Boater With Home Mooring - Court Action Started.

[bassplayer]

The head of legal reports direct to Richard Parry, with his hands on customer service approach there is no way that he is unaware of this case. Underneath his touchy freely approach rest assured there is a steely interior.

My view is...Parry is CEO, he is responsible for any decisions, therefore he is the one to deal with if things aren't working out. He's paid (by us) to take that responsibility....

[NigelMoore]

It's different when people are directly confronted....they can't hide behind paperwork and other people...what is there to be afraid of? The truth maybe?

 

True. I don't think Richard Parry is hiding behind paperwork though, I think he considers lawsuits are a good thing to bring clarity to the position, and if that means someone gets railroaded or distressed, rightly or wrongly, so be it.

 

That said, Tony Dunkley would have nothing to be afraid of certainly. A published letter and reply would serve to demonstrate that the CaRT machine where 'enforcement' is concerned, is a well-knit team with sanction from the top.

Edited July 14, 2014 by NigelMoore

[NigelMoore]

I take it we know Mr Dunkley declared his mooring

 

Yes, we do. The letter referred to several times now, identifies the mooring, being one they accepted as a suitable home mooring, but which they latterly decided was taken [and kept] only to 'evade' what are seen by many [including, seemingly, CaRT], to be the 'restrictions' confining patterns of use for those without such a mooring.

 

I agree with you; I think they wish to have court sanction for their desire to hold every boater to the patterns of use compelled by 3c(ii) when away from their home mooring.

 

The silly thing is, in my view, that they could apply profitable and effective sanctions for any improper use by either 'class' of boater anyway, which is all that should concern them and other boaters.

[bassplayer]

 

True. I don't think Richard parry is hiding behind paperwork though, I think he considers lawsuits are a good thing to bring clarity to the position, and if that means someone gets railroaded or distressed, rightly or wrongly, so be it.

 

That said, Tony Dunkley would have nothing to be afraid of certainly. A published letter and reply would serve to demonstrate that the CaRT machine where 'enforcement' is concerned, is a well-knit team with sanction from the top.

I was thinking the same thing. If Tony can publish everything on here, it may help him and we might all learn something...

[NigelMoore]

My view is...Parry is CEO, he is responsible for any decisions, therefore he is the one to deal with if things aren't working out. He's paid (by us) to take that responsibility....

 

You are absolutely correct; he is and he does.

[Tuscan]

I was thinking the same thing. If Tony can publish everything on here, it may help him and we might all learn something...

I would not publish any more details on here if I was Tony or CRT, this is not a friendly little tiff I suspect but the culmination of some fairly robust statements and entrenched positions. why would you give the other parties legal team any more information before the court case.

[jenlyn]

I would not publish any more details on here if I was Tony or CRT, this is not a friendly little tiff I suspect but the culmination of some fairly robust statements and entrenched positions. why would you give the other parties legal team any more information before the court case.

Agree 100%

[FadeToScarlet]

That is how lots of life is Alan .

Germany made a rule that washing was not hung out on sundays and only essential lorries where allowed on autobahns on sundays .People conformed.

You yourself conform to rules of behaviour that are maybe not legal laws.

Does Cambridge not have some rule about cars going into city ?

Well, there are rising bollards, like there are in many other places to restrict access to some areas.

[bassplayer]

I would not publish any more details on here if I was Tony or CRT, this is not a friendly little tiff I suspect but the culmination of some fairly robust statements and entrenched positions. why would you give the other parties legal team any more information before the court case.

If it's public then Tony has a certain amount of back up if it goes wrong. I don't normally believe in dirty washing in public but a test case like this involving the CRT machine and an individual could affect many of us in the end. The media is also quite powerful if used correctly. What is there to be afraid of?

Agree 100%

So are you going to represent him then Steve?

[NigelMoore]

What a pity that the creation of CRT did not take the opportunity before being put into place of rewriting the statutes.

 

It might be thought so, but another view is that the existing legislation suffices, and needs only the will [and the taste] to implement it.

 

The other factor of course, is that the Transition Order was railroaded through with Government's unseemly haste to produce something from the Public Bodies Bill. There was no time to finesse the details. Besides, against the caution of the House of Lords Scrutiny Committee, BW/CaRT were the only quango in the Bill that were permitted to retain the powers to promote secondary legislation.

