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

[Naughty Cal]

The impression so far is, that a licence was refused for two reasons. 1 no BSC, and 2 non compliance.

The boaters did apply for a licence for two boats, which complied with the rules, but his cheuques were returned.

There is the problem, because we dom't have the relevant detail.

Despite a dispute about a different boat, cart (or bw before) should have issued a licence for a seperate boat, if all other conditions for that boat were met. It seems, from the information available, that they refused.

So you are happy to decide that CRT are in the wrong without all of the relevant detail?

 

Perhaps there is a valid reason for refusal and CRT are well within their rights. But we don't have the relevant detail.

[Timleech]

The impression so far is, that a licence was refused for two reasons. 1 no BSC, and 2 non compliance.

The boaters did apply for a licence for two boats, which complied with the rules, but his cheuques were returned.

There is the problem, because we dom't have the relevant detail.

Despite a dispute about a different boat, cart (or bw before) should have issued a licence for a seperate boat, if all other conditions for that boat were met. It seems, from the information available, that they refused.

 

I agree that more information on that aspect would help. I have no idea whether a history of non-compliance is sufficient grounds for refusing a licence. Owing thousands in court costs might not be, if owing £25 in overstay charges is not.

 

It was the court proceedings which I was thinking of, they seem on the face of it to have been quite straightforward.

 

Tim

[NigelMoore]

 

Can you expand on that Nigel? Do CRT have to issue a license

 

Richard

 

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/1127.pdf

 

1. Overview of statutory framework [page 6 of 11]

 

6^th paragraph:

 

“The British Waterways Act 1995 limits to three specific criteria our ability to refuse to licence a boat.” [my underlining]

[mark99]

The trouble with "if's and buts" is there is no fixed point. Just a big cloud that's easy to shift position within.

Edited August 30, 2013 by mark99

[luctor et emergo]

So you are happy to decide that CRT are in the wrong without all of the relevant detail?

<No, I am not. I have not taken sides, because I don't know the details. My argument is about cart's heavy handed approach, and cart's know ignorance of their own powers.

I am looking beyond this individual case, to what may come after..>

 

 

Perhaps there is a valid reason for refusal and CRT are well within their rights. But we don't have the relevant detail.

 

<If there is such a valid reason, why don't they mention it? It would negate all argument. >

[NigelMoore]

If its a cruising boat and they dont think you're going to cruise it, then CRT certainly think they can refuse it?

 

Yes, of course, correctly. They can both think that and [if their view was reasonable] legitimately apply that as a reason for refusal – but that was not the statement issued, wherein failure to pay court costs would be used as a reason for refusal.

 

Cruising regs don’t enter into this case so far as the judgment is concerned.

[Delta9]

So you are happy to decide that CRT are in the wrong without all of the relevant detail?

 

Perhaps there is a valid reason for refusal and CRT are well within their rights. But we don't have the relevant detail.

You seemed happy to decide that this guy is a benefits scrounger without all of the relevant detail

[Doorman]

Pure speculation on my part, but, if (as per OP's link) vision in one eye was lost by a battery exploding!

 

Iain

Has he ever been charged with anything?

 

It appears that the bulk of his time has been absorbed avoiding paying his dues and floating around lazily!

Edited August 30, 2013 by Doorman

[NigelMoore]

If you comply you have nothing to worry about.

 

 

Yes, if you stick to the rules, you have nothing to fear.

 

Unfortunately this is completely untrue – and it needs to be remarked on yet again, simply because this idea still permeates people’s thinking and misleadingly informs some of the contributions to the forum.

 

The raw fact is that the authority will pursue lengthy and expensive court cases against boaters for a variety of reasons, not necessarily having anything to do with guilt or innocence, nor necessarily for any wider, public beneficial purpose.

 

So it is inappropriate to automatically assume that some unquestionable breach of legitimate regulations has occurred, simply because the authority chooses to pursue someone. There may indeed be a legitimate [and proportionate] case to answer, in which case the authority should pursue it – by all alternative means possible before turning to the courts, but certainly through the courts when all else has failed. However the fact of a case being brought does not of itself suggest a legitimate case &/or proportionate response. Nor does even a court finding necessarily establish once and for all that the authority was correct &/or justified – it’s merely, most of the time when injustice is perpetrated, that victims are disinclined to proceed further down the punishing appeal route.

 

The authority has evicted boats from the waterways in order to facilitate alternative development – whether by themselves or by signed-up business partners; they have sought to evict them from purely personal motives; as part of a projected assembly of persuasive CCJ’s by way of refining/adding to the conditions of licences; even, if you believe them, for no reason at all beyond the asserted fact that they can – no public purpose at all, other than a demonstration that whatever they say goes, and woe betide you if you squeal about it.

 

I do not believe that the authority ever sits down to factor in the projected costs in these matters; the money does not come from the pockets of the employees taking the decisions – further, a huge amount of decision making is left to the firms of external solicitors who have developed specialised expertise in prosecuting such cases – and one needs to question how far the public interest and commercial viability enters into any advice such private legal firms give their client.

[luctor et emergo]

Has he ever been charged with anything?

 

It appears that the bulk of his time has been absorbed avoiding paying his dues of floating around lazily!

Oh, that is lazy. You are normaly much more subtle, and at the same time more scathing.

 

You are lucky. You are healthy, capable, and have had a mind to make the most of what life offered you.

 

But why do you have to be so condecending towards those who may, for what ever reason you don't know, have not been either so lucky, or had your abilities?

[Naughty Cal]

You seemed happy to decide that this guy is a benefits scrounger without all of the relevant detail

No we have detail of his "disability" and also of his record of non compliance.

