Tadworth versus CRT.

[Paul C]

round and round and round and round and round.....

 

I know, its frustrating when certain posters play a game with misinformation, rather than properly engaging in debate and moving it forwards.

[BMC problems]

I'm glad we got there in the end, although it does seem your answers are somewhat inconsistent - at first suggesting you don't know the answer, then later in the day quoting the case of BW vs Ward.

 

Which leads to the original question I asked a while ago - given that the court order doesn't bar you from re-applying, why you? What's the actual issue here? We've so far heard "its not safe" and "the mooring isn't satisfactory". Are either or both of these the line CRT are using to cancel the licence? Is there anything unsafe about the boat (given that BSS is, notwithstanding a licence requirement, actually pretty meaningless when it comes down to assessing safety on a day other than the BSS examination date)? Is there anything unusual about the mooring, or the operator of the mooring, or the size of the mooring vs the number of boats moored there, etc etc

 

it seems a little unclear why you have your teeth into this man so hard. Do you have history or something?

 

Your first sentence. It is obvious through reading this thread that Tony, Richard and Nigel know about George but want to know about any others as this can be used to build up a bigger picture of CRT's intentions to boats under court orders.

 

Your second, seems simply to echo the OP's questions so I don't understand why you repeat them so aggressively to him. He, from his posts, is as anxious as you appear to be to have these answers.

 

I find this behaviour disturbing from a site moderator. What is the point of moderating if you are going to be so aggressive yourself?

 

I know, its frustrating when certain posters play a game with misinformation, rather than properly engaging in debate and moving it forwards.

 

Exactly. The pot calls the kettle black.

[NigelMoore]

So where can I see a copy of such an Order? The OP in this thread seems remarkably reluctant to show us the actual content of the order against him.

 

You can see many of them [virtually all standard wording] on CaRT's website -

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/the-publication-scheme/our-publication-scheme/court-action-to-remove-boats-from-our-waterways

 

Click on the blue highlighted "Court Order Obtained" to see one.

 

e.g. the latest there published: -

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/27195-court-order-for-alexandra-essery.pdf

[onionbargee]

Deleted post.

Edited April 18, 2016 by canon7578

[Athy]

round and round and round and round and round.....

Thank you for that contribution to public thinking. It suggests that the discussion is boring you; if that's the case (as it were), no one is forcing you to read it.

 

Or perhaps you are learning to dance The Twist?

[Hawkmoth]

Mike, there are lots of things registered as charities that does not fit your description, for example:

Talyllyn Railway

Ffestiniog Railway

Eton School

4x4 Response UK

4x4 Response Wales

But do these people get direct government money, as does CRT.

Bob

[RLWP]

Thank you for that contribution to public thinking. It suggests that the discussion is boring you; if that's the case (as it were), no one is forcing you to read it.

 

Or perhaps you are learning to dance The Twist?

 

No up and down, I notice

 

Richard

[onionbargee]

 

 

 

The thread is now going down the usual bickering and snydy comments road, can the mods clean it up please, and we can stay on the important matters at hand. If you are not interested in this matter you are free to click off, but please don't crayon over this serious thread, my boat is at risk here.

 

Can the two threads on this be merged ?

Edited April 18, 2016 by canon7578

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Which leads to the original question I asked a while ago - given that the court order doesn't bar you from re-applying, why you? What's the actual issue here? We've so far heard "its not safe" and "the mooring isn't satisfactory". Are either or both of these the line CRT are using to cancel the licence? Is there anything unsafe about the boat (given that BSS is, notwithstanding a licence requirement, actually pretty meaningless when it comes down to assessing safety on a day other than the BSS examination date)? Is there anything unusual about the mooring, or the operator of the mooring, or the size of the mooring vs the number of boats moored there, etc etc

 

The answer to that is a simple one, . . because canon7578, applied for a new Licence, whereas most people misread and misunderstand these Orders, and assume there's no point in applying for a new Licence, . . so they don't.

