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

[Guest]

Should it also not be against the licencing conditions to 'fail to display' a current licence?

 

It already is.

 

7. Your other obligations

7.1. You must display the Boat’s name, index number and the Licence on both sides of the Boat so that

they are always easily visible by our employees on the towpath or on the Waterway.

My red.

Edited August 31, 2013 by The Dog House

[MtB]

Was the resaon that the boat was not lifted from the water not because it had been sold and Ward had acquired 2 other boats, which, of course, are not subject to Section 8s? As you say, CRT need to put a strong mesaage out there that if folk want to keep a boat on the water, they must have the proper licence, BSS, insurance etc.. If they can't afford it then perhaps the water is not the right place for them to be.

I think the years of BW being ineffectual about enforcement are coming home to roost and there seems to be a big problem out there.

 

haggis

 

No. Reading the Judgement, CRT were in court seeking a declaration that they are entitled to remove the defendant's boat HANNELORE from CRT waters, along with an injunction preventing him from mooring HANNELORE on any part of the K&A or any other CRT water.

 

I couldn't see any mention of £76k being claimed, so I'm wondering if I'm reading the wrong judgement.

 

MtB

[Leo No2]

It already is.

 

7. Your other obligations

7.1. You must display the Boat’s name, index number and the Licence on both sides of the Boat so that

they are always easily visible by our employees on the towpath or on the Waterway.

 

My red.

I thought it should be but I have seen so many who don't display a combination of, or all three, of the requirements. It would help if the boaters AND CRT got the basics right but I suppose there are those who just want to be difficult! My boat is still on the Wey and I have not yet bought and annual licence although that's just around the corner!

[steven wilkinson]

 

No. Reading the Judgement, CRT were in court seeking a declaration that they are entitled to remove the defendant's boat HANNELORE from CRT waters, along with an injunction preventing him from mooring HANNELORE on any part of the K&A or any other CRT water.

 

I couldn't see any mention of £76k being claimed, so I'm wondering if I'm reading the wrong judgement.

 

MtB

 

 

The last line of the judgement says they are entitled to make an order for costs - but doesn't give a value. I think its the original article that says £76k.

[RLWP]

I couldn't see any mention of £76k being claimed, so I'm wondering if I'm reading the wrong judgement.

 

MtB

 

£76K isn't mentioned, that CRT can claim costs is. It's the last line of the ruling:

 

 

Richard

 

 

The last line of the judgement says they are entitled to make an order for costs - but doesn't give a value. I think its the original article that says £76k.

 

Which is what I would expect. The ruling is around a principle - can they claim costs - not the value of the costs. He's a judge, not an accountant

 

Richard

[MtB]

I see. Thanks.

 

The original article gave me the impression the court case was about CRT attempting to collect £76k unpaid costs.

 

"Trust attempts to recover £76k from man"

 

MtB

[RLWP]

I see. Thanks.

 

The original article gave me the impression the court case was about CRT attempting to collect £76k unpaid costs.

 

"Trust attempts to recover £76k from man"

 

MtB

 

Journalists

 

Richard

[Guest]

I see. Thanks.

 

The original article gave me the impression the court case was about CRT attempting to collect £76k unpaid costs.

 

"Trust attempts to recover £76k from man"

 

MtB

 

I think the article gave more than the impression Mike - it clearly stated it, both in the title and the article itself......

[steven wilkinson]

I have just read the newspaper article again, and it looks like Mr Ward is the source of the £76k information. The article gives me the impression that CRT have given him a bill for that sum.

[NigelMoore]

^{I think you are misunderstanding the article/s.}

^{Very few judgments in complex cases will end with a specified amount in awarded costs, because there will not have been argued debate over the sums claimed. The most that will be specified in expensive cases will be a percentage of estimated costs to be paid by a certain date, pending a formal costs hearing. The interim costs Order will usually be less than 50% of the winner’s [usually generous] estimate. For the rest of it they need to have the costs “taxed”.}

 

^{My reading of the articles does not suggest that the journalist is claiming that the judgment awarded costs, rather that, having won and been confirmed in their right to costs, they have stated their intention to get a costs ruling – involving a further court hearing yet to take place. These are usually held before a taxing master, who will often fairly drastically prune the estimates down to reasonable levels.}

 

^{The sum bandied about will have been the estimate provided by the authority as indicative of their costs in the course of the handing down of judgment. The article has been prompted by the news that the authority fully intend to go forward with the next step; the journalism is not defective in this instance.}

 

 

[RLWP]

Thanks Nigel, that's very clear

 

Richard

[pearlygeoff]

And what about if the 'victim' doesn't owe any money, has always had a licence, has always had insurance, has always had a safety certificate?

 

What about if that person has spent 3 years going through every procedure to get them to answer valid questions about their unlawful and criminal behaviour?

 

What if their final response is ''We can't answer your questions. You'll have to take us to court?

 

What if that person says ''I, obviously, can't take you to court. You'll have to take me to court?

