Tony Dunkley
-
Posts
3,298 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
14
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Tony Dunkley
-
-
I'm not sure how it helps to continue to focus on whether or not the action was legitimate in a context of recovering debts. Unless I have misread it (always possible!) the CaRT case is based on Trespass and it would be necessary to counter that action either by proving that the matter of Trespass as set out did not occur or that the action is not allowed in a case of Trespass ...... ....... .......
In reality there's no prospect of any kind of legal action with regard to trespass, unless that is, C&RT are even more stupid than I think they are, . . . . which is highly improbable.
It is, however, worth spending a few moments considering just how C&RT imagine they can argue that they've removed the vessel from their property, or waters, when in fact they haven't done any such thing. All they have done is to blow in excess of £20,000 on moving it from where they could not serve a Section 8 Notice on it to location where they can do so.
As I said a few posts back, it may possibly be their intention to Section 8 "Planet" now that they've 'un-removed' into the G&S.
-
I would ask the question were there Bailiffs amongst the people that boarded Planet and did the have a sealed Court Order or were they just acting as agents/employees of CRT.
If you look back a post or two, I think you'll find those questions have already been answered, and if there were any Certificated Bailiffs present, with or without any sort of Court Order, don't you think C&RT would be falling over themselves to prove it ?
-
I am a bit surprised that the person signing that email describes themselves as a Solicitor a search of the register does not reveal someone of the name being registered. However there is a Nomatamsanqa Sheila Nomvete registered at an employee of CRT.
It's the word 'Legal' added on after 'Solicitor' that amuses me, . . . perhaps it is intended to avoid any confusion about just what sort of soliciting is going on.
-
E-mail to C&RT earlier today :~Ex-Light Vessel "Planet" - LiverpoolF.A.O. Chantelle Seaborn.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.We have reason to believe that the forcible seizure of the above named vessel was a criminal act on the part of the Canal and River Trust [C&RT] and that the unidentified, and unidentifiable, personnel who boarded and broke into 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.It has been established that at the time of the forcible seizure no Writ of Execution or any other Court Order was in force in respect of the vessel.No paperwork of any sort was either shown to or left with the ship owners representative, who was forcibly prevented from re-boarding while the unidentified personnel, under the direction of C&RT's Harbour Master Andrew Goudie, proceeded to cut off locks and break into cabins and compartments.As a matter of some urgency we require the C&RT to provide the following :~* Copies of the documentation upon which the Trust relied as authorization to effect forcible entry into and to seize the ship.* Identification details, ie. employer, occupation and position, of all the personnel accompanying and assisting the Trust's Harbour Master.Hard copies to the ship's owner, Mr Alan Roberts, and E-mailed copies to me no later than 3.30pm this afternoon.Signed A.K.Dunkley.(Owners representative)_________________________________________________________C&RT's reply :~
Dear Mr Dunkley
I refer to my earlier email where I indicated to you that we have instructed Shoosmiths to act for the Trust in this matter.
Please send any future correspondence relating to Planet Lightship Vessel directly to me and to Lucy Barry at Shoosmiths.
With regard to the documents you have requested, the relevant documents are the Trust’s letters to Mr Roberts dated 15th April 2016 and 5th August 2016 and the berthing agreement. Mr Roberts already has copies of these documents in his possession.
I cannot see the relevance of your request for the identity of persons referred to in your email below.
As I stated in my email to you this morning Shoosmiths will be responding to the legal points you have raised.
Kind Regards
Thami Nomvete
Solicitor
Legal
_____________________________In light of the fact that C&RT told the two police officers who attended at their request that the personnel boarding and seizing the ship were "Bailiffs", the desire to preserve their anonymity displayed in the above E-mail, is somewhat odd, and would seem to merit further explanation.Could it be that the explanation lies in them introducing themselves to the man they ejected from the ship as "Water Bailiffs", . . . is it possible that C&RT pressed them into service having found them on the canal towpath presiding over a local fishing match ?
-
OK (and I paraphrase here), I believe that you said that their detention of the vessel was lawful, but the moment that it passed off their waterways it became unlawful and you suggested legislation that made that the case.
Could I invite you to expand upon that position;
- Could they lawfully detain the vessel?
- Could they lawfully move the vessel?
