Enforcement or Harassment

[MtB]

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

 

Not everyone here swallows whole the 'unsuspecting victim of CRT' stance Tony projects.

 

 

MtB

[Rich]

 

Not everyone here swallows whole the 'unsuspecting victim of CRT' stance Tony projects.

 

You obviously don't. Could you explain why?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

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.

 

It may be worthwhile pointing out that Tony has already been through stage1 and stage 2 of CaRT's complaint's procedure and did take up the matter with the Waterways Ombudsman. The WO found nothing wrong with CaRT's behaviour.

 

However, it is known that the current WO was not properly appointed by an independent committee and that the Waterways Ombudsman committee that hires (and has the ability to fire) the Ombudsman and ensures the independence of the scheme ceased operation when CaRT started.

 

It also appears that complainants such as Tony were deliberately misled because all documentation on CaRT and WO websites suggest that BW's independent scheme has continued.

 

My understanding is that a complaint can be made about the way in which a complaint was handled. However, it would be considered by the Ombudsman or CaRT in the absence of an independent committee.

 

(Sorry about the two previous posts - I was having some trouble with my mobile phone)

[Naughty Cal]

 

Not everyone here swallows whole the 'unsuspecting victim of CRT' stance Tony projects.

 

 

MtB

 

And I'm one of them that doesn't.

He has become like a few of posters on here. Given to making statements or insinuations but not able to back them up. Shame really because I don't recall him being like this a few years back, what happened?

 

It would however be interesting to learn why the Tony's detractors are taking this stance. Perhaps it is because they can, it certainly seems that way, or something more fundamental perhaps.

It would be interesting to learn why those in support of Tony are taking their stance, given that they are only aware of one very watered down side of the story.

[Tony Dunkley]

He has become like a few of posters on here. Given to making statements or insinuations but not able to back them up. Shame really because I don't recall him being like this a few years back, what happened?

 

It would however be interesting to learn why the Tony's detractors are taking this stance. Perhaps it is because they can, it certainly seems that way, or something more fundamental perhaps.

 

Yes it would be interesting . . . so how about it, all you C&RT backers and apologists, why don't you you get up off your knees, stop all the forelock tugging and tell us why?

Edited October 22, 2014 by tony dunkley

[NilesMI]

 

Not everyone here swallows whole the 'unsuspecting victim of CRT' stance Tony projects.

 

 

MtB

 

For what it's worth (not much) my view is that the way CRT dealt with Tony was wrong, but that having seen the way Tony states his case on this forum, I suspect that to a large degree, it is his attitude which has brought that situation about.

 

Just the most recent example of this being him posting an accusation that CRT had deliberatly tried to trick him into not being able to make representations in relation to the costs order; namely that they sent the documentation to an address where they knew he couldn't be found. As details were teased out, it became clear that this wasn't quite the case at all and to be honest, I find his continual protestations and accusations are becoming tedious.

 

A judge is going to have to decide whether Tony is entitled to have CRT pay some or all of his costs. He may find that if by his actions and statements, Tony has brought the action upon himself, he is not entitled to costs. I have confidence that a judge will decide the matter fairly, so I'll await the outcome.

 

I'm pleased Tony didn't lose his home and I'd like to say I hope CRT leave him in peace now, but my guess is that he will continue to try and antoagonise them. He seems to enjoy it.

[Naughty Cal]

 

For what it's worth (not much) my view is that the way CRT dealt with Tony was wrong, but that having seen the way Tony states his case on this forum, I suspect that to a large degree, it is his attitude which has brought that situation about.

 

Just the most recent example of this being him posting an accusation that CRT had deliberatly tried to trick him into not being able to make representations in relation to the costs order; namely that they sent the documentation to an address where they knew he couldn't be found. As details were teased out, it became clear that this wasn't quite the case at all and to be honest, I find his continual protestations and accusations are becoming tedious.

 

A judge is going to have to decide whether Tony is entitled to have CRT pay some or all of his costs. He may find that if by his actions and statements, Tony has brought the action upon himself, he is not entitled to costs. I have confidence that a judge will decide the matter fairly, so I'll await the outcome.

 

I'm pleased Tony didn't lose his home and I'd like to say I hope CRT leave him in peace now, but my guess is that he will continue to try and antoagonise them. He seems to enjoy it

Well said that man

[Guest]

Yes it would be interesting . . . so how about it, all you C&RT backers and apologists, why don't you you get up off your knees, stop all the forelock tugging and tell us why?

I was going to say something very much along the lines of what Niles has posted above. I am pleased you haven't lost your home, no body wants to see that happen to anybody particularly when it is an injustice as appears to be the case.

 

However equally I think your attitude stinks at times, raving on about people being on their knees or tugging forelocks is reminiscent of a lot of stuff you have posted in here and other threads and it was always going to antagonise some people and was hardly the way to go about winning people over, now you may not care about that fair enough but as has been said before I suspect it has played a part in leading to your confrontation with CRT when it may have been different if you had taken a different stance.

