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

[NigelMoore]

 

. . . they seem like a petty and vindictive shower or at least there are such elements within the organisation.

 

The tragedy is that the relevant "elements" are those in the driving seats, from Chairman of the Board on down.

 

It is hugely encouraging that someone in a position of influence has managed to persuade Parry and the Chair of the practical realities in this particular case; this has to be a first in my experience. The problem inherent in the bullying character being led from the top is that it ensures that character becomes inevitably institutional, and usually the dissenters become the disposed of.

 

I am fully aware that the turn-around in Tony’s case is a purely pragmatic approach rather than a moral appraisal, but even so . . .

 

Transparency would be wonderful, though too much to expect – I would love to know whether it was Jackie Lewis who finally found her voice or not. If it was, I sincerely hope that that this incident does not herald her following the Johnson and O'Shea exits.

 

The danger remains, as Tony has said, that some less “stubborn and relentless” victim will be chosen next time. It would be best [for their purposes] to take things one step at a time and bring a case on a single issue instead of the multiplicity of them that arose in this case. It would be better also [again, for their purposes], that they chose someone with a standard Canal & River Licence to simplify things further. I said it before - this was a spectacularly stupid choice of test case.

 

Best of all, of course, would be to conduct a re-appraisal of their purposes, but under the current leadership that will have to remain a pipe-dream. Ensuring that everyone is armed with sufficient appropriate knowledge is the best defence against the tactic of ambushing the ignorant.

[bassplayer]

Like a brain cell?

Ok, ta, I've got it now. Do you want it back or can I keep it for a few minutes? I should warn you, I'm drinking, so it might disappear...

[johnthebridge]

 

 

 

 

Transparency would be wonderful, though too much to expect – I would love to know whether it was Jackie Lewis who finally found her voice or not. If it was, I sincerely hope that that this incident does not herald her following the Johnson and O'Shea exits.

 

 

Nigel,

Somewhat off topic, but I hadn't realised that Greta O'Shea had been removed from the Pantheon of Greats. Can you elaborate please? Did she fall on her sword, or was she pushed? I feel a slight tremor of Schadenfreude coming on.

[John V]

 

Ensuring that everyone is armed with sufficient appropriate knowledge is the best defence against the tactic of ambushing the ignorant.

 

I think a vote of thanks is needed, if sufficient knowledge is achieved, a lot will be owed to your posts....Thankyou, for helping me, at least, better understand a complex issue.

[phill]

 

I think a vote of thanks is needed, if sufficient knowledge is achieved, a lot will be owed to your posts....Thankyou, for helping me, at least, better understand a complex issue.

 

Very much seconded. Thank you Nigel.

 

"Ensuring that everyone is armed with sufficient appropriate knowledge is the best defence against the tactic of ambushing the ignorant."

[NigelMoore]

Can you elaborate please? Did she fall on her sword, or was she pushed?

 

Afraid not, I don't know the background. She had become very firm friends with Zoe from Shoosmiths over the years, having given them so much business, so it was unexpected.

 

She departed, for presumably ‘personal’ reasons [as usual] prior to Parry taking up his post, coinciding with Evans’ resignation, as reported in the Board meeting of 23 May 2013 -

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/3755.pdf

 

“Mr Johnson informed the Board that Greta O’Shea, a solicitor in the Legal

Department, was leaving the Trust at the end of the month . . .”

 

 

And - thanks phill & John V, I am just glad that there has been the chance to get some of the info out there; I could wish a lot more had been available when I had needed it!

[Sabcat]

As has been said Nigel, your posts are superb.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

The tragedy is that the relevant "elements" are those in the driving seats, from Chairman of the Board on down.

 

It is hugely encouraging that someone in a position of influence has managed to persuade Parry and the Chair of the practical realities in this particular case; this has to be a first in my experience. The problem inherent in the bullying character being led from the top is that it ensures that character becomes inevitably institutional, and usually the dissenters become the disposed of.

 

I am fully aware that the turn-around in Tony’s case is a purely pragmatic approach rather than a moral appraisal, but even so . . .