 

What if they then issue a notice to 'continue your journey' just before Christmas, in icy weather (and stoppages) a few days before a complete freeze in the coldest winter for 30 years? In a wooden boat. All this while telling 'revellers' to be aware of dangerous icy conditions.

 

What if that notice, improperly issued, by an ignorant, illiterate halfwit (woman) employed as an 'enforcement officer' (misconduct in public office) is followed by the 2 further notices required before revoking the licence and issuing an eviction notice (for not having a licence)?

 

You get the picture. The person owes no money. Has all the necessary 'paperwork'. Has attempted, in the face of much obstruction, to stop the serious abuse of vulnerable people and refuses to 'shut up' or retreat in the face of their threats. And is recovering from a serious, life threatening, illness requiring numerous medical appointments.

 

The person has dared to challenge British Waterways.

 

They do not just tell you to 'remove your boat'. They come along without due notice and 'steal' your boat with all its contents. They then either sell your boat or destroy it.

 

They did this to a boat at Nantwich and 'sold' the boat for £2000. Someone associated with BW got a cheap boat. This person had been refused a licence and refused a mooring.

 

If they're 'out to get you' they maliciously misuse the enforcement process, including the court process, to destroy your life.

 

The facts of these cases are not always what many of you would like to believe.

 

I suggest you think a bit more seriously about what's going on before shooting your mouth off.

[steven wilkinson]

I don't think I misunderstand anything at all! Where did anyone - me or others - say that the journalism was defective?

[MtB]

And what about if the 'victim' doesn't owe any money, has always had a licence, has always had insurance, has always had a safety certificate?

<content snipped >

I suggest you think a bit more seriously about what's going on before shooting your mouth off.

 

But this nothing to do with a 'victim' who owes no money. It's about a boater who failed to license his boat in good time and is reaping the consequences of sticking two fingers up at BW.

 

You are posting in the wrong thread. Maybe you should start a new one.

 

MtB

[dor]

 

 

They did this to a boat at Nantwich and 'sold' the boat for £2000. Someone associated with BW got a cheap boat. This person had been refused a licence and refused a mooring.

 

Was this the one that spent several years on the embankment visitor moorings with no license that BW eventually decided that following the Section 8 route was the only alternative they had to completely ignoring him?

[NigelMoore]

If they're 'out to get you' they maliciously misuse the enforcement process, including the court process, to destroy your life.

 

The facts of these cases are not always what many of you would like to believe.

 

I suggest you think a bit more seriously about what's going on before shooting your mouth off.

 

 

I don't think I misunderstand anything at all! Where did anyone - me or others - say that the journalism was defective?

 

Perhaps it is a mistake to post without the usual ‘quote’ to indicate to which post one is responding. For example, I don’t know whether pearlygeoff's #237 is directed at me personally or at a range of contributors. IF it was directed at me personally, then I could say first off that I have tried to make it clear that I am making no comment on the validity of the judgment while possessed of insufficient background; I have simply been commenting on what are the peripheral and consequential issues. Indeed, I have noted that on straightforward reading of the judgment, it is a severely defective one - not the same as saying the result is unsustainable, I don’t have the background to say it is or isn’t.

 

Secondly, where pearlygeoff claims: “If they're 'out to get you' they maliciously misuse the enforcement process, including the court process, to destroy your life. The facts of these cases are not always what many of you would like to believe” I am fully sympathetic; I know far more than most how true that is, so that IF the following “I suggest you think a bit more seriously about what's going on before shooting your mouth off” comment was directed at me, it was very misplaced.

 

But I can’t, of course, assume that it was anything other than a general protest, because the post was not tied to any particular identified previous one.

 

On that note: I made the comment about journalism in light of the whole string of prior comments indicating confusion over relating the content of the judgment with the headlines of the article indicating a pursuit of stated costs. It seemed clumsy to multiple quote.

 

I could perhaps have used just one, and the best choice to answer #238 “Where did anyone - me or others - say that the journalism was defective?” would probably have been [while noting the context of the prior posts] #232 –

 

“Journalists Richard”

[pearlygeoff]

MTB.

 

I'm citing a different case. The actions of the Canal and River Tyranny are being justified on the basis of their being owed money. What if they take the same action and seek the same 'relief' and, yet, are owed no money.

 

DOR

I don't know. The person was refused a licence for no reason, as is common in this area, and has happened to me until reinstated by Julie Sharman. He was told he would have to get a mooring and when he applied for an 'unlawful'' mooring' which any available moorings are, he was refused a 'mooring' because he lived on his boat.

 

Catch 22 + Franz Kafka = Canal and River Tyranny

[MtB]

MTB.

 

I'm citing a different case. The actions of the Canal and River Tyranny are being justified on the basis of their being owed money. What if they take the same action and seek the same 'relief' and, yet, are owed no money.

 

DOR

I don't know. The person was refused a licence for no reason, as is common in this area, and has happened to me until reinstated by Julie Sharman. He was told he would have to get a mooring and when he applied for an 'unlawful'' mooring' which any available moorings are, he was refused a 'mooring' because he lived on his boat.

