crt and the courts

[gaggle]

So that is sorted out , Nigel everyone wants you to carry on informing us via the forum about your activities and Allen everyone is pleased you keep us up to date about the goings on at cart that they would rather we not know about , thank you for all the effort you put in .

[Rich]

 

Sorry, can't make sense of that. Would rather not get into a debate on insurance companies, banks or their regulation if that's okay, but by all means if you have interesting stories that you can share publically (ie post on the forum) which others may be interested in too, then feel free to post them.

 

I must find out how to split quotes. It used to be easy!

 

The bit that you couldn't understand, put simply, you are spouting rubbish.

 

Thank you for giving me your permission to post details on here but, no thanks. Some things don't are personal and do not need publicising. I am not surprised that you don't want to "debate" insurance company ethics. It would spoil your contention.

 

Yes and yes.

 

Oh. In your view is it "the best they can do" to allow mile upon mile of towpath edge to be unapproachable because of uncut growth, or, where the edge of the towpath can be seen for it to be acceptable to be unable to get the back of a boat, drawing 27" into the side. If it is, it is not mine. In the short period I have been regularly boating, eight years as a liveaboard with winters on moorings, I have seen the state of the canals deteriorate drastically. I suspect that with a b****y good clear out of management and fresh appointments things could improve, slowly, instead of deteriorating quickly.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Rich

[Guest]

bollards.yes i have a boat and yes i go out on it L&L , BRIDGEWATER , TRENT &MERSEY , MACC , CLDER&HEBBLE ,AIRE AND CALDER ,ASHTON ,HNC, HNB UP TO LLANGOLLEN , just repeats of them each year really and i see what i see but i also have no reason to disbelieve faults and breaches others report happening , some despite reports going in from boaters and others to forwarn of problems about to happen.

I don't that question was aimed at you Gaggle...

[Rich]

I wasn't confused.

 

I was asking whether somebody has a boat or not has anything to do with their right to participate in this discussion.

 

I don't see somebody not having a boat as reason for precluding them from doing so.

 

Sorry again, I thought perhaps you were.

 

I know of no reason why someone who does not have a boat should be barred from joining in this discussion. But I did wonder about someone's credentials re boating when they appear to think that the current state of much of the canal system is anything other than poor. That would be poor as in money and poor as in state.

[Guest]

Sorry again, I thought perhaps you were.

 

I know of no reason why someone who does not have a boat should be barred from joining in this discussion. But I did wonder about someone's credentials re boating when they appear to think that the current state of much of the canal system is anything other than poor. That would be poor as in money and poor as in state.

I understand your secondary point about waterways maintenance. But I don't agree with that either.

 

Hey ho...

Edited December 13, 2013 by The Dog House

[Mick and Maggie]

By the way, you're not a C&RT employee are you?

SHU I believe.

 

http://www.zerohoursuni.org/

[Rich]

 

No that's fine, that's your opinion. I go boating a lot and regularly speak to the CRT staff 'on the ground' who attend to things such as faulty locks, drained pounds, lift staff at Anderton, volunteer lockkeepers etc. I guess I may fall into your "easily pleased" category. I'm not expecting them to perform miracles with sometimes 200 year old infrastructure etc.

But eight years ago they were in much better condition than they are now. Collapsing locks and culverts aside the canal towpaths need cutting (veg pledge) and the canals dredging. We have difficulty in finding somewhere to moor, frequently. eight years ago you could cruise up the Llangollen and pick your mooring spot with ease. Not now. The only places really worth trying are the ubiquitous 48 hour Shropshire Canal Society moorings. Unless you want to progress like a Mississippi river boat pilot.

 

I don't get to talk to many Canal and River Trust staff on the ground because they are rarely to be seen.

[gaggle]

I don't that question was aimed at you Gaggle...

Yeh i should have stopped after bollards .

[Guest]

Yeh i should have stopped after bollards .

[dmr]

 

I appreciate there's a slight imbalance (injustice) in that some people don't have the funds to pursue relentless legal action, where corporations normally have some kind of funds to defend such cases.

 

However I strongly disagree with you that because this exists, large firms automatically use it to their advantage to the point that they "rely" on taking advantage of them in their business model. I'll initially dismiss your corollary with insurance companies - they tend to be highly regulated and a lot of the regulation is stacked in the favour of the consumer, not the firm. As far as CRT relying on it, its a nice conspiracy theory but, until someone comes up with something substantial to prove it, just that.

 

I'm afraid to say, all I see is a large organisation with the responsibility of a navigation authority, trying to run a bunch of canals and rivers with very old infrastructure, as best they can, trying to keep a large bunch of disparate users happy. They manage it most of the time.

 

I have some sympathy here, and wish you were totally correct. Yes, a lot of CaRT is just a bunch of people trying to look after some old canals on a limited budget, and most of the people actually doing this are probably decent people. However CaRT are also BIG property owners and BIG property developers with big money at stake and it appears to be the property developer faction that have behaved badly.

