Enforcement or Harassment

[NigelMoore]

But it's just not honest to say that "It was not in Tony's power" to ensure his case was heard. You have told us exactly how it was in his power for him to do that. That he chose not to may have been because he didn't know the procedure, but he thought he knew best rather than taking professional advice.

 

I think you are misunderstanding what I have said.

 

My comments were directed at the situation as it existed post the initial court hearing. By that stage it was too late to take any initiative in the case other than to do what Tony did do – which was to file a statement with the court that sufficed to have the judge reject the Part 8 procedure and give time for filing a Defence.

 

Could/should Tony have taken immediate advice once his ‘licence’ was revoked, regarding taking the initiative at that earlier stage? Indubitably. Serendipity has played its part, however, and now not only is Tony wiser, but so are we all.

[peterboat]

Wise words Nigel

 

Peter

[NilesMI]

 

I think you are misunderstanding what I have said

 

....

 

Could/should Tony have taken immediate advice once his ‘licence’ was revoked, regarding taking the initiative at that earlier stage? Indubitably. Serendipity has played its part, however, and now not only is Tony wiser, but so are we all.

 

 

No, I understood.

 

Tony could and, in my opinion, should have taken legal advice as soon as he found out that CRT were refusing to renew his licence.

[NigelMoore]

Earlier in fact – the time to initiate action was from the moment they revoked the licence in the first place. That took place months before he applied for a new one and was refused.

 

The very first thing to do under those circumstances is to apply for an injunction against them acting on the situation. If nothing else, they don’t care for that, and would probably offer an undertaking not to so act without at least initial discussion within the legal department at a higher level than is ordinarily indulged in.

[Tony Dunkley]

CaRT aren't trying to get costs from him, they can't very well do that as they've discontinued the action. He's trying to get costs from them.

To be strictly correct, the Civil Procedure Rules[Part 38(6)] as applicable here, make a Claimant who files and serves Notice of Discontinuance liable for all the Defendants costs up until the time of service, unless the Court orders otherwise. So C&RT are, in effect, now asking the Court to let them off something they've already agreed to, in writing, on 27 August 2014.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

To be strictly correct, the Civil Procedure Rules[Part 38(6)] as applicable here, make a Claimant who files and serves Notice of Discontinuance liable for all the Defendants costs up until the time of service, unless the Court orders otherwise. So C&RT are, in effect, now asking the Court to let them off something they've already agreed to, in writing, on 27 August 2014.

Yup

[thunderbird]

 

Perhaps someone disturbed the bottom of the pond where he was.

I can't refer to the status of the enforcement officer, but I do feel his boss could be somewhat confused - or is it just me?

Tony Dunkley was initially charged with overstaying on a visitor mooring. It is a proven fact that he was not on a visitor mooring. Next he was accused of not having a home mooring - this despite Simon Salem having been told by a third party, me, that he had, and that I had in fact visited it. Finally he was charged just with 'overstaying' and failing to cruise. CaRT then told him they would only re-issue him with a CC'ing licence, even though it had been informed he had in fact got a home mooring. I could go on but suffice I think to add the following - hopefully someone will tell me if it is just I confused as to the terms relating to cruising for those of us with a home mooring?

And I quote - from notes from the latest boaters open meeting:

'We must have some regard to the legal position and boats shouldn’t stay static unless they have a home mooring; we try to encourage people to move. But it is quite legitimate not to have a home mooring.'

And from the latest words to Tony Dunkley - again I quote:

' (ie overstaying on visitor moorings rather than cruising whilst away from your home mooring), we will have no choice but to re-commence action and this may lead to us terminating your newly-issued licence.'

[Tony Dunkley]

 

I've no doubt that most boaters would be in that position. Certainly I had no understanding of the procedure.

 

Far more help than firing off a series of angry email to Parry is getting advice as to the legal basis for what CRT intends and what you can do about it.

 

There is a parallel here with criminal cases. People who believe themselves innocent routinely decline their right to have legal advice, on the basis that being innocet they have nothing to fear from being accused. In fact, it's the innocent who have the most to fear as by saying things in a police interview you can easily admit to committing a crime you haven't actually committed.

