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
Alan de Enfield

K&A boaters Evicted

Featured Posts

A bit like a problem I had getting the gas turned on again after my ex wife finally left the house, "But your wife owes us over £100 " My reply "don't tell me your problems, she owes me thousands, please can I have the gas back on, I don't owe you anything"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

A bit like a problem I had getting the gas turned on again after my ex wife finally left the house, "But your wife owes us over £100 " My reply "don't tell me your problems, she owes me thousands, please can I have the gas back on, I don't owe you anything"

We bought our house just before it was to be repossessed. When I called British Gas on taking ownership, they would only allow me to have gas if I let them fit a coin meter. It didn't seem to matter that their previous customer had sold and moved on.  The place has 20 radiators - I'd have kept warm just slotting so many coins in!  Thankfully, we were able to go with a different supplier without issue. Funnily enough, I've never used British Gas since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

Are you thinking this is the same boat?  If so, it seems the owner has sidestepped CRT by 'selling' his boat to another person and getting them to licence it.  Is that possible?  If so, then the CRT enforcement approach is fatally flawed, like getting your partner to take 3 speeding points to avoid a driving ban.

In theory it would be fraudulent (therefore a criminal offence....10 years in the slammer I think?) but in practice the burden of proof is quite high so it would need to be a fairly clear case to try bring it. Mind you, with some 'boaters' being so disorganised/out of touch with understanding the law, they might put their foot in it enough for this to be quite easy and successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Paul C said:

In theory it would be fraudulent (therefore a criminal offence....10 years in the slammer I think?)

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

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.

Its all a bit theoretical until it actually happens. This: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/fraud/ seems like a reasonable guide though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

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.

One could argue that in the case where an unlicensed boat is sold to a ‘friend’ and registered, even if the original owner is still living on the boat, then CRT have not suffered a loss and apart from being pissed off have not been harmed.  I suspect all they can do is claim non compliance with T&Cs, but I suspect it is difficult to prove, so may back down when challenged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

One could argue that in the case where an unlicensed boat is sold to a ‘friend’ and registered, even if the original owner is still living on the boat, then CRT have not suffered a loss and apart from being pissed off have not been harmed.  I suspect all they can do is claim non compliance with T&Cs, but I suspect it is difficult to prove, so may back down when challenged.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

One could argue that in the case where an unlicensed boat is sold to a ‘friend’ and registered, even if the original owner is still living on the boat, then CRT have not suffered a loss and apart from being pissed off have not been harmed.  I suspect all they can do is claim non compliance with T&Cs, but I suspect it is difficult to prove, so may back down when challenged.

 

CRT could also argue such a sale is a sham sale and can be set aside. Tricky though. Was is not the basic problem with the Leigh case? He held tat he sold the boat and did not own it for a long period, then bought it back again shortly before CRT lifted it? 

 

It seems a mess that the owner appears to need to be served with the Section 8, not the boat.

 

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

CRT could also argue such a sale is a sham sale and can be set aside. Tricky though. Was is not the basic problem with the Leigh case? He held tat he sold the boat and did not own it for a long period, then bought it back again shortly before CRT lifted it? 

 

It seems a mess that the owner appears to need to be served with the Section 8, not the boat.

 

 

  

But boats do not commit crimes, people do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Eh? 

 

I'm reasonably sure failing to licence your boat is a civil matter. 

 

 

No, it is criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I think CRT should be entitled to remove an unlicenced boat regardless of who owns it. Just my opinion though.

Just now, NigelMoore said:

No, it is criminal.

 

Then the law is a horse, or something like that. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

And I think CRT should be entitled to remove an unlicenced boat regardless of who owns it. Just my opinion though.

They can if they use S8.  But if the boat is sold and licensed by the new owner it is not an unlicensed boat 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

CRT could also argue such a sale is a sham sale and can be set aside. Tricky though. Was is not the basic problem with the Leigh case? He held tat he sold the boat and did not own it for a long period, then bought it back again shortly before CRT lifted it? 

  

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.

Edited by NigelMoore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Then the law is a horse, or something like that. 

 

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.

 

 

Edited by NigelMoore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎29‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 10:07, ditchcrawler said:

A bit like a problem I had getting the gas turned on again after my ex wife finally left the house, "But your wife owes us over £100 " My reply "don't tell me your problems, she owes me thousands, please can I have the gas back on, I don't owe you anything"

did it work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

it was CaRT putting themselves before the horse

 

:clapping:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

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.

I would imagine there's more to it than simply suffering a loss.  It's not a civil claim.  If my spouse accepts my car speeding fine for me to save me being banned, then there's no loss, but it would leave both of us liable for prosecution. Because it's classed as perverting the course of justice.  A very serious offence.

Edited by doratheexplorer
  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sea Dog said:

None of this is an issue for folk who simply pay their dues and follow the rules.  How nice would it be if all this time and effort could be directed towards something useful rather than fighting the cause of those who chose to push the boundaries or simply flout them? 

 

Don't forget the money, I would rather see my licence fee spent on maintaining the canals and associated infrastructure, but accept that if you let these freeloaders get away with it, then it will encourage even more to freeload.

 

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, doratheexplorer said:

I would imagine there's more to it than simply suffering a loss.  It's not a civil claim.  If my spouse accepts my car speeding fine for me to save me being banned, then there's no loss, but it would leave both of us liable for prosecution. Because it's classed as perverting the course of justice.  A very serious offence.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

 or to make a gain for themselves

Does avoiding the costs of a legitimate mooring, ie by being able to maintain the status quo of (their boat) staying on their preferred small patch of canal despite not actually having a long-term mooring, count as a "gain"? How do you value something which might be impossible/illegal to achieve?

Edited by Paul C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Does avoiding the costs of a legitimate mooring, ie by being able to maintain the status quo of (their boat) staying on their preferred small patch of canal despite not actually having a long-term mooring, count as a "gain"? How do you value something which might be impossible/illegal to achieve?

 

Whilst it might be impossible to secure a legitimate mooring on their preferred stretch of canal, or it may be 'impossible' for them to afford it (much as some would wish to own a 5 bedroom mansion in Mayfair) it is not impossible to get a legitimate mooring 'somewhere'.

 

Its another case of 'its all about me, and I cannot moor where I want, its not right".

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • 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.