 

It isn't a closed book, in other words; there is at least the theoretical possibility of getting a version of Johnson's new byelaws passed.

[craftycarper]

I would not publish any more details on here if I was Tony or CRT, this is not a friendly little tiff I suspect but the culmination of some fairly robust statements and entrenched positions. why would you give the other parties legal team any more information before the court case.

. I did,nt think you were allowed to bring anything to court as evidence if the other sides legal team have not first seen it and prepared for it ? Maybe Nigel will clarify the situation

[jenlyn]

So are you going to represent him then Steve?

I've not given any reason for you to imply that, but I do agree with mark, Tony would do well to keep his cards close to his chest until the hearing.

The Trust do read this forum.

[bassplayer]

This probably seems a very naive question but does CRT really care whether one is a Continuous Cruser or has a permanent mooring? I don't really see that it matters. Surely CRT's only problem here is people overstaying moorings (and that's only because some boaters moan about it).

 

Is it just that all these tangled webs are being caused by a few people who don't want to stick to the original basic rules and giving genuine CC'ers a bad name?

[Tony Dunkley]

To my reading the only question, not asked, which could shed some light.

Would Mr Dunkley's boat fit on the mooring in question?

If it fits, C&RT problem.

If it doesn't, Mr Dunkley has the problem.

 

Bod

Yes it does fit . . . 80 foot mooring -- 50 foot boat.

[bassplayer]

Tony would do well to keep his cards close to his chest until the hearing..

Why? I think it's good that CRT read the forum. They might be a bit more careful next time they try to steam roll through someone else.

[jenlyn]

Is it just that all these tangled webs are being caused by a few people who don't want to stick to the original basic rules and giving genuine CC'ers a bad name?

That, and the fact that enforcement has in the past been lax.

A published code of conduct for boaters and the enforcement officers would go a long way to sort a lot of this stuff out. The joint associations have asked Richard Parry to look into doing this.

 

I do fear though that the trust are just hell bent on winning a court case, at any cost...

Edited July 14, 2014 by jenlyn

[NigelMoore]

. I did,nt think you were allowed to bring anything to court as evidence if the other sides legal team have not first seen it and prepared for it ?

 

That’s the general idea, something ‘honoured more in the breach’ than otherwise, with some solicitors. A judge can be asked to allow something sprung on the other party for the first time even once the hearing has started – it’s been done to me and while I was given the opportunity to object, the judge indicated that he was minded to allow it anyway!

 

But this whole situation is not going as CaRT and Shoosmiths had planned, and the case management conference is yet to determine exactly what issues the court will be asked to decide. Nonetheless, the facts will not be in dispute at this stage, both sides will have no new facts to divulge, and the arguments will have long since been clarified for whatever issues are to be considered. Only the defendant may still be feeling his way towards a defence strategy [which can only really be begun following the CMC.]

 

The sort of correspondence that has been suggested won’t compromise either party, but can prove a two-edged sword. On the one hand, the party that writes [at whatever stage] a sincere suggestion as to more rational compromises than invoking the most draconian measure at the authority’s disposal, will have court approval for the sentiment.

 

On the other hand, the opposing side will seek to use it to infer perceived weakness of position. Either way, it won’t make any difference. What such correspondence can do, is reveal the mindsets of both parties for the education of the third party observers such as ourselves.

[bassplayer]

That, and the fact that enforcement has in the past been lax.

A published code of conduct for boaters and the enforcement officers would go a long way to sort a lot of this stuff out. The joint associations have asked Richard Parry to look into doing this.

 

I do fear though that the trust are just hell bent on winning a court court case, at any cost...

It sounds to me like they picked on someone without checking out the evidence properly first. If it gets thrown out of court, CRT won't have helped that particular cause. What a waste of time and money....again!

Edited July 14, 2014 by bassplayer

[jenlyn]

It sounds to me like they picked on someone without checking out the evidence properly first. If it gets thrown out of court, CRT won't have helped that particular cause. What a waste of time and money....again!

At this stage, and without "all" the facts, we can only make assumption.

Until some official hearing is heard, and "if" facts from that are disclosed, we cannot really do much.

[NigelMoore]

This probably seems a very naive question but does CRT really care whether one is a Continuous Cruser or has a permanent mooring? I don't really see that it matters. Surely CRT's only problem here is people overstaying moorings (and that's only because some boaters moan about it).

