I am beginning to be concerned

[NigelMoore]

I'm still not clear what this £2k is going to achieve?

 

It is always a good question to ask, and I do not want anyone to labour under any misapprehensions as to what the transcript can be used for.

 

As the solicitor involved has said to me - making the same query – it cannot be used in future cases as any form of precedent, not even as a mildly persuasive ‘steer’.

 

What I have replied is that I am approaching this from a non-legal perspective however. I am not seeking to make any points from obiter dicta, as has been very usefully done with the ‘Guidance’ Judicial Review hearing, and with Mayers; I want to open a window for other boaters into what goes on during trials of this nature, to showcase the authority’s attitude and approach together with any judicial criticism of that approach, and to reveal that CaRT & Shoosmiths are neither above judicial criticism nor invincible.

 

Is it worth it? Well that can’t be known for sure until we have the material, but I strongly suspect that we can make some hay with this. We know three things for sure: first, that a case was brought against a CC’er on the grounds that his boat movements were considered unsatisfactory by the Board; second, that there were two days during which CaRT put their arguments forward with a very capable QC, and had the enforcement officer and others on the stand to give witness to the facts, and third, that despite all that, they dropped the proceedings based on an agreement bought with the price of silence.

 

Not that I am interested in the particulars of the judgment and agreement – but no authority genuinely interested in transparency would seek to cover up such things. There promises to be every indication necessary, within the transcript of proceedings, of quite what led to their decision.

 

CaRT will keep trying to push the envelope, especially with CC’ers – and of course they will expand into more actions against HM’ers [which is what has begun to wake up the majority recently]. It will need more cases to be fought, no doubt [if CaRT continue their present strategy] – but this whip-around is a sign of more general acceptance that as a group, whether affiliated with any organisations or not, boaters of all descriptions can effectively assist with funding [where necessary] any important future cases. It is a precursor of possibilities ahead, so that even where legal aid is impossible, a targeted individual could take some comfort that professional assistance might be engaged.

 

It is despicable and frustrating that CaRT can start cases against individuals, and then back off without prejudicing their position, on seeing things potentially go badly. Obtaining the transcript of these 2 days of proceedings has the potential to achieve three things, therefore: a ) gain propaganda material; b ) demonstrate achievable mass support, and c ) claw back something to CaRT’s disadvantage, instead of allowing them to totally silence what went on. They can silence the details of the outcome, but not the proceedings that led up to that.

 

Legal actions should certainly be taken by CaRT where appropriate and necessary, using the proportionate avenues granted to them; most high profile cases are very far from designed to achieve such legitimate ends of sound management. Legitimate cases would be practically indefensible, as distinct from those that seek approval of creative interpretations of the law. I detect, as I have said, a slight slackening of confidence in their legal might over the last year. Anything that can contribute to further undermining their confidence in bulldozing opposition through the courts, just has to be worthwhile.

[nb Innisfree]

Employ lengthspersons and leave it all in their hands, they can use their judgement as to who is taking the pee and who is playing it straight. If you need to talk to them and you can't find them just nip down to their local, buy them a pint and sort it like human beings. Lengthperson's area can be checked every 3 months or so by an inspector to make sure all is in reasonable order. OK there would be some 'fiddling' going on but as long as it's all kept in order for the inspectors visit then everyone is happy. Let real people sort it.

 

If only.

[NilesMI]

Not sure how caling someone a lengthsperson rather than an enforcement officer turns them from an officious harasser of law abiding boaters into a jolly chap who is happy to arrange things over a pint, though.

[bassplayer]

Employ lengthspersons and leave it all in their hands, they can use their judgement as to who is taking the pee and who is playing it straight. If you need to talk to them and you can't find them just nip down to their local, buy them a pint and sort it like human beings. Lengthperson's area can be checked every 3 months or so by an inspector to make sure all is in reasonable order. OK there would be some 'fiddling' going on but as long as it's all kept in order for the inspectors visit then everyone is happy. Let real people sort it.

If only.

I'm guessing that such reasonable local arrangements already exist. Just go to the right pubs...

 

It's an interesting subject really. I think us humans naturally support those immediately around us, and are perhaps a bit defensive when 'outsiders' come into our locality. Once trust is earn't (maybe over a pint) the outsider is accepted. Is that so wrong?

[nicknorman]

It is always a good question to ask, and I do not want anyone to labour under any misapprehensions as to what the transcript can be used for.

 

As the solicitor involved has said to me - making the same query – it cannot be used in future cases as any form of precedent, not even as a mildly persuasive ‘steer’.

