Jump to content

section 8 canning dock ?


Featured Posts

..............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).”................

 

 

 

Very much at a 'tangent' but this could have been used a couple of years ago when PLM (Pillings Lock Marina) were found to have disabled boats that 'allegedly' owed them money.

The 'disablement' was not one of 'not being able to move the boat' but of disconnecting oil lines so that if the engine was started and removed from the marina, the engine would seize up pretty quickly.

 

Maybe even 'criminal damage' ?

 

PLM admitted (in writing) that they had done this, but claimed it was as 'security' to stop the boats being stolen.

Link to post
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.

 

Mr Roberts SERIOUSLY needs to get legal advice from somebody who can tell him what the law actually is, rather than what they think it should be.

 

Contracts do NOT have to be written, they can be verbal or implied.

 

Where a written agreement comes to an end, but both parties to that agreement continue to act as if it still existed, then a court will recognise an acceptance by both parties that they wish to continue to be bound by the terms of that contract.

  • Greenie 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The vexing business of abandoned cars is one that I have [and am having] experience of over many years, from both sides of the problem. The police are of very little help, and even if you demonstrate with video evidence that someone has towed your vehicle out into the street from your private drive, and left it obstructing the highway and/or otherwise illegally parked [resulting in Council impoundment], they will take no action.

When the ‘boot’ has been on the other foot, I have, however, erred on the side of caution and placed relevant notices before getting the Council to remove the car.

Police advice on the application of the 2012 Act is, even so, of some value as guiding principles: -

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q441.htm

It is an offence to immobilise, move or restrict the movement of a motor vehicle in a way which would prevent a person (who is entitled to remove that vehicle) from removing the vehicle concerned. Therefore if a vehicle has been left on private land, an offence may be committed if, for example, the owner of that land clamped or towed away that vehicle. To be guilty of the offence however, a person must undertake these actions with the 'intention' of preventing or inhibiting a person entitled to move the vehicle concerned from moving the vehicle. Consequently, a person who moves an obstructively parked vehicle a short distance intending to regain access to his or her property would not be committing the offence in circumstances where he or she did not intend to prevent the driver of the vehicle from subsequently retrieving it.”

To avoid committing an offence where a vehicle has been left on private land, would require the vehicle to be removed by a person/s acting with lawful authority, or by moving/removing it with every care taken to show that there is no intention of depriving the driver of the vehicle from subsequently retrieving it.”

They go on to comment on the advisability of giving e.g. 14 days notice [which is what I have done in past instances], but if there is obstruction to one’s own use of the space, or of one’s clients’ use of the space, there is no impediment to carefully removing the car immediately. As with removing a boat, there is a responsibility of care, and a duty to leave it safe and legally positioned where the owner can retrieve it.

The correlations with moored boats seems fairly obvious as a broad legal principle where simple trespass is involved and an appropriate remedy sought.

Note that there is a distinction made in the legislation between vehicles left on open land, and vehicles left within ‘gated’ premises. In the latter situation the 2012 Act does not apply and the exercise of a lien [where debt has been incurred] remains valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shoosmiths like to seize your property, lawfully or otherwise, and argue about it later, knowing that will be difficult and costly to you. If the property was your home and you are made homeless that considerably adds to your difficulty.

 

(Their client, in this case, has public money, your money and charitable donations to fund their defence of any action against them and run up the costs the claimant is exposed to as their main tactic. The legal arguments are unlikely to get into court and if they do imagine the arguments expressed here being presented in a court with no definitive agreement and subjected to the understanding and interpretation of a Judge - who is also dealing with numerous other case - and costing, when it gets to court - £2000 per hour for the County Court plus solicitors ( three in my case) and a barrister, as costs you are exposed to, plus your own costs for representation which is unlikely to be effective given that you may not be able to communicate directly with the barrister and they -barristers- frequently boast of taking a case on the day of the hearing and having not read the paperwork.)

