Jump to content

section 8 canning dock ?


gaggle
 Share

Featured Posts

Interesting aspect the two years of no contract. Does the owner have any correspondence from CRT covering this period, before the two letters we know about. If there is nothing then it could just be possible that the claims of CRT could fail because there was no contract in force. Be it all depends on any paper trail from the end of the 2014 contract to now.

 

I would also like to know if the owner was represented at the recent hear and did he have the correct service of documents etc. Did he even know of the hearings etc.

 

I would suggest that the harbour master muttering in his ear need to get this contract sorted etc, could prove CRT knew there was no contract. Now my gut, which could easily be wrong is saying, that unless the 2014 contract has words that extend it validity through the two years of no contract etc the use of the removal as per the contract could be invalid because the owner did not sign a contract.

 

I think this gets deeper and deeper and it needs someone with good legal knowledge to go through ever scrap of paper.

Edited by Geo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It appears that you've picked up the notion that clauses in a business contract can prevail over statute, on the grounds that the offeror wishes that to be so, from the last paragraph in the Shoosmiths e-mail I posted in #378.

 

As for what you've assumed about my views on the fairness, or otherwise, of the C&RT Berthing Contract, can you explain just where you got that from, . . . other than acknowledging that "C&RT have laid themselves open to challenge under the Unfair Contracts Act 1977" in post #378, I haven't, as yet, expressed an opinion on the matter anywhere in this thread.

 

I entertain no illusion that a contract can prevail over statute.

 

It is rather that the contract ensures that the circumstances in which the statute comes into play do not exist.

 

It is clear that the various statutes which regulate the unauthorised interference with the property of another must, as a matter of necessity, not apply where the interference is authorised by the contract.

 

The owner granted CRT permission to do what they have done in a contract. That isn't a contract overruling statute. It is a contract taking CRT's actions out of the scope of the statute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Snip)

CaRT are not listening to an endless endless trail of excuses as to why they aren't being paid because they have not chased payment for well over a year.

(Snip)

 

Interesting. How do you know?

That's just your speculation that they haven't been chasing it. The only information we have is that provided either from the public domain or emails Tony has supplied. If you have direct information from CRT, fair enough. I very much doubt that CRT are interested in making all their dealings with the ship public - which is fairly evident from their last mail to Tony!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a tenant stays in a rented house beyond the end of his contract, it is deemed to have been renewed for one rent period on the same terms as the original rental contract.

 

I suspect a court might hold that the owner failing to remove Planet from the mooring on expiry of the mooring contract, means the contract was renewed on the same terms as the original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think you need to reread what you posted Arthur and perhaps reread the thread from the top.

 

There is absolutely no suggestion that 'the cheque is in the post'. CaRT are not listening to an endless endless trail of excuses as to why they aren't being paid because they have not chased payment for well over a year.

 

Mr Roberts produced a photocopy of a cheque which he says was sent to CaRT in January 2015 in full payment for berthing fees for that year. CaRT say they have no record of receiving it. Mr Roberts, on checking his account, says that the cheque was not cashed. There appears to be no attempt to chase this payment for well over a year.

 

However, the point I am making is that there is no written agreement in place for 2015 and 2016 and, as such, they should have treated the matter as trespass rather than breach of contract.

 

 

I did ask this question earlier but got no reply. Why exactly did Mr Roberts take a photocopy of a cheque he allegedly sent to CRT? I cannot think of any practical reason for doing so.I earlier posited that it may have been the photocopy of the microfiche held by the bank of cashed cheques which they send to you if you ask for evidence of the cashing of a cheque but since you now say that when he checked his account it hadn't been cashed that clearly was not the case. Did he suspect that the cheque was going to go missing? If that was the case then a certificate of posting (free from Post Offices) or even a letter sent Recorded Delivery may at least prove that something was sent to CRT. A photocopy of a cheque is evidence of nothing whatsoever other than the fact he has run a cheque through a photocopier. It certainly isn't evidence that anything was ever sent to CRT and I would be surprised if any Court accepted it as 'evidence' in any future case.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

......... ........... ............. .......... Now my gut, which could easily be wrong is saying, that unless the 2014 contract has words that extend it validity through the two years of no contract etc the use of the removal as per the contract could be invalid because the owner did not sign a contract.

 

 

There hasn't been a Berthing Agreement [contract] in force since midnight on 31 December 2014, and there is nothing in the 2014 T&C's to the effect that the contract is extendable beyond the termination date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There hasn't been a Berthing Agreement [contract] in force since midnight on 31 December 2014, and there is nothing in the 2014 T&C's to the effect that the contract is extendable beyond the termination date.

 

And yet Mr Roberts felt obliged to send them a cheque in 2015. Why would he do that if he believed no berthing agreement existed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There hasn't been a Berthing Agreement [contract] in force since midnight on 31 December 2014, and there is nothing in the 2014 T&C's to the effect that the contract is extendable beyond the termination date.

 

Can you please state the legal basis for that assertion, taking into account the comments made by Mike earlier?

My understanding is that by leaving his property in that position means that the Contract is continued by default.

Edited by Graham Davis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And yet Mr Roberts felt obliged to send them a cheque in 2015. Why would he do that if he believed no berthing agreement existed?

 

Tendering payment for what you believe that you owe, even in the absence of an invoice, isn't something that many would see as an unreasonable or unwise thing to do, personally I would see as an indication of good faith.

