Tadworth versus CRT.

[NigelMoore]

Is it an offence to misrepresent a court order ?

 

Or threaten its use after it has been "nullified" ? Ie threatening to seize Tadworth after my licence had been issued ?

 

Strictly speaking, the Court Orders are not ‘nullified’ by obtaining a licence, anymore than the relevant byelaw and the 1995 Act are ‘nullified’. It is only the claimed effect of them by CaRT that is nullified.

 

In both cases, the terms of the Court Orders as with the Statutory obligations, are instead complied with, upon obtaining the licence, [which is the only appropriate aim of the Orders].

 

Once again, however, in Leigh’s case it is essentially argued that ensuring licence acquisition is NOT one of their legitimate aims [the inescapable corollary of removing a vessel under s.8 in lieu of suing for licence arrears], while simultaneously arguing that it IS one of their legitimate aims – just one not worth bothering with [for a variety of utterly specious reasons].

 

[onionbargee]

To follow up on what Nigel has said in post #694 :~

 

It is undeniable that C&RT exist and operate in a world of their own, with little or no connection to reality, truth, or anything resembling even common decency.

 

The Section 8 procedure is certainly their favoured enforcement 'tool', despite never being intended for the use to which it has latterly been put by both BW and C&RT.

 

It is lengthy, costly and, if responded to appropriately, in Shoosmiths own words [when discontinuing legal action against me in 2014] ultimately "worthless and academic".

Incredible as it may seem, those very words were used by C&RT/Shoosmiths in an Application [to Discontinue] to Nottingham County Court which consisted mainly of whingeing about how C&RT's legal action had been wrecked because I had filed a Defence and bought a new PBC for my boat AFTER they had issued the Claim.

 

The 1983 Act did NOT confer any powers whatsoever to remove boats from the waterways for alleged [or proven] breaches of Licence T&C's, NOR does it empower them to take possession of a vessel with the intention of selling it, if the owner is known to them and wishes to reclaim it, and NOR does it provide for the recovery of alleged, or proven, debt in the form of unpaid Licence/PBC fees.

 

The following selection of lies and mis-information, published with the intention of intimidating boaters into complying with unenforceable T&C's, is currently to be found on the C&RT website.

It is interesting to note the complete absence of the 2013 Order with regard to 'Tadworth' [the one that was the basis for all the recent lies and nonsense] from the list of Court Orders they publish on the same part of the website.

Our main tool for enforcement is the power for the Canal & River Trust to 'section 8' unlicensed boats. This relates to powers given in the British Waterways Act 1983 (and transferred to the Canal & River Trust) and allows us to remove boats from the waterway if they are there without our permission or persistently in breach of our licence terms and conditions including not having a licence.

If a boat is also someone's home, we take the added precaution before exercising these powers to get a court order to remove the boat from the waterway.

Once we've removed the boat we can either sell it or, if it is of little value, we may destroy it. We have first claim on any sale proceeds which we use to recover outstanding fees and to cover our costs of taking enforcement action.

Do you think the order for Tadworth has been deliberately left off that list ? For what reason ?

[NigelMoore]

currently to be found on the C&RT website. -

 

". . . We have first claim on any sale proceeds which we use to recover outstanding fees and to cover our costs of taking enforcement action.

 

It will be interesting to see whether CaRT remove this wording from their website now that they have admitted in court pleadings that they know this to be untrue.

Edited June 13, 2016 by NigelMoore

[NigelMoore]

In confirmation of the admission -

"18. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is admitted and averred that thereafter, as evidenced by the e-mail dated 19th March 2015, mistakenly the Claimant was informed that he would have to pay the sum of £12,676 for the return of his vessel, including the sums due for arrears of licence fees pursuant to section 5(2) of the 1983 Act, which it is admitted were not recoverable pursuant to section 8 of the 1983 Act." [my bold]

Extraordinarily, the pleadings go on to deny any wrong doing in extorting the alleged arrears of fees claimed.

[onionbargee]

Its interesting to note that in my case CRT never once in 2 1/2 years asked me to pay my licence fee debt for 2013, but instead started digging a huge hole of lies, and unlawful shannanigins of which they now have humiliatingly lost on every single issue, and publically made themselves look like idiots. A £65 small claims court action would have made me pay up, and all of this could have been avoided.

 

Why are CRT insisting on using the section 8 process, even though its loosing them money, and not achieving the aim of retreiving lost licence fees ? I know it wasn't news to some, but the Tadworth case has forced then to admit again that the court order does not stop a new licence application, I hope it will be impossible for CRT to lie about that in future. The section 8 process looks even more stupid now.

 

I'm wondering if there is a requirement in law for the claimant to use the most appropriate method of obtaining the outcome they want, can the defendant argue that the section 8 is not appropriate for debt recovery ?

Edited June 14, 2016 by onionbargee

[onionbargee]

CRT have agreed to re issue the licence for Tadworth starting from the 1st of July, using the EXACT SAME details I submitted in my original application in Febuary i.e admitting there was nothing wrong with my original application.

 

I may have broken the record for a licence application at 126 days ?

[Alan Taylor]

prompt payment discount?

[NigelMoore]

I'm wondering if there is a requirement in law for the claimant to use the most appropriate method of obtaining the outcome they want, can the defendant argue that the section 8 is not appropriate for debt recovery ?

 

The only legislation that would apply, so far as I can think, would be the HRA, which - as I interpret it at least - effectively demands that the least onerous of available options is to be applied where rights of property are affected.

 

The latter part of your query ought now to be redundant, seeing that CaRT have acknowledged in court pleadings that s.8 does not apply at all for debt recovery, let alone be a more or less appropriate option.