 

What I have replied is that I am approaching this from a non-legal perspective however. I am not seeking to make any points from obiter dicta, as has been very usefully done with the ‘Guidance’ Judicial Review hearing, and with Mayers; I want to open a window for other boaters into what goes on during trials of this nature, to showcase the authority’s attitude and approach together with any judicial criticism of that approach, and to reveal that CaRT & Shoosmiths are neither above judicial criticism nor invincible.

 

Is it worth it? Well that can’t be known for sure until we have the material, but I strongly suspect that we can make some hay with this. We know three things for sure: first, that a case was brought against a CC’er on the grounds that his boat movements were considered unsatisfactory by the Board; second, that there were two days during which CaRT put their arguments forward with a very capable QC, and had the enforcement officer and others on the stand to give witness to the facts, and third, that despite all that, they dropped the proceedings based on an agreement bought with the price of silence.

 

Not that I am interested in the particulars of the judgment and agreement – but no authority genuinely interested in transparency would seek to cover up such things. There promises to be every indication necessary, within the transcript of proceedings, of quite what led to their decision.

 

CaRT will keep trying to push the envelope, especially with CC’ers – and of course they will expand into more actions against HM’ers [which is what has begun to wake up the majority recently]. It will need more cases to be fought, no doubt [if CaRT continue their present strategy] – but this whip-around is a sign of more general acceptance that as a group, whether affiliated with any organisations or not, boaters of all descriptions can effectively assist with funding [where necessary] any important future cases. It is a precursor of possibilities ahead, so that even where legal aid is impossible, a targeted individual could take some comfort that professional assistance might be engaged.

 

It is despicable and frustrating that CaRT can start cases against individuals, and then back off without prejudicing their position, on seeing things potentially go badly. Obtaining the transcript of these 2 days of proceedings has the potential to achieve three things, therefore: a ) gain propaganda material; b ) demonstrate achievable mass support, and c ) claw back something to CaRT’s disadvantage, instead of allowing them to totally silence what went on. They can silence the details of the outcome, but not the proceedings that led up to that.

 

Legal actions should certainly be taken by CaRT where appropriate and necessary, using the proportionate avenues granted to them; most high profile cases are very far from designed to achieve such legitimate ends of sound management. Legitimate cases would be practically indefensible, as distinct from those that seek approval of creative interpretations of the law. I detect, as I have said, a slight slackening of confidence in their legal might over the last year. Anything that can contribute to further undermining their confidence in bulldozing opposition through the courts, just has to be worthwhile.

Thanks Nigel. So once this transcript is obtained, it will be ok to put it in the public domain? Just seems a bit odd that CRT can hide the outcome but not everything that led up to it (from which the outcome can presumably be deduced).

[Richard10002]

 

If I fill the boat with water now and move it.....the boat sitter will use half the water by the time we're back, leaving not enough to get all the way to Manchester at a gentle pace (as the 2 water points along that route no longer work). Bad planning on my behalf, which is why I've asked if I can overstay by 3 days. I could move, but I'd have to turn around again to go get water.....it all get's silly. Asking for the extra 3 days seems the easiest. It's just Murphy's law that where I'm now rightfully asking for permission to overstay, is where they wrongly logged me in the first place. It all becomes silly

 

Under the circumstances, if you have not had permission in writing, (email), and given that you are wrongly on their radar, I would do the inconvenient thing for now. Protestations that CRT are wrong and you have not overstayed anywhere, followed by a formal request to overstay somewhere, would prompt me to keep a very close eye on you, if I were CRT - rightly or wrongly

[bassplayer]

Thanks Nigel. So once this transcript is obtained, it will be ok to put it in the public domain? Just seems a bit odd that CRT can hide the outcome but not everything that led up to it (from which the outcome can presumably be deduced).

I'm just wondering whether bits of the transcript will come back blacked out like we see after some FOI requests. Do they have to provide the transcript unadulterated? What if their client doesn't agree to certain bits being shown due to any pressures which came with the consent order? (sorry if these seem silly questions in advance)

[NigelMoore]

So once this transcript is obtained, it will be ok to put it in the public domain? Just seems a bit odd that CRT can hide the outcome but not everything that led up to it (from which the outcome can presumably be deduced).

 

Yes, it is public domain already, in that all members of the public were entitled to sit in during the proceedings; only certain hearings such as family court matters are exempt from that.

 

We may learn from the proceedings WHY the settlement was reached, but it will tell us nothing of WHAT the settlement entailed – and it really doesn’t matter; it is sufficiently obvious already, from the fact of a settlement agreed under cloak of silence, that CaRT recognised [at the least] a weakness in their case.

