CRT mean business......Trust attempts to recover £76k from man

[Doorman]

I have also come across three occasions where someone took their guide dog into the workplace with them.

 

David Blunkett comes to mind.

[mayalld]

I don't think he has refused to pay, he has been unable to gain a safety cert. So CaRT will not issue the licence.

 

Spend limited money on BCC which amounts to nothing left for obtaining a licence. Pay licence. then nothing left for BCC. Chicken and egg.

 

A huge m'learned friends fees that have been paid to achieve a pyrrhic victory. Now CaRT has a bad creditor for the foreseeable future. He walks away, byeee. He can apply to go bankrupt - couple of years the debit is wiped. Hello CaRT - licence please. What a waste of money and it still does not set a precedent for the future.

 

The judge didn't think that he was unable to obtain a BSC merely that he knew that he needed one and failed to get one, making ever more excuses as to the fact that he couldn't find one, whilst claiming that BW had no right to charge a late payment fee.

 

The judgement seems fairly unambiguous that this guy is the architect of his own misfortune (or to be fair to him, he is joint architect, along with the friend who advised him - I presume NBTA).

 

Yes it may be chicken and egg where some people can't afford both BSC and licence. However that is what it costs to stay on a canal (much as he will recall that as a traveller on the roads he was required by law to have licence and MOT). If he cannot pay his way then his lifestyle choices are constrained by the funds that he has.

 

Pursuing somebody who has no money to make an example of him may seem harsh, but what should they do?

 

Regard all licence fees as a voluntary contribution and simply ignore non-payment or perhaps continue to take people to court incurring expenses along the way?

 

I'm afraid that if people wish to continue to have their day in court to spout utter nonsense about their failure to abide by the rules they need to understand that there are consequences.

[mark99]

"Never sue a man of straw" might be apt for personal disputes however here imo, there must have been a calculated decision that is based upon sending out a strong signal to others that if you genuinely mess us about / flout the rules then you run the risk you will get ruined.

 

Mark

Edited August 30, 2013 by mark99

[Tuscan]

As Seasick Steve sang, I started out with nothing and I still have some of it left.

[Arthur Brown]

The greater consequences being that C&RT has another legal bill that the defendant has no assets to pay, hence C&RT win the case but LOSE the money and likely one local council somewhere gets to pay for the defendant's housing for the rest of their life.

 

Perhaps the Charities Commissioners should look and consider whether the whole exercise was a worthy use of a chariity's funds.

 

The whole case was a financial loss before it started

[mark99]

SNIP

 

The whole case was a financial loss before it started

Perhaps when judged against this single case. However perhaps it's the long game they are playing. This may stop any future fights and legal bills. Otherwise can anyone actually give a valid reason that they would pursue a man of straw?

[cotswoldsman]

I do really wish CRT would comment on this case.(issue a statement) It seems I was wrong (not for the first time) and this was nothing to do with Non Compliance. Like others I think CRT is sending a message that they will clamp down on boaters that do not obey the rules. This case completely confuses me as it all seems to be about a charge of £150 that has now cost thousands.

[Bee]

I wonder if CRT are thinking ` Too many boats, lets make it difficult / impossible for people to comply` then they can seize and destroy untidy boats. They must have something else in mind as no organisation with any sense would have pursued this pointless case. I wonder if it`s the boats they are after not the owner. Sadly it seems that unless the boats are nice and tidy and complies with BSC and the owner is nice and tidy and complies with other peoples moral values then CRT could carry on regardless.

Richard Cooper

[Guest]

I do really wish CRT would comment on this case.(issue a statement) It seems I was wrong (not for the first time) and this was nothing to do with Non Compliance. Like others I think CRT is sending a message that they will clamp down on boaters that do not obey the rules. This case completely confuses me as it all seems to be about a charge of £150 that has now cost thousands.

 

There will possibly be something in the next 'boaters update' - like the last one which headlined with a similar type of issue - just so we are all fully aware.