 

Catch 22 + Franz Kafka = Canal and River Tyranny

Reading between the lines (relying on your comment "as is common in this area")could it be that this person was a CMer refused a licence on the grounds that he was not engaged in bona fide navigation?

 

Then because he was resident on the boat BW/CRT refused to rent him a leisure mooring? It states on their auction listings "A leisure mooring is not to be used by people intending to use their boat as their main residence".

 

MtB

[pearlygeoff]

Nigel Moore

 

My post was, most definitely, not directed at you but at the various people who are very keen to put people down without knowing the facts and see fit to support an organisation that has sought to remove itself from the limitations and obligations of a public body and become a 'charity' to enable them to harass and abuse people with impunity.

 

You understand what they're doing.

 

I understand what they're doing.

 

I'm not sure anyone else does. They just like to run down people they know nothing about but seem to fit the profile of the objects of their hatred. That's how people are targeted in the first place. Boat clubs, such as Nantwich Cruising Yacht Club complain about anyone they think looks like a 'traveller'. The 'enforcement Androids respond to everything they say. They, virtually ran the Northwich Office. I am not a 'traveller' but I have a wooden boat. Therefore........

 

The Shoosmiths barrister in my trial when asked why it was necessary for me to be removed from the waterways said, ''Your Honour, there is this community on the waterways of which Mr. Mayers is one alongwith X,Y and Z'' and 'It is necessary for the efficient management of the waterways'.

 

They are targeting people who appear to be 'travellers which makes traveller' arguments, not only pointless but damaging to the rest of us and a court is considering, in its judgment, the issue of 'opening the 'floodgates'. Your case will not be considered on its merits but on the consequences of the judgment. As with everything regarding individual liberties, and pretty much everything else, it is not what is fair or right or just or moral or lawful that is considered but what is expedient.

[pearlygeoff]

MTB

 

Are you not aware that virtually every available mooring is only a leisure mooring? They have no planning permission yet you are being forced to take an 'unlawful' mooring with threat of legal action.

 

As I have said before in several places which is the greater breach of the law? Living on an unlawful mooring and, probably, claiming housing benefit, having been informed by BW that the mooring is unlawful and you are liable to enforcement action.

 

or

 

Threatening people through harassment and threat of legal action to take such a mooring, particularly, in a BWML marina and taking rent (which does not go to CRT but is private profit) and signing an agreement saying you don't live there.

 

You need to do some research.

[MtB]

MTB

 

Are you not aware that virtually every available mooring is only a leisure mooring? They have no planning permission yet you are being forced to take an 'unlawful' mooring with threat of legal action.

 

I am.

 

Are you aware the cut is not a linear housing estate?

 

You need to do some research.

 

MtB

[pearlygeoff]

MTB

 

Who encouraged people to come onto the canals saying 'we need more boats on the waterways'. And then said you have to have a mooring. And then said we have no intention of providing moorings.

 

Where did I mention linear housing estates?

 

You're making irrelevant assumptions again.

[jenlyn]

I am.

 

Are you aware the cut is not a linear housing estate?

 

You need to do some research.

 

MtB

CRT quite happily promote the use of housing benefit for payment on moorings, and consequently take it as payment. That sort of makes a statement.

[MtB]

MTB

 

Who encouraged people to come onto the canals saying 'we need more boats on the waterways'. And then said you have to have a mooring. And then said we have no intention of providing moorings.

 

Where did I mention linear housing estates?

 

You're making irrelevant assumptions again.

 

You didn't mention them. I was telling you because you seem unaware. You seem annoyed and surprised there are few residential moorings on the cut. The cut is not a linear housing estate!

 

What am I assuming?

 

I suspect BW said 'we need more boats', back in the 1970s. There are enough now, too many in fact.

 

MtB

[NigelMoore]

The Shoosmiths barrister in my trial when asked why it was necessary for me to be removed from the waterways said . . . 'It is necessary for the efficient management of the waterways'.

 

Certainly, efficient management of the waterways is an essential task for the authority to carry out, and there will always be instances where court action is required to enforce the law in order to attain this. The presumption, however, that all cases brought by BW/CART fall into that category automatically, is misguided.

 

For the argument “necessary for the efficient management” to hold water, their actions need to be seen at all times to be measured and proportionate to that legitimate & identifiable end; the generalisation is insufficient. It would be helpful for CART to pin up on the legal department’s wall a quote or two from Hildyard’s Supplemental Judgment of 2013 –

 

“In such circumstances, as it seems to me, I do not think I am obliged to accept without question that BWB had good and sufficient reason to do what they did.”

 

“Looking first at the public authority’s justification for doing what it has done, in many cases there will in effect be a presumption of proportionality. As made clear in cases such as Powell and Pinnock, it is unusual for Local Authorities to be required to justify their decision because it is ordinarily to be assumed that everything has been done properly and for legitimate management reasons. The flaws in BWB’s approach tend to militate against that presumption . . .” [my emphasis]

 

Perhaps that judgment should have been brought to the judge’s attention in your case by way of response to Mr Stoner’s claim? As the song goes - “It ain’t necessarily so . . .”