Best pay your CRT licence

[StarUKKiwi]

......

indeed - it is all most interesting

[NigelMoore]

the helper has explained to Owner A that he needs to pay the invoice less the three years he didn't own the boat; get the boat back and then go to court - would this be the correct action?

 

Pay what invoice? An invoice for the 4 years of unpaid boat registration fees? He needs to be exceptionally careful in following such advice. Bear in mind that by now, that cost is the least of his worries – if, in paying the invoice [or/especially any part of it], he accepts that CaRT were right to make that demand, then he is accepting that they had the right to act as they did in removing the boat, and he will consequently be liable for their removal and storage costs as well, and for the cost of retrieving the boat from half the country away.

 

The advice comes from those who appear to think that he will get his boat back without paying those removal and retrieval costs – it will not happen. He has two main choices: accept that CaRT were entitled to demand the annual registration fee, or maintain that they were not.

 

If the former, then he can pay the outstanding sum; pay the removal and storage costs; arrange for the boat’s return [at whatever cost incurred by either CaRT or a contractor of his choosing], and accept that he will have to continue paying the annual fee. He will then be in NO position to instigate any lawsuit against them, because with the basic premise accepted, there is nothing that he can claim that CaRT have done wrong – whether he knew of this previously or not.

 

His distress and former ignorance are of no value in defence in the case whatsoever, anymore than is the question of proportionality and/or attitude on CaRT's part.

 

If he makes the latter choice – AND he wants the boat back first – he would have to accompany any payment with the notice that he is paying under protest, disputing their right to the action, and putting on record that he intends to sue for re-imbursement and associated damages.

 

He would be better off instigating his lawsuit without bothering first to retrieve his property; if successful he will [eventually] get the boat back with all damages anyway, leaving CaRT to pay the costs of the exercise on top of any awarded pay-out. His choice to make of course.

 

In an ideal world, CaRT would recognise the potential fall-out [the financial ramifications would be colossal] and quietly agree to return the boat; I don’t see that happening. The ramifications in my own case were analogous though nothing like as serious, and yet they went ahead despite my similar warnings and are consequently still paying back tens of thousands of pounds to the local boaters who had had licence fees criminally extorted from them for decades. I see no sign that they have learnt anything from that experience.

 

I fear that with his current advisors he is only going to get deeper into trouble - no particular reflection on them, it is simply a question of areas of expertise. Property law is immaterial because there has been no CaRT protest over his mooring, only over unpaid river registration fees - the right to demand which is a statutory controlled power exercisable irrespective of common law property/riparian rights. The advisor on homelessness and debt may well be of assistance if the owner is in financial difficulties, but I understood the boat was not his home, and in any event that issue would have little of substantive legal value to add to any claim.

 

I would add that IF he chooses to fight this, he would be best advised to commence the action in the High Court; going the County Court route is unlikely to be successful in my jaundiced opinion. He would need to file a brief statement of justification for choosing the High Court, and the natural basic rationale would be the same as it was in my case: the question of right to demand licences/certificates in public navigable waters is a question of tolls, which under the CPR can only be heard in the High Court.

 

Pre-action protocols demand that he would first need to seek engagement with the legal department in an effort to resolve the dispute out of court; the best hope in that regard would be that the PR department saw a way to slither out from under in some way that saved face all 'round. It is their area of best expertise after all. The greatest problem for the owner at all stages, and increasingly as matters proceed, is likely to be the high level of his moral indignation.

 

A final caveat - being right is no guarantee of success, sad but true, and in cases like this expect to run a gauntlet of more than one High Court and Appeal Court appearance. Hope for the best, expect the worse.

[StarUKKiwi]

Nigel, I have sent you a PM, as I said, the expertise is in debt not boats - thank.you for the succinct post

[Tracynikol]

I am the lady that is helping the boat owner in question I knew nothing about boats I initially though about asking advice but after reading this long winded thread I don't think my questions are worth asking now because after reading everyone has passed judgment on my ability just research but decided against it if admin reads this please delete my profile I think I have read enough....

 

kind regards

 

Tracy

I am the lady that is helping the boat owner in question I knew nothing about boats I initially though about asking advice but after reading this long winded thread I don't think my questions are worth asking now because after reading everyone has passed judgment on my ability just research but decided against it if admin reads this please delete my profile I think I have read enough....

 

kind regards

 

Tracy

ps excuse me for being human this man could have been anyone of you I would have still tried to help love and light and help is free so is empathy and compassion.....

