NBTA Press release: Distance not important in continuous cruising

[Tony Dunkley]

Do you have a link to this statement?

It's on NBW under 'CaRT Court Orders and Judgements' -dated 11 Dec 2014

[Phil.]

I don't usually look at this forum any more as there are so many people on here with nothing useful to say but, apparently, nothing better to do.

 

With regard to the Judgment the details about me and my boat movements are not correct. My arguments were not presented to the court as I wanted and I was, effectively, excluded from my own case. It's an interesting story and a very important one. I set out several years ago to challenge and expose the abuses of people on boats, particularly those with health problems or other vulnerability. I arranged meetings with Julie Sharman (Waterways Area Manager) and had extensive correspondence. That failed so I initiated the complaints procedure including a lengthy correspondence with the Ombudsman. At the time I was having investigations on my liver, and other problems, requiring me to remain in the area (I had, recently, had septicaemia and multiple organ failure so had to take this seriously). My right as being 'reasonable in the circumstances' and legitimate as I argued that the requirement to be forever on a continuous journey around the system was not only absurd and unreasonable but, also, unlawful. (This has since been declared to be correct in the Paul Davies case, and in mine, and Sally Ash is on record as saying it has always been unlawful.).

However, the Ombudsman said she could not answer my questions/complaints as they involved legal arguments and she was not legally trained. I said pass them on to your legal department then. She declined and said I would have to take them to court. I said I, obviously, can't do that and said you will have to take me to court as that was the only way I could see to get my concerns considered. ( Apparently I should have applied for a Declaratory Review but I'd never heard of that - why would I - until the Judge said that's what I should have done. I wrote to Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC, who was on the Ombudsman Committee but he replied that he could not get involved. I had not finished with my complaint but the Ombudsman said she would list my complaint as withdrawn. As far as I was concerned the only recourse I had was to let them take me to court, if they chose that over answering my complaint properly, and I could then get legal aid. When they issued me with notices to move in the middle of winter just before the canal froze in the coldest winter for 30 years I thought that was a good opportunity to allow this malicious and unreasonable action to proceed to court if that's what they chose to do.

 

They chose to take me to court. They provoked me into choosing to be taken to court as they refused to deal correctly with my complaint. (Just as they have refused to respond to many letters/emails since and, also, my FOI requests). Their attitude is 'we are not going to answer. Go away or else.' However, details of my complaint, and the file I had created, were not put into the court as I had insisted. Consequently the Judge was not aware of that part of the story and considered that I had provoked the court action. I hadn't. BW just had to answer my complaint properly. He also considered that the maliciously, and unreasonably, issued enforcement notices were reasonable and the problem was that I had not responded and informed BW that their canals were frozen.

 

 

This court action was initiated in 2010. My licence was revoked and I was told to remain in the one place and could only move for water etc. or emergencies. The 'Trial' took place in 2013. It's a long, long story and exposes the disgraceful behaviour of CRT and their agents, Shoosmiths, plus the inadequacy of the legal process and the deliberate corruption of that process.

 

I wanted to expose what they do having considered them to be guilty of criminal abuse for years. I have done that, and am still in the process of doing it. Unfortunately, it has cost me my boat.

 

Sally Ash was not going to leave until I was 'removed'. I had, rightly, directed most of the blame for the appalling abuse of the past few years to her. She gave notice of her retirement the day before they took my boat.

 

Helen Waterman, enforcement officer, who issued the enforcement notices (and many other wrongly issued notices to others and was involved in the case of the woman on the Macclesfield Canal (order from the same court) left her job at the end of that week.

 

You can read about it in my website 'Canal and River Tyranny'. There's a lot on there and plenty more to come.

 

You should read it. It's accurate and I have plenty of evidence to back it up.

 

Incidentally, I was not in London which has it's particular problems unrelated to the rest of the waterways. I was in Cheshire.