 

They believe in possession being 'nine tenths of the law'. They are involved in debt collection for banks and are notorious for seeking a charging order on a house for a low level of debt.

 

They are the 'hitmen' of the legal world and are retained by those requiring that kind of service as it is in keeping with their policy and approach.

 

They used to advertise that they specialise in 'removing people who stand in the way of development'. Also that they didn't deal solely with the legal issues but found out about the person concerned's background. They employ 'character assassination' and 'provocation' that may enter the realms of entrapment.

 

I have had previous experience of their 'methods' and know of their reputation.

 

Why did they change their name from Shoe-smiths to SHOO-smiths?

 

The website Canal and River Tyranny is an account of what happened in my case. And, yes, it is 'one side of the story'. Of course it is. How could it be both? Be thankful you've got this account and, if you want the accounts of all the people lined up against me you can ask them - and good luck with that. The 'one side of the story' argument is a 'cop-out' for those who don't want to know the truth as it doesn't suit their agenda.

 

Standing up to abuse by tyrannical and, apparently, unaccountable authorities whose behaviour seriously impacts people's lives, and 'putting your money/home/possessions where your mouth is', is somewhat different from tapping away on a keyboard, in the comfort and security of your own home, expressing your 'opinions'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The vexing business of abandoned cars is one that I have [and am having] experience of over many years, from both sides of the problem. The police are of very little help, and even if you demonstrate with video evidence that someone has towed your vehicle out into the street from your private drive, and left it obstructing the highway and/or otherwise illegally parked [resulting in Council impoundment], they will take no action.

 

When the ‘boot’ has been on the other foot, I have, however, erred on the side of caution and placed relevant notices before getting the Council to remove the car.

 

Police advice on the application of the 2012 Act is, even so, of some value as guiding principles: -

 

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q441.htm

 

It is an offence to immobilise, move or restrict the movement of a motor vehicle in a way which would prevent a person (who is entitled to remove that vehicle) from removing the vehicle concerned. Therefore if a vehicle has been left on private land, an offence may be committed if, for example, the owner of that land clamped or towed away that vehicle. To be guilty of the offence however, a person must undertake these actions with the 'intention' of preventing or inhibiting a person entitled to move the vehicle concerned from moving the vehicle. Consequently, a person who moves an obstructively parked vehicle a short distance intending to regain access to his or her property would not be committing the offence in circumstances where he or she did not intend to prevent the driver of the vehicle from subsequently retrieving it.”

 

To avoid committing an offence where a vehicle has been left on private land, would require the vehicle to be removed by a person/s acting with lawful authority, or by moving/removing it with every care taken to show that there is no intention of depriving the driver of the vehicle from subsequently retrieving it.”

 

They go on to comment on the advisability of giving e.g. 14 days notice [which is what I have done in past instances], but if there is obstruction to one’s own use of the space, or of one’s clients’ use of the space, there is no impediment to carefully removing the car immediately. As with removing a boat, there is a responsibility of care, and a duty to leave it safe and legally positioned where the owner can retrieve it.

 

The correlations with moored boats seems fairly obvious as a broad legal principle where simple trespass is involved and an appropriate remedy sought.

 

Note that there is a distinction made in the legislation between vehicles left on open land, and vehicles left within ‘gated’ premises. In the latter situation the 2012 Act does not apply and the exercise of a lien [where debt has been incurred] remains valid.

 

 

Actually, The Protection of Freedoms Act is, to my mind, a classic example of the exception proving the rule.

 

Prior to the passing of the Act, it was undoubtedly legal to rely upon an implied contract giving permission for a vehicle to be immobilised. The Act specifically legislated against immobilising or removing motor vehicles. It didn't legislate against immobilising or moving moveable chattels generally.

