the same thing .... but differently Then if I have misunderstood my apologies. (I'm still not sure I have though) Oh !!! then I was mistaken and you weren't disagreeing with Foxy saying you were being opaque ..... in that case I apologise I must have misunderstood you
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 11:18:55 GMT
C&RT haven't done anything.
They have outlined the consequences of ignoring their request to provide proof of insurance.
That they continue to provide evidence of administrative incompetence is irrefutable.
But surely without insurance and a bssc, a licence cannot be issued anyway?
I say again, I sympathise with the frustration and irritation of the issue, but the remedy is not too onerus a task.
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 11:24:56 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. For those who still can't see the significance of the above, and just what C&RT are playing here, think carefully about what's being said, and what it could well lead to, in these two sentences from the e-mail sent to Allan : We have not received a copy of your boat insurance certificate that we requested on 13/03/2019. If you don’t send this to us within 28 days of this letter, you will be in breach of our Licensing Terms and Conditions and we will have to terminate your boat licence.and : If we don’t receive a copy of your insurance policy within 28 days, your licence will be terminated and you will need to remove your boat from our waterways._______________________________________________ Back in 1995 it needed the authority and powers conferred on British Waterways in an Act of Parliament to 'terminate' a boat Licence, and then it had to be a failure to meet one or any of three specific conditions laid down in Section 17 of the Act, and compliance with procedures and specified periods of notice, before such action could be taken. How much of that protection against unreasonable and unlawful excesses on the part of the Navigation Authority will be left to people, AND their boats, if the authority, and the decision, to threaten or take such action has been watered down to the extent that it now resides with a 'Licence Support Advisor' sitting at a desk in Milton Keynes who can't be bothered to look up and use the insurance details you disclosed in your licence application ? Any pennies dropping, . . or any warning bells ringing yet ? That's why I would leave it IF I was 100% confident that I did have valid insurance. However I now see that would not be appropriate having read the '95 act. Edit to remove invalid comment. From 95 act "An insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence that it exists and is in force, has been produced to the Board; " However the requirement has changed over the years to be simply that you put the number and provider name on the application form. I guess that was part of the move towards paperless ie online applications and automatic renewals. When a boat license automatically renews it may of course result in an invalid policy number if the number has changed when the insurance itself was renewed. So which is it? '95 act or T&C?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 12:53:49 GMT
When you renew CRT don't check insurance, CRT just assume that the policy on file is current or has been renewed as you sign (digitally or otherwise) to say that its valid. CRT do random checks, sometimes the email asking for proof goes astray, so when no proof arrives CRT send out email chasing proof which appears to be a bit heavy as they have had people ignoring their requests and it concentrates the customers mind. Nothing sinister just a badly worded email. I had a request for proof some three years ago as my insurance runs out mid licence, sent off the proof and that was the last I heard of it.
Mountains out of molehills springs to mind
ETA, I know you have said they have the insurance details but if you haven't supplied the proof since receiving the stroppy email I would!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 12:59:25 GMT
7 years in and CRT's incompetence is increasingly becoming worse, when it should by now be getting better. It's down to poor management, we still have the incompetent civil servants filling those seats, and none have yet learnt to write a simple letter without being aggressive. The annoying thing is they never say sorry when they are at fault. I had the same issue with them over my licence last year, they didn't email it to me. They gave every excuse they could think of as to why I didn't get it. Eventually they suggested perhaps it was my fault for not giving my email addy correctly. A bit odd that when I had received two from them the week previously, stating they were processing my licence. All they had to do was say "sorry, we forgot to send it".
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Apr 12, 2019 13:09:47 GMT
Gawd...And you lot moan about the snowflake generation! Mummy, mummy, the bad seceretery sent me a nasty letter’😢😢
Its certainly true ‘The devil finds work for idle hands’
Martin’s right.. Just Forward your insurance documents as requested and stop being such a fuckin drama queen!🙄
|
|
|
Post by ianali on Apr 12, 2019 13:23:11 GMT
Gawd...And you lot moan about the snowflake generation! Mummy, mummy, the bad seceretery sent me a nasty letter’😢😢 Its certainly true ‘The devil finds work for idle hands’ Martin’s right.. Just Forward your insurance documents as requested and stop being such a fuckin drama queen!🙄 That would work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 13:25:46 GMT
I had a silly problem with CRT sending me a Gold License which didn't have the letter G on it. This results in Thames lock keepers having to come and scrutinise the license. Traditionally they could see it was gold as there was a big G printed on it in that year's colour (Thames licenses are coloured*). I went to the crt docklands office and the chap there managed to print off a license for me which did have the G on it but no longer the big G. Its a nuisance for the keepers as part of their job is to visually assess whether a vessel is licensed.
Not a serious problem but its annoying the silly changes they make for no reason.
*happy to remove word if deemed racist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 13:27:23 GMT
Gawd...And you lot moan about the snowflake generation! Mummy, mummy, the bad seceretery sent me a nasty letter’😢😢 Its certainly true ‘The devil finds work for idle hands’ Martin’s right.. Just Forward your insurance documents as requested and stop being such a fuckin drama queen!🙄 It's all about customer relations and service. I'm pretty certain you wouldn't send an abrasive letter/email to one of your customers, (unless of course they owed you serious dosh). With CRT, you often have to remind them that they can be incredibly incompetent, simply because they are constantly on a learning curve. In my view, this sort of stuff wouldn't arise in the first place if they addressed their own attitudes .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 13:28:07 GMT
Brutal, but perhaps accurate.
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 13:29:42 GMT
This sort of behaviour fits in with my pet conspiracy theory that CRT were originally intended to be an organisation meant to fail.
|
|