Boat seized and owner left homeless and sleeping in a car.

[Mike Todd]

2 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

I would point out that both Tony and the chap from Brentford who acted as Mackenzie friend in some cases have reported highly unethical conduct by Shoesmiths (CaRT lawyers) that seemed to be designed to frustrate a fair court hearing so I doubt we can use  examples of other landlord's interactions with the courts as typical where Shoesmiths are involved. I believe they are well know corporate lawyers who have reputation for getting results.

I thought that CaRT no longer use them?

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

I would point out that both Tony and the chap from Brentford who acted as Mackenzie friend in some cases have reported highly unethical conduct by Shoesmiths (CaRT lawyers) that seemed to be designed to frustrate a fair court hearing

 

I seem to rememeber that one such example was regarding a letter, saying (something to the effect) "if you do appeal this letter and request a court hearing by XYZ (date) then you will be judged to be guilty as charged"

 

The letter was not sent until AFTER the date when a request to the court had to be made.

[doratheexplorer]

18 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

I'm not convinced we lose - CRT acting ultra vires is bad for us all

You're right of course.  Therefore we all both lose and win.  Shall we call it a draw?

[Tony Brooks]

41 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

You're right of course.  Therefore we all both lose and win.  Shall we call it a draw?

I think that if CaRT were forced to stick to the powers given to them in the various Acts then it would definitely be a win. From what I have read it would stop the nonsense of high daily overstaying charges that seem never to be enforced as we have seen on the South Oxford. Similarly the way hire boats can stop in Banbury for as many times as they like in a month where as private and share boaters in effect can't stop for shopping on their way to Oxford and then on their way back.

[dmr]

There is a long thread about all this on Thunderboat with contributions from TD himself, in his usual style. I did not read the whole lot as its not a good read, but it looks likely that TD engineered this incident himself as part of his ongoing battles with CRT and "strong interest" in the legal system. Maybe he is a man of great principle defending us from the evils of CRT? maybe just an old man who thinks he is so superior that he should not pay a licence fee? who knows?   but I think all this homeless sick old man sympathy stuff is not really justified, unless possibly he has a personality disorder?

 

..........Dave (or that prat dmr as TD likes to call me ? )

[Arthur Marshall]

41 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I seem to rememeber that one such example was regarding a letter, saying (something to the effect) "if you do appeal this letter and request a court hearing by XYZ (date) then you will be judged to be guilty as charged"

 

The letter was not sent until AFTER the date when a request to the court had to be made.

Anyone who has any dealings with lawyers will know they are appallingly and arrogantly inefficient. Even when doing something as simple as buying a house you have to bully them to get any action. Shoesmiths, I am sure, just used this as a method. I'm also sure Tony is aware of it. His argument is that what CRT say is a Registration (the rivers only licence) isn't. I doubt the court will agree with him. The VAT always struck me as a side issue and another losing argument.

When picking fights, it's alwsys best to pick winnable ones. Tony's last one was the Liverpool lightship, and that didn't go well either. The law gets interpreted by judges, and they tend to go with the big battalions. It's there for the protection of property and major property holders, and it's a mistake to think it has anything to do with fairness or justice.

I'll be very glad if I'm proved wrong and Tony wins his case. He's one of those whose eccentricities should be cherished, not condemned. He does no harm (annoying BW and CRT doesn't count) and has done a lot of good.

[Paul Gwilliams]

It's not this one is it on eBay 224200809442

[Naughty Cal]

56 minutes ago, dmr said:

There is a long thread about all this on Thunderboat with contributions from TD himself, in his usual style. I did not read the whole lot as its not a good read, but it looks likely that TD engineered this incident himself as part of his ongoing battles with CRT and "strong interest" in the legal system. Maybe he is a man of great principle defending us from the evils of CRT? maybe just an old man who thinks he is so superior that he should not pay a licence fee? who knows?   but I think all this homeless sick old man sympathy stuff is not really justified, unless possibly he has a personality disorder?