 

So, under the general rule of law that what is not prohibited is permitted, an owner can give permission for a boat to be immobilised or removed (as it is NOT a motor vehicle)

 

I would say that it is eminently arguable though, and a judge might rule either way on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

All I can say is I have had several friends who have had their cards cloned who haven't given out their details. There have been 3 cases that I know of within 15 miles of where I live where Garages were scanning and cloning cards when their customers were buying fuel. These are not anecdotal, they resulted in convictions

Link to post
Share on other sites

They believe in possession being 'nine tenths of the law'.

 

Some of the points made on the police site respecting the Protection of Rights Act – and with the right to remove a vehicle from your property so long as it is not with the intent to deprive the owner of their property - resonate with comments made by the judge in Geoff’s case.

 

Of particular relevance, [even though we are dealing there with specific powers under s.8 that actually deny the powers of exercising lien with possession of the boat] were the judge’s comments respecting access to the boat once removed – there is NO provision for denying access to the sectioned boat within the ’83 Act; nonetheless such access IS expressly denied by BW/CaRT when seizing boats, instead of simply removing them from ‘their’ property as the Act provides.

 

Such removal under s.8 powers [i know this is a little off-topic in the present case] prevents possession of the boat from being used as a lien on prior debts, because CaRT MUST allow the owner to take back possession of the boat upon reimbursement ONLY, of the costs of removal.

 

Such provisions emphasise, to my mind, the original intent behind s.8 to deal principally with boats whose owners cannot be traced.

 

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually, The Protection of Freedoms Act is, to my mind, a classic example of the exception proving the rule.

 

Prior to the passing of the Act, it was undoubtedly legal to rely upon an implied contract giving permission for a vehicle to be immobilised. The Act specifically legislated against immobilising or removing motor vehicles. It didn't legislate against immobilising or moving moveable chattels generally.

 

So, under the general rule of law that what is not prohibited is permitted, an owner can give permission for a boat to be immobilised or removed (as it is NOT a motor vehicle)

 

I would say that it is eminently arguable though, and a judge might rule either way on it.

 

Your comment was better targeted at my previous post was it not? My emphasis with the one you quoted was on the continuing right, even post 2012, to remove a vehicle from your property.

 

I have to agree that a judge might rule either way on your point though – whether legitimately arguable or not!

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have to agree that a judge might rule either way on your point though – whether legitimately arguable or not!

 

 

So given that is the case, has the owner of Planet been properly legally advised, or is he seeking proper legal assistance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Trying to think, only cheque I have had bounce was many years ago and was sorted out within 24 hours.

 

As for reading cards I am afraid you are basking in a land of imagined security on cards. I cannot reveal any details but they are readable without a great deal of trouble and clones are easy to make. The equipment to do it is not expensive nor difficult to source we have had it in our labs for many years being used for legitimate reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So given that is the case, has the owner of Planet been properly legally advised, or is he seeking proper legal assistance?

 

What exactly is it that you mean by "proper" legal advice and assistance, . . . something along the lines of what Andy Wingfield had in Nottingham County Court last year from a 'legal team' who were about as much use as Lord Lucan's passport ?

Edited by Tony Dunkley
  • Greenie 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What exactly is it that you mean by "proper" legal advice and assistance, . . . something along the lines of what Andy Wingfield had in Nottingham County Court last year from a 'legal team' who were about as much use as Lord Lucan's passport ?

 

Recognised qualification. Probably also a very good idea to ensure they have a practising certificate and they're members of the regulating body, which is the Solicitor's Regulation Authority.

Edited by Paul C
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nigel,

 

I think this will need to go to court and Mr Robert will need a good dose of luck and a good lawyer

 

Thank you for your posts as always good.

 

Thank you for the good hearted manner in which you have accepted mine.

 

I am going to be busy for the next while or so, so will only post if I see something that says to the grey cell no that should not be. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Recognised qualification. Probably also a very good idea to ensure they have a practising certificate and they're members of the regulating body, which is the Solicitor's Regulation Authority.