- Is there an extent of movement that makes it unlawful, and what is the trigger for it becoming unlawful?
- What legislative provision supports that view?
This particular episode of boat thieving differs considerably from C&RT's usual Section 8 antics in that S.8 of the 1983 Act is not applicable to the old Liverpool Docks now under C&RT control, and for that reason they have, correctly, refrained from issuing a Section 8 Notice in respect of "Planet" whilst it remained in Canning Dock.
With the vessel now on C&RT waters [the G&S] where S.8 of the 1983 Act is applicable, slapping a Section 8 Notice on it may well be their next move, and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that creating the opportunity to do just that was one of their reasons for moving it to Sharpness.
Deprived of their much loved and abused S.8 powers in Liverpool, C&RT had no option but to rely on their Berthing Agreement T&C's, one in particular of which is specific to seizing and selling vessels but not enforceble because it goes beyond what the law requires and permits, and a mix of non-waterways related, UK statute and common law, . . . and they've made a phenomenal bog-up of it !
If you go back to post #99, Nigel has already covered what you've asked for.
-
Perhaps with your superior knowledge on the matter you could enlighten on which of these two postings are accurate and which is a load of nonsense since they seem to be mutually exclusive.
In fact neither of the two posts you've quoted is ''a load of nonsense".
When the earlier post of the two was made on 21 September C&RT had NOT, at that time and date, obtained a Debt Judgment, or for that matter, any other sort of Judgment, against the owner of the vessel for arrears of berthing fees, or anything else. The sole inaccuracy in that post arises out of my belief, held in good faith at that time, that C&RT had yet to issue proceedings, and I have no problem in admitting that the information I had relied on was wrong.
However, as reflected in the second of the two posts quoted, the situation changed, as situations frequently do with the passage time, when on the afternoon of Friday 23 September a Judgment was entered in C&RT's favour at Liverpool County Court in the sum of £5686.65, being arrears of unpaid berthing fees.
What you describe as 'mutually exclusive', and apparently find so difficult to comprehend, are in reality nothing more than the by-products of the passage of time accompanied by a simple change of circumstances.
-
2
-
-
Perhaps you would expand upon why the Act you quote allows CRT to hold a lien, only provided it doesn't remove it from its property.
1) As it was, the vessel was occupying a prime mooring position, and not paying for it. CRT are being entirely reasonable in wishing to regain the use of that prime mooring, by moving the vessel to a place where it can be stored.
2) As Bailees, CRT have a duty to take care of the vessel, and can reasonably argue that they cannot keep the vessel secure where it was, but can keep it secure where it has been taken.
With regard to your first sentence, . . that isn't in fact what I said.
As for 1) No argument there at all, but there was/is a suitable and secure berth with no public access about 250 yards from where the ship was laying, alongside the narrow spit of land between the drydocks and the half-tide dock, in line with the disused gates to the river.
As for 2) In light of 1) above, they can't argue any such thing.
The cost of moving "Planet" to Sharpness was in excess of £20,000, . . . . the 250 yard tow across to the drydock side wall in the half-tide dock would have cost considerably less.
-
1
-
-
Hi guys I'm new to this forum so don't know if I'm posting this in the right place.
My lister engine is filling with fuel. I recently had a fuel leak in the head that filled the engine with fuel but had that fixed and it was OK for a while now I have fuel peeing out of the port side of the engine into the engine bay. Last time I started the engine it went mental for about a minute, throwing out lots of white smoke before it cut out and now turns over on the starter but won't fire up. Checked the engine oil but again the engine seems to be full of fuel.
Any ideas please?
If going " mental " means it over-revved uncontrollably, and now turns over easily at or above the normal cold cranking speed on the starter button, then you've had what's called a "runaway" and you're likely to have some resulting damage to the piston crown(s), cylinder head(s), and/or valves.
Turn the fuel supply off at the tank, get rid of the excess fuel / lube oil mixture out of the crankcase, and find out if there's still any compression on any or all three cylinders.
-
The C&RT letter copied below is one example of the only form of notice naming the vessel and the owner, served on either throughout the entire course of the dispute.
This poorly worded and somewhat incomprehensible document is the full extent of what C&RT relied on as their 'authority' to take possession of and sell the named vessel.