 

..........Dave (or that prat dmr as TD likes to call me ? )

Doesn't make good headlines without a bit of a sob story though does it?

1 minute ago, Paul Gwilliams said:

It's not this one is it on eBay 224200809442

No.

[doratheexplorer]

4 minutes ago, Paul Gwilliams said:

It's not this one is it on eBay 224200809442

No.  It's this one.

 

[doratheexplorer]

 

As far as I can tell.

 

1.  CRT enforce against unlicenced boat.

2.  Owner says it doesn't need a licence becasue of where it's moored.

3.  A stand off ensues.

4.  Then the argument diverts into it not having a valid BSS.

5.  Owner says it doesn't need one but doesn't cite its mooring as the reason.  Claims it's exempt for other reasons.

6.  CRT say 'prove it'.

7.  Owner fails to provide proof.

8.  CRT come and seize boat because no BSS = no licence.

9.  Owner now has the chance to take CRT to court for unlawful seizure.

 

I may be wrong but that's how it looks to me.

 

 

[Murflynn]

just a time-waster then.

 

laws are set up for those who wish to live in a civilised society, not for freaks who only want to rebel against established and reasonable systems.

[doratheexplorer]

1 minute ago, Murflynn said:

just a time-waster then.

 

laws are set up for those who wish to live in a civilised society, not for freaks who only want to rebel against established and reasonable systems.

You misunderstand.  At the moment we don't know whether it's TD or CRT who have broken the law.  That is for the court to decide.

TD may be a timewaster, but CRT may have acted criminally.

Prejudging the outcome is akin to those daft buggers who throw rocks at police vans who are taking the accused to court.

 

There'll be a lot of popcorn eaten on here, and on Thunderboat, before all this is over.

 

[Naughty Cal]

5 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

You misunderstand.  At the moment we don't know whether it's TD or CRT who have broken the law.  That is for the court to decide.

TD may be a timewaster, but CRT may have acted criminally.

Prejudging the outcome is akin to those daft buggers who throw rocks at police vans who are taking the accused to court.

 

There'll be a lot of popcorn eaten on here, and on Thunderboat, before all this is over.

 

CRT will have a court order to allow them the seize the boat. It is highly unlikely they have broken any law.

 

At 72 years of age and with failing health you would think that TD might have decided to find a more peaceful ways to spend his days then continual futile court cases with CRT.

 

Any normal person would have just safety tested and licenced their boat and then argued that they didn't need too not the opposite way around. He only has his own stubbornness to blame for being homeless. 

 

There is still the other issue of his sunk boat taking up a large proportion of the visitor moorings above Hazelford Lock to resolve and the damage it caused as it went on it's unmanned cruise down the Trent.

 

If he genuinely has another avenue to play in his "game" then I am intrigued. It must be the last stand of a homeless, bankrupt cantankerous old hermit.

 

 

[nicknorman]

1 hour ago, dmr said:

There is a long thread about all this on Thunderboat with contributions from TD himself, in his usual style. I did not read the whole lot as its not a good read, but it looks likely that TD engineered this incident himself as part of his ongoing battles with CRT and "strong interest" in the legal system. Maybe he is a man of great principle defending us from the evils of CRT? maybe just an old man who thinks he is so superior that he should not pay a licence fee? who knows?   but I think all this homeless sick old man sympathy stuff is not really justified, unless possibly he has a personality disorder?

 

..........Dave (or that prat dmr as TD likes to call me ? )

I know TD is a curmudgeonly old git but I think you should not carelessly falsely accuse him of a wrongdoing. Firstly, according to the Act of Parliament that granted the power for BW and then CRT to charge boaters for the use of the boat, there is no need for a licence to keep or operate a boat on a river for which there is public right of navigation (eg the Trent). The law specifies that the requirement is for registration of the vessel, which results in the issue of a “Pleasure Boat Certificate”. ie a Registration, not a Licence.

