Jump to content

Tadworth versus CRT.

onionbargee

By onionbargee
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

Alan de Enfield Veteran II

Alan de Enfield

Posted
Posted

 

The means of applying for a Licence isn't relevant.

The only 'consideration' C&RT can give to any Licence application is to ascertain whether or not the [statutory] requirements of S.17(3) of the '95 Act have been met.

 

That is entirely true - but - a computer does not have the means to ascertain if the conditions are met, that can only be done subsequently by human intervention.

 

(I am solely discussing the 'process' and not the correctness or legality of 'onion bargees' application)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nicknorman Veteran II

nicknormanDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted (edited)

Disagree. A court order can restrict behaviour of one of the parties; or restructure the relationship between two parties. That's what court orders do. They can be appealed.

Yes this seems correct to me. A court order or injunction is a thing in its own right, it is not "attached" to any existing legislation. And thus the language used is not necessarily defined as per some other bit of legislation.

 

As said, if either party were to go to court to claim breach of the injunction or unreasonable refusal to issue a licence post-injunction, the court would decide which way to go and IMO it is not a given that they would solely look to the 95 act for the answer.

 

Of course the bottom line is that, from CRT's point of view, the injunction is badly worded, which I guess is their fault!

Edited by nicknorman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nightwatch Veteran II

NightwatchDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted (edited)

Has the OP had correspondence from anyone else within CRT other than the EO mentioned? It would seem to me that he has acted individually, perhaps incorrectly, and is stubborn enough not to back down.

 

Surely the EO has a superior. Is this person aware of what is happening?

 

If, and I'm not, I was in a similar position, I would be shouting from the rooftops in the direction of senior CRT management until such time as I get an answer either way. Yes, I would seek support from such people that could be of help, but I would want a solution ASAP so that I can get on with my life.

 

I also believe, the money in CRTs coffers is not forthcoming as that would then add to the incorrect action of the EO. There seems to be more history to this than some of us are aware of. Arbitration? Is that available? Meet with CRT? Will CRT definitely siege the boat if it's on its jouney to a hard standing 100 miles away?

Edited by Nightwatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted

 

Disagree. A court order can restrict behaviour of one of the parties; or restructure the relationship between two parties. That's what court orders do. They can be appealed.

 

True, but Court Orders cannot, under any circumstances, amend or overrule statute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nicknorman Veteran II

nicknormanDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted (edited)

True, but Court Orders cannot, under any circumstances, amend or overrule statute.

Do you have a definitive source for that statement? And are we saying that a court order is identical to an injunction? And if not what exactly did Tad receive, a court order, or an injunction?

Edited by nicknorman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phil. Gongoozler

Phil.

Posted
Posted

Only just read the latest threads but I am afraid Nick has it. The terms ' relevant consent ' and ' prior consent ' in legal speak are worlds apart and therefore CRT can assume prior consent means asking them first, unless and until that assumption is challenged in court. All the discussions about the rights and wrongs on this forum won't matter a jot.

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

jenlyn

Posted
Posted

Do you have a definitive source for that statement? And are we saying that a court order is identical to an injunction? And if not what exactly did Tad receive, a court order, or an injunction?

The ones I have been shown are court orders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MtB Veteran II

MtBDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

Wowsers! ..... there's a point to this thread?

 

 

Yes. Although it just looks on the face of it like the OP having an impotent moan, there is more to it than that.

 

The real purpose is to publicly air, rehearse and stress-test the arguments on each side.

 

This will be enormously helpful to both the OP and CRT, who are presumably both reading this thread.

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Athy Veteran II

AthyDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

Will CRT definitely siege the boat?

That conjures up a vivid mental image of CART employees, in their chain mail armour, loading big stones into their waterside ballistas as Tadworth approaches. Have they used this tactic before? It does sound rather excessive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jenlyn Veteran II

jenlyn

Posted
Posted

That conjures up a vivid mental image of CART employees, in their chain mail armour, loading big stones into their waterside ballistas as Tadworth approaches. Have they used this tactic before? It does sound rather excessive.

Dare I mention "Lillie"? (

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul C Veteran II

Paul C

Posted
Posted

The licence is in fact irrelevant, although CRT may further pursue its cancellation if they don't like the mooring or the boat. There is a valid court order that prevents canon7578 entering CRT waters without CRT's prior consent (which he does not have....because its different to a licence) and if he even nudges the nose of the boat onto their canal for 1 second, they can (in theory) take him back to court for breaching the court order.

 

So, their 2014 email was in fact spot on, because canon7578s licence is the most expensive piece of loo roll in the world, because even with it he can't use CRTs waters. Thus his application was "not appropriate at this time". They can't prevent him from applying, merely advise beforehand its not appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted (edited)

Only just read the latest threads but I am afraid Nick has it. The terms ' relevant consent ' and ' prior consent ' in legal speak are worlds apart and therefore CRT can assume prior consent means asking them first, unless and until that assumption is challenged in court. All the discussions about the rights and wrongs on this forum won't matter a jot.

 

I don't doubt that it would be possible to argue distinctions between 'prior' and 'relevant' consent from now until Domesday, but that isn't what C&RT are doing.

 

They haven't at any point in this dispute claimed that buying a Licence before bringing a boat on to their waters is not obtaining 'prior consent', but they have confirmed in an E-mailed letter that 'prior consent' equates with obtaining a Licence.

