section 8 canning dock ?

[NigelMoore]

 

 

From the documentation that Tony has shared with us it seems that CRT, rather than going down the debt recovery path, are going down the trespass path. Having given the boat owner the opportunity to remove the vessel from the dock under his own volition, which he chose not to do, they have now removed it themselves. Had he removed it himself he would still have the vessel under his control and have none of the difficulties that currently beset him. The question of who pays for what will now lie with the courts but my understanding of the laws of trespass is that if you ask someone to leave and they refuse/decline to do so, you may use 'reasonable force' to remove them. Is this still correct?

You have probably overlooked the first of the letters Tony copied, a good few pages back now, where the owner was told he would only get his boat back when all debts had been paid including removal costs.

 

Yes, to your last question, so far as I am aware. I see no problem in removing the boat per se - I have done the same more than once myself - the issue is with removing it far away, and not allowing the owner to take control once it left the dock.

 

I am on phone only at present, so cannot answer all points fully, but Google 'lien' and you should get a better picture of what is involved.

 

The Torts Act referred to deals with goods left on your property and the process for removal, whether there is debt owed or not, I.e. where you no longer want the goods on your property. The situation is different where someone has simply turned up and trespassed on your property - you may eject them promptly with appropriate measures. Where goods have been left with you by agreement, and you no longer want them ( effectively giving up the general lien if there was debt attached to the goods), then you could remove them after appropriate notice. By doing so you have given up any lien and must allow the owner to take his property.

Edited September 27, 2016 by NigelMoore

[Jerra]

If this is as clearly illegal and criminal as many seem to think, has the owner been in touch with the police over the theft. If not why not?

[NigelMoore]

If this is as clearly illegal and criminal as many seem to think, has the owner been in touch with the police over the theft. If not why not?

There is an 'Authority' involved. They are presumed to know what they can do, and to do only what is legal.

 

Plus - you cannot prove theft as legislatively defined. A court order is possible though, demanding return under the Torts Act.

Edited September 27, 2016 by NigelMoore

[Arthur Marshall]

Thw question of who owns the boat still seems unresolved. Was ownership transferred in 2016 or not? If so, why? And as everyone seems to be regarding Mr Roberts as the owner, when was it transferred back? Or was the website just amended in an attempt to mislead the authorities? What is the official position of the person who was on the boat at the time of CRTs action to the boat (he's the one named as owner on the website). What became of the other three partners in the original business plan?

I am slightly (but not overmuch) intrigued by this as I can imagine all sort of reasons for deliberate obfuscation.

There's something odd (in my opinion, for what it's worth) about the whole history of this business and I suspect this latest episode is just the iceberg's tip.

[gaggle]

I didn't miss it. Any Tom, Dick or Harry could write that in an email, doesn't mean it is true.

Don't be such a silly sausage , grow up , I have spoke with the vessel owner and can confirm that he is in contact with mr Dunkley , please do not go on another of your silly argument for argument sake games to disrupt a thread , stop trolling people who are trying shed some light onto CRT antics .

[Wanderer Vagabond]

You have probably overlooked the first of the letters Tony copied, a good few pages back now, where the owner wsd told he would only hey his boat back when all debts had been paid including removal costs.

 

Yes, to your last question, so far as I am aware. I see no problem in removing the boat per se - I have done the same more than once myself - the issue is with removing it far away, and not allowing the owner to take control once it left the dock.

 

I am on phone only at present, so cannot answer all points fully, but Google 'lien' and you should get a better picture of what is involved.

 

The Torts Act referred to deals with goods left on your property and the process for removal, whether there is debt owed or not, I.e. where you no longer want the goods on your property. The situation is different where someone has simply turned up and trespassed on your property - you may eject them promptly with appropriate measures. Where goods have been left with you by agreement, and you no longer want them ( effectively giving up the general lien if there was debt attached to the goods), then you could remove them after appropriate notice. By doing so you have given up any lien and must allow the owner to take his property.

