Tadworth versus CRT.

[Tony Dunkley]

Is prior consent irrelevant, then?

 

Not if it's prior relevant consent.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Not if it's prior relevant consent.

 

Or maybe "relevant prior consent".

[MtB]

See Mike you got there in the end.

Regards kris

Why don't you post some constructive comment on the subject on hand?

 

Play the ball not the man kris. You know it makes sense.

 

And nobody believes you when you put 'regards' at the end of each post!

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Or maybe "relevant prior consent".

 

That would be OK too, provided it's obtained beforehand.

[Athy]

How I love the English language - though loving and understanding don't always go hand in hand.

At least no one has yet suggested getting retrospective prior consent.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Athy

[David Mack]

Yea, verily! Not as daft as he looks, is he?

And thrice!

[Paul C]

I think the wording of a court order can be interpreted differently by either side, but can only be clarified/determined by a judge in a contempt of court hearing. I believe in the other cases where CRT/BW have obtained a court order, then the boater has gone on to subsequently relicence their boat, the boater either sought the prior consent from BW/CRT; or time or circumstances meant that BW/CRT didn't feel it appropriate to pursue a breach of the court order.

 

Thus, it puts a different light on CRT's reluctance (even if they do concede that by law they must issue the licence if the 3 conditions are met) to issue to a licence. And of course, each person's circumstances are different, so citing that they've done it in the past, or said different things to different boaters, is inconsequential.

 

And also for that reason, I ask again, "what were the circumstances which led to the original court order against canon7578?", I still feel it is highly relevant here.

[valrene9600]

I think the wording of a court order can be interpreted differently by either side, but can only be clarified/determined by a judge in a contempt of court hearing. I believe in the other cases where CRT/BW have obtained a court order, then the boater has gone on to subsequently relicence their boat, the boater either sought the prior consent from BW/CRT; or time or circumstances meant that BW/CRT didn't feel it appropriate to pursue a breach of the court order.

 

Thus, it puts a different light on CRT's reluctance (even if they do concede that by law they must issue the licence if the 3 conditions are met) to issue to a licence. And of course, each person's circumstances are different, so citing that they've done it in the past, or said different things to different boaters, is inconsequential.

 

And also for that reason, I ask again, "what were the circumstances which led to the original court order against canon7578?", I still feel it is highly relevant here.

A few facts might make the discussion interesting. It won't change the fact of is crt action to cancel licence legal BUT it might throw some light on why they want to cancel the license.

[Tony Dunkley]

I think the wording of a court order can be interpreted differently by either side, but can only be clarified/determined by a judge in a contempt of court hearing. I believe in the other cases where CRT/BW have obtained a court order, then the boater has gone on to subsequently relicence their boat, the boater either sought the prior consent from BW/CRT; or time or circumstances meant that BW/CRT didn't feel it appropriate to pursue a breach of the court order.

 

Thus, it puts a different light on CRT's reluctance (even if they do concede that by law they must issue the licence if the 3 conditions are met) to issue to a licence. And of course, each person's circumstances are different, so citing that they've done it in the past, or said different things to different boaters, is inconsequential.

 

And also for that reason, I ask again, "what were the circumstances which led to the original court order against canon7578?", I still feel it is highly relevant here.

 

Why do you persist in arguing the toss about something that C&RT themselves don't regard as pertinent to the matter in hand, and have not disputed ?

[PaulG]

Personally I think that the meaning of "prior consent" is pretty clear. I would not want to stand in front of a judge and try to argue that the automated online purchase of a licence constitutes "prior consent".

I imagine that he might just decide that one is taking the p*ss...

[Alan de Enfield]

If the granting of relevant consent is irrelevant in the granting of prior consent, what is the relevance of relevant consent in a discussion about prior consent ?

[Jerra]

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."

It is a shame you can't have greenies that deserves one for entertainment value.

[Paul C]

 

Why do you persist in arguing the toss about something that C&RT themselves don't regard as pertinent to the matter in hand, and have not disputed ?

 

I've acknowledged that both sides have made mistakes here. CRT have not made their motives/thoughts public and since the court order relates to entering their waters, CRT have not yet acted because canon7578 has not entered their waters yet, being moored offline.

[Bod]

The boat applied, and was granted a licence, prior to entering C&RT waters.

Prior consent to enter C&RT water, was made before the boat moved.

 

Bod

[Alan de Enfield]

The boat applied, and was granted a licence, prior to entering C&RT waters.