[ChimneyChain]

A lot of people are saying its a pointless case to pursue, but what sort of cases should cart pursue for non compliant of the rules ??

 

Darren

[cotswoldsman]

A lot of people are saying its a pointless case to pursue, but what sort of cases should cart pursue for non compliant of the rules ??

 

Darren

I don't think they are. I have no problem with CRT dealing with Non Compliance but I think it is the pursuit of costs from someone who clearly does not have the money that is being debated. Maybe there is some legal reason they have to do that

[MtB]

I wonder if CRT are thinking ` Too many boats, lets make it difficult / impossible for people to comply` then they can seize and destroy untidy boats. They must have something else in mind as no organisation with any sense would have pursued this pointless case. I wonder if it`s the boats they are after not the owner. Sadly it seems that unless the boats are nice and tidy and complies with BSC and the owner is nice and tidy and complies with other peoples moral values then CRT could carry on regardless.

Richard Cooper

 

Of course they aren't thinking lets make it difficult to comply. It is EASY to comply. CRT are thinking 'people who flout the rules need holding to account, or everyone will be at it', and quite rightly too.

 

I think they have learned from the CMing debacle that a 'relaxed attitude' to compliance just leads to more and more people taking the p!ss, so a line has to be drawn and people just over the line must be made to comply or get off the cut.

 

And wherever they draw the line, there will be objections such as yours. What would your ideal scenario be? Let everyone who is a bit short of cash live on the cut for free?

 

 

MtB

[luctor et emergo]

I don't think they are. I have no problem with CRT dealing with Non Compliance but I think it is the pursuit of costs from someone who clearly does not have the money that is being debated. Maybe there is some legal reason they have to do that

So, which average boater who finds himself in dispute with cart, would have in the region of £70.000 to pay for any cost? Cart use a ridicously expensive laywer, because they have the budget. A budget that WE pay for, either in licence fee, mooring fee, or tax.

[wrigglefingers]

 

A lot of people are saying its a pointless case to pursue, but what sort of cases should cart pursue for non compliant of the rules ??

 

Darren

 

Clearly not ones where some tolerance and some forethought would have prevented an unnecessary waste of all our money.

 

Although, cynically I might just point out that taking this person to court in this way has has rewarded CRT with heaps loads of publicity which quite frankly, a publicity campaign on the subject would have cost far more and had far less effect. However, is this way we expect a public body to behave - select someone with very little to lose, pursue them for everything they have and then sit back to watch the ensuing dustcloud as we, once again show ourselves to be all to eager to believe that most boaters without a home mooring are reprobates, stealing an advantage over the rest of us?

 

The longview is that this is not about facts but managing perception of facts. In the meantime, one, disabled, unaffluent boater stands to lose his home and be shunted into a system that has even less security than living on the water. In a tolerant and thoughtful society, we would understand that some people manage less well than ourselves but manage some semblance of charity and forethought towards them.

Edited August 30, 2013 by wrigglefingers

[pearlygeoff]

There are some appallingly ignorant people on this site who should go back to their football phone ins.

 

Some show some signs of awakening to what's going on which has been staring them in the face for years.

 

However the brief awakening of a week ago was soon quelled by the appearance of Sally Ash and you were falling over yourselves to return to grovelling as usual.

 

None of you, the 'regulars' have got a clue yet you set yourselves up as the 'voice of the waterways'.

 

You have allowed these usurpers to destroy the waterways and the idea of a 'way of life' on the waterways and you are now getting what you deserve.

[kbarber]

Seems to me there's two completely separate issues that are getting mixed up in this.

 

1: Enforcement. Licencing, Boat Safety Certificate, terms & conditions of a licence (perhaps particularly, in this case, a continuous cruising licence).

 

2: Individual circumstances. Disablement, financial circumstances, lifestyle (someone spoke of lifestyle choice but I wonder how much choice Mr Ward really has), social policy with regard to support for homeless people, disabled people, the economic state of the country - add further factors according to choice & political/social belief.