Having gone back over the thread, the only letter I can see copied by Mr Dunkley is on post #207. The wording of that seems to suggest that CRT have already given up on the chance of recovering the outstanding berthing fees and just wanted the vessel off their property. The costs involved in removing the vessel are what they are talking about recovering by the sale of the boat, not the berthing fees. It seems that they have already given up their lien on the contracted fees but now they will want to recover the cost of removing the boat, which becomes a completely different debt. If Mr Roberts objects to what CRT will be trying to charge him he should have shifted the vessel himself, as requested.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Thw question of who owns the boat still seems unresolved. Was ownership transferred in 2016 or not? If so, why? And as everyone seems to be regarding Mr Roberts as the owner, when was it transferred back? Or was the website just amended in an attempt to mislead the authorities? What is the official position of the person who was on the boat at the time of CRTs action to the boat (he's the one named as owner on the website). What became of the other three partners in the original business plan?

I am slightly (but not overmuch) intrigued by this as I can imagine all sort of reasons for deliberate obfuscation.

There's something odd (in my opinion, for what it's worth) about the whole history of this business and I suspect this latest episode is just the iceberg's tip.

I think CRT have tried to cover that in their addressing of the letter copied here by Mr Dunkley which was headed:-

 

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

 

On the other hand Mr Roberts making his photographic appearance in the Liverpool Echo threatening to jump in front of the boat to stop them taking 'his' boat may have clarified ownership somewhat.

[Gordon Munk]

I didn't miss it. Any Tom, Dick or Harry could write that in an email, doesn't mean it is true.

Presumably, if CRT are in any doubt about Tony's authority from the owner, they only have to ask for credentials.

[howardang]

Surely this forum is not the place to discus contested legal matters such as this? People seem only too quick to jump in with their opinions - mosttly, I strongly suspect, with no knowldge about the aspects of the specific case inviolved. This seems to happen only too frequently. Maybe we need a new forum entitled "Armchair Quarterbacks"!

 

Howard

 

 

,

Edited September 27, 2016 by howardang

[Tony Dunkley]

I'm not sure how it helps to continue to focus on whether or not the action was legitimate in a context of recovering debts. Unless I have misread it (always possible!) the CaRT case is based on Trespass and it would be necessary to counter that action either by proving that the matter of Trespass as set out did not occur or that the action is not allowed in a case of Trespass ...... ....... .......

 

In reality there's no prospect of any kind of legal action with regard to trespass, unless that is, C&RT are even more stupid than I think they are, . . . . which is highly improbable.

 

It is, however, worth spending a few moments considering just how C&RT imagine they can argue that they've removed the vessel from their property, or waters, when in fact they haven't done any such thing. All they have done is to blow in excess of £20,000 on moving it from where they could not serve a Section 8 Notice on it to location where they can do so.

 

As I said a few posts back, it may possibly be their intention to Section 8 "Planet" now that they've 'un-removed' into the G&S.

[NigelMoore]

Having gone back over the thread, the only letter I can see copied by Mr Dunkley is on post #207. The wording of that seems to suggest that CRT have already given up on the chance of recovering the outstanding berthing fees and just wanted the vessel off their property. The costs involved in removing the vessel are what they are talking about recovering by the sale of the boat, not the berthing fees. It seems that they have already given up their lien on the contracted fees but now they will want to recover the cost of removing the boat, which becomes a completely different debt. If Mr Roberts objects to what CRT will be trying to charge him he should have shifted the vessel himself, as requested.

 

Try #113. The relevant wording is emphasised in bold and underlining.

 

No question he should have moved the boat himself, in any event. He will have to pay the court ordered arrears of a bit over £5k too - but to claim that he has no grounds for complaining at having his existing debt quintupled is stretching the bounds of equity somewhat.

[Tony Dunkley]

I wonder, can anyone amongst those who think removing "Planet'' from Canning Dock was C&RT's best course of action explain why Sharpness should have been considered preferable to Birkenhead Docks, about a mile across the Mersey, or Garston Docks, about 6 miles upriver from Canning Dock ?

[steamcompound]

Peel own Birkenhead docks, ABP currently own Garston whereas CRT have moved 'Planet' to somewhere they control.