 

Also, when the Judge granted them their 'relief' he also assured me he would not let them take my boat but would find a way for me to remain on the canal. He made them give an undertaking to that effect - which they objected to. They were supposed to negotiate with me and then we would return to the court.

They didn't. They breached the Undertaking. An Undertaking to the court carries the same weight as a Court Order. They ignored the Undertaking and executed the Court Order taking advantage of the fact that my Mother had been taken to hospital.

 

Read the website. No-one else knows what happened so any dismissal of what I say will be uninformed and irrelevant.

 

Whilst your account sounds pretty horrendous I have to ask, do you have legal representation. My reason is that I find it hard to believe that a firm of solicitors ie shoosmiths or a public body crt would breach court instructions as if they did this would give you an immediate right to return to court. I also would be interested in establishing if their actions would also mean that you have recourse to challenge them and or the initial courts judgement under human rights legislation. It is all very well listening to the barrack room lawyers on this forum but it may be worth investing in receiving some proper advice and then pursuing action based on that advice.

[KenK]

It's on NBW under 'CaRT Court Orders and Judgements' -dated 11 Dec 2014

Having just read it in what way is Richard Parry's statement dismissive of the judges remarks?

 

Ken

[Jerra]

Having just read it in what way is Richard Parry's statement dismissive of the judges remarks?

 

Ken

Glad you asked I thought I was being even thicker than usual..

[Dave_P]

Whilst your account sounds pretty horrendous I have to ask, do you have legal representation. My reason is that I find it hard to believe that a firm of solicitors ie shoosmiths or a public body crt would breach court instructions as if they did this would give you an immediate right to return to court. I also would be interested in establishing if their actions would also mean that you have recourse to challenge them and or the initial courts judgement under human rights legislation. It is all very well listening to the barrack room lawyers on this forum but it may be worth investing in receiving some proper advice and then pursuing action based on that advice.

Public bodies and those who work for them behave in amoral, unethical and illegal ways all the time, from MPs and their fraudulent expenses to local council officers accepting bribes. So I don't find it hard to believe at all. To assume that everyone who wields power and authority over us is looking out for our best interests is just naive. People will do whatever they think they can get away with. It's up to the rest of us to try and stop them. I work in a position which gives me considerable power over members of the public and I'm only too aware of how easy it would be for me to abuse that position for my own reasons. And I'm a fairly junior level drone really. Imagine what the upper echelons are able to do...

[jenlyn]

Glad you asked I thought I was being even thicker than usual..

Funnily enough, I have found Richard Parry to be dismissive at times, though I would suggest it was only noticeable when dealing with him over a period of time. It has definitely become an apparent hallmark in my view.

Reading something on a website would not give this away of course, as it gives a very limited insight on which to decide, or judge.

[Dave_P]

Having just read it in what way is Richard Parry's statement dismissive of the judges remarks?

 

Ken

He starts by saying "The Judgment in the Mayers case was wholly in the Trust's favour". Technically that's true but it's selective reporting since the thing which has led to all this discussion was not the judgment but the additional comments which indicate that the judge would consider parts of the Trust's enforcement approach to be unlawful. I would think that not addressing them in his statement is dismissive of them from Mr Parry. In fairness, the whole problem exists because of vagueness in the wording of the act. With some legislation, this is then clarified by case law. The problem here is that it's rarely that a section 8 case reaches a court of legal presidence, so the vagueness persists.

 

We could all do with a new act.

[kris88]

I don't think we need a new act. As has been stated on here numerous times, CRT have adequate powers. They just choose to use the nuclear option rather than seeking a fine. Which because it would be a quicker process, in my opion would act as more of a deterrent.

What amazes me is the continued making of mountains out of a mole hill. Rather than addressing the real issues. How can such a minority issue continue to take up so much of the trust's time and money

Regards kris

[Tony Dunkley]

I don't think we need a new act. As has been stated on here numerous times, CRT have adequate powers. They just choose to use the nuclear option rather than seeking a fine. Which because it would be a quicker process, in my opion would act as more of a deterrent.

