Jump to content

section 8 canning dock ?


Featured Posts

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.

This seems a strange proposal but I would imagine that CRT would have been as chuffed as nuts had Mr Roberts boarded the vessel in the Mersey and assuming responsibility for it, demanding that they cast him adrift. Oddly it didn't happen though.

 

Nigel Moore has given an example from his personal experience and actions whereby he has lawfully removed a boat from a mooring and re-moored it on the Tidal Thames at the owners instruction (a braver man than myself). Had Mr Roberts negotiated another mooring at another non-CRT dock in the area and asked CRT to take it there there may be more of an issue regarding the legality (although why they should do it for no charge would need to be addressed) but that also doesn't seem to have happened (perhaps no other dock in the area wanted him as a moorer). He doesn't seem to have done anything constructive to help himself.

 

As you quite rightly point out,"....people will always try to get away without paying for things. It's happened since the dawn of time....." it does however have 'consequences' as Mr Roberts has now discovered.

Edited by Wanderer Vagabond
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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?

 

If they can do it to Mr Roberts [who was in the wrong], they can do it to anyone[who is in the wrong].

 

Mr Roberts' wrongdoing is irrelevant to this, although a few here cannot seem to grasp why.

 

 

 

 

The counter argument is some people want to ignore that fact this entire situation was initiated by Mr Roberts [who was in the wrong] and fixate themselves on the subsequent actions by CRT who they allege are now also in the wrong.

Edited by costalot
  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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

I don't, I try to maintain a balanced and rational view.

I just find so much of this story odd and the way more bits and pieces come out somewhat unconvincing. I know nothing of the legal ins and outs which appear to be very convoluted and, until (and if) ever tested in court I can't comment on them. The basic facts are the same as if I was sitting on my farm mooring, not paying either CRT nor the farmer their fees, and then whinging when I get slung off both the mooring and the canal. in those circs, I can't see that I would have any cause for complaint. When it comes down to it, that's what this is about.

I, and the rest of us, rely on CRT to maintain the system and for that, those what use their bits of it have to pay them money. If we don't, we have no right to be there. Quite simple, really.

  • Greenie 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I, and the rest of us, rely on CRT to maintain the system and for that, those what use their bits of it have to pay them money. If we don't, we have no right to be there. Quite simple, really.

 

You are absolutely right Arthur, insofar as this was a man who did not pay his way nor take appropriate steps to work with his mooring provider.

 

CaRT were perfectly entitled to take appropriate action to remedy the situation in the best interests of their charitable objectives – the problem here is that, quite besides the question of whether their response was appropriate from the legal perspective: was it appropriate from the charitable objectives viewpoint?

 

If, as you say, they need income to promote those objectives, then any and all decisions made by the executive and trustees must be driven by consideration of what best promotes those. Spending around £30,000 in an exercise that might never result in reimbursement – and which, even if reimbursed, engenders no profit to the charity – renders the action taken not only disproportionate, but deleterious to attainment of the objectives.

 

There is a further component in all this that has been highlighted by the Charities Commission in their recent Report offering guidance to charities over whether to initiate or defend litigation. I would imagine that the same advice would temper actions that could lead to litigation: -

 

transparency about the reasons for taking legal action is very important in explaining why the trustees decided on this course of action - the trustees must be able to justify their decision because the charity’s actions may have an impact on the charity’s reputation and supporters.” [my bold]

 

A further sobering consideration is that the Trustees are potentially liable personally, for any financial loss accompanying decisions that have not been informed by careful consideration of the ramifications respecting the reputation and finances of the charity.

 

Perhaps, if CaRT’s trustees were actually made aware of this, there might be more measured and focussed responses to such situations as we are debating?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Current Trustees according to CaRT’s website as of 22 September 2016:

Tim Reeve
Janet Hogben
Ben Gordon
Frances Done
John Dodwell
Jane Cotton
Manish Chande
Lynne Berry
Nigel Annett
Jenny Abramsky

& chairman Allan Leighton

Any and all of these could be held personally accountable under the Charities Commission guidelines, for sums owed if CaRT lose legal actions that the executive have instigated or chosen to defend. They could even be held accountable in instances where CaRT won, where this was against a victim known to be incapable of coughing up over any adverse costs order.

In either event, again according to the Charities Commission as quoted in my previous post, they would all be held responsible for the adverse effects upon the public perception.

