section 8 canning dock ?

[Arthur Marshall]

 

Perhaps if they HAD left it at its berth and engaged the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, they could have helped preserve the boat, have got the owner out of his financial difficulties while recovering the sums they were owed, and gained some respect besides.

 

None of this has anything to do with section 8 or any British Waterways legislation [nor have they pretended that it does]; it is covered by national legislation though, and ignoring due processes in this fait accompli will have landed CaRT in a legally parlous situation.

 

Sad to read the mocking comments over the owner’s distress when watching his boat towed away; “They’ve killed me . . .” CaRT’s modernised version of scaphism.

 

Interestingly, while Mr Roberts may have shouted “Stop, stop. It’s my ship, my ship”, according to the boat's website, it isn't. It's now owned by a Gary Anderton, to whom it was transferred sometime this year. Alan Roberts owned it from 2008, so it's odd that the fact that he (or whoever actually does own it now) owed a few bob in fees came as such a surprise. Nor why he should be so upset if he doesn't own it any more. Why ownership was transferred is open to speculation, which I won't. CRT say the vessel hasn't been licensed to be in the dock or to trade since 2015. So he has had a certain amount of time to sort it

 

Alan Roberts apparently owned a fleet of black cabs, which he originally said he was going to sell to fund the work on the ship, which he bought with three other people. There's no other mention of them I can find, or his cabs, and I've lost interest anyway. It just goes to show, as usual, that there's a whole stack of stuff going on of which we know nought, and the little we do know indicates that the boat was trading illegally - try running a pub from your front room and see how long you last. The fact he got away with it for over a year shows a certain degree of tolerance by everyone from CRT to the police, I should think.

 

Not sure either why CRT should want to help someone out of their financial difficulties (assuming that the owners are in such a state, for which there is no evidence), especially if they've been running it for five years - they'd only then get criticised for throwing good money after bad. Of course, one of the well known ways of evading responsibility in business is to run a limited company on the cheap, take as much money out of it as you possibly can, and then declare the business bankrupt and thus not have to pay your debts..Not a risk I presume we would want CRT to take.

 

Half the criticism of CRT on here is that some of their actions are bad business. Why there should be sympathy for someone who couldn't pay his way running a bar in Liverpool baffles me... he could obviously manage to pay the breweries, why not his mooring fees?

[Geo]

You omitted to add:

 

and a company limited by guarantee registered in England & Wales no. 7807276.

 

Therefore a limited company and hence a business.

 

I think you will find most of the big charities are companies limited by guarantee. Think it is done to protect trustees but not sure, someone will know I expect.

Anyone heard any info as to where the lightship has been taken?

Edited September 21, 2016 by Geo

[churchward]

You omitted to add:

 

and a company limited by guarantee registered in England & Wales no. 7807276.

 

Therefore a limited company and hence a business.

As mentioned elsewhere many large charities have limited company registration too and I didn't omit it as it is not relevant to CRT being a charity or not. The Ltd company registration does not negate its charitable trust status.

 

You said originally "Being naturally a little pedantic CRT are not a charity..." but since they have a charity registration number they are a charity by UK legal definition.

Edited September 21, 2016 by churchward

[Geo]

As mentioned elsewhere many large charities have limited company registration too and I didn't omit it as it is not relevant to CRT being a charity or not. The Ltd company registration does not negate its charitable trust status.

 

You said originally "Being naturally a little pedantic CRT are not a charity..." but since they have a charity registration number they are a charity by UK legal definition.

 

I think he forgets or does not know the reasons for registration of a company. To my understanding the main advantage is the protection given to the directors and shareholders should the company go bankrupt; limiting the directors & shareholder's liability to pay the company's debts.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Geo

[Paul C]

Does their charitable aims, include propping up failing businesses for eternity?

[Mike Todd]

Being naturally a little pedantic CRT are not a charity they are a business with charitable objectives. There is a difference.

And that difference is . . . ?

[Geo]

Does their charitable aims, include propping up failing businesses for eternity?

 

I don't know and to be honest I do not know what CRT's stated charitable aims are. Maybe they are similar to a lot of private school a way of greater tax relief I understand. Note to self see if I can find a statement of charitable aims.

