Jump to content

Tony Dunkley

Member
  • Posts

    3298
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Everything posted by Tony Dunkley

  1. It's very evident that C&RT continue to feel it necessary to keep the company identity and occupation/authority details of the four anonymous "Water Bailiffs" who boarded and seized "Planet" a closely guarded secret. E-mail exchange with regard to these sledgehammer, crowbar and boltcutter wielding men of mystery from this morning :~ FAO. Thami Nomvete. On 27 September 2016 I wrote to the Trust's Chantelle Seaborn, the Waterways Manager directly responsible for engaging the personnel who forcibly boarded and seized "Planet" on Monday 19 September 2016, saying that we had reason to believe that the forcible seizure of the vessel was a criminal act on the part of the Canal and River Trust and that the unidentified, and unidentifiable, personnel who boarded and broke in to the vessel on the morning of Monday 19 September 2016 were not authorized Officers of the Court, but employees of either the C&RT or contractors engaged by the C&RT. I now refer you to the second paragraph of your E-mailed letter dated 28 September 2016 and timed at 1550hrs. wherein, in response to my enquiry as to the authority to act as Enforcement Agents and the identity of these anonymous personnel you limit yourself to saying " The Vessel was properly and professionally secured for removal and the contractors, and bailiffs engaged by the Trust to carry out and manage the process of removing the vessel acted professionally and lawfully." I am not satisfied with that response and I am giving you a second opportunity to provide a more detailed and truthful answer to my enquiry. Before responding, I suggest that you give consideration to the possibility that I may already be in possession of the information requested. Signed A. K. Dunkley (Owner's Representative) and the response :~ Dear Mr Dunkley. Thank you for your email. There is nothing further to add to what was stated in my email of 28th September and in the email of Lucy Barry from Shoosmiths, which was attached to my email of 28th September. Kind Regards Thami Nomvete Solicitor Legal
  2. Whether or not this ends up before a Judge is something that C&RT can influence to their benefit, but the final decision rests with the vessel's owner. If they return "Planet" to Liverpool and make appropriate reparations, then it may not do so, if they don't do both of those things, then it most certainly will.
  3. I couldn't agree more, . . . vapouring on about safety to create an illusion of diligence is the all too common 'red herring' resort of companies and organizations indulging in activities they know to be questionable, and C&RT wasted no time in introducing it into the dubious goings on in Liverpool last week. C&RT most certainly were not entitled to seize and take semi-permanent, long term possession of the vessel, or to take it to Sharpness via the Irish Sea and Bristol Channel. The preliminaries, procedures and restrictions applicable to such activities in respect of another's property are unambiguously defined and laid down in the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 and the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, in neither of which are the provisions and stipulations open to or in need of any form of 'interpretation'.
  4. That C&RT have laid themselves open to challenge under the Unfair Contracts Act 1977 is not the essential point. They are in dire trouble with regard to the seizure and their stated intentions post seizure, simply because their actions would have been lawful ONLY in the circumstance of their Berthing Agreement T&C's prevailing over statute, . . . which is why they have now brought Shoosmiths in to try and bluster and bullshit their way out of the hole they've dug themselves into, . . . like this :~ E-mail letter, Wednesday 28 September 2016 at 1256hrs :~ Dear Mr Dunkley As Canal & River Trust confirmed to you by email yesterday, we are instructed to act on their behalf in relation to this matter. Mr Alan Roberts entered into a licence with Canal & River Trust for the berthing of his vessel, “Planet Light Vessel” (“the Vessel”) dated 15 April 2014 (“the Agreement”). Pursuant to section 10.1 of the Agreement, upon termination of the licence (whether by effluxion of time or otherwise) Mr Roberts was required to remove the Vessel from Liverpool Waterfront, failing which Canal & River Trust are entitled (amongst other things) to sell the Vessel (and property thereon) without prior notice to Mr Roberts. Further, it permits Canal & River Trust, at its sole discretion, to determine and deduct the costs and expenses of and incidental to such sale (including the costs and expenses of storage and insurance pending sale) from the proceeds of sale. In the event of a breach of the Agreement, section 8.1 of the Agreement permits Canal & River Trust to take possession of the Vessel and/or to move the Vessel and/or to take such other action of whatsoever nature in relation to the Vessel as the Harbour Manager may in his sole discretion determine, without prior notice to Mr Roberts. Your email is therefore misconceived; Canal & River Trust have not removed the Vessel pursuant to a lien as you state and therefore the Torts (Interference with goods) Act 1977, and requirement to serve a notice thereunder, is not relevant. Canal & River Trust have taken possession of the Vessel pursuant to their contractual rights under the Agreement, following Mr Roberts’ breach of the Agreement by failing to remove the Vessel following termination of the Agreement; Notice was given to him to remove the Vessel in letters dated 15 April 2016 and 5 August 2016, even though no such requirement is necessary under the Agreement. No prior court order is required. It is therefore denied that Canal & River Trust have acted unlawfully. Yours sincerely Lucy Barry Associate Solicitor-Advocate SHOOSMITHS LLP
  5. It's somewhat misleading to say that I 'raised' his 'health problems'. My mention of them was merely a response to someone asking " does this man actually do anything ?", and I said something along the lines of ; yes, he suffers from Polymyalgia Rheumatica and the debilitating side-effects of the drugs used to treat it.
