Enforcement or Harassment

[Alan de Enfield]

Over on the 'Dark-side' there have been calls for C&RT to apologise for harrasment - C&RT have made a statement / response which concludes :-

 

"The accusations of harrasment against Stuart Gardner are completely unjustified"

 

Some may agree with this, and some may not.

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/7333-saying-sorry-is-not-enough

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/leatest/7386-cart-gives-it-enforcement-position

 

 

[Alf Roberts]

Perhaps an in depth internal enquiry to these customer complaints would be a better response than a knee jerk "The accusations of harassment against Stuart Gardner are completely unjustified."

 

But then CRT are not known for gathering evidence before adopting a position.

 

ps there's two s and one r in harassment. ( not a complaint, simply an observation ;-)

Edited October 16, 2014 by Alf Roberts

[MtB]

Can you copy and paste the content here please? I refuse to give them the traffic.

 

(It's not as though NBW has a problem with doing the same, the other way around).

 

Thanks.

 

 

MtB

ps there's two s and one r in harassment.

 

 

 

Oh my gawd, you've done it now. Stand by for the 'op might be dyslexic' brigade to come charging in...

 

 

MtB

[Alf Roberts]

We're you not one of the people making complaints against IP rights infringement yet you ask for copywrite infringement. A link is sufficient. You can't be bothered to follow it but you want to join the debate?

[jenlyn]

Over on the 'Dark-side' there have been calls for C&RT to apologise for harrasment - C&RT have made a statement / response which concludes :-

 

"The accusations of harrasment against Stuart Gardner are completely unjustified"

 

Some may agree with this, and some may not.

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/7333-saying-sorry-is-not-enough

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/leatest/7386-cart-gives-it-enforcement-position

 

An age old saying I know, but, there's no smoke without fire......

[Alan de Enfield]

Mike the Boilerman, on 16 Oct 2014 - 09:20 AM, said:

 

 

Oh my gawd, you've done it now. Stand by for the 'op might be dyslexic' brigade to come charging in...

 

 

As it happens - I am slightly dyslexic, and my son much more so. - even to the extent that a few days ago (on this very forum) a reply to a post I made was "........you are a Retard" - it was fairly quickly edited tho'.

 

That is the reason that some of my posts seem out of context with a thread - it takes me a fair bit of time to write and check, and recheck them - see my 'signature line'.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[Guest]

As it happens - I am slightly dyslexic, and my son much more so. - even to the extent that a few days ago (on this very forum) a reply to a post I made was "........you are a Retard" - it was fairly quickly edited tho'.

 

That is the reason that some of my posts seem out of context with a thread - it takes me a fair bit of time to write and check, and recheck them - see my 'signature line'.

... and does it really matter anyway?

 

Personally as soon as I see someone (seriously rather than in jest) criticising spelling I don't bother properly reading their rest of their post.

[dor]

NBW? Well what can you say? If C&RT don't deal with bridge hoppers or license dodgers they are failing in their duty. Try and get someone to follow the rules and they get another drubbing. Whilst one can feel some sympathy for people living on boats in difficult circumstances, it is not C&RT's job to act as a social service. Try parking on a yellow line with the untaxed van you live in and see how long it would be until you were dealt with.

[Southern Star]

... and does it really matter anyway?

 

 

Eggsactly.

[Alf Roberts]

NBW? Well what can you say? If C&RT don't deal with bridge hoppers or license dodgers they are failing in their duty. Try and get someone to follow the rules and they get another drubbing. Whilst one can feel some sympathy for people living on boats in difficult circumstances, it is not C&RT's job to act as a social service. Try parking on a yellow line with the untaxed van you live in and see how long it would be until you were dealt with.

You are obviously not familiar with Tony Dunkley's case, I suggest you read the recent thread.

[Tony Dunkley]

The so called statement from C&RT amounts to nothing more than a few lines of dishonest and misleading tripe with even the name of the offending employee spelled incorrectly . . . it's Garner not Gardner, the latter being trustworthy, efficient and good at it's job, whilst the former is anything but. It is hardly surprising that whoever was responsible for this has considered it wise to remain anonymous. The phrasing and words used are more than a little reminiscent of some of Parry's evasive answers given on this subject during one of his rather inappropriately named 'open' meetings.

