Tony Dunkley

Are the two dimensions you're thinking of a wide range of tall stories?

This really does depend on what that purpose may be. It has been acknowledged by C&RT that it can produce 'records' that say what they want said, as in this extract from an e-mail . . . From Sarina Young [C&RT FOFI officer] - "To explain, the information held within our corporate systems can be extracted and displayed in many different ways depending on the reason or purpose it is needed." Could this be an early example of the new 'openness' as proclaimed by Mr Parry?

I am not all that sure it's themselves they're trying to convince, but you are quite right about how it feels when trying to have a useful and sensible conversation with them. A few days ago, someone fairly new to the joys of talking to and dealing with C&RT described the experience as something akin to attempting to nail sh*t to a wall.

Spot on . . . the inside and outside referred to the two sides of the cut, inside being the towpath. Instead of port and starboard as the two sides of a boat, canal boatmen (and women) always spoke of chimney side or sidebed side. Two particular pieces of line were also called strings( fore-end and stern, more usually pronounced as 'starn) and when not in use the butty's stern string was generally in a small diameter coil over the T-stud, while the motor's was in a similar sized coil on the cabin top, just ahead of the can, which incidentally was itself hard up against the chimney and not part way down the cabin top as frequently seen these days.

That is disappointing . . . I can't imagine why.

Do you think I should apply for the job?

Yes, you should be OK doing that Alan, particularly when you consider that C&RT have just invited some bloke with an unlicenced mobile houseboat to cruise around for free in that area.

When C&RT bring their Place Map into use, it could possibly help to reveal more about the defects in the Boat/Location Logging System.

That actually reads as if you may be agreeing with me, and, if so, it could land you in big trouble. I have been told that C&RT read these Forums.

No, in complete contrast with their approach to maintenance and repairs their enthusiasm for the surveillance of boat owners knows no bounds.

C&RT personnel will identify him by the state of his knees.

Yes that's true, but have you bothered to consider why you are only seeing one side? Do you think abuse of powers and inappropriate and money wasting litigation that could result in someone being made homeless are not important? PS. Full marks for a bit of really nauseating grovelling. I don't think you'll be getting any "tickets" on your boat for a while.

. . . or one more opportunity to show his true colours. He had 3 weeks to respond to that in private, and had been patronisingly dismissive in replies to previous moderately worded and very unthreatening communications.

Thanks for your good wishes. C&RT never actually went as far as accusing me of permanent mooring near Holme Lock, but they claimed "overstaying", and then, in effect, withdrew that themselves by admitting in writing that I had been "moving after 14 days".

Thanks for that, most people seem to think I should be a lot more tactful. It's already started really. There was a very short Hearing on 4 July 2014 when C&RT attempted to get a Declaratory Relief (boat removal) and Injunction Application past the Court by means of an inappropriate County Court Procedure (for uncontested Applications), the paperwork for which was served on me by their Solicitors without a Response Form or the explanatory Notes for Defendant. The outcome expected by C&RT, as they confidently told me before going in to the Court ( they've done this before) was that they would be granted their Relief and Injunction and I would not be permitted to offer any kind of defence. I won't go into the reasons here, but this time it didn't work. The Judge made an Order for the case to be transferred to the correct procedure and time for me to prepare and file a Defence. A preliminary Hearing in the form of a Case Management Conference has been fixed for 1 September 2014. As far as trying to sort it out with C&RT, well I applied to renew my Licence in June (the unlawfully revoked one expired on 30 June anyway) but C&RT refused to issue a new one (unlawfully) and then on 23 and 28 July 2014 they sent the e-mails (the ones on Post 367) inviting me to cruise around in my unlicenced houseboat in order to convince them that I would comply with their T&C's in future and that they should issue me with a new Licence. Since the two e-mails there has been nothing but a brief notification that they need more time to reply to my response and the prohibition on C&RT staff communication with me, imposed by CEO Richard Parry in April, remains in place.

Yes, some weeks ago, but they don't assist non-members. I've asked for a Membership Form, but I'm still waiting for it.

You obviously haven't noticed, but it's C&RT that's looking for a fight, and in one of their very rare successes, they've found one.

