Tadworth versus CRT.

[PaulG]

 

 

Yes it does, because CRT are the only organ likely to demand enforcement of it, and if they consider the terms of it have not been broken, they won't demanding enforcement.

They can choose do do whatever they want, but the fact remains that it is a court of law that would decide what the wording of the CO meant.

[mayalld]

you're either arguing against yourself or you failed to read the quoted email from CRT.

 

I am saying that it would certainly be open to CRT to argue that issuing a 'relevant consent' is not 'prior consent', but that if they choose not to argue that point, then no court is going to contradict them if they say that it is.

 

Whilst I certainly have views on what is and is not morally right here, I won't allow those views to colour my views of what is and is not the legal position.

 

If that means arguing against myself, so be it.

 

That isn't quite what I said, and C&RT themselves have acknowledged that simply obtaining a Licence equates with obtaining 'prior consent, but I'm in complete agreement with the rest of what you've said.

 

 

 

I shall nip out an purchase a frame to put this in!

[CDS]

If CRT agree that the two are the same, then fine. I'd say they were wrong but hey ho doesn't matter. Until it goes to court for some reason and the judge decides that it does matter.

No your wrong

[Tony Dunkley]

 

I shall nip out an purchase a frame to put this in!

 

Having just agreed with MtB for the second time in two days as well, I am becoming a little concerned.

[Athy]

court orders cannot over ride statues as far as I know.

I realise that this is a simple typo, but it does conjure up a delicious mental picture. I am reminded of The Bonzoes' 'The Equestrian Statue'.

[mayalld]

They can choose do do whatever they want, but the fact remains that it is a court of law that would decide what the wording of the CO meant.

 

Yes, the court can, of course, decide what it meant.

 

However, if the court order requires the "prior consent of CRT", and CRT come along and say "we deem that issuing a licence to be prior consent", then that is actually definitive, because they are the party that must give consent, and they have said that this is consent.

[PaulG]

 

Yes, the court can, of course, decide what it meant.

 

However, if the court order requires the "prior consent of CRT", and CRT come along and say "we deem that issuing a licence to be prior consent", then that is actually definitive, because they are the party that must give consent, and they have said that this is consent.

That only works in this case because the other party is unlikely to argue with CRT over this interpretation.

That is not always the case, and in other circumstances the other party may well disagree.

Under the principle of "plain meaning", ( aka literal rule) as applied in English law, if the Judge had intended to mean "obtain a licence", hewould have said so in so many words.

[mayalld]

That only works in this case because the other party is unlikely to argue with CRT over this interpretation.

That is not always the case, and in other circumstances the other party may well disagree.

Under the principle of "plain meaning", ( aka literal rule) as applied in English law, if the Judge had intended to mean "obtain a licence", hewould have said so in so many words.

 

I rather doubt he would, because the law uses the term "relevant consent".

 

If CRT have said "obtaining a licence is our prior consent to bringing a boat back to the waterways", then that is a definitive admission that prior consent has been given.

[PaulG]

 

I rather doubt he would, because the law uses the term "relevant consent".

 

If CRT have said "obtaining a licence is our prior consent to bringing a boat back to the waterways", then that is a definitive admission that prior consent has been given.

He didn't say that, either!

[Tony Dunkley]

 

I rather doubt he would, because the law uses the term "relevant consent".

 

If CRT have said "obtaining a licence is our prior consent to bringing a boat back to the waterways", then that is a definitive admission that prior consent has been given.

 

Here is what they have said, in a C&RT (Enforcement Supervisor) E-mailed letter dated 14 April 2016 :~

 

"However, the injunction does prevent you from bringing Tadworth onto the Trust’s waterways without our prior consent i.e. obtaining a licence from us."

Edited April 20, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Athy]

 

Here is what they have said, in a C&RT (Enforcement Supervisor) E-mailed letter dated 14 April 2016 :~

 

"However, the injunction does prevent you from bringing Tadworth onto the Trust’s waterways without our prior consent i.e. obtaining a licence from us."

I may be slow of study, but I thought that he HAD obtained a licence.

[Mike Todd]

 

Here is what they have said, in a C&RT (Enforcement Supervisor) E-mailed letter dated 14 April 2016 :~

 

"However, the injunction does prevent you from bringing Tadworth onto the Trust’s waterways without our prior consent i.e. obtaining a licence from us."