[Sabcat]

Interesting situation. In public any organisation should defend its employees even if at the same time admitting mistakes - and if the admission is worth a damn outlining what is going to be done to prevent future problems. Spelling the name of the employee wrong, putting the blame for problems on others "...anyone who doesn't stick to the rules is going to face some tough questions....in a small number of cases people just don't want to play fair.." isn't indicative of any previous apologies being sincere or investigations being existent let alone thorough.

 

Is there a link anywhere to the apology CaRT made to Tony Dunkley?

[Dar Kuma]

We're you not one of the people making complaints against IP rights infringement yet you ask for copywrite infringement. A link is sufficient. You can't be bothered to follow it but you want to join the debate?

 

I was going to post but it is way to obvious a joke.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Interesting situation. In public any organisation should defend its employees even if at the same time admitting mistakes - and if the admission is worth a damn outlining what is going to be done to prevent future problems. Spelling the name of the employee wrong, putting the blame for problems on others "...anyone who doesn't stick to the rules is going to face some tough questions....in a small number of cases people just don't want to play fair.." isn't indicative of any previous apologies being sincere or investigations being existent let alone thorough.

 

Is there a link anywhere to the apology CaRT made to Tony Dunkley?

It is perhaps worth noting that CaRT has yet to apologise to Tony for its court action against him (if, indeed they intend to!). The apology, which was made via a third party relates to a different matter entirely.

 

Quite simply, Tony had CaRT's permission to moor a workboat at a wharf which the Trust now wants to sell off. Instead of informing him of the situation, he was told that he was mooring illegally and CaRT denied him access to the boat.

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/7317-the-law-of-unexpected-consequence

 

 

[NigelMoore]

It is perhaps worth noting that CaRT has yet to apologise to Tony for its court action against him (if, indeed they intend to!).

 

 

They certainly don’t intend to.

 

According to their latest application to the court for the discontinuance of their action against him, they shouldn’t even have to be liable for his costs, because he is responsible for them.

 

They quote a judge in Teasdale v HSBC Bank PLC [2010] to the effect that if the change in circumstances leading to a need to discontinue has not been contributed to by the Claimant, and the change has been brought about by some form of unreasonable conduct on the part of the Defendant, then those are [the only] good reasons for departing from the presumption re: costs.

 

They accuse Tony of complying with their requirements to licence the boat, and that in doing so he “has made the claim worthless and academic, such that the claim could no longer proceed; such circumstances were at no fault and beyond the control of the Claimant.”

 

“Accordingly”, they submit, “the presumption that the Defendant should recover his costs is rebutted and there should be no order as to costs in these proceedings.”

[NilesMI]

 

They accuse Tony of complying with their requirements to licence the boat, and that in doing so he “has made the claim worthless and academic, such that the claim could no longer proceed; such circumstances were at no fault and beyond the control of the Claimant.”

 

On the other hand, CRT could reasonably forsee that Tony would comply with their requirements and render their claim worthless. They took action anyway.

 

The only reason Tony incurred costs is because they took action against him.

 

A judge should see that. Not just from the point of view of fairness in his case, but to make it clear that litigating as a first, rather than a last resort, should not be made a cost free* option for the loser.

 

 

*Not totally cost free. Even if a cost order isn't granted to Tony, they will still have to pay their own costs resulting from this shambles.

[NigelMoore]

The most ridiculous aspect is that he already HAD complied with their home mooring requirements - as they had accepted until they decided to apply the new “CC if not on home mooring” rule.

 

The most difficult point of view to absorb is the claim that issuing the licence was “beyond their control”, especially given that they had exercised just such control to engineer the circumstances that made bringing the case viable in the first place.

[Paul G2]

The most ridiculous aspect is that he already HAD complied with their home mooring requirements - as they had accepted until they decided to apply the new “CC if not on home mooring” rule.

 

The most difficult point of view to absorb is the claim that issuing the licence was “beyond their control”, especially given that they had exercised just such control to engineer the circumstances that made bringing the case viable in the first place.

 

Has the judge indicated how he is going to rule?

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Has the judge indicated how he is going to rule?

No, but at least C&RT's Application has not been accepted or granted at face value, in the sense that the Judge (unfortunately now the third one named on the Court paperwork) has refused to make a 'no costs' Order without a hearing, as applied for by C&RT.

It seems to be a good indicator of the general character and arrogance of those within C&RT first instigating, and now apparently wishing to continue this legal action, that the grounds upon which they believe that they should not have costs awarded against them are that I have made their Claim against me "worthless and academic" by not keeping an unlicenced boat on their waters and being sighted using my home mooring.