[Alf Roberts]

I am the lady that is helping the boat owner in question I knew nothing about boats I initially though about asking advice but after reading this long winded thread I don't think my questions are worth asking now because after reading everyone has passed judgment on my ability just research but decided against it if admin reads this please delete my profile I think I have read enough....

 

kind regards

 

Tracy

 

ps excuse me for being human this man could have been anyone of you I would have still tried to help love and light and help is free so is empathy and compassion.....

well rather than having a hissy fit, if you really want to help the owner of this boat read and absorb what Nigel Moore has written and then take action based on that.

 

there is a very important issue of CRT overstepping its powers and behaving in an illegal way that must be challenged.

 

help is available, make use of it. wandering off feeling wounded won't help anyone.

[Tony Dunkley]

I am the lady that is helping the boat owner in question I knew nothing about boats I initially though about asking advice but after reading this long winded thread I don't think my questions are worth asking now because after reading everyone has passed judgment on my ability just research but decided against it if admin reads this please delete my profile I think I have read enough....

 

kind regards

 

Tracy

ps excuse me for being human this man could have been anyone of you I would have still tried to help love and light and help is free so is empathy and compassion.....

 

You appear to have taken some offence at something that Nigel Moore has said. If that is not so, then I've misunderstood what you've said in Post #504, and I apologise .

I can assure you that everything that Nigel has said will amount to the best advice available for the man you are helping, and that includes whatever may be had from most practicing lawyers for the reason that the Law as applicable to inland waterways , the boats on them and the navigation authorities in charge is something they rarely, if ever, have to deal with and their understanding of it is severely limited as a result of that.

Please, give your best attention to Nigel's opinion and advice, the boat owner you're trying to help is very fortunate to have it available to him.

[Arthur Marshall]

I don't think she's taken offence at anything Nigel has said (can't see how anyone could - he's obviously being helpful and constructive), more doesn't want to get involved in anything where she gets tangled up in the latent aggression some people on here show. If she's not used to the way we carry on but is a normal helpful non-boating person, she could understandably get upset by some of the comments, such as Alf's immediate and typical reaction of accusing her of having a hissy fit and wandering off wounded. Some people actually want to help people, not just look for a fight, and if they've got to have one, they'll use their energy against the real enemy, not waste their time and energy defending themselves against people on here who just appear petty and spiteful. We're used to it, she probably isn't.

[NigelMoore]

. . . after reading this long winded thread I don't think my questions are worth asking now . . .

 

Tracy – there is always value in asking the questions, and there is no reflection on you or the owner’s other advisors, as I said, in warning of the ramifications of acting without understanding of the underlying issues; very few could hope to understand the situation within the boating community, let alone anyone coming from ‘outside’.

 

As I have also said, there is no value in a legal action against the authority - in terms of whether they had the right to do what they did or not – in detailing any impropriety of conduct, BUT having evidence of the behavioural approach is nonetheless of inestimable value when/if it comes to litigation over the matter, in respect of the owner’s liability for costs in the action [if any].

 

Having physical evidence of the behaviour of the relevant enforcement officer at the scene would be priceless in establishing the aggressive nature and unreasonableness of the proceedings, even if – in strict terms of the law – they were entitled to remove the boat as they did [supposing, which on my present understanding it was not, the boat was required to be registered].

 

The aggressive and confrontational attitude of BW in my own case worried the Court at the main hearing so much that the judge was minded to award no costs whatsoever to BW, even though his decision was that they were entitled to take the action they proposed [the decision that was overturned on appeal]. He only awarded a small percentage of costs as a rap on my knuckles for not being able to pay a previous costs order. [The award of costs was, of course, reversed in the following appeal decision, but you will understand the principle.]

 

The fact that the owner was on the scene and offered to pay whatever was considered owing in order to prevent removal in the early stages, will also weigh heavily against CaRT demands for payment of the removal and storage costs thereafter, so look on it in that light.

 

I have been in the owner’s situation myself so I do understand it, and am sensible of the value of support such as yours. The essential thing to bear in mind at this stage is the harsh necessity of separating emotional outrage from dispassionate review of the options.

 

The one thing CaRT will be sensitive about [to some degree], will be exposure of the enforcement approach to the general public, on whom they rely for voluntary contributions. That is a card to keep well to the forefront.

 

All the best with what you are doing, and do not hesitate to ask those questions.

