Is C&RT's Boat/Location Logging System Fit for Purpose?

[Bod]

I used to call them "little Kingdoms" funny when they stayed very small, but have seen "give enough rope, and he'll hang himself" happen. When that doesn't happen its time to get out!

 

Bod

[Captain Zim]

Yes but you have to look at why they do it. I think it's often because they are scared shitless of having to go out and find another job. Not because they actually want an empire.

[Darren Woods]

I'm inclined to agree with Nige.

 

When have CRT ever admitted they were wrong? I can't think of any such occasion.

 

MtB

 

An organisation that has not upheld one single customer complaint in it's entire history does come across as slightly arrogant!

[Naughty Cal]

So whats gone on with this case?

 

Its all gone very quiet.

[cotswoldsman]

So whats gone on with this case?

 

Its all gone very quiet.

You want to put a bet on the outcome?

[Paul G2]

When is the hearing? I'm not going to reread this entire thread to find it, but for some reason the 9th sticks in my mind. If the hearing was today, I hope Tony shows up with an update, or at least drops in long enough to say when the hearing date is.

[phill]

A little birdie says CRT have backed down, given Tony a new licence and stopped court proceedings.

 

It would appear they knew they were going to lose.

[Sabcat]

According to the list at the bottom of this he's reading the topic.

[Alan de Enfield]

I had a case against our local council - they 'backed down' and paid compensation before it got to court, However I was 'forced to sign an agreement of non-disclosure' on the whole affair.

 

If the 'rumour' is true, maybe TD has had to do the same

[Naughty Cal]

Surely it would be plain for all to see with the new licences in the windows of his boat?

[Alan de Enfield]

Surely it would be plain for all to see with the new licences in the windows of his boat?

 

For those that know him, and know where his boat is it is probably clear.

 

For those that know me, they can also see I won - I have a house in the country with the nearest neighbour 1 mile away - but the 'general public'. would not be aware of why or how it was allowed.

[Paul G2]

I had a case against our local council - they 'backed down' and paid compensation before it got to court, However I was 'forced to sign an agreement of non-disclosure' on the whole affair.

 

If the 'rumour' is true, maybe TD has had to do the same

 

Anything is possible. If TD can't say anything about the outcome, I'd imagine an FOI request would accomplish the same thing.

 

I see Nigel is reading this thread too, maybe he has some insight as to what's going on.

[bassplayer]

I had a case against our local council - they 'backed down' and paid compensation before it got to court, However I was 'forced to sign an agreement of non-disclosure' on the whole affair.

 

If the 'rumour' is true, maybe TD has had to do the same

How is someone 'FORCED to sign an agreement of non-disclosure'? Do you mean that you were threatened not to say anything, or did you chose to take the money and agreed to remain silent?

[jenlyn]

Perhaps they are all in the pub discussing it :-o

[Alan de Enfield]

bassplayer, on 09 Sept 2014 - 5:27 PM, said:

How is someone 'FORCED to sign an agreement of non-disclosure'? Do you mean that you were threatened not to say anything, or did you chose to take the money and agreed to remain silent?

 

Had a gun to my head and spotlights shining in my eyes !!!!!

 

I signed it 'unwillingly' as I had battled for over a year, Local MP and QC agreed with me but still - stress, anxiety and worry

I felt that they should not get away with flouting the law and telling lies.

 

It bought it to an end and was a relief. If it had gone to court it my have been another year.

[GUMPY]

How is someone 'FORCED to sign an agreement of non-disclosure'? Do you mean that you were threatened not to say anything, or did you chose to take the money and agreed to remain silent?

In my case it was called a compromise agreement we will pay you x however if you sign this agreement we will pay you 2x

No brainer as far as I was concerned.

[bassplayer]

Had a gun to my head and spotlights shining in my eyes !!!!!

 

I signed it 'unwillingly' as I had battled for over a year, Local MP and QC agreed with me but still - stress, anxiety and worry

I felt that they should not get away with flouting the law and telling lies.

 

It bought it to an end and was a relief. If it had gone to court it my have been another year.

That's understandable, life's to short for all that aggravation.

 

It does take a lot of stubbornness to pursue the right thing. Someone once told me that you shouldn't start a battle unless you're prepared to go all the way and you have a chance of winning. I had a choice many years ago to take on a battle with a corrupt BSS inspector, I still regret not taking it to court but I was up against certain 'powers'! I guess that's how they get away with it, grind us down....

