Enforcement or Harassment

[kris88]

I tend to agree with you tony, it seems like there's a few bruised egos as we'll

Regards kris

[NigelMoore]

I think it is appropriate to make the point that their current claim - that the unreasonable behaviour of a boater in licensing their boat renders s.8 proceedings “worthless and academic” – is a new one for them.

 

I always believed that just such a description applied to their pursuit of the 3 of my boats which I licensed [even while disputing the necessity] within a month of them getting s.8’s. However, the fact that ‘Gilgie’ in particular was licensed then and for the years thereafter, did not prevent either BW or the courts from carrying on with the proceedings. Why did they not, back then, withdraw the notices and agree that pursuit of those evictions was rendered “worthless and academic”?

 

Their legal department and Shoosmiths shift with the slightest wind, according as they see a need to weave around the immediate exigencies of the moment.

[Sabcat]

They're a shower. I hope they get knocked back in their box at the hearing and have to pay costs.

[thunderbird]

I have to say I rather agree with Sabcat!

[Tony Dunkley]

C&RT's difficulties with accurate recording of boat locations and movements have been extensively aired on this Forum, but the problem now seems to have progressed to afflict their solicitors in respect of supplying addresses to the Courts for service of papers. Shoosmiths have applied on behalf of C&RT for an Order, to be made without a hearing, that no costs be awarded against them following the Discontinuance of their case against me. One of the reasons for them not now wanting to proceed is that they have now had to recognize and agree that their claim that my boat was a houseboat permanently moored to their property in Holme Lock Cut without permission was, and is, completely untrue. They have now omitted in their 'no costs' Application to inform the Court of this and to admit that giving that location as my address never was correct, alleging that only the renewal of my Licence has made their Claim "worthless and academic", resulting in an Order made on 8 October 2014 being sent by the Court to an address that C&RT know will not find me.

The Judge did not agree to their request for the matter to be disposed of without a hearing and made an Order for a hearing on 24 November 2014 and a statement setting out my position on the Application within 14 days. It was also ordered, as is usual, that no response within 14 days would result in an Order being made in the terms sought by the Applicant, which would have been a very welcome outcome for C&RT and Shoosmiths in return for their rather convenient oversight about my address in their Application paperwork.

Fortunately, having been on the receiving end of some rather wayward and incomplete paperwork from Shoosmiths at the outset of this case, I had been in regular contact with the Court since C&RT reneged on their written assurances that they would file Notice of Discontinuance after renewing my boat Licence.

Edited October 21, 2014 by tony dunkley

[Alf Roberts]

.. (sorry Tony)

Edited October 21, 2014 by Alf Roberts

[thunderbird]

Richard Parry is maintaining that the court sent out the paperwork, therefore it is the court is responsible for sending it to the wrong address. It is hardly likely that Tony Dunkley would have supplied the court with an incorrect address, so I'm afraid it begs the question - WHO DID?!

[Stilllearning]

 

C&RT's difficulties with accurate recording of boat locations and movements have been extensively aired on this Forum, but the problem now seems to have progressed to afflict their solicitors in respect of supplying addresses to the Courts for service of papers. Shoosmiths have applied on behalf of C&RT for an Order, to be made without a hearing, that no costs be awarded against them following the Discontinuance of their case against me. One of the reasons for them not now wanting to proceed is that they have now had to recognize and agree that their claim that my boat was a houseboat permanently moored to their property in Holme Lock Cut without permission was, and is, completely untrue. They have now omitted in their 'no costs' Application to inform the Court of this, alleging only that the renewal of my Licence has made their Claim "worthless and academic", resulting in an Order made on 8 October 2014 being sent by the Court to an address that C&RT know will not find me.

The Judge did not agree to their request for the matter to be disposed of without a hearing and made an Order for a hearing on 24 November 2014 and a statement setting out my position on the Application within 14 days. It was also ordered, as is usual, that no response within 14 days would result in an Order being made in the terms sought by the Applicant, which would have been a very welcome outcome for C&RT and Shoosmiths in return for their rather convenient oversight about my address in their Application paperwork.

Fortunately, having been on the receiving end of some rather wayward and incomplete paperwork from Shoosmiths at the outset of this case, I had been in regular contact with the Court since C&RT reneged on their written assurances that they would file Notice of Discontinuance after renewing my boat Licence.

 

Good luck on the 24th, please do keep us informed of the outcome.

C&RT's legal department do appear to be a complete shower and in need of reforming. It would be nice the think that Richard Parry is aware of what is going on, and working to control them.

[NigelMoore]

It would be nice the think that Richard Parry is aware of what is going on, and working to control them.