One wonders if they have troubled themselves over such consequences of their responsibilities to CaRT? It would be nice to think that if they were, they would be exercising their responsibility to properly oversee the actions and policies and decisions of the executive. Recent events over the past year would suggest that either they are failing, or that the executive are ignoring them - supposing, that is, that the trustees are doing their job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Current Trustees according to CaRT’s website as of 22 September 2016:

 

Tim Reeve

Janet Hogben

Ben Gordon

Frances Done

John Dodwell

Jane Cotton

Manish Chande

Lynne Berry

Nigel Annett

Jenny Abramsky

 

& chairman Allan Leighton

 

Any and all of these could be held personally accountable under the Charities Commission guidelines, for sums owed if CaRT lose legal actions that the executive have instigated or chosen to defend. They could even be held accountable in instances where CaRT won, where this was against a victim known to be incapable of coughing up over any adverse costs order.

 

In either event, again according to the Charities Commission as quoted in my previous post, they would all be held responsible for the adverse effects upon the public perception.

 

One wonders if they have troubled themselves over such consequences of their responsibilities to CaRT? It would be nice to think that if they were, they would be exercising their responsibility to properly oversee the actions and policies and decisions of the executive. Recent events over the past year would suggest that either they are failing, or that the executive are ignoring them - supposing, that is, that the trustees are doing their job.

 

 

 

This is a potentially powerful weak spot you have identified here Nigel.

 

Well worth investigating and exploiting given the vindictive excesses CRT have gone to in the Mayers and 'Planet' cases.

 

The involvement of Tony with his prejudiced and coloured anti-CRT approach works against gaining the support of people who have a balanced perspective, IMO.

P.S. Why is Jenny Abramsky a trustee now I wonder. There is/was a BBC producer of the same name, presumably the same person with no connection with or interest in canals as far as I know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been looking at general advice on situations such as these, and found some interesting pragmatism in a Canadian website. Obviously, marinas in Canada are less well served by legislation than we are, but certain basic common-sense principles remain valid, even though they do not enjoy the same applicable legislation as e.g. the Torts Act provides:

A marina has to prioritize its objectives when evicting troublemakers or people in breach of the moorage agreement. Marina managers are known to call and say that there is a person who is a problem, he has not paid his moorage and we want him gone but we want the moorage paid up in full before he leaves.

 

I press such marina managers to identify their prime objective: getting the moorage payments paid up to date or getting the vessel gone?

To manage customers’ behaviour, you need to use both a stick and a carrot. If you say to a vessel owner we want your overdue moorage paid up to date and you gone by the end of the week what incentive does that vessel owner have to comply with your demand? If on the other hand, you are prepared to say to the vessel owner that if you are gone from our marina by the end of the week and you agree not to return without advance written permission, we will waive your last three months of past due moorage, then you can open up that valuable moorage space for another vessel owner who is prepared to pay on time.

So, I strongly recommend that when you are dealing with a troublesome marina user, you identify your prime objective, whether it be money, eviction, or compliance, and tailor your "sticks" and "carrots" to suit.

The reality is that getting rid of difficult customers can be extremely challenging and costly. If the carrot and stick remedy will not
work, and the boat is not actually abandoned, then the following Catch, Release and Compliance options exist, none of which are appealing:


a. Catch: The marina hires a company to remove the boat from the marina and store it. However, the marina will be required to indemnify the company for any liability exposure and the marina will become a bailee – and liable to care for the boat as if it was the owner. Furthermore, the marina will have to pay the removal, storage and insurance costs until the debtor pays up (if ever). [this is the strict legal position here also]

b. Release: The marina releases the mooring lines on the boat and lets it drift free. However , then the marina will be liable for any damage caused to third parties by the drifting boat, as well as for any damage to the boat itself. [this is not an option in this country; the boat can never be cut loose - sorry MtB - but must be left safely secured]

c. Compliance by means of Barbed Hooks: The marina seeks a mandatory injunction order from the Court to have the vessel removed by the vessel’s owner and sold or destroyed if the owner refuses to do so."

The law may vary, but the pragmatism and focus on objectives are universal in application.


 

 

P.S. Why is Jenny Abramsky a trustee now I wonder. There is/was a BBC producer of the same name, presumably the same person with no connection with or interest in canals as far as I know.

