Lightship Advertised for Sale

[NigelMoore]

The latest development is that the owner having asked that he be allowed to collect personal goods and medicine, and that his chef be allowed to retrieve the tools of his trade, personal access to the boat has been categorically refused. CaRT said that if a list was provided to them of every specific item – together with an illustrated guide to where they could be found, they would arrange a third party [once only] to gather that together and deliver to him at a place of their choice.

The quoted bill for the collection and hand-over has been sent to the owner –

As much as the annual berthing fee!

edit to add: the cover letter from CaRT that enclosed that quote was careful to note –

“The attached estimate will give you an idea of what costs the Trust is likely to incur as result of your request for recovery of the items listed in your letter. This is a quote, so the final figure may vary. We will expect to recover from you the actual costs we finally incur and if you are not in position to pay it, this would be added to the costs that we are expecting to recover from the proceeds of sale of the vessel.”

Effectively, they are saying that the quoted figure is the minimum he will be required to pay, but it could easily be even more than that.

Edited December 1, 2016 by NigelMoore

[NigelMoore]

Just to clarify where the Torts Act has the potential to come into play here -

 

1 Definition of “wrongful interference with goods”.

In this Act “ wrongful interference” , or “ wrongful interference with goods” , means —

( a ) conversion of goods (also called trover),

( b ) trespass to goods,

( c ) negligence so far at it results in damage to goods or to an interest in goods.

( d ) subject to section 2, any other tort so far as it results in damage to goods or to an interest in goods.

Respecting that last, I seem to recall that the berthing agreement purports to absolve them of all responsibility for taking care of the vessel also, so that by the 'contract', they can never be held liable for any negligence.

[Chewbacka]

Considering that CRT have been telling him to move the boat from their waters for some time and further telling him that if he does not, then they will move it. So why was he surprised that they moved it??? Why not get all your valuables off the boat. As to medicine, just pop down the doctors and get another prescription.

 

Even if he was hoping it would not happen, I am somewhat surprised he left his stuff on board knowing that CRT and others were on their way.......

 

This is a sad story, and though I feel CRT were unreasonable in what they did, and certainly the charges above seem totally disproportionate, how much longer should they wait for him to pay his bills etc....

 

CRT do seem to have been very patient.

How much longer should CRT have let him stay in Liverpool?? Would he have ever paid??

[DHutch]

The second link was to the mobile site, I think I have now repaired the link in the opening post.

[tomsk]

Considering that CRT have been telling him to move the boat from their waters for some time and further telling him that if he does not, then they will move it. So why was he surprised that they moved it??? Why not get all your valuables off the boat. As to medicine, just pop down the doctors and get another prescription.

 

Even if he was hoping it would not happen, I am somewhat surprised he left his stuff on board knowing that CRT and others were on their way.......

 

This is a sad story, and though I feel CRT were unreasonable in what they did, and certainly the charges above seem totally disproportionate, how much longer should they wait for him to pay his bills etc....

 

CRT do seem to have been very patient.

How much longer should CRT have let him stay in Liverpool?? Would he have ever paid??

I understand you point but my understanding is that CRT had perfectly legal rights, subject to adhering to certain conditions, to seize and sell the boat, but they didn't do so. They are at least silly/incompetent or perhaps even vindictive if this is the case..

[Jrtm]

It seams to be a route crt keep using and going down time and time again. But i dont understand that they want it off there sysyem get that but to then move any boat to sharpness way back onto there waters and then running up costs in doing so. At somepoint they will run into trouble where someone does have the money and resorces to fight them fully who will take it to court and not settle outside.

 

Whats worse is this is a case that even got into local papers ect. How much bad publicity do crt need?

[Nige G]

Why would they care about bad publicity? They do as they please and answer to no one. No doubt the people at the top are fully protected from any sort of personal prosecution as well. The whole thing stinks.

[MtB]

Why would they care about bad publicity? They do as they please and answer to no one. No doubt the people at the top are fully protected from any sort of personal prosecution as well. The whole thing stinks.

 

 

Totally agree with all this. Bang on the money.

[Naughty Cal]

Why would they care about bad publicity? They do as they please and answer to no one. No doubt the people at the top are fully protected from any sort of personal prosecution as well. The whole thing stinks.

So what would you have done in CRT's situation?

[Arthur Marshall]

Whatever the opinion of whoever, CRT have been taking boats away from people who have no licence for a while and until a court says they can't, they'll see no reason to stop. It solves their problem of recalcitrant and uncommunicative customers and puts them in the driving seat,so to speak. In the short term it may cost them money, in the long term they lose license fees (which probably were not going to be paid anyway) but it gets rid of the problem. Possession has always been nine points of the law.

