Lightship Advertised for Sale

[hounddog]

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.

That is rank hypocrisy Arthur, you stated a few weeks ago that bodies like CRT should behave with probity or held to account. yet here you want them to behave illegally as some kind of deterrent.

 

is there something personal here? do you have an issue with this man?

 

it's one thing to default on a payment, it's another to believe he should be punished so harshly, in contravention of the law.

Edited December 3, 2016 by hounddog

[Jerra]

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

That isn't how I read it. I read it as saying both sides need held to account but I also take the point that the forum doesn't seem to be taking much notice of the owners wrong doings and laying all the blame on CRT>

 

To be fair both sides need held to account and the forum needs to take a balanced view and not pile all the blame on one side. An unpopular view I know but it is mine other views are available.

[NigelMoore]

That isn't how I read it. I read it as saying both sides need held to account but I also take the point that the forum doesn't seem to be taking much notice of the owners wrong doings and laying all the blame on CRT>

 

To be fair both sides need held to account and the forum needs to take a balanced view and not pile all the blame on one side. An unpopular view I know but it is mine other views are available.

 

I do not believe that anyone has, either in this thread or in the previous one on the same topic, held the boat owner as blameless. Indeed, I seem to recall that Tony expressly criticised the owner, and I have made my own position clear. But if it is not addressed at any length it is because none of that is disputed [so far as I am aware anyway], not even by the owner.

 

The boat owner WAS held to account in the County Court; ordered to pay the previous year’s owed fees plus legal costs in full by a certain date – and has complied. He has also lost any chance of returning to that mooring, which presumably had suited his business well enough in a way others might not. He could also legitimately have had his boat sold out from under him for not voluntarily removing it himself when asked to do so. So again, he has paid, is paying, and will hereafter be facing the consequences of his dereliction; the question of remaining fees owed for the last portion of the year is only one of accurate determination and is not disputed either. It puzzles me that in the Court action taken by CaRT for the monies owed, they had not included that also [at least to the date of filing the Claim].

 

It is the extravagant excess of penalisation that is arousing debate; then again, CaRT not only forbore to wait until the court-ordered payment date in that Claim before taking action – they took the boat away a few days before the court had heard the case to begin with. The boat owner’s bad behaviour and those like him, adversely affects moorings providers; this moorings provider’s disproportionate actions in response to a bad customer ought to be of concern to all its customers, no matter how law-abiding.

 

Even if it was eventually held by the Courts to be within CaRT’s legal power to act as they did, the picture it presents of their character is hardly conducive to good PR, and that just might impact upon their revenue worse than a late payment for a mooring. It is not surprising that this too, is a consideration of interest surrounding this debacle.

 

It also concerns me - and this applies to all the enforcement actions including standard s.8's - that the process for seizure, transportation and storage of boats was refined and standardised as a commercially attraction business proposition for contractors such as CBS, and that in the nature of things most of the revenue accruing to CBS and their ilk is irrecoverable by CaRT.

 

When seizure costs are a minimum £5,000, few will be in a position to pay such sums to recover their boats, so the bulk of the costs are always going to be borne by CaRT. Even though in the cases where the boat can be sold for enough to cover that cost, the end result is income neutral - as it will be in this case.

[WotEver]

That isn't how I read it. I read it as saying both sides need held to account but I also take the point that the forum doesn't seem to be taking much notice of the owners wrong doings and laying all the blame on CRT>

 

To be fair both sides need held to account and the forum needs to take a balanced view and not pile all the blame on one side. An unpopular view I know but it is mine other views are available.

I can only echo Nigel's sentiments. The owner was in the wrong and we all accept that. Now let's look at CaRT's entirely disproportionate response and that's what we're doing.

[Arthur Marshall]

That isn't how I read it. I read it as saying both sides need held to account but I also take the point that the forum doesn't seem to be taking much notice of the owners wrong doings and laying all the blame on CRT>

To be fair both sides need held to account and the forum needs to take a balanced view and not pile all the blame on one side. An unpopular view I know but it is mine other views are available.