 

If the question is naïve, it belongs to the “out of the mouths of babes and sucklings” variety.

 

Of course that is the only real problem, and the existing legal means to effectively deal with it should be implemented.

[bassplayer]

At this stage, and without "all" the facts, we can only make assumption.

Until some official hearing is heard, and "if" facts from that are disclosed, we cannot really do much.

Well it would be a shame if someone is made a scapegoat over this...I smell other agenda's going on here...but then again I'm a suspicious person...

[jenlyn]

I smell other agenda's going on here...but then again I'm a suspicious person...

Me too. There are many ways to skin a rabbit though ;-)

 

Edited to rephrase, for sake of cat lovers.

Edited July 14, 2014 by jenlyn

[bassplayer]

Me too. There are many ways to skin a rabbit though ;-)

 

Edited to rephrase, for sake of cat lovers.

....I'd stick to potatoes if I were you...

[Paul G2]

C) either

(i) the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

(ii) the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

 

If a court so chooses, can they not look at the intent of the law as well as the actual written word of the law? The intent of the law is to keep people from taking up residence wherever they choose on the canal. CRT obviously feels that Mr. Dunkley has violated the intent of the law and they are going to make an example of him. (More on why they would do that further down.)

 

If, however, one wanted to adhere very strictly to just the letter of the law, a cunning linguist could make the following argument: The law states that a mooring be available for the vessel. It does not state that a mooring be available for the owner of the vessel. If Mr. Dunkley fails to avail himself of his mooring, i.e. fails to moor there on a regular basis, has he not, by his own actions, and regardless of the existence of the mooring, made it unavailable to the vessel? That's rather convoluted but it seems to fit in with the course of action that CRT is taking.

 

Personally, if I were Mr. Dunkley I would try to pull the rug out from CRT at the case management conference by requesting guidance from the judge as to exactly what the law is and exactly what the rules are that he is supposed to live by. My request to the court would be something along the lines of, "Your honor, I think the main reason that we are here today is because CRT has failed to provide clear-cut directions as to exactly what I am supposed to be doing. The relevant statute, Section 17 (3) C states [hand the judge a copy of 17 (3) C (i) & (ii)]. I thought I was in compliance with the law by having a home mooring. If I have been in contravention of the law, I sincerely apologize to the court if, in fact, my actions were unlawful. I thought that I was abiding by the letter of the law and, lacking any written guidance from CRT, the letter of the law was all I had to go by. I guarantee the court that, in the future, I will abide by whatever guidelines the court provides me with today. I hope his/her Honor will appreciate the fact that this boat is my only home and that, if the boat is removed from CRT waters I will be homeless, and could become a burden on the taxpayers. I therefor beg the court to provide me with guidance, or compell CRT to provide me with guidance that is within the jurisdiction of the law, dismiss this case against me and compel CRT to issue the license that they refused to issue when I tried to renew in a timely manner."

 

Taking such a stance pretty much puts the burden on CRT to prove that they have specific, written guidelines that Mr. Dunkley blatantly refused to abide by. It also would show that Mr. Dunkley is a good person who would gladly abide by the law, if only there were some written guidelines to tell him what the rules are. At the same time, it wouldn't hurt to have a contingency plan available, just in case the judge doesn't go for the above strategy, and research the housing laws and see what is necessary for CRT to evict someone from their home. Chances are that evicting him from his home is a tad more complicated than just removing his boat from CRT waters.

 

As far as why CRT is going to such extremes for enforcement in this case, CRT has a real big problem with CMers in London. It could very well be that they are "getting their feet wet" with this rather innocuous enforcement action to see how a court might react if/when they start trying to be more stringent with enforcement in the London area.

[junior]

I don't normally believe in dirty washing in public but a test case like this involving the CRT machine and an individual could affect many of us in the end. The media is also quite powerful if used correctly. What is there to be afraid of?

 

That's one way to look at it.

 

You could also take the view IF there are facts we are not being informed of whilst receiving TD's side of the story, then judge might have a good reason to find in CRT's favour.

 

If people are left to get away with taking the piss without fear of challenge then this also has a big impact on us all in the future because people will see no reason to comply with the terms of their licence.

Edited July 15, 2014 by junior