 

I guess that's why it's important we all work together to fight for the right thing. I feel ACC membership coming on....

[NigelMoore]

A little birdie says CRT have backed down, given Tony a new licence and stopped court proceedings.

 

Last Tuesday [september 2nd] CaRT issued the new Rivers Only Certificate for which Tony had applied back in July, having received a copy of an email from the landowner, confirming that he was happy with Tony’s use of his land for a mooring. Lack of this was not, of course, the reason they had originally given for being dissatisfied, and is a well overdue complete about-turn on the issue.

 

However, contrary to rumour, they have not discontinued the court action. Having promised to file a “Notice of Discontinuance” once the new ‘licence’ was issued, they are now reneging on that agreement. What they are trying to insist on is that Tony sign another Consent Order, ending the proceedings by mutual agreement.

 

It may well be that most cannot see what difference this makes. For anyone facing the same situation – the Discontinuance, if served after a Defence has been filed, means that the Claimant needs to seek permission of the court if they want to bring any future action against you based on broadly similar grounds. That ensures that they can’t just stop and start proceedings with a sword of Damocles hanging over you ever after. Either they proceed on the facts and arguments the first time around, or they leave you alone thereafter.

 

It is presumed, in other words, that if they left it to after they had read the Defence, then logic dictates that they saw themselves in a losing situation, whereas if they had come to an agreement beforehand, then that merely showed amicable settlement without prejudice to the strength of their case.

 

This complete turn-around [only after having read Tony’s Defence], however purely face-saving an exercise, is nonetheless a welcome indication that new blood within the legal department has been taking a long hard look at the issues and arguments. Instead of riding with the recommendations of Mr Parry and Shoosmiths, someone appears to have belatedly realised on reading through the Defence, that maybe the old ways of railroading hapless boaters simply as a means of establishing some sanction for their application of new rules, has the potential to backfire on them badly.

 

Johnson would never have allowed it to happen – he was all gung-ho for battle, secure in the knowledge that courts would invariably agree with him, that BW were the best interpreters of their own legislation - but that confidence is now misplaced, cases having finally made it to and through the High Courts instead of the County Courts, with alarming results. Someone with new pragmatism along with the requisite nous, has managed to persuade Mr Parry of the dangers of his preferred approach, so perhaps there is hope yet for CaRT resources to be applied only to legitimate and necessary enforcement actions.

 

Any new appointee as Welfare Officer should take careful note of the ramifications of this sorry case. I said in the previous thread [respecting the Mayers case]: “most reprehensible of all, is when the authority has sectioned a boater on the basis of non-compliance with their interpretation, and subsequently drop all requests for determination of that interpretation”.

 

At least in this instance – presumably because they saw themselves ending up with more than egg on their faces – they are trying to withdraw altogether [even though attempting to do so on a basis that would allow them to instantly renew proceedings]. However cynical this might be, it is preferable to the former situation where they would have proceeded regardless.

 

I venture to suggest that the public airing of the issues on this Forum could well have played a part in the more general exposure leading to greater public awareness, both of processes and arguments, making the new blood within the relevant departments more conscious that the old ways are no longer so assured of success.

 

In short, better education for all can result in resources being properly directed where truly needed.

 

It would be good to think that matters will improve yet further, and that even the litigiously minded Mr Parry will recognise that less arrogant assumption of pre-eminent authority, coupled with greater attention to the genuinely applicable methods of control, will ensure better management of the system for the benefit of all, in a far less confrontational and more practically effective manner.

 

Regrettably, in this instance as with mine and others, no apology is forthcoming, let alone any recompense for the months &/or years of harassment, and CaRT will still be putting their spin-doctors on the job to justify this debacle. I just wish that they could sit down to discuss what the positive approaches to management could be, by way of turning around the situation in future – any efforts at which, if genuine, would absolutely have to begin with at least the admission that they have been doing it wrong thus far.

 

The desperate effort to insist on Tony agreeing to end the proceedings by mutual consent would suggest that they are a still a long way from that yet. It could still end up in court; the original Directions hearing had been scheduled for last Monday 1st, but Tony had agreed [subject to the agreement that they issue the Notice of Discontinuance once a new licence had been issued] to a Consent Order for adjournment in that instance, to give CaRT time to receive the new information for which they had asked [although they had had the landlord’s details months ago]; issue the ‘licence’, and discontinue the proceedings.

