Lightship Advertised for Sale

[Graham Davis]

 

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.

 

What else were they to do with it?

Where else could they take it, that they own?

[NigelMoore]

 

What else were they to do with it?

Where else could they take it, that they own?

 

They could have sold it in situ and made the decision whether they wanted the new owner to take over the berth, or condition the sale on removal to wherever.

 

It would have been open to the existing owner to pay up and take it away himself, up to the point of sale.

 

Either way, getting rid of the boat was not the problem they made for themselves. The only result from what they did was a massive bill for the existing owner at no profit to CaRT [at best they only get back what they spent] and considerably more aggravation than they ever needed to suffer.

 

If they seriously wished to cover their back, they could have asked for a Court Order approving the sale under the Torts Act; that would have been the most sensible route under all the circumstances.

[Cheshire cat]

No idea whether this would have been possible but wasn't there anywhere on the Weaver they could have moored it. It seems the obvious place to me.

[MtB]

I'm faintly surprised at the unprofessional way in which they are attempting disposal of this boat. The usual manner of disposing of repossessions with certainty and in a known timeframe is to sell them at auction.

 

Why are CRT fogging this on a boat sales web site instead of at auction?

[Chewbacka]

I'm faintly surprised at the unprofessional way in which they are attempting disposal of this boat. The usual manner of disposing of repossessions with certainty and in a known timeframe is to sell them at auction.

 

Why are CRT fogging this on a boat sales web site instead of at auction?

Because they are obliged to get the best reasonable price and it is a very specialist vessel. If it does not sell for £100k then maybe next will be auction.

[Jerra]

Because they are obliged to get the best reasonable price and it is a very specialist vessel. If it does not sell for £100k then maybe next will be auction.

I thought one of the good points about an auction is you get the highest price somebody is prepared to pay. CRT may sell for £100,000 but an auction bidder might have gone above that particularly if two people got into a bidding war..

[Chewbacka]

I thought one of the good points about an auction is you get the highest price somebody is prepared to pay. CRT may sell for £100,000 but an auction bidder might have gone above that particularly if two people got into a bidding war..

Maybe, but I bet if you had a house for sale you wouldn't put it through the auction.

[Paul C]

I thought one of the good points about an auction is you get the highest price somebody is prepared to pay. CRT may sell for £100,000 but an auction bidder might have gone above that particularly if two people got into a bidding war..

 

You get the price at that point in time the auction sale occurs, IF there's 2 or more interested parties. And the price is the max price of the bidder who is 2nd (ie doesn't win it) + bid increment.

[MtB]

Maybe, but I bet if you had a house for sale you wouldn't put it through the auction.

 

 

Actually yes you would.

 

Mortagees in repossession generally sell by action as it allows them to demonstrate they obtained best market price and it insulates them from any suggestion of impropriety.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Because they are obliged to get the best reasonable price and it is a very specialist vessel. If it does not sell for £100k then maybe next will be auction.

As CaRT appear to rely on a contract (which ended more than 18 months ago), rather than the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 or other legislation, I am having some difficulty in understanding the 'obligation to get the best reasonable price'. I can't find it in the contract.

 

The problem with an auction is that this would involve a third party who might wish to see proof of ownership and a declaration that the goods are not subject to an ownership dispute.

 

 

 

 

[Jerra]

The problem with an auction is that this would involve a third party who might wish to see proof of ownership and a declaration that the goods are not subject to an ownership dispute.

Would anyone paying out that sort of money not want to see proof of ownership let alone a third party?

[Paul C]

I don't fully know the legal benefits etc but I vaguely remember reading about the advantages of having a vessel registered with the SSR, and the implications it has when buying/selling a registered boat regarding good title/ownership etc. Is this boat registered?

[Alan de Enfield]

I don't fully know the legal benefits etc but I vaguely remember reading about the advantages of having a vessel registered with the SSR, and the implications it has when buying/selling a registered boat regarding good title/ownership etc. Is this boat registered?

 

Only "UK Ships Register part 1" gives evidence of title - very few 'private / small boats go along the 'complex paper-chase' of Part 1.