  6. Because neither my concerns, nor this topic, are about how the owner of the vessel has conducted himself and his business. My view is that an awful lot of what he's done is pretty much indefensible, and I've told him so, but my attention is, and always has been, focused entirely on the illegal and complete bog-up that C&RT have made of handling a simple dispute over outstanding berthing fees.
  7. E-mail sent to C&RT on Monday 26 September at 1813hrs :- F.A.O. Head of Legal - Jackie Lewis and CEO - Richard Parry. I am authorized and appointed by the owner, Mr Alan Roberts, to act on his behalf in any and all matters concerning the above named vessel. Following removal by the Trust from it's waters in Canning Dock, Liverpool, and into the River Mersey on Tuesday last 20 September 2016, "Planet" was taken, on the instructions of the Trust, via the Irish Sea, Bristol Channel and River Severn, to other waters under it's ownership and control in Sharpness Dock off the River Severn on Saturday 24 September 2016. Prior to the forcible seizure and removal of the vessel from Canning Dock in Liverpool the Trust had stated, in writing, it's intention to, sell the vessel as a means of recovering outstanding berthing fees, to which would be added the cost of removing the vessel from it's waters. Given that removal and debt recovery were the stated objectives, the Trust, as owners and Harbour Authority of Canning Dock had two different courses of action available to achieve those objectives. The first option would have been to remove the vessel from Canning Dock to the nearest safe berth elsewhere on the River Mersey or into another Dock under other ownership, and then to have obtained a Debt Judgment, and a Writ of Execution if necessary, to recover any and all monies owed. The second option would have been to move the vessel from it's existing berth to another suitable and secure berth within Canning Dock, thus remaining able to exercise a lawful lien over it in respect of monies owed before and until subsequent and final removal from the Dock after all debts were cleared. It appears, however, that the Trust has taken upon itself to pursue both of these either/or and mutually exclusive options without paying any heed whatsoever to the differing preliminaries and procedures the law demands in respect of either one of them. With regard to the present unlawful possession and impoundment in Sharpness Dock and the stated intention to sell or otherwise dispose of Mr Robert's ship, the Trust is hereby served notice as follows :- 1) The owner [Alan Roberts] of the ex-light vessel "Planet" believes that in lacking both the benefit of a Court Order or Writ of Execution and the presence of an officer of the Court, the forcible boarding and seizure of his ship by employees and contractors of the Canal and River Trust was wholly unlawful, as is the continuing possession and impoundment of the vessel in Sharpness Dock. It therefore follows that the Trust, as voluntary bailee, whether lawful or not, is bound by clause 7(1) in Part II of Schedule I of the Torts (Interference with Goods Act) 1977, and obliged to refrain from either giving Notice under S.12(3) of the same Act, or selling or otherwise disposing of the vessel until the dispute as to any sums claimed by the Trust to be owing in respect of the vessel is resolved. 2) The Trust has no lawful authority or entitlement to retain possession of the above named vessel or to deny the owner or his representatives access to it. The owner therefore requires that the Trust, at it's own expense and risk, returns the vessel to [a location to be advised] on the River Mersey forthwith. Signed A.K.Dunkley (Owner's Representative) C&RT's reply on the following morning Tuesday 27 Sept 2016 at 1000hrs. Thank you for your email Mr Dunkley. We have instructed Shoosmiths to act on our behalf in this matter, and they will be responding to you directly on the matters raised in your letter. Kind Regards Thami Nomvete Solicitor Legal Up until this time the only lawyers involved in the C&RT dispute with the vessel's owner, other than those masquerading as such in C&RT's offices in Milton Keynes, had been Wilkin Chapman of Grimsby who for some reason best known themselves and C&RT, issued the Claim for unpaid berthing fees in the Northampton County Court.
  8. They are also relying on clause 10.1.2 in the Berthing Agreement : ~ 10.1.2 The Estate Owner shall be entitled at the Licensee's risk and expense but without prior notice to the Licensee and without being responsible for any loss or damage of whatsoever nature occasioned thereby to sell the Licensee's property at such time and in such manner as the Estate Owner in it's sole discretion determine and to deduct from the proceeds of sale the costs and expenses of and incidental to such sale (including the costs of storage and insurance pending such sale) PROVIDED ALWAYS that if the proceeds of sale are insufficient to meet such costs and expenses the Licensee shall forthwith pay or reimburse to the Estate Owner on demand the amount of any such shortfall ~ which is nothing less than a blatant attempt to circumvent the obligations and restrictions/limitations of a bailee under Section 12 of the 1977 Torts (Interference with Goods) Act by deceiving a licensee signatory to the Agreement into believing that such a passage of pseudo-legalistic twaddle prevails over statute.