I want our canals maintained but I don't want it done with dirty money and that is why I am prepared to listen seriously to what Nigel has to say.

 

..........Dave

[Paul C]

 

 

 

I must find out how to split quotes. It used to be easy!

 

The bit that you couldn't understand, put simply, you are spouting rubbish.

 

Thank you for giving me your permission to post details on here but, no thanks. Some things don't are personal and do not need publicising. I am not surprised that you don't want to "debate" insurance company ethics. It would spoil your contention.

 

Oh. In your view is it "the best they can do" to allow mile upon mile of towpath edge to be unapproachable because of uncut growth, or, where the edge of the towpath can be seen for it to be acceptable to be unable to get the back of a boat, drawing 27" into the side. If it is, it is not mine. In the short period I have been regularly boating, eight years as a liveaboard with winters on moorings, I have seen the state of the canals deteriorate drastically. I suspect that with a b****y good clear out of management and fresh appointments things could improve, slowly, instead of deteriorating quickly.

 

The reason I don't want to get into a private debate/discussion on insurance companies is 1) I don't want to get into private discussions - I don't think it serves any purpose for me. Public discussion I am okay with, the idea of the forum being that one can publically post their thoughts on an issue, it be aired amongst a wide audience, and is open to discussion amongst many and 2) its a side-issue to the canal-related one anyway. I just wanted to make the point that I don't believe CRT and insurance firms are directly comparable etc.

 

"The best they can do" is in the context of a large organisation running a large canal/river network. I am sure if one were to minutely examine every aspect of their work, one might point out it could have been better, but that may have costed more money etc, of which they don't have an infinite supply of. Last year there were at least 3 serious breaches and a number of other high-cost exceptional maintenance issues to deal with, I'd prefer they keep the majority of the canal open even if it means there is an overall slight deterioration in it. I'm being realistic, I don't want mile upon mile of pristine towpath. We too have had issues getting into the side on occasions (our boat has a lesser draft than yours though) but accept it as part of the nature of canals. I appreciate you have first hand knowledge of the bits of canal you're on, but you can't be omnipresent so it only represents a snapshot of your own experience. Thus others' experiences may vary to yours.

[Paul C]

 

I have some sympathy here, and wish you were totally correct. Yes, a lot of CaRT is just a bunch of people trying to look after some old canals on a limited budget, and most of the people actually doing this are probably decent people. However CaRT are also BIG property owners and BIG property developers with big money at stake and it appears to be the property developer faction that have behaved badly.

I want our canals maintained but I don't want it done with dirty money and that is why I am prepared to listen seriously to what Nigel has to say.

 

..........Dave

 

Its worth pointing out that I too am keen to listen/read what Nigel has to say on issues, but the facts of this case are, it went to court and a judgement was made. The extra demands he has now made appear like he is not happy with the way things went in court, so he wants to choose a much more rigid, different set of rules and conduct his own trial by internet (he mentions interviewing key figures in CRT, etc). The judgement reinforces that in fact the transactions were above board, so I don't think there's any validity in saying there's "dirty money" involved here.

 

The full judgement text is available here:

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/2477.html

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Its worth pointing out that I too am keen to listen/read what Nigel has to say on issues, but the facts of this case are, it went to court and a judgement was made. The extra demands he has now made appear like he is not happy with the way things went in court, so he wants to choose a much more rigid, different set of rules and conduct his own trial by internet (he mentions interviewing key figures in CRT, etc). The judgement reinforces that in fact the transactions were above board, so I don't think there's any validity in saying there's "dirty money" involved here.

 

The full judgement text is available here:

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/2477.html

This is what CaRT said in narrowboatworld and my response -

 

Your correspondent Allan Richards ignored the recently expressed views of the High Court concerning his allegations of forgery and fraud to do with a plan of landholdings at Brentford. (narrowboatworld Friday 6th December), a spokesman for Canal & River Trust tells us.

These allegations were fully aired in the case of De Vere vs Land Registry (in which the Trust and Mr Nigel Moore were joined as ‘interested parties'). In his Judgment [2013] EWHC2477 (Admin), His Honour Judge Anthony Thornton QC said that the claimant had ‘not produced a scintilla of evidence to show that any error it contains arises from an act of dishonesty, fraud or forgery.'

Particularly in the light of that Judgment, Allan Richards' assertions are wholly unfounded and thus defamatory.

Addendum

Our Allan Richards replies explaining why this information was not included in his article:

Not only has CaRT wrongly attributed allegations to myself rather than Nigel Moore but it is also wrong for them to claim these allegations were fully aired in the case of DeVere vs Land Registry.

Mr Moore was not claimant in this case according to CaRT's press release. He made no oral submission and did not cross examine any witnesses. Furthermore, CaRT's own press release makes it clear that the Judge was referring to Mr DeVere rather than Mr Moore regarding accusations of fraud and forgery.