I'm glad you don't like it . . anything that met with your approval would lead to me having serious concerns about it. Just as a matter of interest, can you tell me which part of you has been boiled?

Yes, I agree. The letter copied below was sent to CEO, Richard Parry on 23 July 2014. So far, there has been no response. The e-mail exchange seems even more strange when read in conjunction with, particularly the first paragraph, of this. The C&RT Statement referred to below is their EO's Witness Statement for the Court proceedings. Mr. Parry, I am curious as to whether or not you are aware of, and agree with, why it has been deemed to be necessary to remove me and the boat I live on from all waterways under C&RT control, in order to , and I quote from a C&RT statement to be used against me in Court . . . " to enable C&RT to comply with it's statutory duty to ensure that the inland waterways controlled by C&RT are safe, well managed and properly conserved." The implications of this remarkable statement are, of course, that my continued presence, beyond this the 50th year since I began living and working on this country's waterways, will result in those very same waterways becoming unsafe, mis-managed and falling into decline . . . something a great many of your boat owning customers believe to have already occurred under C&RT's stewardship. It may be that you sincerely believe that my continued presence constitutes a very real and serious threat to the future of our waterways . . . after all you will be claiming this in open Court having already submitted it in writing. If, however, you really think, as everyone who has seen it up to now does, that it is one of the most ridiculous statements ever made, then the question arises of why you are intending to rely upon it in Court as credible evidence? Please refrain from time wasting and stalling by responding with any red herrings such as . . . "sub judice so we can't comment" . . . or any thing similar. I am not asking questions about the expensive, unwarranted, disproportionate and legally inappropriate action that C&RT is taking against me, but I am questioning whether C&RT and the personnel responsible for it's day to day operation and administration are, in fact, fit for purpose. If this e-mail is ignored or your reply is ether evasive or in any other way as unsatisfactory as your previous responses to matters I have raised, then I will ask the same questions, and related others, in the form of an open letter. Signed A.K.Dunkley.

Could it be the same person, now employed by C&RT?

