Tadworth versus CRT.

[MtB]

 

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.

 

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

If the revocation is invalid as you claim, keeping the fee would only be fair.

 

On the other hand, them keeping the fee suggests the licence has not been revoked at all, just some emails have been sent to put the wind up the OP while the culprits at CRT sit back and laugh at the stir they've caused.

[onionbargee]

 

 

Surely it is for the court to decide what it meant by the term 'prior consent' in the court order, not CRT.

FFS !

 

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.

Stated in post no.1.

 

I did not renew my licence in 2013. Nothing else.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

If the revocation is invalid as you claim, keeping the fee would only be fair.

 

On the other hand, them keeping the fee suggests the licence has not been revoked at all, just some emails have been sent to put the wind up the OP while the culprits at CRT sit back and laugh at the stir they've caused.

 

Yes, spot on Mike.

There is a procedure, laid down in statute [s.17(4) and (5) of the 1995 BW Act] for revoking Licences, which C&RT are obliged to follow.

Basically, they must give a Licence holder a minimum of 28 days notice to remedy any default from the conditions in S.17(3) under which the Licence was issued. If the Licence holder fails to remedy the default, then the Licence 'determines' on expiry of the Notice.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[MtB]

I'd say the lawyers would draw a distinction between revoking a licence (in which case following the procedure you outline is required) and cancelling a licence incorrectly issued due to an admin cock-up.

Presumably there a prescribed set of circumstances under which a licence can be revoked...

[mayalld]

I'd say the lawyers would draw a distinction between revoking a licence (in which case following the procedure you outline is required) and cancelling a licence incorrectly issued due to an admin cock-up.

 

Exactly.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Presumably there a prescribed set of circumstances under which a licence can be revoked...

 

Yes, there are, . . . I've just outlined them in the Post above.

 

Exactly.

 

Exactly what ?

[MtB]

 

Yes, there are, . . . I've just outlined them in the Post above.

 

 

 

Oh yeah, so I see.

 

Sorry, I didn't read your post properly initially.

[mayalld]

 

 

Exactly what ?

 

Well, fairly obviously, exactly what MTB said.

 

In this thread, we have used the word "revoked" fairly extensively, because it seems to say what we want it to say, and it is obvious what it means isn't it.

 

Except that isn't (as you noted) the word that the act uses. The act uses the word "determine", cognate with "terminate".

 

When a relevant consent is determined, a new termination date is substituted for the original.

 

However, in this case, CRT (for right or wrong) aren't determining the licence, they are cancelling it. They are saying that it was issued in error, and that the necessary prerequisites for its issue were not in place (and again, they may or may not be correct). They are simply "unissuing" it.

 

It is much like the difference between divorce and annulment.

[onionbargee]

 

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.

If CRT was a business that I had an account with and didn't pay, then they would be able to rightly decline any further trade with me .However CRT licences are bound by legislation, quite strict bylaws in fact, this part of CRT is the public body part, not the business part, and I have met all the licence conditions, and as a gesture of goodwill paid in full for 12 months so there is no doubt.

 

Another point that has been raised is the idea I sneaked the licence application in through a "automated system", The answer to that is if there were further conditions to a licence application than the canal act states, then they would be part of the licence system. If every licence had to be rubber stamped by enforcement officers, and in house lawyers, that would be in the licence process too.

 

Also remember that after the licence was granted I contacted them to ensure they were not not still under the impression that they could seize TW under the now spent court order.

 

My licence was prevented at first by deception, then when that failed, by breaking the law set out in the relevant legislation.

[Jerra]

I did not renew my licence in 2013. Nothing else.

Sorry but I don't think (well for me at least) that is clear enough. Not renewing a licence isn't an offence. Staying on CRT waterways without the licence is the offence.

 

How long were you on their waterways without a licence one day, one week,, one month, all year, a year and a bit? How long please?

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Well, fairly obviously, exactly what MTB said.

 

In this thread, we have used the word "revoked" fairly extensively, because it seems to say what we want it to say, and it is obvious what it means isn't it.

 

Except that isn't (as you noted) the word that the act uses. The act uses the word "determine", cognate with "terminate".

 

When a relevant consent is determined, a new termination date is substituted for the original.

 

However, in this case, CRT (for right or wrong) aren't determining the licence, they are cancelling it. They are saying that it was issued in error, and that the necessary prerequisites for its issue were not in place (and again, they may or may not be correct). They are simply "unissuing" it.

 

It is much like the difference between divorce and annulment.

 

That's the whole point, . . . there was no 'error' in issuing the Licence, in fact, it's the only thing in this farcical mess that they haven't made a complete bog up of.

 

The Licence was issued against an application which satisfied every one of the three conditions imposed by S.17(3) of the '95 Act, and included full remittance of the Licence fee, which is now in C&RT's Bank Account.

 

C&RT, despite having omitted to initiate or complete the prescribed statutory process, are falsely claiming in their most recent E-mail to have 'revoked' the Licence, not to have 'cancelled' it :~

"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."

Edited April 19, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[MtB]

Also remember that after the licence was granted I contacted them to ensure they were not not still under the impression that they could seize TW under the now spent court order.

 

Eh?

 

Why is it 'spent' when you only obtained the licence by ignoring the provision in it that you obtain 'prior consent'?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Eh?

 

Why is it 'spent' when you only obtained the licence by ignoring the provision in it that you obtain 'prior consent'?

According to CaRT's definition he did obtain prior consent -

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

 

Prior consent=obtaining a licence a licence from us.

 

... which is exactly what he did.

