section 8 canning dock ?

[gaggle]

 

 

 

I know you "get off" on being rude on internet forums but you really are a bit of a stuck record on this (and all other) occasions - I've already stated that I'd be very interested to hear why the ship needed to be taken from Liverpool. I'd await the evidence. If you're holding stuff back, then basing opinions on it and posting, then its not much use to anyone except yourself. I for one, can't take you seriously any more since your posts seem to have this single theme running through them.

KETTLE , POT , what is your theme ? nearly nine and a half thousand posts , you certainly have a lot to say about or in support of something , maybe CRT and how great they are are .

[Paul C]

KETTLE , POT , what is your theme ? nearly nine and a half thousand posts , you certainly have a lot to say about or in support of something , maybe CRT and how great they are are .

 

Once again you've not comprehended the posts I've written. For clarity, I am asking for PROPER EVIDENCE that CRT have acted illegally on this issue, because with the facts so far in the public domain, the only transgressor is the owner of Planet.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Once again you've not comprehended the posts I've written. For clarity, I am asking for PROPER EVIDENCE that CRT have acted illegally on this issue, because with the facts so far in the public domain, the only transgressor is the owner of Planet.

I suggest you reread Tony's earlier post -

 

The owner of the Lightship has been guilty of a great many wrongs in the lead up to this regrettable state of affairs, as I have already said in an earlier post, and is undoubtedly the main architect of a good many of his own difficulties, but he is NOT the party to the dispute that is knowingly indulging in continuing illegal, or even criminal, activity in the course of it.

 

Then read the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977

 

Then make up your own mind.

 

What Tony is suggesting is that CaRT is acting Ultra Vires irrespective of action (or inaction) by the owner the property (i.e. the lightship). In that they have moved the ship from their Canning Dock and will sell to recover alleged debts.

Ultimately, it is for a court to decide.

 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Dunkley]

.... ... ... ... .... .... , because with the facts so far in the public domain, the only transgressor is the owner of Planet.

 

There are links to news reports, and there has been a lot of wild speculation in this thread about what the owner of "Planet", Alan Roberts, has done to deserve having his ship stolen from him, but I don't see anything that comes near to being an established 'fact'. In the main, what I have seen are large helpings of unthinking prejudice and bigotry, and the now customary 'presumption of probity' to which C&RT are all too frequently treated.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Arthur Marshall]

According to the ship's website, as pointed out before, Alan Roberts is not in fact the owner. Not that I believe everything I read on the web, but I do find that odd enough in view of the insistence on this as his personal tragedy to question almost everything I read in support of Mr Roberts, as we really don't know anything about him apart from the fact that he WAS the owner during a period of unlicensed trading and unpaid mooring fees.

No one deserves to have anything "stolen", but as ever there's a bit more to this than meets the eye, and accusing those who question any particular point of view of prejudice and bigotry is, frankly, bollocks, and smacks more than little of the same conditions.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

According to the ship's website, as pointed out before, Alan Roberts is not in fact the owner. Not that I believe everything I read on the web, but I do find that odd enough in view of the insistence on this as his personal tragedy to question almost everything I read in support of Mr Roberts, as we really don't know anything about him apart from the fact that he WAS the owner during a period of unlicensed trading and unpaid mooring fees.

No one deserves to have anything "stolen", but as ever there's a bit more to this than meets the eye, and accusing those who question any particular point of view of prejudice and bigotry is, frankly, bollocks, and smacks more than little of the same conditions.

From the documents that have been passed to me, Alan Roberts accepts that he is the owner.

 

The issue is has CaRT acted Ultra Vires in removing the boat from Canning dock and saying that they will sell it to recover alleged debts.

 

**** Edited for spooling****

Edited September 25, 2016 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Tony Dunkley]

The C&RT letter copied below is one example of the only form of notice naming the vessel and the owner, served on either throughout the entire course of the dispute.

 

This poorly worded and somewhat incomprehensible document is the full extent of what C&RT relied on as their 'authority' to take possession of and sell the named vessel.

 

The forceful seizure of the vessel on Tuesday last was carried out by C&RT's Harbour Master, Andy Goudie, in the company of several other men equipped with bolt cutters, crowbars and sledgehammers. No form of identity was either shown or worn and they introduced themselves as "Water Bailiffs" and "Enforcement Officers" working for C&RT.