 

Just for good measure, here [for about the third time] is the reason given by Peter Palmer in an E-mail on 29 August 2014: ~

 

"Having gone through a lengthy process to get a court order for the removal of your craft from our waters, it is clearly not now appropriate that we issue you with another licence."

 

The 'actual issue' that you're asking about, is that C&RT have a preference for operating with dubious, self-conferred powers rather than the statutory ones to which Parliament has restricted them.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Athy]

 

No up and down, I notice

 

Richard

Ah, a true connoisseur!

The thread is now going down the usual bickering and snydy comments road, can the mods clean it up please, and we can stay on the important matters at hand. If you are not interested in this matter you are free to click off, but please don't crayon over this serious thread, my boat is at risk here.

 

Can the two threads on this be merged ?

Mr. Onion Canon, perhaps you would like to write everyone's scripts for them. People do have this infuriating habit of saying what they wish to say, don't they?

[NigelMoore]

Have they done this ? do you know of these cases ? if you do can you let me know the details as it would be a good bit of evidence. I don't have any idea if they have or not.

 

You do need to scroll down through a fair bit to get the relevant info, but material on the 'WhatDoTheyKnow' website reveals that of 9 boats s.8’d and removed from the waterways by CaRT between July 2012 and August 2014, then returned to their owners upon payment of the costs involved, 3 of them were subsequently re-licensed by CaRT. No ID's or other details given I'm afraid.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/seized_boats_reclaimed_by_owners

 

[Paul C]

 

it seems a little unclear why you have your teeth into this man so hard. Do you have history or something?

 

Your first sentence. It is obvious through reading this thread that Tony, Richard and Nigel know about George but want to know about any others as this can be used to build up a bigger picture of CRT's intentions to boats under court orders.

 

Your second, seems simply to echo the OP's questions so I don't understand why you repeat them so aggressively to him. He, from his posts, is as anxious as you appear to be to have these answers.

 

I find this behaviour disturbing from a site moderator. What is the point of moderating if you are going to be so aggressive yourself?

 

Exactly. The pot calls the kettle black.

 

I'm sorry if it comes across that way but I can assure you I am neutral on this issue. If canon7578 wishes to put his side of the story into the public domain on this forum, there is no facility to "make a public statement" then immediately have the thread locked - it is a discussion forum. On the subject of moderation, the thread has already been moderated (by others). Moderating decisions are not made public, and if a post is removed, it is obviously not viewable.

 

I agree, in a sense I am echoing the OPs questions - and I also recognise that it is a valid point. I am keen to get the bottom of this issue too and find out the motive of CRT acting illegally, if this is the case here. Clearly mistakes have been made on both sides but the OP is the one who has come off worse.

[NigelMoore]

You have asserted that the 2013 order has no legal bearing on any future licence application, but you haven't provided here any details of what that order said, or what the circumstances leading up to it were, or what restrictions or pre-conditions it might or might not place on future licencing. Without that sort of background information, most of us here are unable to determine which players in this business are being reasonable and which are not.

 

No judge can redefine the terms of the Statutes, and unilaterally impose any further conditions to be met in applying for a new licence.

 

An example of at least one judge’s recognition that his own Order - in the usual terms BW/CaRT wanted - did not prevent re-licensing, was HHJ Halbert in the Mayers case.

 

The Order is here: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/5890.pdf

 

The Transcript of the final hearing post that Order is revealing:

 

Halbert J: [to Mayers] I daresay if you obtain a mooring and a new licence they will leave you alone. [to CaRT’s barrister] Is that right? . . . Mr Moss, you did tell me in the course of argument that if he acquired a mooring, applied for a mooring licence and paid for it, he would be left alone. You did tell me that.

 

Mr Moss: Yes.

 

Halbert J: I expect it be honoured . . .