The fact that this was written by the EO may or may not be absolutely binding on CaRT but if we assume that it is then it does seem to imply that obtaining a licence is evidence that prior consent has been obtained. However, that then brings us to the issue of whether a licence was obtained. It is possible that CaRT will argue that completing an on-line form does not constitute in all cases obtaining a licence - that is they reserve the right to cancel it if issued 'in error' or if some of the information supplied proves incorrect. Still some room to wriggle in this one I suspect.

[MtB]

I may be slow of study, but I thought that he HAD obtained a licence.

 

 

He has, but he obtained it without applying to CRT for the 'prior consent' the court order demands.

But it's all a red herring because CRT say the accept his licence application as forming that application for 'prior consent'.

Anyway the thread has now reached that annoying stage where it is so long that people start asking questions again, that were resolved way back previously.

[CDS]

 

 

He has, but he obtained it without applying to CRT for the 'prior consent' the court order demands.

But it's all a red herring because CRT say the accept his licence application as forming that application for 'prior consent'.

Anyway the thread has now reached that annoying stage where it is so long that people start asking questions again, that were resolved way back previously.

Yes some of you were incredibly slow to accept Onionbargee had done nothing wrong

[John V]

No, he's actually a paragon of tea drinking moral rectitude within the C of E.

 

You mean He doesn't drink tea ?

[onionbargee]

As of close of play today my licence fee has not been refunded, as CRT claimed would happen on the 17 th of March.

[MtB]

As of close of play today my licence fee has not been refunded, as CRT claimed would happen on the 17 th of March.

 

Oh now that's worrying. This suggests your licence HAS been cancelled and the refund is just a matter of administration.

Edited April 21, 2016 by FadeToScarlet

[FadeToScarlet]

As of close of play today my licence fee has not been refunded, as CRT claimed would happen on the 17 th of March.

Could you apply again, in paper form, with photocopies of BSSC, insurance, and mooring agreement/letter from WHH specifying that it is a mooring, accepted by CRT for X number of boats/something like that?

 

Apologies if you have already and I've missed it.

 

Seems like they're putting lots of hoops in your way to jump through- applying on paper, with the supporting evidence showing the boat is safe (BSSC), covered for liability (insurance) and has a mooring, would undermine some of their arguments.

 

Don't send a cheque though......

[costalot]

 

 

Oh now that's worrying. This suggests your licence HAS been cancelled and the refund is just a matter of administration.

 

..... Edited to remove edited content .....

When we changed from a Standard to Gold licence we were due a refund from CRT. We regularly emailed them about progress but it still took almost 4 months to receive the refund. There was no conspiracy on the part of CRT and I would put it down to organisational confusion between departments and personnel.

Edited April 21, 2016 by wrigglefingers

[Hawkmoth]

If, as MtB suggests, onionbargee did deliberately mess CRT about then I can see a certain karma in what they are doing. At the end of the day if they're breaking their own rules then they should be taken to task over it, but it does make for lively debate here.

Bob

Edited April 21, 2016 by wrigglefingers
Edited to remove edited quote

[PaulG]

To be fair, it took me the best part of a month to get the outstanding road tax on a car that I sold refunded by DVLC.

[NigelMoore]

I often wonder whether (given all the time, effort and exposure to potential for financial loss) those that have fought court battles with CRT/BW consider their actions to be worthwhile in the long run

 

Well I do for one.

 

Had I not fought them, I would have lost everything, and those depending on me would have lost their boats.

 

What was unique, so far as I know, is that with us they pressed on with the litigation demanding our expulsion from the waterways, even though the boats remaining after the first year were by then fully licensed. I was not given the choice of: “comply or be evicted”, they just wanted me and everyone associated with me, gone.

 

I do wish it had not been necessary; I will never get back the years and the full costs, and although it has cost BW/CaRT well over a half million [probably] in numerous different angles of attack and consequential pay-outs to other boaters [not me!], they received nothing more than a derisory verbal rap on the knuckles for their general behaviour, and no fall-out at all regarding the criminal offences of which the judgments established they had been guilty for a quarter century.