 

Transparency would be wonderful, though too much to expect – I would love to know whether it was Jackie Lewis who finally found her voice or not. If it was, I sincerely hope that that this incident does not herald her following the Johnson and O'Shea exits.

 

The danger remains, as Tony has said, that some less “stubborn and relentless” victim will be chosen next time. It would be best [for their purposes] to take things one step at a time and bring a case on a single issue instead of the multiplicity of them that arose in this case. It would be better also [again, for their purposes], that they chose someone with a standard Canal & River Licence to simplify things further. I said it before - this was a spectacularly stupid choice of test case.

 

Best of all, of course, would be to conduct a re-appraisal of their purposes, but under the current leadership that will have to remain a pipe-dream. Ensuring that everyone is armed with sufficient appropriate knowledge is the best defence against the tactic of ambushing the ignorant.

There are certainly indications that Jackie Lewis and Parry have differing views on some matters, as demonstrated by this statement from Jackie Lewis, reported in a NABO Newsletter : --

 

" . . . We intend to remain a ‘critical friend’ of CRT and to be proactive in our dialogue. In this spirit we also publish this month the response from CRT’s Jackie Lewis to the issues raised in May by our legal-beaver, Geoffrey Rogerson. Of serious importance is the unequivocal statement that if you have a home mooring then you are NOT subject to any continuous cruising requirements . . ."

 

and an e-mail to me from Parry : --

 

Dear Tony

My answer was given in response to a question posed at Leicester, which said we should check, in advance of issue, that a licence applicant (without a home mooring) didn’t have children in school or some other such personal circumstance that would, in the view of the questioner, make it very difficult to undertake bona fide navigation.

As I understand it, this is rather different from your case which is concerned with your actual pattern of mooring and movement.

Regards

Richard

 

 

Richard Parry

Chief Executive

Canal & River Trust

Edited September 11, 2014 by tony dunkley

[Paul C]

Thank you Nigel Moore, and indirectly Tony Dunkley, for posting the full text of the court documents so far. On thoroughly reading them, it does seem that CRT have been unwise in trying to revoke etc the licence based on "no home mooring" based on the simply not using an existing home mooring. CRT, in their case, present this as a "ghost mooring" but I don't believe it is - and I believe, more than ever, that we need a proper definition which all sides can agree, of what a ghost mooring is.

 

Returning to the original question: No, not in this case, but it seems to have worked in previous cases with clearly piss-taking CMers who have moored in one place for ages and once shown the evidence, can't offer an alternative explanation/log of their boat movements, thus are quite rightly enforced. Obviously this can only apply to CCers since those with a home mooring doesn't need to engage in bona fide navigation not stopping in one place more than 14 days etc.

[costalot]

Thank you Nigel Moore, and indirectly Tony Dunkley, for posting the full text of the court documents so far. On thoroughly reading them, it does seem that CRT have been unwise in trying to revoke etc the licence based on "no home mooring" based on the simply not using an existing home mooring. CRT, in their case, present this as a "ghost mooring" but I don't believe it is - and I believe, more than ever, that we need a proper definition which all sides can agree, of what a ghost mooring is.

 

Returning to the original question: No, not in this case, but it seems to have worked in previous cases with clearly piss-taking CMers who have moored in one place for ages and once shown the evidence, can't offer an alternative explanation/log of their boat movements, thus are quite rightly enforced. Obviously this can only apply to CCers since those with a home mooring doesn't need to engage in bona fide navigation not stopping in one place more than 14 days etc.

Shouldn't that actually read

since those with a bona fide home mooring don't need to engage in bona fide navigation not stopping in one place more than 14 days etc.

??

[Paul C]

Those words don't appear in the legislation, "bona fide home mooring" is your interpretation/paraphrasing of the actual words used which are:

 

"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;"

[NigelMoore]

Information and details of C&RT's methods for abuse of legal process, and repertoire of dirty tricks, are being passed on to all organisations representing boaters interests, and I hope that an awareness of how C&RT are prepared to behave, and the fact that they do not have to be allowed to get away with it, will find it's way out to all boaters via the members and readers of this Forum.