Edited October 17, 2014 by tony dunkley

[Alan de Enfield]

A theoretical case :

 

You are accused by C&RT of not travelling sufficiently (either as a CCer or as a boat with 'home mooring'), you do not change your cruising pattern and C&RT revoke your licence.

 

Despite evidence that you 'do move sufficiently' C&RT decide to section 8 your boat as you do not have a licence

 

Court process starts

 

C&RT review your evidence and decide that perhaps they dont have a case and request that the court 'no longer proceed' with the case, whilst re-issuing the licence.

 

As the issuing of the licence is 'beyond their control' (ie the boat has a BSS, is insured and has a place to moor) the boater now has a licence, & has therefore complied with the requirements to cease the section 8 action - and - is therefore responsible for 'costs'.

 

Am I being too simplistic ?

 

You couldn't make it up !!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

A theoretical case :

 

You are accused by C&RT of not travelling sufficiently (either as a CCer or as a boat with 'home mooring'), you do not change your cruising pattern and C&RT revoke your licence.

 

Despite evidence that you 'do move sufficiently' C&RT decide to section 8 your boat as you do not have a licence

 

Court process starts

 

C&RT review your evidence and decide that perhaps they dont have a case and request that the court 'no longer proceed' with the case, whilst re-issuing the licence.

 

As the issuing of the licence is 'beyond their control' (ie the boat has a BSS, is insured and has a place to moor) the boater now has a licence, & has therefore complied with the requirements to cease the section 8 action - and - is therefore responsible for 'costs'.

 

Am I being too simplistic ?

 

You couldn't make it up !!

Actually, CaRT claim the right to refuse a licence under its terms and conditions. Therefore, it is wrong of them to claim it is out of their control.

 

Unless, of course, they are now admitting that that they can not set terms and conditions as they see fit in addition to what is contained in various laws and bye-laws.

 

 

8.5. We reserve the right to refuse to issue you with any Licence in the future. You have no right under

these Conditions to the renewal of a Licence. We will not unreasonably refuse to renew a Licence.

However, if we do refuse to issue you with a Licence, we will write and tell you why.

 

Edited October 17, 2014 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Tony Dunkley]

A theoretical case :

 

You are accused by C&RT of not travelling sufficiently (either as a CCer or as a boat with 'home mooring'), you do not change your cruising pattern and C&RT revoke your licence.

 

Despite evidence that you 'do move sufficiently' C&RT decide to section 8 your boat as you do not have a licence

 

Court process starts

 

C&RT review your evidence and decide that perhaps they dont have a case and request that the court 'no longer proceed' with the case, whilst re-issuing the licence.

 

As the issuing of the licence is 'beyond their control' (ie the boat has a BSS, is insured and has a place to moor) the boater now has a licence, & has therefore complied with the requirements to cease the section 8 action - and - is therefore responsible for 'costs'.

 

Am I being too simplistic ?

 

You couldn't make it up !!

 

No you're not being too simplistic, or having to make up anything either, that describes the whole thing very well . . .so theoretical, certainly not, beyond belief very definitely, as is an ever increasing proportion of Parry's and C&RT's administration of our waterways.

Edited October 17, 2014 by tony dunkley

[kris88]

It sounds like CRT are trying to save face, as they have been so publicly beaten.

Regards kris

[Tony Dunkley]

It sounds like CRT are trying to save face, as they have been so publicly beaten.

Regards kris

By going about this in such a hamfisted and ill considered manner they are, in fact, giving a further public demonstration of just how flawed is their preferred method of taking to task boaters perceived not to be obeying the rules. Their written evidence to the Court as to why no costs should be awarded to me is nothing less than an admission that their tactics of revoking the boat's Licence and then serving Section 8 and 13 Notices can be effectively countered by the boat owner proving compliance with the requirements of Section 17(3) of the 1995 BW Act and reapplying for the boat Licence. Very obliging of them, although I'm sure more as a result of acting in haste rather than from any good intentions.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

 

Unless, of course, they are now admitting that that they can not set terms and conditions as they see fit in addition to what is contained in various laws and bye-laws.

 

 

I think that is what they are now admitting, although certainly not intentionally but more as a result of acting before thinking. Clause 8.5 of the Licence T&C's has no basis in any statute.