 

The court accepted that Consent Order, and have re-scheduled the hearing for October. It is now down to CaRT to abide by their agreement to discontinue the proceedings, or to choose continued litigation after all.

[Alan de Enfield]

I believe that is excellent news and hopefully a start towards a more legally compliant C&RT

[Sabcat]

 

Last Tuesday [september 2nd] CaRT issued the new Rivers Only Certificate for which Tony had applied back in July, having received a copy of an email from the landowner, confirming that he was happy with Tony’s use of his land for a mooring. Lack of this was not, of course, the reason they had originally given for being dissatisfied, and is a well overdue complete about-turn on the issue.

 

However, contrary to rumour, they have not discontinued the court action. Having promised to file a “Notice of Discontinuance” once the new ‘licence’ was issued, they are now reneging on that agreement. What they are trying to insist on is that Tony sign another Consent Order, ending the proceedings by mutual agreement.

 

It may well be that most cannot see what difference this makes. For anyone facing the same situation – the Discontinuance, if served after a Defence has been filed, means that the Claimant needs to seek permission of the court if they want to bring any future action against you based on broadly similar grounds. That ensures that they can’t just stop and start proceedings with a sword of Damocles hanging over you ever after. Either they proceed on the facts and arguments the first time around, or they leave you alone thereafter.

 

It is presumed, in other words, that if they left it to after they had read the Defence, then logic dictates that they saw themselves in a losing situation, whereas if they had come to an agreement beforehand, then that merely showed amicable settlement without prejudice to the strength of their case.

 

This complete turn-around [only after having read Tony’s Defence], however purely face-saving an exercise, is nonetheless a welcome indication that new blood within the legal department has been taking a long hard look at the issues and arguments. Instead of riding with the recommendations of Mr Parry and Shoosmiths, someone appears to have belatedly realised on reading through the Defence, that maybe the old ways of railroading hapless boaters simply as a means of establishing some sanction for their application of new rules, has the potential to backfire on them badly.

 

Johnson would never have allowed it to happen – he was all gung-ho for battle, secure in the knowledge that courts would invariably agree with him, that BW were the best interpreters of their own legislation - but that confidence is now misplaced, cases having finally made it to and through the High Courts instead of the County Courts, with alarming results. Someone with new pragmatism along with the requisite nous, has managed to persuade Mr Parry of the dangers of his preferred approach, so perhaps there is hope yet for CaRT resources to be applied only to legitimate and necessary enforcement actions.

 

Any new appointee as Welfare Officer should take careful note of the ramifications of this sorry case. I said in the previous thread [respecting the Mayers case]: “most reprehensible of all, is when the authority has sectioned a boater on the basis of non-compliance with their interpretation, and subsequently drop all requests for determination of that interpretation”.

 

At least in this instance – presumably because they saw themselves ending up with more than egg on their faces – they are trying to withdraw altogether [even though attempting to do so on a basis that would allow them to instantly renew proceedings]. However cynical this might be, it is preferable to the former situation where they would have proceeded regardless.

 

I venture to suggest that the public airing of the issues on this Forum could well have played a part in the more general exposure leading to greater public awareness, both of processes and arguments, making the new blood within the relevant departments more conscious that the old ways are no longer so assured of success.

 

In short, better education for all can result in resources being properly directed where truly needed.

 

It would be good to think that matters will improve yet further, and that even the litigiously minded Mr Parry will recognise that less arrogant assumption of pre-eminent authority, coupled with greater attention to the genuinely applicable methods of control, will ensure better management of the system for the benefit of all, in a far less confrontational and more practically effective manner.

 

Regrettably, in this instance as with mine and others, no apology is forthcoming, let alone any recompense for the months &/or years of harassment, and CaRT will still be putting their spin-doctors on the job to justify this debacle. I just wish that they could sit down to discuss what the positive approaches to management could be, by way of turning around the situation in future – any efforts at which, if genuine, would absolutely have to begin with at least the admission that they have been doing it wrong thus far.

