Jump to content

So What To Do Now?

kris88

By kris88
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

NilesMI Community Regular

NilesMI

Posted
Posted

on the face of it such a wording would seem to be following the spirit of the current guidance while also being very clear as to what is required and where exclusions may apply in exceptional circumstances.

 

I'm quite happy with the current Act which provides the right to stay in any one place for up to 14 days, but thereafter is dependant upon the circumstances.

 

Just as the criminal law allows me to use reasonable force against someone, if I am being attacked or to prevent harm to others, it is a good law because it allows that which is reasonable in the particular circumstances which apply to me at the time. There have been endless debates about the use of force and what the law does and doesn't "allow", but every suggestion which attempts to make the law more clear, simply ends up making it more proscriptive and therefore, not such a good law, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted

Tony (Dunkley)'s projected sequence of events and timescales mirror, pretty well what happened to him, as I recall. However I would be quite wary of assuming that it would apply to Kris, should he face a section 8 situation if/when CRT decline to renew his licence.

 

Firstly, Tony had a much stronger case against CRT denying him the licence and if it had gone to a judgement, CRT may well have lost outright, or at least had to concede they had not acted reasonably. The fact they did issue Tony with a licence as and when he re-applied my well have been due to their desire to see the case settled, rather than a signal that this course of action is a means by which any and every boater can avoid the consequences of a section 8. Also, as I recall, the licence Tony obtained was for a boat with a home mooring, so the issue pertinent to Kris's boat; whether he should be denied a licence without a mome mooring because of his past cruising pattern, did not apply.

 

Secondly, since Tony had his experience, the goalposts have moved. CRT now has new guidance for boats licenced without a home mooring and they are applying a new process to renewals in cases where (according to them) the boat has not complied with the new guidance. The letter quoted in the OP makes it clear that because, in their words, his boat has hardly moved during the current licence period, they would normally refuse to grant Kris a new licence. But the letter goes on to say that in such circumstances, their new procedure is to issue a licence for 3 months, again, in their words "to give those who barely move the chance to establish an acceptable cruising pattern" and that if that is not demonstrated they will only issue a new licence if the boat has a home mooring. CRT will argue that issuing the 3 month probationary licence is not the same as saying that they are satisfied that the boat will be used bona fide, etc. They are specifically saying that they have not been satisfied and will remain unsatisfied unless the boater demonstrates that they are using the boat bona fide, etc.

 

Thirdly, should Kris be denied a CC licence at the end of the 3 month period, yet keeps his boat on CRT water and enforcement proceeds to a section 8, the supposed get out clause which Tony suggests is open to Kris - applying for a licence for his boat with a home mooring - is the very one which is open to him now and Kris has been rejecting all along.

 

 

It is not about having a "reasonable excuse".

 

What the Act says is that a boat may not be left for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

It is whether the extended length of time is reasonable, not whether the cause for staying is reasonable. And, in the end, it is a judge who decides what is and isn't reasonable, based on the law as it's written, any precendents created by higher courts and the facts of the individual case.

 

Your assessment and summary of C&RT's unsuccessful action against me is short of much relevant and factual information.

 

As to your assertion that what is, or is not, reasonable will be decided by a Judge, that is in reality far from what does actually happen.

It is C&RT's greatest desire to exclude what is laid down in the 1995 Act from any Court proceedings because the Act is very clear on their powers to refuse or revoke Licences and it is far from helpful to them in their unlawful attempts to remove boats from the waterways. Because of this they prefer to misuse sections of other Acts, namely S.13 of the 1971 Act and S.8 of the 1983 Act, to an end and purpose never intended for that particular legislation, whilst at the same time using devious tactics in the service of Court papers and inappropriate Court procedures such as CPR Part 8 in attempts to avoid the matter being subjected to any kind of Hearing at all except for a ten minute 'rubber stamping' procedure at which the Judge is led to believe that the Application for a Declaration and Injunction is nothing more than an uncontested formality.

Fortunately for the individuals who are the targets of C&RT's abuse of due process, the abuse itself puts C&RT in a very weak position, provided that the intended victim knows how to make good use of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted

Your probably right about the timescale. Just like everything else in this country things drag on for ages. Perhaps action should have started at 3 months or less if an settlement could not be made.

Why crt would be scuppered at the end I find strange. If I get summoned for speeding it won't get thrown out of court because I don't speed anymore.