That's how I wrote it, too. There are those who deliberately misread in order to further their own agendas - easy enough to spot them, they're the ones who sling insults about (eg rank hypocrisy) instead of rational argument, or, indeed, thought. Edited December 3, 2016 by Arthur Marshall

[hounddog]

It also concerns me - and this applies to all the enforcement actions including standard s.8's - that the process for seizure, transportation and storage of boats was refined and standardised as a commercially attraction business proposition for contractors such as CBS, and that in the nature of things most of the revenue accruing to CBS and their ilk is irrecoverable by CaRT.

 

 

Is it known who owns Commercial Boat Services? As they say 'follow the money'

I can only echo Nigel's sentiments. The owner was in the wrong and we all accept that. Now let's look at CaRT's entirely disproportionate response and that's what we're doing.

Exactly this.

[costalot]

 

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.

It is quite possible that after the measured approach taken with Pillings Lock Marina and the subsequent huge financial loss, CRT have made a corporate decision to play hard ball with commercial clients and not be seen as the "soft target".

[NigelMoore]

Is it known who owns Commercial Boat Services? As they say 'follow the money'

 

Exactly this.

 

They trade as Commercial Boat Services, but the company behind them is: -

 

Name & Registered Office:

BITHELL BOATS LIMITED

SOUTERS LANE

THE GROVES

CHESTER

CHESHIRE

CH1 1SD

Company No. 02259233

Status: Active

Date of Incorporation: 17/05/1988

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC):

50300 - Inland passenger water transport

Accounting Reference Date: 30/04

Last Accounts Made Up To: 30/04/2015 (TOTAL EXEMPTION SMALL)

Next Accounts Due: 31/01/2017

Last Confirmation Statement Date: 12/11/2016

Next Confirmation Statement Due: 26/11/2017

Mortgage: Number of charges: 33 ( 21 outstanding / 12 satisfied / 0 part satisfied )

Last Members List: 12/11

A couple of quid will get you the Company officers and shareholders. I did get those last year some time, but don't know where I stored the info and am not much bothered - however anyone with an inclination to, can find out.

I have an idea that Leigh Ravenscroft will be wanting to send them a "Subject Access Request", and the 'lighthouse ship' team may wish to do likewise - the Allan Richards request for info from the Police Department was not illuminating; they had obviously made NO inquiry whatever [as usual] respecting the credentials of the alleged 'bailiffs' or the legality of the action. They automatically presume that everything is above board, their code of conduct notwithstanding.

[hounddog]

That's how I wrote it, too. There are those who deliberately misread in order to further their own agendas - easy enough to spot them, they're the ones who sling insults about (eg rank hypocrisy) instead of rational argument, or, indeed, thought.

That you have no response to my arguments does not invalidate them. Hypocrisy, in this instance, was a simple description. I do not require or accept you to agree with my opinion but I have a right to express it. You expressed a diametrically opposite view a few weeks ago, I can't find it on a phone, which led me to speculate there was some personal history with the lightship owner. Feel free to correct me if you can manage it without the insults.

[NigelMoore]

It is quite possible that after the measured approach taken with Pillings Lock Marina and the subsequent huge financial loss, CRT have made a corporate decision to play hard ball with commercial clients and not be seen as the "soft target".

 

They could have played hard ball with the lightship - a lot earlier than they did - and sorted everything far more swiftly, at minimal cost to themselves, while still operating unquestionably within the law.

 

The mistake in the way they handled this situation - apart from the delay - lies in allowing their own emotions to run away with them, in indulging their taste for massive retaliation.

 

For long-term effectiveness, hard ball needs to be played within the rules.

[erivers]

Bithell Boats Limited run the three tourist boats - Lady Diana, Mark Twain and Jackie - on the River Dee in Chester.

 

The directors are: Mr Brian Desmond Clarke, Ms Raquel Josefa Clarke and Mrs Claire Amanda Lockley.