 

Parties can agree to keep the result confidential, they cannot demand the public proceedings themselves to be censored.

[NigelMoore]

I'm just wondering whether bits of the transcript will come back blacked out like we see after some FOI requests. Do they have to provide the transcript unadulterated? What if their client doesn't agree to certain bits being shown due to any pressures which came with the consent order? (sorry if these seem silly questions in advance)

 

Nothing silly about the questions.

 

They will not be censored nor redacted in the way you fear; Transcripts of proceedings only, are made from the court recordings, word for word. The parties involved have no standing to ask for redaction.

 

Only transcripts of the judgment [which cannot, in this case, be divulged], are subject to re-writing by the judge. With judgments only, the transcribers send their draft to the judge for approval, and he may well adjust things [i have known them to do so in subtle ways].

[DeanS]

You are making it much harder to retain sympathy with your situation. Now you are actually over staying and it isn't going to help with being on CRTs radar either.

 

I never posted this thread for any sympathy...in fact I could of set myself up big time if the logs had been correct...(my memory wasn't that great...so I was hoping I hadn't stayed somewhere 15 days, and looked like a...***** . Real life needs do mean that I won't be back in time to move the boat by the 14th day, so asking for permission is the right thing to do...no sympathy required I'll be safely back in my marina all winter anyway which will reset their clocks I expect...unless their system retains last years naughtiness into the next and the next....

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

 

CaRT will keep trying to push the envelope, especially with CCers and of course they will expand into more actions against HMers [which is what has begun to wake up the majority recently]. It will need more cases to be fought, no doubt [if CaRT continue their present strategy] but this whip-around is a sign of more general acceptance that as a group, whether affiliated with any organisations or not, boaters of all descriptions can effectively assist with funding [where necessary] any important future cases. It is a precursor of possibilities ahead, so that even where legal aid is impossible, a targeted individual could take some comfort that professional assistance might be engaged.

 

It is despicable and frustrating that CaRT can start cases against individuals, and then back off without prejudicing their position, on seeing things potentially go badly. Obtaining the transcript of these 2 days of proceedings has the potential to achieve three things, therefore: a ) gain propaganda material; b ) demonstrate achievable mass support, and c ) claw back something to CaRTs disadvantage, instead of allowing them to totally silence what went on. They can silence the details of the outcome, but not the proceedings that led up to that.

 

 

Funny you should mention that. In the last 24 hours I have been contacted by a number of boaters asking if I would set up a fund to to support any boater wrongly taken to court one boater offered to kick start the fund with £2,000 Crowd Funding is quite simple now a number of sites offer this now

 

I never posted this thread for any sympathy...in fact I could of set myself up big time if the logs had been correct...(my memory wasn't that great...so I was hoping I hadn't stayed somewhere 15 days, and looked like a...***** . Real life needs do mean that I won't be back in time to move the boat by the 14th day, so asking for permission is the right thing to do...no sympathy required I'll be safely back in my marina all winter anyway which will reset their clocks I expect...unless their system retains last years naughtiness into the next and the next....

It does not reset the clock the same as a ccer who takes a winter mooring there is no reset. It used to be 3 years but I am sure the new management will have extended that

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

It is always a good question to ask, and I do not want anyone to labour under any misapprehensions as to what the transcript can be used for.

 

As the solicitor involved has said to me - making the same query – it cannot be used in future cases as any form of precedent, not even as a mildly persuasive ‘steer’.

 

What I have replied is that I am approaching this from a non-legal perspective however. I am not seeking to make any points from obiter dicta, as has been very usefully done with the ‘Guidance’ Judicial Review hearing, and with Mayers; I want to open a window for other boaters into what goes on during trials of this nature, to showcase the authority’s attitude and approach together with any judicial criticism of that approach, and to reveal that CaRT & Shoosmiths are neither above judicial criticism nor invincible.

 

Is it worth it? Well that can’t be known for sure until we have the material, but I strongly suspect that we can make some hay with this. We know three things for sure: first, that a case was brought against a CC’er on the grounds that his boat movements were considered unsatisfactory by the Board; second, that there were two days during which CaRT put their arguments forward with a very capable QC, and had the enforcement officer and others on the stand to give witness to the facts, and third, that despite all that, they dropped the proceedings based on an agreement bought with the price of silence.

 

Not that I am interested in the particulars of the judgment and agreement – but no authority genuinely interested in transparency would seek to cover up such things. There promises to be every indication necessary, within the transcript of proceedings, of quite what led to their decision.