 

Mr Parry is very aware of what is going on with the legal department, and is working hard to support them. With my emphasis in bold:

 

From: Richard Parry <Richard.Parry@canalrivertrust.org.uk>

Date: Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 7:02 PM

Subject: RE: Unanswered E-Mails.

 

Dear Mr Dunkley

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your emails. I am sorry I haven’t responded to you prior to this.

I am aware that Thami Nomvete in my legal team at the Trust is in regular contact with you and I don’t think there is anything I can add to what she has communicated. I suggest you refer any future enquiries to Thami.

Regards

Richard Parry

[NilesMI]

 

resulting in an Order made on 8 October 2014 being sent by the Court to an address that C&RT know will not find me.

 

If you can prove they gave the court a fictitious or out of date address, then that would be a matter to raise.

 

But where response is needed, surely the court should be taking greater care to make sure the papers are served, by using recorded, signed-for delivery?

 

How were the papers eventually served?

[Tony Dunkley]

Richard Parry is maintaining that the court sent out the paperwork, therefore it is the court is responsible for sending it to the wrong address. It is hardly likely that Tony Dunkley would have supplied the court with an incorrect address, so I'm afraid it begs the question - WHO DID?!

 

Parry is simply dishing up another helping of his well practiced double talk. Shoosmiths left the service address box on the Application Notice blank, which lead the Court to use the address given by C&RT for me (Houseboat on the River Trent in NG12 2LU) on their original Court papers. The fact that I am not at that address is one of the reasons the case is being dropped, but Shoosmiths chose not to make that clear to the Court . . . clearly a perfectly innocent and genuine mistake on their part.

Edited October 21, 2014 by tony dunkley

[Naughty Cal]

Richard Parry is maintaining that the court sent out the paperwork, therefore it is the court is responsible for sending it to the wrong address. It is hardly likely that Tony Dunkley would have supplied the court with an incorrect address, so I'm afraid it begs the question - WHO DID?!

You seem to know a lot for a "new" member

[NigelMoore]

surely the court should be taking greater care to make sure the papers are served, by using recorded, signed-for delivery?

 

How were the papers eventually served?

 

The courts do no such [expensive] thing, they just post the paperwork in the ordinary fashion. Just sometimes, they will use email if that has been supplied, in addition to serving by post, but even when you supply an email address and ask for service via that, they don’t necessarily oblige.

 

Two mitigating factors in this scenario – first is that Shoosmiths did forward the documentation via email on the 16th, having allegedly received a copy themselves only two days beforehand [though why they waited 2 days to do this is not explained]. They also arranged for hard copy to be hand-delivered.

 

Second is that the court might well consider that the Defendant is able [and it would be in their best interests] to provide any necessary updated contact information themselves, instead of leaving that responsibility to hostile parties. Of course, in this instance it might not be considered necessary for an unexpected move, and in any event, as Tony has said, he keeps abreast of things by regular phone calls to the court. Just as well.

 

[Tony Dunkley]

 

The courts do no such [expensive] thing, they just post the paperwork in the ordinary fashion. Just sometimes, they will use email if that has been supplied, in addition to serving by post, but even when you supply an email address and ask for service via that, they don’t necessarily oblige.

 

Two mitigating factors in this scenario – first is that Shoosmiths did forward the documentation via email on the 16th, having allegedly received a copy themselves only two days beforehand [though why they waited 2 days to do this is not explained]. They also arranged for hard copy to be hand-delivered.

 

Second is that the court might well consider that the Defendant is able [and it would be in their best interests] to provide any necessary updated contact information themselves, instead of leaving that responsibility to hostile parties. Of course, in this instance it might not be considered necessary for an unexpected move, and in any event, as Tony has said, he keeps abreast of things by regular phone calls to the court. Just as well.

 

Which they then failed to do, followed by an e-mail saying it would not be delivered to me by hand because it was too difficult for their intrepid Enforcement Orifice Stuart Garner to get access to my mooring.

Edited October 21, 2014 by tony dunkley

[NigelMoore]

Which they then failed to do, followed by an e-mail saying it would not be delivered to me by hand because it was too difficult for their intrepid Enforcement Orifice Stuart Garner to get access to my mooring.

 

As I recall, they would have been happy for him to hand deliver the desired Consent Order, had you only agreed to that. Or have I got that wrong?

 

When did they/Mr Garner decide it was all too difficult? Only with the email you refer to I suppose, they must have asked him nicely but he saw no fun in it anymore.

[thunderbird]

You seem to know a lot for a "new" member

Thank you.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

As I recall, they would have been happy for him to hand deliver the desired Consent Order, had you only agreed to that. Or have I got that wrong?

 

When did they/Mr Garner decide it was all too difficult? Only with the email you refer to I suppose, they must have asked him nicely but he saw no fun in it anymore.

