Jump to content

section 8 canning dock ?

gaggle

By gaggle
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

Jrtm Experienced

Jrtm

Posted
Posted

It will be fine if they dont braje it up or dammage it or get it sunk ect. There are many boat im sure that have been taken by crt to sell on to recover dets (weather this be legal or not) that will pro a never be sold or b never go back in the water. Or be dumped and broken up to get rid of the unwanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted (edited)

Appears to heading for Sharpness, so may be sighted tomorrow.

 

Thank you for that useful bit of information.

During the preparations to make the ship safe for sea over the last few days, C&RT had led the tug operators to believe that Fleetwood was the intended destination, however, Sharpness makes far more sense, and if it is heading that way then the intended destination may well be R.W.Davis's yard on the G&S at Saul to join another monument to C&RT's stupidity, . . . . Geoff Mayer's boat 'Pearl', illegally snatched from it's owner in 2013 in direct contravention of a Judge's instructions.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PaulG Experienced

PaulG

Posted
Posted

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.attachicon.gifIMG_2688.JPG

If you know the name of the tug you can find its' whereabouts using ais:

 

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-3/centery:53/zoom:11

 

https://www.vesselfinder.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Geo Rising Star

Geo

Posted
Posted (edited)

If you know the name of the tug you can find its' whereabouts using ais:

 

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-3/centery:53/zoom:11

 

https://www.vesselfinder.com/

 

Tug when towed out of Canning Dock MTS Indus

 

The website give destination at GBSSS Sharpness ETA: 2016-09-24 14:00

Edited by Geo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alan de Enfield Veteran II

Alan de Enfield

Posted
Posted

If you know the name of the tug you can find its' whereabouts using ais:

 

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-3/centery:53/zoom:11

 

https://www.vesselfinder.com/

 

AIS is only mandatory for boats above 300 GT on international voyages or calling at ports of a member EU state. - although fishing vessels of over 15 metres were added in May 2014.

 

The tug may well not be carrying AIS

Link to comment
Share on other sites
steamcompound Engager

steamcompound

Posted
Posted

If you know the name of the tug you can find its' whereabouts using ais:

 

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-3/centery:53/zoom:11

 

https://www.vesselfinder.com/

 

 

Sharpness is the destination specified in the voyage plan, but this could change, thus my use of 'suggested'. Towing vessel is MTS INDUS

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PaulG Experienced

PaulG

Posted
Posted (edited)

If you know the name of the tug you can find its' whereabouts using ais:

 

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-3/centery:53/zoom:11

 

https://www.vesselfinder.com/

Here she is, just northwest of St. David's.

 

Destination is indeed probably officially Sharpness.

post-5065-0-10694300-1474548780_thumb.jpg

Edited by PaulG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
steamcompound Engager

steamcompound

Posted
Posted

Weather could pose an issue later in the journey, so lets hope all goes well for the 'old thing'.

 

What one does to save, finance and find a use for significant vessels that have outlived their usefulness is a problem yet to be resolved. People do not realise just how much is involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted

By way of addition to the information in Nigel's post #99, I can confirm that C&RT are NOT acting in pursuance of the S.8 powers in the 1983 Act.

They are, however, relying on two clauses in the berthing agreement, one of which is a somewhat misleading overstatement of that which they legally may do under the provisions of the 1977 Torts Act.

 

Had they contented themselves with exercising a lawful lien on the vessel, as they were entitled to do whilst it remained within a dock that they own, they would have been acting entirely within the law, but the ill-advised removal of the ship from the dock has merely deprived C&RT of such 'right' as they did have on their side, up until that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike Todd Veteran

Mike ToddDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

 

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

I took the point made was to lobby for a change in the law. Nothing wrong with that. The law keeps changing especially as new circumstances or policies heave over the horizon.

 

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.

Not for the first time in this sport of debate there is conflation (not to mention confusion) about different types of law. Not all law is criminal but you will probably find a lot of textbooks on Contract Law. There are various types of court (and have been for a very long time) which oversee the various legals situations. Breaking a contract is not, in itself, a criminal act but the remedies open to a party to a contract are framed in law and the courts can be involved in resolving disputes about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

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.

 

It certainly is, but the crassness exhibited by C&RT in the process of committing such criminal act is almost beyond belief.

 

Whilst the vessel in question remained in/on their waters within Canning Dock they were completely within their rights as bailees to exercise a lawful lien on it in respect of monies owed for berthing fees, but rather than do so, they elected to shoot themselves in both feet by converting what was lawful possession into an illegal seizure and removal accompanied by clear declaration, in the last paragraph of the following E-mail, of intent to use what had now become unlawful possession as a means of debt recovery .

 

 

Subject: Planet Bar Lightship

20 September 2016

 

Dear Mr Roberts

 

I am writing to confirm that yesterday we secured your vessel in preparation for removing it from the docks.