**** Edited to revoke a licence

Edited April 19, 2016 by Allan(nb Albert)

[MtB]

According to CaRT's definition he did obtain prior consent -

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

 

Prior consent=obtaining a licence a licence from us.

 

... which is exactly what he did.

 

 

 

Well in that case he's fine then. Nothing to worry about.

 

 

Thread closed!

[BillM]

.... Tony D says... "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."

 

Maybe they are keeping the fee by way of lien for earlier unpaid debts and costs....?

[MtB]

.... Tony D says... "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."

 

Maybe they are keeping the fee by way of lien for earlier unpaid debts and costs....?

 

 

I doubt it.

 

More likely, despite the emails claiming it has been revoked it clearly hasn't.

 

1) The laid down precedure for revokation hasn't been followed. Not even started let alone completed, therefore the licence has not been revoked.

 

2) The money has not been refunded. This suggests the licence is in force as CRT partially refund when a licence is revoked. Therefore the licence has not been revoked.

 

3) Even if cancelled (as opposed to revoked) due to being incorrectly issued, they've kept the money so I doubt it has been cancelled.

 

4) If revoked or cancelled the OP is entitled to expect to be informed in writing by snail mail to the licence address. We don't know about this. Have you had anything in the mail OP?

[Tony Dunkley]

Maybe they are keeping the fee by way of lien for earlier unpaid debts and costs....?

 

They haven't trotted that one out as yet, . . . but I wouldn't be surprised if they took up the suggestion and gave it a try.

 

I rather hope they do, . . . in the absence of a Debt Judgment against 'Tadworth's' owner it would be very ill-advised and foolish.

[Paul C]

According to CaRT's definition he did obtain prior consent -

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

 

Prior consent=obtaining a licence a licence from us.

 

... which is exactly what he did.

 

 

 

 

 

Well in that case he's fine then. Nothing to worry about.

 

 

Thread closed!

 

I suspect what happened is CRT made a goof and muddled up "relevant consent" and "prior consent" too, both in wording the court order and in their email exchanges. In other words, they are inconsistent with the ability to prevent a boater they don't want back onto their waterways, by issuing a sufficiently mild/vague court order against them (a more strongly/clearly worded one might not be approved by the judge) and rely simply on the 3 reasons for the refusal of a licence.

 

Normally this would be a non issue because they perceive the "issue" is CCers and they have no issue with non-compliant ones obtaining a home mooring then returning to their waterways.

 

For some reason, canon7578 has sufficiently annoyed the local EO and/or CRT in general that they particularly dislike him or his boat, we don't know why and canon7578 has offered "I didn't renew my licence" as the reason.

 

Given that CRT still have the "we aren't satisfied with the mooring" as a reason (the other two are more black & white and probably not useful to them) I dare say they'll try it. canon7578 could get a judicial review if/when his licence is properly revoked.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Given that CRT still have the "we aren't satisfied with the mooring" as a reason (the other two are more black & white and probably not useful to them) I dare say they'll try it. canon7578 could get a judicial review if/when his licence is properly revoked.

 

They already have.

They are questioning the 'availability' of the mooring that 'Tadworth' is at present on, and they say must remain on, and threatening immediate seizure in the event of it leaving the mooring [ that isn't available for it to use ].

Edited April 19, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Paul C]

 

They already have.

They are questioning the 'availability' of the mooring that they say 'Tadworth' must remain on and threatening immediate seizure in the event of it leaving the mooring.

 

I know.....which leads to the question, "what's special about canon7578"? They've let other boaters who were non-compliant CCers, who got caught, who got court orders against them, to have a licence (with a home mooring).

[Tony Dunkley]

 

I know.....which leads to the question, "what's special about canon7578"? They've let other boaters who were non-compliant CCers, who got caught, who got court orders against them, to have a licence (with a home mooring).

 

You are making the assumption that canon7578 is alone in being treated in this manner.

Whatever he, or anyone else, may or may not have done in the past, cannot disbar him/them from buying a boat Licence.

That sort of thinking went out at about the same time as we stopped the transportation of poachers and other petty criminals to the Colonies.

[Paul C]

 

You are making the assumption that canon7578 is alone in being treated in this manner.

Whatever he, or anyone else, may or may not have done in the past, cannot disbar him/them from buying a boat Licence.

That sort of thinking went out at about the same time as we stopped the transportation of poachers and other petty criminals to the Colonies.

 

He did start a thread a while ago asking if anyone had been mistreated by the local EO. The thread didn't go too well in his favour, IIRC.

[PaulG]

 

You are making the assumption that canon7578 is alone in being treated in this manner.

Whatever he, or anyone else, may or may not have done in the past, cannot disbar him/them from buying a boat Licence.

That sort of thinking went out at about the same time as we stopped the transportation of poachers and other petty criminals to the Colonies.

Why not?

If CRT had had cause to resort to expensive court action in the past, I think it is an entirely reasonable sanction to refuse a licence in the future.

Whether it is legal or appropriate to do so in this case, is another matter.

[kris88]

 

He did start a thread a while ago asking if anyone had been mistreated by the local EO. The thread didn't go too well in his favour, IIRC.

Not really surprising on here, where anybody who questions crt's actions is labelled a criminal. Also having their posts inundated with spurious assumptions and accusations not founded on fact. By a certain group on here

 

Regards kris

Edited April 19, 2016 by kris88

[Paul C]

Here is a link to the thread concerned:

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=80440

 

Yep, unless you're a moderator you can't see it - it got sufficiencly heated and needed to be hidden. Thus, I cannot reveal unfortunately. That one made 52 pages of fast-moving, low quality 'debate' and there were at least 3 other relevant threads started by the OP in a short space of time too.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Paul C