[mayalld]

 

Having physical evidence of the behaviour of the relevant enforcement officer at the scene would be priceless in establishing the aggressive nature and unreasonableness of the proceedings, even if – in strict terms of the law – they were entitled to remove the boat as they did [supposing, which on my present understanding it was not, the boat was required to be registered].

 

The aggressive and confrontational attitude of BW in my own case worried the Court at the main hearing so much that the judge was minded to award no costs whatsoever to BW, even though his decision was that they were entitled to take the action they proposed [the decision that was overturned on appeal]. He only awarded a small percentage of costs as a rap on my knuckles for not being able to pay a previous costs order. [The award of costs was, of course, reversed in the following appeal decision, but you will understand the principle.]

 

The fact that the owner was on the scene and offered to pay whatever was considered owing in order to prevent removal in the early stages, will also weigh heavily against CaRT demands for payment of the removal and storage costs thereafter, so look on it in that light.

 

Nigel,

 

might I ask whether you watched the same footage as I did?

 

Leaving aside the issue of whether the removal was ultimately a legitimate use of power (and I know we difffer as to the meaning of Main Navigable Channel here), and any shortcomings in how YOUR case was handled;

 

1. I see absolutely zero evidence in that footage of the CRT enforcement officer behaving in an aggressive manner. On the contrary, those involved in the operation remained calm and measured in the face of severe provocation by somebody aggresive who was screaming at them and hurling abuse at them.
2. The scene that we saw was NOT the seizure of the boat. That had occurred some time previously. What we saw was the aggressive man attempting to interfere with CRT moving a previously seized boat from one location to another.
3. Yes, an offer to pay what was owing was made. However, once the amount owing was stated, the person who made the offer backtracked and stated that he didn't have that money.

[NigelMoore]

 

might I ask whether you watched the same footage as I did?

 

We have both watched the same footage.

 

There is as yet unpublished footage by other attendees, who focussed on the patrol officer interaction rather than the hapless police officer. I am going to be far more interested to see that, if it fits the description I have been given, than what kick-started this topic.

 

To repeat myself: IF CaRT were entitled to insist that this boat required to be registered, then they have done nothing wrong, but IF the way they handled it was as bad as has been suggested here, then that will count against them even if they achieve court approval of the action, when it comes to the costs issue.

 

Not to mention the PR fall-out.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

1. I see absolutely zero evidence in that footage of the CRT enforcement officer behaving in an aggressive manner. On the contrary, those involved in the operation remained calm and measured in the face of severe provocation by somebody aggresive who was screaming at them and hurling abuse at them.
2. The scene that we saw was NOT the seizure of the boat. That had occurred some time previously. What we saw was the aggressive man attempting to interfere with CRT moving a previously seized boat from one location to another.
3. Yes, an offer to pay what was owing was made. However, once the amount owing was stated, the person who made the offer backtracked and stated that he didn't have that money.

 

 

That is a somewhat misleading portrayal of what actually happened. C&RT ( in the form of S.Garner, the local Enforcement Orifice) gave a 'ball park figure' which included the sum owing for 4 years Licence fees, a debt which even if proven is not recoverable by means of the Section 8 process, and therefore should not have been included in the claimed total and is not payable prior to, or as a condition of, the return of the boat. As the 'bp' figure of £9000 is very considerably more than the cost of seizing and towing the boat from Farndon to Newark, the lorry for one day and a lift out, it is evident that the figure was also artificially inflated by including costs that had not yet been incurred by C&RT, such as delivering to Commercial Boat Services ( Chester) and lifting off into their storage. The boat owner's decision that he was unable to pay at the time was made on the basis of an inaccurate and grossly inflated figure given to him by C&RT.

It is also should be noted that the seizure and towing was carried out by two men from Commercial Boat Services using a boat brought down from Chester despite there being two of C&RT's own tugs based locally, . . . . an additional means of increasing the cost of the seizure, on top of the already high and unnecessary cost of removing it from the Newark area where there are storage facilities suitable for C&RT's purposes.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[scrunch]

Just wondered if anyone has mentioned if the boat in question had been spotted by a patrol officer whilst away from its mooring . Would this mean if it had been spotted each previous year even if it didn't need a licence where it moored the boat should have been licenced . Not liverboard surely you would go for a trip in it . Also with the owner saying it was up for sale is this what made ca&t swing into action . Would have liked to see a full video without the bloke that wanted to arrest a policeman don't think he did anyone any favours . Do you also think courts would except the sold and rebought story without relevant registration document or would it just seem a way of the owner trying to lose a couple of years off the owing licence .

