Boater Sues C&RT for Section 8

[Tony Dunkley]

Weirs do stabilise the water level in a river. By which I mean they reduce the maximum range of high to low levels, by reducing the low. Depending on the particular circumstances the presence of sluices that are opened in times of high flow, may reduce the peak of the high (although I'll grant you that they also have the capability to increase levels further downstream).

 

No I wouldn't apply my argument to the Trent below Cromwell since there aren't any structures helping to stabilise water levels. However it is interesting to note the absence of pleasure craft moored along most of that length, I would presume because of the difficulties of securely mooring on a tidal river without substantially engineered pontoons that can tolerate the aegirs and flood conditions.

 

If you really do believe that, then you're probably one of the minority still clinging to the belief that the Earth is flat and that it's possible to sail a boat over the edge of it.

 

Back in around the mid 2000's BW raised the crest of Beeston Weir on the Trent with the aims achieving an acceptable navigation channel depth and increasing the head and volume of water available for the recently installed Hydro-electric plant at Beeston, but without having to revert to the regular routine dredging that they had abandoned some years earlier.

 

Raising the weir cill had two immediate effects. The 'normal' or 'minimum retention' river level was raised proportionally, and, contrary to your beliefs, flooding levels then occured after less rainfall than previously. The normal level to high level range of the flooding was unchanged, but the peaks were proportionally higher because the initial level was higher, and necessitated the raising of flood banks and walls in the area.

 

As for not applying your argument re. moored boats contributing to the upkeep of the river, both I, and those who drafted and passed the 1971 BW Act, seem to agree that any boat kept moored outside of the MNC in the Trent between Cromwell and Gainsborough should not be contributing to the [navigational] upkeep, such as it is, but C&RT take the predictable alternative view that any such vessels must be 'licensed' like any other.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Tony Brooks]

If you go up the Lee from Limehouse there are moored boats for 3½ hours, I will let you work out how many boats that it is. Taking your argument to a logical conclusion means that you believe that those boats don't need a licence. In turn that means no BSS, no 3rd party insurance.

 

But that is not the issue although the result of the court case could well make it one.

 

There seems to be an argument worth airing and get resolved that CaRT are acting without lawful authority and exceeding their powers. .

 

As Parliament have demonstrated they will not clear up the mess they made get involved it has been left to individuals to take on that argument. When a definitive ruling is given THEN CaRT and Parliament may well have to sort the mess out but first CaRT's decisions need testing in court.

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

If you go up the Lee from Limehouse there are moored boats for 3½ hours, I will let you work out how many boats that it is. Taking your argument to a logical conclusion means that you believe that those boats don't need a licence. In turn that means no BSS, no 3rd party insurance.

Surely according to the argument, they only don't need a license if they don't venture into the navigable bit. If that's the case, why should they have 3rd part insurance (they aren't going to hit anyone if they don;t move)? Or BSS, for that matter.

[Tony Dunkley]

If you go up the Lee from Limehouse there are moored boats for 3½ hours, I will let you work out how many boats that it is. Taking your argument to a logical conclusion means that you believe that those boats don't need a licence. In turn that means no BSS, no 3rd party insurance.

 

There isn't anything resembling logic in what you've said, and it's very evident that you haven't even begun to understand the 'argument' at all.

 

It's a fact, and NOT a 'belief', that boats kept and used on the Lee don't have to be licensed. The Lee is one of the river navigations listed in Schedule 1 of the 1971 BW Act, and as such, the law requires only that vessels kept or used within the MNC must be registered by means of a Pleasure Boat Certificate [PBC].

 

I don't know how many of your three and half hours worth of boats ever leave their moorings and make use of the MNC, but those that do merely require, not a Licence, but a PBC in order to comply with the law. Only such boats as are permanently moored out of the MNC, and never make use of it at any time are relieved of the obligation to hold either a current PBC, or a current Licence.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[RichardN]

 

There isn't anything resembling logic in what you've said, and it's very evident that you haven't even begun to understand the 'argument' at all.

