Jump to content

CRT v Andy Wingfield Update


Featured Posts

Dunno if domestic pre pay meters are different?

 

All of our meters across 4 sites at work have been replaced over the last 15 years.

 

 

I have a feeling a smart meter is my only hope of quickly getting rid of the single rate meter in our house, that's a whole other can of worms!

Ours is a bog standard pay when you have used the electricity domestic meter.

 

I was wondering if this push for smart meters would allow you to request a replacement and not have to pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ours is a bog standard pay when you have used the electricity domestic meter.

 

I was wondering if this push for smart meters would allow you to request a replacement and not have to pay.

Sorry,I meant as in pre pay (card)

meters need replacing sooner than pay on receipt of bill (credit) meters such as you and I both have.

 

A pre pay meter is a pain, especially when you run out of credit and have already pressed the emergency credit button (usually happens late at night...!!)

 

Feeding it cards from the corner shop was an utter nuisance!

 

I haven't looked into smart meters yet, it's on the to do list though.

Edited by gazza
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ours is a bog standard pay when you have used the electricity domestic meter.

 

I was wondering if this push for smart meters would allow you to request a replacement and not have to pay.

Heard on the radio recently that smart meters can, in certain cases, make it almost impossible to switch suppliers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard on the radio recently that smart meters can, in certain cases, make it almost impossible to switch suppliers

Not true, although the first generation of Smart meters were tied to the original supplier it is only the tariff related info that is lost. What happens is that when you switch suppliers you can still read the kWh used, but the cost of the energy used reads zero.

 

I know this because I have changed suppliers a couple of times whilst retaining the same Smart meter.

 

The government is in the process of paying the energy companies to change all of the Smart meters already in use, and those not yet on Smart meters to new "universal" ones, because the department responsible didn't specify that one's from different companies must be compatible. Doh!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Another reference to use Tony – the draft 2010 Byelaws:

Vessels not to be sunk, grounded or adrift

26. (1) No person shall deliberately or negligently cause or permit any vessel to:

( a ) turn adrift on a waterway or shall unnecessarily cast off, cut loose, or interfere with any mooring or rope or fastening of any vessel;

( b ) run aground or sink in any waterway
.
(2) The master of a vessel which has become adrift on a waterway shall take appropriate steps to bring the vessel under control.

(3) This Byelaw does not apply to a person who lays by a vessel on a river waterway by beaching or grounding the vessel in such a way :

(i) as not to cause any obstruction or danger to navigation; or
(ii) in the event of an emergency to save life or take a damaged vessel clear of the main navigation channel.
[my bold]

The wording is a bit odd, as the otherwise learned Mr Johnson appears here to differentiate between “main navigable channel” and “river waterway”, but perhaps the explanation lies in the fact that he didn’t draft these byelaws himself, and appears not to have even cast his eye over them to approve them. He was evidently content to just accept his £50k bonus for having his staff do it all for him. [The relevant expression is, of course, slightly different in using 'navigation' in lieu of 'navigable', so it is just possible that I am being too picky.]

Still – it does show recognition that a damaged boat may be guided out of the main navigation channel so that it gets beached or sunk with minimal navigational obstruction. One cannot, somehow, visualise a troubled boat being beached or grounded under such circumstances in an adjacent watercourse, separated by land from the water along which it had been proceeding. It should be a useful illustration of the consistency with which BW demonstrated their historical understanding of the term.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It scarcely seems credible, even for the zealous Mr Garner, but from phone calls I have received today, it appears that one elderly gentleman has received a letter from Mr Garner threatening to come down this Friday to seize his fully ‘licensed’ boat on his own private mooring on the river Trent, because he has refused to pay an EoG demand. In light of the long-published EoG Informative by BW, acknowledging that on these rivers BW/CaRT have no right to payment for such moorings, the claimed scenario beggars belief.

 

Even IF, which BW themselves denied, they had the right to demand such a mooring fee, there is absolutely NO legislation authorising seizure of boats for any such alleged debt. I await copies of the relevant correspondence with breathless anticipation; IF what I have been told is true, it will be grist for the mill in Tony’s and Leigh’s case in terms of demonstrating the loose cannon that is this particular enforcement officer, operating under the specific warm approval of the CEO.

 

But it cannot be real, surely?

  • Greenie 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another reference to use Tony – the draft 2010 Byelaws:

 

 

Thanks for that info, Nigel, . . . I wasn't aware of that draft.

 

It scarcely seems credible, even for the zealous Mr Garner, but from phone calls I have received today, it appears that one elderly gentleman has received a letter from Mr Garner threatening to come down this Friday to seize his fully ‘licensed’ boat on his own private mooring on the river Trent, because he has refused to pay an EoG demand. In light of the long-published EoG Informative by BW, acknowledging that on these rivers BW/CaRT have no right to payment for such moorings, the claimed scenario beggars belief.

