Enforcement or Harassment

[Alf Roberts]

Exactly. Within the corporate structure of CRT the enforcement division - mentioned nowhere in any of their corporate literature - is most definitely more powerful than the engineers.

[Naughty Cal]

I do know that you certainly haven't.

Oh but I certainly have and you know full well that I have Mr Dunkley.

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

Boaters are just people. In all walks of life there are people you just will never get on with. Putting boats into the equation doesn't change that in any way, shape or form.

[Mike Todd]

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

You may know more, but I thought the consideration was his action in relation to the costs being adjudicated - which is what I thought i was saying.

[Alf Roberts]

You may know more, but I thought the consideration was his action in relation to the costs being adjudicated - which is what I thought i was saying.

My guess as to GRT's argument for costs is;

 

We took him to court for a transgression, that action made him rectify the transgression, therefore we don't want to pay his costs.

 

It's a face-saving exercise, somehow worming in an implication that they were justified in their original action.

 

It will backfire, again thanks to Tony Dunkley's stubborn attitude, because all he has to do is point out that it wasn't a change in his behaviour that led to the discontinuance.

[NigelMoore]

You may know more, but I thought the consideration was his action in relation to the costs being adjudicated - which is what I thought i was saying.

 

Ordinarily, you would be right – if this was the usual hearing over what and how much costs should be awarded to whom. In those instances the court will award costs to the winner, and the amount will be assessed on a summary basis or expressed as to be assessed if not agreed. The debate over the proportion of the costs that should be paid can centre, as you say, on the conduct of the parties. Where the conduct of the ‘winner’ has unnecessarily aggravated the situation, that can be reflected in a cut in the proportion of allowable costs.

 

So, for example, in the [overturned] judgment of 2012, although BW had won their case against me and were decreed able to throw me off the waterways or seize my boats, the appalling way they had conducted themselves both at the beginning and throughout the years, meant that the judge was inclined to award them no costs whatsoever.

 

In the end, it was only because he was also cheesed off at what he saw as contempt of court on my part respecting former costs, that he ended up awarding them 25% just to teach me a lesson.

 

This situation with Tony is entirely different. There have been no ‘winners’ or ‘losers’, in a case which has not been adjudicated on. This is a situation where the Claimant has decided to withdraw the case [and as I have observed earlier, they need not have, cue my own case where they continued licensing the boat they continued to pursue under s.8].

 

This situation has arisen because the standard presumption where a Claimant withdraws a case is that he is responsible for the Defendant’s costs to date. That presumption can only be overturned in exceptional circumstances – and those will have to do with how far the Defendant’s behaviour post issue of proceedings led to a situation where, entirely outside the control of the Claimant, a winnable case was made unwinnable.

 

Filing a good Defence will not qualify as such unreasonable behaviour!

 

What CaRT are arguing in this instance is that it was entirely outside their control that Tony turned around at the last minute and complied with demands he could have met before issue of proceedings, and at any time thereafter.

 

It would be a mistake to say the outcome is cut and dried, for various reasons I would not publish prior to the hearing – suffice to say, though, that the angle they have taken is the usual shot in the foot, if Tony can assemble the requisite evidence with clarity before a discerning judge.

 

Alf is correct - there was no initial talk of discontinuance even after Tony was observed back on his home mooring [refer the solicitor email I quoted earlier], and the demands he complied with respecting the licence had never been demands made previously. But he describes the basic thrust of their argument.

 

The coming hearing, in other words, is not the usual adjudication on costs, but to decide whether the standard presumption where a case is withdrawn, should or should not be overturned.

Edited October 24, 2014 by NigelMoore

[John V]

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=70276&hl=

[MtB]

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=70276&hl=

 

 

Seven more pages of waffle and bickering. Can you lot not shut up or discuss some issues or substance?

 

MtB

[John V]

Mike.....garry955 asked a reasonable question...the next two posts were short factual replies so that he could read and make his own mind up. fair comment I would have thought.

[Tony Dunkley]

Can you explain how it was "lost" please?

 

A time was given. It was missed.

 

My horse came second by a nose, does that mean I can go and claim a victory?

