Jump to content

canal trust making people homeless


CaptainBirdseye

Featured Posts

I have been responding to the query of Wanderer Vagabond as to the costs of removing boats from the water, by giving links to instances where those costs are given [accurately or not I have no idea].

 

In the latest link, a figure was given – by the FoI enquirer – of a sum in excess of £5,000, which I quoted. I don’t know the derivation of the sum; I know that CaRT’s replies have not mentioned this – they have mentioned no figure at all – it is only that “it” [the webpage I linked to] “says that” the boat was removed at a cost of something over £5,000. which is what I said it did.

 

As to whether the alternatives the enquirer referred to were available, I don’t know – it is irrelevant to the point of my post; as to whether the enquirer was “taking the lager” or not is likewise irrelevant to my point, as is whether the enquirer invented the figure or not.

 

I have been looking for verifications of my statement that there is a cost to CaRT of multiple thousands to remove boats from the water and store them, as the choice they make in lieu of cheaper options – such as simply putting the boat up for auction as it lies. It we can discover what the costs actually are, then we have something that can “really take us forward” to use WV’s words.

 

The indications I have read covering 3 different cases including this last, which seem pretty consistent, suggest some £5,000 per extraction – i.e. “multiple thousands” prior to storage. Whether the sources are right or wrong, the indications DO stem from the sources I provided, so I still cannot see any vindication of criticism suggesting that the source did NOT say that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that case, I will email CRT saying it costs seventeen shillings and sixpence. You can work with that figure if you want, it has no more credibility than the £5000 without knowing the source. And we don't know the source, Mr Hawkins introduced that figure in his email to CRT. He may well be using the biggest figure he can think of to be as outraged as possible

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'm not sure it says that . . ."

 

It does.

 

It may be wrong, it may be invention, we don't know the source the figure was derived from, it could be saying all sorts of nonsense equivalent to your seventeen shillings and sixpence, but -

 

"it says that."

 

I give it some credence, moreover, because it would be commensurate with the bill which I have seen for myself, for removal and storage fees for Geoff Mayers' boat, as well as being commensurate with the other incident reported which I referred to.

 

Even so, I am not quoting it as authorative, I am however "sure it says that", even if what it says is wrong. Why are you "not sure it says that"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1/ Some of your comments look to be potentially libelous.

2/ There are inaccuracies about Housing Benefits from what has been posted on here by others.

3/ Your understanding of the Court procedures seems naive.

4/ It would be a far easier read if you used a darker and larger text.

5/ It comes over as a rant.

 

And yes I did read it all.

Edited by Graham Davis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff - I've been reading through your site. For much of it you have my sympathy and certainly the our legal process often leaves much to be desired. Those who can afford it, benefit from the system in ways far beyond the reach of you or I. However, there's a big but.... a lot of what you write indicates a sense of entitlement. An entitlement to live on a boat and an entitlement to cruise according to a pattern which suits your particular situation. This has never been the case on the canals, and never will be (I expect). Those of us who live on the canals, do so by ensuring that we stay within the rules, whether we agree with them or not. There are some who try to avoid this and often they come undone. There is no absolute entitlement to live on the canals for anyone. If I found myself unable to either access a mooring, or pay for a mooring or move around to a sufficient degree, then I'd be looking for a different lifestyle. I wouldn't be wanting to saddle myself with years of stress and legal wrangling just to try and prove a point. Life's to short! I'd have a re-think and start out on a new adventure. One which brought me happiness and contentment.

 

Incidentally, I live on my boat. I have a home mooring. It's a leisure mooring. It's not unlawful since I also cruise extensively and I don't live permanently on my mooring. You could have easily done this years ago, except perhaps due to your illness. I am sympathetic for that but, the way I see it, you should have probably moved off your boat during the time you were ill and obtained a simple permanent towpath mooring during that time. If you were unable to afford that option, then that's an indication that you should probably have sold your boat. Boat ownership is not cheap. I regularly talk to people who would like to own a boat but simply can't afford all the costs which comes with it. That's just life! Should those people just get boats anyway and expect the system to provide for them?

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff,

 

I have read through your site to try to get to the bottom of the case. With your various allegations against CRT, CRT’s legal team, the Judge and, bizarrely your own legal team this has not been an easy task. I have finally (I think) established the nuts and bolts of the case (please correct me if, after all this, I have read it wrong).

 

The story as I gather it is that British Waterways and then CRT have claimed that you have not been compliant with Section 17(3) ( c ) (ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 presumably in that they claim that you didn’t use the vessel for bona fide navigation during the period of the consent (licence). Due to this they have revoked your licence as the Act enables them to do. Once they have revoked your licence they have then instructed you to remove the boat from ‘their’ water and when this didn’t happen they have removed it themselves. As far as I can see the only part of that you can reasonably argue is whether or not they have evidence that you have not complied with the bona fide navigation requirement. If that part is proven then all else is written in the Act and is therefore legal. Is this a reasonable interpretation of what has happened?

Edited by Wanderer Vagabond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave up reading Geoff's site trying to get to the facts of the case.

 

As WV says, Geoff seems to have a towering sense of entitlement. I can't imagine anything ever changing this. I suspect he's spent his whole life clashing with authority.

 

He seems terribly similar to Tony Dunkley in the angry way he writes.

 

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried that in the hopes of getting a decent cheap whisky . . .