 

I see, . . . so you do want Alan Roberts to be represented by someone who will let C&RT walk all over him ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

???

 

Tony,

 

Unless you can guarantee to win I would suggest that you find a good lawyer. I see to remember Nigel mentioning that there were a couple of possibilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I see, . . . so you do want Alan Roberts to be represented by someone who will let C&RT walk all over him ?

 

Not at all.

 

You see the world in a very binary way, and end up with some serious errors of logic in your reasoning.

 

Let us, for a moment, accept that Andy Wingfield had poor legal advice (and it isn't a given, the adage that a trial is a an event where a judge decides who has the best lawyer isn't necessarily true. People sometimes lose cases because they were actually wrong), but for the sake of moving forward let us accept it.

 

Your logic seems to say "A man had a lawyer and the lawyer got it wrong, therefore it is always better NOT to have a lawyer, because all lawyers are inept".

 

Yes, some lawyers get it wrong, but so do some non-lawyers.

 

There are pros and cons.

 

A lawyer isn't going to make errors that destroy the case (think of Pearly, where in an attempt to force a day in court Geoff destroyed his case).

A layman may have a better grasp of the FACTS of the case.

A lawyer will have more objectivity as to what the law actually says, rather than what they want it to say.

If the lawyer gets it wrong, and you lose everything, there is some prospect of comeback.

 

In an ideal world, what people would want is a TEAM, with a lay expert (such as Nigel perhaps) researching possible lines that could be explored, whilst the lawyer accepts the expertise, and considers whether those lines would actually work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you aware of the Wingfield case, and the lack-lustre efforts by his professional legal team.

 

Better a 'professional amateur' than an 'amateurish professional'

 

I am fully aware of the case and that Tony Dunkley/whoever else, wanted to "fight" it in a different way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am fully aware of the case and that Tony Dunkley/whoever else, wanted to "fight" it in a different way.

 

It was not, as it turned out, a question of “lack-lustre efforts”, to use Alan's description, so much as a question of Andy's professional team doing nothing at all at a critical juncture – the failure to file any acknowledgement of service scuppered all hopes of Andy’s case getting anywhere, regardless of who represented him, and regardless of which way it was proposed to "fight".

 

Following that failure there was no possibility to “fight” it in ANY way whatsoever, let alone “in a different way”. That was, of course, negligence rather than incapacity.

 

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It was not, as it turned out, a question of “lack-lustre efforts”, to use Alan's description, so much as a question of Andy's professional team doing nothing at all at a critical juncture – the failure to file any acknowledgement of service scuppered all hopes of Andy’s case getting anywhere, regardles of who represented him, and regardless of which way it was proposed to "fight".

 

Following that failure there was no possibility to “fight” it in ANY way whatsoever, let alone “in a different way”. That was, of course, negligence rather than incapacity.

 

 

Do you believe the owner of Planet should seek proper legal advice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you believe the owner of Planet should seek proper legal advice?

 

The owner of “Planet”, as with anyone facing the possibility of legal proceedings, should avail himself of every bit of advice from the very best possible sources that he can afford.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The owner of “Planet”, as with anyone facing the possibility of legal proceedings, should avail himself of every bit of advice from the very best possible sources that he can afford.

 

Have you ever considered a career in politics?

 

I haven't, but I think that I agree with what you say.

 

I would add a rider though.

 

The measure of the quality or otherwise of advice is not whether you like what that advice says. Any idiot can give you advice that simply says "you are right and the other guy is wrong". it doesn't mean that the advice is correct!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Have you ever considered a career in politics?

 

I haven't, but I think that I agree with what you say.

 

I would add a rider though.

 

The measure of the quality or otherwise of advice is not whether you like what that advice says. Any idiot can give you advice that simply says "you are right and the other guy is wrong". it doesn't mean that the advice is correct!

 

That the advice is given without fear or favour is the way I would put it.

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.