In this particular case, it would be interesting to see a balance sheet to see how much money the owner took out of the business while not paying his dues.

[NigelMoore]

I understand you point but my understanding is that CRT had perfectly legal rights, subject to adhering to certain conditions, to seize and sell the boat, but they didn't do so. They are at least silly/incompetent or perhaps even vindictive if this is the case..

 

It may not be generally realised just how good a position a boatyard/moorings operator is in these situations. Not that any would wish the aggravation of recalcitrant and persistent late payers and troublemakers, but the legal tools for dealing with them are straightforward.

I have commented previously on the implied restrictions imposed by the Torts Act, but the positive thrust of the Act is to provide a legal means of dealing with goods left on your property when you no longer wish them to be there, and no longer wish the burden of the legal responsibilities involved in keeping them; seizing the boat is not involved, because the boat is already in your 'possession' as in on your premises: -

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/32

Uncollected goods

12 Bailee’s power of sale.

(1) This section applies to goods in the possession or under the control of a bailee where—

( a ) the bailor is in breach of an obligation to take delivery of the goods or, if the terms of the bailment so provide, to give directions as to their delivery, or

. . .

(2) In the cases of Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act a bailee may, for the purposes of subsection (1), impose an obligation on the bailor to take delivery of the goods, or as the case may be to give directions as to their delivery, and in those cases the said Part I sets out the method of notification.

(3) If the bailee—

( a ) has in accordance with Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act given notice to the bailor of his intention to sell the goods under this subsection, or

. . .

and is reasonably satisfied that the bailor owns the goods, he shall be entitled, as against the bailor, to sell the goods.

. . .

(5) A bailee exercising his powers under subsection (3) shall be liable to account to the bailor for the proceeds of sale, less any costs of sale, and —

( a ) the account shall be taken on the footing that the bailee should have adopted the best method of sale reasonably available in the circumstances, and

( b ) where subsection (3)(a) applies, any sum payable in respect of the goods by the bailor to the bailee which accrued due before the bailee gave notice of intention to sell the goods shall be deductible from the proceeds of sale. [my emphasis]

This all means that CaRT having given due Notice in the format specified, that they wished the owner to remove his boat, and having given due Notice in the format specified that if the boat was not removed they would take steps to sell the boat – they could proceed to do so, adopting the “best method of sale reasonably available in the circumstances”, and upon selling the boat could deduct from the proceeds the costs of the sale and any sums due for the berthing fees up to the point they took the decision to cut their losses respecting allowing the boat to remain as a customer.

Several points of interest arise –

The best method of sale reasonably available must be adopted. That would have entailed advertising the boat for sale where it was, still within their premises. There is an obligation to deal with the goods as responsibly as possible, selling the boat for the best sum reasonably obtainable at least cost.

Having given notice of intent to sell, no sums accruing in respect of the berthing fees post the date of the notice may be deducted from the proceeds of sale. That in itself ought to focus the bailee’s mind upon accomplishing the sale as swiftly and economically as possible. There is NO provision for deducting costs of relocating the goods elsewhere prior to sale, which could not possibly be accounted as costs of sale, whether reasonable or not..

There is likewise NO provision for refusing access to the boat, let alone charging for third parties to collect and hand over goods from it.

[Tuscan]

From Nigel's post above it's understandable why CRT would not want to do this if the vessel was on the towpath and could be easily moved.in this case it's hard to understand why CRT would not want to first to hold a sale in situ before spending money getting it towed away.

[MtB]

From Nigel's post above it's understandable why CRT would not want to do this if the vessel was on the towpath and could be easily moved.in this case it's hard to understand why CRT would not want to first to hold a sale in situ before spending money getting it towed away.

 

 

Surely the point is to publicly demonstrate to boaters in general that if you dick CRT about they will take your boat and go out of their way to make it difficult and expensive for you to get it back.

[NigelMoore]

I have looked up the Berthing Agreement relating to the lightship. The section upon which CaRT are relying for removing themselves from any provisions of the Torts Act is: -

The pertinent bit seems to be the wording in 10.1.2: “shall be entitled” . . . “to sell the Licensee’s property at such time and in such manner as the Estate Owner may in its sole discretion determine . . .” [my bold]

Even so, I am struggling to see how any interpretation of this clause can justify towing the vessel out to sea and up the coast at a cost in excess of £50,000. I would consider that an entirely unwarranted interference with goods that was not only wholly unnecessary, but was far beyond what could be claimed as something agreed to under the contract.