 

An obvious example of what Tony calls “abuse of legal process” was the failure in his case to alert him to the possibility of objecting to the Part 8 procedure.

 

The question was asked under FoI – “How many court cases for an injunction to remove someone's boat/home from the waterways have been initiated using a Part 8 procedure, which claims that the case is not disputed?”

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/abuse_of_process_by_bwcrt_and_sh#incoming-552053

 

The answer was – “I am writing to let you know that Canal & River Trust does not hold the information you have requested. Kind regards, Sarina Young”

 

I have now gone through all the published Court Orders on the CaRT website to identify the answer for myself, given that Ms Young is so transparently dishonest. Out of the 22 injunction cases brought by BW/CaRT over the period 2012 -2014, only 5 have not recorded whether or not they were brought under Part 8; it seems probable that the practice is invariable.

 

So a positive answer to the FoI request would have been [on the publicly available information held by CaRT] that 17 court cases definitely were “initiated using a Part 8 procedure”; the CaRT held information would probably have confirmed that every one of them was.

 

The other question, i.e. how many defendants had been aware from service of the Notice - because that was [as compulsory] accompanied by a standard “Response Pack” – is impossible to answer from the published material [although, despite Ms Young’s lies, CaRT & Shoosmiths will have had to have had this and the other information].

 

What we can determine, is that whether aware of the proceedings and opportunity to defend or not, 13 out of those 22 hearings were unattended by the defendants. So far, the only positively known instance where the Response Pack was ‘missing’ from the served Notice is Tony’s.

 

It is, of course, quite possible that most if not all the previous Notices were accompanied by the compulsory Response Pack explaining the process if objections were to be filed – but equally probable that many recipients would be completely phased by the ‘legalese’ and still fail to understand what they needed to do. Not that that would be BW/CaRT's fault; I emphasise only the need for knowledge about this.

 

Of course, if there was indeed no defence because the Claim was indisputable, then the reason for non-attendance would be perfectly valid, and commendable in the interests of saving unnecessary costs – but with the refusal to disclose the relevant information [or more accurately, lying about having it], the very possibility of determining how often - if at any time - the system has been abused, is being deliberately withheld from us.

 

02/04/12 Roger Nisbet Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

29/05/12 Tamara Edwards Unknown, Consent Order disposition

31/05/12 Terry Smith Part 8 Defendant heard

18/06/12 Neil Harvey Part 8 Defendant heard

21/06/12 Jerry Paine Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

26/06/12 Tom Hudson Part 8 Defendant heard

5,6/07/12 Michael Mitchell Unknown, Consent Order disposition

13/08/12 Stuart Clarke Part 8 Defendant heard

17/09/12 Shane Pike Part 8 Consent Order disposition

02/10/12 George Ward Part 8 Defendant heard

08/10/12 Anthony Berry Part 8 Defendant heard

19/10/12 Benjamin Webster Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

28/01/13 Jennifer Burden Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

05/02/13 Glyn Whitehurst Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

20/03/13 William Fletcher Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

05/08/13 Andrew McLiveen Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

05/08/13 Amsel Butler Unknown, Not attended by Defendant

10/10/13 Lesley Horne Unknown, Not attended by Defendant

17/10/13 Mark Ambler Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

11/12/13 Pamela Purfield Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

10/02/14 Geoffrey Mayers Unknown, Not attended by Defendant [but Defence obviously filed]

13/02/14 Jennings & Clark Part 8 Not attended by Defendants

[Mike Todd]

Shouldn't that actually read

since those with a bona fide home mooring don't need to engage in bona fide navigation not stopping in one place more than 14 days etc.

??

CC or not, no-one is allowed to stay in the same place other than at an authorised (ie paid for!) mooring. The only distinction between home mooring and cc is that the latter are specifically required to make genuine progress. As I understand it, part of the weakness in the legislation, wroteen for very different circumstances than today, is that it is silent on the cruising habits of those with a home mooring. In other words, of you have a vlaid home mooring, which you may -for example - stay at for 5 months of the year, can you then shuttle every 14 days between the same two locations.