 

According to the CaRT website you have the right person.

 

Dame Jenny Abramsky: A 35-year career at the BBC saw Jenny rise to the corporation’s director of radio and music. Prior to that, as director of Continuous News, she ran the BBC’s 24 hours news services.

She is chair of the Royal Academy of Music and the Board of Governors of the Royal Ballet, as well as having served six years as chair of the Heritage Lottery Fund/National Heritage Memorial Fund, among other voluntary roles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S. Why is Jenny Abramsky a trustee now I wonder. There is/was a BBC producer of the same name, presumably the same person with no connection with or interest in canals as far as I know.

 

Possibly because of this Mike:

Dame Jennifer Gita "Jenny" Abramsky, DBE is chairman of the UK's National Heritage Memorial Fund. The NHMF makes grants to preserve heritage of outstanding national importance.

(Nigel beat me to it!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

Yes of course, many years ago banks used to return all cheques to the drawer, I seem to remember monthly, a lot of people then filed the cheque with the invoice etc. My system did just that, when banks ceased returning cheques, I started photocopying all cheques and filing the copy with the invoice etc. Nothing underhand just record keeping and on occasion one that saved me money.

 

With regard to Mr Robert's probity, as I mentioned earlier I would want to see the bank statements of the account the cheque was drawn on. If there were funds in the account that would have covered the cheque I would, on the balance of probability believe him. No funds then the cheque would have been worthless so why would he have sent it. I all depends on whether there were sufficient funds in the account. To me anyway.

Link to post
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

 

Only one problem with that, counterfoils are not proof of what was written on a cheque, to whom it was drawn and the actual amount. I had two occasions over the years where a cheque was altered, my bank was suspicious and my producing the photocopy of the original land someone in court and a holiday courtesy HMG. In the other case the bank refused to pay the cheque on the grounds it had been altered incorrectly. In those days signatures etc on cheques were important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes of course, many years ago banks used to return all cheques to the drawer, I seem to remember monthly, a lot of people then filed the cheque with the invoice etc. My system did just that, when banks ceased returning cheques, I started photocopying all cheques and filing the copy with the invoice etc. Nothing underhand just record keeping and on occasion one that saved me money.

 

With regard to Mr Robert's probity, as I mentioned earlier I would want to see the bank statements of the account the cheque was drawn on. If there were funds in the account that would have covered the cheque I would, on the balance of probability believe him. No funds then the cheque would have been worthless so why would he have sent it. I all depends on whether there were sufficient funds in the account. To me anyway.

 

 

Yes of course, many years ago banks used to return all cheques to the drawer, I seem to remember monthly, a lot of people then filed the cheque with the invoice etc. My system did just that, when banks ceased returning cheques, I started photocopying all cheques and filing the copy with the invoice etc. Nothing underhand just record keeping and on occasion one that saved me money.

 

With regard to Mr Robert's probity, as I mentioned earlier I would want to see the bank statements of the account the cheque was drawn on. If there were funds in the account that would have covered the cheque I would, on the balance of probability believe him. No funds then the cheque would have been worthless so why would he have sent it. I all depends on whether there were sufficient funds in the account. To me anyway.

That sounds quite reasonable, albeit perhaps unnecessary, and this was the point that I was making. If someone photocopies ALL their cheques then nothing untoward but to have just a photocopy of the cheque that hasn't been presented sounds highly suspicious. Given how rarely most of now use cheques these days (I write, on average, about one every 18 months) since there are a variety of far more efficient ways of paying bills, bank transfer, Direct Debit, Standing OrderDebit Card, Credit Card et al. Cheques are however the favoured method of payment for those wishing to use, "...the cheque's in the post..." excuse when delaying payment of their bills, not that I'm suggesting that is the case hererolleyes.gif

 

 

Only one problem with that, counterfoils are not proof of what was written on a cheque, to whom it was drawn and the actual amount. I had two occasions over the years where a cheque was altered, my bank was suspicious and my producing the photocopy of the original land someone in court and a holiday courtesy HMG. In the other case the bank refused to pay the cheque on the grounds it had been altered incorrectly. In those days signatures etc on cheques were important.