 

Even IF, which BW themselves denied, they had the right to demand such a mooring fee, there is absolutely NO legislation authorising seizure of boats for any such alleged debt. I await copies of the relevant correspondence with breathless anticipation; IF what I have been told is true, it will be grist for the mill in Tony’s and Leigh’s case in terms of demonstrating the loose cannon that is this particular enforcement officer, operating under the specific warm approval of the CEO.

 

But it cannot be real, surely?

 

If this really is about to happen, then it is almost beyond belief that C&RT are about to embark on yet another ill-advised and illegal pantomime involving the same criminal offences committed when they seized and removed Leigh's boat from it's mooring at Farndon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another item of interest Tony – did you read the “Interpretation” section 4? They decided, even back then, to cover ALL “relevant consents” by the term “licence”! Paving the way for the present usage no doubt.

“licence” means a licence or any other relevant consent issued in
respect of any vessel allowing the use of the vessel on any
waterway;

“licence disc” means any form of written evidence of a relevant
consent intended for display on the vessel;

“licensed vessel” means a vessel in respect of which there is in
force any relevant consent;


For all his faults, Johnson had a real gift for long-term forward thinking and planning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this really is about to happen, then it is almost beyond belief that C&RT are about to embark on yet another ill-advised and illegal pantomime involving the same criminal offences committed when they seized and removed Leigh's boat from it's mooring at Farndon.

 

Well it is not going to happen now.

 

I still have not seen the correspondence - apparently the chap concerned is still bed-ridden with angina – but I have been told that his brother who owns the mooring wants nothing more to do with the hassle and plans to sell the land, and it was arranged that the boat be removed to a private marina near Stoke-on-Trent, to avoid the threatened seizure tomorrow.

 

All a bit bizarre.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that cart's position in respect of the extent of the MNC effectively usurps the power to repeal the PRC

 

Assuming that you meant to refer to the pleasure boat certificate rather than the people’s republic of China, how do you arrive at this? I may be missing something here perhaps.

 

I do not see that they are deprived of the power to revoke a PBC, as per the provisions of the 1995 Act, regardless of the extent of the MNC.

 

An interesting point arises, though – what is the point of revoking a PBC, if, as I and Tony argue, that cannot legitimise use of s.8? The answer seems clear enough to me, and is [or ought to be] the same for any relevant consent – it enables prosecution for the offence of not having the relevant consent.

 

The Court may legitimately order compliance with the breached statutory regulations in order to enable issue of the relevant consent, whereas it cannot legitimately order removal from a public right of navigation.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming that you meant to refer to the pleasure boat certificate rather than the people’s republic of China, how do you arrive at this? I may be missing something here perhaps.

 

I do not see that they are deprived of the power to revoke a PBC, as per the provisions of the 1995 Act, regardless of the extent of the MNC.

 

An interesting point arises, though – what is the point of revoking a PBC, if, as I and Tony argue, that cannot legitimise use of s.8? The answer seems clear enough to me, and is [or ought to be] the same for any relevant consent – it enables prosecution for the offence of not having the relevant consent.

 

The Court may legitimately order compliance with the breached statutory regulations in order to enable issue of the relevant consent, whereas it cannot legitimately order removal from a public right of navigation.

 

Big screw up on my part. I meant the PRN. We apologise for any inconvenience etc etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

Another item for your file Tony, regarding use of the term 'main navigable channel' as CaRT wish it to be understood [in this context alone of course]: -

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1965/1193/schedule/made

 

The 1965 legislation drawn up by BW, when wanting to describe what CaRT now wish MNC to describe, does NOT use that term [already familiar to them having been used in the byelaws of the same year], but instead describes: -

 

"that length of the river Trent which is below a line drawn across the river 330 yards above the west side of Cavendish Bridge at Shardlow in the county of Derby, excluding, save as otherwise expressly provided by this Schedule, their artificial cuts and other connected watercourses."

 

Fits the bill perfectly does it not? If that was what BW had wanted to descrbe as the area to be subject to boat registration, they had a useful template already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another item for your file Tony, regarding use of the term 'main navigable channel' as CaRT wish it to be understood [in this context alone of course]: -

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1965/1193/schedule/made

 

Fits the bill perfectly does it not? If that was what BW had wanted to descrbe as the area to be subject to boat registration, they had a useful template already.

 

Doesn't it just, . . . . thanks for that, Nigel.

Are you forwarding it to Mr Stoner, or leaving that for "debbifiggy" to do ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you forwarding it to Mr Stoner, or leaving that for "debbifiggy" to do ?

 

I would not want to deprive a lady of gainful employment.

