Jump to content

Is Tony Dunkley on a winner?


Midnight

Featured Posts

As Nigel pointed out on many occasions, there is no legal right for anyone except continuous cruisers to stop anywhere except their mooring for any length of time. Pushing the boundaries, or one's luck, is generally safe for an individual but leads to disadvantages for everyone in the long term. No-one cared about continuous moorers in the 80s - then everyone started doing it and the whole officious  beaurocratic system we are now stuck with started.

I simply do not believe that CRT do not have the legal right to charge for moorings - some lawyer would have picked it up for a class action by now as there would be a fortune in it. And the same goes for the farce of the Liverpool Lightship and, I'm afraid, Tony's boat. A lot of noise and absolutely no result.

I actually suspect he'd be really upset if he got it back. Was it just an easy way to get rid of an unwanted, unsaleable asset?

Edited by Arthur Marshall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I actually suspect he'd be really upset if he got it back. Was it just an easy way to get rid of an unwanted, unsaleable asset?

 That would be fun
CaRT "Here's your boat we don't want it"
TD "The b@st@rds didn't tie it up properly and it sank - FOUL!"

PS I'll be off grid for a few days now in case someone tells TD

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, nb Innisfree said:

Not sure on this but I seem to recall that TD stated that there is no actual legal right for CaRT (or may have been BW then) to demand a boat needs to be licenced, if so then that would be a gasometer of worms waiting to be opened and letting sleeping dogs lie comes to mind. 

ETA: Apologies to TD if I'm wrong. 

Edited by nb Innisfree
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, nb Innisfree said:

 

ETA: Apologies to TD if I'm wrong. 

 

I think that was in relation to the rivers only CERTIFICATE that CaRT and BW insisted on calling a licence. It's to do with certain rivers having a public right of navigation and also relates in some way to arguments about the "main navigable channel".

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, nb Innisfree said:

 

ETA: Apologies to TD if I'm wrong. 

 

 

I believe the arguments from both TD and Nigel Moore was that on a river, outside of the "main navigable channel" there is no legislation requiring a registration (mistakenly called a licence by C&RT).

 

The recent problem that has surfaced is the fact that the MNC is 'mobile' depending on the subject matter ; a couple of examples that C&RT currently claim :

 

Dredging - the MNC is a narrow strip (2 boat widths + a bit) that basically runs up the centre of the River.

Licencing - the MNC includes all of the river from bank to bank and any tributory streams or drains running into the river.

 

Edit to add I'm pretty sure that TDs boat was outside of the MNC on the River Trent, certainly at one time it was against EA land by the weir.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it was outside what was assumed to be the MNC, but then some judge or another decided that for licensing/registration purposes, the phrase might include the river from edge to edge, though not for dredging commitments. It's defined by context, same as CRT does "place". Part of the grievance is that licences attract VAT and registration doesn't, and CRT charge VAT. It's all part of the fog Tony has managed to generate over whatever his original beef was, and why none if his complaints ever get satisfactorily taken to a conclusion, as because as sooon as one starts to look central, it all shoots off in thirteen other directions, most of them aggressive, some of them possibly libellous, often based on dodgy assumptions and generally not couched in the kind of language lawyers are used to dealing with!

  • Greenie 1
  • Horror 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I believe it was outside what was assumed to be the MNC, but then some judge or another decided that for licensing/registration purposes, the phrase might include the river from edge to edge, though not for dredging commitments. It's defined by context, same as CRT does "place". Part of the grievance is that licences attract VAT and registration doesn't, and CRT charge VAT. It's all part of the fog Tony has managed to generate over whatever his original beef was, and why none if his complaints ever get satisfactorily taken to a conclusion, as because as sooon as one starts to look central, it all shoots off in thirteen other directions, most of them aggressive, some of them possibly libellous, often based on dodgy assumptions and generally not couched in the kind of language lawyers are used to dealing with!

 

C&RT know they are incorrectly charging VAT on river registrations (there is an internal email circulating to that effect where they say that the EA does not charge VAT on registrations and that they should not be).

 

C&RT have been trying to work 'thru a loophole' such that if they supply the registration certificate (licence) thru boat clubs they can charge the VAT.

