Jump to content

section 8 canning dock ?


gaggle

Featured Posts

. ....... .......... . 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.

 

 

True, it was accessible to the general public whilst berthed on the wall alongside the Strand, but it wouldn't have been accessible if it had been moved 250 yards across the Dock and moored to the fenced off spit of land between the drydocks and the half'tide Dock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And their response?

 

The matter is under investigation, specifically, what the two police officers attending were told with regard to the identity and credentials of those describing themselves as ''Water Bailiffs" and "Enforcement Officers", and the fact that none of these mysterious individuals, or the C&RT Harbour Master were in possession of a Court Order, or any other documentation.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The matter is under investigation, specifically, what the two police officers attending were told with regard to the identity and credentials of those describing themselves as ''Water Bailiffs" and "Enforcement Officers", and the fact that none of these mysterious individuals, or the C&RT Harbour Master were in possession of a Court Order, or any other documentation.

And nothing else??

Mebbee the two police officers in attendance need more training in looking at ID cards?

Surely these alleged enforcement officers had I'd...why didn't the police officers check these before deciding to 'do nothing' to prevent the alledged theft by CRT of The Planet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Having now gone back as far as #113 I would have to say that the wording is somewhat ambiguous (perhaps intentionally). What Ms Seaborn writes is:-"....We will contact you after the removal of the vessel from the dock in respect of charges and monies due, and how the vessel may be recovered after payment of all outstanding monies to ourselves......". Now whether this refers to just the cost of removing the vessel or the cost of removing the vessel plus the outstanding berthing fees or just the outstanding berthing fees isn't made clear. Since Mr Roberts will already know what the outstanding berthing fees are the variable will be the cost of removal of the boat. Since that will be the only fee that CRT will be able to legally enforce now that they have apparently forfeited their lien on the boat by removing it I would suggest that is the "...outstanding monies..." to which Ms Seaborn refers, it will however be for a Court to decide so neither my opinion, Mr Dunkley's opinion nor anyone else's opinion takes the argument any further forward.

 

We are in agreement that Mr Roberts should have removed his vessel when requested to do so but I am unsure of the certainty you have that he will have to pay the Court ordered arrears of in excess of £5k. I'm getting the impression that he is the proverbial 'man of straw' since he hasn't paid the outstanding berthing fees, it seems that his legal 'advisor' is Mr Dunkley rather than taking on a proper Solicitor and I would suspect that if CRT believed that there were a likelihood of recovering the berthing fees they would have pursued that pathway. Since the non-payment has gone on for over 12 months, to have allowed it to continue would have been a victory of hope over experiencehuh.png . The fact that Mr Roberts appears to have still been trading as a bar whilst ignoring the outstanding berthing fees would suggest that his priorities are somewhat confused. He had the money to stock the bar but not the money to pay what was effectively his rent. Any other business doing the same would have also been evicted by their 'landlord'. The only matter that makes this different is that it is a water based business so evicting becomes more problematic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Only if you think mooring on someone else's property is reasonable.

 

The ship wouldn't have been on anyone else's property, . . . it would have been floating in the "Waterspace" that C&RT were vapouring on about in the 'piss off ' letters they sent to the owner.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Let's be honest, we are never going to convince Mr Dunkley that this was nothing less than an illegal act by a "company" that he cannot ever agree with, no matter what is being said. I'm sorry to say that his vindictiveness seems to cloud his judgement.

 

You won't have any trouble convincing me about that, . . . . I knew you would finish up agreeing with me eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes it would, . . . if a theft had been reported.

Does this owner do anything for himself? When asked to pay his mooring fees a whip round is arranged through the Nautilus Maritime Union (which seems to have failed). When asked to shift his boat out of the docks he leaves it to CRT to do so. Reporting concerns to the Police is left to his legal 'advisor'.

 

.... Remainder of comment removed ....

Edited by wrigglefingers
Comment removed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes it would, . . . if a theft had been reported.

Well the word stolen is bandied about so much surely if it was stolen it is theft. The only reason I can see for not reporting it as a theft is that it isn't certain it is theft. If that is the case it shouldn't be being called theft.

 

Earlier somebody in the thread suggested the boat was worth IIRC somewhere in the region of £200,000 to £250,000. If somebody had moved anything belonging to me of that kind of that value I would (providing I was convinced it was theft and not a legal event) have been down to the cop shop reporting the theft right quick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the word stolen is bandied about so much surely if it was stolen it is theft. The only reason I can see for not reporting it as a theft is that it isn't certain it is theft. If that is the case it shouldn't be being called theft.

 

Earlier somebody in the thread suggested the boat was worth IIRC somewhere in the region of £200,000 to £250,000. If somebody had moved anything belonging to me of that kind of that value I would (providing I was convinced it was theft and not a legal event) have been down to the cop shop reporting the theft right quick.

There is considerable difference in law between theft (as in the 1968 Act) and unlawful interference with goods. Mayalld has expounded on this at length in other topics; Tony understands the distinction, and accordingly has not reported the events as such to the police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is considerable difference in law between theft (as in the 1968 Act) and unlawful interference with goods. Mayalld has expounded on this at length in other topics; Tony understands the distinction, and accordingly has not reported the events as such to the police.

So why does he keep saying the boat was stolen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Earlier somebody in the thread suggested the boat was worth IIRC somewhere in the region of £200,000 to £250,000. If somebody had moved anything belonging to me of that kind of that value I would (providing I was convinced it was theft and not a legal event) have been down to the cop shop reporting the theft right quick.

 

The problem with that in this particular instance is that having been fed a load of guff by the C&RT Harbour Master and his phoney and devoid of documents 'Bailliffs', the police were standing nearby watching it all happening in the belief that they were there to prevent any breach of the peace occurring in the course of a lawful seizure process.

So why does he keep saying the boat was stolen?

 

To annoy you and Graham Davis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You won't have any trouble convincing me about that, . . . . I knew you would finish up agreeing with me eventually.

 

You need to read what I actually said!

I have seen no PROOF from you or anyone else that this was an illegal act therefore I have made NO decision either way.

Do not put words in my mouth.

To annoy you and Graham Davis.

 

Then I suggest 2 things to you:

1/ Stop acting like a petulant teenager

2/ Read the Rules for this Forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes he does, . . . . ############################################################

So we are now going to go for the sympathy vote, sorry, failed again. This does not sound anything like the ideal person to be running a licensed premises on a waterfront location. Suffers from confusion? So how exactly is he going to cope with a boat load of punters when a fire breaks out? He should have sold the vessel at the outset when he no longer was in a position to be running the business and before the outstanding berthing fees had climbed to their current levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..... ......... This does not sound anything like the ideal person to be running a licensed premises on a waterfront location. Suffers from confusion? ....... ....... .......

 

That's probably why he employs someone to run it for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You need to read what I actually said!

I have seen no PROOF from you or anyone else that this was an illegal act therefore I have made NO decision either way.

Do not put words in my mouth.

 

Then I suggest 2 things to you:

1/ Stop acting like a petulant teenager

2/ Read the Rules for this Forum.

 

I'm not long on here but many of your posts seem to find fault with the opinion of a poster; rather than adding something either interesting, useful or informative. Apologies if I've misjudged you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • 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.