Jump to content

section 8 canning dock ?


gaggle
 Share

Featured Posts

Within the last few minutes I have been sent information that confirms that CaRT did not have a berthing agreement with Mr Roberts subsequent to the agreement that expired 31/12/2014.

Which obviously makes things worse for CRT. While the vessel is in their waters, it's entirely reasonable for them to take action over an 'illegally' moored vessel. But to retain possession of a vessel whilst it's in waters where they have no jurisdiction? How can that be defended?

 

That's unlawful possession. Or, to put it another way; theft.

Edited by Dave_P
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.

You state that you have photocopied cheques in the past, may I ask why? The only thing that would convince me of the existence of the cheque is if, for some reason I cannot fathom, Mr Roberts retained photocopies of ALL cheques that he issued. It seems very odd that he seems to have a copy of this one that has gone missing, pure coincidence??

 

The relevance (if there is any) of the cheque is that it rather brings into doubt the probity of Mr Roberts towards people who are willing to help him if this cheque is indeed a fiction. If he is being less than truthful towards them, how truthful has he been towards CRT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he is being less than truthful towards them, how truthful has he been towards CRT?

 

That is even more irrelevant than the cheque, and in asking the question you are illustrating one of the reasons why C&RT selected him as a suitable candidate for some special treatment, and that is, quite plainly, the levels of blind, unthinking prejudice likely to be directed at him, and that started with the two police constables who were led to believe they were attending the lawful removal from C&RT property of a trespassing vessel owned by a well known local pain in the arse,

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheque books have a small counterfoil section to give a record of the cheques issued so I don't see why a photocopy would be required. This reminds me of a friend from many years who had an ongoing dispute with DHSS and realised that sending them empty envelopes by recorded delivery was a great way to frustrate their delaying tactics.

 

............Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which obviously makes things worse for CRT. While the vessel is in their waters, it's entirely reasonable for them to take action over an 'illegally' moored vessel. But to retain possession of a vessel whilst it's in waters where they have no jurisdiction? How can that be defended?

 

 

It gets even more indefensible when you throw in the fact that after retaining possession throughout three days at sea, they put it back into waters under their ownership and control something in the region of 120 miles away, as the crow flies.

 

Add in the prior written declarations of intent to sell the vessel, and all the elements of the legal definition of theft are undoubtedly in place.

 

However, Section 2(1)(a) of the 1968 Theft Act does provide C&RT with a sound Defence in that they would inevitably claim that at the time they seized the vessel they believed their actions to be lawful, . . and that would be well nigh impossible to disprove.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me this is a case of a failed business plan where the income didn't exceed the expenses. The owner of the business examined his expenses and decided which of them he could most afford NOT to pay and the 'charity' CRT was on that list.

 

Despite failing to pay CRT his business model still wasn't a success. When notified by CRT he was required to move his vessel he decided the costs and risks involved weren't worth it.

 

My assumption is the owner doesn't have the money (or inclination) to want to take legal action against CRT for their actions in removing his vessel. However he's probably quite prepared for others to assume the burden of challenging CRT's actions, provided it's at no cost to himself.

 

I can imagine CRT officials deciding what to do with the boat. "George ring all the local potential mooring owner and ask them if they would accept a vessel we've seized because the owner hasn't paid us his mooring fees for the last year". [Later] "What do you mean, none of them are interested!" "Looks like we will have to find another suitable mooring location that we own". "But not too close or we'll find someone has moved it back during the night".

 

Meanwhile, there is already one former lightship for sale on the Gloucester & Sharpness Canal which would suggest the current local lightship market is saturated.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Meanwhile, there is already one former lightship for sale on the Gloucester & Sharpness Canal which would suggest the current local lightship market is saturated.

 

Sula, up for sale with naylorpowell.com.

Took some photo's on Thursday.

 

 

Edited by Ray T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can imagine CRT officials deciding what to do with the boat.

 

 

Another way of viewing this situation [setting aside all legal issues] is to ask how CaRT could have achieved their objectives by deciding upon any better alternative process [bearing in mind that they have achieved nothing positive yet, after spending tens of thousands of pounds more than they needed to.]

 

The fact is that moorings providers are in an enviable position compared to many creditors; all CaRT had to do in this instance was wait another month, seeing they were already near the time of obtaining a County Court judgment.

