Tony Dunkley

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.

You're quite right and thanks for the thought, but if this attempt in the "Abolish Tony Dunkley Campaign" doesn't work then the nasty little gang within C&RT whose wrath I have incurred will just invent some other heinous crime for me to commit.This time they have tried it hung on the back of C&RT's desire to make boats with Home Moorings abide by CC'er rules . . next time, who knows, but you can be sure they will dream up something.

The printout has been presented by C&RT as an item of written evidence and as such, what matters is what it does say, not what it should say. Not that this will be of any consequence in any future Court hearings because, as Allan Richards has correctly pointed out, it's irrelevant to C&RT's Injunction Application anyway.

In reality, BW/C&RT have never Invoiced me for my home mooring at Barton-in-Fabis. There is no basis on which they can charge, so they can't invoice for it because it's private land rented from the Riparian owner. Only on this quite strange printout do there exist any BW/C&RT Charges for mooring at Barton-in-Fabis. The truth of the matter is that this document is nothing more than a mistake, produced in the course of an "evidence" manufacturing process, and then foolishly included in their evidence for the Court, by a group of aggressive, vindictive and, above all, stupid people within C&RT who are determined to have their revenge on me for past refusals to comply with their unreasonable, unlawful and, frequently `made up on the spot` demands and instructions. C&RT's wish to impose CC'ing rules on boats when away from their home moorings presented them with what they saw as an ideal opportunity.

Not at all surprising. Logging boats when moving could deprive Stuart Garner and his Enforcement Gang colleagues of opportunities to accuse people of overstaying and slapping tickets, or worse, on their boats. Maybe it's not C&RT's Boat Logging System that's unfit for purpose, but the C&RT staff who use it. A really helpful bit of information was that. Thanks very much.

Do you think C&RT may try to charge me for the waterspace that gets muddied?

So, what does it actually mean?

Well alright then, yes I am . . . but not belligerently.

I'm sorry you think I am being belligerent . . I thought I was being fairly congenial today. The printout (piece of paper) does make sense to me . . . it's the content that's misleading and incorrect, not the way it's set out. I am somewhat reluctant to press C&RT further on the meaning of the TE code (in the other printouts) for fear of appearing belligerent.

No, I was saying that BW had no right to charge me, or anyone else for that matter, for mooring to property or land they do not own, but if you would like me to argue against the legality of EOG mooring charges, then I am quite happy to do so. BW/C&RT's powers to charge for mooring are no different from any other property/land owners. They are entitled to charge for vessels moored to (or against) their land but not for vessels moored to land not owned by them. They justify their EOG charges by claiming that the charge is for the waterspace at the mooring. This is rubbish, and they know it is. Any Licenced boat is paying to use/occupy its own waterspace by paying it's Licence Fee, and occupies that same waterspace whether it is underway or moored. Being charged for waterspace at a mooring is, in fact, being charged for the same thing twice.

Yes, I've kept all the BW invoices for my mooring in Holme Lock Cut, and the Environment Agency have provided me with a drawing/map of all their land there.

I don't know why the report (or printout as I call it) was produced. It came to me amongst a pile of paperwork labelled as an Exhibit for use as evidence against me in Court. I've asked C&RT and Shoosmiths to explain it, and what it is meant to prove. C&RT pretend not to understand what I am asking and Shoosmiths say that they included it on C&RT's instructions, but they don't know what it proves either.As someone who knows very little about computers(this laptop I have had since last April is my first one)the printout is, to me, just a sheet of paper with a lot of misleading info and outright lies printed on it, produced by C&RT's computer system. Having said that, I am very pleased that they have put it in as evidence, it certainly does me no harm, but it's high fictional content does need explaining and that is why I asked the question that began this thread.

In response to Post 253 NilesMI said : - There may be a point or two in there which is relevant to the enforcement action, but for the life of me, I can't see them becuase it just reads like a rant. You are quite right, it wasn't at all good. I had tried to keep it short and in doing so had cut out too much info. See if you think the second attempt is a bit better . . it's had a fairly extensive editing . . here it is : - No they haven't said that, but they have ducked answering any questions I have asked about the printout. As for any Invoices for moorings(lines with ZM code) . . these have never existed for moorings at Barton-in-Fabis because C&RT don't own or control any moorings there. However, they do charge for moorings in Holme Lock Cut and the amounts shown on the lines with the ZM Codes in 2011 are mooring charges I paid BW for a mooring in Holme Lock Cut at that time. The figures shown for other years against a ZM code and Barton-in-Fabis are pure fiction. This printout shows financial transactions that never happened whilst omitting to show some transactions that did take place, but that BW/C&RT have a couple of reasons for preferring to keep quiet about. Firstly, for a considerable amount of the time they claim I was overstaying at Holme Lock VMs, I was moored on, and paying them for, a Long Term Mooring elswhere in Holme Lock Cut. Secondly, that same Long Term Mooring I was paying BW for has now been confirmed by the Environment Agency to belong to them. There is no agreement in place between BW/C&RT and the EA for C&RT to charge for boats mooring to EA land in Holme Lock Cut, and there is no lawful basis for C&RT to charge anyone for mooring to EA owned land.

Don't think I need to shed any blinkers. If you can't follow what I said in Post 253 then it's probably because you don't want to believe what is there. I can understand that. C&RT are sometimes beyond belief, so it's not really a surprise if what's said about them sounds a bit unbelievable too.

No they haven't said that, but they have ducked answering any questions I have asked about the printout. As for any Invoices for moorings(lines with ZM code) . . these have never existed for moorings at Barton-in-Fabis because C&RT don't own or control any moorings there. However, they do charge for moorings in Holme Lock Cut and the amounts shown on the lines with the ZM Codes in 2011 are mooring charges I paid BW for a mooring in Holme Lock Cut at that time. The figures shown for other years against a ZM code and Barton-in-Fabis are pure fiction. This printout shows financial transactions that never happened whilst omitting to show some transactions that did take place, but that BW/C&RT have a couple of reasons for preferring to keep quiet about. Firstly, for a considerable amount of the time they claim I was overstaying at Holme Lock VMs, I was moored on, and paying them for, a Long Term Mooring elswhere in Holme Lock Cut. Secondly, that same Long Term Mooring I was paying BW for has now been confirmed by the Environment Agency to belong to them. There is no agreement in place between BW/C&RT and the EA for C&RT to charge for boats mooring to EA land in Holme Lock Cut, and there is no lawful basis for C&RT to charge anyone for mooring to EA owned land.

No Mike, you have completely misunderstood me. I am here looking for people to disagree with.

That would seem to make it even more nonsensical. There are dates entered on every line giving Barton-in-Fabis as the home mooring back to 2003. If the printout was intended to show the Functional Location at print date only, it should leave the FuncLoc column blank for every other date (line)and not print incorrect and misleading information just to fill the space up.