Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

NigelMoore

Member
  • Content Count

    4134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

NigelMoore last won the day on October 15 2017

NigelMoore had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

648 Excellent

4 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

10017 profile views
  1. Before my time, so can't speak with authority and I have never managed to verify it, but a couple of ladies came visiting my boatyard years ago, who had grown up as little girls in a boat in Workhouse Dock. They told me they would hide out when the film crews came down, to watch episodes of "The Z cars" being filmed there with John Thaw. Plenty of filming went on from time in MSO as well, in my time, but I cannot recall what for.
  2. The boat hasn't managed to get out of Brentford yet, which is where the first episode started. They keep coming back to it, filmed from slightly different viewpoints but still in the same bit above the Gauging Locks. Last episode had them to and fro-ing around the Commerce Road overhangs of the 1960's warehouses. They are meant to be heading to London from Birmingham!
  3. Good to know somebody noticed!
  4. Huhne & Price was “Perverting the Course of Justice”, not fraud - as you say. There does not need to be an actual loss with a charge of fraud, but there needs to be at least an intention to cause loss to another (or subject them to that risk), or to make a gain for themselves or another. My post was responding to chewbacka’s point that in the instance cited no loss was incurred (or indeed intended), hence a charge of fraud would be unlikely to succeed against either side. Unless one was to charge CaRT with intending to cause loss to the new owner who had actually paid to register himself as the new owner, on knowingly false grounds of liability.
  5. Why? It is clear enough; the 1971 Act created the summary offence for lack of registration, and the 1976 Byelaws created the offence for failure to licence. I would suggest rather, that it was CaRT putting themselves before the horse you speak of, in failing to take the directly appropriate measures provided for in the relevant legislation, instead of favouring s.8.
  6. It was an element in the case, but not the basic problem - Leigh was still the owner at the time of the s.8 when he was, he claimed, in the process of getting a lew licence. The reason the matter entered the case at all was down to the amount claimed as owed by Leigh, when for 3 of the relevant 4 years it had been another person's responsibility - CaRT were demanding 3 years of licence fees from the wrong person, though monies were still owed for the current year, if one accepts that registration was required in the first place, which was the main area of contention.
  7. It seems a little unclear which side it is suggested has acted fraudulently- the boater for a merely contrived sale, or CaRT for acting against the wrong person. I can't see CaRT in such an instance being guilty of fraud, rather than acting inappropriately against the wrong person. Arguable I suppose, but a bit tenuous for either side, because whoever has re-registered the boat has caused CaRT no loss (rather the opposite), just illustrated the flaws in the use of s.8.
  8. That's a useful page thanks Paul.
  9. 10 years maximum if convicted on indictment; 1 year maximum if it is a summary conviction. Haven't managed to discover the test for determining which process to follow.
  10. Easy enough to check online with the Land Registry if you wanted to be sure, cost £6 for title deed & Plan. If CaRT do have the bank registered to them, then you could forget about the letter you received. Or at least put it out of mind as a concern - just write back pointing out that it is nothing to do with them, enclosing a copy of the title. https://eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/eservices/FindAProperty/view/QuickEnquiryInit.do?_ga=2.116602374.1411508985.1571673444-766559973.1551446333
  11. I have no recollection of there being any evidence that canal companies ever had empowerment to compulsorily purchase land on both sides of any canal (though exceptions may exist). Invariably they were given powers to purchase land for ‘canal and towpath’ to a specified maximum width, and it was never in their interests to purchase a strip of land on the offside, or to narrow the canal element for the (then) purposeless ends of having an offside strip. Many canal companies were in fact keen to minimise their land holdings, or to claim lack of exclusive ownership, because of the liability for rates – as established in many enabling Acts. Numerous court cases arose during the 19thC where some such companies denied liability for ‘poor rates’ and tithes on the basis that they had insufficient exclusive occupation of lands to qualify for the rates. Some succeeded, some not. They would never have claimed ownership of any land surplus to their requirements, thus increasing the potential rates burden. So called ‘ransom strips’ are a modern invention from the last years of BW, as they increasingly sought means of acquiring mooring control of the offside banks that had been prohibited under the enabling Acts, and sought to have such strips registered as in their ownership based purely on the fictional assertions of Mills & Co. In some places they will no doubt have succeeded in obtaining registration, though that will usually have been where the offside land had never been registered in the first place. However, I have also heard of instances where farmers had been glad enough to concur in having such strips removed from their titles, upon being faced with potential charges and responsibilities alleged to be owed to BW if ownership was retained by the farmers. This is a different issue from the ability of canal companies to purchase offside land beyond the limits for canal and towpath, in order to build wharves and the like. In those instances the compulsory empowerment usually specified area limits also, though the companies could naturally treat with owners on a purely voluntary basis, where the intention to make profitable use of offside land was seen as a justifiable incentive for the purchase. Such offside land ownership is naturally very localised of course, having nothing to do with any nominal, continuous canalside strip ownership. Regardless, respecting the exhibited letter, if CaRT were registered with title to any claimed 'ransom strip' in the case in question, then Interguide Management Ltd would have no grounds for concern - or indeed any grounds for involvement at all - because nobody would be moored to their property.
  12. I garnered the impression that the plastic boat man was content with his name & shame tactic of some months back; it is others who have reacted to the wider publication of the video since then.
  13. The courts will never get clogged up with such incidents, because the police and CPS will not undertake such cases. If the damage is less than £500 the police will usually refuse to take it on, while the CPS will assess whether the damage caused, even if considerably more than that, is less than the cost to them of prosecuting. It has become a book-keeping exercise rather than seeking justice for the sake of public safeguarding. It then comes down to whether anybody else feels strongly enough about it, and most will not, even if they knew they could do this. The alternative option the police do have is to issue a formal caution, which would be of some value in a case such as this, although a waste of time with most routine offenders.
  14. Still time to prosecute, if anybody cares to. The time limit for prosecution is 6 months from the time of any offence of criminal damage under s.1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, whether intentional, or simply being reckless as to the consequence of the action, and this incident was only back in June. The physical damage (if any) would be slight enough to classify the alleged offence as a summary one. Moreover if, as is arguable, it involved being "reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered", the alleged offence would be indictable, with no such time limit.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.