 

To then take it to a near extreme, if you visit the home mooring for only one day a year, can you otherwise maintain that pattern?

 

The accusation then is that some boaters may declare a home mooring, with authority to use it, but do not use it at all.

 

If they do not use their mooring, is the owner who gave the consent also able to give that consent to others?

 

Known in tabloid-speak as a ghost mooring.

 

If the law was easy and universally unambiguous, there would be no need for expensive lawyers!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

An obvious example of what Tony calls “abuse of legal process” was the failure in his case to alert him to the possibility of objecting to the Part 8 procedure.

 

The question was asked under FoI – “How many court cases for an injunction to remove someone's boat/home from the waterways have been initiated using a Part 8 procedure, which claims that the case is not disputed?”

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/abuse_of_process_by_bwcrt_and_sh#incoming-552053

 

The answer was – “I am writing to let you know that Canal & River Trust does not hold the information you have requested. Kind regards, Sarina Young”

 

I have now gone through all the published Court Orders on the CaRT website to identify the answer for myself, given that Ms Young is so transparently dishonest. Out of the 22 injunction cases brought by BW/CaRT over the period 2012 -2014, only 5 have not recorded whether or not they were brought under Part 8; it seems probable that the practice is invariable.

 

So a positive answer to the FoI request would have been [on the publicly available information held by CaRT] that 17 court cases definitely were “initiated using a Part 8 procedure”; the CaRT held information would probably have confirmed that every one of them was.

 

The other question, i.e. how many defendants had been aware from service of the Notice - because that was [as compulsory] accompanied by a standard “Response Pack” – is impossible to answer from the published material [although, despite Ms Young’s lies, CaRT & Shoosmiths will have had to have had this and the other information].

 

What we can determine, is that whether aware of the proceedings and opportunity to defend or not, 13 out of those 22 hearings were unattended by the defendants. So far, the only positively known instance where the Response Pack was ‘missing’ from the served Notice is Tony’s.

 

It is, of course, quite possible that most if not all the previous Notices were accompanied by the compulsory Response Pack explaining the process if objections were to be filed – but equally probable that many recipients would be completely phased by the ‘legalese’ and still fail to understand what they needed to do. Not that that would be BW/CaRT's fault; I emphasise only the need for knowledge about this.

 

Of course, if there was indeed no defence because the Claim was indisputable, then the reason for non-attendance would be perfectly valid, and commendable in the interests of saving unnecessary costs – but with the refusal to disclose the relevant information [or more accurately, lying about having it], the very possibility of determining how often - if at any time - the system has been abused, is being deliberately withheld from us.

 

02/04/12 Roger Nisbet Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

29/05/12 Tamara Edwards Unknown, Consent Order disposition

31/05/12 Terry Smith Part 8 Defendant heard

18/06/12 Neil Harvey Part 8 Defendant heard

21/06/12 Jerry Paine Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

26/06/12 Tom Hudson Part 8 Defendant heard

5,6/07/12 Michael Mitchell Unknown, Consent Order disposition

13/08/12 Stuart Clarke Part 8 Defendant heard

17/09/12 Shane Pike Part 8 Consent Order disposition

02/10/12 George Ward Part 8 Defendant heard

08/10/12 Anthony Berry Part 8 Defendant heard

19/10/12 Benjamin Webster Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

28/01/13 Jennifer Burden Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

05/02/13 Glyn Whitehurst Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

20/03/13 William Fletcher Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

05/08/13 Andrew McLiveen Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

05/08/13 Amsel Butler Unknown, Not attended by Defendant

10/10/13 Lesley Horne Unknown, Not attended by Defendant

17/10/13 Mark Ambler Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

11/12/13 Pamela Purfield Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

10/02/14 Geoffrey Mayers Unknown, Not attended by Defendant [but Defence obviously filed]

13/02/14 Jennings & Clark Part 8 Not attended by Defendants

It is perhaps worth pointing out that the question has been asked twice (quite independently), but still not answered.

