Enforcement or Harassment

[MtB]

I wonder how many complaints Mr Dunkley would get if he were to turn 'gamekeeper'...

 

 

MtB

[Alf Roberts]

I wonder how many complaints Mr Dunkley would get if he were to turn 'gamekeeper'...

 

 

MtB

So now we switch from assessing Tony Dunkley as a vexatious litigant and now assess him as an enforcement officer?

 

 

Has he applied to be one? I missed that bit.

 

Perhaps you'd like to assess him as a transvestite potter?

[MtB]

So now we switch from assessing Tony Dunkley as a vexatious litigant and now assess him as an enforcement officer?

 

 

Has he applied to be one? I missed that bit.

 

Perhaps you'd like to assess him as a transvestite potter?

 

 

I was just mischievously suggesting that the EO being complained about might have a similar approach to dealing with people to Mr Dunkley's.

 

Don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say he was a vexatious litigant? I must have missed that bit!

 

 

MtB

[John V]

from the information so far provided (information not opinions) the vexatious litigant , in this case seems to be CRT

[Alf Roberts]

I was just mischievously suggesting that the EO being complained about might have a similar approach to dealing with people to Mr Dunkley's.

 

Don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say he was a vexatious litigant? I must have missed that bit!

 

 

MtB

I think he would be a crap potter

[John V]

I thought what has crabbing got to do with it, then looked again......Specsavers soon I think

[Bod]

Should this matter, and it's handling, be brought offically to the attention of the Chairman of the Trustees?

This is not now a matter of day to day running of the Trust, but one that will bring the Trust into disrepute.

 

Bod

 

 

 

I can tell you exactly what the Chairman of the Trustees says in such circumstances:

 

“in light of the litigation now under way" – I - "consider the matters sub-judice. Any further correspondence should be with the solicitors acting on behalf of BW.”

 

Identical, in other words, with the Parry response to Tony I quoted earlier.

 

After the dust has settled, on this case, is there a mechanism, for the Chairman of, or the Board of Trustees, to review this matter and it's consequences?

 

Bod

[Paul C]

 

 

 

After the dust has settled, on this case, is there a mechanism, for the Chairman of, or the Board of Trustees, to review this matter and it's consequences?

 

Bod

 

The chairman of the board doesn't really need a mechanism, they can do what they like within the law. For example they could make a direct recommendation to HR or someone's line manager that a person is suspended or sacked on grounds of gross misconduct. But its unlikely they'd do that - more like they'd want to review with a view to ensuring the process of who decides and how cases which are likely to become publically damaging to CRT, are brought. I believe Richard Parry has already said he wants (and presumably has got the power to) review each case before it goes to a court hearing; and that the underlying location logging system they use is going to be overhauled. Its not so much just firing one rotten apple within CRT, but making the way they do things so the attitude/mindset of "rotten apples" in the company can't prosper, so they won't get promoted to positions of authority and the recruitment process/trial period of new recruits would allow for dismissal or non-renewal of a short-term contract (many employees will now take on staff initially on a short term contract of fixed duration before offering a permanent position), which is much easier/cheaper than going through a disciplinary process and exposes them to counterclaims at employment tribunal etc.

[NigelMoore]

making the way they do things so the attitude/mindset of "rotten apples" in the company can't prosper . . .

 

That is exactly right!

[Alf Roberts]

Question for Tony (or Nigel, who's up to speed);

 

Richard Parry says "As I think you are very aware, the original enforcement action against you was commenced because you insisted on overstaying at the visitor mooring at Holme Lock rather than mooring at your declared home mooring at Barton in Fabis."

 

What does he mean by this?

Are we talking a 48 hour mooring or a so-called '14 day' visitor mooring.

 

I seem to remember you saying you hadn't overstayed? is this right? and, if so, should Richard Parry know this (ie is he being disingenuous?)

 

Sorry if I'm retreading paths that have already been trod.

[Hawkmoth]

If Tony does get costs awarded I reckon that that will be the total vindication of his claim for harassment, and CRT's "heads up" that all is not right in their procedures.

I wonder how many of the folk on here who have been defending CRT to the point of being nasty to him will have the good grace to apologise?

Not many I'll wager.

Bob

[Alan de Enfield]

Question for Tony (or Nigel, who's up to speed);

 

Richard Parry says "As I think you are very aware, the original enforcement action against you was commenced because you insisted on overstaying at the visitor mooring at Holme Lock rather than mooring at your declared home mooring at Barton in Fabis."

 

What does he mean by this?

Are we talking a 48 hour mooring or a so-called '14 day' visitor mooring.

 

I seem to remember you saying you hadn't overstayed? is this right? and, if so, should Richard Parry know this (ie is he being disingenuous?)

 

Sorry if I'm retreading paths that have already been trod.

 

If I recall that far back - Tony was accused of overstaying on visitors moorings, when Tony argued the 'toss', C&RT sent him a map of the area over which they had responsibility (marked in 'red') and claimed he was within their juristriction.

