All treated as continuous cruisers

THOSE of you who so often contact me to tell me of what you consider to be unfair treatment by CaRT enforcement, yet prefer not to complain lest you then be 'targeted', would do well to read the following, writes Pam Pickett.

For those of you carping about those you see as being on the system at a lesser cost than yourselves, please note that continuous cruising enforcement is now being extended to also cover those of us with a home mooring. As you will see from the following illuminating facts received from Enforcement Operation Manager Paul Griffin, it is the 'process' that rules. A failure to complain ensures that 'targeting' ensues!

Complaint of unfair treatment

On the 5th of this month I 'sat in' on a meeting between Paul Griffin of the CaRT enforcement team and two boaters who had bravely decided to raise their heads above the parapet, and to complain of unfair treatment. Patrick and Elaine, incidentally 'vulnerable' continuous cruisers had been issued with tickets on more than one occasion. These tickets relating to high water on the Trent, to a problem with electrics and to a complete engine breakdown.

Process rolls ever onwards

Here we are talking about the period between 2012/2013 that a good many will remember was the wettest period on record. The engine breakdown was incurred as a direct result of attempting to follow an enforcement officer's instruction by moving, not only at risk to their persons, but also to their insurance, given the prevailing conditions on the Trent at the time. This was validated by the cruise diaries and logs of more than just Patrick and Elaine who are now writing up the content of the meeting with Paul Griffin, asking that those tickets now be rescinded in the hope of avoiding further hassle for them. Once in the 'process' it seems it rolls ever onward, and as I previously stated, from little acorns mighty oak trees grow and a boater can quickly find they are now at Section 8 level!

Questioning the 'process'

During the meeting, and whilst matching Elaine and Patrick's log with his own, Paul Griffin told Patrick and Elaine that he would have given the go-ahead on the issue of those tickets the couple were complaining about. CaRT's GPS and physical sightings decreed this.

He went on to explain that physical checks on the canals were carried out on a circa fortnightly basis, on a river circa monthly. Here it should though be noted that once a physical sighting of a boat's position has been logged by a Data Checker, the computer then replicates that sighting until such time as a Data Checker follows up with a further sighting. Sadly CaRT's computer record does not give any indication as to whether that boat has moved between those physical sightings, nor does it show any reason for it being at that point at the second sighting. In the case of Patrick and Elaine as previously said their 'overstaying' was as a result of floods, engine breakdown and illness, fully explained to the Newark office at the time.

(Worth a mention here. When Patrick and Elaine found themselves forced to move on very high water resulting in engine breakdown, Elaine rang the Newark office to ask for help. Elaine tells me she was terrified. She says she told the Newark office that she had seen CaRT personnel with a boat in the vicinity, yet was told there was no-one available to assist!)

Misuse of powers plus intimidation?

Also during the meeting, and in line with what Patrick and Elaine (and others) were telling me, I asked Paul Griffin if the attachment of Section 8 and 13 Notices to early tickets issued by CaRT were now being deployed system wide. Paul Griffin said they were. He said this was to 'show' boaters what could happen now that they had come on CaRT's radar. That this was a misuse of the powers given to the Trust and could in fact be construed as intimidation by those licensed boaters in receipt of those Notices, legally applicable only to unlicenced boats, Paul Griffin strongly refuted.

Best avoid rivers

Elaine and Patrick cruise the Trent once a year to visit family. At the opening of the meeting Paul Griffin had referred to over 2,000 miles of waterways, and suggested that those continuously cruising 'knowing rivers flood' would perhaps have been better to have used the canals. In all fairness Paul then said this wasn't what he'd said but nevertheless the conversation did continue to veer in this direction! Unfortunately and as was pointed out to Paul Griffin, there is no canal in the area that could facilitate the visiting of Patrick and Elaine's family.

Rivers flood—canals freeze!

In conclusion, perhaps here there is a need to remind CaRT that only Mother Nature can decree when a river is to flood, or indeed (perish the thought) that a canal is to freeze! Also that we boaters are not a 'naughty' and 'untruthful' lot and would not from choice, regardless of whether CaRT believes us or not, ever wish to 'overstay' on a dangerously flooding river, or even on an icebound canal!