 

Last Thursday, 14 April 2016, they changed tack, abandoning their initial objections to issuing a new Licence on the grounds that they had had gone to a lot of trouble to obtain a Court Order/Injunction to remove the vessel from their waters in 2013 and it would therefore be 'inappropriate' for them to issue a new Licence, and, despite the fact that 'Tadworth' has a newly issued BSSC, then resorting to quibbling about whether or not 'Tadworth' is 'safe for navigation', and questioning the 'availability' of the mooring the boat is currently occupying.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FadeToScarlet Veteran

FadeToScarlet

Posted
Posted

Dare I mention "Lillie"? (

I can imagine the scene.

 

"Lo! Earl Lillie of Pillings! Verily you owe unto His Majesty Parry I and his CouRT your tribute money, to allow your serfs, peasants and vassals to cross His Majesty's land."

 

"Sire, I shall pay unto you all that is due... Next year. Or maybe the year after that. His Majesty shall.receive all that is owed within three winters, anyway."

 

"Well, Earl Lillie, the year has passed and winter we have seen. When shall we see your tribute in coins of gold?"

 

"Erm... I have few coins of gold [frantically hides brand new gilded carriage] with which to pay what His Majesty asks.... It's unfair!"

 

"Unfair? Prithee, why so?"

 

"Erm... Erm... He doesn't pay!"

 

"Ah, but the Duke of Weedon enjoys favour from His Majesty, for verily His Majesty's own father did not count the Duke's demesne as part of his kingdom. Your fiefdom is new. Now, pay up, or I shall send in my Knights."

 

"It's still unfair! You're taxing me for empty houses! I have no serfs and peasants to put in them! It's not my fault that I built so many, expecting the serfs and peasants to fill them, when they did not!"

 

"It must be your charming personality! Anyway, all you have to do is remove the door from each hovel. Then it will not be charged for."

 

"Can't. Shan't. You're charging me too much."

 

"Well, in that case, we shall besiege your castle."

 

"Unfair!"

 

"Tough. Pay His Majesty your tribute."

 

"I can't! It's His Majesty's fault I have no coin of gold to pay!"

 

"Your own father, with whom you did struggle for control of the castle, disagrees. Anyway, pay up or we shall send in the seige towers!"

 

"Erm...

Erm....

 

Erm...

 

I'm not here! I'm not the Earl! He is!"

 

"But that is your teenage pageboy! He can't be Earl!"

 

"He is! This is the Earl of Rollins, he's in charge now!"

 

"That Earl's council are exactly the same as yours."

 

"So they are. Oh well."

 

"Well, we shall return after a winter has passed, to have furnished upon us what you owe to His Majesty."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mayalld Veteran II

mayalld

Posted
Posted

I can imagine the scene.

 

"Lo! Earl Lillie of Pillings! Verily you owe unto His Majesty Parry I and his CouRT your tribute money, to allow your serfs, peasants and vassals to cross His Majesty's land."

 

"Sire, I shall pay unto you all that is due... Next year. Or maybe the year after that. His Majesty shall.receive all that is owed within three winters, anyway."

 

"Well, Earl Lillie, the year has passed and winter we have seen. When shall we see your tribute in coins of gold?"

 

"Erm... I have few coins of gold [frantically hides brand new gilded carriage] with which to pay what His Majesty asks.... It's unfair!"

 

"Unfair? Prithee, why so?"

 

"Erm... Erm... He doesn't pay!"

 

"Ah, but the Duke of Weedon enjoys favour from His Majesty, for verily His Majesty's own father did not count the Duke's demesne as part of his kingdom. Your fiefdom is new. Now, pay up, or I shall send in my Knights."

 

"It's still unfair! You're taxing me for empty houses! I have no serfs and peasants to put in them! It's not my fault that I built so many, expecting the serfs and peasants to fill them, when they did not!"

 

"It must be your charming personality! Anyway, all you have to do is remove the door from each hovel. Then it will not be charged for."

 

"Can't. Shan't. You're charging me too much."

 

"Well, in that case, we shall besiege your castle."

 

"Unfair!"

 

"Tough. Pay His Majesty your tribute."

 

"I can't! It's His Majesty's fault I have no coin of gold to pay!"

 

"Your own father, with whom you did struggle for control of the castle, disagrees. Anyway, pay up or we shall send in the seige towers!"

 

"Erm...

Erm....

 

Erm...

 

I'm not here! I'm not the Earl! He is!"

 

"But that is your teenage pageboy! He can't be Earl!"

 

"He is! This is the Earl of Rollins, he's in charge now!"

 

"That Earl's council are exactly the same as yours."

 

"So they are. Oh well."

 

"Well, we shall return after a winter has passed, to have furnished upon us what you owe to His Majesty."

 

If only we could greenie a mod!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan(nb Albert) Veteran

Allan(nb Albert)

Posted
Posted

The licence is in fact irrelevant, although CRT may further pursue its cancellation if they don't like the mooring or the boat. There is a valid court order that prevents canon7578 entering CRT waters without CRT's prior consent (which he does not have....because its different to a licence) and if he even nudges the nose of the boat onto their canal for 1 second, they can (in theory) take him back to court for breaching the court order.

 

So, their 2014 email was in fact spot on, because canon7578s licence is the most expensive piece of loo roll in the world, because even with it he can't use CRTs waters. Thus his application was "not appropriate at this time". They can't prevent him from applying, merely advise beforehand its not appropriate.

By providing him with a licence they have given prior consent as required by the court order.

They maintain that was a mistake and are scratching round for reasons to justify revoking it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul C Veteran II

Paul C

Posted
Posted

By providing him with a licence they have given prior consent as required by the court order.

They maintain that was a mistake and are scratching round for reasons to justify revoking it.

 

 

 

No - read #286, #288, #290, #310 and others. The licence is RELEVANT consent, not PRIOR consent and they are vastly different things.

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.