 

Mr Clarke is also a director of Yorkboats who run a similar trip boat operation in York.

[MtB]

It is quite possible that after the measured approach taken with Pillings Lock Marina and the subsequent huge financial loss, CRT have made a corporate decision to play hard ball with commercial clients and not be seen as the "soft target".

 

 

Their endless tolerance towards Pillings Lock was most curious, given their aggressive and disproportionate behaviour towards boat owners. Its as though once there is no boat to seize, they have no idea what to do.

I wonder if Pillings are up to date with their NAA payments or falling behind again.

[Jrtm]

 

 

Their endless tolerance towards Pillings Lock was most curious, given their aggressive and disproportionate behaviour towards boat owners. Its as though once there is no boat to seize, they have no idea what to do.

 

I wonder if Pillings are up to date with their NAA payments or falling behind again.

Thats because they use the boats to force inconvenience on people, after that they dont really have any thing to pressure people with.

 

Its like bullys if you take away what they were bullying about or confront them 9/10 they pannic and dont know what to do.

[Chewbacka]

 

 

They trade as Commercial Boat Services, but the company behind them is: -

 

Name & Registered Office:

BITHELL BOATS LIMITED

SOUTERS LANE

THE GROVES

CHESTER

CHESHIRE

CH1 1SD

Company No. 02259233

Status: Active

Date of Incorporation: 17/05/1988

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC):

50300 - Inland passenger water transport

Accounting Reference Date: 30/04

Last Accounts Made Up To: 30/04/2015 (TOTAL EXEMPTION SMALL)

Next Accounts Due: 31/01/2017

Last Confirmation Statement Date: 12/11/2016

Next Confirmation Statement Due: 26/11/2017

Mortgage: Number of charges: 33 ( 21 outstanding / 12 satisfied / 0 part satisfied )

Last Members List: 12/11

A couple of quid will get you the Company officers and shareholders. I did get those last year some time, but don't know where I stored the info and am not much bothered - however anyone with an inclination to, can find out.

I have an idea that Leigh Ravenscroft will be wanting to send them a "Subject Access Request", and the 'lighthouse ship' team may wish to do likewise - the Allan Richards request for info from the Police Department was not illuminating; they had obviously made NO inquiry whatever [as usual] respecting the credentials of the alleged 'bailiffs' or the legality of the action. They automatically presume that everything is above board, their code of conduct notwithstanding.

 

Actually you can see quite a bit for free here - https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02259233/filing-history

It also shows that the share holder for Bithell boats is the Chester Boat Company.

The Chester Boat company shares are held by 2 people - https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04262644/filing-history

[Arthur Marshall]

That you have no response to my arguments does not invalidate them. Hypocrisy, in this instance, was a simple description. I do not require or accept you to agree with my opinion but I have a right to express it. You expressed a diametrically opposite view a few weeks ago, I can't find it on a phone, which led me to speculate there was some personal history with the lightship owner. Feel free to correct me if you can manage it without the insults.

As my opinions haven't changed over the past few weeks I doubt that I expressed anything different. Context may of course have given that impression. I have no knowledge of or history with the lightship owner, but I do have an aversion to businessmen who deliberately rip off people in order to maximise their profits and then wriggle out of their obligations, whether tbey own BHS or a boat.

I also think CRT should act within the law, but not being a legal expert I have no idea as to whether they are or not. Nigel's argument are convincing, but obviously CRT has arguments that have convinced them (that we don't know about) and until these are tried in court no-one really knows. So we can only really comment on the moral / ethical position, where the only two facts that we are certain of is that someone deliberately didn't pay his dues and that his property was then removed in order to stop the situation continuing. Anything else is just speculation and hot air - until it comes to court (if it ever does).

[hounddog]

Seems a bit odd to continue your ill-formed judgement in the face of the facts; Nigel States the owner went to court over the arrears, has paid with associated costs.