What amazes me is the continued making of mountains out of a mole hill. Rather than addressing the real issues. How can such a minority issue continue to take up so much of the trust's time and money

Regards kris

That's spot on, and sums up the whole ridiculous situation. Just one comment I would add . . . it's definitely the Trust's own time it's wasting, but the money that's being poured down the litigation and 'theft legitimization' drain is ours, and was intended for the maintenance and repair of the waterways.

 

Nb. Taking Geoff Mayer's boat as an single example of the rate of money wastage, it has now been put on the market by C&RT for around 10% of the total cost to the Trust of 'stealing' it . . . something in the region of £45,000 to £50,000.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Tony Dunkley

[Gordias]

I don't think we need a new act. As has been stated on here numerous times, CRT have adequate powers.

[...]

 

What powers does CaRT have?

 

I've asked this question before - IIRC the answers were all things that other posts had claimed aren't within CaRT's power (for example fines).

[KenK]

I took the time to read the complete judgement and very interesting it was. Somewhat different to many of the comments on here. Mr Mayers did himself no favours in the way he behaved. The judgement was made in C&RT's favour and based only on the Acts of Parliament not any guidance. Interestingly even after the judgement was obtained in their favour C&RT gave Mr Mayers further time to change his stance and comply with the CC rules before removing his boat from the canal.

 

Having read the judgement I still don't think that Richard Parry's statement was in any way dismissive of the judges remarks.

 

With regard to the 1995 I think we do need a new one not because of any extra powers required by C&RT but simply for clarification.

 

The judge does say within the judgement that if he had a mooring then Mr Mayers would have been totally justified in the way he used his boat but because he didn't he wasn't, at least up to the point where he refused to move at all.

 

Ken

[Tony Dunkley]

 

What powers does CaRT have?

 

I've asked this question before - IIRC the answers were all things that other posts had claimed aren't within CaRT's power (for example fines).

 

Instead of repeatedly attempting to divert attention from matters that are, or should be, embarrassing and damaging to C&RT, and by doing so, wasting the time of others on this Forum, I suggest that you go and spend some of your own time reading up on all the relevant legislation and Bye Laws.

[kris88]

 

What powers does CaRT have?

 

I've asked this question before - IIRC the answers were all things that other posts had claimed aren't within CaRT's power (for example fines).

I'm not doing your research for you, there's enough post's on here, with links to relevant legislation.

Regards kris

[Jerra]

. it's definitely the Trust's own time it's wasting, but the money that's being poured down the litigation and 'theft legitimization' drain is ours, and was intended for the maintenance and repair of the waterways.

I may be showing my ignorance here but where does it say that CRT can't use the money in the way it thinks best.

 

We may want the money to be spent on maintenance and repair but I am not sure there is any control of how much CRT spend on what.

 

Any documents I should be reading?

[Tony Dunkley]

I may be showing my ignorance here but where does it say that CRT can't use the money in the way it thinks best.

 

We may want the money to be spent on maintenance and repair but I am not sure there is any control of how much CRT spend on what.

 

Any documents I should be reading?

I'm just expressing my view of what C&RT are doing. I don't know if the Trust is constituted in a way which permits it to waste money as it sees fit and I don't know of any documents that specifically address this. All I do know is that they are squandering huge amounts of money in a way which benefits nothing and nobody, except Shoosmiths of course, who have quite by chance sent me, earlier today, an e-mail explaining that due to their present workload on impending C&RT legal action against boaters they cannot continue at present with the negotiations on C&RT's liability for my costs following their failed legal action against me. I think it quite likely that this current work that's taking up so much of their £200 / hour time is in connection with last years new CC'ers who have been deemed by Parry's Enforcement Gang to have travelled an insufficient distance since the issuing of their LIcences,