 

It's a fact, and NOT a 'belief', that boats kept and used on the Lee don't have to be licensed. The Lee is one of the river navigations listed in Schedule 1 of the 1971 BW Act, and as such, the law requires only that vessels kept or used within the MNC must be registered by means of a Pleasure Boat Certificate [PBC].

 

I don't know how many of your three and half hours worth of boats ever leave their moorings and make use of the MNC, but those that do merely require, not a Licence, but a PBC in order to comply with the law. Only such boats as are permanently moored out of the MNC, and never make use of it at any time are relieved of the obligation to hold either a current PBC, or a current Licence.

Pointless nit picking. I will amend my comment so that licence reads contributing to the upkeep of the waterway

[Geo]

nit picking.

 

Surely that is what most cases that rely on a statute are doing, nit picking exactly what the words in the statute mean and how the words apply to a particular situation.

 

From the little research I have done on these two cases Leigh/Dunkley V CRT. I have the feeling that CRT are not playing by the rules. Assuming that both can get an open and fair hearing in the courts my gut says CRT should loose.

[Higgs]

Pointless nit picking. I will amend my comment so that licence reads contributing to the upkeep of the waterway

 

 

Moral or legal? Morally, can you justify allowing abuse of the powers invested in CRT for the upkeep of the canal.

[nicknorman]

If you really do believe that, then you're probably one of the minority still clinging to the belief that the Earth is flat and that it's possible to sail a boat over the edge of it.

 

Back in around the mid 2000's BW raised the crest of Beeston Weir on the Trent with the aims achieving an acceptable navigation channel depth and increasing the head and volume of water available for the recently installed Hydro-electric plant at Beeston, but without having to revert to the regular routine dredging that they had abandoned some years earlier.

 

Raising the weir cill had two immediate effects. The 'normal' or 'minimum retention' river level was raised proportionally, and, contrary to your beliefs, flooding levels then occured after less rainfall than previously. The normal level to high level range of the flooding was unchanged, but the peaks were proportionally higher because the initial level was higher, and necessitated the raising of flood banks and walls in the area.

 

As for not applying your argument re. moored boats contributing to the upkeep of the river, both I, and those who drafted and passed the 1971 BW Act, seem to agree that any boat kept moored outside of the MNC in the Trent between Cromwell and Gainsborough should not be contributing to the [navigational] upkeep, such as it is, but C&RT take the predictable alternative view that any such vessels must be 'licensed' like any other.

Of course raising a weir level will increase the highs. But you forgot to mention that not having a weir at all will make the lows much much lower, resulting in a larger overall range.

 

As for the legislation regarding boats out of the MNC, bearing in mind the vagaries of the law you are perhaps being a bit presumptuous that the outcome will concur with your opinion since clearly CRT feel they have some sort of a leg to stand on, but anyway that wasn't my point - it was not a legal one, rather it was a moral one.

[Geo]

Of course raising a weir level will increase the highs. But you forgot to mention that not having a weir at all will make the lows much much lower, resulting in a larger overall range.

 

As for the legislation regarding boats out of the MNC, bearing in mind the vagaries of the law you are perhaps being a bit presumptuous that the outcome will concur with your opinion since clearly CRT feel they have some sort of a leg to stand on, but anyway that wasn't my point - it was not a legal one, rather it was a moral one.

 

Having gone up against large organisations in court they always try to impose their will as being right as they should know. They often even try to impress the Judges with their infallibility. Good Judges don't like it and will do their own research particularly where there is a Litigant in Person. I get the impression from some of the past judgements that maybe the judges are becoming aware of what is going on.

[NigelMoore]

 

Having gone up against large organisations in court they always try to impose their will as being right as they should know. They often even try to impress the Judges with their infallibility. Good Judges don't like it and will do their own research particularly where there is a Litigant in Person. I get the impression from some of the past judgements that maybe the judges are becoming aware of what is going on.