Once aboard they forcibly ejected the sole occupant, Gary Anderton, and proceeded to cut off locks and/or otherwise to open or break in to every compartment and cabin.

 

They have obtained a Debt Judgment in their favour in respect of a County Court Claim for unpaid berthing fees, but have not yet given the Court a final figure for the claimed amount. Neither, therefore, have they yet been able to apply for, or obtain, a Writ of Execution, or any other form of lawful enforcement of the Debt Judgment.

 

It is worthy of note that despite the emphasis in the 5 August letter on the imperative of removing the vessel from their 'waterspace' in Liverpool, C&RT then subsequently squander a vast sum of money [ I will know roughly how much fairly soon, and will post the figure] in NOT removing it from their 'waterspace' at all, but having it towed to Sharpness merely to berth it in a different bit of their 'waterspace' there.

____________________________

 

 

FAO: Mr Alan Roberts 5th August 2016

And/or

The Current Owner(s) or Person(s) in control of Planet Light Vessel in Canning Dock

 

(Two Copies of this Letter attached to Planet Light Vessel in Canning Dock addressed to persons named above )

Our Ref TNomvete

Your Ref

Dear Mr Roberts and/or the current owners or persons in control of Planet Light Vessel,

 

RE. Planet Light at Canning Dock

 

On the 15th April 2016 the Canal & River Trust (the Trust) sent Mr Roberts a letter requiring the payment of unpaid berthing fees for the period 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015, and confirming that, since 1st January 2016, Planet Light (the Vessel) has been berthed without our permission over our waterspace at Canning Dock (‘our Waterspace’).

 

In the letter, the Trust requested the removal of the Vessel from our Waterspace and made it clear that if the Vessel was not removed by the 14th May 2016, the Trust would take steps to remove and sell it, and deduct and costs and expenses incurred in doing so from the proceeds of sale.

 

We are also extremely concerned that the Vessel has continued to trade as a bar notwithstanding that we have confirmed to you that trading is not permitted as you are no longer licensed to remain in our Waterspace. In addition we have had two separate reports from 4th June and 30th July 2016 of people jumping from the Vessel into our Waterspace. This is very dangerous and raises grave health and safety concerns for the Trust which we have reported the incidents to the licensing section of the Local Authority and to the police.

 

As any continuing use of the Vessel in our Waterspace is unauthorised, and given the serious health and safety concerns we have, this letter serves as notice that as from the date of this letter, you do not have our consent to enter in, or onto our Waterspace, until we have removed the Vessel. If you have made arrangements for the removal of the Vessel from our Waterspace yourself, you should contact Andrew Goudie, the harbour master, on 07920862741 or 01517096558.

 

If you enter onto or over any part of our Waterspace, and/or continue any trade at the Vessel, you will be doing so without our permission and will therefore be trespassing on the Trust’s land. To deal with such trespass, we will consider making a court application for an injunction to (1) prevent you or any other persons authorised by you (including without limitation, employees, business associates) from accessing our Waterspace until such time as we have removed the Vessel, and/or (2) to prevent you from continuing any trade from the Vessel.

 

We trust that we have made our position clear. We are making arrangements to remove the Vessel from our Waterspace. It is in your interests to remove the Vessel yourself, as you will be liable to us for any costs we incur associated with such removal and its storage elsewhere, and we may dispose of the Vessel to recover our costs.

 

Yours faithfully

Canal & River Trust

Thami Nomvete

Solicitor

Edited September 26, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Jerra]

The C&RT letter copied below is one example of the only form of notice naming the vessel and the owner, served on either throughout the entire course of the dispute.

 

This poorly worded and somewhat incomprehensible document is the full extent of what C&RT relied on as their 'authority' to take possession of and sell the named vessel.

 

The forceful seizure of the vessel on Tuesday last was carried out by C&RT's Harbour Master, Andy Goudie, in the company of several other men equipped with bolt cutters, crowbars and sledgehammers. No form of identity was either shown or worn and they introduced themselves as "Water Bailiffs" and "Enforcement Officers" working for C&RT.