On both occasions however it was the bank themselves who picked up the fraudulent alterations by the looks of it. All you did was confirm their suspicions but they could have refused to pay either cheque with or without your input. It must have been a while ago since the fraudulent alteration failed so the offence was an attempted Fraud and, unless the sum was huge, a custodial sentence would not be likely these days. Having dealt with someone in recent years for a number of cheque frauds, including bringing a fraudulent cheque to me as the investigating officer as proof that he was going to pay the outstanding debt (he didn't), he still didn't get a custodial sentencemad.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe anyone has suggested that.

Neither did they suggest any alternative just that, "...Once the boat was removed to outside their jurisdiction, they would have no more rights over it..." he just forgot to mention that they still have responsibilities for the vessel. The removal from CRT waters was lawful if it was due to trespass (the CRT case), so if they shouldn't then do anything with it what is the alternative to cutting it adrift as outlined by MtB? (obviously not a good idea!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That sounds quite reasonable, albeit perhaps unnecessary, and this was the point that I was making. If someone photocopies ALL their cheques then nothing untoward but to have just a photocopy of the cheque that hasn't been presented sounds highly suspicious. Given how rarely most of now use cheques these days (I write, on average, about one every 18 months) since there are a variety of far more efficient ways of paying bills, bank transfer, Direct Debit, Standing OrderDebit Card, Credit Card et al. Cheques are however the favoured method of payment for those wishing to use, "...the cheque's in the post..." excuse when delaying payment of their bills, not that I'm suggesting that is the case hererolleyes.gif

 

On both occasions however it was the bank themselves who picked up the fraudulent alterations by the looks of it. All you did was confirm their suspicions but they could have refused to pay either cheque with or without your input. It must have been a while ago since the fraudulent alteration failed so the offence was an attempted Fraud and, unless the sum was huge, a custodial sentence would not be likely these days. Having dealt with someone in recent years for a number of cheque frauds, including bringing a fraudulent cheque to me as the investigating officer as proof that he was going to pay the outstanding debt (he didn't), he still didn't get a custodial sentencemad.gif

 

I don't know how far back you go, not sure I agree with you about more efficient means of payment, I prefer a cheque, cards etc seem to be more easily defrauded.

 

Yes it was a large sum of money. I do not know what the charge was, I was not at the trial my evidence being by statement and apparently there was no argument about it. It was at the Assize Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

. . . given the vindictive excesses CRT have gone to in the Mayers and 'Planet' cases.

 

Sadly, MtB, I fear that your characterisation provides the only feasible rationale for the costly decision making evidenced thus far, in the instances you reference above, and others.

 

I am wholly empathetic with the feeling of savagery when it is realised that a client is deliberately sticking two fingers up at you, but even as a private business, it is not an emotion that one can afford to indulge. Awareness of consequences – however unjust those might seem – helps to temper the first fierce flush of desire for massive retaliation.

 

When no fear of consequences exists, and the mooring provider is convinced of their immunity from fall-out, we are treated to such spectacles as we have been in the cases of Mayers, Wingfield, Ravenscroft, Roberts, and others.

 

One might hope that the ascendancy of a fresh new Head of Legal to replace Jackie Lewis [the invisible woman of the BW/CaRT legal front] will bring a fresh, new and better approach to tackling the legal issues over boater confrontations, but then – the same hope had been there with Parry’s replacement of the facile Evans, and look how that has turned out. The baby-kissing phase has melted into forgotten history.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't know how far back you go, not sure I agree with you about more efficient means of payment, I prefer a cheque, cards etc seem to be more easily defrauded.

 

Yes it was a large sum of money. I do not know what the charge was, I was not at the trial my evidence being by statement and apparently there was no argument about it. It was at the Assize Court.

Having given two clear examples of cheque fraud you then seem to believe that card fraud is easier! How does that work? Credit Card fraud is in fact very difficult which is why my preferred means of payment is via the credit card. A number of years ago I bought a computer from a company in Leicester who, immediately my payment had cleared went bankrupt. Supposedly no fraud involved, just an unlucky coincidenceunsure.png but the Credit Card company fully reimbursed me. If you are subject to a variety of frauds through the use of your cards, provided that you cannot be held to blame (and yes the Card Companies are now trying to blame their customers a bit more) you will be reimbursed. On the other hand once your cheque has cleared, no matter how fraudulent the transaction turns out to be, you try and get your money back, whistling in the wind comes to mind. I'd be more than content to see the end of cheques, they are an invitation to fraud.

