Enforcement or Harassment

[NigelMoore]

 

Yes, I understand that. We have discussed it before.

 

But Tony didn't seek to have his case heard.

 

It's a cop out to say that he didn't know the procedure. Most of us wouldn't and perhaps he didn't but he'd had notice of intent. He could (and should?) have sought legal advice at that point rather than just waiting for CRT to apply for their own order against his boat. It is part of the reason why I suggest that the difficulties he's had are to a large degree, self-inflicted. He clearly thinks he knows better than everyone else, so asking a lawyer for advice would be demeaning.

 

Perhaps that is the most useful lesson to come out of this wrangle.

 

True. Anyone facing the possibility of a similar situation needs to familiarised with the relevant law and procedures, so that IF they know themselves to be right [AND are prepared to take on the endless aggravation], they know to take the initiative and call for the decision to revoke/refuse the licence to be the subject of Judicial Review [or preferably, the subject of a High Court declaration.]

[Alf Roberts]

It's a cop out to say that he didn't know the procedure. Most of us wouldn't and perhaps he didn't but he'd had notice of intent. He could (and should?) have sought legal advice at that point rather than just waiting for CRT to apply for their own order against his boat. It is part of the reason why I suggest that the difficulties he's had are to a large degree, self-inflicted. He clearly thinks he knows better than everyone else, so asking a lawyer for advice would be demeaning.

 

Perhaps that is the most useful lesson to come out of this wrangle.

I am not sure that this reflects the case. Most of the people I know who have been to court over their boat haven't been aware that their best (only?) form of defence is to challenge the removal of license thinking, understandably in my opinion, that they would have their chance to do this in the court whereas the real situation is that once the license is removed the court is almost bound to give the order. (the argument: no license, therefore a Section 8 is valid, therefore boat bye-bye).

 

One of the useful lessons of recent cases, I agree, is that this is not the case and a boater in this situation should be taking CRT to court as soon as the license is removed and either using the argument that the removal was unlawful or that it was disproportionate.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

I think they stopped the proceedings because once you had obtained a licence there was no longer a case to be made that an order be granted.

 

If you felt justified in your claims that CRT's accusations had no substance, why did you remove the cause for the case to be heard and have a judgement made in your favour?

 

What, in fact, I did was, as I do every year, apply to renew my Licence from it's normal annual renewal date ( 1 July). In consequence, C&RT are now saying that my unreasonable conduct in complying with the Law by renewing my Licence from the due date has wrecked their Court case against me, and for that reason they are now asking the Court not to award my Costs against them. They applied, giving that reason, to the Court for a ruling on Costs to made without a hearing, but did not succeed in that and a hearing to rule on their Application has been fixed for 24 November 2014 by the Judge. I hope he realises as a result of that he may incur the disapproval of some Members of this Forum.

Edited October 22, 2014 by tony dunkley

[Paul C]

 

But CaRT have argued their case in these public proceedings, as I linked to in a previous thread.

 

Nine pages of Stuart Garner’s presentation of CaRT’s side to the case, coupled with the pages of letters and emails and patrol records etc, setting out their side of the story, and as supplied by them to the court.

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/239355054/Dunkley-CaRT-Filed-Court-Case

http://www.scribd.com/doc/239355055/Dunkley-CaRT-Filed-Court-Case-Exhibits

 

As such, it is clear that we have both sides of the story - quite as much, anyway, as was presented to the court.

 

Thanks again for re-posting the links to the actual court case, Nigel. I think more people need to sit down and read them fully, before posting on this thread. This court case does seem to be unusual/bizarre, and unfortunately Tony is caught up in the middle of it. I await the developments on 24th Nov with interest.

[Mike Todd]

However I think it won't be that long before the whole cycle starts repeating again and you will find yourself in the mire with CRT again over something else or something similar.

 

The attitude you display virtually gurantees that, mean while the rest of us continue to stay on the right side of the rules (CCers or not) and don't even come close to getting into a legal wrangle about them. So for me and I suspect a few others on here whether you seek our approval or not matters not a jot.

See another thread about speeding past moored boats . . .

[NilesMI]

Most of the people I know who have been to court over their boat haven't been aware that their best (only?) form of defence is to challenge the removal of license.

 

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.