 

TD did repeatedly attempt to obtain a PBC from CRT but they repeatedly refused despite TD getting a court order that CRT must (in accordance with statute) supply a PBC. There was some disagreement about the BSS but Tony had used CRT’s own BSS exemption form and met the requirements of it as far as we can tell. CRT did not accept it though, and there is of course a long history of personal animosity between him and Stuart Garner of CRT.

 

So whatever wrongdoings you might want to accuse TD of, it can’t be that he was trying to avoid paying the registration fee for the PBC. He published the many emails back and forth to/from CRT where he applied for, but was refused, a PBC.

[Athy]

18 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

 

 

At 72 years of age and with failing health you would think that TD might have decided to find a more peaceful ways to spend his days then continual futile court cases with CRT.

 

 

 

 

Some people thrive on pursuing causes which, for whatever reason, are important to them. It's the stimulus that keeps them going. Sir David Attenborough is more than 20 years older than TD, and I haven't noticed him settling down to watch daytime telly yet.

[nicknorman]

19 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

CRT will have a court order to allow them the seize the boat. It is highly unlikely they have broken any law.

 

At 72 years of age and with failing health you would think that TD might have decided to find a more peaceful ways to spend his days then continual futile court cases with CRT.

 

Any normal person would have just safety tested and licenced their boat and then argued that they didn't need too not the opposite way around. He only has his own stubbornness to blame for being homeless. 

 

There is still the other issue of his sunk boat taking up a large proportion of the visitor moorings above Hazelford Lock to resolve and the damage it caused as it went on it's unmanned cruise down the Trent.

 

If he genuinely has another avenue to play in his "game" then I am intrigued. It must be the last stand of a homeless, bankrupt cantankerous old hermit.

 

 

According to TD, the people attending to remove his boat were employees of Commercial Boat Services. Just an unqualified “heavy mob” carrying no Id and refusing to identify themselves. As far as I can tell from the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, any such enforcers must be registered bailiffs or have specific personal authorisation from the court. So that in itself seems to be illegal. CRT should have turned up with certificated bailiffs. That they didn’t perhaps means that no bailiffs wanted to get involved in what they may have perceived as unlawful goings-on. We shall see.

[dmr]

12 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

I know TD is a curmudgeonly old git but I think you should not carelessly falsely accuse him of a wrongdoing. Firstly, according to the Act of Parliament that granted the power for BW and then CRT to charge boaters for the use of the boat, there is no need for a licence to keep or operate a boat on a river for which there is public right of navigation (eg the Trent). The law specifies that the requirement is for registration of the vessel, which results in the issue of a “Pleasure Boat Certificate”. ie a Registration, not a Licence.

 

TD did repeatedly attempt to obtain a PBC from CRT but they repeatedly refused despite TD getting a court order that CRT must (in accordance with statute) supply a PBC. There was some disagreement about the BSS but Tony had used CRT’s own BSS exemption form and met the requirements of it as far as we can tell. CRT did not accept it though, and there is of course a long history of personal animosity between him and Stuart Garner of CRT.

 

So whatever wrongdoings you might want to accuse TD of, it can’t be that he was trying to avoid paying the registration fee for the PBC. He published the many emails back and forth to/from CRT where he applied for, but was refused, a PBC.

I don't think TD had done anything "wrong", he is choosing to exercise a possible "right" not to pay a licence ,which I think is selfish, though might just be for the greater good if if stops some CRT bad behaviour.

 

Surely the core of his battle is that he does not want to pay what everybody else pays and all this stuff about wanting to pay a PBC, and BSS exception etc are just sideshows and technicalities in this bigger battle?

 

If he wins will that result in the River Kennet and Bristol Avon getting stuffed full of moored boats not paying a licence and causing more bad feeling between boaters and locals?

 

I do think what he is doing is foolish, he should be enjoying boating rather than challenging the legal system.

 

I have never met him in person, people say he is a good man, but I have encountered  him on this forum where he, and some of his followers, took a dislike to me and were rather unpleasant.