[mayalld]

 

That is a somewhat misleading portrayal of what actually happened. C&RT ( in the form of S.Garner, the local Enforcement Orifice) gave a 'ball park figure' which included the sum owing for 4 years Licence fees, a debt which even if proven is not recoverable by means of the Section 8 process, and therefore should not have been included in the claimed total and is not payable prior to, or as a condition of, the return of the boat. As the 'bp' figure of £9000 is very considerably more than the cost of seizing and towing the boat from Farndon to Newark, the lorry for one day and a lift out, it is evident that the figure was also artificially inflated by including costs that had not yet been incurred by C&RT, such as delivering to Commercial Boat Services ( Chester) and lifting off into their storage. The boat owner's decision that he was unable to pay at the time was made on the basis of an inaccurate and grossly inflated figure given to him by C&RT.

It is also should be noted that the seizure and towing was carried out by two men from Commercial Boat Services using a boat brought down from Chester despite there being two of C&RT's own tugs based locally, . . . . an additional means of increasing the cost of the seizure, on top of the already high and unnecessary cost of removing it from the Newark area where there are storage facilities suitable for C&RT's purposes.

 

Again, we return to an assumption that in everything they do, CRT should jump through hoops to accomodate those who are determined to evade payment.

 

CRT have made a decision as to how they will manage seized boats, and that decision doesn't involve keeping them here there and everywhere for the convenience of those who have had them seized.

 

You are correct that the £2,400 of unpaid licence fees is not recovereable through the section 8 process, and possibly that if the process was stopped there and then some (but not all of) the costs could be avoided (CBS will have reserved the crane slot for them, and will want to be paid, even if no boat arrives).

 

Equally, at this point, the boat had already been seized, and CRT are under no obligation to create a bespoke process to release the boat if somebody arrives waving cash.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Again, we return to an assumption that in everything they do, CRT should jump through hoops to accomodate those who are determined to evade payment.

 

CRT have made a decision as to how they will manage seized boats, and that decision doesn't involve keeping them here there and everywhere for the convenience of those who have had them seized.

 

You are correct that the £2,400 of unpaid licence fees is not recovereable through the section 8 process, and possibly that if the process was stopped there and then some (but not all of) the costs could be avoided (CBS will have reserved the crane slot for them, and will want to be paid, even if no boat arrives).

 

Equally, at this point, the boat had already been seized, and CRT are under no obligation to create a bespoke process to release the boat if somebody arrives waving cash.

 

Which of these two phrases of yours applies to the owner of the boat on the day it was seized, . . . was he one of -- " those who are determined to evade payment." or was he -- "somebody (who) arrives waving cash." ? . . . they would seem to be mutually exclusive.

As to C&RT's way of 'managing' seized boats, it is, in fact, just the opposite of what you have assumed and imagined, not only do they keep them 'here there and everywhere', but they also transport them 'here there and everywhere' post seizure . . . . . for instance, a boat called 'Pearl' was seized in Northwich, only a few miles from CBS in Chester . . . so where did C&RT take it ? . . . . to the other side of Gloucester on a lorry, . . . . and now, a boat seized in Newark has to be treated to a lorryride up to Chester.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Naughty Cal]

 

Which of these two phrases of yours applies to the owner of the boat on the day it was seized, . . . " those who are determined to evade payment." or "somebody arrives waving cash." ?

In fact C&RT's way of 'managing' seized boats is just the opposite of what you assume and imagine, not only do they keep them 'here there and everywhere', but they also transport them 'here there and everywhere' . . . . . for instance, a boat called 'Pearl' seized in Northwich, only a few miles from CBS in Chester . . . so where did C&RT take it ? . . . . to the other side of Gloucester on a lorry, . . . . and now, a boat seized in Newark has to be treated to a lorryride up to Chester.

What difference does it make where the boats are taken?

 

The bulk of the cost of transporting boats is the mobilisation of the plant and the craning out.

[Tony Dunkley]

What difference does it make where the boats are taken?

 

The bulk of the cost of transporting boats is the mobilisation of the plant and the craning out.

 

So, you imagine the transport costs from Newark to Chester or Northwich to Gloucester are negligible do you ? There would be no crane hire or mob. costs at Newark because there's a Boat Lift on site. You're also assuming, wrongly, that boats must be lifted out following seizure, they don't have to be, it's just a way of increasing the seizure and removal costs.