 

Of course, in that instance, although Mayers DID then obtain and pay for a mooring, and having done so asked for a new licence, they ignored his request. They then later seized the boat as soon as it left its offline marina without having received a new licence - but the point was clearly made by the judge that he could and should have been given one because of that compliance; the terms of the Order obviously not precluding that, in the judge’s own mind.

 

So in sum, the 'background information' is not legally relevant - though the fact of the background is, of course [as the email quoted by Tony reveals] relevant to the emotional reaction of the enforcement and legal teams in acting outwith legalities.

 

[Paul C]

 

No judge can redefine the terms of the Statutes, and unilaterally impose any further conditions to be met in applying for a new licence.

 

An example of at least one judge’s recognition that his own Order - in the usual terms BW/CaRT wanted - did not prevent re-licensing, was HHJ Halbert in the Mayers case.

 

The Order is here: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/5890.pdf

 

The Transcript of the final hearing post that Order is revealing:

 

Halbert J: [to Mayers] I daresay if you obtain a mooring and a new licence they will leave you alone. [to CaRT’s barrister] Is that right? . . . Mr Moss, you did tell me in the course of argument that if he acquired a mooring, applied for a mooring licence and paid for it, he would be left alone. You did tell me that.

 

Mr Moss: Yes.

 

Halbert J: I expect it be honoured . . .

 

Of course, in that instance, although Mayers DID then obtain and pay for a mooring, and having done so asked for a new licence, they ignored his request. They then later seized the boat as soon as it left its offline marina without having received a new licence - but the point was clearly made by the judge that he could and should have been given one because of that compliance; the terms of the Order obviously not precluding that, in the judge’s own mind.

 

So in sum, the 'background information' is not legally relevant - though the fact of the background is, of course [as the email quoted by Tony reveals] relevant to the emotional reaction of the enforcement and legal teams in acting outwith legalities.

 

 

Just for clarity, its worth pointing out that applies for "if you obtain a mooring and a new licence " - I believe in canon7578's case he was a CCer but has now found a home mooring. What if someone simply reapplied for a CC licence (yes I know its the same licence - but you know that too, and you know what I mean). Could CRT legitimately say "We are not satisfied in the future you'll cruise bona fide for navigation without remaining in one place for 14 days etc etc, because previously you didn't"?

 

And, by extension, if someone popped up with a new licence with a home mooring that would somewhat dubious, the board could similarly not be satisfied by that home mooring - ie its a ghost mooring.

 

And by extension, their computer isn't clever enough to know every home mooring and the computer is satisfied with anything someone types into that box thus the computer gives a licence which might later be cancelled (under 17(4)) by a real person, for the mooring reason.

[NigelMoore]

 

We've so far heard "its not safe" and "the mooring isn't satisfactory". Are either or both of these the line CRT are using to cancel the licence?

 

No, they are both issues that are being used to retrospectively justify cancelling the licence. A new licence was refused over a year ago for the simple emotive reason given in the Palmer email of 2014. The licence issued a year later was cancelled once the same gentleman was appraised by the OP that he had acquired the licence, in the same knee-jerk reaction.

 

Only upon subsequent challenge did he resile from his position and raise the concept of safety and mooring issues instead. The safety issue relied solely on the OP’s previous expressions of concern that the boat was in too delicate a condition to be moved [for example], onto the Thames, even though he since notified them that he had undertaken essential repairs, and [of course] had passed the BSSC.

 

Suitability of the mooring is less clear; it appears from his other emails that he thought the boat was not present at the mooring - ?!?!

 

[Paul C]

Just for the sake of clarity, can you explain "cancel the licence"?

 

If they have sent out a piece of paper with the details on it (you know, the 2x square things with boat name, number, mooring/other code and a date on it) that's the "licence" right? In a similar vein to when you get car insurance, they send you an insurance certificate which is a legal document.