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I'm just expressing my view of what C&RT are doing. I don't know if the Trust is constituted in a way which permits it to waste money as it sees fit and I don't know of any documents that specifically address this. All I do know is that they are squandering huge amounts of money in a way which benefits nothing and nobody, except Shoosmiths of course, who have quite by chance sent me, earlier today, an e-mail explaining that due to their present workload on impending C&RT legal action against boaters they cannot continue at present with the negotiations on C&RT's liability for my costs following their failed legal action against me. I think it quite likely that this current work that's taking up so much of their £200 / hour time is in connection with last years new CC'ers who have been deemed by Parry's Enforcement Gang to have travelled an insufficient distance since the issuing of their LIcences,

Does this mean that the position has changed and they now accept that they are liable for your costs?

 

... or is it just that the costs should be agreed prior to the hearing in case it goes against them?

[Gordias]

I'm not doing your research for you, there's enough post's on here, with links to relevant legislation.

Regards kris

 

I asked for information on CaRT's actual powers because AFAIK CaRT have no form of sanction that doesn't require CaRT to initiate a court case.

 

Despite that, people in this forum keep claiming there are "alternative powers" as though it's something simple and efficient like a parking fine. In fact no form of overstaying is a criminal act, so CaRT can't call the police, and they don't have the right to impose fines or to refuse to issue a license (IIRC this was confirmed as part of the interactions between Tony Dunkley and CaRT /lol)

 

They do ask for payment for an extended stay as a "service" or some such thing, and I'm sure most boaters pay it, but I've seen multiple posts here claiming they have no way (or at the very least must take the boater to court) to enforce payment - not even refusing to renew the license.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Gordias

[kris88]

I think you need to read up, they can go to court and get a fine imposed for breaking bye laws. It seems the reason they don't do this is because they don't receive any financial benefit from doing it. The fine is paid to the court. But as I say I think you need to do some research.

Regards kris

Edited December 12, 2014 by kris88

[Naughty Cal]

I think you need to read up, they can go to court and get a fine imposed for breaking bye laws. It seems the reason they don't do this is because they don't receive any financial benefit from doing this. The fine is paid to the court. But as I say I think you need to do some research.

Regards kris

I think you need to do some research

[kris88]

The red highlighted bit is an opion as shown by the statement "it seems" as in it seems to me.

Regards kris

[Gordias]

I think you need to read up, they can go to court and get a fine imposed for breaking bye laws. It seems the reason they don't do this is because they don't receive any financial benefit from doing it. The fine is paid to the court. But as I say I think you need to do some research.

Regards kris

 

As I said above - it's not like a parking fine, where the offender is better off just paying.

 

The scenario you're painting is similar to a landlord suing a difficult tenant once a month for the rent - a process likely to cost them a hundred times the amount they might recover.

It also costs a lot to prepare for a court case - money which will almost certainly be wasted if it turns out the other party was "playing chicken", and pays up at the last minute.

 

 

I wonder how long it would take before the spin-doctors here reacted if CaRT did this every time someone refused to pay for a "service" - i.e. they wasted a couple of thousand pounds to recover a hundred. Boaters are lucky this would drain money from other users of the system, or CaRT might blow their entire maintenance budget for a year or two just to make a point /lol.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Gordias

[kris88]

There already doing what you suggest

 

Regards kris

[Gordias]

I didn't suggest anything.

 

Are CaRT doing something relevant that you know about and I don't?

[madcat]

Despair, that's what I feel about my licence money being wasted on such enforcement . I'm losing any of the optimism I felt about the waterways being in the care of a charitable trust very rapidly

[kris88]

Despair, that's what I feel about my licence money being wasted on such enforcement . I'm losing any of the optimism I felt about the waterways being in the care of a charitable trust very rapidly

I agree, it doesn't seem like the behaviour that you would expect. From a customer facing third sector organisation.

Regards kris

I didn't suggest anything.

 

Are CaRT doing something relevant that you know about and I don't?

You don't seem to want to read the relevant legislation. Or educate yourself about there actions, so what's the point

Regards kris

Edited December 12, 2014 by kris88