 

By the way, yet another item for your file of authorities should be the Board Minutes of 1964, which I quoted from in the other topic. Note paragraph 65 –

 

The Board’s powers to require pleasure craft to be licensed on some of the river navigations – including the Lee, Stort, Severn and Trent – are limited by the existence of public rights of navigation [they conveniently ignored that PRN’s still subsisted, then, over ALL their waterways, and claimed pleasure boat licences on canals were compulsory!]. Pleasure craft owners do not require a licence to operate in such cases: but to pass through locks they must be in possession of a valid licence or lock pass or pay the relevant lockage charges.”

 

http://files.whatdotheyknow.com/request/boards_annual_report_for_1964/1964_BWB_Annual_Report.pdf

 

It remains true even today of course, except that the 1971 registration requirement was imposed some 7 years later, with the Board being somewhat piqued at the restrictions on their powers to charge. They complained that the statutory situation on the rivers “is not altogether satisfactory”, concluding that “This is a policy matter on which the Board may be obliged to make proposals at the appropriate time.” They did not let much time pass by before doing just that.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

To add to C&RT and Shoosmiths' growing misery after the hi-jacking of the "Planet" Lightship in Liverpool, they had to write to me today asking for my co-operation in signing a Consent Order to stay proceedings in their latest Section 8 attempt on me.

 

They may be in for yet more disappointment !

 

_________________________________

 

Our Ref LVG/M-00253260 Date 5 October 2016

 

Dear Sir,

 

CANAL & RIVER TRUST -V- ANTHONY DUNKLEY

CRAFT “HALCYON DAZE” INDEX NUMBER: 52721

CLAIM NUMBER: C10NG401

DIRECTIONS HEARING IN THE COUNTY COURT AT NOTTINGHAM ON 17 OCTOBER 2016 at 10.00AM

 

We refer to the above matter which is listed for a Directions hearing at the County Court at Nottingham on 17 October 2016. In light of the contents of your Defence, of which we have still not received a signed copy, we propose that your case be stayed pending the outcome of the case of Leigh Ravenscroft -v- Canal & River Trust (Case HC-2015-001905) listed for trial in the High Court on 15 May 2017 and any subsequent appeal.

 

As you are aware, in this case the Court will give judgment on the meaning of ‘main navigable channel’ for the purposes of the British Waterways Act 1971, and determination of this will affect the outcome of your case. To this end we enclose a consent order for your consideration. In the event that you are in agreement with the terms therein please sign and return the order to us so that we can lodge it with the Court ahead of the hearing on 17 October 2016, saving costs of attendance at the hearing and Court Time.

 

We suggest that you obtain independent legal advice on the content of this letter.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Shoosmiths LLP

Edited by Tony Dunkley
  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

. . . we propose that your case be stayed pending the outcome of the case of Leigh Ravenscroft -v- Canal & River Trust . . .

 

It is more than a little ridiculous. There is nothing new that has arisen of which they were not fully aware from before they even served the s.8 Notice on you.

 

This makes it so obvious that they prematurely served you with the s.8, and with filing suit in the County Court, hoping that their efforts to have Leigh’s case thrown out would succeed, and that only now that a date has been set, have they finally given up such hope.

 

Rather then agreeing to a Consent Order for adjournment, might it not be possible to move instead for a Strike-Out for abuse of process or something similar? They were fully aware from your earlier case that the grounds you would rely on were the same as R v CaRT after all.

 

That is not a positive recommendation, just noting a potential possibility.

 

 

 

edit to add: might there not even be a case for having the Claim against you declared vexatious, under the circumstances?

 

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is more than a little ridiculous. There is nothing new that has arisen of which they were not fully aware from before they even served the s.8 Notice on you.

 

This makes it so obvious that they prematurely served you with the s.8, and with filing suit in the County Court, hoping that their efforts to have Leighs case thrown out would succeed, and that only now that a date has been set, have they finally given up such hope.

 

Rather then agreeing to a Consent Order for adjournment, might it not be possible to move instead for a Strike-Out for abuse of process or something similar? They were fully aware from your earlier case that the grounds you would rely on were the same as R v CaRT after all.

 

That is not a positive recommendation, just noting a potential possibility.

 

 

 

edit to add: might there not even be a case for having the Claim against you declared vexatious, under the circumstances?

 

Why bother when he fully intends to buy a licence and halt proceedings anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why bother when he fully intends to buy a licence and halt proceedings anyway?

 

mellow.png

 

Because he might find it fun to ring the changes?

 

 

edit to add: quite seriously though, that planned tactic of Tony’s only serves to illustrate the folly of using s.8 where that is inappropriate.

 

Applying for a licence gets out from under the s.8 regime [or should – it didn’t in my case] but it could not possibly allow one to escape from the mandated recourse to the Magistrates Court, for the offence of having evaded a boat licence or certificate when needed.

 

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why bother when he fully intends to buy a licence and halt proceedings anyway?

 

Another one of your way off target and incorrect assumptions, . . . I've absolutely no intention of buying a Licence at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 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.