Anyone just received CRT letter 'reminding' CC'ers to move?

[GoodGurl]

 

That would work for our license, but I wouldn't know when they are trying to send me out a reminder about cc'ing obligations or some such, so wouldn't know to ask them to forward it to whatever happens to be the closest CRT office we would be near at the time.

 

Never mind - it seems we are the only cc'ers with this issue, so no need to fix something that isn't working for the minority rather than the majority...we'll keep bumbling along as we have been

hopefully they will send this letter out with license renewals for those that haven't got it yet, but don't hold your breath .

[MtB]

 

Yes Maffi, but as already stated it's a friend of ours and we only have mail forwarded to us twice a year using Poste Restante; as it's only CRT that insist on sending us paper communications. Everything else is set up as paperless accounts...bank, doctors, insurance etc etc

 

 

This is your problem, not CRT's. Authorities communicate with you by Royal Mail. That's how it is in the UK.

 

If you can't deal with this then you know the answer...

[Bettie Boo]

 

 

This is your problem, not CRT's. Authorities communicate with you by Royal Mail. That's how it is in the UK.

 

If you can't deal with this then you know the answer...

 

I've already figured that out Mike...plz refer to the bottom of post #123

 

I thought it would be an issue for most live aboard proper ccer's, but apparently not.

[MtB]

 

I've already figured that out Mike...plz refer to the bottom of post #123

 

I thought it would be an issue for most live aboard proper ccer's, but apparently not.

 

 

Yes of course it's an 'issue' for most liveaboard CCers. I never said otherwise.

 

But it isn't an issue for CRT which is my point. They post stuff to the address the CCers give. The courts take it as delivered. The CCer's problem if not received, not CRTs. Argue about it as much as you like, the courts will not support you.

[Sabcat]

 

 

This is your problem, not CRT's. Authorities communicate with you by Royal Mail. That's how it is in the UK.

 

If you can't deal with this then you know the answer...

 

Do they? DVLA, HMRC and the council have no problem at all communicating with me by email so why not CRT? Perhaps because they're a crock. You might think that's good, I suspect most don't.

[John Williamson 1955]

 

Do they? DVLA, HMRC and the council have no problem at all communicating with me by email so why not CRT? Perhaps because they're a crock. You might think that's good, I suspect most don't.

I've yet to receive an e-mail from the DVLA or HMRC, it's all been snail mail only, in spite of them having my e-mail address. I have, however, received bills and other communications by e-mail from CRT following a quiet chat with their accounts department saying that I was having problems receiving snail mail from them.

[MtB]

 

Do they? DVLA, HMRC and the council have no problem at all communicating with me by email so why not CRT? Perhaps because they're a crock. You might think that's good, I suspect most don't.

 

 

No, you misunderstand. I think it's shite. I'm just saying how the law stands with regard to communicating.

Standing in a court of law and saying 'i didn't receive the letter' cuts no ice.

 

CRT saying in a court of law 'we sent an email' also cuts no ice. So they send letters.

Anyway as they say, 'none so deaf as them as will not hear'. Or something like that...

[Bettie Boo]

 

 

Yes of course it's an 'issue' for most liveaboard CCers. I never said otherwise.

 

But it isn't an issue for CRT which is my point. They post stuff to the address the CCers give. The courts take it as delivered. The CCer's problem if not received, not CRTs. Argue about it as much as you like, the courts will not support you.

 

But I'm not asking the courts to support or agree with me.

 

All I'm saying is if CRT want to correspond with me on the level of what is being discussed here...a bog standard reminder being sent to all or at least all newish ccer's, would it not be more efficient/cost saving to do so via email if that is my chosen method of communication. I didn't bring court cases into it someone else said that's why they will only use snail mail.

 

I fully accept that there would be some communication that would require a record of being sent, and if a UK court of law would only accept a snail mail receipt than so be it. But I'm referring to general information notice/letter.

 

At the very least, it could be posted on their web site for those of us who do move around the country and do not have nor need to have a regular mail delivery service.

 

I actually quite enjoy not receiving all the crap that used to come through my mail slot on a daily basis. It's very liberating

[Sabcat]

 

 

No, you misunderstand. I think it's shite. I'm just saying how the law stands with regard to communicating.

Standing in a court of law and saying 'i didn't receive the letter' cuts no ice.

 

CRT saying in a court of law 'we sent an email' also cuts no ice. So they send letters.