 

CRT have, so far, treated this as an enforcement matter. So have NBTA, I suspect - Brown has a well-publicised case currently in progress and it would assist his efforts considerably if another boater succeeded in showing that some part of the legislation CRT relies on were in any way defective. One might almost go so far as to say that Brown is using Mr Ward in the interests of his own case; although I'm sure there is a considerable degree of fellow-feeling, Brown's insistence on pursuing the case when Ward felt himself unable to continue is instructive. At the level of a purely enforcement issue, CRT's action in seeking costs makes a lot of sense. They can choose to not enforce it, in which case the debt remains and they can use that at any time in the future to exclude Mr Ward from keeping a boat on their water. (Someone with better knowledge than I would have to comment whether limitation would apply to the period the debt stands and whether this could be overcome by any means, such as occasional reminders of the outstanding debt in the form of a letter of claim and threat of action.) Measured as the cost of excluding one person of no means from the waterways, £76k is ridiculous. Measured as the cost of establishing a principle that can then be enforced against a much greater number of people at minimal cost, the economics are rather better. Measured as the cost of establishng the principle, enabling future enforcement and deterring numerous others who might otherwise require enforcement action in the more distant future it begins to look quite reasonable.

 

That is the purely enforcement issue, the technical legal matter that a court has to decide. Individual circumstances are another matter altogether.

 

I'm rather uncomfortable with some of the dismissive comments on Mr Ward's disablement and his receipt of benefits. Correction: in some cases I'm simply appalled! There is no sign there of human compassion and I think people who make those comments say more about themselves than ever they say about the subject of their disdain. Few, if any of us know Mr Ward or his circumstances; any who do have chosen not to comment. Rightly so; would you like the intimate details of your life spread across a forum like this to be picked over, insulted and dismissed by some of the less empathic commentators - or indeed to elicit a rather unempathic 'poor man' sympathy from the more empathic? I know I wouldn't.

 

But individual circumstances may reflect social and political issues. Thirty years ago, homelessness was rife in this country and the centre for homeless people in the crypt of my church fed and cared for over 300 people a night. Which meant we heard some of their stories. Truly, 'there but for the grace of God...' Don't think it couldn't happen to you - it could, and if it does it could happen so quickly you don't have time to recognise it and make any effective response. I thank my God that, starting in the later 1990s, serious money was put in to helping homeless people off the street (even if some had been so affected by the experience that living in a house had become impossible for them). More recently, recession and austerity have led to homelessness becoming a feature once more. (It'll be a long time before I forget the cardboard shelter in the doorway of a closed shop in my local high street that was somebody's Christmas 'home'; truly no room at the inn!) The lack of official compassion has been very notable (the nadir was probably the police action in Ilford a few months ago, an example of official heartlessness that will take a lot of beating).

 

Disablement remains a hot topic. Only last night the TV news reported that, a year after the Paralympics, attitudes to disabled people remain somewhere between bad and appalling. That is exacerbated no end by the narratives - largely in certain sections of the press - that equated disabled people living on benefits with 'scroungers' and cast them as an improper burden on society. Just remember that many of our triumphant Paralympians are among those people who need benefits in order to survive, let alone achieve those potentials! Official attitudes are scarcely better; the controversies around disability tests to qualify for benefits have been well reported and the problem has not gone away just because it has ceased to be flavour of the month.

 

Lifestyle might seem a different matter. But I wonder. Officialdom is slowly limiting possibilities for people, creating a society of bland uniformity in which only wealth creation by identikit docile workers is regarded as a truly acceptable occupation. A good number of the refuseniks congregate here, one of the things that makes this forum worthwhile (IMHO anyway). But many alternative lifestyles can be lived rather more cheaply than more conventional ones. Someone mentioned the cost of Mr Ward's choice of lifestyle. In my neighbourhood a house costs in excess of £1000 per calendar month to rent, a room in a shared house something like £500pcm. Is 'the cost of Mr Ward's chosen lifestyle' really greater than the cost of living on the land? Or is he, rather, saving the taxpayer money by choosing to live on the water - and preserving a degree of individuality in the process?