[churchward]

 

I think he forgets or does not know the reasons for registration of a company. To my understanding the main advantage is the protection given to the directors and shareholders should the company go bankrupt; limiting the directors & shareholder's liability to pay the company's debts.

Yes you are correct.

 

Here is a document that outlines why a Charity would consider being a registered limited company too and the benefits of doing so.

 

http://www.birkettlong.co.uk/cms/document/Benefits_for_Charities_of_Incorp_as_a_Ltd_Company_Jan13.pdf

[Mike Todd]

 

I think you will find most of the big charities are companies limited by guarantee. Think it is done to protect trustees but not sure, someone will know I expect.

Anyone heard any info as to where the lightship has been taken?

You are correct regarding limiting liabilities.

[Mike Todd]

 

I don't know and to be honest I do not know what CRT's stated charitable aims are. Maybe they are similar to a lot of private school a way of greater tax relief I understand. Note to self see if I can find a statement of charitable aims.

You might well garner some support if your case was that the basis for charitable status was narrowed to exclude some cases where there is no widely accepted public benefit. Attempts were made a short while back (I forget exactly when) which led such schools to adopt some 'window dressing' to maintain their status. I should perhaps be careful over the exact terms I use but I hope that window dressing will get the message across safely!

 

However, I suspect that most of the cases that really worry you - CaRT notably - would still pass the test. There are too many that already benefit from the status that would lobby against too much further restriction.

[Geo]

You might well garner some support if your case was that the basis for charitable status was narrowed to exclude some cases where there is no widely accepted public benefit. Attempts were made a short while back (I forget exactly when) which led such schools to adopt some 'window dressing' to maintain their status. I should perhaps be careful over the exact terms I use but I hope that window dressing will get the message across safely!

 

However, I suspect that most of the cases that really worry you - CaRT notably - would still pass the test. There are too many that already benefit from the status that would lobby against too much further restriction.

 

Sorry what support and they don't worry me so long as the law is obeyed.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

I don't know and to be honest I do not know what CRT's stated charitable aims are.

 

Maybe this will help :

 

OBJECTS AND POWERS

2. Objects

The Trust’s objects are:

2.1 to preserve, protect, operate and manage Inland Waterways for public benefit:

2.1.1 for navigation;

2.1.2 for walking on towpaths; and

2.1.3 for recreation or other leisure-time pursuits of the public in the interest of their health and social welfare;

2.2 to protect and conserve for public benefit sites, objects and buildings of archaeological, architectural, engineering or historic interest on, in the vicinity of, or otherwise associated with Inland Waterways;

2.3 to further for the public benefit the conservation protection and improvement of the natural environment and landscape of Inland Waterways;

2.4 to promote, facilitate, undertake and assist in, for public benefit, the restoration and improvement of Inland Waterways;

2.5 to promote and facilitate for public benefit awareness, learning and education about Inland Waterways, their history, development, use, operation and cultural heritage by all appropriate means including the provision of museums;

2.6 to promote sustainable development in the vicinity of any Inland Waterway for the benefit of the public, in particular by:

2.6.1 the improvement of the conditions of life in socially and economically disadvantaged communities in such vicinity; and

2.6.2 the promotion of sustainable means of achieving economic growth and regeneration and the prudent use of natural resources; and

2.7 to further any purpose which is exclusively charitable under the law of England and Wales connected with Inland Waterways;

provided that in each case where the Trust undertakes work in relation to property which it does not own or hold in trust, any private benefit to the owner of the property is merely incidental.

[Arthur Marshall]

 

Sorry what support and they don't worry me so long as the law is obeyed.

But you don't seem bothered that the boat owner broke the law quite seriously for at least a year? Consistency would be nice...

[Geo]

But you don't seem bothered that the boat owner broke the law quite seriously for at least a year? Consistency would be nice...

 

I do not know the boat owner has. I am not sure anything that is covered in the reports I have seen would be breaking the law, particularly looking at the video of the boat taken yesterday. The law being either Common Law or Legislation passed by Parliament. Failing to pay a money agreed in a contract is not breaking the law, it may be breaking a contract.