 

(And for information I go back a long way (1950's) but don't stick with old practices that suck!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither did they suggest any alternative just that, "...Once the boat was removed to outside their jurisdiction, they would have no more rights over it..." he just forgot to mention that they still have responsibilities for the vessel.

 

The Canadian advice was to cast adrift as one option, though recognising that any damages resulting from that would lie at the door of those setting it adrift. It is simply not an option in this country.

 

While I am not totally clear on this, it appears that if one wishes to be free from the responsibilities incumbent upon a bailee [and thus be prepared to forgo possession of the lien], then under the Torts Act: - s. 4(1) "If a bailee is in possession of goods which he has held as custodian, and his obligation as custodian has come to an end, the notice [requiring the owner to remove his goods] may be given at any time after the ending of the obligation, or may be combined with any notice terminating his obligation as custodian."

 

To me that seems as though – for so long as you are willing to let go of the advantage possession of the boat gives you, you may leave it safely secured elsewhere, without you remaining responsible for it post expiry of the relevant Notice term. Even if, for example you had no option but to pay someone else for, say, a month's mooring [if that was the Notice period], that could well be considered worth the removal of all responsibilities at the end of that month.

 

I would be grateful, however, for educated input from anyone with experience in this field.

 

 

 

edit to add, supplementing the above - The Bailee’s power of sale under the 1977 Act arises where the Bailor is in breach of the obligation to collect the goods, and those goods remain in the possession or under the control of the Bailee.

 

The obligation to collect may be imposed by Notice in the format dictated by Schedule 1 of the Act.

 

But is seems to me that, instead of selling, the alternative is to forgo possession and control of those goods. Under the Act, s.1( c ) lists the situation where “the bailee can reasonably expect to be relieved of any duty to safeguard the goods on giving notice to the bailor, but is unable to trace or communicate with the bailor” as one justifying the power of sale.

 

That suggests that if the Notice HAS been successfully delivered, the effect is to relieve the bailee “of any duty to safeguard the goods” on expiry of the Notice.

 

Yes?

 

 

 

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Canadian advice was to cast adrift as one option, though recognising that any damages resulting from that would lie at the door of those setting it adrift. It is simply not an option in this country.

 

While I am not totally clear on this, it appears that if one wishes to be free from the responsibilities incumbent upon a bailee [and thus be prepared to forgo possession of the lien], then under the Torts Act: - s. 4(1) "If a bailee is in possession of goods which he has held as custodian, and his obligation as custodian has come to an end, the notice [requiring the owner to remove his goods] may be given at any time after the ending of the obligation, or may be combined with any notice terminating his obligation as custodian."

 

To me that seems as though – for so long as you are willing to let go of the advantage possession of the boat gives you, you may leave it safely secured elsewhere, without you remaining responsible for it post expiry of the relevant Notice term. Even if, for example you had no option but to pay someone else for, say, a month's mooring [if that was the Notice period], that could well be considered worth the removal of all responsibilities at the end of that month.

 

I would be grateful, however, for educated input from anyone with experience in this field.

 

That does seem a surprising potential outcome. My own view (and that is all that it is) would have been that once you had taken possession of someone's property you had responsibility of it until you either returned the responsibility to the owner or passed it on to a third party.

 

In the context of 'Planet' as a viable seagoing boat, would that mean that CRT could have securely anchored the vessel on a sea anchorage somewhere off Liverpool, told Mr Roberts the location and left him to it? It would hardly be a reckless act since being left at anchor is what these boats were designed for. One relevant issue that comes to mind is that some means of correctly lighting the boat at night would need to be found but that isn't exactly insurmountable. This isn't what I'm proposing that CRT should have done,just wondering aloud if it is something they could have done.

Edited by Wanderer Vagabond
Link to post
Share on other sites

. . . just wondering aloud if it is something they could have done.

 

Hmmmm - actually, I can't think of any reason why not.

 

There is, by the way, a significant difference between 'taking into possession'; having it dumped on you; having initially accepted it onto your premises and then exercising a lien, and ditto but wanting to get rid of it regardless. The actions in response will be different, for example: -

 

The Notice obliging the owner to collect may be given at any time any contractual period has been accomplished, and no time period is specified [so presumably the obligation to collect could start on the date of the Notice.