Prior consent to enter C&RT water, was made before the boat moved.

 

Bod

 

But did they ?

That is the question that has been discussed over the last few pages of this thread.

 

He applied for 'relevant consent' and not 'prior consent' are they the same ? (nobody knows)

[MtB]

On the face of it, it seems a tautology to apply for 'prior consent'. One either applies for 'consent' to do something, or one doesn't!

 

But the OP is relying on confusion introduced by the same word 'consent' being part of the technical term in law for what we all colloquially know as a "boat licence".

 

I think the court order intended to mean that the OP should apply to CRT for 'consent' to do something, with that 'something' being to apply for and purchase a 'boat licence'. The fact that a boat licence happens to be termed 'relevant consent' in the Waterways Act 1995 is muddying the waters.

 

But only the court can definitively say what it really means by its court order.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

I've acknowledged that both sides have made mistakes here. CRT have not made their motives/thoughts public and since the court order relates to entering their waters, CRT have not yet acted because canon7578 has not entered their waters yet, being moored offline.

 

That doesn't answer the question I asked.

 

Meanwhile here is a selection of C&RT's thoughts and motives with regard to not wanting to licence 'Tadworth'.

 

From C&RT E-mail of 29 August 2016 :~ "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."

 

And some more that you haven't seen before from other recent C&RT E-mails :~

 

"I cannot predetermine the outcome of a boat licence application for Tadworth here, either by accepting or refusing it, you would need to submit an application through the appropriate channels. However, I can point out that the application would be considered against the relevant legislation (e.g. s.17 of the British Waterways Act 1995) and all of the relevant circumstances at the time, including whether it is possible for you to comply with our terms and conditions (e.g. pay the licence fee)."

 

And :~ "I have checked our records and can confirm that you have licensed your craft ‘Tadworth’. I must apologise as this is an administrative error on our behalf."

 

And :~ "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.

With regards to the court order granted against you, it does not prevent you from applying for a licence, or prevent the Trust issuing a licence to you. 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. Before that can happen though, we must first be satisfied that Tadworth meets all of the criteria for a licence, including (but not limited to) the appropriate safety standards."

 

 

The thoughts are muddled, . . . but the motives [spite, grudge harbouring, petty-mindedness etc.] are clear enough.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[valrene9600]

A member search for onionbargee brings up canon...... No previous posts for onionbargee can be viewed.

[Dave Payne]

 

That doesn't answer the question I asked.

 

Meanwhile here is a selection of C&RT's thoughts and motives with regard to not wanting to licence 'Tadworth'.

 

From C&RT E-mail of 29 August 2016 :~ "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."

 

And some more that you haven't seen before from other recent C&RT E-mails :~

 

"I cannot predetermine the outcome of a boat licence application for Tadworth here, either by accepting or refusing it, you would need to submit an application through the appropriate channels. However, I can point out that the application would be considered against the relevant legislation (e.g. s.17 of the British Waterways Act 1995) and all of the relevant circumstances at the time, including whether it is possible for you to comply with our terms and conditions (e.g. pay the licence fee)."

 

And :~ "I have checked our records and can confirm that you have licensed your craft ‘Tadworth’. I must apologise as this is an administrative error on our behalf."

 

And :~ "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.

With regards to the court order granted against you, it does not prevent you from applying for a licence, or prevent the Trust issuing a licence to you. 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. Before that can happen though, we must first be satisfied that Tadworth meets all of the criteria for a licence, including (but not limited to) the appropriate safety standards."

 

 

The thoughts are muddled, . . . but the motives are clear.

 

 

When were these emails received?

[Paul C]

 

That doesn't answer the question I asked.

 

Meanwhile here is a selection of C&RT's thoughts and motives with regard to not wanting to licence 'Tadworth'.

 

From C&RT E-mail of 29 August 2016 :~ "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."

 

And some more that you haven't seen before from other recent C&RT E-mails :~

 

"I cannot predetermine the outcome of a boat licence application for Tadworth here, either by accepting or refusing it, you would need to submit an application through the appropriate channels. However, I can point out that the application would be considered against the relevant legislation (e.g. s.17 of the British Waterways Act 1995) and all of the relevant circumstances at the time, including whether it is possible for you to comply with our terms and conditions (e.g. pay the licence fee)."

 

And :~ "I have checked our records and can confirm that you have licensed your craft ‘Tadworth’. I must apologise as this is an administrative error on our behalf."

 

And :~ "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.