 

CaRT obtained a Court Order for a bit over £5 and a half grand plus their modest costs, on 27 September, barely a week after relocating the boat, with payment to be made by mid-October.

 

They had had a lien on a vessel worth a great deal more, and even if the money owed was not voluntarily forthcoming by the stated date due, it would have been plain sailing to get an enforcement Order and have [proper, authorised] bailiffs go calling to arrange payment or sale of goods in lieu thereof. Alternatively, having served due Notice of their intent under the Torts Act, they could have auctioned the boat on site without further ado.

 

Once having been paid, if the boat had not been perforce sold to recover the debt, they could then have removed it from the Dock to the nearest safe mooring off their property and [if the appropriate Torts Act Notices had so informed the owner] all responsibility for the boat thereafter would be the owner’s.

 

Another alternative, if the boat was to be sold, was for CaRT to make sale of the boat subject to removal – if they were chary of keeping it on their premises even under new ownership.

 

End result for CaRT – payment of monies owed plus costs, and ejection of an unwanted customer. Minimum hassle; minimum expenditure; minimum manpower, and considerably better PR. Above all: everything done incontestably within the law.

 

That they did not decide upon those simple and legitimate options, rather begs the question why not?

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See Nigel's post above.

 

As there was an apparent 'rush to action' could it be there was an imposed 'deadline'.

 

Could it be that other businesses had said 'get that boat out of here' and threatened to speak to the press about what, they believed, was a 'problem' needing investigating - or a 'story'.

 

Lots of press about due to Labour Party Conference and one of the affected businesses - the Revolution Bar - hosting a Radio 5 programme.

 

The threat of 'bad press' imposing the said 'deadline'.

 

Pure speculation on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not particularly interested in bashing CaRT or debating the details of our legal system (which is not a clear cut thing, look at the number ofrulings overturned on appeal), my interest is more in deciding what is morally right and what is best for the waterways and those who use and visit them. The loss of this vessel is a loss for the people of Liverpool and all those who visit the docks. The best outcome would have been for CaRT to take this ship and sell it to somebody who had the skills and resources to run it as a successful business. A couple of boats moored in Bristol Harbour do well and Liverpool waterfront has far more visitors than Bristol.

 

I can see objections to "stealing" one mans business and selling it to somebody else. The anti CaRT movements in London and the K&A have become very good at organising demonstrations and feeding their side of the story to the local press. Maybe CaRT did not want this to happen in Liverpool and getting the boat well out of the way was the best option for them. I could imagine a legal battle going on for years with the boat covered in banners and slowly going downhill, becoming a liability and attracting a lot of bad publicity and expense.

 

..............Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See Nigel's post above.

 

As there was an apparent 'rush to action' could it be there was an imposed 'deadline'.

 

Could it be that other businesses had said 'get that boat out of here' and threatened to speak to the press about what, they believed, was a 'problem' needing investigating - or a 'story'.

 

Lots of press about due to Labour Party Conference and one of the affected businesses - the Revolution Bar - hosting a Radio 5 programme.

 

The threat of 'bad press' imposing the said 'deadline'.

 

Pure speculation on my part.

 

Speculation it may be, Geoff, but given BW/C&RT's track record of turfing out boats seen by them for some reason as being undesirable at some particular location, or obstacles to some self-aggrandizing scheme they're hatching, it's well founded and you're probably not very far wide of the mark.

 

What is certain is that the reality, as opposed to the misleading tripe disseminated by C&RT just prior to the ship's removal, is that they were dead set on getting the ship out of their Liverpool Docks irrespective of the outcome of the dispute with the present owner, and regardless of the fact that a prospective purchaser in the process of negotiating with the existing owner, with insurance cover for the vessel already in place, and offering to clear all arrears of all monies owed, approached them with proposals to put the business onto a sound footing, BEFORE the ship was removed from Canning Dock and towed to Sharpness.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Another way of viewing this situation [setting aside all legal issues] is to ask how CaRT could have achieved their objectives by deciding upon any better alternative process [bearing in mind that they have achieved nothing positive yet, after spending tens of thousands of pounds more than they needed to.]

 

 

It is one of the things that puzzles me. Why at what must have been quite an expensive exercise to take the boat in question on such a long journey when it seems it could have been removed to a nearer location.

 

Perhaps among other things there are some facts we are unaware of. It does seem odd though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is one of the things that puzzles me. Why at what must have been quite an expensive exercise to take the boat in question on such a long journey when it seems it could have been removed to a nearer location.