 

Can you please state the legal basis for that assertion, taking into account the comments made by Mike earlier?

My understanding is that by leaving his property in that position means that the Contract is continued by default.

 

No, . . . and in an effort to avoid adding to your confusion, that's no, I'm not going to explain it for you, and NOT, . . no, I don't know.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this 'ghost' cheque was ever sentunsure.png

 

No amount of speculation and wittering on about this missing cheque will alter the fact that it's totally irrelevant and has no bearing whatsoever on the illegality of the seizure, the subsequent removal to Sharpness, and the prior stated intent to permanently deprive another of their property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No amount of speculation and wittering on about this missing cheque will alter the fact that it's totally irrelevant and has no bearing whatsoever on the illegality of the seizure, the subsequent removal to Sharpness, and the prior stated intent to permanently deprive another of their property.

In your opinion,personally I'll wait for the Court's take on the matter.

 

The irrelevant cheque was brought up by another poster, I'm not entirely sure what it was ever intended to be evidence ofunsure.png

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Can you please state the legal basis for that assertion, taking into account the comments made by Mike earlier?

My understanding is that by leaving his property in that position means that the Contract is continued by default.

 

The contract does not continue by default because the wording makes it clear that it is for a maximum of 12 months.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a tenant stays in a rented house beyond the end of his contract, it is deemed to have been renewed for one rent period on the same terms as the original rental contract.

 

I suspect a court might hold that the owner failing to remove Planet from the mooring on expiry of the mooring contract, means the contract was renewed on the same terms as the original.

The last property that I let using the standard rental contract had a clause that specifically dealt with that situation and turn the rental into a monthly contract if not renewed of the renewal date and not vacated, quite a complicated clause I seem to remember. But basically it meant the contract did not die nor the obligations under it if a tenant defaulted etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No amount of speculation and wittering on about this missing cheque will alter the fact that it's totally irrelevant and has no bearing whatsoever on the illegality of the seizure, the subsequent removal to Sharpness, and the prior stated intent to permanently deprive another of their property.

Quite right.

 

CaRT rely on a condition in a berthing agreement for seizure of the boat, its subsequent removal to Sharpness and its stated intention of selling it. It has been suggested that this is unlawful.

 

What I am suggesting is that that no current agreement is in force. Indeed, no agreement has been in force since 31/12/2014. As such it may be unlawful to seize the boat anyway.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last property that I let using the standard rental contract had a clause that specifically dealt with that situation and turn the rental into a monthly contract if not renewed of the renewal date and not vacated, quite a complicated clause I seem to remember. But basically it meant the contract did not die nor the obligations under it if a tenant defaulted etc.

No such clause in the 2014 berthing agreement. It would appear that berthing agreements at Canning Dock are for a period of up to 12 months for a once off payment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last property that I let using the standard rental contract had a clause that specifically dealt with that situation and turn the rental into a monthly contract if not renewed of the renewal date and not vacated, quite a complicated clause I seem to remember. But basically it meant the contract did not die nor the obligations under it if a tenant defaulted etc.

 

Quite, as Mike said earlier, but it appears that some here are assured that it cannot apply in this situation but cannot explain why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cheque may or may not be relevant. The owner say he photocopied the cheque. I have done similar in the past. The thing that would convince me would be the statements for that a/c for the month the cheque was issued. If there were sufficient funds to cover the cheque I would accept that on the balance of probabilities the own sent the cheque. Insufficient funds cheque not sent.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No such clause in the 2014 berthing agreement. It would appear that berthing agreements at Canning Dock are for a period of up to 12 months for a once off payment.

That is illogical, if the contract is a single payment contract fixed term contract the clause can never be activated. Thus either there is more in the contract or it could have been paid in installments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite, as Mike said earlier, but it appears that some here are assured that it cannot apply in this situation but cannot explain why.

Without a clause extending the contract in the contract it does not I believe automatically continue in force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you have seen the actual Contact and have legal backing to that assertion?

Thank you for asking a pertinent question.

 

I said 'The contract does not continue by default because the wording makes it clear that it is for a maximum of 12 months.'

 

Yes, I have seen the 2014 berthing agreement as well as many other documents related to this issue.

 

The 2014 berthing agreement is dated 15 April 2014.

 

The relevant part of the agreement reads-

 

6. Period of Licence (not exceeding 12 months) (see clause 4) From 01/01/2014 To 31/12/2014 (inclusive)

 

(clause 4 relates to early termination following certain events)

 

I regret to say that I have no legal backing for saying that the contract was for a maximum of 12 months but simply relied on the wording Period of Licence (not exceeding 12 months) (see clause 4) From 01/01/2014 To 31/12/2014 (inclusive)

 

 

 

Without a clause extending the contract in the contract it does not I believe automatically continue in force.

^^^^^ See my post above ^^^^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you agree that he was illegaly moored then?

We're back to CRTs original problem . What do you do with a shipowner who is freeloading on your property with no legal berth, no license to trade, no insurance and who obviously has no intention of leaving or changing the situation, which is essentially profitable to him?

I simply find it almost impossible to believe that the fault in his running up thousands of pounds of debt lies entirely with CRT,nor that the non-existence of a berthing agreement is down to them either. Presumably he just never signed or returned anything sent to him. And when you tell me that CRT never bothered to send him one, I say 'Says who?'

Squatting in private property is now a criminal offence - in effect, this is what he was doing though obviously that particular law won't apply.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • 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.