[NigelMoore]

CC or not, no-one is allowed to stay in the same place other than at an authorised (ie paid for!) mooring.

 

Well authorisation does not necessarily involve payment, and for clarity [in case some interpret “authorised” as “permitted by the navigation authority”], the permission of CaRT is not required for mooring to and over private property [i am limiting my observation to the uncontested circumstances so as to avoid getting sidetracked]

If they do not use their mooring, is the owner who gave the consent also able to give that consent to others?

 

Yes. I can’t look it up just now, but in circumstances where a moorings provider had several ‘clients’ who did not wish year-round use of the mooring, Parliament were assured in the debate during 1993 that “hot-berthing” [not their description] was something that would satisfy them of the legitimacy of the mooring being available. They did so in the context of defending the imposition of the home mooring requirement by countering arguments about unjust costs.

[Paul G2]

 

Of course, if there was indeed no defence because the Claim was indisputable, then the reason for non-attendance would be perfectly valid, and commendable in the interests of saving unnecessary costs – but with the refusal to disclose the relevant information [or more accurately, lying about having it], the very possibility of determining how often - if at any time - the system has been abused, is being deliberately withheld from us.

 

02/04/12 Roger Nisbet Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

29/05/12 Tamara Edwards Unknown, Consent Order disposition

31/05/12 Terry Smith Part 8 Defendant heard

18/06/12 Neil Harvey Part 8 Defendant heard

21/06/12 Jerry Paine Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

26/06/12 Tom Hudson Part 8 Defendant heard

5,6/07/12 Michael Mitchell Unknown, Consent Order disposition

13/08/12 Stuart Clarke Part 8 Defendant heard

17/09/12 Shane Pike Part 8 Consent Order disposition

02/10/12 George Ward Part 8 Defendant heard

08/10/12 Anthony Berry Part 8 Defendant heard

19/10/12 Benjamin Webster Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

28/01/13 Jennifer Burden Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

05/02/13 Glyn Whitehurst Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

20/03/13 William Fletcher Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

05/08/13 Andrew McLiveen Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

05/08/13 Amsel Butler Unknown, Not attended by Defendant

10/10/13 Lesley Horne Unknown, Not attended by Defendant

17/10/13 Mark Ambler Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

11/12/13 Pamela Purfield Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

10/02/14 Geoffrey Mayers Unknown, Not attended by Defendant [but Defence obviously filed]

13/02/14 Jennings & Clark Part 8 Not attended by Defendants

 

CRT took over the waterways on 02/08/2012 and two months later the pattern of non-response to Part 8's changes from a response pattern one might expect to court cases to a pattern of no one responds to court cases. I'm only guessing, but I suspect your question of if response packs were included with the summons is answered by the change in pattern.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Paul G2

[Bod]

 

An obvious example of what Tony calls abuse of legal process was the failure in his case to alert him to the possibility of objecting to the Part 8 procedure.

 

The question was asked under FoI How many court cases for an injunction to remove someone's boat/home from the waterways have been initiated using a Part 8 procedure, which claims that the case is not disputed?

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/abuse_of_process_by_bwcrt_and_sh#incoming-552053

 

The answer was I am writing to let you know that Canal & River Trust does not hold the information you have requested. Kind regards, Sarina Young

 

I have now gone through all the published Court Orders on the CaRT website to identify the answer for myself, given that Ms Young is so transparently dishonest. Out of the 22 injunction cases brought by BW/CaRT over the period 2012 -2014, only 5 have not recorded whether or not they were brought under Part 8; it seems probable that the practice is invariable.

 

So a positive answer to the FoI request would have been [on the publicly available information held by CaRT] that 17 court cases definitely were initiated using a Part 8 procedure; the CaRT held information would probably have confirmed that every one of them was.