 

However, if the goods are not collected, one cannot promptly sell without besides, giving Notice of that intent [in practice, both forms of Notice are usually served simultaneously, just in case] – and in that case, the period before any sale must be “such as will afford the bailor a reasonable opportunity of taking delivery of the goods” [usually this is accepted as being about 28 days].

 

But that is only if no monies are owing which the bailee wishes to recover from the sale. If there are, then the minimum period of grace is 3 months; if there is any dispute over the sums owed, then he can’t serve such a Notice at all, and must get an appropriate court order.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having given two clear examples of cheque fraud you then seem to believe that card fraud is easier! How does that work? Credit Card fraud is in fact very difficult which is why my preferred means of payment is via the credit card. A number of years ago I bought a computer from a company in Leicester who, immediately my payment had cleared went bankrupt. Supposedly no fraud involved, just an unlucky coincidenceunsure.png but the Credit Card company fully reimbursed me. If you are subject to a variety of frauds through the use of your cards, provided that you cannot be held to blame (and yes the Card Companies are now trying to blame their customers a bit more) you will be reimbursed. On the other hand once your cheque has cleared, no matter how fraudulent the transaction turns out to be, you try and get your money back, whistling in the wind comes to mind. I'd be more than content to see the end of cheques, they are an invitation to fraud.

 

(And for information I go back a long way (1950's) but don't stick with old practices that suck!)

 

Oh dear, I have never had anyone successfully defraud me using a cheque, whilst hundreds/thousands get defrauded daily via the plastic card route. I suspect the very Act of Parliament that gives you the protection when you use your credit card had to be there to persuade people to use them in the first place, and in areas where that does not provide protection the banks know the system would collapse if they did not reimburse defrauded customers, people would stop using them. Yet a cheque is a fully traceable instrument only usable once and you say it is less than secure than a plastic card where all you need to do is read the card and then you can make as many cards as you like and go off and spend the money on the original card. Same as the latest hash brained swipe the card to pay, no contact or contactless paying, the cards are readable whilst in the wallet or purse and that is secure. I do not know what you really did or work at it is certainly not anything that involves security of payment methods, or maybe you just have do idea of the fraud level that exist today in the financial world today.

 

Your still only a youngster at the 1950s :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nigel, I am wondering if the Tort Act is the wrong end of the stick. The possession spoken of in it, does that not apply when a car, or the like is taken to a say repairer etc left to be sorted out and there is a failure to collect or a refusal to pay at which point a lien arises and the repairer etc become bailee with the responsibilities in the Act and the right to sell.

 

In the case of Planet, at what point did CRT acquire the same level of possession that say a repairer acquires in law? Surely there is a step missing at some point CRT had to take possession and control of Planet, like a car in a garage for repair the garage has possession and control and it is that that gives them the bailee rights etc. My mind is saying while Planet was moored there CRT had no possession or control that had been given to them or that was theirs to take in Law.

 

I am wondering if all they had was Trespass. Where would they get the right, without a Court Order, or an Admiralty arrest warrant to seize the vessel. Think about a car park when if ever does the car park owner acquire the right to seize the car. For the moment ignore signs on walls etc.

 

Now if we add the signs etc they have the right, now is that same right engendered in the Berthing contract?

 

Now if there was no effective Berthing Contract, no signs on the walls could it be that it is trespass only.

Edited by Geo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering if the Tort Act is the wrong end of the stick. ......... ........... .......... .......

 

 

Unlikely, . . . not when almost all inland and coastal mooring providers and Marinas include and rely on the 1977 Torts Act in the termination section of their T&C's, the notable exceptions being C&RT in the old Liverpool Docks, and BWML, who use a slightly watered down version of basically the same load of ''we want it both ways'' twaddle in their berthing/mooring contracts.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering if the Tort Act is the wrong end of the stick. The possession spoken of . .

 

This is what I was clumsily trying to address in my last post to WV #494.

 

Nobody can “take possession” of goods in unilateral self-help in order to leverage payment of debts – that is part of the Ravenscroft case.

 

There are, however, circumstances – such as the car repair example you give – where goods are left on your premises with your initial consent, that you no longer wish to be responsible for, and that is where the Torts Act both imposes obligations and provides for a remedy.

 

Somebody may indeed have trespassed on your property and left goods there without permisssion, whereupon instant removal might [arguably] be a legitimate course of action, but the situation is entirely different where you have accepted goods. That will involve you in responsibilities, whether your custody [which is effectively a form of physical posession] is for payment or not.

