Tadworth versus CRT.

[Theo]

Shame you took my reply to nicknorman away most greenies I have ever had for a single post !! (7)

And I wasnt rude and did not take sides.

 

Ho hum

 

It's called collateral damage by the chaps up here at the army camp. Sorry.

 

N

[alan_fincher]

My post that questioned whether the thread actually had posts by the same person under different form IDs has been part of the "collateral damage".

 

I think that was a reasonable question, and it would be interesting if that was looked at at all.

[magnetman]

 

It's called collateral damage by the chaps up here at the army camp. Sorry.

 

N

No worries - enjoy your boating we're on way back down the Wey just went through Newark Lock

[MtB]

My post that questioned whether the thread actually had posts by the same person under different form IDs has been part of the "collateral damage".

 

I think that was a reasonable question, and it would be interesting if that was looked at at all.

 

 

Well I saw your question, but general opinion on the boards seem to be that posting as a doppel is fine, nothing wrong with it, so I'd imagine that is why it was deleted.

 

I strongly disagree. Posting as a doppel is usually done to deceive, under the excuse of 'couldn't log in using my original ID', once outed.

[alan_fincher]

 

 

Well I saw your question, but general opinion on the boards seem to be that posting as a doppel is fine, nothing wrong with it, so I'd imagine that is why it was deleted.

 

I strongly disagree. Posting as a doppel is usually done to deceive, under the excuse of 'couldn't log in using my original ID', once outed.

 

If somebody is using a second account both to support arguments they have made from an original account, and to rubbish anybody who expresses any conflicting view, then I hardly think it helps the debate, does it?

 

I've no proof that that was happening yesterday, but it did seem more than a mild possibility!

[mayalld]

 

 

Well I saw your question, but general opinion on the boards seem to be that posting as a doppel is fine, nothing wrong with it, so I'd imagine that is why it was deleted.

 

I strongly disagree. Posting as a doppel is usually done to deceive, under the excuse of 'couldn't log in using my original ID', once outed.

 

And I strongly agree with your strong disagreement.

[Theo]

My post that questioned whether the thread actually had posts by the same person under different form IDs has been part of the "collateral damage".

 

I think that was a reasonable question, and it would be interesting if that was looked at at all.

 

These things are always looked at and that one has been considered. Further than that, as Sir Humphrey would claim "I couldn't possibly say."

 

Sorry that I cannot be more explicit.

 

Theo

[onionbargee]

Update.

 

1. CRT have admitted that contrary to what they told me, a court order does not prevent another licence being applied for.

 

2. They claimed Tadworth did not meet "safety standards" over and above its BSC , but could not provide any such standards when asked to do so.

 

3. When challenged CRT could not produce any evidence or reason why Tadworth might be "unfit to navigate" making the citing of this bylaw as a reason to cancel the licence without any basis.

 

4. It is noteworthy that they have used the terms "administrative error", "cancelled" , " witheld" and "revoked" to cover all bases to try and justify this.

 

5. Claimed my mooring was not genuine, which I then supplied the contact details of the mooring owner, he has never been contacted about this, yet CRT now say they are satisfied it is genuine.

 

6. Have asked me to re apply for the licence, but offered no apology or admission of any wrong doing.

Edited June 4, 2016 by onionbargee

[Tony Dunkley]

Update.

 

1. CRT have admitted that contrary to what they told me, a court order does not prevent another licence being applied for.

 

2. They claimed Tadworth did not meet "safety standards" over and above its BSC , but could not provide any such standards when asked to do so.

 

3. When challenged CRT could not produce any evidence or reason why Tadworth might be "unfit to navigate" making the citing of this bylaw as a reason to cancel the licence without any basis.

 

4. It is noteworthy that they have used the terms "administrative error", "cancelled" , " witheld" and "revoked" to cover all bases to try and justify this.

 

5. Claimed my mooring was not genuine, which I then supplied the contact details of the mooring owner, he has never been contacted about this, yet CRT now say they are satisfied it is genuine.

 

6. Have asked me to re apply for the licence, but offered no apology or admission of any wrong doing.

 

This is nothing more or less than the normal standard of performance that can be expected from C&RT's foot and knuckle dragging Enforcement and Legal departments.

 

Their unlawful antics and threats have, understandably, made you reluctant to move or use 'Tadworth' since paying the full year's Licence fee in advance last February, and you should insist on either a partial refund of the Licence fee to cover the period whilst they have been indulging in all their nonsense, or, if they are going to issue a fresh Licence, that the start date is no earlier than 1 June.

 

I think you'll find they will agree quite readily to a revised starting date, but if they do attempt to argue the toss about it there is a precedent of which you are very welcome to remind them.

