CRT Licence / Marina Mooring?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

Those who are empowered to take possession of goods to sell in order to pay court ordered sums, can legally only be authorised officers of the court as per the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Commonly known as bailiffs.

 

There are many more private firms operating who use ‘persuasion’ rather than court ordered confiscation, relying on pure bluff that they are qualified and authorised bailiffs, operating under sealed enforcement orders. Those frauds are more likely to go for the 'easy pickings', in part of course because they cannot get anywhere with those in the know.

These people have the Authorisation of the Court but they do not have to be employed by the Court, which is why our Magistrates Courts put their outstanding fines out to private Debt Collection Agencies. From the Act you refer to (Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007) section 63 (5) defines someone who has an exemption enabling them to execute some warrants as "..For the purposes of an enforcement power conferred by a warrant, an individual is exempt if in relation to the warrant he is a civilian enforcement officer, as defined in section 125A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43).....".

 

The Magistrates Courts Act 1980, Section 125 then lists those who have authority to execute such warrants as;-

 

1)A warrant to which section 125A(1) above applies may also be executed anywhere in England and Wales—

 

(a)by an individual who is an approved enforcement agency;

 

(b)by a director of a company which is an approved enforcement agency;

 

©by a partner in a partnership which is an approved enforcement agency; or

 

(d)by an employee of an approved enforcement agency who is authorised in writing by the agency to execute warrants.

 

 

None of these are employed by the Court. They act under the authorisation of the Court, but none of the Magistrates Courts I had any dealings with had their own bailiffs. It is possible that large cities (London, Manchester, Birmingham,etc) might employ a Court Bailiff but I've never met one.

..

[NigelMoore]

None of these are employed by the Court. They act under the authorisation of the Court . . .

..

 

I am not arguing with you over this, in case you imagined I was. You asked what I meant by "specialised court officers" and I clarified that I meant "authorised officers of the court" as per the 2007 Act in the context of taking control of goods.

 

Anyone acting under authority of the court is an officer of the court. Who pays his wages is immaterial; in this context the vital characteristic is that he is approved by the court to take appropriate action enforcing court orders. He is part of the administration of justice.

 

Not all those individuals and/or firms purporting to be either authorised court officers &/or acting on court enforcement orders are genuine.

 

You do not need even to be acting as some sort of approved bailiff to be an officer of the court; anyone authorised in any way to participate in the administration of justice - and consequently bearing a responsibility to the court to act accordingly - is an officer of the court subject to its discipline.

 

Again, who pays their wages [if at all] is immaterial; perhaps I am missing something obvious?

[NigelMoore]

I would agree that is the theory of it, the practice of it is somewhat different. There are numerous (thousands) of occasions when the Magistrate issues fines which they are, at the time of imposition, well aware that the defendant isn't going to pay. The same goes for the 'victim surcharge' (another form of taxation). You can forget about the prison option, that is never going to happen given the current state of UK prisons. The magistrate may well make an order for a variety of things, doesn't mean that it is actually going to happen though, and from my experience the 'man of straw' is basically exempt from punishment for minor infractions of the law.

 

In what way is any of that different from the civil action process?

 

Every one of the Part 8 Civil claims brought by CaRT for s.8 approval involves Orders for costs averaging around £1,000, with the threat of imprisonment for non-compliance with the Order, all of which give the boater the opportunity to remove the boat from CaRT’s jurisdiction themselves.

 

How would that be any more enforceable than the criminal case outcome?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

In what way is any of that different from the civil action process?

 

Every one of the Part 8 Civil claims brought by CaRT for s.8 approval involves Orders for costs averaging around £1,000, with the threat of imprisonment for non-compliance with the Order, all of which give the boater the opportunity to remove the boat from CaRT’s jurisdiction themselves.

 

How would that be any more enforceable than the criminal case outcome?

It is clearly no more enforceable than the criminal case but from a pragmatic approach, once the boat is off CRT waters, either by the boater removing it themselves or CRT removing it, it is no longer CRT's problem.

 

The tendency to go for the Civil Law approach isn't exclusive to CRT. In my view rather unethically, some Police Forces are using Civil Law and private law firms instead of prosecution

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/14/police-to-hire-law-firms-to-tackle-cyber-criminals-in-radical-pilot-project

 

as critics of the scheme have highlighted, there is a lower standard of proof before a Civil Court, which might also explain CRT's preference to use it.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Wanderer Vagabond

[NigelMoore]

as critics of the scheme have highlighted, there is a lower standard of proof before a Civil Court, which might also explain CRT's preference to use it.

 

That is certainly a plausible rationale. Especially because CaRT do not set out in their civil s.8 cases to prove anything at all. The whole point of and basis of using the Part 8 procedure is that there is no and can be no dispute over the relevant facts.

