Jump to content

Tadworth versus CRT.

onionbargee

By onionbargee
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted (edited)

The most important word in this section is the word SHALL. In legal speak this word is all important and if the authorities have not complied with it then any action taken subsequently would likely fail on a point of law.

 

Also having considerable bearing on what would be C&RT's correct and lawful course of action if 'Tadworth' really was in an 'unsafe' condition, but not, it would seem, of any concern whatsoever to the 'Enforcement Team', is the fact that there is no prescribed penalty under S.7 of the '83 Act for keeping or using an unsafe vessel on C&RT waters.

There is a prescribed penalty for failing to rectify any or all notified dangerous defects, should the vessel continue to be used on C&RT waters, but in this instance C&RT have chosen to invent and apply a penalty of their own making, namely terminating a recently issued Licence, as punishment for an assumed and unproven breach of either Byelaw 3) or S.7 of the '83 Act.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phil. Gongoozler

Phil.

Posted
Posted

I thought "Must" = comply with Law and "shall" and "should" allow wiggle room?

No, must and shall are the two words used that require unconditional compliance. For wriggle room to be allowed legislators use the word, may.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mark99 Veteran II

mark99

Posted
Posted (edited)

No, must and shall are the two words used that require unconditional compliance. For wriggle room to be allowed legislators use the word, may.

Ok ta. In my industry every engineering standard states in its definitions that must= LEGAL requirement. Should and shall are defined as one step below. However it does suggest if you do a "should" or "shall" you need to prove it's at least defendable to the beak. SHOULD allowing more leeway than shall.

Edited by mark99
Link to comment
Share on other sites
onionbargee Influencer

onionbargee

Posted
  • Author
Posted

They need to lay off the turps up at CRT HQ.

 

Or at least read the legislation before they quote it. Surely we can only conclude the staff in the legal department dealing with this are grossly incompetent, and should be sacked . It is their job to advise the enforcement officers what to do, and apparently they don't even have any idea of what their own legislation actually says or means.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pearlygeoff Contributor

pearlygeoff

Posted
Posted (edited)

You become a 'Supervisor' by being unwaveringly 'nasty' and prepared to put your name to the paperwork.

 

 

If you're seen to be 'reasonable' and to be 'engaging' with people/boaters to help sort out a problem you will not be considered and will, almost certainly, be 'warned' and disciplined.

 

Lots of evidence of this but, unfortunately, most people just 'put up and shut up'. And, of course, those who speak up are shouted down or ignored by those who know nothing or prefer to live in their comforting denial.

 

It is beyond doubt that they are a law unto themselves, do what they like and are allowed to get away with it. They act unlawfully and criminally in their harassment of people, particularly if challenged, and wilfully subvert the legal process. All this as a charitable trust and part public body - with public funding- and, supposed, custodian of the waterways.

 

What is there to discuss? The evidence is there, the proof is there, and still people make excuses for them. For the thirty or so regulars on here it's just an obsession and addiction - an endless pub chat leading nowhere. That's an observation not, necessarily, a criticism. It's probably an inevitable development but being no more than that it's not as important and relevant as you probably think it is. People who challenge the proven abuses, at considerable risk to themselves, and seek to share the information of their experience should not be treated like an intruder to 'the club' as is usually the case.

 

There should more 'information' and less 'chat'.

 

(It's not a 'rant' - a 'rant' would be much longer and I can't really be bothered).

Edited by Lady Cassandra
Edit to remove content making allegations against named persons
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
onionbargee Influencer

onionbargee

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

I am starting to view this whole business as a form of harassment now. All the "issues" with my licence CRT have brought up so far are wholly invented by them, none have been genuine so far, there is no reason to do this except as a vindictive campaign of harassment. My licence is paid in full for 12 months remember, the trust doesn't have to do any of this, and they have not given one valid reason why they are.

 

My new legal word of the day is...