 

It seems to me that there does need to be room for official compassion in individual cases. It would be to CRT's advantage, in my view, if they now adopted a policy of engaging with people who are currently living on the waterways in a non-compliant way, but making it clear that 'new entrants' will not be tolerated. The judgement against Mr Ward could be a useful tool in that, provided it is not enforced willy-nilly or heavy-handedly and provided they now seek to negotiate a reasonable solution.

 

It also seems worth mentioning that Mr Ward, being disabled, not working and in receipt of benefits, is in a rather different position to that of the person (was it Mr Brown?) who sought to move his boat up and down 10 miles of the K&A so he could remain in the locality without having to pay the cost of a mooring even though he was working. I wonder if that might have influenced Mr Brown's willingness to be a McKenzie to Mr Ward - perhaps hoping that a compassionate judge would make a chink in CRT's legal armour?

[Guest]

There are some appallingly ignorant people on this site who should go back to their football phone ins.

 

Some show some signs of awakening to what's going on which has been staring them in the face for years.

 

However the brief awakening of a week ago was soon quelled by the appearance of Sally Ash and you were falling over yourselves to return to grovelling as usual.

 

None of you, the 'regulars' have got a clue yet you set yourselves up as the 'voice of the waterways'.

 

You have allowed these usurpers to destroy the waterways and the idea of a 'way of life' on the waterways and you are now getting what you deserve.

 

I think you need to go back to that thread - not all 'went back to grovelling' as you put it.

 

So what are you doing about anything - it would be good to hear.

[Kwacker]

 

The judge didn't think that he was unable to obtain a BSC merely that he knew that he needed one and failed to get one, making ever more excuses as to the fact that he couldn't find one, whilst claiming that BW had no right to charge a late payment fee.

 

The judgement seems fairly unambiguous that this guy is the architect of his own misfortune (or to be fair to him, he is joint architect, along with the friend who advised him - I presume NBTA).

 

Yes it may be chicken and egg where some people can't afford both BSC and licence. However that is what it costs to stay on a canal (much as he will recall that as a traveller on the roads he was required by law to have licence and MOT). If he cannot pay his way then his lifestyle choices are constrained by the funds that he has.

 

Pursuing somebody who has no money to make an example of him may seem harsh, but what should they do?

 

Regard all licence fees as a voluntary contribution and simply ignore non-payment or perhaps continue to take people to court incurring expenses along the way?

 

I'm afraid that if people wish to continue to have their day in court to spout utter nonsense about their failure to abide by the rules they need to understand that there are consequences.

 

This also sends out a message to those clever people who "advise" the defendants in such cases.

[Naughty Cal]

So, which average boater who finds himself in dispute with cart, would have in the region of £70.000 to pay for any cost? Cart use a ridicously expensive laywer, because they have the budget. A budget that WE pay for, either in licence fee, mooring fee, or tax.

How many average boaters will find themselves in dispute with CRT?

 

If you comply you have nothing to worry about.

[RickH]

 

I think there may be clue in the wording of the newspaper report:

 

".. who stays between Devizes and the Dundas Aqueduct ..."

 

and

 

"A CRT spokesman said: “We have encouraged him to licence and abide by the terms and conditions of a licence ...""