 

You have reminded me of an old story my father told some decades ago. He had been given what he thought was a splendid whisky by his host, who revealed that he always bought the cheapest supermarket whisky he could find, poured it into a small oak cask he had on the mantelpiece, added a bit of sherry and left it for a week.

 

So I hunted online for small oak casks, and ordered myself a 3 litre one from Germany for my birthday. It arrived yesterday, and I am currently seeing if I can rinse it out thoroughly before testing, so as not to get too great a sting of tannin from the fresh wood. I can see that it will take some considerable testing to get the right formula, but if successful I’ll let you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You have reminded me of an old story my father told some decades ago. He had been given what he thought was a splendid whisky by his host, who revealed that he always bought the cheapest supermarket whisky he could find, poured it into a small oak cask he had on the mantelpiece, added a bit of sherry and left it for a week.

 

So I hunted online for small oak casks, and ordered myself a 3 litre one from Germany for my birthday. It arrived yesterday, and I am currently seeing if I can rinse it out thoroughly before testing, so as not to get too great a sting of tannin from the fresh wood. I can see that it will take some considerable testing to get the right formula, but if successful I’ll let you know.

Sounds like a great crack! Let us know how you get on.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I have been taking this very cautiously. First glass poured in, swirled around and poured out straightaway. Most acceptable. Then a couple of glasses worth, left in for longer: second glass fine, third glass actually better.

 

So: a pint on, I can report that for these strictly limited times in the oak at least – and I haven’t yet attempted to add any drops of sherry – the experiment is proving most successful, with a definite addition of authority to the blend.

 

A long way yet to go of course, I am leery of leaving it in the new cask for too long at this early stage, but things look promising.

 

In strictly scientific terms the accompaniment of walnuts and Lincolnshire double-barrel Poacher, interspersed with briars of 3 Nuns, probably interferes with the palate – but one must test things in the environment within which they can be expected to be utilised.

 

p.s. at risk of returning to topic, CaRT filed for discontinuance of the Dunkley case today. Judge's decision next week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

p.s. at risk of returning to topic, CaRT filed for discontinuance of the Dunkley case today. Judge's decision next week.

 

Thanks - I'm sure you will keep us informed.

 

In my 'drugged-up, flu ridden state' do I recall correctly that the one who files for discontinuance is/could be liable for costs ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks - I'm sure you will keep us informed.

 

In my 'drugged-up, flu ridden state' do I recall correctly that the one who files for discontinuance is/could be liable for costs ?

That's my understanding as well but also I think it also means the case can not be brought again (on same grounds) no doubt someone will confirm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You recall correctly.

 

However - CaRT have instructed Shoosmiths to ask for an Order as to no costs, which is unusual in such cases. It will be interesting to see what the judge thinks, in light of the previous Consent Order. I wouldn't like to call it, although Tony has formally objected and is demanding his costs as per the usual CPR provisions.

 

I can understand his viewpoint, though it would not have bothered me over much - the important thing being that CaRT will require the permission of the court before seeking to do the same to him again in future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . less to spend on the towpaths for cyclists and walkers . . .

 

Blame the government. When they conditioned the Transfer on opening the towpaths freely to the public, they kyboshed the proposed byelaws making non-boating use of the towpath subject to licences. Cyclists and pedestrians only pay if they want to via their voluntary contributions to the charity.

 

Not sure how that affects the licensing of camping on them though [draft byelaw No.82]. That could be CaRT's answer to the homelessness issue once the boat has been seized - give the evictees a licence to erect tents alongside the canal. It wouldn't solve the issue over deliberate non-payers, but the legislation doesn't insist on moving tent every so often for those that do pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You recall correctly.

 

However - CaRT have instructed Shoosmiths to ask for an Order as to no costs, which is unusual in such cases. It will be interesting to see what the judge thinks, in light of the previous Consent Order. I wouldn't like to call it, although Tony has formally objected and is demanding his costs as per the usual CPR provisions.

 

I can understand his viewpoint, though it would not have bothered me over much - the important thing being that CaRT will require the permission of the court before seeking to do the same to him again in future.

 

Then, Tony has effectively won? Excellent news. I hope he gets his costs as well, he certainly deserves it. clapping.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a term I have been looking for unavailingly in the cobwebbed recesses of my mind, dealing with the inadmissibility of raising issues where you had had the chance to have done so before.

 

Never mind – the current developments may not give rise to ‘res judicata’ [not what I was looking for], but the court would have to give CaRT permission at a further hearing, should they wish to renew pursuit of Tony on the same grounds in future. Even for everyone else with home moorings, however, the back-down is citable material, and the Dunkley Defence is there for anyone else to use in sufficiently similar circumstances if CaRT go looking for a more pliable target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

- I'm sure you will keep us informed.

 

I am happy to report that the second litre has been processed with approval. The 24 hour batch was perhaps a tad over woody, but perfectly drinkable [ a bit like those who enjoy a smoky Laphroaig, but not by the litre].

 

Jury is still out on the addition of the Bristol Cream; I tend to think it is a step too far.

 

 

p.s. The latest flurry of activity relating to Parry’s endorsement of efforts to evict me from the system has reached a crescendo this week.

 

I have cordially suggested that it could be of benefit for him to attend next week’s site visit in order that he see for himself exactly what all the public money is being spent on at his behest.

 

I doubt he’ll bother, but the opportunity to save embarrassment is there, and it will prove an interesting week in the days to follow, including as we trust, some decision over the Dunkley costs. Past time for him to wake up and smell the silage.

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.