 

Clearly CRT have not emerged from this covered in glory though.

[Jerra]

 

Yes it would be interesting . . . so how about it, all you C&RT backers and apologists, why don't you you get up off your knees, stop all the forelock tugging and tell us why?

I am not a CRT backer nor apologist, I don't get on my knees for anybody and my forelock moulted out many years ago but I will tell you my stance.

 

First 40 years in education has taught me that there is always more to a story than told by one side, particularly when the one side is the "accused" - "It wasn't me Sir" syndrome.

 

Second anybody who opens a request in such a belligerent childish way as that quoted above has often turned out to not be whiter than white. As others have said your own attitude doesn't help you one iota.

[Tony Dunkley]

For what it's worth (not much) my view is that the way CRT dealt with Tony was wrong, but that having seen the way Tony states his case on this forum, I suspect that to a large degree, it is his attitude which has brought that situation about.

 

Just the most recent example of this being him posting an accusation that CRT had deliberatly tried to trick him into not being able to make representations in relation to the costs order; namely that they sent the documentation to an address where they knew he couldn't be found. As details were teased out, it became clear that this wasn't quite the case at all and to be honest, I find his continual protestations and accusations are becoming tedious.

 

A judge is going to have to decide whether Tony is entitled to have CRT pay some or all of his costs. He may find that if by his actions and statements, Tony has brought the action upon himself, he is not entitled to costs. I have confidence that a judge will decide the matter fairly, so I'll await the outcome.

 

I'm pleased Tony didn't lose his home and I'd like to say I hope CRT leave him in peace now, but my guess is that he will continue to try and antoagonise them. He seems to enjoy it.

The tripe you have put in that paragraph makes it very clear that, contrasting with those who's opinions are of some importance, you don't really understand the situation or what C&RT's solicitors have done. Edited October 25, 2014 by Theo
Remove insults

[Naughty Cal]

The tripe you have put in that paragraph makes it very clear that, contrasting with those who's opinions are of some importance, you don't really understand the situation or what C&RT's solicitors have done.

If you are now finding this becoming tedious as well as too difficult for you to understand, perhaps you should look elsewhere on this or some other Forum for a thread to which you can make a worthwhile contribution.

There he goes again. Antagonising from the off.

 

Well done Tony. You have proven the point quite well.

[Phil.]

Being fairly new I would not comment up on the rights and wrongs of this case but I will make 3 observations

Firstly I have not seen any evidence in this thread showing crt being involved in a conspiracy with their solicitors it appears to be assumption. It mabe the case but YOU will have to prove it.

 

Secondly you have a hearing approaching and you should keep your powder dry for that. Fore warned is fore armed and someone will be monitoring emails and posts that you can count on as there is money and reputation at stake.

 

Finally the enforcement officer with the alleged attitude. This is easy to deal with as there will be more than a single victim of his if true, and in this day and age recording him with some cheap kit from maplins or elsewhere would be fairly easy. You would then have incontrovertible proof of his misbehaviour which would be hard for the organisation to ignore. This is the level of evidence you will require if you want to take on the system and win, otherwise give up now.

[Naughty Cal]

Being fairly new I would not comment up on the rights and wrongs of this case but I will make 3 observations

Firstly I have not seen any evidence in this thread showing crt being involved in a conspiracy with their solicitors it appears to be assumption. It mabe the case but YOU will have to prove it.

 

Secondly you have a hearing approaching and you should keep your powder dry for that. Fore warned is fore armed and someone will be monitoring emails and posts that you can count on as there is money and reputation at stake.

 

Finally the enforcement officer with the alleged attitude. This is easy to deal with as there will be more than a single victim of his if true, and in this day and age recording him with some cheap kit from maplins or elsewhere would be fairly easy. You would then have incontrovertible proof of his misbehaviour which would be hard for the organisation to ignore. This is the level of evidence you will require if you want to take on the system and win, otherwise give up now.

And by the same token it would also prove how Tony is behaving towards the CRT staff.

 

Oh hang on. That wouldnt help Tony though would it?

[GUMPY]

Here's a question for Tony;

 

Why do you think CaRT picked on you and not somone else?

[Tony Dunkley]

Thank you all for that, it's always reassuring to hear certain people expressing their disapproval of me.

[Naughty Cal]

Thank you all for that, it's always reassuring to hear certain people expressing their disapproval of me.

You asked for peoples views

[Tony Dunkley]

Here's a question for Tony;

 

Why do you think CaRT picked on you and not somone else?

 

Poor judgement, they can't get anything right.

[Alan de Enfield]

Here's a question for Tony;

 

Why do you think CaRT picked on you and not somone else?

 

 

Finally the enforcement officer with the alleged attitude. This is easy to deal with as there will be more than a single victim of his if true, ...........