Once aboard they forcibly ejected the sole occupant, Gary Anderton, and proceeded to cut off locks and/or otherwise to open or break in to every compartment and cabin.

 

They have obtained a Debt Judgment in their favour in respect of a County Court Claim for unpaid berthing fees, but have not yet given the Court a final figure for the claimed amount. Neither, therefore, have they yet been able to apply for, or obtain, a Writ of Execution, or any other form of lawful enforcement of the Debt Judgment.

 

It is worthy of note that despite the emphasis in the 5 August letter on the imperative of removing the vessel from their 'waterspace' in Liverpool, C&RT then subsequently squander a vast sum of money [ I will know roughly how much fairly soon, and will post the figure] in NOT removing from their 'waterspace' at all, but having it towed to Sharpness merely to berth it in a different bit of their 'waterspace' there.

____________________________

 

 

FAO: Mr Alan Roberts 5th August 2016

And/or

The Current Owner(s) or Person(s) in control of Planet Light Vessel in Canning Dock

 

(Two Copies of this Letter attached to Planet Light Vessel in Canning Dock addressed to persons named above )

Our Ref TNomvete

Your Ref

Dear Mr Roberts and/or the current owners or persons in control of Planet Light Vessel,

 

RE. Planet Light at Canning Dock

 

On the 15th April 2016 the Canal & River Trust (the Trust) sent Mr Roberts a letter requiring the payment of unpaid berthing fees for the period 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015, and confirming that, since 1st January 2016, Planet Light (the Vessel) has been berthed without our permission over our waterspace at Canning Dock (‘our Waterspace’).

 

In the letter, the Trust requested the removal of the Vessel from our Waterspace and made it clear that if the Vessel was not removed by the 14th May 2016, the Trust would take steps to remove and sell it, and deduct and costs and expenses incurred in doing so from the proceeds of sale.

 

We are also extremely concerned that the Vessel has continued to trade as a bar notwithstanding that we have confirmed to you that trading is not permitted as you are no longer licensed to remain in our Waterspace. In addition we have had two separate reports from 4th June and 30th July 2016 of people jumping from the Vessel into our Waterspace. This is very dangerous and raises grave health and safety concerns for the Trust which we have reported the incidents to the licensing section of the Local Authority and to the police.

 

As any continuing use of the Vessel in our Waterspace is unauthorised, and given the serious health and safety concerns we have, this letter serves as notice that as from the date of this letter, you do not have our consent to enter in, or onto our Waterspace, until we have removed the Vessel. If you have made arrangements for the removal of the Vessel from our Waterspace yourself, you should contact Andrew Goudie, the harbour master, on 07920862741 or 01517096558.

 

If you enter onto or over any part of our Waterspace, and/or continue any trade at the Vessel, you will be doing so without our permission and will therefore be trespassing on the Trust’s land. To deal with such trespass, we will consider making a court application for an injunction to (1) prevent you or any other persons authorised by you (including without limitation, employees, business associates) from accessing our Waterspace until such time as we have removed the Vessel, and/or (2) to prevent you from continuing any trade from the Vessel.

 

We trust that we have made our position clear. We are making arrangements to remove the Vessel from our Waterspace. It is in your interests to remove the Vessel yourself, as you will be liable to us for any costs we incur associated with such removal and its storage elsewhere, and we may dispose of the Vessel to recover our costs.

 

Yours faithfully

Canal & River Trust

Thami Nomvete

Solicitor

Well legal or not the owner(can't say they weren't warned.)

[Mutts]

You ought to see what the Irish equivalent of the C&RT have done to the Guillemot lightship in Kilmore Harbour, Co Wexford.

Take no prisoners men

 

[Alan de Enfield]

And then of course C&RTs subsidiary BWML have the Spurn Light Ship in their marina at Hull.

 

Open as a museum.

 

[Jrtm]

The last manned Lightship is now a museum in Harwich.

 

http://www.lv18.org

Thats the last surviving light boat still in original configuration.

 

Planet was the last manned light ship to be manned when they manned light ships

[Wanderer Vagabond]

The C&RT letter copied below is one example of the only form of notice naming the vessel and the owner, served on either throughout the entire course of the dispute.