 

I have very strong reasons to believe that appropriation of property not already in your possession to recover debt without a Court order is invariably breaking the law.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Geo

[Paul C]

 

I do not know the boat owner has. I am not sure anything that is covered in the reports I have seen would be breaking the law, particularly looking at the video of the boat taken yesterday. The law being either Common Law or Legislation passed by Parliament. Failing to pay a money agreed in a contract is not breaking the law, it may be breaking a contract.

 

I have very strong reasons to believe that appropriation of property not already in your possession to recover debt without a Court order is invariably breaking the law.

 

Looking at it another way, what do you think a moorings provider should be able to do to uphold their moorers paying their fees?

 

As I understand it (anyway), the mooring fees were not paid for quite some time --> CRT no longer "satisfied" the boat had a home mooring --> licence/trading licence not issued --> section 8 served --> boat removed under section 8. There is also the question whether the boat had insurance, and if it remained valid once the licence expired. CRT were in the fortuitous position of being both moorings manager and nav. authority, so it was always going to be on the cards that the boat would get towed away. I'm not sure the law doesn't allow CRT to seize the boat under Tort, to offset the payment of mooring fees etc.

 

There is a valid argument both sides regarding whether it was appropriate to remove the boat, or simply seize it in-situ.

[Geo]

 

Looking at it another way, what do you think a moorings provider should be able to do to uphold their moorers paying their fees?

 

As I understand it (anyway), the mooring fees were not paid for quite some time --> CRT no longer "satisfied" the boat had a home mooring --> licence/trading licence not issued --> section 8 served --> boat removed under section 8. There is also the question whether the boat had insurance, and if it remained valid once the licence expired. CRT were in the fortuitous position of being both moorings manager and nav. authority, so it was always going to be on the cards that the boat would get towed away. I'm not sure the law doesn't allow CRT to seize the boat under Tort, to offset the payment of mooring fees etc.

 

There is a valid argument both sides regarding whether it was appropriate to remove the boat, or simply seize it in-situ.

 

There are too many things in this case which are not known. It will all depend on the contract and legislation. From what little I have gathered it could have been more appropriate to seize the boat and hold it in Canning Dock; not spend a lot of money towing an engine less boat elsewhere where the probability would seem to be that CRT are going to have to pay to keep the vessel there. From the video the unsafe boat excuse did not in my opinion cut ice, the vessel look maintained and cared for.

 

As I understand it there is a probability that Sec. 8 does not apply, which is I believe the reason the excuse for removal was apparently the vessel was unsafe was used.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Geo

[Paul C]

Agree, there's a distinct lack of reliable information surrounding this case. However there always is - CRT never publish details of individual enforcement cases and the "other side" tend to be flowery with the truth.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Agree, there's a distinct lack of reliable information surrounding this case. However there always is - CRT never publish details of individual enforcement cases and the "other side" tend to be flowery with the truth.

Not true Paul. It should be obvious to anyone that CaRT have released some details in an attempt to justify the action taken.

 

I am informed that part of the debt is related to court costs. If so the big question is did CaRT obtain an order allowing them to seize the boat against the debt? Alternatively, did the mooring agreement allow them to do so?

[Arthur Marshall]

 

I do not know the boat owner has. I am not sure anything that is covered in the reports I have seen would be breaking the law

Trading without a license? Selling alcohol without a licence? As far as I'm aware, you and I are legally required to have a licence for our boats,so not having one is breaking the law. You really do haave to look at both sides of a situation, not see everything via your prejudices.

I don't know whether what CRT did was legal, but it's blatantly obvious that what the boat owner was doing wasn't.

[Geo]

Trading without a license? Selling alcohol without a licence? As far as I'm aware, you and I are legally required to have a licence for our boats,so not having one is breaking the law. You really do haave to look at both sides of a situation, not see everything via your prejudices.

I don't know whether what CRT did was legal, but it's blatantly obvious that what the boat owner was doing wasn't.