 

..............Dave

[Naughty Cal]

41 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

I know TD is a curmudgeonly old git but I think you should not carelessly falsely accuse him of a wrongdoing. Firstly, according to the Act of Parliament that granted the power for BW and then CRT to charge boaters for the use of the boat, there is no need for a licence to keep or operate a boat on a river for which there is public right of navigation (eg the Trent). The law specifies that the requirement is for registration of the vessel, which results in the issue of a “Pleasure Boat Certificate”. ie a Registration, not a Licence.

 

TD did repeatedly attempt to obtain a PBC from CRT but they repeatedly refused despite TD getting a court order that CRT must (in accordance with statute) supply a PBC. There was some disagreement about the BSS but Tony had used CRT’s own BSS exemption form and met the requirements of it as far as we can tell. CRT did not accept it though, and there is of course a long history of personal animosity between him and Stuart Garner of CRT.

 

So whatever wrongdoings you might want to accuse TD of, it can’t be that he was trying to avoid paying the registration fee for the PBC. He published the many emails back and forth to/from CRT where he applied for, but was refused, a PBC.

Perhaps quite rightly on CRT's part in this case. If you liveaboard a boat then it is surely to be expected that you have a power source, a heating source and a cooking source all of which would require the boat to have a valid safety certificate. In fact looking at the picture of the boat being towed it has a shore power cable on the roof, a TV aerial, lights and a chimney/flue for some heating appliance. So it is not out of order in this case for CRT to question the alleged exemption.

 

No doubt Dunkley's persistent pursuit of his day in court against CRT will probably have led CRT to be suspicious of the claimed exemption. But again he only has his own stubbornness and bloody mindedness to blame for that.

 

Given the severe back logs of more important court cases I seriously doubt that Dunkley is going to get his day in court any time soon. Regardless of his opinion of CRT to purposefully make himself homeless over the cost of a safety certificate and a rivers only licence is just plain stupidity.

13 minutes ago, dmr said:

I don't think TD had done anything "wrong", he is choosing to exercise a possible "right" not to pay a licence ,which I think is selfish, though might just be for the greater good if if stops some CRT bad behaviour.

 

Surely the core of his battle is that he does not want to pay what everybody else pays and all this stuff about wanting to pay a PBC, and BSS exception etc are just sideshows and technicalities in this bigger battle?

 

If he wins will that result in the River Kennet and Bristol Avon getting stuffed full of moored boats not paying a licence and causing more bad feeling between boaters and locals?

 

I do think what he is doing is foolish, he should be enjoying boating rather than challenging the legal system.

 

I have never met him in person, people say he is a good man, but I have encountered  him on this forum where he, and some of his followers, took a dislike to me and were rather unpleasant.

 

..............Dave

That would have been rather difficult in a boat with no working engine.

 

You would have thought that spending some time fixing his own boat and giving it some TLC would have been a better use of his time then pursuing another legal battle with CRT.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Naughty Cal

[doratheexplorer]

56 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

CRT will have a court order to allow them the seize the boat. It is highly unlikely they have broken any law.

 

At 72 years of age and with failing health you would think that TD might have decided to find a more peaceful ways to spend his days then continual futile court cases with CRT.

 

Any normal person would have just safety tested and licenced their boat and then argued that they didn't need too not the opposite way around. He only has his own stubbornness to blame for being homeless. 

 

There is still the other issue of his sunk boat taking up a large proportion of the visitor moorings above Hazelford Lock to resolve and the damage it caused as it went on it's unmanned cruise down the Trent.

 

If he genuinely has another avenue to play in his "game" then I am intrigued. It must be the last stand of a homeless, bankrupt cantankerous old hermit.

 

 

Well since he's won against CRT in the past, I'm going to assume nothing as far as who is in the wrong here.

