Tadworth versus CRT.

[PaulG]

 

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.

You may be right.

But it could also be viewed as "The Court Order required you to obtain 'prior consent' and you did not obtain it".

Bearing in mind that the opinion of an Enforcement Officer regarding the meaning of 'prior consent' is probably not legally binding on CRT...

[onionbargee]

You may be right.

But it could also be viewed as "The Court Order required you to obtain 'prior consent' and you did not obtain it".

Bearing in mind that the opinion of an Enforcement Officer regarding the meaning of 'prior consent' is probably not legally binding on CRT...

 

You are now trying to knacker the progress we have made, and go back to the prior consent issue that has been finished with. CRT legal department writes the text of these orders, and CRT legal department have now told us what it means. End of story.

[Dave Payne]

You are now trying to knacker the progress we have made, and go back to the prior consent issue that has been finished with. CRT legal department writes the text of these orders, and CRT legal department have now told us what it means. End of story.

 

 

So what steps are you taking/took now to try and resolve this matter with CRT ?

[NigelMoore]

Bearing in mind that the opinion of an Enforcement Officer regarding the meaning of 'prior consent' is probably not legally binding on CRT...

 

I would wholly agree that the opinion of an individual Enforcement Officer on the meaning of a Court Order – and particularly this officer, who has got it so drastically wrong in the past – cannot be binding on CaRT.

 

However, in this instance the only unilateral opinion was his of some years back, asserting the mere ‘inappropriateness’ of issuing a new licence. The recent email so oft quoted by Tony was one that that officer was delegated to send, in response to the OP’s emails direct to Jackie Lewis as Head of Legal. This, following months of correspondence over the particulars of the situation, wherein all the executive from Head of Enforcement through Head of Legal to Chief Executive Officer were either directly addressed or copied in.

 

Perhaps with that knowledge people might see the pointlessness of endlessly attempting to argue a position that CaRT are [quite correctly] NOT taking.

[NigelMoore]

 

 

So what steps are you taking/took now to try and resolve this matter with CRT ?

 

It is tricky.

 

The same email from Peter Palmer on behalf of Jackie Lewis, suggests that CaRT be allowed to conduct a comprehensive survey of the boat at their own expense, to satisfy themselves that the boat IS actually safe [despite the BSSC].

 

My initial advice was to take advantage of that, which I saw as them looking for a face-saving way out of the situation. The OP has disagreed, saying that they would probably take the opportunity to find lots wrong with it in order to justify their expressed concerns.

 

On reflection, I fear that he may well be right – as I say, a tricky situation. This is because, should the OP apply for JR of the decision, the Court will look to the ‘reasonableness’ of each side’s positioning, and the rejected suggestion would look entirely reasonable to a judge I suspect.

 

It is one more reason to continue pressing the relevant departments for satisfactory explanations, and to air the details in public outwith litigation. Quoting a long ago remark as to the boat’s safety as a current reason for concern, is very far from satisfactory or reasonable grounds to now ‘cancel’ a licence for a boat whose condition they have no knowledge of beyond the current BSSC.

[Dave Payne]

 

It is tricky.

 

The same email from Peter Palmer on behalf of Jackie Lewis, suggests that CaRT be allowed to conduct a comprehensive survey of the boat at their own expense, to satisfy themselves that the boat IS actually safe [despite the BSSC].

 

My initial advice was to take advantage of that, which I saw as them looking for a face-saving way out of the situation. The OP has disagreed, saying that they would probably take the opportunity to find lots wrong with it in order to justify their expressed concerns.

 

On reflection, I fear that he may well be right – as I say, a tricky situation. This is because, should the OP apply for JR of the decision, the Court will look to the ‘reasonableness’ of each side’s positioning, and the rejected suggestion would look entirely reasonable to a judge I suspect.

 

It is one more reason to continue pressing the relevant departments for satisfactory explanations, and to air the details in public outwith litigation. Quoting a long ago remark as to the boat’s safety as a current reason for concern, is very far from satisfactory or reasonable grounds to now ‘cancel’ a licence for a boat whose condition they have no knowledge of beyond the current BSSC.

 

 

Using an independent or CRT assigned Inspector?

[onionbargee]

 

 

So what steps are you taking/took now to try and resolve this matter with CRT ?

I am waiting for their reply to my reply to the ideas they put forward about TW being 'unfit to navigate', ie they haven't told me what they think is wrong with it, and they haven't followed due procedure in giving me 28 days to fix the imaginary problem. So far we are up to...

 

1. Tried to prevent my licence by lying "it would not be appropriate" whilst fully aware that I could apply for a new licence at any time.

 

2. Agreed to let me exit CRT waters onto the tidal Thames, whilst they considered TW unsafe to navigate a canal.

 

3. misrepresented the court order to imply it prevented a new licence being granted.

 

4. Revoked my valid licence with immediate effect without giving any reason at the time, only inventing reasons later.

 

5. Claimed TW is "not fit to navigate" according to general canal bylaws 1965, but broke the same bylaw by not telling me what the problem was, or allowing 28 days for me to remedy it before a licence can legally be revoked.