 

CaRT will keep trying to push the envelope, especially with CC’ers – and of course they will expand into more actions against HM’ers [which is what has begun to wake up the majority recently]. It will need more cases to be fought, no doubt [if CaRT continue their present strategy] – but this whip-around is a sign of more general acceptance that as a group, whether affiliated with any organisations or not, boaters of all descriptions can effectively assist with funding [where necessary] any important future cases. It is a precursor of possibilities ahead, so that even where legal aid is impossible, a targeted individual could take some comfort that professional assistance might be engaged.

 

It is despicable and frustrating that CaRT can start cases against individuals, and then back off without prejudicing their position, on seeing things potentially go badly. Obtaining the transcript of these 2 days of proceedings has the potential to achieve three things, therefore: a ) gain propaganda material; b ) demonstrate achievable mass support, and c ) claw back something to CaRT’s disadvantage, instead of allowing them to totally silence what went on. They can silence the details of the outcome, but not the proceedings that led up to that.

 

Legal actions should certainly be taken by CaRT where appropriate and necessary, using the proportionate avenues granted to them; most high profile cases are very far from designed to achieve such legitimate ends of sound management. Legitimate cases would be practically indefensible, as distinct from those that seek approval of creative interpretations of the law. I detect, as I have said, a slight slackening of confidence in their legal might over the last year. Anything that can contribute to further undermining their confidence in bulldozing opposition through the courts, just has to be worthwhile.

 

In obtaining a transcript, is it possible to find out if another party has obtained one?

 

I ask because, in refusing most of my request for information relating to the case, CaRT were very specific that they had not requested a transcript.

 

 

Edited August 14, 2015 by Allan(nb Albert)

[NilesMI]

And if CRT reply to your request saying that going on holiday/need for water aren't good reasons for overstaying.... Will you overstay, nevertheless?

[cotswoldsman]

And if CRT reply to your request saying that going on holiday/need for water aren't good reasons for overstaying.... Will you overstay, nevertheless?

Just out of interest what law would they use if he did stay an extra week?

[Phil.]

It is always a good question to ask, and I do not want anyone to labour under any misapprehensions as to what the transcript can be used for.

 

As the solicitor involved has said to me - making the same query – it cannot be used in future cases as any form of precedent, not even as a mildly persuasive ‘steer’.

 

What I have replied is that I am approaching this from a non-legal perspective however. I am not seeking to make any points from obiter dicta, as has been very usefully done with the ‘Guidance’ Judicial Review hearing, and with Mayers; I want to open a window for other boaters into what goes on during trials of this nature, to showcase the authority’s attitude and approach together with any judicial criticism of that approach, and to reveal that CaRT & Shoosmiths are neither above judicial criticism nor invincible.

 

Is it worth it? Well that can’t be known for sure until we have the material, but I strongly suspect that we can make some hay with this. We know three things for sure: first, that a case was brought against a CC’er on the grounds that his boat movements were considered unsatisfactory by the Board; second, that there were two days during which CaRT put their arguments forward with a very capable QC, and had the enforcement officer and others on the stand to give witness to the facts, and third, that despite all that, they dropped the proceedings based on an agreement bought with the price of silence.

 

Not that I am interested in the particulars of the judgment and agreement – but no authority genuinely interested in transparency would seek to cover up such things. There promises to be every indication necessary, within the transcript of proceedings, of quite what led to their decision.

 

CaRT will keep trying to push the envelope, especially with CC’ers – and of course they will expand into more actions against HM’ers [which is what has begun to wake up the majority recently]. It will need more cases to be fought, no doubt [if CaRT continue their present strategy] – but this whip-around is a sign of more general acceptance that as a group, whether affiliated with any organisations or not, boaters of all descriptions can effectively assist with funding [where necessary] any important future cases. It is a precursor of possibilities ahead, so that even where legal aid is impossible, a targeted individual could take some comfort that professional assistance might be engaged.

 

It is despicable and frustrating that CaRT can start cases against individuals, and then back off without prejudicing their position, on seeing things potentially go badly. Obtaining the transcript of these 2 days of proceedings has the potential to achieve three things, therefore: a ) gain propaganda material; b ) demonstrate achievable mass support, and c ) claw back something to CaRT’s disadvantage, instead of allowing them to totally silence what went on. They can silence the details of the outcome, but not the proceedings that led up to that.