Anyway as they say, 'none so deaf as them as will not hear'. Or something like that...

 

I've just got my arse in my hand tonight

[Bettie Boo]

I've yet to receive an e-mail from the DVLA or HMRC, it's all been snail mail only, in spite of them having my e-mail address. I have, however, received bills and other communications by e-mail from CRT following a quiet chat with their accounts department saying that I was having problems receiving snail mail from them.

 

John could you pm me the name of the person who you spoke to at CRT - I'll happily give them a ring and ask again. Maybe I just spoke to the wrong department or person when I asked last time.

 

Ta

 

B~

[NigelMoore]

. . . any document which might eventually result in legal action can't IMO be delivered by email.

 

Actually, for some years now court papers can be served over the internet, if traditional means fail. If multi-million pound actions can be so served, then CaRT can certainly serve court papers this way, let alone any “letters before action” [which the CC series of letters amount to]. Not just email is suitable, but twitter and facebook can be used. This was confirmed by a County Court in 2009 and upheld by the High Court in 2012: -

 

http://www.trethowans.com/site/library/legalnews/court_proceedings_to_be_served_via_facebook

 

"Traditionally, court documents must be served on a party either by personal service, by post or through their solicitors. However if service cannot be achieved through these means the courts have stated that they are now not afraid to embrace the use of social media."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/9095489/Legal-claims-can-be-served-via-Facebook-High-Court-judge-rules.html

 

http://lcmlaw1.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/high-court-to-serve-claim-on-defendant.html

 

etc; etc

[John Williamson 1955]

 

John could you pm me the name of the person who you spoke to at CRT - I'll happily give them a ring and ask again. Maybe I just spoke to the wrong department or person when I asked last time.

 

Ta

 

B~

For the bills, I spoke to whoever answered the phone at the accounts department in Leeds, and our local moorings manager deals with other stuff. As I'm not a CC'er, I can't help more than that. Sorry.

[cotswoldsman]

I've yet to receive an e-mail from the DVLA or HMRC, it's all been snail mail only, in spite of them having my e-mail address. I have, however, received bills and other communications by e-mail from CRT following a quiet chat with their accounts department saying that I was having problems receiving snail mail from them.

HMRC communicate on line but not via email you simply register to do return on line and then you communicate

[Jerra]

Jerra Ignoring an email from CRT wont make it go away.

I haven't suggested it would. What I was implying was that if CRT relied solely on emails for communication they might (and I don't know the legal situation) have greater difficulty persuading a judge that the document had been delivered whereas we know a court does accept posting as a sign it will be delivered.

[MtB]

 

Actually, for some years now court papers can be served over the internet, if traditional means fail. If multi-million pound actions can be so served, then CaRT can certainly serve court papers this way, let alone any “letters before action” [which the CC series of letters amount to]. Not just email is suitable, but twitter and facebook can be used. This was confirmed by a County Court in 2009 and upheld by the High Court in 2012: -

 

http://www.trethowans.com/site/library/legalnews/court_proceedings_to_be_served_via_facebook

 

"Traditionally, court documents must be served on a party either by personal service, by post or through their solicitors. However if service cannot be achieved through these means the courts have stated that they are now not afraid to embrace the use of social media."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/9095489/Legal-claims-can-be-served-via-Facebook-High-Court-judge-rules.html

 

http://lcmlaw1.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/high-court-to-serve-claim-on-defendant.html

 

etc; etc

 

Only after conventional methods have failed. Veery interesting, thanks for the enlightenment Nige.

 

Very very interesting, for reasons nothing to do with boating...

 

 

MtB

[Jerra]

I fully accept that there would be some communication that would require a record of being sent, and if a UK court of law would only accept a snail mail receipt than so be it. But I'm referring to general information notice/letter.

Surely from CRT's point of view they need to be able to say in court when they have removed your license we posted a reminder of what they needed to do hence they post it. Just my opinion for why of course.

 

Actually, for some years now court papers can be served over the internet, if traditional means fail.

You obviously didn't notice the IMO (in my opinion) I didn't state that they had to.

[tillergirl]

 

That would work for our license, but I wouldn't know when they are trying to send me out a reminder about cc'ing obligations or some such, so wouldn't know to ask them to forward it to whatever happens to be the closest CRT office we would be near at the time.