 

 

 

What, in fact, I did was, as I do every year, apply to renew my Licence from it's normal annual renewal date ( 1 July). In consequence, C&RT are now saying that my unreasonable conduct in complying with the Law by renewing my Licence from the due date has wrecked their Court case against me, and for that reason they are now asking the Court not to award my Costs against them. They applied, giving that reason, to the Court for a ruling on Costs to made without a hearing, but did not succeed in that and a hearing to rule on their Application has been fixed for 24 November 2014 by the Judge. I hope he realises as a result of that he may incur the disapproval of some Members of this Forum.

 

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?

[TaffyRon]

The crt take but never give

Court action from me soon

[Sabcat]

No. How he treats people in general. I suspect that if many of those "in his corner" here actually met him they would be quick to change their minds.

 

You ever met him Dick?

 

"His" corner, is actually everyone's corner, even yours despite your gleeful predictions that he'd lose his case with CaRT which were as spiteful as they were wrong. Despite you lacking the wit to realise it you're not CaRT, you're a boater and as such have more in common with Tony than CaRT.

[NigelMoore]

I think I should clarify one aspect here.

 

It was not in Tony’s power, with anything he did or did not do, to ensure that the case was heard, because he had not claimed or counter-claimed.

 

Nonethelesss, in his particular situation, provided CaRT went ahead with the case, his arguments WOULD have been heard, because he was no longer at that stage, in a river waterway under the requirement to hold a licence or Certificate. Of course, that meant he couldn’t move or cruise without falling foul of s.8, but on the plus side he could argue that the s.8 argument was “worthless and academic” already, by reason of his no longer needing the ‘relevant consent’.

 

So – if CaRT allowed this case to proceed, they would have to have argued the issues Tony raised, at some point anyway. Not least because the judge considered the case arguable, and authorised a Defence to be filed. A Defence filed under order of the court is a Defence you as Claimant are going to have to deal with.

 

Under those circumstances, CaRT did the only sensible thing in backing down over the home-mooring issue, and withdrawing from the case.

[GUMPY]

 

Poor judgement, they can't get anything right.

That may be true but its not the reason they picked on you.

The EO may be a twit but something must have stirred him up.

Edited October 22, 2014 by FadeToScarlet

[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?

 

In fact, it was, because C&RT revoked my boat Licence on 3 January 2014 after some weeks of provable compliance with the (unlawful) requirements laid out in their last 'do as we say or else' letter in early December 2013. Such was their New Year enthusiasm for revoking my Licence, they did it without even bothering to check for, obtain, or falsify any proof of non-compliant lack of boat movements for the preceeding weeks.

Incidentally, none of this has in the least way prevented me from getting on with my life, quite the contrary, in fact, I've thoroughly enjoyed it, knowing that C&RT hadn't got a hope, but that it may be possible, thanks in no small part to the help and advice I've received, to show others who may find themselves in a similar situation, that C&RT don't have to be allowed to get away with their attempts to intimidate, bully and rob anyone who takes their fancy.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Theo
Remove an irrelevant bit.

[Naughty Cal]

 

"His" corner, is actually everyone's corner, even yours despite your gleeful predictions that he'd lose his case with CaRT which were as spiteful as they were wrong. Despite you lacking the wit to realise it you're not CaRT, you're a boater and as such have more in common with Tony than CaRT.

Tony never let the case run its cause though. He relicensed his boat thus nullifying the case.

 

If he had been so sure of his case he wouldn't have bothered.

 

Let's see what he pulls out of the hat shortly before the 24 November.

 

In fact, it was, because C&RT revoked my boat Licence on 3 January 2014 after some weeks of provable compliance with the (unlawful) requirements laid out in their last 'do as we say or else' letter in early December 2013. Such was their New Year enthusiasm for revoking my Licence, they did it without even bothering to check for, obtain, or falsify any proof of non-compliant lack of boat movements for the preceeding weeks.

Incidentally, none of this has in the least way prevented me from getting on with my life, quite the contrary, in fact, I've thoroughly enjoyed it, knowing that C&RT hadn't got a hope, but that it may be possible, thanks in no small part to the help and advice I've received, to show others who may find themselves in a similar situation, that C&RT don't have to be allowed to get away with their attempts to intimidate, bully and rob anyone who takes their fancy.