 

All CaRT need to do in such cases is establish their statutory power to remove boats present on their waterways without lawful authority; and present the undisputed fact that [for whatever reason] the boat in question is present on their waterways without the requisite lawful authority. Case closed.

 

It is little wonder that they used to boast of never having lost a s.8 case; the majority are undefended anyway. Of the successful cases listed on CaRT’s website, 27 out of 38 never even saw the defendants attend court.

 

I still find it bizarre that they do not seek to enforce the licence in place of getting rid of the boat; it seems to have occurred to only a very few judges to suggest giving the boater a chance to do what was necessary to get the licence. It is unfortunate that the Orders published give no clue as to whether the absence of a licence was down to evasion, or due to CaRT revoking it.

 

There would be no possibility of defence against evasion, and I rather think that in all instances where a defence was mounted objecting to reasons for revocation, judgments would be handed down on the point raised in defence. This was true in Davies, Ward and Wingfield – and obiter in Mayers. So I rather think all the rest listed are cases of simple evasion as claimed in the stats CaRT quote.

 

For such cases, the facts are such that the burden of proof would be readily met in either venue.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

That is certainly a plausible rationale. Especially because CaRT do not set out in their civil s.8 cases to prove anything at all. The whole point of and basis of using the Part 8 procedure is that there is no and can be no dispute over the relevant facts.

 

All CaRT need to do in such cases is establish their statutory power to remove boats present on their waterways without lawful authority; and present the undisputed fact that [for whatever reason] the boat in question is present on their waterways without the requisite lawful authority. Case closed.

 

It is little wonder that they used to boast of never having lost a s.8 case; the majority are undefended anyway. Of the successful cases listed on CaRT’s website, 27 out of 38 never even saw the defendants attend court.

 

I still find it bizarre that they do not seek to enforce the licence in place of getting rid of the boat; it seems to have occurred to only a very few judges to suggest giving the boater a chance to do what was necessary to get the licence. It is unfortunate that the Orders published give no clue as to whether the absence of a licence was down to evasion, or due to CaRT revoking it.

 

There would be no possibility of defence against evasion, and I rather think that in all instances where a defence was mounted objecting to reasons for revocation, judgments would be handed down on the point raised in defence. This was true in Davies, Ward and Wingfield – and obiter in Mayers. So I rather think all the rest listed are cases of simple evasion as claimed in the stats CaRT quote.

 

For such cases, the facts are such that the burden of proof would be readily met in either venue.

I'm, not sure that I find it so bizarre since residential landlords do it all of the time. If they have a tenant who doesn't pay the rent for whatever reason the first line of approach is to evict them and replace them with someone who will pay the rent. They may then try to recover the shortfall in rent, depending on whether it will be a worthwhile exercise (whether it is likely to cost them more than they are likely to recover). These are the rather harsh facts in today's rental market.

 

Whilst CRT are not a landlord in the same sense, the payment for a licence shouldn't be a surprise for any boater and if they have shown a predilection for not buying one there is the probability that, even if allowed to buy one now, if financially strapped in the future, the payment for the licence will be one of the first victims when they have to make cutbacks. I presume CRT pre-empt his by removing them from the waterways. This is of course only relevant to the licence dodgers, not those who have had their licences revoked for whatever reason.

[NigelMoore]

The problem with that is that unlike landlords, CaRT do NOT have any power to prevent a fresh application for a licence, and are obliged to issue one if the mandatory conditions are met and the boater coughs up for the year in advance same as everyone else.

 

As with Tony Dunkley’s first case, getting a licence just before the court date rendered the s.8 exercise worthless. Anyone can re-apply at any time, and CaRT cannot legally refuse a legitimate paid application, despite having just gone through the expensive throes of civil action to toss them out; they can’t keep them out.

 

This is where we are paralleling the Injunctive Relief thread where these points of debate more properly belong.

Edited January 3, 2017 by NigelMoore

[Nyx]

Whilst the subject of the CRT licence is being discussed, I have noted that there is no mention of CRT's plans to restructure the licence fees next year. Should we be worried?

[Mike Todd]

The problem with that is that unlike landlords, CaRT do NOT have any power to prevent a fresh application for a licence, and are obliged to issue one if the mandatory conditions are met and the boater coughs up for the year in advance same as everyone else.

 

As with Tony Dunkley’s first case, getting a licence just before the court date rendered the s.8 exercise worthless. Anyone can re-apply at any time, and CaRT cannot legally refuse a legitimate paid application, despite having just gone through the expensive throes of civil action to toss them out; they can’t keep them out.

 

This is where we are paralleling the Injunctive Relief thread where these points of debate more properly belong.

Unless they do have one of the legitimate reasons for refusal. In particular, if the preceding dispute had been about non compliance with No Home Mooring requirements, then the Board may not 'be satisfied ' and hence be entitled not to issue a licence.