 

Never mind - it seems we are the only cc'ers with this issue, so no need to fix something that isn't working for the minority rather than the majority...we'll keep bumbling along as we have been

 

Bettie we have all our mail delivered to our nominated address. A family member has our permission to open the mail, sifts

through it and gets rid of the junk. What is left is a phone call to discuss and if we need to see anything before we receive it

poste restante she sends a copy over by email. We then decide if its urgent or can wait for the 12 week mail shot or an

impromptu visit.

 

On another note when we renewed our licence towards the end of last year (roving trader) we had to also declare either home mooring or continuous cruiser of which we declared the latter. If we do take a winter marina mooring we advise CRT we have done so and also when we leave no matter how short a time it may be; that's part of the deal. But it will be interesting to see

how they dissemble our and other trader movements as dependent on where we are booked into festivals and events we can be up and down and zig zagging the same part of the system even though we can cover a lot of lock miles.

Edited March 3, 2015 by tillergirl

[NigelMoore]

You obviously didn't notice the IMO (in my opinion) I didn't state that they had to.

 

Of course I noticed your ‘IMO’; it was your expressed opinion that documents to be relied on in legal action could not be delivered by email. That was why I selected that portion of your post when quoting it. It was a natural enough opinion to hold, and shared by others.

 

In responding with confirmation that your opinion on the matter was awry, I was not seeking to belittle you or score a point; my interest was solely in setting the record straight for those in this topic expressing interest in the issue.

[Bettie Boo]

 

 

 

my interest was solely in setting the record straight for those in this topic expressing interest in the issue.

 

Thank you Nigel - much appreciated

[NigelMoore]

 

Only after conventional methods have failed.

 

In the 2012 case, as you may have read, the Claimants DID have a street address for one of the Defendants, but were uncertain as to whether it was still current. They had served papers as normal at that last known address, but asked the court to approve doubling up the service via facebook to ensure he received it.

 

So it wasn’t so much only “after conventional means failed”, as duplicated service by other means in case the postal address failed.

 

"TFA served the claim on Mr De Biase at his last known address, but petitioned the court to be allowed to do so via Facebook as well because there was doubt over whether he still lived there.

Mr Justice Teare questioned whether TFS could verify that the Facebook account belonged to the right Mr De Biase, and whether he was in the habit of checking it.

The court heard that Mr De Biase was friends with other TFS colleagues, and that the account was known to be in use because he had accepted a few recent friend requests.”

 

Other cases had allowed twitter etc to be used when no other means of identifying &/or locating the person could be discovered.

 

Of course another medium through which people without a known address could always be acceptably notified of impending action has been the papers. Notices in the London Gazette plus a local newspaper, over a couple of weeks, have been considered sufficient. I used to think this was highly unlikely to reach anyone [going by my own habits], but I did have recourse to this once, and it worked surprisingly fast - not that the client had read my notice, but a friend of his who DID read the local paper recognised his name and notified him. Good result all round in that case.

[MtB]

Very interesting Nige. Thanks for all that.

 

I served notice on someone a few weeks back (twice on the same day, by Royal mail from from different post offices - belt qand braces etc!) , and they kindly acknowledged receipt in a text. I doubt they'll be able to deny receipt of notice now should push come to shove, which is looking unlikely. But possibly only because of the solid notice in the first plaice!

 

Fishy though, some might say...

 

 

MtB

[peterboat]

Quote from MtB, "My understanding too. Proof of posting is accepted by a court as proof of service"

 

and one of these days someone is going to discover the truth in that proof of posting does not equate with proof of receipt.

Hi Rich I googled this and if the sender posted 2 letters at the same time the judge would accept that one had arrived however if the person who was supposed to have received the letter can prove that letters have gone astray in the past ie post persons had purloined letters in the past it would be deemed that letters do go missing and would accept this in court. This is why bailiffs are used to serve important papers

 

Peter

[kris88]

 

 

"...................please remember that as they have had a welcome letter they do not get a Pre CC we go straight to CC1.........."

So basically by sending all these letters out , they putting every cc'er onto the first level of enforcement. The next being cc1.

Regards kris

[Paul C]

So basically by sending all these letters out , they putting every cc'er onto the first level of enforcement. The next being cc1.

Regards kris

 

CC1 is the first stage of enforcement.

[kris88]

Up until now I believe a letter called pre cc or something was the preliminary step. Which has been done away with by these letters.

Regards kris