Tadworth versus CRT.

[Theo]

I have been off line for a bit so I am a bit rusty with this topic. I would have thought that the discussion has moved on from Tadworth v. CRT. Would it be better to split the later discussion off as a different topic?

 

Just a thought. On the train ATM so I might, or might not, be able to respond quickly.

 

Theo.

[KenK]

Don't you get a receipt?

 

I suppose there may be a question about the validity of moorings if a mooring operator for example leases a section of a river which is not under CRT control but connects directly to CRT water (a feeder). Perhaps it is an industrial area not suitable for a normal marina.

 

Say for example there is room for 50 boats in there beside the treatment works or whatever. If CRT then find they have 80 boats claiming to be moored there it could potentially lead them to believing that there is abuse of the "home mooring" part of the licensing requirements. It is an obvious loophole and definitely opwn to abuse.

My boat is currently in exactly the scenario above although it is a normal marina and is currently unlicensed, although C&RT are aware and are in agreement that it is lawful. Marina holds about forty boats depending on length.

 

Ken

[onionbargee]

 

It would be a very unsafe assumption indeed.

 

I simply observe that there was a question asked of OB that he is avoiding answering, preferring instead to just launch into a different tack.

 

I am very happy to continue the original argument, but OB seems to want out.

Calm down dear, there's no need to get all uptight, have a cold glass of Vimto, and sit in the shade for a while.

[Alan Taylor]

So if sec 8 allows them to remove boat. What exactly are they allowed to do with the boat as you say they can't take possession or hold it as lien. What exactly does the court order say they can or have to do with the boat. There must be something about what the order allows after boat is removed.

You seem somewhat confused about the content of a Section 8 order.

[valrene9600]

You seem somewhat confused about the content of a Section 8 order.

If so you have done nothing to help any confusion I might be having.

[onionbargee]

An update on the original post.

 

While CRT have said they will grant me another licence for Tadworth i havent actually got it yet, i called the person responsible today but the phone was hung up on me as soon as the call was transfered to the enforcement office, so we are up to 86 days since they cancelled, revoked, or withheld ( they are not sure which ) my legally valid licence on the 17th March.

[Paul C]

An update on the original post.

 

While CRT have said they will grant me another licence for Tadworth i havent actually got it yet, i called the person responsible today but the phone was hung up on me as soon as the call was transfered to the enforcement office, so we are up to 86 days since they cancelled, revoked, or withheld ( they are not sure which ) my legally valid licence on the 17th March.

 

Did they never send the original, or the PDF to print it out?

[Tony Dunkley]

So if sec 8 allows them to remove boat. What exactly are they allowed to do with the boat as you say they can't take possession or hold it as lien. What exactly does the court order say they can or have to do with the boat. There must be something about what the order allows after boat is removed.

 

Section 8(1) of the 1983 BW Act defines a " relevant craft " as ' any vessel which is sunk, stranded or abandoned in any inland waterway', or 'left or moored therein without lawful authority'.

 

Section 8(2) of the 1983 Act empowers C&RT to 'remove any relevant craft after giving not less than 28 days notice to the owner'.

 

Section 8(3) of the 1983 Act limits C&RT to recovering ONLY expenses incurred in 'the removal, storage or destruction of the relevant craft', or 'the removal or storage of any furniture, tackle and apparel of the relevant craft, or any cargo, goods, chattels and effects on board the relevant craft', or 'marking, watching, buoying or otherwise controlling the relevant craft'.

 

The Orders, that C&RT waste so much time and money obtaining, merely confirm that they have the right to exercise the above statutory powers if the owner fails to remove the unlicensed vessel, specify a date by which the owner must remove the unlicensed vessel, and [in the form of an Injunction] elevate the severity and the consequences of returning the vessel to C&RT waters, without first buying a Licence or PBC, to being 'contempt of Court' rather than simply the minor criminal offence, punishable by means of a fine, that keeping or using an unlicensed boat already is in statute and byelaw.

 

This is precisely why using Section 8 powers to deal with unlicensed boats, with a known and contactable owner, is so utterly pointless and ineffective, . . . the Orders/Injunctions can be nullified on the day they are made, simply by buying a Licence or PBC.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[onionbargee]

 

Did they never send the original, or the PDF to print it out?

Yes, the latter.

[onionbargee]

 

This is precisely why using Section 8 powers to deal with unlicensed boats, with a known and contactable owner, is so utterly pointless and ineffective,[/b][/u] . . . the Orders/Injunctions can be nullified on the day they are made, simply by buying a Licence or PBC.

In theory, I found the practice quite different !

[Tony Dunkley]

In theory, I found the practice quite different !

 

You nullified the 2013 Order on the day you bought the Licence for 'Tadworth' back in February, and it was that uncomfortable truth that led C&RT, in the form of the local Enforcement Supervisor to resort to any means they could think of, blatant lying included, to attempt to convince you that the Order made in 2013 had the effect of permanently excluding you from their waters, at their discretion.

 

The fatal flaws in their thoroughly dishonest intimidation and boat thieving strategy have had some very publicly exposure, and they have nobody but themselves to blame.