 

6. Threatened me with seizure of TW by misrepresenting the court order.

Edited April 22, 2016 by onionbargee

[Paul C]

Looking at the underlying legislation, the choices are now:

 

1. Fix the boat and get it inspected by CRT

2. Pay the £1000 fine

3. Judicial review

 

 

Just to check we're all "on the same page" here, we're talking about CRT possibly taking action under section 7 of the 1983 British Waterways Act? Its worth looking at the wording of this legislation.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Paul C

[Jerra]

 

 

Using an independent or CRT assigned Inspector?

Or a CRT assessor at the same time as your independent assessor. Then the two assessors can sort out between them if there is really anything unsafe and the independent can ensure the CRT isn't being economical with the truth.

[FadeToScarlet]

Have you done the rebottoming / refooting you mentioned when it was for sale?

 

I've looked back, but can't find the post where you mentioned what happened in 2013. Wasn't there something then about the boat being unable to navigate?

Or a CRT assessor at the same time as your independent assessor. Then the two assessors can sort out between them if there is really anything unsafe and the independent can ensure the CRT isn't being economical with the truth.

Good idea, I was trying to come up with a non-long-winded way of saying the same thing.

[Tony Dunkley]

Before embarking on any more pointless debate in an effort to excuse or justify C&RT's dishonest and unlawful antics following the [correct and obligatory] issuing of 'Tadworth's' new Licence, I would suggest a thorough and careful study of Byelaw 3) of the General Canal Byelaws, and Section 7 of the 1983 BW Act.

[Dave Payne]

I see this as very simple now, jump through the hoops that CRT are holding up, or go to court, only the OP can decide which is best.

[onionbargee]

You want me to spend hundreds of quid on a second survey because CRT have invented the idea that it is unfit to navigate ?

 

That sounds like guilty before being proven innocent to me. If I were to accept that then CRT could unlawfully revoke anyone's licence on the spot unless they prove whatever CRT wants to be proven, however vaigue or pointless.

 

I have told them that if they want it surveyed, I am willing to discuss this, and possibly allow it at the next time TW is docked for blacking. However it is reasonable that I receive some idea of what they think the problem is, and that this applies to every boat licenced by CRT, and not just mine. They have to comply with the law and reinstate my licence officially first though.

Edited April 22, 2016 by onionbargee

[Tony Dunkley]

I see this as very simple now, jump through the hoops that CRT are holding up, or go to court, only the OP can decide which is best.

 

There is also the option of ignoring C&RT's nonsense, bluster and threats, and simply making use of the Licence that has been paid for and issued.

[Dave Payne]

 

There is also the option of ignoring C&RT's nonsense, bluster and threats, and simply making use of the Licence that has been paid for and issued.

 

 

Indeed, but this will just cause another court case anyway.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

 

Indeed, but this will just cause another court case anyway.

 

Really, . . . on what grounds ?

[Jerra]

 

There is also the option of ignoring C&RT's nonsense, bluster and threats, and simply making use of the Licence that has been paid for and issued.

As you and the OP are very confident that CRT are in the wrong that would seem to be a logical way forward. Let us know when he leaves his mooring and how things turn out.

[Dave Payne]

 

Really, . . . on what grounds ?

 

I would guess CRT would say the boat has no licence as they have revoked it, then start proceedings for removal via a court order again?

[onionbargee]

I would welcome a court case, and have already had offers to crowd fund it. CRT would then have to answer why they have knowingly misrepresented a court order, and their own legislation, and broken the law, which will be humiliating for them.

 

I would have to answer why I put in a perfectly valid and legal licence application which will be a 5 min job.

[Dave Payne]

Sorted then, will you be moving onto CRT waters?

[onionbargee]

Sorted then, will you be moving onto CRT waters?

That depends on the reply I am waiting for.

 

I may already have TW on CRT waters who knows ?

[Tony Dunkley]

 

I would guess CRT would say the boat has no licence as they have revoked it, then start proceedings for removal via a court order again?

 

Removal from where and what ?

Whenever 'Tadworth' returns to it's mooring, it removes itself from C&RT waters.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Dave Payne]

 

Removal from where and what ?

 

 

Where = Water

What = Boat

[FadeToScarlet]

You want me to spend hundreds of quid on a second survey because CRT have invented the idea that it is unfit to navigate ?

 

That sounds like guilty before being proven innocent to me. If I were to accept that then CRT could unlawfully revoke anyone's licence on the spot unless they prove whatever CRT wants to be proven, however vaigue or pointless.

 

I have told them that if they want it surveyed, I am willing to discuss this, and possibly allow it at the next time TW is docked for blacking. However it is reasonable that I receive some idea of what they think the problem is, and that this applies to every boat licenced by CRT, and not just mine. They have to comply with the law and reinstate my licence officially first though.

Don't you have to survey it every 7 or so years for insurance anyway- or is it only 3Rd party?

[PaulG]

I would welcome a court case, and have already had offers to crowd fund it. CRT would then have to answer why they have knowingly misrepresented a court order, and their own legislation, and broken the law, which will be humiliating for them.

 

I would have to answer why I put in a perfectly valid and legal licence application which will be a 5 min job.

So why don't you sue them them?

Not point scoring, just wondering...