 

This poorly worded and somewhat incomprehensible document is the full extent of what C&RT relied on as their 'authority' to take possession of and sell the named vessel.

 

The forceful seizure of the vessel on Tuesday last was carried out by C&RT's Harbour Master, Andy Goudie, in the company of several other men equipped with bolt cutters, crowbars and sledgehammers. No form of identity was either shown or worn and they introduced themselves as "Water Bailiffs" and "Enforcement Officers" working for C&RT.

Once aboard they forcibly ejected the sole occupant, Gary Anderton, and proceeded to cut off locks and/or otherwise to open or break in to every compartment and cabin.

 

They have obtained a Debt Judgment in their favour in respect of a County Court Claim for unpaid berthing fees, but have not yet given the Court a final figure for the claimed amount. Neither, therefore, have they yet been able to apply for, or obtain, a Writ of Execution, or any other form of lawful enforcement of the Debt Judgment.

 

It is worthy of note that despite the emphasis in the 5 August letter on the imperative of removing the vessel from their 'waterspace' in Liverpool, C&RT then subsequently squander a vast sum of money [ I will know roughly how much fairly soon, and will post the figure] in NOT removing from their 'waterspace' at all, but having it towed to Sharpness merely to berth it in a different bit of their 'waterspace' there.

____________________________

 

 

FAO: Mr Alan Roberts 5th August 2016

And/or

The Current Owner(s) or Person(s) in control of Planet Light Vessel in Canning Dock

 

(Two Copies of this Letter attached to Planet Light Vessel in Canning Dock addressed to persons named above )

Our Ref TNomvete

Your Ref

Dear Mr Roberts and/or the current owners or persons in control of Planet Light Vessel,

 

RE. Planet Light at Canning Dock

 

On the 15th April 2016 the Canal & River Trust (the Trust) sent Mr Roberts a letter requiring the payment of unpaid berthing fees for the period 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015, and confirming that, since 1st January 2016, Planet Light (the Vessel) has been berthed without our permission over our waterspace at Canning Dock (‘our Waterspace’).

 

In the letter, the Trust requested the removal of the Vessel from our Waterspace and made it clear that if the Vessel was not removed by the 14th May 2016, the Trust would take steps to remove and sell it, and deduct and costs and expenses incurred in doing so from the proceeds of sale.

 

We are also extremely concerned that the Vessel has continued to trade as a bar notwithstanding that we have confirmed to you that trading is not permitted as you are no longer licensed to remain in our Waterspace. In addition we have had two separate reports from 4th June and 30th July 2016 of people jumping from the Vessel into our Waterspace. This is very dangerous and raises grave health and safety concerns for the Trust which we have reported the incidents to the licensing section of the Local Authority and to the police.

 

As any continuing use of the Vessel in our Waterspace is unauthorised, and given the serious health and safety concerns we have, this letter serves as notice that as from the date of this letter, you do not have our consent to enter in, or onto our Waterspace, until we have removed the Vessel. If you have made arrangements for the removal of the Vessel from our Waterspace yourself, you should contact Andrew Goudie, the harbour master, on 07920862741 or 01517096558.

 

If you enter onto or over any part of our Waterspace, and/or continue any trade at the Vessel, you will be doing so without our permission and will therefore be trespassing on the Trust’s land. To deal with such trespass, we will consider making a court application for an injunction to (1) prevent you or any other persons authorised by you (including without limitation, employees, business associates) from accessing our Waterspace until such time as we have removed the Vessel, and/or (2) to prevent you from continuing any trade from the Vessel.

 

We trust that we have made our position clear. We are making arrangements to remove the Vessel from our Waterspace. It is in your interests to remove the Vessel yourself, as you will be liable to us for any costs we incur associated with such removal and its storage elsewhere, and we may dispose of the Vessel to recover our costs.

 

Yours faithfully

Canal & River Trust

Thami Nomvete

Solicitor

From the way that I'm reading the letter CRT are NOT recovering any Debt enforcement from this. They have quite categorically told Mr Roberts to remove the boat from CRT waters and if he chooses not to do so they will remove it themselves and, to quote the letter,"...Trust would take steps to remove and sell it, and deduct and costs and expenses incurred in doing so from the proceeds of sale....". There doesn't seem to be any reference of what they would do with any excess monies over and above the costs or shifting this hulk from their waters, the letter doesn't say that any balance would go towards the outstanding debt for his failure to pay his way for the mooring.