 

Agreed; it would be good to think that a wider awareness is growing, and certainly in this situation the judges can no longer be so impressed with this organisation’s infallibility. In no small part, of course, this is because most of the fighting thus far in Leigh’s case, has been over the involvement of a boater who has already demonstrated their fallibility respecting statutory construction of their legislation, not to mention exposing their regrettable attitude to s.8 enforcement as notoriously demonstrated by the emails of debbifiggy.

 

The last year of argument has been a bit of an own goal in that respect, regardless of whether or not they succeed in having me barred from future involvement [perhaps even more so if they do].

 

Chief Master Marsh has already commented on the strength of the case and its public importance, in venturing to surmise as to the probable likelihood of a future application to appeal by either side being granted.

 

[NigelMoore]

 

Or, maybe Parry has got more than one Forum snooper at work !

 

Could Parry and his Head of Boat Thieving be among them ?

 

Had you noticed, then, that an extra 'anonymous' follower of this topic has arrived within the last few days?

[Geo]

 

Chief Master Marsh has already commented on the strength of the case and its public importance, in venturing to surmise as to the probable likelihood of a future application to appeal by either side being granted.

 

 

It is not that common for a Master to comment on the strength of a case unless s/he is warning one side or the other. I take it that the strength of case was on Leigh's side. As to indicating the probability of an application to appeal being granted s/he is I suspect indicating the public Importance of the case.

 

Something in the back of my mind say that where cases are believed to be of public importance legal aid can be available. Not sure because that keeps changing.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Had you noticed, then, that an extra 'anonymous' follower of this topic has arrived within the last few days?

 

No, I hadn't noticed that, Nigel; I was just speculating on the minor flurry of approval [greenies] for the asinine remark [ post # 549] about how wrong it would be to crowd fund the destruction of the waterways.

 

Parry has undoubtedly had his minions keeping watch for adverse and/or embarrassing comment, and reporting back directly to him from very soon after he slithered into the CEO job.

Shortly after I published those two hilarious E-mails from his Solicitors office -- the invitations to 'cruise' with an unlicensed boat in order to demonstrate my future intent to comply with their Licence T&C's, back in 2014, he included a somewhat pathetic whinge about it in this hypocritical and nauseating E-mail :~

 

 

Dear Mr Dunkley, 22 October 2014

As I think you are very aware, the original enforcement action against you was commenced because you insisted on overstaying at the visitor mooring at Holme Lock rather than mooring at your declared home mooring at Barton in Fabis.

 

We wrote to you on several occasions explaining very clearly that this was a breach of your licence terms and conditions which only permits mooring on the waterway – especially on visitor moorings - for short periods whilst cruising away from your home mooring and urging you to return your boat to its home mooring or to resume cruising. Despite this, you continued to refuse to comply, and this ultimately led to us terminating your licence and then to commence enforcement proceedings to remove your unlicensed vessel from our waterways.

 

The Trust only commences enforcement action as a last resort and, even then, we always try to work with boaters who are the subject of such action to explore ways of avoiding the need to take a case into court. This was why, even after your licence was terminated, we wrote to you offering you the chance to satisfy us that you did intend to cruise whilst away from your home mooring, stopping only for short periods of 14 days or less and not overstaying. The e-mails you refer to were not encouragement for you to remain unlicensed, but were genuine attempts to give you a chance to demonstrate to us that you were prepared to comply with our licence terms and conditions. I find it frustrating that you are so determined to mis-represent our position.

 

After the first court hearing - but before the second directions hearing - you moved your boat from Holme Lock and onto your home mooring at Barton in Fabis (and provided evidence that you had the right to use that as your home mooring), as we had been asking you to do for several months. This demonstrated a willingness on your part to comply with the requirements set out in our terms and conditions which is why we were then prepared to re-issue you with a licence. We therefore chose to discontinue the legal action against you because, as stated above, the Trust does not take matters to court whenever there is an opportunity to avoid it. This is entirely appropriate behaviour for a responsible charitable body looking to avoid the time and costs involved in litigation and seeking to promote a constructive relationship with all those using our waterways.