 

For part 1 registration you need to provide :

• a completed application to register a British ship (MSF 4740)
• a completed declaration of eligibility (MSF 4727)
• 5 years of original title documents (eg a bill of sale (MSF 4705), builder’s certificate (MSF 4743), sales agreement or invoice)

Send the following supporting documents:

• certificate of survey for tonnage and measurement
• international tonnage certificate if the boat is over 24 metres
• certificate of incorporation if you’re registering on behalf of a company
• deletion certificate if your boat was previously on another register
• confirmation of radio call sign if you have one

 

Part I registration

Register your boat on the Part I register if you want to:

• prove you own the boat
• prove your boat’s nationality
• use the boat as security for a marine mortgage
• register a pleasure vessel
• get ‘transcripts of registry’, which show the boat’s previous owners and whether there are any outstanding mortgages

Your boat must have a unique name to be registered.

It costs £124 to register for 5 years.

 

The 'common' SSR (Small Ships Register) that is referred to is for smaller / private vessels is the "UK Ship Register Part 3" and is purely a simple country registration to provide evidence of UK registration when travelling abroad.

From the guidance notes :

 

1) What is Part III of the Register?

Part III (commonly called the Small Ships Register - SSR) is for ships which want only simple registration; it does not register title and you cannot register mortgages on this part of the Register. It provides an inexpensive, simple registration which proves the ships nationality (a kind of passport).

 

 

 

Part III registration

Register your boat on the Part III (Small Ships Register) if you want to prove the boat’s nationality when sailing outside UK waters.

 

It costs £25 for 5 years.

To be eligible:

• your boat must be less than 24 metres long
• you must be a private individual (not a company)
• you must live in the UK for at least 185 days of the year
• your boat must have a name

For more information, read the full guidance notes.

Edited December 4, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Would anyone paying out that sort of money not want to see proof of ownership let alone a third party?

One would hope so. However, I would suspect that the 'presumption on probity' is higher for a member of the public than for a company providing auction services.

[hounddog]

And if 'cousin to CBS' comes along and offers £100.....

 

This situation is out of control and needs stopping urgently.

 

What's happening Nigel? Is Team Tony on the case or is it another case of trampled by CRT with no accountability?

[NigelMoore]

What's happening Nigel? Is Team Tony on the case or is it another case of trampled by CRT with no accountability?

 

Tony is most definitely “on the case”, acting as the owner’s representative/agent and teaming with others of the owner’s friends and sympathisers – but it will always have to be the owner who makes the relevant decisions.

 

How far the owner is prepared to push things I have not the faintest clue, but speaking purely in the abstract, it is always easier for onlookers to demand something be done than for the person in the middle. It can never be underestimated how daunting the prospect can be, of taking on such behemoths.

 

As has been demonstrated time and again, the spectre of crippling costs is the most immediate tactic employed by bodies such as CaRT, so for those with a great deal to lose [and the lightship is a significant asset], it is only sensible to take that into account when contemplating what to do. Plus: it is always preferable to seek resolution outwith litigation, and the courts will look to see how far the attempt to do so has been made.

 

Currently, CaRT are revealing how unbending they are in this respect, and that could well be held against them by the court even if they succeeded at the end of any court action. One need only read Hildyard J’s comments at what he saw to be the end result of my case after 5 years – although finding that BW had succeeded, even if for reasons other than that for which they had contended, he had been minded to make no order as to costs. That was precisely because of the manner in which they had conducted themselves over the affair. Even when finally deciding to punish me for my “cavalier attitude” towards interim costs orders, and for what he saw as my “relentless and obstinate” defence of my rights, he still ended up only awarding them 25% of their costs [repealed at appeal of course, and I ended up being awarded 75% of my costs against them].

 

So what might have the appearance of unwarranted delay can only demonstrate the owner’s correct approach to this nasty situation; he is holding the higher moral ground if you like. He may also be hoping that publicising general outrage will persuade CaRT to be act more reasonably in his favour.

 

Then too, deciding to take what is effectively an irrevocable step in filing a Claim against CaRT, involves the recognition that even though indisputably in the right, all litigation is a gamble; it can take years of your life, and that demands an emotional robustness and stamina that is not possessed by everyone. I am very confident of Tony's character in this respect, but it is not his call.

 

So, knowing nothing of the character of the owner at the centre of all this, I can nonetheless empathise with any potential dismay and possible reluctance to cross the Rubicon of the necessary ‘official’ challenge.

 

CaRT always rely on this, but may well, this time, have made the common mistake of pushing too far and hard, leaving the owner with little choice other than to fight, or to be hit with a truly massive loss.