 

Mr Roberts clearly took no action regard the letter from CRT and the result is that the boat has now been shifted out of Liverpool. Am I supposed to sympathise with him? Sorry, I am unable to do so. He hasn't paid for the service that he has got but has managed to continue to trade from the vessel, where did he find the money to be able to do that? Would it not have been better spent in either paying his debts or shifting the boat himself from Liverpool docks

[Dalesman]

The BAR light ship being towed away from Liverpool

An older Bar light ship on station with the Liverpool pilot boat

[mayalld]

 

Whilst that is unquestionably what C&RT have been doing with regard to waterways specific legislation until a few days ago, they have now grown sufficiently in [misplaced] confidence to progress to the illegal seizure of a vessel under what amounts to their own amendments to the provisions of the 1977 Torts (Interference with Goods) Act, which is UK statute law, and therefore separate and independent from any of the statutory powers they enjoy, and abuse, under any of the various BW Acts.

 

Up until the moment when "Planet" passed through Canning Dock gates into the Mersey, C&RT were entitled, as creditors, to retain possession of the vessel as bailees exercising a lawful lien over a debtor's property which remained on/in their property/premises, ie. Canning Dock.

 

From the moment when the vessel entered the Mersey, C&RT have been illegally in possession of another's property without the entitlement a Court Order, executed by a Court appointed bailiff, following on from a Debt Judgment would otherwise have given them. Their prior stated intent to retain possession against payment of a claimed but unspecified sum of money, including removal, towing and storage charges, for which they have no Debt Judgment, makes a criminal act of the subsequent seizure [for the sole purpose of removal], and the continuing possession of the ship elsewhere than in the C&RT owned Dock.

 

C&RT are in big trouble with this, and they have only themselves to thank for that. They were informed, in writing, on the morning of 21 Sept 2016 that what they were proposing to do was unnecessary, ill-advised and illegal, but they elected to go ahead regardless, and it will cost them dear.

 

Perhaps you would expand upon why the Act you quote allows CRT to hold a lien, only provided it doesn't remove it from its property.

 

You are clearly unhappy about the vessel being moved a long distance (or at all), but I would contend that;

 

1) As it was, the vessel was occupying a prime mooring position, and not paying for it. CRT are being entirely reasonable in wishing to regain the use of that prime mooring, by moving the vessel to a place where it can be stored.

2) As Bailees, CRT have a duty to take care of the vessel, and can reasonably argue that they cannot keep the vessel secure where it was, but can keep it secure where it has been taken.

[Mike Todd]

From the way that I'm reading the letter CRT are NOT recovering any Debt enforcement from this. They have quite categorically told Mr Roberts to remove the boat from CRT waters and if he chooses not to do so they will remove it themselves and, to quote the letter,"...Trust would take steps to remove and sell it, and deduct and costs and expenses incurred in doing so from the proceeds of sale....". There doesn't seem to be any reference of what they would do with any excess monies over and above the costs or shifting this hulk from their waters, the letter doesn't say that any balance would go towards the outstanding debt for his failure to pay his way for the mooring.

 

Mr Roberts clearly took no action regard the letter from CRT and the result is that the boat has now been shifted out of Liverpool. Am I supposed to sympathise with him? Sorry, I am unable to do so. He hasn't paid for the service that he has got but has managed to continue to trade from the vessel, where did he find the money to be able to do that? Would it not have been better spent in either paying his debts or shifting the boat himself from Liverpool docks

When I read the letter that Tony posted it did seem to me to be rather different from how it had been portrayed hitherto. In particular it is relying on the alleged existence of trespass rather than anything to do with H&S or debt recovery. What would be interesting to know - and I have no doubt that Nigel will come along soon to give chapter and verse - whether this particular argument has been advanced before. Is it a new line or does it arise from the very specific case. After all, the ship was not (according to other arguments) in the main navigable channel - as far as I can recall from going through with as much paperwork as I could muster - that the authorised route is well away from that quayside.