 

It is disappointing that you waited until the eve of the court proceedings before demonstrating compliant behaviour as an earlier response on your part would have avoided wasting the time and costs that have already been expended. As has been explained to you, we will monitor your boat movements going forward – as we do for any other boat - and if you return to your previous pattern of behaviour (ie overstaying on visitor moorings rather than cruising whilst away from your home mooring), we will have no choice but to re-commence action and this may lead to us terminating your newly-issued licence. I very much hope this doesn’t happen but you will appreciate that we have to treat all customers consistently and we cannot allow any individual boater to persistently breach our terms and conditions without taking action to remedy the position.

 

You seem to take great heart from vilifying the Trust. I am going to continue to ignore such remarks as my only interest is in caring for the waterways and enabling boaters and others to enjoy using them.

 

Regards

Richard Parry

 

Edited September 5, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Chewbacka]

I would guess that some of the finest legal minds in CRT had a hand in writing that e-mail.

Taken on it's own it does seem as if the trust is genuinely trying to avoid action and get you to comply with the Terms & Conditions for using their waterways.

[Mike Todd]

In Poldark last evening there was a scene with P in prison and he was visited by Mr Nasty (forgotten the character's name but is fierce enemy of P) He offered P a 'compromise' deal (with unacceptable terms) and invited him to shake hands on the deal. P turned him down and Mr Nasty then said that that was what he expected. However, he could now earn brownie points with one of the ladies in the case by saying that he had offered a compromise but it was rejected.

[nicknorman]

I would support CRT's efforts to prevent boats with a home mooring from plonking themselves on a visitor mooring for very long periods. It is selfish behaviour and if everyone did it, actually using the waterways for navigation would become very difficult especially on rivers. If they don't actually have the legal power to do this, I hope they acquire it soon.

[Alan de Enfield]

I would support CRT's efforts to prevent boats with a home mooring from plonking themselves on a visitor mooring for very long periods. It is selfish behaviour and if everyone did it, actually using the waterways for navigation would become very difficult especially on rivers. If they don't actually have the legal power to do this, I hope they acquire it soon.

 

I may be mistaken, but I believe that in fact 'visitor mooring' that C&RT referred to was not a C&RT VM, or in fact anything to do with C&RT. It was privately owned and Tony was there with permission.

 

Hopefully Tony will clarify.

[nicknorman]

I may be mistaken, but I believe that in fact 'visitor mooring' that C&RT referred to was not a C&RT VM, or in fact anything to do with C&RT. It was privately owned and Tony was there with permission.

 

Hopefully Tony will clarify.

As I understand it there were 2 conflicts with CRT, the first being Tony's boat spending long periods on the VM, and the second and current one being on the private mooring out of the MNC without a PBC.

[NigelMoore]

This results in the interesting question - If it is not a pleasure boat and it is not a Houseboat, then what is it???

 

That is actually a far better and more revealing question than at first appears.

 

I am elaborating on this for my own sake; trying to articulate the position more clearly in my own mind, in anticipation of future argument [it is a universal element of CaRT’s approach to evictions/seizures].

 

To date, BW/CaRT and judges have looked at the definitions of houseboat and pleasure boat from one skewed viewpoint only – that the statutory definition of each is basically couched in negatives, such that one is not the other, and so that, if a boat does not qualify for the exemptive clause regarding ‘bona fide used for navigation’, it must necessarily be no longer exempt from classification as a houseboat.

