Is system fit for purpose?
As a result of CaRT's attempt to remove yet another boater from its waters, again a liveaboard but this time a liveaboard with a home mooring, various concerns with regard to the methods used by the trust have emerged, writes Pam Pickett. One of those concerns relates to the suitability for purpose of the trust's computer. I recently read that Denise Yelland, Head of Enforcement, admitted that alterations to the computer system needed to be made, and that new software is to be in place by next year.
Not the system
Last week, with this in mind I spoke to Paul Griffin, Enforcement Manager for CaRT. Paul Griffin categorically refuted any problem with the trust's computer system. He said that Denise Yelland had been misunderstood. He then told me that the new software that Denise Yelland had alluded to was in respect of the Q1's (hand-held computers) issued to boat spotters that he said were now often requiring repair, and in need of replacement.
Suitability open to interpretation?
Out and about recently I met up with Tony Ball. Tony was on his way to Shackerstone, having left Bridge 9 on the Erewash Canal on the 8h August. Tony, always concerned about being spotted, tells me he rang Paul Griffin and asked Paul to tell him where he (Tony) was. Paul I'm told said he'd check and come back to Tony, as it seems he then did.
It is Paul Griffin's answer to Tony that could provide the explanation as to why there is so much concern with regard to CaRT's computer. Paul told Tony Ball that he was at Bridge 9 on the Erewash Canal, although Tony's boat was now over two weeks later more than 40 miles away. With this in mind I suggested to Paul Griffin that either CaRT's computer or its enforcement checks couldn't perhaps be relied upon. Paul insisted that it could, telling me the system operated on GPS signals.
Can CaRT guarantee accurate records?
Fair enough, it was not a ground-breaking amount of time for Tony Ball to be off CaRT's radar, though long enough I think to prove that despite the said GPS signals its computer/record keeping is not always up to speed. Several errors on the part of CaRT's Enforcement Officers, with one previously involving Tony Ball at Saxilby, and on the same day involving the boat called just that, The Boat, is worrying.
Therefore as I see it until CaRT is in a position to guarantee accurate record checks it should in my opinion refrain from pursuing fully paid-up boaters with a view to revoking their licences, but concentrate on dealing with those that are not, thus putting money in the kitty rather than taking it out!
Lest we forget?
And finally, lest we forget in an address to the Nottingham Boaters Meeting on the 16th October 2012 Stuart Garner referred to the focus of national enforcement being on continuous cruisers. As this 'focus' since appears to have been rolled out to encompass us all, with the exception of hire and shared ownership boats that are not expected to cruise under CaRT's new and un-legislated 'Guidance for boaters without a home mooring', and indeed in one instance appear to have been given special dispensation to overstay, with the moorings monitored by a pub landlord, best I think to be in a position to challenge CaRT's records by keeping a meticulous, preferably photographic log?