 

Ultra vires - a body exercising powers outside of its legal authority, ( which are then invalid )

Edited by canon7578
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
onionbargee Influencer

onionbargee

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It is very urgent now that boaters take action to make sure the trust has some accountability in future, don't wait until its you that gets screwed, before you do something.

 

Don't ask me what that is yet, but I will be working on it. The ombudsman needs sacking for a start, he's a CRT stooge by all accounts. Then there is the fact that they can break their own legislation ( a criminal offence to any of us ) without any consequences, except looking stupid, which apparently they don't care about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul C Veteran II

Paul C

Posted
Posted

It is very urgent now that boaters take action to make sure the trust has some accountability in future, don't wait until its you that gets screwed, before you do something.

 

Don't ask me what that is yet, but I will be working on it. The ombudsman needs sacking for a start, he's a CRT stooge by all accounts. Then there is the fact that they can break their own legislation ( a criminal offence to any of us ) without any consequences, except looking stupid, which apparently they don't care about.

 

If you feel they've broken their own legislation in your case, you can launch a judicial review of it. Specifically, if your boat has mooring BSS and insurance, yet they cancel the licence, you should do just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GUMPY Veteran II

GUMPYDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

Maybe I read this differently from everyone else.

Surely if there is an injunction against someone bringing a boat back on to CRT waters without permission you would need to seek permission from CRT to have the injunction removed before applying for a licence.

I would have also thought that if onionbargee or whatever he wants to call himself this week applied for a licence using the same details that are mentioned in the injunction CRTs system would flag it up as an invalid application.

I do feel that the OP is not posting the whole truth.......as usual

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
onionbargee Influencer

onionbargee

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Maybe I read this differently from everyone else.

Surely if there is an injunction against someone bringing a boat back on to CRT waters without permission you would need to seek permission from CRT to have the injunction removed before applying for a licence.

I would have also thought that if onionbargee or whatever he wants to call himself this week applied for a licence using the same details that are mentioned in the injunction CRTs system would flag it up as an invalid application.

I do feel that the OP is not posting the whole truth.......as usual

you haven't read or understood the previous posts, which answer all these questions. Edited by canon7578
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GUMPY Veteran II

GUMPYDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

Did you read and understand the part where CRT said you do not need their permission to apply for a licence post a court order ?

That is a line I missed, who at CRT said that was the case?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NigelMoore Veteran

NigelMoore

Posted
Posted

That is a line I missed, who at CRT said that was the case?

 

Peter Palmer, after consultation with the legal team as to how he ought to respond to a straightforward challenge to Jackie Lewis on the point.

 

Confusion will inevitably have set in owing to overlapping topics. The post quoting CaRT’s recognition that the Court Order refers to the need for a boat licence as the ‘prior permission’, was under ‘BBC reports on CC’ -

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=84052&page=7#entry1805115

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Graham Davis Veteran

Graham Davis

Posted
Posted

It is very urgent now that boaters take action to make sure the trust has some accountability in future, don't wait until its you that gets screwed, before you do something.

 

Don't ask me what that is yet, but I will be working on it. The ombudsman needs sacking for a start, he's a CRT stooge by all accounts. Then there is the fact that they can break their own legislation ( a criminal offence to any of us ) without any consequences, except looking stupid, which apparently they don't care about.

 

If that is the case why are you ranting on a powerless internet forum and not actually doing something about it, like seeking a Judicial Review?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted

 

 

You could set up a 'crowd funding' appeal for funds to pay for it. That way you'll find out how much support you have from other boaters.

 

 

If that is the case why are you ranting on a powerless internet forum and not actually doing something about it, like seeking a Judicial Review?

 

In the process of digging themselves into a fairly deep hole over the last few days, C&RT have very effectively demonstrated the flaws and weaknesses of their Section 8 / Court Order / Injunction strategy, and the extent to which they are content to routinely mislead and lie.

Were C&RT now to reconsider, and perhaps curtail, their predilection for costly and futile litigation, there would be no need to seek a remedy for their excesses via Judicial Review, or any other potentially expensive means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.