 

When one stops to look at the wood for the trees, this becomes recognisable as silly and illogical. Importantly, these two classifications are NOT the only ones. Vessels or structures either floating or fixed within the waterspace may be – according to this Act – either a:

 

(i) pleasure boat;

(ii) houseboat;

(iii) floating or fixed pier or jetty used by pleasure boats;

(iv) mooring stage or pontoon;

(v) tug, or

(vi) goods carrier

 

So looking at the houseboat definition, that can be damn near anything [it does not even have to be any kind of floating construction “whether or not the same shall be used or intended to be used for human habitation” except that any one of four characteristics will disqualify it for the houseboat definition.

 

The fact that a boat may not meet any one or more of the exemptive clauses, does not, however, imply that it must therefore be a houseboat by default – apart from anything else, it could fall into one of the other categories apart from houseboat.

 

One immutable element of the pleasure boat classification is that [unlike the houseboat definition] it will always be a floating vessel. It does not, however, have to have any integral means of propulsion – it does not even have to be designed for human powered propulsion.

 

If then, a boat was not disqualified from the houseboat definition by reason of being no longer navigated for a year or more [supposing that was taken as a valid meaning of the phrase], that does not automatically entail its becoming a houseboat – it could be being used as a mooring stage or pontoon ‘permanently’ fixed to the bank; it could be a tug or goods carrier temporarily out of work for reasons of condition or market forces.

 

Equally, I suggest, the fact that it is no longer navigating being immaterial to whether it is a pleasure boat [by statutory definition of pleasure boat], then even if not navigating it is still not a houseboat and cannot therefore, fall within that category by default. If a pleasure boat cannot be one IF used solely as a houseboat [and never for pleasure], then the houseboat definition must exclude pleasure boats by necessary, corollary implication.

 

Plus, of course, although the houseboat exemptive conditions do not include [as does the pleasure boat definition] any mention of commercial boats, these must necessarily be included amongst boats that are ‘bona fide used for navigation’. So the ‘bona fide used for navigation’ criteria is NOT a pleasure boat definition by default, any more than it is a commercial boat definition by default – it could be any boat designed to navigate, for whatever purpose – for towing other boats or for carrying goods, for fun or for fishing - and whether or not it is engaged in the designed pursuits for lengthy periods of time.

 

Edited September 5, 2016 by NigelMoore

[Geo]

I would support CRT's efforts to prevent boats with a home mooring from plonking themselves on a visitor mooring for very long periods. It is selfish behaviour and if everyone did it, actually using the waterways for navigation would become very difficult especially on rivers. If they don't actually have the legal power to do this, I hope they acquire it soon.

 

As far as I am aware they do not have the legal power at this time. If I remember right it was considered when the 1995 Act was being sorted and Parliament would not grant the power. With that history I suspect it is debatable if Parliament would grant it in this day and age.

[Tony Dunkley]

I would support CRT's efforts to prevent boats with a home mooring from plonking themselves on a visitor mooring for very long periods. It is selfish behaviour and if everyone did it, actually using the waterways for navigation would become very difficult especially on rivers. If they don't actually have the legal power to do this, I hope they acquire it soon.

 

 

I may be mistaken, but I believe that in fact 'visitor mooring' that C&RT referred to was not a C&RT VM, or in fact anything to do with C&RT. It was privately owned and Tony was there with permission.

 

Hopefully Tony will clarify.

 

As I understand it there were 2 conflicts with CRT, the first being Tony's boat spending long periods on the VM, and the second and current one being on the private mooring out of the MNC without a PBC.

 

You're not mistaken, Alan, and in fact, I can truthfully say that the boat in question has never been moored on a Visitor Mooring during the whole time I've owned it.

 

The E-mail below, which originated from the same author as the comedy E-mails referred to in post # 613 above, is clear evidence that at the time of, and prior to, the 2013/2014 difference of opinion with C&RT, they were well aware that my boat was not on the Holme Lock VM's -- when moored it was never other than much further along on C&RT's side of Holme Lock Cut, or up at Meadow Lane Wharf, or in the canal at Lenton, or on the EA owned land adjacent to Colwick Sluices :~

 

10th April 2014

(Sent by post and email)

 

Dear Mr Dunkley

 

Halcyon Daze (Index number 52721)

 

This letter is in response to your email of 6^th March 2014.