[Naughty Cal]

 

So, you imagine the transport costs from Newark to Chester or Northwich to Gloucester are negligible do you ? There would be no crane hire or mob. costs at Newark because there's a Boat Lift on site. You're also assuming, wrongly, that boats must be lifted out following seizure, they don't have to be, it's just a way of increasing the seizure and removal costs.

Where would you have stored the boat in question?

[Tony Dunkley]

Where would you have stored the boat in question?

 

Afloat, round the back of the (Newark) Repair Yard Dock.

[Naughty Cal]

 

Afloat, round the back of the (Newark) Repair Yard Dock.

Within reach of the person it has been seized from?

 

Great idea!

 

So, you imagine the transport costs from Newark to Chester or Northwich to Gloucester are negligible do you ? There would be no crane hire or mob. costs at Newark because there's a Boat Lift on site. You're also assuming, wrongly, that boats must be lifted out following seizure, they don't have to be, it's just a way of increasing the seizure and removal costs.

Once the boat is on the lorry the cost per mile to transport it is negligible in the scheme of things. The major expense has already been spent.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

Afloat, round the back of the (Newark) Repair Yard Dock.

Is that in CRT waters? If so surely the point has been that it was seized for allegedly being unlicenced on the waterway so if they leave it afloat they are condoning the continuing offence. I can't realistically see how they can seize a boat because it is (allegedly) in their water illegally and then leave it there. They have to take it out somewhere and I don't think that someone who can't be bothered to pay his licence should have any say at all in where or how that is done.

[Tony Dunkley]

Within reach of the person it has been seized from?

 

Great idea!

Once the boat is on the lorry the cost per mile to transport it is negligible in the scheme of things. The major expense has already been spent.

 

Well yes, it would be accessible to the owner if he broke into the Repair Yard, and as far as the lorry is concerned, if the boat wasn't to be transported halfway across the country, then the lorry wouldn't be there in the first place, would it.

[Tony Dunkley]

Is that in CRT waters? If so surely the point has been that it was seized for allegedly being unlicenced on the waterway so if they leave it afloat they are condoning the continuing offence. I can't realistically see how they can seize a boat because it is (allegedly) in their water illegally and then leave it there. They have to take it out somewhere and I don't think that someone who can't be bothered to pay his licence should have any say at all in where or how that is done.

The question and it's answer aren't relevant, but in fact the river behind the Dock at Newark is not part of the main navigable channel and therefore any boat moored there is neither in C&RT (controlled) waters and nor does it need to be licensed.

However, that's a very good point you're making about the situation post seizure, and C&RT are obviously taking the necessary, sensible precautions to avoid the need to serve another Section 8 Notice on a boat already in their possesion, and then having to pay their contractors a second time for seizing the boat from themselves. I do feel somewhat foolish for not having thought of that !

 

Read the 1983 Act.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Tracynikol]

Just wondered if anyone has mentioned if the boat in question had been spotted by a patrol officer whilst away from its mooring . Would this mean if it had been spotted each previous year even if it didn't need a licence where it moored the boat should have been licenced . Not liverboard surely you would go for a trip in it . Also with the owner saying it was up for sale is this what made ca&t swing into action . Would have liked to see a full video without the bloke that wanted to arrest a policeman don't think he did anyone any favours . Do you also think courts would except the sold and rebought story without relevant registration document or would it just seem a way of the owner trying to lose a couple of years off the owing licence .

the boat was sold to a new owner and had ticket and licence and there are valid invoices at time of sale both times the new owner failed to register the boat this is not in dispute by him he admits to owning the boat.when the boat was sold to current owner there was no valid boat certificate or licence ..but it needed the work done to pass the boat safety certificate the current owner had no idea about non licence for the 3 years he proceeded to repair and make good the boat it got a certificate and it was renamed Three Wise Monkeys....and he was in process of getting fully registered but before he could complete anything the boat was removed he actually had no prior knowledge about the lack of cert when he bought the boat back....to be fair I could be sat here all day writing the facts ......like I said I am just trying to help a friend and was not having a hissy fit I read all the thread took me hours and it scared me off asking for help because of all the negative opinions...I am lucky now someone has actually advised from here and very grateful and so is the owner Leigh.....

[scrunch]

Not judging this at all thank you for responding as I said just a shame the chappie with a chip on his shoulder had to get involved could have come across much better without the insults and threats just hope it gets sorted properley

[StarUKKiwi]

Glad that advice has been given, when we work together; things happen. Hopefully, the situation will be resolved satisfactorily