 

 

 

Yes. II incorrectly said that by obtaining a licence you avoided the case being heard.

 

Obviously it meant the case for removal of your boat wasn't heard. But the question as to why you had been refused a licence was never going to be part of that, as Nigel has reminded me.

 

The judge would have been wrong to deny you a hearing on costs. OTOH I don't criticise CRT for asking. It's the nature of litigation that you seek to get the best outcome for yourself. If you were applying to not have their costs awarded against you, you would have done the same. It's not part of some vindictive campaign CRT are waging against you.

 

I have no reason to believe the judge won't look carefully at the circumstances. If he/she feels that you have incurred costs through no fault of your own, they will make a costs order against CRT.

 

That should be the point at which you can draw a line under this and get on with whatever else it is you want to do with your life. Even if that is just pointing at other boaters and saying how stupid they are.

 

CRT should also reflect on how things worked out and whatever problems they think they have in future with boats in the same or similar situation, they resolve to do better.

 

Do you think you will get a decision immediately on the 24th, or have to wait a while?

If it does go to a hearing on 24 November I think we'll get a decision on the day, but I really don't think even C&RT will want to push it that far. >>This man has acted unreasonably by not breaking the Law and renewing his boat Licence when it was due, and in doing so has wrecked our case against him<< . . . would you want to stand in front of a Judge and say that, or words to that effect?

[Paul G2]

 

He can do whatever he likes. It's his responsibility, his choice. That's exactly my point.

 

As you say, he played his own game, but I bet a pound to a penny that if cost are awarded against him, he wil call foul.

Niles, You seem to be missing an important piece of information that may be in this thread or may be in the other one about this subject. Tony references this in his post 189 above.

 

CRT originally asked, and Tony agreed, that this case be dismissed in a procedural manner that would have left CRT responsible for costs. CRT later changed their mind and reneged on their written agreement to dismiss the case under the procedure that would have awarded costs to Tony, and then tried to have it dismissed under a different procedure that would have each party responsible for their own costs.

 

So, this whole thing about the hearing on the costs is just a case of further CRT obfuscation in their treatment of Mr. Dunkley. He agreed to an offer from CRT and, once the case was dismissed, CRT then tried to change their offer. Considering that CRT is the one with the attorneys and the one with the power of authority, it seems that they should be held to certain high standard of performing on the agreements they make with those they have power over.

[Naughty Cal]

 

. . . . and obviously even less between your ears.

 

PS. Have you welched on any more bets recently?

I didn't "welch" on any bet Tony. A time was given and that time was missed. That's not "welching"

 

You can't go to the bookies and say my horse came second I want paying out!

I should hope so too! Why on earth should Tony be responsible for costs?

Again. We don't know the full story. Tony is being very coy about why action was brought against him in the first place.

 

Perhaps he should be responsible for the costs. How can you tell otherwise based on the one sided BS he has fed everyone on this forum?

Earlier in fact the time to initiate action was from the moment they revoked the licence in the first place. That took place months before he applied for a new one and was refused.

 

The very first thing to do under those circumstances is to apply for an injunction against them acting on the situation. If nothing else, they dont care for that, and would probably offer an undertaking not to so act without at least initial discussion within the legal department at a higher level than is ordinarily indulged in.

So why didn't he?

 

Fancied his day in court then thought better of it?

If it does go to a hearing on 24 November I think we'll get a decision on the day, but I really don't think even C&RT will want to push it that far. >>This man has acted unreasonably by not breaking the Law and renewing his boat Licence when it was due, and in doing so has wrecked our case against him<< . . . would you want to stand in front of a Judge and say that, or words to that effect?

I expect it to be Tony backing out not CRT judging by his previous Form.

[John V]

Niles, You seem to be missing an important piece of information that may be in this thread or may be in the other one about this subject. Tony references this in his post 189 above.