The forceful seizure of the vessel on Tuesday last was carried out by C&RT's Harbour Master, Andy Goudie, in the company of several other men equipped with bolt cutters, crowbars and sledgehammers. No form of identity was either shown or worn and they introduced themselves as "Water Bailiffs" and "Enforcement Officers" working for C&RT.
Once aboard they forcibly ejected the sole occupant, Gary Anderton, and proceeded to cut off locks and/or otherwise to open or break in to every compartment and cabin.
They have obtained a Debt Judgment in their favour in respect of a County Court Claim for unpaid berthing fees, but have not yet given the Court a final figure for the claimed amount. Neither, therefore, have they yet been able to apply for, or obtain, a Writ of Execution, or any other form of lawful enforcement of the Debt Judgment.
It is worthy of note that despite the emphasis in the 5 August letter on the imperative of removing the vessel from their 'waterspace' in Liverpool, C&RT then subsequently squander a vast sum of money [ I will know roughly how much fairly soon, and will post the figure] in NOT removing it from their 'waterspace' at all, but having it towed to Sharpness merely to berth it in a different bit of their 'waterspace' there.
____________________________
FAO: Mr Alan Roberts 5th August 2016
And/or
The Current Owner(s) or Person(s) in control of Planet Light Vessel in Canning Dock
(Two Copies of this Letter attached to Planet Light Vessel in Canning Dock addressed to persons named above )
Our Ref TNomvete
Your Ref
Dear Mr Roberts and/or the current owners or persons in control of Planet Light Vessel,RE. Planet Light at Canning Dock
On the 15th April 2016 the Canal & River Trust (the Trust) sent Mr Roberts a letter requiring the payment of unpaid berthing fees for the period 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015, and confirming that, since 1st January 2016, Planet Light (the Vessel) has been berthed without our permission over our waterspace at Canning Dock (‘our Waterspace’).
In the letter, the Trust requested the removal of the Vessel from our Waterspace and made it clear that if the Vessel was not removed by the 14th May 2016, the Trust would take steps to remove and sell it, and deduct and costs and expenses incurred in doing so from the proceeds of sale.
We are also extremely concerned that the Vessel has continued to trade as a bar notwithstanding that we have confirmed to you that trading is not permitted as you are no longer licensed to remain in our Waterspace. In addition we have had two separate reports from 4th June and 30th July 2016 of people jumping from the Vessel into our Waterspace. This is very dangerous and raises grave health and safety concerns for the Trust which we have reported the incidents to the licensing section of the Local Authority and to the police.
As any continuing use of the Vessel in our Waterspace is unauthorised, and given the serious health and safety concerns we have, this letter serves as notice that as from the date of this letter, you do not have our consent to enter in, or onto our Waterspace, until we have removed the Vessel. If you have made arrangements for the removal of the Vessel from our Waterspace yourself, you should contact Andrew Goudie, the harbour master, on 07920862741 or 01517096558.
If you enter onto or over any part of our Waterspace, and/or continue any trade at the Vessel, you will be doing so without our permission and will therefore be trespassing on the Trust’s land. To deal with such trespass, we will consider making a court application for an injunction to (1) prevent you or any other persons authorised by you (including without limitation, employees, business associates) from accessing our Waterspace until such time as we have removed the Vessel, and/or (2) to prevent you from continuing any trade from the Vessel.
We trust that we have made our position clear. We are making arrangements to remove the Vessel from our Waterspace. It is in your interests to remove the Vessel yourself, as you will be liable to us for any costs we incur associated with such removal and its storage elsewhere, and we may dispose of the Vessel to recover our costs.
Yours faithfully
Canal & River Trust
Thami Nomvete
Solicitor
-
.... ... ... ... .... .... , because with the facts so far in the public domain, the only transgressor is the owner of Planet.
There are links to news reports, and there has been a lot of wild speculation in this thread about what the owner of "Planet", Alan Roberts, has done to deserve having his ship stolen from him, but I don't see anything that comes near to being an established 'fact'. In the main, what I have seen are large helpings of unthinking prejudice and bigotry, and the now customary 'presumption of probity' to which C&RT are all too frequently treated.
-
That did make me chuckle...
I abide by the laws that they set, i am not interested in the legality of those laws, they do not cause me any discomfort so i am happy, so i doubt very much they will turn up and steal my boat.