 

You asked following question in the email:

“Please advise the precise location of the Visitor Moorings at Holme Lock on the River Trent.

Is it the high length of wall on the South side of the Lock Cut where it is difficult to get on and off from low freeboard vessels, with the exception of the short length of wall at the Western end equipped with Boarding Steps and reserved at all times for the use of the Nottingham based passenger boats, or possibly the low length of wall with the protruding underwater stone ledge, which was declared by British Waterways, on record, to be an unsuitable and unsafe place for loading and unloading boat passengers? Could it be the Environment Agency owned land on the North side of the Lock Cut? “

 

I have attached at the end of this letter a map below showing the boundaries of the visitor mooring.

 

The boundary area for Holme Lock visitor mooring is highlighted in red on the map and on the Low Side as in 100 metres in length. Your boat is presently situated on the High Side which is not within the boundary. However it is still within the waterway for which the Canal and River Trust is the navigational authority. Furthermore throughout the Trust’s waterway network nationally there is a 14 day limit, whether or not specific areas are designated as visitor moorings.

 

Notwithstanding the location of your boat outside of the boundary of the Home Lock visitor mooring, the fact remains that whilst your licence was in force you were not complying with the licence terms and conditions because you were not mooring your boat on the Trust’s waterway for short periods while cruising. Your boat has been overstaying in locations along the waterway owned and managed by the Trust and this includes where your boat is currently located just outside of the boundary of the visitor mooring.

 

Yours sincerely

Thami Nomvete

Solicitor

T: 01908 351930

E: Thami.Nomvete@canalrivertrust.org.uk

____________________________________________

 

Also worthy of note is the fact that some 6 months after this admission that my boat wasn't using the Holme Lock VM's, Parry, in the first paragraph of that load of hypocritical claptrap in post # 613 [22 October 2014 E-mail] was still putting that forward as the primary reason for reluctantly taking legal against me as a measure of 'last resort'.

 

Incidentally, Nick, it's not strictly true to say there 'were two conflicts' with C&RT, . . . their latest legal action to have me abolished, brought about by my refusal to buy a PBC until I need my boat back in commission, is still mired in the initial, pre-directions stages more than a year and an estimated £10,000 - £11,000 of legal expenses after the dispute started.

 

After last week's spectacular High Court coup, when Parry's CWDF mole 'debbifiggy' E-mailed three of Nigel [Moore]'s posts to Shoosmiths as ammunition for their attempts to persuade the Court to exclude him from the proceedings in Leigh Ravenscroft's action, I did wonder if she may repeat the exercise prior to my next hearing in Nottingham.

 

Since the Spring of 2014, Parry and his gangs of enforcers and dubious lawyers have squandered in the region of a total of £26,000 - £27,000 so far in trying, and failing, to rid themselves of me, or more precisely the boat I live on at present, and I'm sure that Shoosmiths would be able to make good use of some of my posts as evidence of my, apparently, undesirable presence on their waterways being such a severe impediment to C&RT's ability to discharge their obligations to,

- "ensure that the inland waterways controlled by CRT are safe, well managed and properly conserved" ?

Edited September 6, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[NigelMoore]

The sealed Order of Chief Master Marsh has just arrived:

https://www.scribd.com/document/323162475/Ravenscroft-v-CaRT-Order-of-Sep-2016

[nicknorman]

The sealed Order of Chief Master Marsh has just arrived:

https://www.scribd.com/document/323162475/Ravenscroft-v-CaRT-Order-of-Sep-2016

 

Says it's not available.

[Alan de Enfield]

Says it's not available.

 

Its all there for me.

 

(Says that C&RTs costs are £81,000)

[Jerra]

Says it's not available.

Opens OK for me.