 

The reason for this is because, in spite of our letters to you dated 15th April 2016 and 5th August 2016, you have not removed your vessel from the docks, notwithstanding that your berthing agreement expired on 31st December 2015. Copies of these letters are attached.

 

We have taken possession of the vessel in order to remove it to a secure location. At no time should you or any other persons (who are not authorised by us) enter the vessel or attempt to obstruct the process of removing the vessel. Such action would be deemed a trespass as it would be unauthorised access on to our water space. We will, if considered necessary, seek the assistance of the police to manage any action by you or others that is, or may become a breach of the peace in the course of our preparing the vessel for removal and removing it from our dock.

 

Our lawful authority to remove the vessel is based on our rights set out in clause 8.1 and 10.1.2 of the berthing agreement that applied to your licence to berth your vessel at our docks. A copy of the agreement is attached to enable you to refer to it easily.

 

With regard to the payment of the outstanding berthing fees arrears, as you know this matter is being handled on our behalf by Wilkin Chapman Solicitors. Whatever the outcome of this debt recovery action, matters have reached the point where we are unwilling to issue you with a new berthing agreement even if you do pay all the arrears claimed in the debt action.

 

We will contact you after the removal of the vessel from the dock in respect of charges and monies due, and how the vessel may be recovered after payment of all outstanding monies to ourselves.

 

 

Chantelle Seaborn DipFM MRICS FCIH

Waterway Manager North West

North West Waterways

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted

........... .............. ............. runs a business on an unsafe craft ............... ................

 

 

In order to dispense with any more groundless speculation along these lines, the vessel underwent a satisfactory hull survey in April this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

Does it currently have a BSS certificate?

 

Not relevant.

 

C&RT introduced their 'red herring' safety concerns by lying about 'Planet' not having a 'valid hull survey' in June of this year, . . . . so roughly about the same time that they were lying about 'safety concerns' in an attempt to justify their illegal refusal to issue a new Licence for 'Tadworth'.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
matty40s Veteran II

matty40s

Posted
Posted

How come Mr Dunkley is suddenly such an expert in this case, and how can he post personal letters addressed to a third party on this Forum?

 

I keep seeing chips!!

You do really come on here with a strange attitude and as soon as someone says something g say..

"I thought this was a discussion forum..."

 

There are ways of discussing things without bringing attitude and personal feelings into an opener.

Hope this helps yet another thread survive without mods having to interrupt their dinners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naughty Cal Veteran II

Naughty Cal

Posted
Posted

Got to say, if the vessel was/is unsafe it is doing quite well being towed a long way out to sea!

The vessel has a good hull survey by all accounts.

 

What people seem to be overlooking is that the unsafe aspect may well be unsafe to operate as a business rather than the condition of the hull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jrtm Experienced

Jrtm

Posted
Posted

 

Thank you for that useful bit of information.

During the preparations to make the ship safe for sea over the last few days, C&RT had led the tug operators to believe that Fleetwood was the intended destination, however, Sharpness makes far more sense, and if it is heading that way then the intended destination may well be R.W.Davis's yard on the G&S at Saul to join another monument to C&RT's stupidity, . . . . Geoff Mayer's boat 'Pearl', illegally snatched from it's owner in 2013 in direct contravention of a Judge's instructions.

This is what i was more pushing to saying as crt seam to send most of there boats the have stolen.

Here she is, just northwest of St. David's.

 

Destination is indeed probably officially Sharpness.

screenshot.jpg

I dont get it though as to why take it so far away? If its all sorted out it may only have to come back and i dowt the owner is going to want to get posetions off it as is so far. (Or morelikly this is crts plan! Rob the boat and all personal things as well)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naughty Cal Veteran II

Naughty Cal

Posted
Posted

This is what i was more pushing to saying as crt seam to send most of there boats the have stolen.

 

 

 

I dont get it though as to why take it so far away? If its all sorted out it may only have to come back and i dowt the owner is going to want to get posetions off it as is so far. (Or morelikly this is crts plan! Rob the boat and all personal things as well)

CRT have made clear in their email that it will not be going back to Canning Dock as they won't issue the vessel a new mooring contract.

 

One way or another it needs to find a new home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Graham Davis Veteran

Graham Davis

Posted
Posted (edited)

You do really come on here with a strange attitude and as soon as someone says something g say..

"I thought this was a discussion forum..."

 

There are ways of discussing things without bringing attitude and personal feelings into an opener.

Hope this helps yet another thread survive without mods having to interrupt their dinners.

 

I have asked a personally reasonable and POLITE question, so I see no reason for your response, but then you do seem to purposely pick on the things I post for no justifiable reason.

If you have a problem with my responses then I suggest you use the Report button and let the Mods decide whether they are within the Forum guidelines or not.

The vessel has a good hull survey by all accounts.

 

What people seem to be overlooking is that the unsafe aspect may well be unsafe to operate as a business rather than the condition of the hull.

 

Which I and others have said, but has been ignored to justify another rant against CaRT.

 

Edited by Graham Davis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • 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.