 

CRT originally asked, and Tony agreed, that this case be dismissed in a procedural manner that would have left CRT responsible for costs. CRT later changed their mind and reneged on their written agreement to dismiss the case under the procedure that would have awarded costs to Tony, and then tried to have it dismissed under a different procedure that would have each party responsible for their own costs.

 

So, this whole thing about the hearing on the costs is just a case of further CRT obfuscation in their treatment of Mr. Dunkley. He agreed to an offer from CRT and, once the case was dismissed, CRT then tried to change their offer. Considering that CRT is the one with the attorneys and the one with the power of authority, it seems that they should be held to certain high standard of performing on the agreements they make with those they have power over.

 

At this stage I believe the point is that an agreement was made.

Either CRT are weaseling or Shoosmiths are weaseling for them.

Whoever, is irrelevant. It does CRT no favours and dismays people who are basically supporters of CRT.

Agreeing or disagreeing with Tony is not the point here......it's trustworthiness of CRT

[boathunter]

I didn't "welch" on any bet Tony. A time was given and that time was missed. That's not "welching"

 

You can't go to the bookies and say my horse came second I want paying out!

 

Again. We don't know the full story. Tony is being very coy about why action was brought against him in the first place.

 

Perhaps he should be responsible for the costs. How can you tell otherwise based on the one sided BS he has fed everyone on this forum?

 

So why didn't he?

 

Fancied his day in court then thought better of it?

 

I expect it to be Tony backing out not CRT judging by his previous Form.

Your points are based on your furtive imagination and are making you look foolish, I suggest you re-read the thread.

Edited October 23, 2014 by boathunter

[Naughty Cal]

Your points are based on your furtive imagination and are making you look foolish, I suggest you re-read the thread.

We shall see.

[matty40s]

 

At this stage I believe the point is that an agreement was made.

Either CRT are weaseling or Shoosmiths are weaseling for them.

Whoever, is irrelevant. It does CRT no favours and dismays people who are basically supporters of CRT.

Agreeing or disagreeing with Tony is not the point here......it's trustworthiness of CRT

 

Oh, but disagreeing with Tony is Phylis only point - the fact that he has been proven correct still swims by her little fish bowl.

[Naughty Cal]

 

Oh, but disagreeing with Tony is Phylis only point - the fact that he has been proven correct still swims by her little fish bowl.

Not really, no.

 

If any of you think that the hearing on the 24th November will be the last that is heard of this case then you are all deluded.

 

After all CRT have reserved the right to proceed with proceedings as and when Tony fails to comply with the guidelines and regulations. Which lets face it with Tony's won't be long.

 

All this talk of CRT wasting money on legal proceedings, yet no one questions Tony as to how it came about in the first instance. It's all well and good to wave a stick at CRT but have none of you thought why this case came to be?

 

Tony's story, as he would have you believe it, doesn't really ring true when you break it down. But then again why let that get in the way of a bit more CRT bashing?

[John V]

NC Your Pavlovian reactions mean that , on this forum at least, you are becoming CRT's worst advocate

[matty40s]

Not really, no.

 

If any of you think that the hearing on the 24th November will be the last that is heard of this case then you are all deluded.

 

After all CRT have reserved the right to proceed with proceedings as and when Tony fails to comply with the guidelines and regulations. Which lets face it with Tony's won't be long.

 

 

 

 

Wrong again, the reason that CRT withdrew the case is because Tony is not breaking the law.

 

The reason that CRT are now trying to wheedle out of paying costs they agreed to, is because they would like to try again to take him to court for the same thing, something they cannot do if they lose. Sheer incompetence by CRT legal team as well as (like you) an inability to play the game and not the person.

[Alf Roberts]

Not really, no.

 

If any of you think that the hearing on the 24th November will be the last that is heard of this case then you are all deluded.

 

After all CRT have reserved the right to proceed with proceedings as and when Tony fails to comply with the guidelines and regulations. Which lets face it with Tony's won't be long.

 

All this talk of CRT wasting money on legal proceedings, yet no one questions Tony as to how it came about in the first instance. It's all well and good to wave a stick at CRT but have none of you thought why this case came to be?