 

The other question, i.e. how many defendants had been aware from service of the Notice - because that was [as compulsory] accompanied by a standard Response Pack is impossible to answer from the published material [although, despite Ms Youngs lies, CaRT & Shoosmiths will have had to have had this and the other information].

 

What we can determine, is that whether aware of the proceedings and opportunity to defend or not, 13 out of those 22 hearings were unattended by the defendants. So far, the only positively known instance where the Response Pack was missing from the served Notice is Tonys.

 

It is, of course, quite possible that most if not all the previous Notices were accompanied by the compulsory Response Pack explaining the process if objections were to be filed but equally probable that many recipients would be completely phased by the legalese and still fail to understand what they needed to do. Not that that would be BW/CaRT's fault; I emphasise only the need for knowledge about this.

 

Of course, if there was indeed no defence because the Claim was indisputable, then the reason for non-attendance would be perfectly valid, and commendable in the interests of saving unnecessary costs but with the refusal to disclose the relevant information [or more accurately, lying about having it], the very possibility of determining how often - if at any time - the system has been abused, is being deliberately withheld from us.

 

02/04/12 Roger Nisbet Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

29/05/12 Tamara Edwards Unknown, Consent Order disposition

31/05/12 Terry Smith Part 8 Defendant heard

18/06/12 Neil Harvey Part 8 Defendant heard

21/06/12 Jerry Paine Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

26/06/12 Tom Hudson Part 8 Defendant heard

5,6/07/12 Michael Mitchell Unknown, Consent Order disposition

13/08/12 Stuart Clarke Part 8 Defendant heard

17/09/12 Shane Pike Part 8 Consent Order disposition

02/10/12 George Ward Part 8 Defendant heard

08/10/12 Anthony Berry Part 8 Defendant heard

19/10/12 Benjamin Webster Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

28/01/13 Jennifer Burden Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

05/02/13 Glyn Whitehurst Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

20/03/13 William Fletcher Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

05/08/13 Andrew McLiveen Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

05/08/13 Amsel Butler Unknown, Not attended by Defendant

10/10/13 Lesley Horne Unknown, Not attended by Defendant

17/10/13 Mark Ambler Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

11/12/13 Pamela Purfield Part 8 Not attended by Defendant

10/02/14 Geoffrey Mayers Unknown, Not attended by Defendant [but Defence obviously filed]

13/02/14 Jennings & Clark Part 8 Not attended by Defendants

The defendants in the first part of this list spoke in Court.

None in the latter part did.

 

I wonder why?

Where in this list is TDs case?

 

Bod

Edited September 12, 2014 by Bod

[NigelMoore]

The list includes only completed cases, so the TD case does not appear, nor any current cases.

 

edit to add: the Mayers case had started long before, I forget off-hand, but possibly before any of the above.

 

further edited to add: the Mayers case began in 2010, and was also a Part 8 Claim. The Orders published in this instance reveal that one replaced a previous, the second denying costs - but whether that was effectively a rescinding of the previous costs order or relating strictly to whatever had passed in the interim, I don't know.

Edited September 12, 2014 by NigelMoore

[NigelMoore]

Did she fall on her sword, or was she pushed?

 

I did try to learn a bit more by googling, but ran into the new block on personal info, receiving the standard message: “Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe.”

 

Given that so prominent a player in the BW legal department [who has appeared in most of the public cases against boaters over many years] appears in so very few links, it is probable that she has requested many to be removed.

[cotswoldsman]

Use Google.com

[NigelMoore]

?

 

Isn't that what I did?

[cotswoldsman]

?

 

Isn't that what I did?

I assumed you used Google. Co. uk most of the stuff not available on UK site is available on US site as law does not apply to them

[NigelMoore]

Thanks. I wouldn't know how to specify one from t'other I'm afraid, but I should obviously investigate at some point.

[Sabcat]

If you go to google.com in the uk it will automatically redirect you to google.co.uk. If you use the address google.com/ncr it won't redirect you.

[NigelMoore]

It might be interesting to compare the earlier figures re: court cases for approval of boat removals, with the figures for actual boat seizures since CaRT took over:

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/seized_boats