 

Do you want him publicly flogged as well or is being permanently deprived of his boat ( which a bill of £50k almost certainly is) something you appear to applaud, sufficient extra-legal punishment.

 

Don't forget to kick the next homeless person you see ( after all they deprived an honest landlord of his dues too )

[MtB]

Thats because they use the boats to force inconvenience on people, after that they dont really have any thing to pressure people with.

 

Its like bullys if you take away what they were bullying about or confront them 9/10 they pannic and dont know what to do.

 

Well in the Pillings Lock case they also had a method causing massive inconvenience which they persistently failed to use. Blocking off the access. All very curious.

[Paul C]

There's more to this case than simply a non-payment of berthing fees. Otherwise, CRT would have simply pursued that debt (as they did in court) and let that take its course to recover the costs, the boat happily trading throughout (and the underlying business earning money to pay for those fees). Many unanswered questions were raised about the nature of the trading (running a bar?) which was going on on the boat, and whether the owner/manager had the correct permission, licences, etc etc to do that - and if not what the severity of these transgressions were.

 

For some reason, CRT wanted the boat "not in Canning Dock" and for it to discontinue its trading. And since it owns the dock................

 

I suspect even if the boat were moved slightly within the dock, there's no available areas which aren't, or can't be made accessible to the public so that option was considered unacceptable (to CRT). This is a pragmatic consideration which Nigel seems not to have addressed.

 

Having said that, if the law doesn't allow the boat's removal; or if it does but then things like the Tort Act no longer apply, then CRT would need to have properly considered that before taking the action they did.

[Arthur Marshall]

Seems a bit odd to continue your ill-formed judgement in the face of the facts; Nigel States the owner went to court over the arrears, has paid with associated costs.

 

Do you want him publicly flogged as well or is being permanently deprived of his boat ( which a bill of £50k almost certainly is) something you appear to applaud, sufficient extra-legal punishment.

 

Don't forget to kick the next homeless person you see ( after all they deprived an honest landlord of his dues too )

My initial one word answer to this post has, quite correctly, been moderated out of existence as it was a personal insult. Obviously, being called a hypocrite and a homeless-person-kicker doesn't count, which I suppose is fair enough as it's an example of what houndog regards as reasoned argument.

Er, the owner didn't "go" to court over the arrears, he was taken to court. There's a difference, though it may escape you as some of the words have more than one syllable.

Having spent some time on the street, I really appreciate your last line, by the way.

[NigelMoore]

Nigel's argument are convincing, but obviously CRT has arguments that have convinced them (that we don't know about) . . .

 

But we DO know what arguments have convinced CaRT, Arthur, because they have repeatedly asserted them from the very beginning, before even commencing removal action: -

 

From: Chantelle Seaborn

Date: 20 September 2016 09:38:56 BST

To: Alan Mersey Planet

Subject: Planet Bar Lightship

 

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

Mobile Tel: 07825 378908

E-Mail: chantelle.seaborn@canalrivertrust.org.uk

 

Clause 10 I have already posted. Clause 8 below: -

 

 

I had not taken much notice of that one before; it is even more draconian, because [and the context of the letter’s reference to this confirms] it gives possession of the vessel to CaRT following any breach of conditions. One presumes that considering the boat now to be at least largely theirs, they consider they can do what they like with it.

 

The way they are advertising it, it seems they have indeed considered that they are the new owners, as CBS confidently inform the punters.

 

It would have been an interesting situation had the owner chased after CBS once they had cleared out of CaRT's dock into public waters, and then boarded it to take command. Anyway - the above clauses are the legal basis for their actions, as relied upon by them.

[NigelMoore]

I suspect even if the boat were moved slightly within the dock, there's no available areas which aren't, or can't be made accessible to the public so that option was considered unacceptable (to CRT). This is a pragmatic consideration which Nigel seems not to have addressed.

 

There was no need to address it, because accessibility is/was not relevant – or, in so far as it might be relevant, access might need to be maintained, for reasons I considered in my post #74.