 

No Nigel, you've got it spot on.

[Paul G2]

It's a pretty sad reflection upon CRT when they have to resort to cheating in order to save a few pounds in costs when they have lost in court after wrongfully trying to prosecute an innocent boater.

 

When the cheating takes place under the watchful eye, and direct supervision, of their chief executive, it really brings to question whether that chief executive has the integrity needed to run a multi-million pound charitable trust entrusted with safeguarding a very valuable and historic asset. It is very seldom the case that a person will lie and cheat in just one instance. Such malfeasance is ingrained in their personality, just as honesty is in people with that quality.

[NigelMoore]

Shoosmiths did forward the documentation via email on the 16th, having allegedly received a copy themselves only two days beforehand [though why they waited 2 days to do this is not explained].

 

 

The Court Order was dated the 8th. Perhaps a reflection on the Post Office that it took almost a week to arrive at the solicitors?

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Shoosmiths did forward the documentation via email on the 16th, having allegedly received a copy themselves only two days beforehand [though why they waited 2 days to do this is not explained].

 

Perhaps, being aware of their omission of the service address from the Application Notice they became concerned that non service of the Application papers may take on the appearance of an attempt to mislead the Court.

[Tony Dunkley]

It's a pretty sad reflection upon CRT when they have to resort to cheating in order to save a few pounds in costs when they have lost in court after wrongfully trying to prosecute an innocent boater.

 

When the cheating takes place under the watchful eye, and direct supervision, of their chief executive, it really brings to question whether that chief executive has the integrity needed to run a multi-million pound charitable trust entrusted with safeguarding a very valuable and historic asset. It is very seldom the case that a person will lie and cheat in just one instance. Such malfeasance is ingrained in their personality, just as honesty is in people with that quality.

 

Yes, I have to agree. Four days ago I sent the following e-mail to Parry, hoping that a response may shed some light on from just where within C&RT's hierarchy all this malicious time and money wasting nonsense originates. He hasn't replied . . . I don't think he will, but a great many may draw their own conclusions from his silence.

 

Tony Dunkley

Oct 17 (4 days ago)

to richard.parry

Mr Parry,

As I'm sure you are aware, your Legal team have made an Application to Nottingham County Court for Discontinuance of the action against me with an Order for no costs to be awarded against C&RT.

In support of your Application, they have filed with the Court a written submission that by renewing my boat Licence when it was due I have caused C&RT's case against me to become "worthless and academic". Taking account of this in conjunction with the two e-mails from your Solicitors on 23 and 28 July 2014 encouraging me to 'cruise' as much as possible with my, then unlicensed, boat, it appears that C&RT's preference is, in fact, for boats not to be licensed, thereby enabling you at any time to begin your much favoured Section 8 process, of first resort, to remove them from your waters.

Please confirm, or not, as the case may be, if all this is being done with the backing and approval of both you and the Trustees.

Signed A.K.Dunkley.

[Naughty Cal]

 

 

Yes, I have to agree. Four days ago I sent the following e-mail to Parry, hoping that a response may shed some light on from just where within C&RT's hierarchy all this malicious time and money wasting nonsense originates. He hasn't replied . . . I don't think he will, but a great many may draw their own conclusions from his silence.

 

Tony Dunkley

Oct 17 (4 days ago)

to richard.parry

Mr Parry,

As I'm sure you are aware, your Legal team have made an Application to Nottingham County Court for Discontinuance of the action against me with an Order for no costs to be awarded against C&RT.

In support of your Application, they have filed with the Court a written submission that by renewing my boat Licence when it was due I have caused C&RT's case against me to become "worthless and academic". Taking account of this in conjunction with the two e-mails from your Solicitors on 23 and 28 July 2014 encouraging me to 'cruise' as much as possible with my, then unlicensed, boat, it appears that C&RT's preference is, in fact, for boats not to be licensed, thereby enabling you at any time to begin your much favoured Section 8 process, of first resort, to remove them from your waters.

Please confirm, or not, as the case may be, if all this is being done with the backing and approval of both you and the Trustees.

Signed A.K.Dunkley.

 

Perhaps he is stacking up the reams of emails you are sending him to present to the court.

[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

[Alf Roberts]

Well given how anodyne ( some may say corrupt) the current Waterways Ombudsman is this may be the sole avenue of accountability.

 

Mind don't hold your breath. I am cynical enough to suppose that, whatever their true feelings, the trustees will whitewash the affair.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Alf Roberts

[Hawkmoth]

Perhaps he is stacking up the reams of emails you are sending him to present to the court.

NC

It does seem from the tone of your posts that you believe that CRT's pursuit of Tony was justified and that he is/was guilty as charged.

Bob