 

They can't enter the boat and peel it off the window, and I don't think anyone is suggesting they did that. But they are suggesting its cancelled - does the licence exist on the hard disk of the CRT computer, or in a filing cabinet in their head office somewhere? If not then part of the disagreement is whether that licence is valid or cancelled. Ie if the correct 17(4) process has been used, then that piece of paper in the windows loses its meaning.

[Tony Dunkley]

Suitability of the mooring is less clear; it appears from his other emails that he thought the boat was not present at the mooring - ?!?!

 

 

There are distinct echoes here of the same desperation tactics C&RT resorted to in July and August of 2014 with regard to my mooring on the Trent at Barton-in-Fabis.

Anxious to come up with some valid reason not to issue what C&RT describe as a 'Rivers only Licence' for my boat, they resorted to questioning the availability and suitability of a mooring that my boat was laying on at the time, and had been accepted, by them, as a 'home' mooring for issuing the two preceding PBC's [ C&RT's Rivers only 'Licence'].

[Tony Dunkley]

Just for the sake of clarity, can you explain "cancel the licence"?

 

If they have sent out a piece of paper with the details on it (you know, the 2x square things with boat name, number, mooring/other code and a date on it) that's the "licence" right? In a similar vein to when you get car insurance, they send you an insurance certificate which is a legal document.

 

They can't enter the boat and peel it off the window, and I don't think anyone is suggesting they did that. But they are suggesting its cancelled - does the licence exist on the hard disk of the CRT computer, or in a filing cabinet in their head office somewhere? If not then part of the disagreement is whether that licence is valid or cancelled. Ie if the correct 17(4) process has been used, then that piece of paper in the windows loses its meaning.

 

It hasn't, . . . which is why the recently issued Licence remains in force and valid, however much Palmer, Griffin, Yelland and co. may wish otherwise.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[NigelMoore]

 

Could CRT legitimately say "We are not satisfied in the future you'll cruise bona fide for navigation without remaining in one place for 14 days etc etc, because previously you didn't"?

 

And, by extension, if someone popped up with a new licence with a home mooring that would somewhat dubious, the board could similarly not be satisfied by that home mooring - ie its a ghost mooring.

 

That is an awkward one. On the face of it, I would say they would have good grounds for not being satisfied that you intended to CC - but there has to be a point at which that became no longer reasonable, and in any case genuine infractions could be remedied easily outwith s.8.

 

The second point is obscure - what would/could be dubious about a specified mooring, that was incapable of being checked out? The whole thrust of BW/CaRT's actions to date have been to 'encourage' boaters to take up home moorings, so it would seem counter-productive to put obstacles in the way. It is far easier to present a mooring agreement establishing that it is available to you throughout the year, than it is to prove that you will never stay any place longer than 14 days etc.

[Paul C]

 

It hasn't, . . . which is why the recently issued Licence remains in force and valid, however much Palmer, Griffin, Yelland and co. may wish otherwise.

 

I agree - and furthermore, the longer this situation remains, CRT are wasting time.

 

The second point is obscure - what would/could be dubious about a specified mooring, that was incapable of being checked out? The whole thrust of BW/CaRT's actions to date have been to 'encourage' boaters to take up home moorings, so it would seem counter-productive to put obstacles in the way. It is far easier to present a mooring agreement establishing that it is available to you throughout the year, than it is to prove that you will never stay any place longer than 14 days etc.

 

 

Are you aware of the concept of a "ghost mooring"?

[kris88]

I agree - and furthermore, the longer this situation remains, CRT are wasting time.

 

 

Are you aware of the concept of a "ghost mooring"?

Crt are adept at wasting time and money, especially on enforcement.

 

 

Regards kris

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Are you aware of the concept of a "ghost mooring"?

 

See my Post #242, above.

[BMC problems]

 

Are you aware of the concept of a "ghost mooring"?

 

No, please enlighten me.

[NigelMoore]

 

Are you aware of the concept of a "ghost mooring"?

 

The notion has swum into my ken.

[Paul C]

Was Barbie okay with that???