[luctor et emergo]

No we have detail of his "disability" and also of his record of non compliance.

 

What detail of his non-compliance? Dates? How did he not comply?

 

And as for you to put his loss of an eye in brackets, implying that loosing an eye is a make up way of claiming benefit..

Edited August 30, 2013 by luctor et emergo

[Naughty Cal]

What detail of his non-compliance? Dates? How did he not comply?

There is at least one poster on this topic so far who had confirmed that this chap has been in the same small spot for five years.

[ChimneyChain]

Can i just say he has NO disability he had just lost the sight in one eye.

 

Darren

[Doorman]

Oh, that is lazy. You are normaly much more subtle, and at the same time more scathing.

You are lucky. You are healthy, capable, and have had a mind to make the most of what life offered you.

But why do you have to be so condecending towards those who may, for what ever reason you don't know, have not been either so lucky, or had your abilities?

Lol...!

 

There's always one who takes the bait.

 

If you re-read the snippet of the original quote regarding the battery incident and then see the subtlety of my reply with the inclusion of the words; charged, bulk, absorbed and floating you will note that these are terms associated with batteries and various stages of charge.

 

I shall forgive you on this occasion and treat it as 'lost in translation' being as you're Dutch. :-)

[Delta9]

No we have detail of his "disability" and also of his record of non compliance.

Have details of his disability even been made public? Do you work for atos or are you just psychic?

 

Can i just say he has NO disability he had just lost the sight in one eye.

 

Darren

 

Blindness no longer a disability. More news at 10.

[Guest]

Can i just say he has NO disability he had just lost the sight in one eye.

Darren

 

Whether the guy has a disability or not is not really relevant to the position he is in, plus the fact that you don't asses people for incapacity benefit means your are barred from offering a meaningful opinion on it so no.

Edited August 30, 2013 by The Dog House

[luctor et emergo]

There is at least one poster on this topic so far who had confirmed that this chap has been in the same small spot for five years.

There you are then. All you need is one witness. What if somebody else has seen him elsewhwere in those five years? I know, that doesn't count.

Lol...!

 

There's always one who takes the bait.

 

If you re-read the snippet of the original quote regarding the battery incident and then see the subtlety of my reply with the inclusion of the words; charged, bulk, absorbed and floating you will note that these are terms associated with batteries and various stages of charge.

 

I shall forgive you on this occasion and treat it as 'lost in translation' being as you're Dutch. :-)

I am often complimented, by British people, that my English is better than the native's..

 

For what that is worth, the fact that you like to take the piss out of somebodies missfortune, and gload about it, says all about you that we need to know.

 

Back to Naughtycal, at least she doesn't need to resort to personal attacks to keep the argument going

[jenlyn]

Part of this I would imagine involves CRT believing mr ward would have gained his licence, then again stuck two fingers up when the need came to move. Thus starting the whole process all over again with yet more costs.

My only beef with this issue is the fact that I believe CRT need to find a way of dealing with this in a more acceptable way.

Let's not lose the plot, mr ward was moored there for 5 years. He was wrong. At most, CRT needs to find a more "acceptable" way of dealing with these situations.

[ChimneyChain]

 

 

 

Blindness no longer a disability. More news at 10.

Not that it does have any thing to do with this case in question but losing your sight in one eye does not stop you from participating in day-to-day life and activities. Being blind in BOTH eyes is a disability. It's up to the Individual to Determine what type of path he chooses to lead.

 

Darren

[Guest]

Not that it does have any thing to do with this case in question but losing your sight in one eye does not stop you from participating in day-to-day life and activities. Being blind in BOTH eyes is a disability. It's up to the Individual to Determine what type of path he chooses to lead.

 

Darren

 

You omit to to address a fundamental issue - you, we, all of us have no idea as to what sight he has in the other eye.

 

You can't see (no pun intended) just how judgemental you are being on the scantest of information about his full circumstances , you have clearly written him off as some sort of work shy scrounger and by implication are saying 'serves him right'

[luctor et emergo]

Yes, just as it is with all disabilities.

How can you quantify how a certain disability effects somebody?

For example see how a soldier can lose both legs and an arm, and still get out and cope with that, with a positivity that belies our comprehension. But at the same time, one of his compatriots, who walked side by side, sat back to back in a foxhole, decends into alcohoism, and sleeps in doorways.

 

There but for the grace..

[Delta9]

Not that it does have any thing to do with this case in question but losing your sight in one eye does not stop you from participating in day-to-day life and activities. Being blind in BOTH eyes is a disability. It's up to the Individual to Determine what type of path he chooses to lead.

 

Darren

Being paralysed from the neck down doesn't stop some people from participating in day to day life, look at Stephen Hawking. Does this mean that we should not count paraplegia or motor neuron disease as a disability? I mean, we could stick them all in call centers, right? Make the buggers work for their benefits?

[Naughty Cal]

 

You omit to to address a fundamental issue - you, we, all of us have no idea as to what sight he has in the other eye.

 

You can't see (no pun intended) just how judgemental you are being on the scantest of information about his full circumstances , you have clearly written him off as some sort of work shy scrounger and by implication are saying 'serves him right'

There are very few disabilities that rule people completely out of the work force.

 

Losing sight in one eye isn't one of them.

Being paralysed from the neck down doesn't stop some people from participating in day to day life, look at Stephen Hawking. Does this mean that we should not count paraplegia or motor neuron disease as a disability? I mean, we could stick them all in call centers, right? Make the buggers work for their benefits?

Why not?

[Guest]

There are very few disabilities that rule people completely out of the work force.

 

Losing sight in one eye isn't one of them.

 

Now you are doing it aswell.