 

Extract from the email :

 

 

VAT None on Boat Certificate.jpg

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

C&RT know they are incorrectly charging VAT on river registrations (there is an internal email circulating to that effect where they say that the EA does not charge VAT on registrations and that they should not be).

 

C&RT have been trying to work 'thru a loophole' such that if they supply the registration certificate (licence) thru boat clubs they can charge the VAT.

 

Extract from the email :

 

 

VAT None on Boat Certificate.jpg

Wasn't that for canoeists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Wasn't that for canoeists?

 

 

It was, but obviously if the River Registration for canoeists is Zero rated, or not applicable, then it should be the same for 'bigger' canoes (boats)

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I believe it was outside what was assumed to be the MNC, but then some judge or another decided that for licensing/registration purposes, the phrase might include the river from edge to edge, though not for dredging commitments. It's defined by context, same as CRT does "place". Part of the grievance is that licences attract VAT and registration doesn't, and CRT charge VAT. It's all part of the fog Tony has managed to generate over whatever his original beef was, and why none if his complaints ever get satisfactorily taken to a conclusion, as because as sooon as one starts to look central, it all shoots off in thirteen other directions, most of them aggressive, some of them possibly libellous, often based on dodgy assumptions and generally not couched in the kind of language lawyers are used to dealing with!

You need to read the full thread Arthur it's far more complicated than what you  think 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It's all part of the fog Tony has managed to generate over whatever his original beef was, and why none if his complaints ever get satisfactorily taken to a conclusion, as because as sooon as one starts to look central, it all shoots off in thirteen other directions, most of them aggressive, some of them possibly libellous, often based on dodgy assumptions and generally not couched in the kind of language lawyers are used to dealing with!

 

What is your objection to Tony's actions? Is because you believe they are unlikely to be successful in the way he carries them out, or is it because you think he should not be arguing at all?

 

Tam

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Tam & Di said:

 

What is your objection to Tony's actions? Is because you believe they are unlikely to be successful in the way he carries them out, or is it because you think he should not be arguing at all?

 

Tam

I have followed it from the beginning, since the death of Nigel it seems only people like Tony and the Bargees and travellers organisation seems to want to stand up for what is the law. Then we have knockers like Arthur who decry those actions, such a shame 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

 

Edit to add I'm pretty sure that TDs boat was outside of the MNC on the River Trent, certainly at one time it was against EA land by the weir.

I may be wrong here, as I often am, but aren't we confusing Tony's latest case against having his narrowboat towed away with the old big dumb barge problem?

The narrowboat he was living on was tied against the bank on the long pound between Beeston and Cranfleet,  nowhere near a weir.

The old barge that was untied/broke it's moorings can't have been towed away as it's sat on the bottom. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, noddyboater said:

I may be wrong here, as I often am, but aren't we confusing Tony's latest case against having his narrowboat towed away with the old big dumb barge problem?

The narrowboat he was living on was tied against the bank on the long pound between Beeston and Cranfleet,  nowhere near a weir.

The old barge that was untied/broke it's moorings can't have been towed away as it's sat on the bottom. 

 

I am maybe getting confused, there have been so many 'problems' between C&RT & Tony.

 

The one I was thinking of was when they siezed / tried to sieze his NB when it was moored in the EA cut at Holme Weir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 I can tell PB and Tony that you pick one point and hammer it home - not waste energy on VAT, bailiffs, photos, arcane and irrelevant rulings, bits of an old and outdated Act, etc

 

The only thing I take issue with in your post is your phrase "bits of an old and outdated Act". I assume this is reference to various "Canal Enabling Acts", and if that is the case I would note that they are far from irrelevant. It must be remembered that BW and now CRT are not companies in any normal sense of the word. They and the individual Canal Companies from which they derived were established by Acts of Parliament, and these set out the terms under which the companies were empowered to dig their canal and as quid pro quo set various limits on their operation. BWB attempted in the Bill preceding the 1995 Waterways Act to have all these Enabling Acts repealed on the basis that they were out of date. Several people including ourselves petitioned the Lords Committee against that section of the Bill, and the Committee confirmed that the Acts were/are still in force. If CRT wish to make changes they would have to return to Parliament for assent - they cannot simply decide it is better/easier/more profitable to go ahead doing something else.