 

The desperate effort to insist on Tony agreeing to end the proceedings by mutual consent would suggest that they are a still a long way from that yet. It could still end up in court; the original Directions hearing had been scheduled for last Monday 1st, but Tony had agreed [subject to the agreement that they issue the Notice of Discontinuance once a new licence had been issued] to a Consent Order for adjournment in that instance, to give CaRT time to receive the new information for which they had asked [although they had had the landlord’s details months ago]; issue the ‘licence’, and discontinue the proceedings.

 

The court accepted that Consent Order, and have re-scheduled the hearing for October. It is now down to CaRT to abide by their agreement to discontinue the proceedings, or to choose continued litigation after all.

 

I take it then that Tony isn't going to sign a consent order? Fair play to him if that's the case, he's got some bottle.

[Paul G2]

Thank you for the update, Nigel.

 

What's the downside for CRT if Tony won't give in and this proceeds to the hearing? Can Tony seek any damages for malicious prosecution?

 

What's the downside for Tony? The original case sounds like it is moot at this point. If CRT does not dismiss, can Tony proceed to trial with this as a test case? I'm sure that there are many people who would like to see CRT put in its place with a meaningful decision against them, and this seems like the perfect case to do it with.

 

ETA - Where is Tony's favorite visiting spot, the place he stays that started all the ruckus? Is that on a river or canal?

Edited September 9, 2014 by Paul G2

[cotswoldsman]

There is talk on Facebook of a fund raising campaign should Tony need money to fight CRT

[Tony Dunkley]

Thank you for the update, Nigel.

 

What's the downside for CRT if Tony won't give in and this proceeds to the hearing? Can Tony seek any damages for malicious prosecution?

 

What's the downside for Tony? The original case sounds like it is moot at this point. If CRT does not dismiss, can Tony proceed to trial with this as a test case? I'm sure that there are many people who would like to see CRT put in its place with a meaningful decision against them, and this seems like the perfect case to do it with.

 

ETA - Where is Tony's favorite visiting spot, the place he stays that started all the ruckus? Is that on a river or canal?

It's Holme Lock Cut on the River Trent a couple of miles below Nottingham. There are 3 x C&RT photos of it on Post 689. The pictures were all taken by C&RT at the same time on the same day for use as evidence of how I was selfishly depriving others of the opportunity of mooring there. In the event only one of the pictures was submitted with their written evidence, I don't think I need to tell you which one.

[NigelMoore]

What's the downside for CRT if Tony won't give in and this proceeds to the hearing? Can Tony seek any damages for malicious prosecution?

 

What's the downside for Tony? The original case sounds like it is moot at this point. If CRT does not dismiss, can Tony proceed to trial with this as a test case? I'm sure that there are many people who would like to see CRT put in its place with a meaningful decision against them, and this seems like the perfect case to do it with.

 

The situation now is even more absurd than the whole thing has been from the beginning.

 

In actual fact, it is impossible for CaRT to proceed with the case they have filed, because the action is based on Tony being allegedly on the relevant waterways without lawful authority - whereas now he not only is not [at his home mooring] in the relevant waterways anyway, but additionally has the “lawful authority” to cruise the main navigation channels of the scheduled rivers. So unless this is revoked yet again, for reasons other than they have come up with thus far, Tony is immune from the s.8 sanction.

 

The downside for CaRT if they refuse to file a Notice of Discontinuance is that they will face a judge without a case; by reason of having refused to abide by their own promises, and that will make them look more than foolish, it is quite possible that the court could hold them to be in contempt, but, most certainly, to be abusers of the court system.

 

Additionally, supposing the court were asked to deliberate on the issues as presented to the court by Tony, CaRT would face having to argue a hopeless case, resulting in quite the opposite findings they were hoping for, while emphasising and publicising the moronic and vindictive mindset that has been typical of the legal and enforcement departments to date – backed to the hilt, over the last couple of years, by the new CEO.

 

The downside for Tony is prolongation of the aggravation, and frittering away on nonsense such valuable time on this earth as he has left.

 

The original case IS moot.

 

If CaRT do not file for discontinuance, the case will proceed to trial on whatever issues the judge at the next Directions hearing dictates are ones lying to be decided.

 

 

[bassplayer]

...just maybe then, we can resume enjoying the waterways...and CRT can just concentrate on spending future funds on maintaining them...that's where I'd like to see my licence money go...