 

Legal actions should certainly be taken by CaRT where appropriate and necessary, using the proportionate avenues granted to them; most high profile cases are very far from designed to achieve such legitimate ends of sound management. Legitimate cases would be practically indefensible, as distinct from those that seek approval of creative interpretations of the law. I detect, as I have said, a slight slackening of confidence in their legal might over the last year. Anything that can contribute to further undermining their confidence in bulldozing opposition through the courts, just has to be worthwhile.

 

Is the number of cases started and then subsequently halted by CRT known. If the number is very high I would think an application to have CRT ruled as vexatious litigants would be a good move. This would then prevent them from instigating legal actions without first obtaining court permission.

[nicknorman]

Funny you should mention that. In the last 24 hours I have been contacted by a number of boaters asking if I would set up a fund to to support any boater wrongly taken to court one boater offered to kick start the fund with £2,000 Crowd Funding is quite simple now a number of sites offer this now

 

I think raising the money would be the easy bit, the hard bit would be determining which case(s) to support since it would seem unreasonable spending other people's money defending the indefensible. Of course you would get one side of the story, but sometimes in these sorts of cases the boater's version misses out some small but crucial detail. I somehow doubt you would be able to get CRT's side of the story in advance of a trial, and even if you did you would have to have a mini pre-trial trial, probably by social media. Tricky.

[DeanS]

And if CRT reply to your request saying that going on holiday/need for water aren't good reasons for overstaying.... Will you overstay, nevertheless?

 

 

I'll play dumb, like the other boats who've been in this exact location (facing the same direction) for 5 weeks.

Just out of interest what law would they use if he did stay an extra week?

 

the new one they made up

Edited August 14, 2015 by DeanS

[bassplayer]

Is the number of cases started and then subsequently halted by CRT known. If the number is very high I would think an application to have CRT ruled as vexatious litigants would be a good move. This would then prevent them from instigating legal actions without first obtaining court permission.

Interestingly there isn't a big list of vexatious litigants and certainly very few organisations on the list...

 

Maybe money is power!

 

https://www.gov.uk/vexatious-litigants

[nb Innisfree]

I'm guessing that such reasonable local arrangements already exist. Just go to the right pubs...

 

It's an interesting subject really. I think us humans naturally support those immediately around us, and are perhaps a bit defensive when 'outsiders' come into our locality. Once trust is earn't (maybe over a pint) the outsider is accepted. Is that so wrong?

That's all that was available once, now it's called 'empowerment'. Giving people more responsibility has proved to be advantageous, human beings have been very successful up to recent times by being responsible for themselves, human nature hasn't changed so let's go that route.

 

If only.

[Naughty Cal]

 

 

I'll play dumb, like the other boats who've been in this exact location (facing the same direction) for 5 weeks.

 

the new one they made up

So you are quite happy to break the rules as and when it suits you?

 

But you are not happy for CRT to query your cruising pattern when it appears that you have broken the rules?

[Phil.]

Interestingly there isn't a big list of vexatious litigants and certainly very few organisations on the list...

Maybe money is power!https://www.gov.uk/vexatious-litigants

It is correct that courts are reluctant to rule someone as vexatious which is why the list is short. Having said that I am sure not many people truly are. I would suspect that to get an organisation ruled as such it would require a higher threshold which is why I asked if the number of halted cases is known. If it is very high it may be an option.

[bassplayer]

That's all that was available once, now it's called 'empowerment'. Giving people more responsibility has proved to be advantageous, human beings have been very successful up to recent times by being responsible for themselves, human nature hasn't changed so let's go that route.

If only.

...but what would those in H&S, insurance companies, no win no fee companies, some lawyers do instead if we risk taking responsibility ourselves?

[nicknorman]

So you are quite happy to break the rules as and when it suits you?

 

But you are not happy for CRT to query your cruising pattern when it appears that you have broken the rules?

Rules? Possibly, if you accept the Ts and Cs. Law? No, don't forget that in law the 14 day thing only applies to boats without a home mooring.

[DeanS]

So you are quite happy to break the rules as and when it suits you?

 

But you are not happy for CRT to query your cruising pattern when it appears that you have broken the rules?

 

I'm not breaking any laws.

I will slightly ignore the new T&Cs for 3 days (which I haven't actually signed agreement on till my next licence renewal), if they force me to.

Hopefully I won't need to, as I've done the right thing, and asked their permission. (which I really legally don't have to), however I'm trying to be a good person

[jenlyn]

Is the number of cases started and then subsequently halted by CRT known. If the number is very high I would think an application to have CRT ruled as vexatious litigants would be a good move. This would then prevent them from instigating legal actions without first obtaining court permission.

I believe CRT had a very subtle warning about this a while back.