I bet Mr Dunkley a months wages (plus a bit extra in expenses) that a narrowboat leaving Keadby couldnt get to Torksey by the time he gave.

 

It didnt.

 

Somehow some think that I should still have paid out

According to the boat owner's it did, and as you've now, very publically admitted that was what the bet was about, you really should pay up. The arrival time in Torksey Cut is still available for everyone to read, along with the rest of the thread. You should have checked to see if was still there before you started spouting off again.

Edited October 24, 2014 by tony dunkley

[PaulG]

So as far as I can see the situation is as follows:

1. CRT started court proceedings against Mr. Dunkley because they cancelled his licence.

2. They then withdrew the action because they realised that they had no legal right to cancel the licence.

3. It is all Mr. Dunkley's fault because he is not a nice person.

 

Much as I support CRT's efforts to manage the waterways, I cannot see that this particular case brings any benefit to CRT whatosever.

 

The best thing CRT can do is admit they were wrong, pay Mr. Dunkley his reasonable costs, and move on.

 

But perhaps I'm wrong...

[John V]

So as far as I can see the situation is as follows:

1. CRT started court proceedings against Mr. Dunkley because they cancelled his licence.

2. They then withdrew the action because they realised that they had no legal right to cancel the licence.

3. It is all Mr. Dunkley's fault because he is not a nice person.

 

Much as I support CRT's efforts to manage the waterways, I cannot see that this particular case brings any benefit to CRT whatosever.

 

The best thing CRT can do is admit they were wrong, pay Mr. Dunkley his reasonable costs, and move on.

 

But perhaps I'm wrong...

 

I think it's pretty much that in a nutshell.......they also had an agreement with Mr Dunkley (in writing I understand) that they are now appear to be trying to welch on....as you say much better to pay the man and stop the bad publicity.

[Alan de Enfield]

John V, on 24 Oct 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

 

I think it's pretty much that in a nutshell.......they also had an agreement with Mr Dunkley (in writing I understand) that they are now appear to be trying to welch on....as you say much better to pay the man and stop the bad publicity.

 

But apart from a couple-of-dozen on here, and one-or-two on Narrowboatworld, boaters will not be aware of this and therefore the bad publicity is very limited.

 

Its unlikely to get into the Towpath news or other boating press.

[mayalld]

A bit off topic I know, but I'd love to know more about Phylis's bet

 

Synopsis of the thread;

 

Tony stated that a particular journey on the Trent, starting at 06:30 could be done by 10:00 or 10:15 at the outside. That is to say 3.5 hours, or at most 3.75 hours.

 

NC challenged that timing, and bet a month's wages that they would not arrive by 10am.

 

She also offered an estimate of 11:30 to noon of her own.

 

As it is, the boat set off 1 minute early at 06:29 and arrived at 10:18.

 

There appears to be some dissention as to what constitutes arrival time for the bet, but it isn't actually material, because NC didn't bet that Tony was wrong in his estimate, but that the boat would not arrive by 10am.

 

So;

Tony said 3.5 to 3.75

NC said 5.0 to 5.5

NC offered a wager on achieving 3.5

Actual was 3.82

 

Conclusions;

Tony's time estimate was better than NC's

The boat may or may not have "arrived" withing Tony's window.

The bet was NOT, however, on arriving within the window, but on achieving 3.5 hours, and that was NOT achieved.

[Theo]

Dear All

 

I have been persuaded to reopen this topic.

 

As you see, this is now done. I will be trawling through it in the next hours/days/weeks removing off topic and unpleasant stuff. So some of the perfectly polite and reasonable stuff about Naughty Cal's bet will no longer be visible. The discussion about the bet is continuing in the VP.

 

 

 

All the best

 

Nick

[MtB]

Thank you Nick.

 

A tougher approach to moderqation, deleting unpleasant and downright nasty posts will go a long way to making CWF a nicer place to be.

 

I appreciate the amount of work involved though.

 

MtB

[Alan de Enfield]

Dear All

 

I have been persuaded to reopen this topic.