[Jerra]

Peel own Birkenhead docks, ABP currently own Garston whereas CRT have moved 'Planet' to somewhere they control.

Presumably if they moved to somewhere they didn't control they would be paying mooring fees.

[pearlygeoff]

Presumably if they moved to somewhere they didn't control they would be paying mooring fees.

 

They pay mooring fees at Davis's Boatyard on the Sharpness Canal. Hence the cost of stealing my boat (Pearl) is constantly increasing.

[Jerra]

 

They pay mooring fees at Davis's Boatyard on the Sharpness Canal. Hence the cost of stealing my boat (Pearl) is constantly increasing.

I thought it had been moved to water over which they had control so surely they don't need to pay mooring fees or they don't control the mooring.

 

What am I missing it is like (to my not informed brain) mooring to the towpath and charging themselves to moor.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Jerra

[wrigglefingers]

Mod's hat time ...

 

It's a good debate and some interesting points have been raised. What I do want you to think about, is the wording of your posts. Nothing is proven or disproven other than money was owed and a boat taken to another place. Beyond that, we can surmise, infer, suggest or posit amongst many other useful terms, but we cannot say exactly. To suggest that one party has committed a crime is a serious allegation, however, the other party cannot refute this because they are not represented. Moreover, can I suggest that m'learned friend might not take too kindly to hearing that an ongoing case had been freely discussed in an open place. We rely on 'the conversation in the pub' rule often here, but I think we're going well beyond it with allegations of crimes being committed.

 

I am going to leave the thread open, because it is, in the main, important and useful, but please consider what you post, particularly where you are involved as advisors and as friends. If the content continues in the same manner as prior to this post, I will be taking sanctions against those who bring the forum into disrepute or who are vexatious.

 

Wriggly

Edited September 27, 2016 by wrigglefingers

[Tony Dunkley]

Peel own Birkenhead docks, ABP currently own Garston whereas CRT have moved 'Planet' to somewhere they control.

 

I'm well aware of who owns Birkenhead and Garston, and that wasn't what I asked.

 

As C&RT's primary objective was to put an end to the vessel 'trespassing' on their property, have they achieved that objective by taking it to Sharpness, and if not, what was the point of doing so ?

[Peter-Bullfinch]

Who owns Glasson Dock near Lancaster?

[Bod]

If the Trust put the boat on a mooring, could they then say the boat met the conditions for Section 8?

Abandoned/unknown ownership...

 

Bod

[Graham Davis]

I wonder, can anyone amongst those who think removing "Planet'' from Canning Dock was C&RT's best course of action explain why Sharpness should have been considered preferable to Birkenhead Docks, about a mile across the Mersey, or Garston Docks, about 6 miles upriver from Canning Dock ?

 

None are owned or managed by CaRT.

(Which you know full well!)

[Tony Dunkley]

If the Trust put the boat on a mooring, could they then say the boat met the conditions for Section 8?

Abandoned/unknown ownership...

 

Bod

 

It wouldn't be either of those, the owner is known to them and the ship most certainly isn't abandoned.

 

There are 4 sets of circumstances stipulated for S.8 in the 1983 Act - sunk - stranded - abandoned - without lawful authority, . . . they could only go for the 'without lawful authority', . . . which would be very difficult to argue and justify, as well as highly amusing, when it's present location is where they put it themselves.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

None are owned or managed by CaRT.

(Which you know full well!)

 

Which makes them very suitable for achieving C&RT's stated objective, . . . to get the ship off their property and waters, . . . something which taking it to Sharpness has singularly failed to achieve.

[steamcompound]

I would suggest the following. At Canning 'Planet' was accessible at any time off the public walkway that runs parallel to the main road. There was no effective way of controlling access to the vessel by anyone. I don't know where it is at Sharpness but if it is in the dock complex then control of access may be more enhanced, and then there is the question of dues.

 

FYI the survival rate for historic vessels moored at Birkenhead is not high, remember HMSs Onyx, Plymouth and Bronington.

[Tony Dunkley]

If this is as clearly illegal and criminal as many seem to think, has the owner been in touch with the police over the theft. If not why not?

 

The owner hasn't, . . . . but I have.