When their legal action against me was falling apart in June/July 2014, I made a Renewal Application for my PBC [ the C&RT 'Rivers only Licence' which had been revoked in January 2014] to run for 12 months from the normal renewal date of 1 July. This was initially refused by way of the same sort of specious arguments that you have just been subjected to.

They eventually accepted that they had no option other than to issue a new PBC in August, and sent one with the usual starting date of 1 July.

I pointed out to them that, due entirely to their unlawful refusal to renew from 1 July, I had been deprived of the [lawful] use of my boat for the intervening time.

Another new PBC [C&RT's 'Rivers only Licence'] dated from 1 September 2014 arrived by return of post.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[HaulierP]

Update.

 

1. CRT have admitted that contrary to what they told me, a court order does not prevent another licence being applied for.

 

2. They claimed Tadworth did not meet "safety standards" over and above its BSC , but could not provide any such standards when asked to do so.

 

3. When challenged CRT could not produce any evidence or reason why Tadworth might be "unfit to navigate" making the citing of this bylaw as a reason to cancel the licence without any basis.

 

4. It is noteworthy that they have used the terms "administrative error", "cancelled" , " witheld" and "revoked" to cover all bases to try and justify this.

 

5. Claimed my mooring was not genuine, which I then supplied the contact details of the mooring owner, he has never been contacted about this, yet CRT now say they are satisfied it is genuine.

 

6. Have asked me to re apply for the licence, but offered no apology or admission of any wrong doing.

Good for you chap,Compensation would be my next destination,a letter from your Doctor perhaps.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

But most on here wouldn't need to have the balls and principles to argue the case to successful conclusion since, having not abused the system in the past, CRT would be delighted to issue the licence in quick time without any drama.

 

You're standing this whole issue on it's head.

All the past abuse of 'the system' has originated from C&RT.

 

They commenced by misusing/misapplying the 1983 Act by Section 8'ing an unlicensed vessel in 2013 rather than recovering the unpaid licence fees as provided for in Section 5 of the same Act and bringing a [criminal] prosecution against the owner under the General Canal Byelaws.

They then rounded off the abuse by refusing to issue a Licence when legally obliged to do so.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

You're standing this whole issue on it's head.

All the past abuse of 'the system' has originated from C&RT.

 

They commenced by misusing/misapplying the 1983 Act by Section 8'ing an unlicensed vessel in 2013 rather than recovering the unpaid licence fees as provided for in Section 5 of the same Act and bringing a [criminal] prosecution against the owner under the General Canal Byelaws.

They then rounded off the abuse by refusing to issue a Licence when legally obliged to do so.

 

But surely the 'abuse' started when Richard had not renewed his licence in 2013 and assuming that reminders were sent, and the 'threat' of action letters were sent he still did not licence the boat.

Even as 'inventive' as C&RT are they do not section 8 a boat without warning.

[Naughty Cal]

 

But surely the 'abuse' started when Richard had not renewed his licence in 2013 and assuming that reminders were sent, and the 'threat' of action letters were sent he still did not licence the boat.

Even as 'inventive' as C&RT are they do not section 8 a boat without warning.

Exactly.

[magnetman]

Don't go there

[nicknorman]

You're standing this whole issue on it's head.

All the past abuse of 'the system' has originated from C&RT.

 

They commenced by misusing/misapplying the 1983 Act by Section 8'ing an unlicensed vessel in 2013 rather than recovering the unpaid licence fees as provided for in Section 5 of the same Act and bringing a [criminal] prosecution against the owner under the General Canal Byelaws.

They then rounded off the abuse by refusing to issue a Licence when legally obliged to do so.

I don't dispute that CRT have acted unlawfully and deviously. However the OP also acted illegally by keeping his boat on the system unlicensed, intentionally and for a long period such that CRT had to spend a lot of our money resolving the problem.

 

Can you explain why you find the former so offensive whilst seeming to have no qualms about the latter? It does seem a very one -sided view.

Edited June 4, 2016 by nicknorman

[Tony Dunkley]

 

But surely the 'abuse' started when Richard had not renewed his licence in 2013 and assuming that reminders were sent, and the 'threat' of action letters were sent he still did not licence the boat.

Even as 'inventive' as C&RT are they do not section 8 a boat without warning.

 

 

I don't dispute that CRT have acted unlawfully and deviously. However the OP also acted illegally by keeping his boat on the system unlicensed, intentionally and for a long period such that CRT had to spend a lot of our money resolving the problem.

 

Can you explain why you find the former so offensive whilst seeming to have no qualms about the latter? It does seem a very one -sided view.

 

I'm not defending failure to obtain a Licence or a PBC when required by law to do so.