[MtB]

Whilst the subject of the CRT licence is being discussed, I have noted that there is no mention of CRT's plans to restructure the licence fees next year. Should we be worried?

 

 

Only if you have a widebeam.

 

Widebeam licences costing the same as a narrowboat length for length must be one of CRTs biggest failings when it comes to missing a trick for revenue raising.

[NigelMoore]

Unless they do have one of the legitimate reasons for refusal.

 

“if the mandatory conditions are met” / “CaRT cannot legally refuse a legitimate paid application” . . .

 

Where in that do “legitimate reasons for refusal” enter the picture?

[MtB]

 

“if the mandatory conditions are met” / “CaRT cannot legally refuse a legitimate paid application” . . .

 

Where in that do “legitimate reasons for refusal” enter the picture?

 

 

The board not being 'satisfied' that, well, y'know....?

Edited January 3, 2017 by Mike the Boilerman

[NigelMoore]

 

 

The board not being 'satisfied' that, well, y'know....?

 

I confess to being slightly shocked MtB. You cannot be suggesting that CaRT would NOT be satisfied with “a legitimate paid application” where “mandatory conditions are met”?

[MtB]

 

I confess to being slightly shocked MtB. You cannot be suggesting that CaRT would NOT be satisfied with “a legitimate paid application” where “mandatory conditions are met”?

 

 

Maybe I need to read the act again but from (probably flawed) memory, the board must be satisfied the the bote will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence. Past performance may well be an indication of future performance, to paraphrase something or other...

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

Maybe I need to read the act again but from (probably flawed) memory, the board must be satisfied the the bote will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence. Past performance may well be an indication of future performance, to paraphrase something or other...

 

(4)If—

 

(a)(subject to subsection (6) below) the vessel does not comply with the standards applicable to the vessel on the date when the consent was granted; or

 

(an insurance policy is not in force in respect of the vessel; or

 

©either—

 

(i)(in the case of a vessel in respect of which a relevant consent is issued pursuant to subsection (3) © (i) above) it appears to the Board that a mooring or other place such as is referred to in subsection (3) © (i) above is not available for the vessel; or

 

(ii)(in the case of a vessel in respect of which a relevant consent is issued pursuant to subsection (3) © (ii) above) the vessel has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation in accordance with the said subsection (3) © (ii);

[NigelMoore]

Missing my point slightly, but I will not belabour it.

Edited January 3, 2017 by NigelMoore

[Alan de Enfield]

Missing my point slightly, but I will not belabour it.

 

I'm with you :

 

"If all the mandatory conditions have been met"

 

Then there are no conditions that are not met.

If the conditions are 'met' then the board has no option but to be satisfied.

 

If, for example, the boater has failed to 'CC' then the 'mandatory conditions' have not been met, and the board are not satisfied

[NigelMoore]

Precisement

Edited January 3, 2017 by NigelMoore

[MtB]

I'm probably just illustrating the flawed thinking of the apocryphal man on the Clapham omniboat.

[Mike Todd]

“if the mandatory conditions are met” / “CaRT cannot legally refuse a legitimate paid application” . . .

 

Where in that do “legitimate reasons for refusal” enter the picture?

I could also have mentioned not having BSS or insurance or having a boat that the Board believe to be a safety hazard.

[NigelMoore]

I'm probably just illustrating the flawed thinking of the apocryphal man on the Clapham omniboat.

 

You don’t cop out that way; the thinking of the Clapham Omnibus man was not flawed; His thinking was judicially held to be superior to minds distorted by years of bar-trained legalism.

 

Nope; you were just not thinking period. Another glass of that nice stuff and the brain will mellow out and be less prone to jumping in without pause for thought.

 

p.s. I am still attempting my own brand of brain relaxing via use of that little oak cask – but for some reason the evaporative rate needs severer control.

[thebfg]

I could also have mentioned not having BSS or insurance or having a boat that the Board believe to be a safety hazard.

But as said. If any of those were the case then the mandatory conditions would NOT of been met.

 

If all the conditions were met then they would have insurance, bss and a home mooring or cc correctly.

Edited January 4, 2017 by thebfg

[Mike Todd]

But as said. If any of those were the case then the mandatory conditions would NOT of been met.

 

 

 

If all the conditions were met then they would have insurance, bss and a home mooring or cc correctly.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

[RobertBrooks]

CRT being unsatisfied with the boaters constant cruising record only entitles them to refuse a licence without a home mooring.

 

The fact that you need no proof of identity to apply for a licence or obtain a BSS or insurance means CRT have no idea who is applying for what.

[thebfg]

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

the question was

if the mandatory conditions are met.

Edited January 5, 2017 by thebfg