 

PS. Can you let me have a description of you, and a reasonably accurate location . . . just so I'll know which to point.

If they didn't have a hope why did you relicense your boat shortly before the case?

[Alan Saunders]

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. ...

I have been a BW Customer since 1995 with one address change in 2004. Licence renewal reminders were often not delivered. This year (2014) I received a reminder by post but when I renewed my licence CRT contacted me by mobile 'phone and email to say that they did not have a postal address to send the licence papers to.

 

There are obviously some serious shortcomings or 'unskilled interference' adversly affecting their databases.

 

Alan

[Tony Dunkley]

I have been a BW Customer since 1995 with one address change in 2004. Licence renewal reminders were often not delivered. This year (2014) I received a reminder by post but when I renewed my licence CRT contacted me by mobile 'phone and email to say that they did not have a postal address to send the licence papers to.

 

There are obviously some serious shortcomings or 'unskilled interference' adversly affecting their databases.

 

Alan

 

There's an e-mail I recently sent to Parry on Post 54 which you may find interesting in the light of what you've said there.

[Graham Davis]

The crt take but never give

Court action from me soon

 

Really?

I do hope you will start a new thread with all the details.

[GUMPY]

 

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

Avoiding the question with a "funny" answer.

You must know what you did to start all this off, maybe share it after the court hearing if you wont before.

[TaffyRon]

Really?

I do hope you will start a new thread with all the details.

will do, trust me, hush at the mo

[TaffyRon]

If they spent as much looking after the canals as they do posting and guesting on here we would be a lot better off

Go on Taffy

[Guest]

Avoiding the question with a "funny" answer.

You must know what you did to start all this off, maybe share it after the court hearing if you wont before.

This is the crux of it I guess.

 

So no doubt he will tell all, but maybe not.

[Tony Dunkley]

Avoiding the question with a "funny" answer.

You must know what you did to start all this off, maybe share it after the court hearing if you wont before.

To be quite honest I really don't know. In fact, selecting me was one of his very much less despicable episodes, his more usually preferred targets for perfecting his bullying and intimidation skills have included a man in his seventies living alone on his boat and incapacitated whilst recovering after an operation, and a woman alone on a boat while her terminally ill husband was undergoing hospital treatment. What I find most disturbing about this particular Enforcement Orifice( Stuart Garner) is that his immediate superiors, as well as Parry himself, think that he's beyond reproach.

[NilesMI]

I think I should clarify one aspect here.

 

It was not in Tony’s power, with anything he did or did not do, to ensure that the case was heard, because he had not claimed or counter-claimed.

 

i'm sorry Nigel, bu that is a cop out.

 

I have a lot of time for the helpful and informative posts you've made in relation to Tony's case and a number of other aspects of boat licencing.

 

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.

 

CRT may havethe advantage of cash in the bank and lawyers on tap, but that shouldn't give them the right to run roughshod over boaters who don't. When the law and legal process is on our side we can defend ourselves, but it is our responsibilty to seek and find the means to do it. No one else's.

[Sabcat]

 

i'm sorry Nigel, bu that is a cop out.

 

I have a lot of time for the helpful and informative posts you've made in relation to Tony's case and a number of other aspects of boat licencing.

 

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.

 

CRT may havethe advantage of cash in the bank and lawyers on tap, but that shouldn't give them the right to run roughshod over boaters who don't. When the law and legal process is on our side we can defend ourselves, but it is our responsibilty to seek and find the means to do it. No one else's.

 

It would appear that Tony did know best or at least enough to get the outcome he wanted as CaRT are firmly back in their boxes now and all that remains is to see if they get away with paying him costs. He's not a performing monkey with a duty to please you. He played his own game and played it well.

[Sabcat]

 

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.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Theo
REmaove irrelevant quote

[NilesMI]

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.

 

OK nit picking. ... if a costs order isn't made against CRT...

 

You knew exactly what I meant, but congratulations. !*!*!*!*! You have WON on the interweb.

 

Bask in the reflected glow of your success.

Edited October 22, 2014 by NilesMI

[boathunter]

 

 

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.

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

Edited October 25, 2014 by Theo
Remove irrelevant quote