 

After photographic evidence it was pointed out to C&RT that in fact Tony was outside their 'red line', they still claimed juristriction until Tony pointed out that it was actually EA land he was moored against, and, he had EA permission to moor there.

 

Every action that C&RT have taken in this whole fiasco has made them a laughing stock

 

I think that was the gist of it - no doubt Tony / Nigel will correct any errors.

[Alf Roberts]

And so Richard Parry is;

misinformed (even though he has personal responsibility for all legal actions),

disingenuous, or

downright lying.

 

in the quote above (dated yesterday) given as a reason for the continued harassment in the courts of Tony.

[NigelMoore]

I think that was the gist of it -

 

The “visitor moorings” referred to are 14 day moorings at Holme Lock.

 

There is [was] no signage designating them as “Visitor Moorings” that the public can see, so the designation as existing within CaRT’s own mind is ‘privileged’ information to which only they are privy. So far as the belatedly disclosed demarcation Alan refers to, that apparently did not reach as far as the place Tony was moored at anyway, so on any understanding he was not at the visitor moorings.

 

It is in a sense academic, because being “14 day” moorings [apparently], they are in no way different from any other towpath location even on CaRT ‘rules’.

 

Tony’s claim was that he at no time stayed there longer than 14 days at a time [other than on two occasions in special circumstances, apparently amicably agreed to]. The EA moorings referred to are on the opposite bank, and were for awhile [maybe still?] run by BW/CaRT as long-term moorings of their own. Tony apparently used these from time to time before returning to the towpath side upstream of the BW ‘visitor moorings’.

 

Is Mr Parry being disingenuous? Certainly. That comes out even more clearly when he denies that CaRT encouraged unlicensed use of Tony’s boat. Actually, I don’t believe for a moment that that was their intention, simply that they did not stop to think what they were saying.

 

They had put Tony on notice that they would not accept any renewal application naming Barton in Fabis as his home mooring – not because they did not believe that he could moor his boat there, but – because they were going to require a ‘compliant’ pattern of cruising for some unspecified period in order that they would feel satisfied that he would continue to qualify as a continuous cruiser.

 

Presenting CaRT with such a logged pattern of cruising requires cruising, and it appears to have passed Parry by, that if this was a pre-requisite to issuing a new licence, then that cruising would inevitably be unlicensed. Which was Tony's point.

 

Rather than admit to this [doubtless inadvertent] nonsense that his legal team had come up with, Parry prefers pretended innocence –

 

“The e-mails you refer to were not encouragement for you to remain unlicensed, but were genuine attempts to give you a chance to demonstrate to us that you were prepared to comply with our licence terms and conditions. I find it frustrating that you are so determined to mis-represent our position.” [my bold]

 

Duh, yes - how do you demonstrate cruising without cruising? And how do you do so legally without a licence? CaRT were not prepared to accept an undertaking that he would continuously cruise when away from his mooring [even supposing that was given], they wanted demonstrable proof. As their in-house solicitor had written:

 

“we indicated to you that if you showed you were willing to cruise whilst away from your home mooring then by the cruising pattern of your boat we may reconsider the need to continue with the enforcement action.”

 

Parry says that he is going to ignore future critical emails from Tony. I don't know why Tony feels slighted by this, he should be so lucky as to get responses at all - Parry ignores correspondence from me entirely, and be assured those are far more polite, and aimed at offering CaRT the opportunity to improve their image.

[Mrs Trackman]

 

If I recall that far back - Tony was accused of overstaying on visitors moorings, when Tony argued the 'toss', C&RT sent him a map of the area over which they had responsibility (marked in 'red') and claimed he was within their juristriction.

 

After photographic evidence it was pointed out to C&RT that in fact Tony was outside their 'red line', they still claimed juristriction until Tony pointed out that it was actually EA land he was moored against, and, he had EA permission to moor there.

 

Every action that C&RT have taken in this whole fiasco has made them a laughing stock

 

I think that was the gist of it - no doubt Tony / Nigel will correct any errors.

I have been following this topic with great interest and huge frustration. I would love to know the truth of this matter.

We frequently boat in the Nottingham area as we have big family commitments there. Although we wish to be continuous cruisers we pay for a mooring in the area so that we can legitimately be nearby.(actually we currently pay for two moorings as we are transferring from one to another,). we always try to comply with lengths of restrictions though it can be tricky. Last winter the Trent was in flood for 3 months apart from one morning and CRT's closure of Castle lock ran to 4 weeks instead of the 2 originally on the notices. Similarly, Holme lock was unexpectedly closed for several months. Many people's plans were disrupted.

We hear many complaints about the local enforcement officer. Apparently people were ticketed even when stuck between the Trent in flood and the over running Castle lock.

At the same time, I would love to know the truth about Holme Lock. We actually joined a waiting list for a mooring there back way before we had a boat, probably in 2000. we never got to the top of the list and the system changed. Since then very few auctions have come up there. In fact there is currently very little public mooring except against the high wall which is very exposed due to the work for the hydro electric scheme.