 

I cannot say more than that I am afraid.

[hounddog]

 

How far the owner is prepared to push things I have not the faintest clue, but speaking purely in the abstract, it is always easier for onlookers to demand something be done than for the person in the middle. It can never be underestimated how daunting the prospect can be, of taking on such behemoths.

 

As has been demonstrated time and again, the spectre of crippling costs is the most immediate tactic employed by bodies such as CaRT, so for those with a great deal to lose [and the lightship is a significant asset], it is only sensible to take that into account when contemplating what to do. Plus: it is always preferable to seek resolution outwith litigation, and the courts will look to see how far the attempt to do so has been made.

 

 

CaRT always rely on this, but may well, this time, have made the common mistake of pushing too far and hard, leaving the owner with little choice other than to fight, or to be hit with a truly massive loss.

 

 

 

So true, thanks Nigel. It provokes, even vicariously, the heat of outrage as a man is pushed into a corner by a body with unlimited resources.

 

Moreover resources that are collectively owned.

 

I totally understand why someone would walk away rather than take it on, it would take a rather special form of altruism to follow it through. Tony seems to have that drive but the owner in this case is, as you say, the final arbiter.

 

It would a very good thing if there was a chain of accountability for CRT other than an indifferent minister, then perhaps some sanity would enter these kinds of actions.

[Paul C]

 

So true, thanks Nigel. It provokes, even vicariously, the heat of outrage as a man is pushed into a corner by a body with unlimited resources.

 

Moreover resources that are collectively owned.

 

I totally understand why someone would walk away rather than take it on, it would take a rather special form of altruism to follow it through. Tony seems to have that drive but the owner in this case is, as you say, the final arbiter.

 

It would a very good thing if there was a chain of accountability for CRT other than an indifferent minister, then perhaps some sanity would enter these kinds of actions.

 

He wasn't pushed into a corner, he (or possibly a deputy or representative of the business, if he was ill) had the option to pay the mooring fees on time etc, or to negotiate an amicable solution with CRT if we was unable to keep up with these payments and other obligations in the course of running a business.

[NigelMoore]

 

It would a very good thing if there was a chain of accountability for CRT other than an indifferent minister, then perhaps some sanity would enter these kinds of actions.

 

To concentrate on this aspect of how matters are handled [which must apply to the bad customers as to the good], and as I have posted more than once on here in times past: my feeling is that things will change only when/if relevant individuals are personally held to account, rather than the organisation. We all need the organisation, but we need it to be run by individuals with respect for the law and for their customers, untainted by the emotional reactions we ourselves might feel.

 

Ideally, of course, the greatest effect would be achieved, not by fines but by imprisonment of the individual where provable wrong-doing is established. If officers of companies knew that this could be a likely outcome from which they could not be protected, then they would necessarily be more punctilious, if only by reason of self-interest. This has applied to normal companies and corporations, but never to BW/CaRT.

 

In submissions for an injunction back in 2008, when attempting to have Tony Hales held responsible for any future boarding of my boats, I cited the example of the judge in the case of Seymour v Leeds City Council, 1986/7. The Council had ignored a Court Order to put a road into repair, and as Seymour later recounted:

 

“Another action for Contempt was commenced, and the Court took the step of issuing a further Order in the specific name of the Director of Highways personally. The Court also stated that if the road was not repaired within the stated time the Director would be brought before the Court and held to account for his failure to comply. As the Judge said (Arthur Myerson QC) “I may not be able to jail the City Council, but I can jail a named officer.” [my bold]

 

There are those with experience in this field who are contemplating bringing private prosecutions at the right time, and I am more than a little interested to see how that pans out. The biggest problem with proper conduct of the organisation as I see it, is the invulnerability to prosecution felt by the CEO’s and major directors and other executives; if that feeling was dented, we could well start to see more caution and proportionality in their approach to handling things.

A thought has just occurred to me [it takes a little while these days] – I believe that CaRT may be a member of the British Marine Federation [bW used to be], and it might just be worth someone like Tony sending them a copy of the Berthing Agreement used by CaRT in this situation [but NOT used by them in the BWML marinas], and asking for their view as to the legality and/or fairness of the terms.

[hounddog]

 

He wasn't pushed into a corner, he (or possibly a deputy or representative of the business, if he was ill) had the option to pay the mooring fees on time etc, or to negotiate an amicable solution with CRT if we was unable to keep up with these payments and other obligations in the course of running a business.