 

The Torts Act provides a degree of statutory protection for the owners of goods left in the care of others, that applies in all such circumstances regardless of any purported contractual removal of that protection [as I currently understand the position]. This why all reputable mooring providers - as Tony has pointed out - cite the Torts Act as underpinning any rights of lien and sale in certain circumstances. These Terms of Business are almost universally based on the template provided by the British Marine Federation.

 

Note that the Torts Act does not pretend to grant ANY power to seize the vessel or to take possession of it; it applies only where it has been left in your possession. Having been left in your possession – if under contract such as with a car repair, or as with a mooring arrangement, whereby payment is due – there is a common law right of lien on the goods. In common law, however, a lien allows only for retention of goods pending payment – it does NOT permit sale of the goods to achieve payment. Only the Torts Act grants that power of sale, and only after due process has been followed.

 

If trespass was the only applicable element to this case, eviction would have been the only remedy. Neither seizure, taking into possession, nor retaining in possession could possibly apply, let alone threatening sale of the vessel. If it was a simple matter of monies owed in relation to the vessel in circumstances where it was not already 'in your possession' as in on your premises, then Admiralty law would have to be invoked, and possession would then vest in the Court ander the terms of arrest, pending settlement.

 

It is notable also, that tor the reluctant bailee, the Torts Act provides a release from the statutory imposition of responsibility, where the baliment has been gratuitous.

 

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh dear, I have never had anyone successfully defraud me using a cheque, whilst hundreds/thousands get defrauded daily via the plastic card route. I suspect the very Act of Parliament that gives you the protection when you use your credit card had to be there to persuade people to use them in the first place, and in areas where that does not provide protection the banks know the system would collapse if they did not reimburse defrauded customers, people would stop using them. Yet a cheque is a fully traceable instrument only usable once and you say it is less than secure than a plastic card where all you need to do is read the card and then you can make as many cards as you like and go off and spend the money on the original card. Same as the latest hash brained swipe the card to pay, no contact or contactless paying, the cards are readable whilst in the wallet or purse and that is secure. I do not know what you really did or work at it is certainly not anything that involves security of payment methods, or maybe you just have do idea of the fraud level that exist today in the financial world today.

 

Your still only a youngster at the 1950s smile.png

So you have never had a cheque 'bounced' on you then, lucky youunsure.png . Most of the credit card fraud is as a result of people recklessly passing their credit card details to people running a scam. It takes considerable skilled knowledge to actually 'break into' a credit/debit card when being used. The 'hashed brained' idea of contactless isn't so has brained if you can give me actual examples of how they have been read rather than just anecdotal evidence. Millions of people use them every day on Transport for London with no difficulty at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering if all they had was Trespass. Where would they get the right, without a Court Order, or an Admiralty arrest warrant to seize the vessel. Think about a car park when if ever does the car park owner acquire the right to seize the car. For the moment ignore signs on walls etc.

 

Now if we add the signs etc they have the right, now is that same right engendered in the Berthing contract?

 

Now if there was no effective Berthing Contract, no signs on the walls could it be that it is trespass only.

 

 

There is no right conferred by the Torts Act to seize the vessel, as I hopefully explained earlier. As to alleged powers to do what they wish with the vessel by reference to the berthing agreement [whether still in force or not] - and in consequent denial of any application of the Torts Act - there is a very pertinent analogous situation within The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Chapter 2, concerning vehicles left on land.

 

This Act created an offence under sub-section (1) of immobilising vehicles left on private land, by a person without lawful authority. The interesting element is that the “express or implied consent (whether or not legally binding) of a person otherwise entitled to remove the vehicle to the immobilisation, movement or restriction concerned is not lawful authority for the purposes of subsection (1).”

 

So signage purporting to imply your consent to immobilisation if you park your car there, has no legal effect; clamping would still be a criminal offence. That remains the case even if you signed an otherwise legally binding contract expressly permitting the immobilisation.

 

This example could well be a good answer [by establishing a pertinent legal principle] in rebuttal of the claim by CaRT that the boat owner consents, under his signed berthing agreement, to them doing whatever they wish with the vessel if he does not remove it himself – that he has, in effect, signed away his rights to protection under the Torts Act.

 

Link to post
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.