 

As someone posted a while back, there is probably quite a bit more to come into the public domain regarding this case than the knew jerk reactions from historic cases where different contexts apply. The complexity of the Liverpool Docks and the various agreements to re-open a navigable channel mat well mean that it is nothing like anything else and experiences from it may not be transferable to much else.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

When I read the letter that Tony posted it did seem to me to be rather different from how it had been portrayed hitherto. In particular it is relying on the alleged existence of trespass rather than anything to do with H&S or debt recovery. What would be interesting to know - and I have no doubt that Nigel will come along soon to give chapter and verse - whether this particular argument has been advanced before. Is it a new line or does it arise from the very specific case. After all, the ship was not (according to other arguments) in the main navigable channel - as far as I can recall from going through with as much paperwork as I could muster - that the authorised route is well away from that quayside.

 

As someone posted a while back, there is probably quite a bit more to come into the public domain regarding this case than the knew jerk reactions from historic cases where different contexts apply. The complexity of the Liverpool Docks and the various agreements to re-open a navigable channel mat well mean that it is nothing like anything else and experiences from it may not be transferable to much else.

The dock is not a river waterway or a canal so 'main navigable channel' is not applicable. Most BW Acts/Byelaws etc don't apply.

 

 

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Perhaps you would expand upon why the Act you quote allows CRT to hold a lien, only provided it doesn't remove it from its property.

 

1) As it was, the vessel was occupying a prime mooring position, and not paying for it. CRT are being entirely reasonable in wishing to regain the use of that prime mooring, by moving the vessel to a place where it can be stored.

2) As Bailees, CRT have a duty to take care of the vessel, and can reasonably argue that they cannot keep the vessel secure where it was, but can keep it secure where it has been taken.

 

With regard to your first sentence, . . that isn't in fact what I said.

 

As for 1) No argument there at all, but there was/is a suitable and secure berth with no public access about 250 yards from where the ship was laying, alongside the narrow spit of land between the drydocks and the half-tide dock, in line with the disused gates to the river.

 

As for 2) In light of 1) above, they can't argue any such thing.

 

The cost of moving "Planet" to Sharpness was in excess of £20,000, . . . . the 250 yard tow across to the drydock side wall in the half-tide dock would have cost considerably less.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Graham Davis]

I do have to semi agree and there are a few others around but i think the history of it being the last used one makes it a bit more significant than just a light ship like the other mentioned on here.

 

If this is the last one, then what are the 2 currently moored in the river off Felixstowe?

[Graham Davis]

 

There is a great deal of evidence and hard facts, none of which shows C&RT in a good light, or their actions and conduct to be anything other than ill-advised and/or illegal, . . . but it happens that at this stage neither you nor any of the rest of C&RT's dedicated apologists and cheerleaders are privy to very much of it.

 

Your "arguments" would hold much more resonance if you dropped the personal insults against those that have a different view to you!

[ditchcrawler]

 

If this is the last one, then what are the 2 currently moored in the river off Felixstowe?

One in Levington

[Mike Todd]

The dock is not a river waterway or a canal so 'main navigable channel' is not applicable. Most BW Acts/Byelaws etc don't apply.

 

 

But I thought that an earlier post claimed that they did.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

C&RT have declared their intention to remove the vessel ['Planet'- ex LV23] from Canning Dock, Liverpool, at 1500 this afternoon. and because it's a bit too big to be taken to their stolen boats storage facility [in Chester] on a low loader, they're having it towed to Fleetwood.

 

The owners/vessel have NOT been served with an S.8 Notice, and nor have C&RT obtained, or even attempted to obtain, a Debt Judgment against the owners/operators. An E-mail has been sent to Parry, copied to the 'legal team' (sic), drawing attention to the omissions and shortcomings in the process so far, and putting C&RT on notice that if they do proceed this afternoon, the owners of 'Planet' will be taking action to secure the return of the vessel, and seeking appropriate compensation/damages.

 

EDITED

 

 

The C&RT letter copied below is one example of the only form of notice naming the vessel and the owner, served on either throughout the entire course of the dispute.

 

This poorly worded and somewhat incomprehensible document is the full extent of what C&RT relied on as their 'authority' to take possession of and sell the named vessel.