 

So far as they were concerned, the first judgment was welcomed [although that was the one establishing the criminal offences], and the appeal judgment was derisorily dismissed as being of no import to the majority of their waterways.

 

The case had the value at least, for other boaters, of demonstrating that if you are both right, and sufficiently “obstinate and relentless” [as one judge described me], you can eventually prevail; that the authority can be found to ‘misunderstand’ their own legislation and behave inappropriately in wielding the supposed powers, so that they are not as invincible as they would have us all believe.

 

It was one hell of a roller-coaster ride; I learnt an enormous amount; gained experience in a whole new avenue of life; managed to keep our boats on the waterways, and having accomplished that much, am delighted to see others now prepared to challenge what is necessary to challenge.

 

It is a fair point to make, however, that the “time, effort and exposure to potential for financial loss” must always be borne in mind [even if, as with me, you succeeed in the end], having regard also to the often dubious techniques employed by the opposition, and the inevitable breadth of knowledge, talent and experience they employ in Court. Being right does not guarantee success; going up against a national authority exercising the powers of a public body, the cards will always be stacked against you.

 

[erivers]

 

Well I do for one.

 

Had I not fought them, I would have lost everything, and those depending on me would have lost their boats.

 

What was unique, so far as I know, is that with us they pressed on with the litigation demanding our expulsion from the waterways, even though the boats remaining after the first year were by then fully licensed. I was not given the choice of: “comply or be evicted”, they just wanted me and everyone associated with me, gone.

 

I do wish it had not been necessary; I will never get back the years and the full costs, and although it has cost BW/CaRT well over a half million [probably] in numerous different angles of attack and consequential pay-outs to other boaters [not me!], they received nothing more than a derisory verbal rap on the knuckles for their general behaviour, and no fall-out at all regarding the criminal offences of which the judgments established they had been guilty for a quarter century.

 

So far as they were concerned, the first judgment was welcomed [although that was the one establishing the criminal offences], and the appeal judgment was derisorily dismissed as being of no import to the majority of their waterways.

 

The case had the value at least, for other boaters, of demonstrating that if you are both right, and sufficiently “obstinate and relentless” [as one judge described me], you can eventually prevail; that the authority can be found to ‘misunderstand’ their own legislation and behave inappropriately in wielding the supposed powers, so that they are not as invincible as they would have us all believe.

 

It was one hell of a roller-coaster ride; I learnt an enormous amount; gained experience in a whole new avenue of life; managed to keep our boats on the waterways, and having accomplished that much, am delighted to see others now prepared to challenge what is necessary to challenge.

 

It is a fair point to make, however, that the “time, effort and exposure to potential for financial loss” must always be borne in mind [even if, as with me, you succeeed in the end], having regard also to the often dubious techniques employed by the opposition, and the inevitable breadth of knowledge, talent and experience they employ in Court. Being right does not guarantee success; going up against a national authority exercising the powers of a public body, the cards will always be stacked against you.

 

 

Nigel's view "if you are both right, and sufficiently obstinate and relentless .......etc." has been vividly demonstrated most recently by the High Court appeal judgment in the Environment Agency v Gibbs Hartford Marina 'vessels' case.

 

Necessarily 'obstinate and relentless' perhaps, but I would add the word courageous.

 

BBC Radio Cambridgeshire News Report sound clip

[wrigglefingers]

I have edited a number of posts to remove references to other edited posts and hidden a number of others. Please stay on topic and do not resort to personal attacks on other members.

 

Wrigglefingers

Edited April 21, 2016 by wrigglefingers

[Tony Dunkley]

I may be slow of study, but I thought that he HAD obtained a licence.

 

He has, but C&RT are falsely claiming that within days of issuing the new Licence that they have 'revoked' it because it was issued in 'error'.

 

The relevant quote [ about the 'relevant consent' ] from the same E-mail letter :~

 

"The licence which was issued recently by the Trust was an error because there had not been adequate consideration of all of the circumstances relating to ‘Tadworth’, and that is why it was subsequently revoked."

 

The words 'adequate consideration' are shorthand for :~ Although we were obliged by law to issue you with a new boat Licence, we are sure that we can come up with a plausible sounding reason for not doing so, if we think about it for a bit longer.