 

Tam

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I am maybe getting confused, there have been so many 'problems' between C&RT & Tony.

 

The one I was thinking of was when they siezed / tried to sieze his NB when it was moored in the EA cut at Holme Weir.

I'm more confused now then as it was his narrowboat I was thinking of but I'm sure it was taken from the Barton side of the river opposite Attenborough.

Maybe that's another boat!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, peterboat said:

I have followed it from the beginning, since the death of Nigel it seems only people like Tony and the Bargees and travellers organisation seems to want to stand up for what is the law. 

Whilst I agree with that and I do admire Tony for his challenges to an unjust system, I think most of us would just rather pay up and go for the quiet life. The system is crumbling, CaRT are abysmal at managing navigation whilst squandering vital resources on daft schemes. I suggest there are more important battles to fight. If only we had a few like the late Nigel Moore leading the charge we may even see some change for the better.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tam & Di said:

 

The only thing I take issue with in your post is your phrase "bits of an old and outdated Act". I assume this is reference to various "Canal Enabling Acts", and if that is the case I would note that they are far from irrelevant. It must be remembered that BW and now CRT are not companies in any normal sense of the word. They and the individual Canal Companies from which they derived were established by Acts of Parliament, and these set out the terms under which the companies were empowered to dig their canal and as quid pro quo set various limits on their operation. BWB attempted in the Bill preceding the 1995 Waterways Act to have all these Enabling Acts repealed on the basis that they were out of date. Several people including ourselves petitioned the Lords Committee against that section of the Bill, and the Committee confirmed that the Acts were/are still in force. If CRT wish to make changes they would have to return to Parliament for assent - they cannot simply decide it is better/easier/more profitable to go ahead doing something else.

 

Tam


 

however the revised terms and conditions proposed by CRT require boats with a home mooring to ‘bona fide’ navigate when away from their home mooring despite the 95 Act saying this is not required. 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tuscan said:

however the revised terms and conditions proposed by CRT require boats with a home mooring to ‘bona fide’ navigate when away from their home mooring despite the 95 Act saying this is not required. 

What's the problem? What else would they do unless of course their 'home mooring' isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Midnight said:

What's the problem? What else would they do unless of course their 'home mooring' isn't.

 

 

'Boana fide' cc rules means you have to move to a new 'place' (county, parish or whatever) every 14 days, if you have a home mooring you only need to move to a new place (maybe 100 yards away) every 14 days, also :

 

 

 

The judgement in the case of CaRT v Mayers states that repeated journeys between the same two places would be 'bona fide navigation' if the boater had specific reason for making repeated journeys over the same stretch of canal. HHJ Halbert also stated that any requirement by CaRT to use a substantial part of the canal network was not justified by Section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 because the requirement to use the boat for bona fide navigation is 'temporal not geographical'.

 

 

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Midnight said:

What's the problem? What else would they do unless of course their 'home mooring' isn't.


i might want to cruise a to b then back to a along my favourite stretch and pubs rather than the manner described in CRTs guidance for example

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

'Boana fide' cc rules means you have to move to a new 'place' (county, parish or whatever) every 14 days, if you have a home mooring you only need to move to a new place (maybe 100 yards away) every 14 days, also :

 

 

 

The judgement in the case of CaRT v Mayers states that repeated journeys between the same two places would be 'bona fide navigation' if the boater had specific reason for making repeated journeys over the same stretch of canal. HHJ Halbert also stated that any requirement by CaRT to use a substantial part of the canal network was not justified by Section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 because the requirement to use the boat for bona fide navigation is 'temporal not geographical'.

 

 

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

 

9 minutes ago, Tuscan said:


i might want to cruise a to b then back to a along my favourite stretch and pubs rather than the manner described in CRTs guidance for example


You'll be lucky to get from A to B never mind get back again. Wrong battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony’s biggest problem is to get this matter in front of a Judge, one who is prepared to listen to the little man, not just the big Trust. 
Wether this is a criminal court or civil court, I don’t think there will be much difference in outcome. 
 

Bod

Link to comment
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.