If they had simply left you in peace with your new LIcence it's unlikely that more than a very few would have taken much notice, or realized the implications for all the other past, and future, recipients of their pointless Orders.

But C&RT seem to be quite incapable of learning anything from all their blunders, and true to past form, they've shot themselves in the foot yet again.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[magnetman]

 

You nullified the 2013 Order on the day you bought the Licence for 'Tadworth' back in February, and it was that uncomfortable truth that led C&RT, in the form of the local Enforcement Supervisor to resort to any means they could think of, blatant lying included, to attempt to convince you that the Order made in 2013 had the effect of permanently excluding you from their waters, at their discretion.

 

The fatal flaw in their stupid and dishonest strategy has now been very publicly exposed, and they have nobody but themselves to blame.

If they had simply left you in peace with your new LIcence it's unlikely that more than a very few would have taken much notice, or realized the implications for all the other past, and future, recipients of their pointless Orders.

But C&RT seem to be quite incapable of learning anything from all their blunders, and true to past form, they've shot themselves in the foot yet again.

Yes but if CRT were originally designed to fail ie a temporary solution to the problem of managing the inland waterways then it makes sense that they would do things to hasten their own demise.

 

This is a bit conspiratorial sorry !! I don't think CRT will be around for long personally.

[onionbargee]

 

You nullified the 2013 Order on the day you bought the Licence for 'Tadworth' back in February, and it was that uncomfortable truth that led C&RT, in the form of the local Enforcement Supervisor to resort to any means they could think of, blatant lying included, to attempt to convince you that the Order made in 2013 had the effect of permanently excluding you from their waters, at their discretion.

 

The fatal flaw in their stupid and dishonest strategy has now been very publicly exposed, and they have nobody but themselves to blame.

If they had simply left you in peace with your new LIcence it's unlikely that more than a very few would have taken much notice, or realized the implications for all the other past, and future, recipients of their pointless Orders.

But C&RT seem to be quite incapable of learning anything from all their blunders, and true to past form, they've shot themselves in the foot yet again.

I think they owe me some compensation for unlawfully preventing me from licencing and using my boat.

[Paul G2]

An update on the original post.

 

While CRT have said they will grant me another licence for Tadworth i havent actually got it yet, i called the person responsible today but the phone was hung up on me as soon as the call was transfered to the enforcement office, so we are up to 86 days since they cancelled, revoked, or withheld ( they are not sure which ) my legally valid licence on the 17th March.

 

I may be a wrong as can be, but I'm going to hazard a guess about what is going to happen next. Nothing!

 

If CRT sends you a new license now, it would be an admission that they somehow cocked-up in regards to the first license they sent you. If they just now take the position, "We already sent you a license, it's valid, use it and quit being a thorn in our side.", then they can just pretend like the last three months never happened.

 

I can see CRT saying something like, "Tadworth had a license. There was a misunderstanding about the license issue but we never prevented Tadworth from navigating. We tried to resolve the issue as quickly and amicably as we could, but it was difficult because Tadworth's owner was uncooperative."

 

Time will tell.....

[HaulierP]

Yes but if CRT were originally designed to fail ie a temporary solution to the problem of managing the inland waterways then it makes sense that they would do things to hasten their own demise.

 

This is a bit conspiratorial sorry !! I don't think CRT will be around for long personally.

I absolutely can find no sense in your opening sentence,though I agree with your last one,for CRT,read Railtrack.

I think the problem is that some staff employed there don't understand that they are largely governed by Statute

as regards what they can and can't do.They seem incapable of reading and understanding and then interpreting

the relevant statute and when their deficiency is pointed out they introduce the Big Stick.

We as Boaters simply can't just shrug our shoulders and say "well lets not rock the Boat because if we do, CRT may

introduce something more draconian" this is England after all,laws are there to both protect individuals and preserve

public order,you can't cherry pick which ones you obey or ignore

[HaulierP]

I think they owe me some compensation for unlawfully preventing me from licencing and using my boat.

I don't know where you go with that and what advice you have been given,the situation is hardly Chelsea Football Club.

I think as a token gesture CRT should be offering to perhaps pay your Mooring Fees for the time they forced your incapacitation

so to speak,some on here would perhaps even argue against that,to them I would say,there is plenty of money being wasted

with Shoosmiths,in fact I would argue that CRT could perhaps salvage some positive PR by being magnanimous towards you.

Something along the lines of " we are a young organisation,we get it wrong occasionally,but when we do,we hold up our hands

and put matters right " Utopian perhaps?well this is how I would salvage some credibility if I were CRT.

[onionbargee]

 

I can see CRT saying something like, "Tadworth had a license. There was a misunderstanding about the license issue but we never prevented Tadworth from navigating. We tried to resolve the issue as quickly and amicably as we could, but it was difficult because Tadworth's owner was uncooperative."

 

Time will tell.....

None of that is true of course.

 

 

They

[magnetman]

Have you been censored ?

[NigelMoore]

In theory, I found the practice quite different !

 

And do not let us forget that the ‘bbb’ principle is effective, as demonstrated with ‘Gilgie’ and others.