 

Tony's story, as he would have you believe it, doesn't really ring true when you break it down. But then again why let that get in the way of a bit more CRT bashing?

Once again you let your mouth freewheel. CRT's case is public ( see Nigel Moore's link) so this is by no means a one sided tale.

 

But why let the facts get in the way of your beliefs?

[Naughty Cal]

As I said we shall see. Let the court decide who was wasting who's money and see what happens in the future.

 

Now where's that crystal ball, Oh hang on, I won't be needing that

[Tuscan]

As I said we shall see. Let the court decide who was wasting who's money and see what happens in the future.

 

Now where's that crystal ball, Oh hang on, I won't be needing that

Surely if CRT have withdrawn their action and are having to to meet their own substantial costs they have wasted their money , regardless of any other outcome.

[NigelMoore]

CRT have reserved the right to proceed with proceedings as and when Tony fails to comply with the guidelines and regulations.

 

On a point of accuracy [that doesn’t gainsay the thrust of your remark], carrying on with proceedings in the event of non-compliance with their interpretation of statute was what CaRT promised, not what they can deliver.

 

The whole point of ending the matter with the Notice of Discontinuance that Tony had pushed for, was precisely that this means CaRT CANNOT renew proceedings at their whim – the present proceedings are closed, and they would first have to argue for and obtain the permission of the court to bring any fresh action on substantially the same grounds. This was, for Tony, by far the most important aspect, rather than the [comparatively] trivial matter of his costs to date.

 

Bear in mind that the allowable costs of any Litigant in Person are strictly limited under the CPR, and CaRT will be spending far more in defending against these costs than they could possibly be liable for. For them, this expenditure of public funding is all and only about the narrowly focussed image, and the point-scoring. If their claim against liability for costs is upheld, it will have cost them more than if they had made no such application, and will have bought them only an appearance of having won at least something.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Surely if CRT have withdrawn their action and are having to to meet their own substantial costs they have wasted their money , regardless of any other outcome.

Yes, and as Nigel says, the additional cost to them of attempting not to pay Tony's modest costs will be more than paying them.

 

.... and, of course, they might end up paying them anyway!

 

It's a very crude attempt to save face.

 

 

[Hawkmoth]

 

I can't say I agree with you very often, but you are quite right this time around.

 

Tony has every right to be as much of an in-your-face curmudgeon as he wants to be, and that particularly applies when an organization with endless resources and the authority of a quasi-government organization tries to take his home. Tony's attitude and personality determine how many friends he has, they don't determine his rights.

 

No person should have to ask nicely to not have their rights infringed upon. As a matter of fact, it is those who are overtly confrontational with abusive authority that guarantee that the meeker amongst us do not have their rights curtailed or trampled upon.

 

Those people who are saying that Tony is an obnoxious person are probably right. However, to say that his problems could have been avoided with an appropriate amount of arse kissing are missing the point. Tony showed CRT that they can't steamroll boaters just because of their unlimited resources and position of authority. His was a veritable David vs. Goliath scenario, and David won. In winning, it would seem that he has done a service to all those subject to CRT's whims. Anyone who thinks that a tyrant becomes more benevolent with victory hasn't paid much attention to history.

 

If CRT had succeeded in taking Tony's home in an illegal manner, they would have felt empowered to take anyone else's boat in the same manner. Those who say they have nothing to fear because they are playing by the rules, seem to ignore the fact that Tony was playing by the rules when CRT came after him.

 

 

ETA - a missing word.

Well said! Greenie to you.

Bob

[mayalld]

So, if an enforcement officer, known to be confrontational,

 

 

You state this as a fact, when it isn't actually established fact.

 

Certainly, it has been CLAIMED that the EO is confrontational, but there is an extent to which any EO who nobody ever complains about is probably not doing his job.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

You state this as a fact, when it isn't actually established fact.

 

Certainly, it has been CLAIMED that the EO is confrontational, but there is an extent to which any EO who nobody ever complains about is probably not doing his job.

Yes but four people have CLAIMED harassment by this officer this calendar year.

 

Does anyone know of an CaRT enforcement officer with a worse record?