 

Another of his assertions is that the court orders used by CRT do not empower them to seize vessels.  He says they simply confirm that the power exists within the act.  A narrow distinction, but on such narrowness do some cases turn.

 

As I said before, there a fair amount of popcorn still to be chomped over this I reckon.

[nicknorman]

6 minutes ago, dmr said:

I don't think TD had done anything "wrong", he is choosing to exercise a possible "right" not to pay a licence ,which I think is selfish, though might just be for the greater good if if stops some CRT bad behaviour.

 

Surely the core of his battle is that he does not want to pay what everybody else pays and all this stuff about wanting to pay a PBC, and BSS exception etc are just sideshows and technicalities in this bigger battle?

 

If he wins will that result in the River Kennet and Bristol Avon getting stuffed full of moored boats not paying a licence and causing more bad feeling between boaters and locals?

 

I do think what he is doing is foolish, he should be enjoying boating rather than challenging the legal system.

 

I have never met him in person, people say he is a good man, but I have encountered  him on this forum where he, and some of his followers, took a dislike to me and were rather unpleasant.

 

..............Dave

TD will definitely pick a fight with his own reflection in the mirror, given half a chance! But no, the argument wasn’t about whether he needed to pay or not. That argument was lost in the Leigh Ravenscroft case when the judge bought CRT’s argument that “Main Navigable Channel” could have different meanings according to the context ( - and CRT’s whim).

The argument is that statute requires CRT to issue a PBC when someone registers a boat for use on a PRN river (and has insurance, BSS or exemption). However CRT have never co plied with statute because they insist on issuing a rivers only licence, which is a thing that doesn’t exist under the law. And an important difference between a licence and a PBC is that the latter does not attract 20% VAT whereas the former does. However with their “rivers only licence” CRT have been charging VAT.

 

I think it is also a personal and vindictive attack on TD following his successful court case against CRT whereby the judge found that CRT was not empowered to restrict moorings to 14 days for someone with a home mooring.
 

There is of course an argument about ends justifying the means. Of course most of us don’t want boats that have a home mooring to moor up in some honeypot site for months at a time. But equally, do we really want CRT to operate illegally for the greater good of most boaters? I’ve thought about it quite a bit and come to the conclusion that, even though I dislike mooring pisstakers, CRT must nevertheless operate within the law, something they are currently not doing. And getting worse, eg their ever evolving Ts and Cs that, according to statute, they cannot apply to the issue of a licence or PBC (but do).

6 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

Perhaps quite rightly on CRT's part in this case. If you liveaboard a boat then it is surely to be expected that you have a power source, a heating source and a cooking source all of which would require the boat to have a valid safety certificate. In fact looking at the picture of the boat being towed it has a shore power cable on the roof, a TV aerial, lights and a chimney/flue for some heating appliance. So it is not out of order in this case for CRT to question the alleged exemption.

 

No doubt Dunkley's persistent pursuit of his day in court against CRT will probably have led CRT to be suspicious of the claimed exemption. But again he only has his own stubbornness and bloody mindedness to blame for that.

 

 

Let’s be clear of the wording on Crt’s own BSS exemption form. It says the boat is exempt if

 

The boat:
has no gas appliances or electrical system installed and
has no engine* and is propelled solely by an outboard motor or by physical means such as towing, rowing, poling or horse power and
has no free discharge to the waterway from a toilet appliance or holding tank

 

And I think the key word here is “installed”. So one can have a trailing socket coming into the window with fan heater and portable light, a portable camping gas cooker etc.

 

You and I may not like that idea, but surely CRT has to stick to its own rules?

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Murflynn said:

just a time-waster then.

 

laws are set up for those who wish to live in a civilised society, not for freaks who only want to rebel against established and reasonable systems.

No they're not. Be nice if they were, though.

[Dave Payne]

35 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

You would have thought that spending some time fixing his own boat and giving it some TLC would have been a better use of his time then pursuing another legal battle with CRT.

 

what a shitty comment.