 

Perhaps among other things there are some facts we are unaware of. It does seem odd though.

There are probably not many places one can put a boat that big without some serious mooring fees. CRT may feel this is going to take some time to resolve and all the time someone will have to pay mooring fees. Additionally it is an old boat and to avoid damage of what is still someone else's property it is probably better moored on inland waterways. This further limits places CRT can keep it. Maybe moor it next to the other lightship on the G&S and do a buy one get one free offer??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

.......................t that a prospective purchaser in the process of negotiating with the existing owner, with insurance cover for the vessel already in place, and offering to clear all arrears of all monies owed, approached them with proposals to put the business onto a sound footing, BEFORE the ship was removed from Canning Dock and towed to Sharpness.

Maybe CRT didn't feel there is sufficient potential customers to make the business viable and so were not interested in prolonging the problem????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Speculation it may be, Geoff, but given BW/C&RT's track record of turfing out boats seen by them for some reason as being undesirable at some particular location, or obstacles to some self-aggrandizing scheme they're hatching, it's well founded and you're probably not very far wide of the mark.

 

What is certain is that the reality, as opposed to the misleading tripe disseminated by C&RT just prior to the ship's removal, is that they were dead set on getting the ship out of their Liverpool Docks irrespective of the outcome of the dispute with the present owner, and regardless of the fact that a prospective purchaser in the process of negotiating with the existing owner, with insurance cover for the vessel already in place, and offering to clear all arrears of all monies owed, approached them with proposals to put the business onto a sound footing, BEFORE the ship was removed from Canning Dock and towed to Sharpness.

So now the owner (whoever it is) who made such a dramatic effort to save his ship, saying he had lost everything he cared about, was actually negotiating to sell the thing all the time! Well, who ever would believe it? Amazing. Thank god reliable information is available at last, that's all I can say. I'm sure the new owner already had a mooring fixed up for the boat, same as anyone with any sense would when they buy one. Of course, he wouldn't be liable for debts incurred by the previous owner, so that that offer would have to be taken in good faith, which is something very much lacking by now I should think.

But you can't really blame CRT for being dead set on getting the thing out of their dock can you? They'd had two years,more or less, of trying to get their fees or the relevant info from the owner and very little, if any, evidence of it ever being a viable business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are probably not many places one can put a boat that big without some serious mooring fees. CRT may feel this is going to take some time to resolve and all the time someone will have to pay mooring fees. Additionally it is an old boat and to avoid damage of what is still someone else's property it is probably better moored on inland waterways. This further limits places CRT can keep it. Maybe moor it next to the other lightship on the G&S and do a buy one get one free offer??

yes maybe so. Hopefully we will get to know in time. It seems odd to tow it out to sea for a 3 day trip though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe CRT didn't feel there is sufficient potential customers to make the business viable and so were not interested in prolonging the problem????

 

In their initial correspondence with the owner, they expressed their preference for the boat to remain in the Dock - "We would be disappointed if the Light Ship were to leave Liverpool South Dock given its historic links to the area." Accordingly they urged discussion over payment to avoid proceeding with enforcement processes.

 

It was only some months later, following failure to get a positive response, and getting fed up with the owner, that they simply went overboard in retaliatory action. In my opinion, a classic case of cutting off their nose to spite their face. They could have auctioned the boat in situ, to a suitable buyer happy to run it, even if there had not been the prospective purchaser Tony refers to.

 

I don't know what other costs were involved, but the mooring fees themselves were hardly onerous; you pay as much for a narrowboat in Brentford on CaRT's residential Island moorings, sans sanitary hook ups. Some would see it cheap to maintain the boat in the Dock even as a pied-a-terre!

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.

You're still not getting this? The answer is simple, you deal with the problem through proper legal channels. You do not invent powers which you do not have!

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now the owner (whoever it is) who made such a dramatic effort to save his ship, saying he had lost everything he cared about, was actually negotiating to sell the thing all the time! Well, who ever would believe it? Amazing. Thank god reliable information is available at last, that's all I can say. I'm sure the new owner already had a mooring fixed up for the boat, same as anyone with any sense would when they buy one. Of course, he wouldn't be liable for debts incurred by the previous owner, so that that offer would have to be taken in good faith, which is something very much lacking by now I should think.