 

Because in pursuing a Section 8 action C&RT aren't issuing a Summons to be answered in a Magistrates Court, they will be making an Application (to a County Court) for a Declaration and Injunction. As both the Application and the grounds upon which it is made ( unlicensed boat at a specific location) are so specific, due to the legislation that C&RT now use for pseudo- legalised theft being intended originally by Parliament simply to enable BW to remove derelict and abandoned boats with unknown owners, if you move the boat to a different location, best of all a home mooring, you can then apply for a Licence and C&RT cannot lawfully refuse to issue one. From the moment the Licence is issued, the Declaration and Injunction Application becomes groundless and worthless, and C&RT have no option but to discontinue the legal action at their own (additional) expense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DHutch Veteran II

DHutchDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

The type, age, condition and value of the vessel are irrelevant to CRT.

 

Unless its under a grand, in which case I think they still have a policy of crushing it onsite rather than reselling it, if its section 8'ed.

 

 

Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NilesMI Community Regular

NilesMI

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

Your assessment and summary of C&RT's unsuccessful action against me is short of much relevant and factual information.

 

As to your assertion that what is, or is not, reasonable will be decided by a Judge, that is in reality far from what does actually happen.

It is C&RT's greatest desire to exclude what is laid down in the 1995 Act from any Court proceedings because the Act is very clear on their powers to refuse or revoke Licences and it is far from helpful to them in their unlawful attempts to remove boats from the waterways. Because of this they prefer to misuse sections of other Acts, namely S.13 of the 1971 Act and S.8 of the 1983 Act, to an end and purpose never intended for that particular legislation, whilst at the same time using devious tactics in the service of Court papers and inappropriate Court procedures such as CPR Part 8 in attempts to avoid the matter being subjected to any kind of Hearing at all except for a ten minute 'rubber stamping' procedure at which the Judge is led to believe that the Application for a Declaration and Injunction is nothing more than an uncontested formality.

Fortunately for the individuals who are the targets of C&RT's abuse of due process, the abuse itself puts C&RT in a very weak position, provided that the intended victim knows how to make good use of it.

 

Well it is factually correct to say that it's a judge who decides.... but only if he is allowed to. And it's in that regard where, as I see it, boaters in dispute with CRT generally fail to understand the situation, which is, I agree, as you describe.

 

The whole point of hiring expensive lawyers is to use whatever means are at your disposal to prevent a judge making a judgement against you. If you happen to have the facts of the case on your side, that's quite good, but if not and can use procedural means, you do that. If you can prevent the other party presenting his evidence, you do that. If you concede an argument in the Crown Court to prevent a ruling being made on the very same point in the High Court, you do that. And so on... But if you are CRT, mainly you use the fact that generally you can spend more money on the case than the other party can and grind them down to the point they cannot fight any more.

 

CRT are not uniquely bad in this regard. People who have relatives who had suffered awful treatment as NHS patients and wound up fighting them in court could cite far, far worse than misuse of the Civil Procedures rules or the Waterways Act by their lawyers.

 

Tony, you were right to fight and I'm glad that you won in respect of obtaining a licence for your boat. But in another sense CRT won because they didn't get a ruling made against them on the contested point(s). Tactically, it was a score draw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
valrene9600 Experienced

valrene9600

Posted
Posted

Because in pursuing a Section 8 action C&RT aren't issuing a Summons to be answered in a Magistrates Court, they will be making an Application (to a County Court) for a Declaration and Injunction. As both the Application and the grounds upon which it is made ( unlicensed boat at a specific location) are so specific, due to the legislation that C&RT now use for pseudo- legalised theft being intended originally by Parliament simply to enable BW to remove derelict and abandoned boats with unknown owners, if you move the boat to a different location, best of all a home mooring, you can then apply for a Licence and C&RT cannot lawfully refuse to issue one. From the moment the Licence is issued, the Declaration and Injunction Application becomes groundless and worthless, and C&RT have no option but to discontinue the legal action at their own (additional) expense.

Beginning to get my head around all this. I have decided it would be wise to avoid conflict with crt.

Thanks for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted

Beginning to get my head around all this. I have decided it would be wise to avoid conflict with crt.

Thanks for that.

 

That's certainly the best plan, provided of course that they give you that option.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Arthur Marshall Veteran II

Arthur Marshall

Posted
Posted

The crucial thing in any argument with officialdom is to at least appear to remain calm. Kris's response to anything seems to default to aggression which is not helpful, either in his relations with CRT or, in fact, people on this forum, most of who started out, at least, on his side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bassplayer Influencer

bassplayer

Posted
Posted

The crucial thing in any argument with officialdom is to at least appear to remain calm. Kris's response to anything seems to default to aggression which is not helpful, either in his relations with CRT or, in fact, people on this forum, most of who started out, at least, on his side.

I don't see Kris's responses as aggressive, maybe tongue in cheek...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gazza Veteran

gazza

Posted
Posted

It is perhaps I should haved used the word frustrated instead of bored.

 

Careful, get told off for being off topic.

:)

 

It wasn't the off topic that was the problem, it was the nasty bile posted by one particular person that caused the zapping of some posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.