 

 

[tehmarks]

I don’t know the man beyond what I’ve read on here of his long-standing disputes with CRT – cantankerous old git he may be, but that does not mean he does not have a valid argument. Society needs people with the conviction to argue passionately and challenge when they feel that they have been wronged; it’s an important check and balance that challenges egregious abuses of power by those who hold it.

 

If we normalise CRT flagrantly abusing process without recourse to the actual law, we all lose as boaters.

 

CRT’s approach to this particular problem, at face value, seems vindictive and outwith their legal powers. It is only right that it is challenged in the strongest possible terms. I wish Tony every success in doing so.

 

I don’t understand why so many seem okay with the principle of being shat on unlawfully from above just because they’re not, today, on the receiving end of the shit.

[doratheexplorer]

3 minutes ago, tehmarks said:

I don’t know the man beyond what I’ve read on here of his long-standing disputes with CRT – cantankerous old git he may be, but that does not mean he does not have a valid argument. Society needs people with the conviction to argue passionately and challenge when they feel that they have been wronged; it’s an important check and balance that challenges egregious abuses of power by those who hold it.

 

If we normalise CRT flagrantly abusing process without recourse to the actual law, we all lose as boaters.

 

CRT’s approach to this particular problem, at face value, seems vindictive and outwith their legal powers. It is only right that it is challenged in the strongest possible terms. I wish Tony every success in doing so.

 

I don’t understand why so many seem okay with the principle of being shat on unlawfully from above just because they’re not, today, on the receiving end of the shit.

If I could give 10 greenies for that, I would.  You put it so well!

[Naughty Cal]

47 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

TD will definitely pick a fight with his own reflection in the mirror, given half a chance! But no, the argument wasn’t about whether he needed to pay or not. That argument was lost in the Leigh Ravenscroft case when the judge bought CRT’s argument that “Main Navigable Channel” could have different meanings according to the context ( - and CRT’s whim).

The argument is that statute requires CRT to issue a PBC when someone registers a boat for use on a PRN river (and has insurance, BSS or exemption). However CRT have never co plied with statute because they insist on issuing a rivers only licence, which is a thing that doesn’t exist under the law. And an important difference between a licence and a PBC is that the latter does not attract 20% VAT whereas the former does. However with their “rivers only licence” CRT have been charging VAT.

 

I think it is also a personal and vindictive attack on TD following his successful court case against CRT whereby the judge found that CRT was not empowered to restrict moorings to 14 days for someone with a home mooring.
 

There is of course an argument about ends justifying the means. Of course most of us don’t want boats that have a home mooring to moor up in some honeypot site for months at a time. But equally, do we really want CRT to operate illegally for the greater good of most boaters? I’ve thought about it quite a bit and come to the conclusion that, even though I dislike mooring pisstakers, CRT must nevertheless operate within the law, something they are currently not doing. And getting worse, eg their ever evolving Ts and Cs that, according to statute, they cannot apply to the issue of a licence or PBC (but do).

Let’s be clear of the wording on Crt’s own BSS exemption form. It says the boat is exempt if

 

The boat:
has no gas appliances or electrical system installed and
has no engine* and is propelled solely by an outboard motor or by physical means such as towing, rowing, poling or horse power and
has no free discharge to the waterway from a toilet appliance or holding tank

 

And I think the key word here is “installed”. So one can have a trailing socket coming into the window with fan heater and portable light, a portable camping gas cooker etc.

 

You and I may not like that idea, but surely CRT has to stick to its own rules?

If there is no gas or electical system installed then what is the flue for and what powered the lights on the outside of the boat and the TV for which there is an aerial on the roof and why the need for a shore power cable?

 

The wording of the exemption form is suitably vague that they only need to be installed on the boat for it to require an safety certificate. Same with the engine. If it is installed it needs a test. The fact that it was not working is irrelevant. Same with the fuel system.

 

So I do think that in this case CRT were right to query the exemption and ask for the evidence to be provided.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Naughty Cal