It does have the complexion of a "do as you see fit" clause, akin to their interpretation of the infamous s.43(3), but I would personally tremble to think of needing to justify such actions on such a basis before an impartial court of law. It could be, of course, that they are confident no such thing really exists.

[NigelMoore]

Surely the point is to publicly demonstrate to boaters in general that if you dick CRT about they will take your boat and go out of their way to make it difficult and expensive for you to get it back.

 

I have always maintained so. Their own publicity relies upon that perceived reality, and it cannot be denied that it has been effective.

 

Admittedly, also, I fully empathise on a visceral basis, but my thin veneer of intellectual civilisation demands a more measured approach, both of myself and of others in similar situations, most especially of all when the inequality of arms is so marked, both in terms of resources and in terms of officially perceived standing.

[MtB]

 

I have always maintained so. Their own publicity relies upon that perceived reality, and it cannot be denied that it has been effective.

 

Admittedly, also, I fully empathise on a visceral basis, but my thin veneer of intellectual civilisation demands a more measured approach, both of myself and of others in similar situations, most especially of all when the inequality of arms is so marked, both in terms of resources and in terms of officially perceived standing.

 

 

I wasn't intending my comment to be in support of CRT in their approach.

 

Mr Tuscan was saying the reason for their behaviour escapes him, so I was offering him what I consider a likely explanation.

[NigelMoore]

it's understandable why CRT would not want to do this if the vessel was on the towpath and could be easily moved.

 

Of relevance to that situation however, are BW’s supplementary Notes for Enforcement Officers dealing with s.8 boats on the canals. The option is therein recognised that alternatively to lifting out of the water, it could involve only a “sufficient act of moving out of control of the boater i.e. off the main navigable channel to a nearby marina, secure lay-by etc.” [my bold]

 

It should be noted that exactly such minimal actions were provided for in dealing with sectioned boats in s.8(3)( c ) of the Act.

 

If that “sufficient act” is available, then that is what should be pursued – understanding that at all times when dealing with other people’s goods [even where so entitled], the greatest care must be taken to act commensurate with proportionate achievement of the objectives.

 

There really must be some pithy little legal maxim to such an effect?

I wasn't intending my comment to be in support of CRT in their approach.

 

Mr Tuscan was saying the reason for their behaviour escapes him, so I was offering him what I consider a likely explanation.

 

That was understood; I agreed with your likely explanation.

[mayalld]

 

I have looked up the Berthing Agreement relating to the lightship. The section upon which CaRT are relying for removing themselves from any provisions of the Torts Act is: -

The pertinent bit seems to be the wording in 10.1.2: “shall be entitled” . . . “to sell the Licensee’s property at such time and in such manner as the Estate Owner may in its sole discretion determine . . .” [my bold]

Even so, I am struggling to see how any interpretation of this clause can justify towing the vessel out to sea and up the coast at a cost in excess of £50,000. I would consider that an entirely unwarranted interference with goods that was not only wholly unnecessary, but was far beyond what could be claimed as something agreed to under the contract.

It does have the complexion of a "do as you see fit" clause, akin to their interpretation of the infamous s.43(3), but I would personally tremble to think of needing to justify such actions on such a basis before an impartial court of law. It could be, of course, that they are confident no such thing really exists.

 

 

Basically, it is a clause that gives them enormous latitude, and unless struck down under unfair contract terms legislation means that they actually CAN tow it away by sea (they will claim that they towed it away to the only place that they use to sell boats of this size).

 

I suspect that they might actually succeed in arguing that it is a valid contract, and that the vessel owner should have been more aware of what he was agreeing to. However, I would have to agree that it is not proportionate, and that I am not happy that they are using such onerous contracts.

 

I also think that the response regarding removal of goods it out of order.

 

I can see that they would not wish the owner to come on board (They probably think he will try to occupy the boat), but they can't reasonably charge for recovering the goods, particularly the chef's tools (suspect retaining these is illegal)

[Jrtm]

So what would you have done in CRT's situation?

Moved the boat to a secure part of the docks with no public access the boat is then not costing a penny to crt and thd owner has no direct access to the boat so cant use it.

 

Any personal belongings could have been arranged for 2 crt officers to go down with a pcso on an arranged date with a list of things the guy wanted to get off give him the opportunity to collect them once if he knows what he needs he could easly get a list together if there bigger items you can easly arange for these on the same day or over a few days but only alow items on the list to be collected to avoid the ill take that and that and this e.g. just taking things for the sake of it.

 

If there was no place to put the boat in the dock areas with no public access then i woukd have moved it to the nearest local area where it could be safly but out of public access. This would cost far less as crt need to remember its them paying for it with the budget thats just getting smaller.