 

I have no proof of any of the above, only unsubstantiated press reports and when examined press reports are not always fully correct

Not true Paul. It should be obvious to anyone that CaRT have released some details in an attempt to justify the action taken.

 

I am informed that part of the debt is related to court costs. If so the big question is did CaRT obtain an order allowing them to seize the boat against the debt? Alternatively, did the mooring agreement allow them to do so?

 

If they had had a court order I would have expected bailiffs or sheriffs to be in attendence.

[Paul C]

 

I have no proof of any of the above, only unsubstantiated press reports and when examined press reports are not always fully correct

 

If they had had a court order I would have expected bailiffs or sheriffs to be in attendence.

 

May I ask what burden of proof you'd like, personally? I can't see the general public being able to get much more than a press report, unless there's published/linked-to court rulings or judgements etc.

 

Bailiffs may well have been in attendance (and/or the Police), but out of shot during the short clip.

[Geo]

 

May I ask what burden of proof you'd like, personally? I can't see the general public being able to get much more than a press report, unless there's published/linked-to court rulings or judgements etc.

 

Bailiffs may well have been in attendance (and/or the Police), but out of shot during the short clip.

 

If I am going to accuse someone on a public forum high.

[steamcompound]

Appears to heading for Sharpness, so may be sighted tomorrow. At least it was not towed up river to the ship breakers unlike the MV Wincham. Attached is a pic of 'Planet's' excellent riveting.

[NigelMoore]

I have to declare my position here, as both a past tenant moorer for years, and as a moorings provider for very many more years, so that I am painfully aware of the problems and protocols in dealing with boats not paying their way/ violating T&C’s/ being incommunicado when left at your moorings.

There are two different recourses that may legally be followed where a debt concerns boats.

If the boat is not held at your premises, you may have the boat arrested under Admiralty law, and pursue the debt through court action with the boat held [not by you] as lien on the outcome. That does not, of course, apply when the boat is on your moorings.

If the boat – it is the same as with any other property - is held at your premises, and you want it gone, then [as I said previously] the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 provides, under the heading of “Uncollected Goods” for formal notice to be given that either or both of two actions may follow failure to remove those goods from your premises. The Notices must follow the format provided in the schedules to that Act.

The first action is effectively to disclaim responsibility for goods held after a set period of time; that requires a formal Notice obliging the owner to collect the goods. If not collected, the moorings provider is not free to deal with the boat as their own, and to take it elsewhere under this Act. It could, under common law of trespass in these circumstances [of lost opportunity to collect after Notice], be moved off your moorings to the nearest SAFE moorings where the owner may access it and collect it. NO denial of access or retrieval can legally be imposed under such circumstances, and possession of it most certainly cannot be used as leverage to recover sums owed.

This does leave you without any lien on the goods if monies are owed; any debt would then have to be pursued as an unsecured one, following removal, but in some circumstances that could well be the preferred option, leaving you the choice whether to chase the debt or to wash your hands of the matter.

The and/or option is to give formal Notice that uncollected goods will be sold, the proceeds held to the owner’s account, and that all sums remaining after the debt has been paid will be handed over if and when the owner turns up.

A further alternative to giving such Notice can be to ask the court to affirm the right to sell as if such Notice had been given – in which case the sums received from the sale are held by the court.

CaRT know all this, because they use Torts Notices when about to sell boats seized and held under s.8. [NOT a power applicable to this topic’s particular situation]. It is pertinent to add here, that as Tony will have said earlier here or elsewhere - possession of a boat held under s.8 powers cannot be subjected to the Torts Act; if uncollected it may be sold after 6 weeks [or longer if the owner is known], but all proceeds from such a sale must be returned to the owner retaining ONLY removal and storage costs. The earlier 1977 Act cannot be used to lever payment of other debts by way of countermanding the statutory obligations of the 1983 Act.

 

Not, as I said, that this applies in the case under discussion, but it is an opportunity to clarify the s.8 position vis-a-vis the Torts Act for those interested in the Ravenscroft claim.

[Arthur Marshall]

Nigel, can you be Devil's advocate and suggest what CRT believes gives them the legal right to shift the boat? They surely must have had some advice, however dodgy?