No-one expected the Spanish Inquisition either !
-
1
-
-
Perhaps one of the Mods has recently bought an Axiom
propellerventilation fan, and can't bear to be reminded about it ? -
In my opinion, i just wasted ten minutes of my life reading all this.
Allegedly......
Try not to see it as a complete waste of time, . . . at least you will know who not to expect any sympathy from if C&RT turn up one day and steal your boat.
-
1
-
-
I know - but he seems shy of posting it on here. Possibly because it reveals that the owner is quite in the wrong in this matter.
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.
-
1
-
-
I know you "get off" on being rude on internet forums but you really are a bit of a stuck record on this (and all other) occasions - I've already stated that I'd be very interested to hear why the ship needed to be taken from Liverpool. I'd await the evidence. If you're holding stuff back, then basing opinions on it and posting, then its not much use to anyone except yourself. I for one, can't take you seriously any more since your posts seem to have this single theme running through them.
Whether or not you, or any other forum contributors, take me seriously is of no concern or consequence whatsoever.
As for the reason for moving "Planet" from Liverpool to Sharpness, this was done for precisely the same reason that Geoff Mayer's boat "Pearl" was transported from Northwich to Gloucester, after being illegally seized in direct contravention of a Judge's directions, and Leigh Ravenscroft's boat was transported from Newark to Chester after being unnecessarily and unlawfully seized on private property at nearby [to Newark] Farndon.
-
A bit like the owner not paying mooring fees for a year and not having the right licences or permissions to operate as he was then?
No, nothing like a well meaning, but quite possibly somewhat over ambitious and misguided individual, getting himself into financial difficulties.
-
Great.....but its all your opinion, there's a distinct lack of evidence or hard facts to decide this case upon.
There is a great deal of evidence and hard facts, none of which shows C&RT in a good light, or their actions and conduct to be anything other than ill-advised and/or illegal, . . . but it happens that at this stage neither you nor any of the rest of C&RT's dedicated apologists and cheerleaders are privy to very much of it.
-
2
-
-
I think you are missing the point as regards this light vessel.It is called the PLANET and was built for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and was stationed at the Mersey BAR and was fully manned by MD & HB crews, in later years she was replaced by a Lanby light float and the Planet was sold to Trinity House who look after all the navigation marks around England.I find it hard to understand why we must scrap all our maritime past in a great seaport like Liverpool.
I agree, he, along with a few others, is missing the point. However, it would be very wrong to believe that this disgraceful and quite unnecessary episode is anything more than the result of C&RT being in a position to extend the scope of their destructive and malevolent influence beyond merely our inland waterways.
The long running dispute between the old lightship owner and C&RT, it has been festering for over a year now, has seen much wrong, and fault on both sides, but those responsible for the running and administration of the old South Docks now under C&RT ownership and control have singularly failed to handle it in a way that measures up to what can, and should, reasonably be expected from such an organization.
Rather than working towards an outcome beneficial to all or most of those concerned, including and especially themselves and the city of Liverpool, they elected to reduce matters to the level of a personal and very expensive squabble focused entirely on nothing other than depriving yet another individual of his boat.
The events of last week, culminating in the "Planet" being moved at enormous expense, and for no good reason, from C&RT's Canning Dock to C&RT's Sharpness Dock, were nothing more than a festival of negativity, bloody-mindedness and spite, and I think the fact that they proved themselves incapable of rising above such conduct speaks volumes as to the sort of organization C&RT is, to say nothing of the calibre and worth of it's management.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
........ ........ CRT are creating their own problems by trying to bend laws to suit their own agenda... ..... ......
Whilst that is unquestionably what C&RT have been doing with regard to waterways specific legislation until a few days ago, they have now grown sufficiently in [misplaced] confidence to progress to the illegal seizure of a vessel under what amounts to their own amendments to the provisions of the 1977 Torts (Interference with Goods) Act, which is UK statute law, and therefore separate and independent from any of the statutory powers they enjoy, and abuse, under any of the various BW Acts.
Up until the moment when "Planet" passed through Canning Dock gates into the Mersey, C&RT were entitled, as creditors, to retain possession of the vessel as bailees exercising a lawful lien over a debtor's property which remained on/in their property/premises, ie. Canning Dock.