I do not know when Tony Dunkley arrived, I haven't seen anywhere that he has admitted how long he was there and I don't think he has ever said? I would guess several years though I stand back to have everyone shout, how do I know. I don't. At one time Tony actually had 2 spaces as he had a pontoon next to his boat that he claimed had come down from his mooring at Barton in Fabis.

Am I right in thinking the whole claim is based on the fact that he was on EA land and they gave him permission to moor there? Including the electric bollard he was hooked up to? So does that mean we could have asked to moor there too? can anyone? Which bits are EA land?

The reason I have never entered this discussion before is that I really don't want Tony Dunkley's insults about sharing a brain cell. I would just like some answers not insults.

[Tony Dunkley]

Question for Tony (or Nigel, who's up to speed);

 

Richard Parry says "As I think you are very aware, the original enforcement action against you was commenced because you insisted on overstaying at the visitor mooring at Holme Lock rather than mooring at your declared home mooring at Barton in Fabis."

 

What does he mean by this?

Are we talking a 48 hour mooring or a so-called '14 day' visitor mooring.

 

I seem to remember you saying you hadn't overstayed? is this right? and, if so, should Richard Parry know this (ie is he being disingenuous?)

 

Sorry if I'm retreading paths that have already been trod.

The length of wall in Holme lock Cut which C&RT have confirmed in writing as the VM's displays no signs of any kind, and in fact, I've never once tied up to it since I've owned this boat. I always used other parts of the Lock Cut, including a piled wall on the opposite(North)side owned by the EA, but even there I never stayed longer than 14 days consecutively. Parry is either knowingly lying, or he is just regurgitating lies told to him by the Enforcement Orifice.

[Phil.]

If all these instances regarding one enforcement officer are correct then why not attempt to obtain an injunction against him as an individual especially if as I have just read in one post that he was ticketing people for not moving in conditions it would be dangerous to navigate in.

[NigelMoore]

 

Send him a rude one Nigel, and see if he answers that.

 

Why would I bother? The only reason I write is to be helpful, to the end of avoiding unnecessary and pointless litigation. He is disinterested in that, and the last time he replied to that effect he cost CaRT thousands in lost costs, even in a case which they won.

 

He is unlikely to repeat that mistake, and as he has no interest in alternative dispute resolution [yes, I know he tells you different] he will not write again – whether I am rude or civil.

 

I prefer civility; apart from natural inclination it serves to emphasise our different style of approach – Johnson’s own legalistic and aggressive approach earned BW the condemnation even of the judge who found in their favour [in the judgment that was overturned on appeal].

[Sabcat]

<snip>

We hear many complaints about the local enforcement officer. Apparently people were ticketed even when stuck between the Trent in flood and the over running Castle lock.

 

If true, that's disgusting.

[Mike Todd]

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

Because if costs are not awarded to him it indicates that the judge takes the view that his actions brought the case on himself, even if ultimately he was not the losing party. As I understand it.

[NigelMoore]

Not how it works in this particular scenario. The finding on costs will have nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the case itself [nor have anything to do with views on whether Tony’s initial actions brought the case on himself], it will address only whether or not the subsequent actions of the Defendant post issue of proceedings were unreasonable and beyond the control of the Claimant wishing to discontinue.

 

 

edit to add parenthesis

Edited October 23, 2014 by NigelMoore

[thunderbird]

 

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.

I disagree. I know of several Enforcement Officers who do the job extremely efficiently, but that do it politely. No-one can say it is an easy job and there are no doubt some boaters that take umbrage, however the majority of boaters I know respond to a polite approach. Being treated as if you are dirt because you live on a boat together with a general attitude that you are lying is not I'd expect the way to influence either good behaviour or a favourable response from boaters.

[thunderbird]

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?

Well, far be it from me to enter into the argument you seem to be finding so enjoyable but as I was 'there' in Tony's story from the outset if there is any 'CaRT bashing' in Tony's case, then I'm afraid it is CaRT fair and square inviting the 'bashing'. As I see it from the start CaRT had been looking for a target, someone to make an example of as a warning to the rest of us, as they previously did with Ralph Freeman of what some refer to as 'The Dark Side'. They were proved wrong in Ralph's case, too, and furthermore were then left with no alternative other than to change the wording of their letters. CaRT's agenda appears to be to ruin the community aspect of our waterways and to turn our once peaceful canals into a battleground. Then again all of this hassle with enforcement could be covering up the lack of maintenance!

[Tony Dunkley]

Ah. That is where your argument falls short.

 

Some of us have had the misfortune of meeting Mr Dunkley in the flesh

I do know that you certainly haven't.

[kris88]

The focus on enforcement and "the ccer problem"definitely sets boater against boater. Also deflecting attention from the more important issue IMHO of lack of maintenance.

Regards kris