 

This particular Enforcement Officer is 'well known' in his 'patch' - in addition to the Tony Dunkley affair there have been three official complaints (3 different boaters) laid against him - this is what has led an un-named C&RT official to state :-

 

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

[Tuscan]

Reading through all the huff and puff I think (and have my hard hat on if I'm wrong) this boils down to

1. CRT removing a boat/ers license and taking S8 action to remove the boat on the basis that the boat/er did not have a home mooring and was not deemed to be 'bona fide' mooring.

2. CRT discovering/accepting that the boat/er did have a home mooring and therefore was entitled to licence the boat , as all the other legal requirements were met and duly granted the license.

3. As there was no longer a case to be made CRT withdrew their actions.

4. Contrary to normal process CRT wanted the boater to meet his own costs despite the action being brought by CRT,

5. CRTs case for not paying the boaters costs was that by licensing his boat that CRT agreed he was entitled to do this has caused CRT to withdraw their case.

6. Despite knowing the boaters address lodged with the court and CRT and previously having used it CRT sent the latest court papers to an incorrect address. (The second time that they have not served documents correctly I think)

 

Hopefully once the case has concluded both sides of the story may become clear. I would be interested to know how much of our license money has been spent on this when there would appear to be many more examples of boats that don't appear to move at all that don't seem to be being targeted.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Tuscan

[Naughty Cal]

 

 

This particular Enforcement Officer is 'well known' in his 'patch' - in addition to the Tony Dunkley affair there have been three official complaints (3 different boaters) laid against him - this is what has led an un-named C&RT official to state :-

 

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

 

He seems to be getting something right mind as the "long termers" are now moving around.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Being fairly new I would not comment up on the rights and wrongs of this case but I will make 3 observations

Firstly I have not seen any evidence in this thread showing crt being involved in a conspiracy with their solicitors it appears to be assumption. It mabe the case but YOU will have to prove it.

 

Secondly you have a hearing approaching and you should keep your powder dry for that. Fore warned is fore armed and someone will be monitoring emails and posts that you can count on as there is money and reputation at stake.

 

Finally the enforcement officer with the alleged attitude. This is easy to deal with as there will be more than a single victim of his if true, and in this day and age recording him with some cheap kit from maplins or elsewhere would be fairly easy. You would then have incontrovertible proof of his misbehaviour which would be hard for the organisation to ignore. This is the level of evidence you will require if you want to take on the system and win, otherwise give up now.

I am aware of five complaints against the officer involved, two of them are formal complaints, one of which is ongoing.

 

 

[Tony Dunkley]

In post 72 you asked for the 'forelock tuggers and apologists' opinions, and you got it.

 

Yes I did, and I'm very pleased with them. If certain people on this Forum ever start approving of anything I say or do, then I will begin to think that I'm getting things wrong.

Reading through all the huff and puff I think (and have my hard hat on if I'm wrong) this boils down to

1. CRT removing a boat/ers license and taking S8 action to remove the boat on the basis that the boat/er did not have a home mooring and was not deemed to be 'bona fide' mooring.

2. CRT discovering/accepting that the boat/er did have a home mooring and therefore was entitled to licence the boat , as all the other legal requirements were met and duly granted the license.

3. As there was no longer a case to be made CRT withdrew their actions.

4. Contrary to normal process CRT wanted the boater to meet his own costs despite the action being brought by CRT,

5. CRTs case for not paying the boaters costs was that by licensing his boat that CRT agreed he was entitled to do this has caused CRT to withdraw their case.

6. Despite knowing the boaters address lodged with the court and CRT and previously having used it CRT sent the latest court papers to an incorrect address. (The second time that they have not served documents correctly I think)

 

Hopefully once the case has concluded both sides of the story may become clear. I would be interested to know how much of our license money has been spent on this when there would appear to be many more examples of boats that don't appear to move at all that don't seem to be being targeted.

 

You can take the hard hat off, that's a good summary of what's happened, except that I was accused of not 'bona fide' cruising, rather than mooring.

As to the cost of all this, you can ask C&RT. A Freedom of Information Request should produce an answer, or you could ask Parry himself, not an unreasonable thing to do, considering that he's been responsible for driving the whole thing on.

Edited October 22, 2014 by tony dunkley

[mayalld]

 

 

This particular Enforcement Officer is 'well known' in his 'patch' - in addition to the Tony Dunkley affair there have been three official complaints (3 different boaters) laid against him - this is what has led an un-named C&RT official to state :-

 

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

 

Enforcement Officers are, by the very nature of their job, going to be working with people who don't actually want them to be there.

 

They start off at a disadvantage, in that their "customer" is always going to be looking to find something to complain about.

 

The number of complaints lodged is not related to the number of justified complaints lodged.

[peterboat]

Having just had a run in with DVLA they withdrew the court case but did give me reasonable costs so I think the same should happen with yourself Tony. I was defending the case myself so I used my hourly garage rate to work it out

 

Peter

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

The number of complaints lodged is not related to the number of justified complaints lodged.

 

How would you know that ?

It could well be that all the complaints were justified.

 

But, apparently, (In C&RTs eyes) non of the complaints are justified

 

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