 

You dont need to cart the thing hundreds of miles away then expect the guy to pay stupid high costs as i would be arguing that the costs were avoidable by moving it closer and in crt water if possible so no more costs could be added.

 

If the boat has to be sold then you find a local broker to deal with it.

 

I accept that they guy did wrong but the boat didnt need to then be moved that far or gain unnecessary moving costs.

 

There argument for wanting it of crt water hasnt really worked as they just moved it onto crt water. So i see no diffrence moving it in the local area in a secure place to what they did as far as the crt water argument.

 

All they did was put costs up and deny they guy any rights. There is also no need for a 4-5k recovery cost of items its just crt using bullying tactics to cover there backs and force they guy to affectivly going away. What would crt do if the guy turned round paid the money got the boat back and then found a loop in which crt had removed the boat illegaly and took them to court and won. Crt should be more carefull with lets face it public money.

 

The same when they seaze other boats im sure crt have areas around the system they can keep boats without public access, and they dont need 3rd partys to move boats they employ people as it is to move boats around just use there already paid people.

 

I agree something should have been done but they didnt need to go to the extreams they have.

[Chewbacka]

Yes, but all this was avoidable if he had - in order of cost to himself.

 

1 - paid his mooring fees months ago.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/light-ship-planet-set-stay-11386676

 

2 - as requested by CRT moved it himself from their waters.

 

But he seems to have called their bluff and lost.

 

If you read the on-line version of the Liverpool Echo there doesn't seem to be much, if any, real local support for this vessel.

 

So whilst it is a sad situation, and I don't suppose he has any hope of paying the fees incurred in moving the vessel - CRT should be forced to explain why they not only reasonable but also competitive, maybe the CRT ombudsman should take it upon himself to investigate - it was all avoidable.

 

 

Added

a link to show that back in May he agreed to pay his mooring fees and even said that CRT were supportive.

Edited December 3, 2016 by Chewbacka

[hounddog]

The question, to my mind, is will anyone hold them to account?

 

And my opinion is very much it's time someone did.

[Arthur Marshall]

The question, to my mind, is will anyone hold them to account?

 

And my opinion is very much it's time someone did.

Possibly time also that freeloaders who don't pay their dues, licences and mooring fees and happily rake in profits by doing so also get held to account. I realise that ripping people off is normal business practice, but am surprised is seems to be so approved of by some contributors who so are quick to attack others. You tend not to be in a good position to complain about people bending the law when you've a blatant history of doing it yourself.

[WotEver]

Possibly time also that freeloaders who don't pay their dues, licences and mooring fees and happily rake in profits by doing so also get held to account. I realise that ripping people off is normal business practice, but am surprised is seems to be so approved of by some contributors who so are quick to attack others. You tend not to be in a good position to complain about people bending the law when you've a blatant history of doing it yourself.

So two wrongs make a right then, in your opinion?

[NigelMoore]

 

I can see that they would not wish the owner to come on board (They probably think he will try to occupy the boat), but they can't reasonably charge for recovering the goods, particularly the chef's tools (suspect retaining these is illegal)

 

I am not even sure that they are entitled to refuse access to the owner. It is routine, of course, with CaRT and CBS; they refused even to allow Leigh Ravenscroft to use his own contractors to bring his boat back, after his payment of their demands in full [never did see the point of that]. That seems directly contrary to the comments of the judge in the Mayers case.

 

Certainly when I have been in the same position as CaRT, I have never sought to prevent access to the boat, even when I had declared that I was holding the boat as lien on an unpaid bill and would not allow it to leave the yard.

 

That led an unpleasant situation with one unpleasant owner, who had already had the works signed off by the marine surveyor he had employed as project manager, so no excuse for not paying up. He was demanding that the boat be moved across the river to the public towpath so he could see the work for himself before coughing up, complaining that my pontoon was unsafe [he was obese enough to make the pontoon shift about a bit].

 

As he had always managed previously, and I could not trust him, I refused to move the boat; he threatened to bankrupt me with high-powered legal action, and [to adopt the delicious euphemism that erivers linked to on TB] I referred him to the reply given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram.

 

Goodness knows how the stand-off might have turned out, but the surveyor stepped in and gave me his written guarantee to pay the bill in full within the week, should the owner default on payment, and on that basis I moved the boat out of the yard. It would be interesting to know just how far the bailee in those circumstances is obliged [if at all] to accommodate the owner respecting access.

[Chewbacka]

Arkell v Pressdram - my favourite legal response