Only just got back on the forum after a week away and I really can't be arsed to read every single post on this topic so if I'm repeating what someone else has said , I aplogise . If this is the person I'm thinking of and I'm pretty sure it is , he is near Semington and has been as far as I know , there for around 5 years . That's right , 5 years , his boats are somewhat delapitated , moored side by side and he has been in court with the authorities numerous times . What makes me laugh , and it might you too , is he has a sign on his boat telling other boaters to Slow Down , I'm sorry , if you're not prepared to follow the rules the majority of boaters do , why the hell should anyone do what you command . I'm also a little sick of people that claim "disability" as a reason to flaunt the law , there are many including now veterans of conflict in far worse condition than this chap that get on with their lives . I'm not a great fan of CRT and to be honest demanding 76 grand from him is ridiculous , but I can understand their frustration .

[steven wilkinson]

Its a well used tactic that Authorities will use massively expensive 'experts' as a means to frighten defendants into submission. 'Are you THAT confident that you will win? If you do lose you will have to pay our HUGE costs. How confident are you again?'

 

The way I read this is that this is a warning shot to everyone else. 'Get your act together, or we will come after you, and you will lose your boat, and you will get a bill of tens of thousands of pounds!'

[luctor et emergo]

How many average boaters will find themselves in dispute with CRT?

 

If you comply you have nothing to worry about.

That's right. But how many people are going to fall foul of the new mooring regulations that cart are randomly introducing? And do you think they will stop at Stoke Brueurne?

[NigelMoore]

 

The judge didn't think that he was unable to obtain a BSC merely that he knew that he needed one and failed to get one . . .

 

Yes it may be chicken and egg where some people can't afford both BSC and licence. However that is what it costs to stay on a canal (much as he will recall that as a traveller on the roads he was required by law to have licence and MOT). If he cannot pay his way then his lifestyle choices are constrained by the funds that he has.

 

In fact the judgment reveals that he did eventually get a BSC, by June 2010 - not a failure to get one, rather a failure to get one in good time - hence the late fee.

 

The problem does not appear to be one of straightened finance when the BSC was eventually gained and the licence fee sent off, however late.

 

Given that statute grants the authority the right to charge for the general boat licence, arguing over the amount [which is what objection to the 'late fee' amounts to] was never going to fly.

I do really wish CRT would comment on this case.(issue a statement)

 

Problem is, going on past performance, no statement from the authority could be relied upon to describe the situation accurately.

 

I won’t express any views while unable to verify the relevant facts, but we have been told that the boater, whatever his objections in principle, actually ended up paying the fine and all outstanding sums, prior to reaching the court, only to have his cheques returned to him - !?

 

Sounds bizarre; the authority may have wanted another test case, and the boater probably thought: well if they are going that route regardless of my reluctant compliance, then I might as well fight on the principles I began with. That is hardly 'wanting to have his day in court' as some suggest.

 

So far as pursuing for the costs, there is no legal reason they have to; having made their point the financially sensible thing would be to rest on their laurels. There is no time limit for bankrupting someone over unpaid costs orders, so they could go that route any time they chose, or never. As suspected, there has to be a further motive to throw good money after bad right now.

[nicknorman]

No doubt the full story is a more complex one that any of us know, however as a general point, being disabled and/or having no money cannot be an excuse not to comply with reasonable regulations (such as having a BSS and a licence). Whilst CRT obviously have no hope of recovering their costs, they are sending a message that having no money is not a reason to be above the law. Whilst it might seem mean, to take the other view and turn a blind eye to anyone who is a bit skint, is even more untenable. Boating is not a cheap passtime or way of life and sorry, you have to be able to pay for your licence and BSS or find somewhere cheaper to live (or maybe get a job, depending on the exact nature of the disability).

[mark99]

SNIP

 

The way I read this is that this is a warning shot to everyone else. 'Get your act together, or we will come after you, and you will lose your boat, and you will get a bill of tens of thousands of pounds!'

Yup exactly what I was saying. There is only one logical reason imo that someone pursues a man of straw for costs and that is to shout loud and clear the deterrant message the others.

 

They, again imo, have weighed up the costs of expediture on this case against future savings made against a lesser number of cases because <quite rightly> they have established the boundaries.

Edited August 30, 2013 by mark99