 

 

 

Good decsion - I've never had one of 'my' threads locked before - mind you there was/is some "posts of questionable merit"

 

Some members claim that the lack of moderation makes this a much more interesting place, I believe that there is no need for personal attacks, nit-picking on spelling and punctation (that leads to heated follow on posts) and general unpleasantness.

 

A bit more moderation could go a long way to (using MtB words) the forum becoming a nicer place.

[Tony Dunkley]

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.

 

Your opening sentence seems to suggest that you think what you've heard so far is not true. You also say that you haven't joined in before for fear of getting insults instead of answers. I would be interested to hear why you make that assumption.

As far as the question you've asked about EA Land in relation to the Claim C&RT have made against me, the short answer to that is, no, you're not right.

So there you are . . . no insults at all . . . so why not go ahead and ask whatever it is you really want to know?

[Bod]

Tony D & Nigel M

Have a listern to the "You and Yours" radio 4 programme as mentioned in Living afloat.

Particularly Simon Saleame's(sic) comments, regarding boat licences.

Its on BBC i player.

 

Bod

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04m3jcw link should take you to it. Houseboat chapter.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Bod

[Alf Roberts]

Any chance of a précis for those of us without iplayer.

[Hawkmoth]

Any chance of a précis for those of us without iplayer.

I won't go so far as a precis, but Simon Salem did state that if you have Insurance and a safety certificate then they are bound to issue a licence. That goes against what they have done against Tony I think.

Bob

[NigelMoore]

The radio program was quite a well-rounded and fair if [necessarily] brief and simplistic treatment of the subject. Points out that CaRT cannot control numbers and necessarily relies on people working together to do the right thing and share facilities while keeping on the move. Points out the economics from the pros and cons. Not much more to say.

[Theo]

I have now been through the whole topic and hidden no end of posts. I have done this as rapidly as I could so there are likely to have been mistakes. I hope that you will bear patiently with this. I have used just one criterion: Is the post relevant to the topic title? I have edited some posts to remove unpleasant personal attacks and most of the irrelevant posts will have disappeared.

 

I will keep an eye on this and remove any personal attacks as soon as I see them. I will also remove off topic stuff.

 

I do hope that I will not be called on to moderate with such a heavy hand again. The special quality of this forum is that it is moderated with a light hand and in the main the posts allow for this.

 

So there!

 

With love from

 

Nick

[John V]

Augean stables Nick ?....thank you on behalf of everyone for your hard work

[Tony Dunkley]

I won't go so far as a precis, but Simon Salem did state that if you have Insurance and a safety certificate then they are bound to issue a licence. That goes against what they have done against Tony I think.

Bob

That's a very interesting public admission of what the Law, as opposed to C&RT, actually requires. The 1995 BW Act, which is the piece of legislation that governs the issue and the refusal (revoking of) boat Licences on C&RT waters, applies the same criteria to both processes. Section 17(3) covers issuing while Section 17(4) deals with refusal. He seems, from what you say, to have omitted to mention the third requirement of the Law, which is either a 'home mooring' to be 'available' (not 'used', as C&RT would have you believe) or the 'continuous cruising' option. Again, this requirement is equally applicable to both the issuing and refusal processes, and, crucially, there is nothing within the Act which allows C&RT to refuse a Licence as a consequence of any previous failure, either alleged or proven, to comply with CC'ing requirements, Bye Laws or Licence T&C's . . . put simply, they can't refuse to issue a new Licence solely because they think you have previously been breaking the rules in some way.

Having been compelled as a consequence of this, to issue me with a new Licence, C&RT are now seeking to persuade the Court that in applying to renew my Licence I behaved unreasonably,thereby making their case against me, in their words, " worthless and academic" and that due to my unreasonable conduct, no Costs should be awarded against them.

Edited October 25, 2014 by tony dunkley

[Tony Dunkley]

Have a greenie Mr Classicist!

 

Perhaps I should hide this post. It's not relevant to the discussion.

 

Interesting that it has gone all quiet now. Perhaps I have taken all the fun out of it.

 

Nick

 

No, not at all , . . . just the earache.

 

Thanks for everything you've done.

 

Tony D.

Edited October 25, 2014 by tony dunkley