From the moment when the vessel entered the Mersey, C&RT have been illegally in possession of another's property without the entitlement a Court Order, executed by a Court appointed bailiff, following on from a Debt Judgment would otherwise have given them. Their prior stated intent to retain possession against payment of a claimed but unspecified sum of money, including removal, towing and storage charges, for which they have no Debt Judgment, makes a criminal act of the subsequent seizure [for the sole purpose of removal], and the continuing possession of the ship elsewhere than in the C&RT owned Dock.
C&RT are in big trouble with this, and they have only themselves to thank for that. They were informed, in writing, on the morning of 21 Sept 2016 that what they were proposing to do was unnecessary, ill-advised and illegal, but they elected to go ahead regardless, and it will cost them dear.
-
5
-
Does it currently have a BSS certificate?
Not relevant.
C&RT introduced their 'red herring' safety concerns by lying about 'Planet' not having a 'valid hull survey' in June of this year, . . . . so roughly about the same time that they were lying about 'safety concerns' in an attempt to justify their illegal refusal to issue a new Licence for 'Tadworth'.
-
........... .............. ............. runs a business on an unsafe craft ............... ................
In order to dispense with any more groundless speculation along these lines, the vessel underwent a satisfactory hull survey in April this year.
-
I have very strong reasons to believe that appropriation of property not already in your possession to recover debt without a Court order is invariably breaking the law.
It certainly is, but the crassness exhibited by C&RT in the process of committing such criminal act is almost beyond belief.
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 .
Subject: Planet Bar Lightship20 September 2016
Dear Mr Roberts
I am writing to confirm that yesterday we secured your vessel in preparation for removing it from the docks.
The reason for this is because, in spite of our letters to you dated 15th April 2016 and 5th August 2016, you have not removed your vessel from the docks, notwithstanding that your berthing agreement expired on 31st December 2015. Copies of these letters are attached.
We have taken possession of the vessel in order to remove it to a secure location. At no time should you or any other persons (who are not authorised by us) enter the vessel or attempt to obstruct the process of removing the vessel. Such action would be deemed a trespass as it would be unauthorised access on to our water space. We will, if considered necessary, seek the assistance of the police to manage any action by you or others that is, or may become a breach of the peace in the course of our preparing the vessel for removal and removing it from our dock.
Our lawful authority to remove the vessel is based on our rights set out in clause 8.1 and 10.1.2 of the berthing agreement that applied to your licence to berth your vessel at our docks. A copy of the agreement is attached to enable you to refer to it easily.
With regard to the payment of the outstanding berthing fees arrears, as you know this matter is being handled on our behalf by Wilkin Chapman Solicitors. Whatever the outcome of this debt recovery action, matters have reached the point where we are unwilling to issue you with a new berthing agreement even if you do pay all the arrears claimed in the debt action.
We will contact you after the removal of the vessel from the dock in respect of charges and monies due, and how the vessel may be recovered after payment of all outstanding monies to ourselves.
Chantelle Seaborn DipFM MRICS FCIH
Waterway Manager North West
North West Waterways
-
By way of addition to the information in Nigel's post #99, 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.
Had they contented themselves with exercising a lawful lien on the vessel, as they were entitled to do whilst it remained within a dock that they own, they would have been acting entirely within the law, but the ill-advised removal of the ship from the dock has merely deprived C&RT of such 'right' as they did have on their side, up until that point.
-
Appears to heading for Sharpness, so may be sighted tomorrow.
Thank you for that useful bit of information.
During the preparations to make the ship safe for sea over the last few days, C&RT had led the tug operators to believe that Fleetwood was the intended destination, however, Sharpness makes far more sense, and if it is heading that way then the intended destination may well be R.W.Davis's yard on the G&S at Saul to join another monument to C&RT's stupidity, . . . . Geoff Mayer's boat 'Pearl', illegally snatched from it's owner in 2013 in direct contravention of a Judge's instructions.
section 8 canning dock ?
in General Boating
Posted
I wonder, can anyone amongst those who think removing "Planet'' from Canning Dock was C&RT's best course of action explain why Sharpness should have been considered preferable to Birkenhead Docks, about a mile across the Mersey, or Garston Docks, about 6 miles upriver from Canning Dock ?