With regards to the court order granted against you, it does not prevent you from applying for a licence, or prevent the Trust issuing a licence to you. 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. Before that can happen though, we must first be satisfied that Tadworth meets all of the criteria for a licence, including (but not limited to) the appropriate safety standards."

 

 

The thoughts are muddled, . . . but the motives are clear.

 

I pretty much agree 100% there. CRT are definitely muddled here. However, as you know, they will not be overly worried about making mistakes here, or needlessly spending licence payer's money on lawyers. canon7578 has much more (by proportion) to lose, so requires to be watertight in his stance/position.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

That doesn't answer the question I asked.

 

Meanwhile here is a selection of C&RT's thoughts and motives with regard to not wanting to licence 'Tadworth'.

 

From C&RT E-mail of 29 August 2016 :~ "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."

 

And some more that you haven't seen before from other recent C&RT E-mails :~

 

"I cannot predetermine the outcome of a boat licence application for Tadworth here, either by accepting or refusing it, you would need to submit an application through the appropriate channels. However, I can point out that the application would be considered against the relevant legislation (e.g. s.17 of the British Waterways Act 1995) and all of the relevant circumstances at the time, including whether it is possible for you to comply with our terms and conditions (e.g. pay the licence fee)."

 

And :~ "I have checked our records and can confirm that you have licensed your craft ‘Tadworth’. I must apologise as this is an administrative error on our behalf."

 

And :~ "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.

With regards to the court order granted against you, it does not prevent you from applying for a licence, or prevent the Trust issuing a licence to you. 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. Before that can happen though, we must first be satisfied that Tadworth meets all of the criteria for a licence, including (but not limited to) the appropriate safety standards."

 

Hmmmmm - what C&RT appear to be saying is :

 

"With the previous history of you not adhering to the agreement that you signed, we feel that you cannot be trusted to do so this time, therefore, we must take extra precautions to ensure that if we grant you a licence you will do what you are obliged to do....................."

 

A bit 'heavy handed', but, having been in business and had a number of 'bad debts' that wished to continue to trade with us, we took similar precautions before allowing them to buy from us again.

[Paul C]

To put it another way, if you want to shoot a duck and aren't very good at shooting, if you afford a rapid-fire machine gun, you'll probably, eventually, get that duck.

[RLWP]

A member search for onionbargee brings up canon...... No previous posts for onionbargee can be viewed.

 

Sounds like the accounts may have been merged

 

Richard

[Tony Dunkley]

 

A bit 'heavy handed', but, having been in business and had a number of 'bad debts' that wished to continue to trade with us, we took similar precautions before allowing them to buy from us again.

 

Fair comment with regard to choosing who a company doesn't wish to do business with, but C&RT have issued a Licence and banked the fee, . . . and are still hanging onto it nearly 5 weeks after they [unlawfully] claim to have revoked the Licence for which the fee was tendered and accepted.

[Bod]

 

That doesn't answer the question I asked.

 

Meanwhile here is a selection of C&RT's thoughts and motives with regard to not wanting to licence 'Tadworth'.

 

From C&RT E-mail of 29 August 2016 :~ "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."

 

And some more that you haven't seen before from other recent C&RT E-mails :~

 

"I cannot predetermine the outcome of a boat licence application for Tadworth here, either by accepting or refusing it, you would need to submit an application through the appropriate channels. However, I can point out that the application would be considered against the relevant legislation (e.g. s.17 of the British Waterways Act 1995) and all of the relevant circumstances at the time, including whether it is possible for you to comply with our terms and conditions (e.g. pay the licence fee)."

 

And :~ "I have checked our records and can confirm that you have licensed your craft ‘Tadworth’. I must apologise as this is an administrative error on our behalf."

 

And :~ "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.

With regards to the court order granted against you, it does not prevent you from applying for a licence, or prevent the Trust issuing a licence to you. 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. Before that can happen though, we must first be satisfied that Tadworth meets all of the criteria for a licence, including (but not limited to) the appropriate safety standards."

 

 

The thoughts are muddled, . . . but the motives [spite, grudge harbouring, petty-mindedness etc.] are clear enough.

 

"With regards to the court order granted against you, it does not prevent you from applying for a licence, or prevent the Trust issuing a licence to you. 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. Before that can happen though, we must first be satisfied that Tadworth meets all of the criteria for a licence, including (but not limited to) the appropriate safety standards."

 

If that's not a definition of "Prior Consent" then I'm a chinaman!

 

Bod