The point I am making is that C&RT's failure to use the appropriate powers they have at their disposal for dealing with unlicensed boats is not only wasteful of money that would be better spent on repairs and maintenance, but that the inappropriate use of Section 8 powers isn't an effective or economically sound means of achieving what should be the desired result, . . . ie. the offending owner is convicted and fined [ by Magistrates], the unpaid licence fees are recovered via a Civil Court, and the vessel remains on C&RT waters, licensed and contributing to the Trust's income.

 

The means to achieve this are all available to C&RT, as they were to BW, but they bloody-mindedly refuse to use them, preferring instead their much loved, costly, easily nullified and ultimately pointless Section 8 procedure.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

 

I'm not defending failure to obtain a Licence or a PBC when required by law to do so.

The point I am making is that C&RT's failure to use the appropriate powers they have at their disposal.................................

 

Fully agree.

But - C&RT should not be put into the position where they need to implement any proceedings.

 

If you don't poke the Bee hive with a stick, you don't get stung.

 

I do accept that (as in your case) occasionally you do get 'stung' without the prior 'poking'

Edited June 4, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[John V]

when a private individual "breaks the law" that is reprehensible.

 

When a public body "breaks the law" that is totally unforgiveable.

 

The two are not the same

[Alan de Enfield]

when a private individual "breaks the law" that is reprehensible.

 

When a public body "breaks the law" that is totally unforgiveable.

 

The two are not the same

 

The dictionary definition of reprehensible is "deserving of condemnation" with synonyms of "repugnant, inexcusable, unpardonable, unforgivable, insufferable, indefensible, unjustifiable, unacceptable"

 

But maybe you are suggesting differently, ie that a private individual should be "deserving of condemnation" but should be 'forgiven'

Edited June 4, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[carlt]

Even as 'inventive' as C&RT are they do not section 8 a boat without warning.

Having had a few section 8s served on various boats over the years I can assure you that I received no prior warning for any of them.

 

It is how you react to those S8s afterwards that dictates the subsequent attitude and behaviour of the enforcing authority.

[onionbargee]

 

Fully agree.

But - C&RT should not be put into the position where they need to implement any proceedings.

 

If you don't poke the Bee hive with a stick, you don't get stung.

 

 

That is not right on any level. Edited June 4, 2016 by onionbargee

[onionbargee]

I don't dispute that CRT have acted unlawfully and deviously. However the OP also acted illegally by keeping his boat on the system unlicensed, intentionally and for a long period such that CRT had to spend a lot of our money resolving the problem.

 

Can you explain why you find the former so offensive whilst seeming to have no qualms about the latter? It does seem a very one -sided view.

CRT are paid their costs as part of the court order, you have not had to pay anything. Once the order is served and I do what it says I have complied with the law, and that is the end of the matter.

[nicknorman]

CRT are paid their costs as part of the court order, you have not had to pay anything. Once the order is served and I do what it says I have complied with the law, and that is the end of the matter.

Ok fair enough on the costs in your case (but blimey, wouldn't it have been much cheaper to renew the licence in a timely manner!?), but I suspect there are plenty such cases where the defendant doesn't have the means to pay costs, or at least not within a reasonable timescale.

 

But the crux of my point is that both parties acted unlawfully. In your case it was eventually resolved by a court order. In CRT's case it looks like it's been resolved with a lot of argument from you. Same same. So I'm still struggling to see how CRT are demons and you aren't? Pot kettle etc. And whilst I'm not a religious chap, doesn't the bible have something to say about doing unto others as you would be done by?

[onionbargee]

Ok fair enough on the costs in your case (but blimey, wouldn't it have been much cheaper to renew the licence in a timely manner!?), but I suspect there are plenty such cases where the defendant doesn't have the means to pay costs, or at least not within a reasonable timescale.

 

But the crux of my point is that both parties acted unlawfully. In your case it was eventually resolved by a court order. In CRT's case it looks like it's been resolved with a lot of argument from you. Same same. So I'm still struggling to see how CRT are demons and you aren't? Pot kettle etc. And whilst I'm not a religious chap, doesn't the bible have something to say about doing unto others as you would be done by?

If you remember in my original post I said the order was perfectly legitimate, and at no time have I said or implied I am innocent, or perfect, In fact a couple of times I have said the opposite.

 

I acted unlawfully, and took my punishment. Now its CRT's turn. I am one man, irrelevant in the bigger picture, CRT is in control of over 30,000 licences, and has just shown once again that it cannot be trusted, I would concentrate on that.

[Loafer]

Don't go there

 

Excellent!

 

Anyway, good result, OB. Seems fair all round.