 

The three boats originally involved in my case that obtained licences within a month of receiving s.8’s were nonetheless pursued through the courts for years, with the High Court ending up affirming that those s.8’s were legitimate and enforceable – even where such licences were agreed to be not required in the first place.

 

Post the quashing of that decision it is probably unlikely that CaRT would attempt to proceed with future s.8’s once a licence was obtained, but as Leigh’s case has demonstrated, it is not beyond the cheek of their legal department to try failed arguments on again for size.

 

[onionbargee]

 

You nullified the 2013 Order on the day you bought the Licence for 'Tadworth' back in February, and it was that uncomfortable truth that led C&RT, in the form of the local Enforcement Supervisor to resort to any means they could think of, blatant lying included, to attempt to convince you that the Order made in 2013 had the effect of permanently excluding you from their waters, at their discretion.

 

The fatal flaws in their thoroughly dishonest intimidation and boat thieving strategy have had some very publicly exposure, and they have nobody but themselves to blame.

If they had simply left you in peace with your new LIcence it's unlikely that more than a very few would have taken much notice, or realized the implications for all the other past, and future, recipients of their pointless Orders.

But C&RT seem to be quite incapable of learning anything from all their blunders, and true to past form, they've shot themselves in the foot yet again.

Is it an offence to misrepresent a court order ?

 

Or threaten its use after it has been "nullified" ? Ie threatening to seize Tadworth after my licence had been issued ?

[onionbargee]

I don't know where you go with that and what advice you have been given,the situation is hardly Chelsea Football Club.

I think as a token gesture CRT should be offering to perhaps pay your Mooring Fees for the time they forced your incapacitation

so to speak,some on here would perhaps even argue against that,to them I would say,there is plenty of money being wasted

with Shoosmiths,in fact I would argue that CRT could perhaps salvage some positive PR by being magnanimous towards you.

Something along the lines of " we are a young organisation,we get it wrong occasionally,but when we do,we hold up our hands

and put matters right " Utopian perhaps?well this is how I would salvage some credibility if I were CRT.

Magnanimous won't cut it this time. They lied about their statutory powers, and prevented me from using my boat for two and a half years, cancelled my valid licence without any lawful reason, misusing a previous court order as a basis to threaten me with unlawful seizure of my boat. ( theft )

[Tony Dunkley]

To follow up on what Nigel has said in post #694 :~

 

It is undeniable that C&RT exist and operate in a world of their own, with little or no connection to reality, truth, or anything resembling even common decency.

 

The Section 8 procedure is certainly their favoured enforcement 'tool', despite never being intended for the use to which it has latterly been put by both BW and C&RT.

 

It is lengthy, costly and, if responded to appropriately, in Shoosmiths own words [when discontinuing legal action against me in 2014] ultimately "worthless and academic".

Incredible as it may seem, those very words were used by C&RT/Shoosmiths in an Application [to Discontinue] to Nottingham County Court which consisted mainly of whingeing about how C&RT's legal action had been wrecked because I had filed a Defence and bought a new PBC for my boat AFTER they had issued the Claim.

 

The 1983 Act did NOT confer any powers whatsoever to remove boats from the waterways for alleged [or proven] breaches of Licence T&C's, NOR does it empower them to take possession of a vessel with the intention of selling it, if the owner is known to them and wishes to reclaim it, and NOR does it provide for the recovery of alleged, or proven, debt in the form of unpaid Licence/PBC fees.

 

The following selection of lies and mis-information, published with the intention of intimidating boaters into complying with unenforceable T&C's, is currently to be found on the C&RT website.

It is interesting to note the complete absence of the 2013 Order with regard to 'Tadworth' [the one that was the basis for all the recent lies and nonsense] from the list of Court Orders they publish on the same part of the website.

 

Our main tool for enforcement is the power for the Canal & River Trust to 'section 8' unlicensed boats. This relates to powers given in the British Waterways Act 1983 (and transferred to the Canal & River Trust) and allows us to remove boats from the waterway if they are there without our permission or persistently in breach of our licence terms and conditions – including not having a licence.

If a boat is also someone's home, we take the added precaution before exercising these powers to get a court order to remove the boat from the waterway.

Once we've removed the boat we can either sell it or, if it is of little value, we may destroy it. We have first claim on any sale proceeds which we use to recover outstanding fees and to cover our costs of taking enforcement action.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Paul G2]

None of that is true of course.

 

 

They

 

I never said it was true, just that it is what CRT might come up with in regards to admitting the license they issued for this year is good. The two years before - ????

[Tony Dunkley]

Is it an offence to misrepresent a court order ?

 

Or threaten its use after it has been "nullified" ? Ie threatening to seize Tadworth after my licence had been issued ?

 

It wouldn't be an 'offence' in the normally accepted sense of the word, but it could be argued to be a contempt of Court, although it would probably be more trouble than it would be worth to pursue the matter.

[HaulierP]

 

It wouldn't be an 'offence' in the normally accepted sense of the word, but it could be argued to be a contempt of Court, although it would probably be more trouble than it would be worth to pursue the matter.

Is there in your opinion Tony,any mileage to be gained from pursuing matters further,is there any historical precedent and

what is realistically achievable ?