But you can't really blame CRT for being dead set on getting the thing out of their dock can you? They'd had two years,more or less, of trying to get their fees or the relevant info from the owner and very little, if any, evidence of it ever being a viable business.

 

No, Alan Roberts wasn't -" negotiating to sell the thing all the time!"- he had simply rejected an initial offer made by someone who approached him after becoming aware of the situation and wanting to ensure that the ship stayed in Liverpool as a viable and well run business.

Why do you feel compelled to put such a bad slant on everything except C&RT's conduct and behaviour ?

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Speculation it may be, Geoff, but given BW/C&RT's track record of turfing out boats seen by them for some reason as being undesirable at some particular location, or obstacles to some self-aggrandizing scheme they're hatching, it's well founded and you're probably not very far wide of the mark.

 

What is certain is that the reality, as opposed to the misleading tripe disseminated by C&RT just prior to the ship's removal, is that they were dead set on getting the ship out of their Liverpool Docks irrespective of the outcome of the dispute with the present owner, and regardless of the fact that a prospective purchaser in the process of negotiating with the existing owner, with insurance cover for the vessel already in place, and offering to clear all arrears of all monies owed, approached them with proposals to put the business onto a sound footing, BEFORE the ship was removed from Canning Dock and towed to Sharpness.

So, on top of the mystery cheque we now have the Fairy Godmother purchaser for the vessel who is willing to take on all responsibilities for Mr Roberts ineptitude, this really does just get better and betterrolleyes.gif . Where was this mystery purchaser during the last 2 years of dispute? He only seems to have come out of the woodwork now that the removal has become a fait accompli.

 

I did suggest earlier in the thread that CRT may well have been responding to quite proper pressure from other businesses in the area. If I were running Revolution and paying my business rates and considerable rent for the privelege I would be somewhat miffed that another business in the area paying no 'rent' was competing for my clientele. With the danger of tiptoeing into the prohibited political arena unsure.png I think that the Labour Party Conference being in the area is a bit of a red herring given the current irrelevance of the party

 

You're still not getting this? The answer is simple, you deal with the problem through proper legal channels. You do not invent powers which you do not have!

As has pointed out a number of times, there is the right and power to remove a trespasser who has been asked to leave so no power has been invented as Mr Roberts was clearly asked to leave the dock. The debatable matter is what to do with the boat once it has lawfully been removed from the dock.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, on top of the mystery cheque we now have the Fairy Godmother purchaser for the vessel who is willing to take on all responsibilities for Mr Roberts ineptitude, this really does just get better and betterrolleyes.gif . Where was this mystery purchaser during the last 2 years of dispute? He only seems to have come out of the woodwork now that the removal has become a fait accompli.

 

I did suggest earlier in the thread that CRT may well have been responding to quite proper pressure from other businesses in the area. If I were running Revolution and paying my business rates and considerable rent for the privelege I would be somewhat miffed that another business in the area paying no 'rent' was competing for my clientele. With the danger of tiptoeing into the prohibited political arena unsure.png I think that the Labour Party Conference being in the area is a bit of a red herring given the current irrelevance of the party

 

As has pointed out a number of times, there is the right and power to remove a trespasser who has been asked to leave so no power has been invented as Mr Roberts was clearly asked to leave the dock. The debatable matter is what to do with the boat once it has lawfully been removed from the dock.

And that's where the power was invented. Once the boat was removed to outside their jurisdiction, they would have no more rights over it. The vessel remained under the ownership of Mr Roberts. What if he'd chartered a small boat and used it to board the Planet whilst in transit? This was his boat, not CRTs!

 

I still can't believe that people on here are fixating on Mr Robert's non-payment? Of course he was in the wrong, but so what? Provided he gets dealt with correctly then there's no further issue. The reason this thread has gone on and on is due to CRT's actions, not Mr Robert's. Some people will always try to get away without paying for things. It's happened since the dawn of time. The reason we have "authorities" is to ensure those people are dealt with properly. An authority which oversteps its powers is a very dangerous thing and we should all be concerned. If they can do it to Mr Roberts, they can do it to anyone. Mr Roberts' wrongdoing is irrelevant to this, although a few here cannot seem to grasp why.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's where the power was invented. Once the boat was removed to outside their jurisdiction, they would have no more rights over it.

 

 

Casting it adrift immediately its off their waters would be the legally correct thing to do. Yes?

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.