 

The forceful seizure of the vessel on Tuesday last was carried out by C&RT's Harbour Master, Andy Goudie, in the company of several other men equipped with bolt cutters, crowbars and sledgehammers. No form of identity was either shown or worn and they introduced themselves as "Water Bailiffs" and "Enforcement Officers" working for C&RT.

Once aboard they forcibly ejected the sole occupant, Gary Anderton, and proceeded to cut off locks and/or otherwise to open or break in to every compartment and cabin.

 

They have obtained a Debt Judgment in their favour in respect of a County Court Claim for unpaid berthing fees, but have not yet given the Court a final figure for the claimed amount. Neither, therefore, have they yet been able to apply for, or obtain, a Writ of Execution, or any other form of lawful enforcement of the Debt Judgment.

 

 

EDITED

Perhaps with your superior knowledge on the matter you could enlighten on which of these two postings are accurate and which is a load of nonsense since they seem to be mutually exclusive.

 

 

With regard to your first sentence, . . that isn't in fact what I said.

 

As for 1) No argument there at all, but there was/is a suitable and secure berth with no public access about 250 yards from where the ship was laying, alongside the narrow spit of land between the drydocks and the half-tide dock, in line with the disused gates to the river.

 

As for 2) In light of 1) above, they can't argue any such thing.

 

The cost of moving "Planet" to Sharpness was in excess of £20,000, . . . . the 250 yard tow across to the drydock side wall in the half-tide dock would have cost considerably less.

The cost of the exercise is actually totally irrelevent since, as CRT have indicated on their letter to Mr Roberts, if they had to move the boat themselves they would recover costs of doing so from the sale of the boat if necessary. These boats seem to go for around £250,000 so they should be able to recover £20,000 from that I would have thought. Of course if Mr Roberts didn't want them to move the boat, he was quite at liberty to move the boat himself since there are literally thousands of free moorings he could have taken it to, we call them sea anchorages. If we assume that the boat is indeed seaworthy (and being lightship they do come equipped with a few good anchoring points) he could have avoided all of this hassle if he had complied with the CRT request in the first place. Since he chose not to do so he is hardly in any position to complain about the actions of CRT to move the boat themselves to wherever they wish to take it, it was moved for the convenience of CRT, not the convenience of someone who doesn't pay their debts.

[howardang]

Puzzled Trinity House still uses Light Vessels as they are call https://www.trinityhouse.co.uk/lighthouses-and-lightvessels?type=lightvessel#filters

Light vessels, although now unmanned, still do the job well so why replace them? When they come to the end of their life the that may be the time to consider alternatives such as large buoys. On a smaller scale, light floats (similar to small light vessels) are also used successfullyon the Humber.

 

Howard

Edited September 26, 2016 by howardang

[Geo]

Light vessels, although now unmanned, still do the job well so why replace them? When they come to the end of their life the that may be the time to consider alternatives such as large buoys. On a smaller scale, light floats (similar to small light vessels) are also used successfullyon the Humber.

Howard

Oh I am quite aware of their continued use, I pass one frequently when out in my boast. The point was made because the claim was made that this was the last one. That claim was incorrect rather it should have been the last crewed light ship.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Perhaps with your superior knowledge on the matter you could enlighten on which of these two postings are accurate and which is a load of nonsense since they seem to be mutually exclusive.

 

 

In fact neither of the two posts you've quoted is ''a load of nonsense".

When the earlier post of the two was made on 21 September C&RT had NOT, at that time and date, obtained a Debt Judgment, or for that matter, any other sort of Judgment, against the owner of the vessel for arrears of berthing fees, or anything else. The sole inaccuracy in that post arises out of my belief, held in good faith at that time, that C&RT had yet to issue proceedings, and I have no problem in admitting that the information I had relied on was wrong.

 

However, as reflected in the second of the two posts quoted, the situation changed, as situations frequently do with the passage time, when on the afternoon of Friday 23 September a Judgment was entered in C&RT's favour at Liverpool County Court in the sum of £5686.65, being arrears of unpaid berthing fees.

 

What you describe as 'mutually exclusive', and apparently find so difficult to comprehend, are in reality nothing more than the by-products of the passage of time accompanied by a simple change of circumstances.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Tony Dunkley