 

By 20 September CaRT were no longer prepared to put up with Mr Roberts. I don’t blame them for that; I would have felt the same and I would have taken action over a year earlier than they did. Having failed to comply with their previous request for payment and to discuss issues over public use of the vessel, CaRT were entitled to ask him to take the boat away, and if he did not, then upon fulfilment of due process, to put the vessel up for sale [whether the T&C’s stated so or not].

 

It could make no difference at all whether the owner had access or not; it would need only to have been controlled to extent of keeping it within the dock until the sale – and even then, only if they wished to hold onto the boat as security for payment of sums owed.

 

There was nothing "more to it" than being fed up with the owner; they were happy a few months earlier to engage in discussion over public H&S issues, so the later pious justifications for demanding removal were hypocritical and in fact, wholly unnecessary; they did not need any reason at all, other than their wish to no longer have him as a customer. I fully relate to that reason.

[Paul C]

 

There was no need to address it, because accessibility is/was not relevant – or, in so far as it might be relevant, access might need to be maintained, for reasons I considered in my post #74.

 

By 20 September CaRT were no longer prepared to put up with Mr Roberts. I don’t blame them for that; I would have felt the same and I would have taken action over a year earlier than they did. Having failed to comply with their previous request for payment and to discuss issues over public use of the vessel, CaRT were entitled to ask him to take the boat away, and if he did not, then upon fulfilment of due process, to put the vessel up for sale [whether the T&C’s stated so or not]. This process could have taken months/years during which the owner would have continued to take the piss.

 

It could make no difference at all whether the owner had access or not; it would need only to have been controlled to extent of keeping it within the dock until the sale – and even then, only if they wished to hold onto the boat as security for payment of sums owed. The fact that the owner was able to access the boat, thus continue to illegally trade from it, is a massive issue

 

There was nothing "more to it" than being fed up with the owner; (I disagree) they were happy a few months earlier to engage in discussion over public H&S issues, so the later pious justifications for demanding removal were hypocritical and in fact, wholly unnecessary; they did not need any reason at all, other than their wish to no longer have him as a customer. I fully relate to that reason.

 

Thanks for the reply Nigel, however it adds nothing to your previous comments and stance on this. As stated, I believe there is definitely something more to this case than simply an owner who had fallen behind on berthing fees and the relationship with the landlord had broken down. Unfortunately since CRT haven't put their side of the story, we won't know the real reasons behind it and can only speculate.

[NigelMoore]

 

Thanks for the reply Nigel, however it adds nothing to your previous comments and stance on this. As stated, I believe there is definitely something more to this case than simply an owner who had fallen behind on berthing fees and the relationship with the landlord had broken down. Unfortunately since CRT haven't put their side of the story, we won't know the real reasons behind it and can only speculate.

 

Well that is not quite accurate Paul. CaRT have put their side of the story, it is just that you do not believe that they have revealed all. So you are speculating on what an alternative speculated situation might have involved.

 

But I agree, I can add no more to my previous comments and stance on this.

[Paul C]

 

Well that is not quite accurate Paul. CaRT have put their side of the story, it is just that you do not believe that they have revealed all. So you are speculating on what an alternative speculated situation might have involved.

 

But I agree, I can add no more to my previous comments and stance on this.

 

No worries, I think we're broadly coming from the same viewpoint - that CRT's actions here have been disproportionate, based on the publically-available information so far. And particularly, in removing the boat from Liverpool.

 

However I believe there's always some kind of underlying motivation behind actions. I am not sure if you simply put it down to CRT becoming personal; or some kind of revenge; or merely legal incompetence, or possibly another reason. I am suggesting there is another, stronger, underlying reason behind these actions that we are not party to - for example pressure from other tenants in the local area to "do something" combined with poor judgement or overreaction.

[NigelMoore]

 

I am suggesting there is another, stronger, underlying reason behind these actions that we are not party to - for example pressure from other tenants in the local area to "do something" combined with poor judgement or overreaction.

 

I certainly would not discount that.