 

Taking his boat 200 sea miles and presenting him with a £50K bill for a liability of a 10th of that is 'pushing him into a corner'.

[Paul C]

 

Taking his boat 200 sea miles and presenting him with a £50K bill for a liability of a 10th of that is 'pushing him into a corner'.

 

Yes, agree on that part (in that it was disproportionate) but its not step 1 in a series of key events which have occurred here. There is 18 months or so of history, of which the details are only partially in the public domain. During the past 18 months it appears that a number of poor decisions were taken by the owner/business, at least one of which resulted in CRT taking him/them to court and winning.

 

I completely agree that this appears massively disproportionate, though, however this is based on an incomplete view of the previous issues.

[Arthur Marshall]

 

To concentrate on this aspect of how matters are handled [which must apply to the bad customers as to the good], and as I have posted more than once on here in times past: my feeling is that things will change only when/if relevant individuals are personally held to account, rather than the organisation. We all need the organisation, but we need it to be run by individuals with respect for the law and for their customers, untainted by the emotional reactions we ourselves might feel.

 

Ideally, of course, the greatest effect would be achieved, not by fines but by imprisonment of the individual where provable wrong-doing is established. If officers of companies knew that this could be a likely outcome from which they could not be protected, then they would necessarily be more punctilious, if only by reason of self-interest. This has applied to normal companies and corporations, but never to BW/CaRT.

<snip>

It would certainly lead to an improvement in corporate behaviour all round. But as far as I'm aware, the whole point of being a corporation or a limited company is to avoid this kind of responsibility - a director of a limited company can walk away from losses incurred by the company while the corporation is viewed as an entity separate from its members and so on. This was a valid concept when businessmen had a sense of responsibility to the society they operated in but does seem outdated now. I'm not for a moment suggesting that businessmen's ethics have changed in the slightest, but when markets were essentially local they could be held to account (you just went somewhere else and they went broke) and this is no longer the case.

Here, it would appear that both sides are in some ways in the wrong, there's no moral highground. My own suspicion is that as far as the shipowner is concerned, panic set in when things started going not well and he carried on in hope rather than trying to sort it out. In CRT's case they followed their usual approach of cracking a nut with a sledgehammer. I may be wrong, and one side may have been deliberately criminal and the other acting intentionally vindictively but I tend to the cock-up theory of history rather than the other.

[hounddog]

I may be wrong, and one side may have been deliberately criminal and the other acting intentionally vindictively but I tend to the cock-up theory of history rather than the other.

 

I don't believe the owner has been intentionally vindictive.

[NigelMoore]

It would certainly lead to an improvement in corporate behaviour all round. But as far as I'm aware, the whole point of being a corporation or a limited company is to avoid this kind of responsibility - a director of a limited company can walk away from losses incurred by the company while the corporation is viewed as an entity separate from its members and so on.

 

The limitation on liability is fiscal. If a company is guilty of crime, the officers responsible are not immune. How broad the application of that principle is, I do not know, but in some instances at least, personal liability is written in to the relevant legislation. For example [and I do not suggest this applies to the present debate other than in principle] the Fraud Act 2006 provides:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/12

 

12 Liability of company officers for offences by company

 

(1) Subsection (2) applies if an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate.

 

(2) If the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of—

 

( a ) a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or

 

( b ) a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,

 

he (as well as the body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

 

(3) If the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (2) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate. [my bold]

 

Then too, of course, as in the example I cited, a company/corporate officer can be nominated as responsible for compliance with a court order, and be held in contempt of court with the sanction of imprisonment. Also, in the 2 instances where BW were specifically held responsible for criminal actions under the HSE provisions, it was noted that no individual officers were held responsible [so presumably it follows that they could have been], while another such case was not prosecuted despite the evidence surrounding the death of a boy, for reasons of "public interest" - and because CaRT promised to smarten their ideas up!

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/criminal_prosecutions

 

It was one of Nigel Johnson's self-appointed Bonus targets one year, to successfully defend an Environmental breach, and if unsuccessful, to petition for this offence to be de-criminalised. BW were, as the above reply indicates, not punished, so presumably he earned his bonus for that year.

[costalot]

Has CRT's actions in this matter been found to be illegal? Or is the situation one where some people have formed the opinion that whilst CRT's actions are legal, they are disproportionate?