The article, quite correctly, quotes the comments made in a later case that does refer to the allegations made by Mr Moore which CaRT failed to comment on.

The article can be found at Forgery and Fraud

[Paul C]

This is what CaRT said in narrowboatworld and my response -

 

Your correspondent Allan Richards ignored the recently expressed views of the High Court concerning his allegations of forgery and fraud to do with a plan of landholdings at Brentford. (narrowboatworld Friday 6th December), a spokesman for Canal & River Trust tells us.

These allegations were fully aired in the case of De Vere vs Land Registry (in which the Trust and Mr Nigel Moore were joined as ‘interested parties'). In his Judgment [2013] EWHC2477 (Admin), His Honour Judge Anthony Thornton QC said that the claimant had ‘not produced a scintilla of evidence to show that any error it contains arises from an act of dishonesty, fraud or forgery.'

Particularly in the light of that Judgment, Allan Richards' assertions are wholly unfounded and thus defamatory.

Addendum

Our Allan Richards replies explaining why this information was not included in his article:

Not only has CaRT wrongly attributed allegations to myself rather than Nigel Moore but it is also wrong for them to claim these allegations were fully aired in the case of DeVere vs Land Registry.

Mr Moore was not claimant in this case according to CaRT's press release. He made no oral submission and did not cross examine any witnesses. Furthermore, CaRT's own press release makes it clear that the Judge was referring to Mr DeVere rather than Mr Moore regarding accusations of fraud and forgery.

The article, quite correctly, quotes the comments made in a later case that does refer to the allegations made by Mr Moore which CaRT failed to comment on.

The article can be found at Forgery and Fraud

 

Paragraph 119 of the original judgement adequately explains why the argument forwarded by Nigel Moore weren't even aired in court. There's 5 points, all of which are pretty good reasons in their own right:

 

 

1. Mr Moore applied on notice at the handing down hearing to be substituted for Mr DeVere in the canal claim CO/10365/2010 on the grounds that he wished to consider making an application to the Court of Appeal to appeal the refusal of permission in that claim. I refused that application on these grounds:

(1) It was far too late to apply to be substituted as a claimant just before the hand down of judgment in a claim that Mr Moore could have joined a joint claimant from the start.

(2) The claim has been found to be an abuse of process.

(3) Mr Moore's putative application to the Court of Appeal has no prospect of success.

(4) Mr Moore's submission that the owner of the title to the canal bed is someone other than BWB's successor has no prospect of success. Moreover, no other party with a superior or any claim to be registered and who seeks to be registered has ever been identified, save for himself.

(5) Mr Moore has an alternative remedy in relation to registration of his interest (if any) in the canal bed. This is by way of an application to the Registrar to amend, alter or rectify the Register, an application that Mr Moore has made previously and which he contends is still pending for consideration and determination. In those circumstances, he is not entitled to apply for judicial review as well.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Paragraph 119 of the original judgement adequately explains why the argument forwarded by Nigel Moore weren't even aired in court. There's 5 points, all of which are pretty good reasons in their own right:

 

My article documents three of Nigel Moores allegations which CaRT, in response, claim 'were fully aired in the case of De Vere vs Land Registry' and on that basis condemn the article as defamatory.

 

Thanks for confirming that CaRT's statement was untrue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Paul C]

Yeah I think there's something to be said for both sides. CRT could say its been aired in court because the court case has occurred and it wasn't even allowed in as evidence by the judge. Nigel could say its not been aired in court for the same reason. The problem is, Nigel doesn't have a further opportunity to get it heard in court, except by appealing to a higher court (at potentially greater cost to himself).

 

Do you know if he's paid the £12,500 costs yet?

 

EDIT: In fact, I'm not sure he's not out of time to allow a judicial review to be heard anywhere now. If so, then this one has slipped through his hands and is going to be exceedingly difficult to claim "win" at all.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Paul C

[matty40s]

Nigel is hoping not to have to start due court process by his challenge to CRT.

his allegations are clear and could be investigated by the new CEO and cleared up.

I dont think the timing of Johnsons exit is any co-incidence in all this either.

[Phoenix_V]

I think we've all been behaving (more or less) lately. Can the mods let us have our thread back now (edited as they consider fair and appropriate) pretty please. (Not the original alleged "defamatory" one but the 2nd which had lots of useful information for anyone interested in the subject.

[Lady Muck]

Best way to do that is to message Dan and ask him directly.

[Guest]

Dan was looking at this thread yesterday and nothing has changed...read into that what you will.

[Lady Muck]

I don't think he's made a decision as yet.

[NigelMoore]

In light of comments from Lady Muck & others as to the methodology and content of my postings thus far, I have asked for clarification from the site owner as to what is and is not acceptable in terms of postings on this Forum. Until I have received an answer I would regard it as improper to contribute further on this topic.

 

 

 

 

[FadeToScarlet]

And so, in light of this, I'm temporarily locking the thread pending a decision from Dan.