  9. That is simply not so, . . . . other than mentioning that the Lightship owner is quite ill and affected by quite serious side-effects of medication, at no point on this forum or anywhere else have I said one single word in his defence, and what I have said has not been very complimentary, for example, this was post #186 : ~ "The owner of the Lightship has been guilty of a great many wrongs in the lead up to this regrettable state of affairs, as I have already said in an earlier post, and is undoubtedly the main architect of a good many of his own difficulties, but he is NOT the party to the dispute that is knowingly indulging in continuing illegal, or even criminal, activity in the course of it." As far as C&RT's side of things goes, the reason there's little to see on here is quite simply because there just isn't very much to it. I published pretty much all there was in post #110 some six days ago :~ " I can confirm that C&RT are not acting in pursuance of the S.8 powers in the 1983 Act. They are, however, relying on two clauses in the berthing agreement, one of which is a somewhat misleading overstatement of that which they legally may do under the provisions of the 1977 Torts Act.", and post #113 on the same day : ~ " Whilst the vessel in question remained in/on their waters within Canning Dock they were completely within their rights as bailees to exercise a lawful lien on it in respect of monies owed for berthing fees, but rather than do so, they elected to shoot themselves in both feet by converting what was lawful possession into an illegal seizure and removal accompanied by clear declaration, in the last paragraph of the following E-mail, of intent to use what had now become unlawful possession as a means of debt recovery." There are now some more E-mails and C&RT responses to post up tomorrow, establishing beyond question that they have been, and intend to continue, acting and behaving as if their Berthing Agreement T&C's prevail over statute.
  10. C&RT frequently introduce the 'trespass' element into their specious arguments, but in the context they raise it, it's a non-starter and they know it, and that's why they don't bother to pursue it any further. The motives behind taking possession of the ship and their intention to sell it were, rather foolishly on their part, disclosed some time ago.
  11. I'm sure you mean well in what you say, but I'm afraid you're thoughts and concerns are totally misplaced. I'll try to find time to respond more fully to what you've said, but I'm fairly over occupied with other matters at the moment. Meanwhile, I've managed to wind-up GD fairly well, but I obviously need to direct far more effort into annoying you
  12. That's probably why he employs someone to run it for him.
  13. The problem with that in this particular instance is that having been fed a load of guff by the C&RT Harbour Master and his phoney and devoid of documents 'Bailliffs', the police were standing nearby watching it all happening in the belief that they were there to prevent any breach of the peace occurring in the course of a lawful seizure process. To annoy you and Graham Davis.
  14. You won't have any trouble convincing me about that, . . . . I knew you would finish up agreeing with me eventually.
  15. Yes it would, . . . if a theft had been reported.
  16. The ship wouldn't have been on anyone else's property, . . . it would have been floating in the "Waterspace" that C&RT were vapouring on about in the 'piss off ' letters they sent to the owner.
  17. Which is precisely why it would have been the ideal place to impound the ship, . . . secure, and no public access.
  18. The matter is under investigation, specifically, what the two police officers attending were told with regard to the identity and credentials of those describing themselves as ''Water Bailiffs" and "Enforcement Officers", and the fact that none of these mysterious individuals, or the C&RT Harbour Master were in possession of a Court Order, or any other documentation.
  19. True, it was accessible to the general public whilst berthed on the wall alongside the Strand, but it wouldn't have been accessible if it had been moved 250 yards across the Dock and moored to the fenced off spit of land between the drydocks and the half'tide Dock.
  20. The owner hasn't, . . . . but I have.
  21. Which makes them very suitable for achieving C&RT's stated objective, . . . to get the ship off their property and waters, . . . something which taking it to Sharpness has singularly failed to achieve.
  22. It wouldn't be either of those, the owner is known to them and the ship most certainly isn't abandoned. There are 4 sets of circumstances stipulated for S.8 in the 1983 Act - sunk - stranded - abandoned - without lawful authority, . . . they could only go for the 'without lawful authority', . . . which would be very difficult to argue and justify, as well as highly amusing, when it's present location is where they put it themselves.
  23. I'm well aware of who owns Birkenhead and Garston, and that wasn't what I asked. As C&RT's primary objective was to put an end to the vessel 'trespassing' on their property, have they achieved that objective by taking it to Sharpness, and if not, what was the point of doing so ?
×
×
  • 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.