Someone has just confirmed it's OK to post C&RT e-mails addressed to me, so here are the ones I referred to in Post 334 suggesting that I cruise around in my unlicenced Houseboat. C&RT to me dated 23 July 2014 :- Dear Mr Dunkley Thank you for your email below. If the current absence of your boat from the vicinity of Holme Lock is an indication that you are starting to cruise that is encouraging. As we explained to you at court on the 4th of July 2014, our interest is in being satisfied that you cruise when you navigate your boat away from your home mooring on inland waterways controlled or managed by CRT. If you are keeping a record of your boats movement and the short periods of not moving your boat whilst on CRTs inland waterways and you provide us with these details, we can take these into account together with our own sightings to satisfy ourselves that you are cruising. It would be as helpful to you as it would be to us if you informed us of the current location of your boat. We would have to monitor the situation over a period and would have to have your assurance that you would not be reverting back to what has been the pattern of movement that led to your licence being revoked. We would only consider suspending the enforcement action if there is demonstrable evidence that you are willing to cruise. This could then progress to the issue of a new licence. C&RT to me dated 28 July 2014 :- Dear Mr Dunkley I refer to your email below. Since your boat moved from the Holme Lock vicinity from 17th July, we have not seen the boat as yet. We endeavour to check our inland waterways every 14 days. If in the course of those checks we do note over a period that any specific boat is not complying with the licence terms and conditions then the enforcement process may be followed; this is what happened in the case of Halcyon Daze resulting in the action we have taken to date. As our licence terms and conditions apply to the inland waterways we own or control, it follows that our checks are confined to those inland waterways. We do not check sections of rivers and waterways that are not within our ownership and control and we do not check marinas or other moorings where boats are moored off the waterway. As stated in my email of 23 July 2014, if we find from our monitoring data going forward that over a period of time Halcyon Daze is cruising when it is on the inland waterway and not overstaying during stops whilst cruising then we would be willing to suspend the enforcement action. If you wish to provide your own evidence of the movement of your boat whilst on the waterway (such as a movement log which may include photographs), we would consider it together with our own monitoring records. The provision of your own supporting evidence is a matter for you, you are not obliged to provide it, but if you wish to show that you are now complying with our rules for using the inland waterways, then you may take the view that your supporting evidence may be of assistance to you. My reply on 30 July 2014 . . . as yet unanswered :- Thank you for your e-mail of 28 July 2014 ref. the above vessel. The contents of both this and your e-mail of 23 July 2014 do, however, raise some concerns which I think must be addressed before we can progress. In the Witness Statement of S.A.Garner dated 9 June 2014 it is stated in Para.12 . . . "The Defendant's boat ( Halcyon Daze I.No.52721) . . . . . . . . . which is not used for navigation falls within the definition of a houseboat". Is it not somewhat inconsistent that you are now, in respect of the same vessel, referring to "cruising" and " that you would not be reverting back to what has been the pattern of movement that led to your licence being revoked"? The Canal & River Trust seems to have adopted it's predecessors standard working procedure of saying whatever happens to suit their purposes at the time, regardless of the subsequent self contradictory statements that inevitably arise from such practices. I do not, however, propose to dwell upon this point as there are two potentially far more serious matters arising from your suggestions. Despite complying with all requirements of Section 17(3)© of the 1995 BW Act you have refused to renew the Licence for the above vessel and it is, therefore,currently unlicenced, by C&RT's own doing. In March 2014 C&RT were alerted ( by me) to Clauses in the Terms & Conditions in the Policies of some Boat Insurers that cover was conditional on the vessel having a current Navigation Authority Licence. You are now inviting me to use my boat without a current Licence regardless of the possibility that the vessel may not be covered by Insurance as a direct consequence of C&RT's unlawful refusal to issue a Licence. On page one of your General Terms and Conditions for Boat Licences it says . . . "Please note that it is also a criminal offence to use or keep a boat on our waterways without a licence". Do C&RT intend to grant permission ( in writing ) for me to use my unlicenced, and, due solely to C&RT, possibly uninsured boat to cruise around enough to persuade you that you really should renew my Licence? Signed A.K.Dunkley. I know this is looking a bit off topic, but, maybe not. At the start of this thread I asked if C&RT's Boat/Location Logging System was Fit for Purpose. Perhaps I should have widened the scope of the question to include the C&RT staff who make use of it.

Look at Post 340. No formal notice was ever sent.

Yes, exactly that. This from C&RT letter in response to my request for specific reason for revoking Licence ; - " I reiterate, as stated in my letter to you of 10th April 2014 (a copy of which is being sent with this letter for ease of reference) that the licence we issued for 12 months from 1st July 2013 was validly revoked by us on 3rd January 2014. Your licence was revoked because of your failure to comply with our terms and conditions. We issued the licence on 1st July 2013 on the basis that you had a home mooring. You claimed that your home mooring was at Barton-in- Fabis. However we decided to revoke your licence as your boat has remained at Holme Lock visitor mooring or in the vicinity of that location. Consequently whilst away from the home mooring your boat has not been moored for short periods whilst cruising as required by clauses 2.1 and 3.1 of the terms and conditions."

I have not become involved in this because of any aims of any sort. C&RT initiated this nonsense so you really should be asking them that question.

It certainly is rather a muddle, and C&RT themselves seemed to be more than a little uncertain of what they needed to accuse me of. In the end they settled for none of the four options you have listed, but decided that I was not complying with Clauses 2.1 and 3.1 of the Licence T&C's by mooring while not cruising. The correspondence in which they have attempted to explain and justify this reads a bit like part of a script from the TV sitcom Yes Minister and they have been careful not to include it in their evidence for the Court, opting instead to present me as an unlicenced Houseboat. In an even more bizarre follow up to C&RT initiating Court proceedings, they have now suggested that if I demonstrate to them that I am prepared, in future, to comply with their Licence T&C's by "cruising" with my unlicenced (House)boat, then they will consider renewing my Licence and dropping the "enforcement" proceedings. If anyone can confirm that I would not be infringing copyright law by posting the relevant correspondence on this Forum, then I would be pleased to do so.