|
Post by Telemachus on Dec 23, 2016 16:05:37 GMT
I don't need to know exactly what legal costs were involved, but the fact is there were costs (legal and internal), unnecessarily incurred by CRT in dealing with your breach of the law. These are all your opinions. There are always two sides to every story and I have absolutely no doubt that you would exaggerate and inflate your criticisms to the greatest extent possible - look at your use of inflammatory language like "lied". A lie must be a deliberate attempt to mislead, not simply a mistake. You admit that the EO wasn't familiar with the law. A mistake and incompetence perhaps, but a lie? It would seem not. By contrast there is one certainty in all this - that you kept your boat on the canal system for a prolonged period where, under statute, a licence is required. But you didn't obtain the required licence. Shaddup nick, your like a fuckin parrot with a limited vocabulary. I love it when you talk dirty. More! More!
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Dec 23, 2016 17:45:37 GMT
I don't need to know exactly what legal costs were involved, but the fact is there were costs (legal and internal), unnecessarily incurred by CRT in dealing with your breach of the law. These are all your opinions. There are always two sides to every story and I have absolutely no doubt that you would exaggerate and inflate your criticisms to the greatest extent possible - look at your use of inflammatory language like "lied". A lie must be a deliberate attempt to mislead, not simply a mistake. You admit that the EO wasn't familiar with the law. A mistake and incompetence perhaps, but a lie? It would seem not. By contrast there is one certainty in all this - that you kept your boat on the canal system for a prolonged period where, under statute, a licence is required. But you didn't obtain the required licence. The problem is you know nothing about this case, and are just guessing. You dont know what costs were awarded to CRT as part of the CCJ. I did not admit the EO was not familar with the law, you have misread that. He claimed both he and the head of the legal dept, Jackie Lewis, a barrister with 15 years experience at BW / CRT did not know the law relevant to a basic CCJ that they themselves worded and used many times before, BW's lawyers stated in court, ( BW v Ward 2011 ) that the same standard worded CCJ does not affect a new licence application. Unless all concerned suffered amnesia all at the same time the most likely scenario is they deliberatly lied to cover up the fact that the CCJ process they chose to use if useless. If they truly beleived it was lawful to refuse a new licence application because of a previous CCJ they would have fought for it, they did not, as soon as Nigel and Tony spelt out the law to them they started back pedalling, and changed the goalposts to "safety concerns" and not sure if the mooring was genuine, the same basin they used to use themselves. We know i didnt renew my licence, i said so in the very first thread i started on this subject on CWDF, you are not discovering anything new Hercule ,i am very comfortable with not paying an organisation that acts illegally, i reccomend it for everybody, and i would do it again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2016 18:05:25 GMT
Did you know other people like to use the canals as well?
It would be interesting to see how quickly the infrastructure fell apart and trees started growing out of the locks if every boat owner decided not to pay anything to the organisation charged with management of the canal system.
Maybe it would be OK, boaters would sort it all out and keep it all open. That is a nice idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2016 18:06:29 GMT
This strikes me as farcical! If Tadworth had paid his licence fee originally (as we all mostly do) then nothing would have happened, no court case, no enforcement, zilch. so CRT would be quids in. So its Tadworths fault that CRT have to spend our money........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2016 18:12:30 GMT
This strikes me as farcical! If Tadworth had paid his licence fee originally (as we all mostly do) then nothing would have happened, no court case, no enforcement, zilch. so CRT would be quids in. So its Tadworths fault that CRT have to spend our money........ Does seem odd. Maybe there should be an organisation set up with the sole intent of not paying CRT for cruising licences. Justdonotpaythefuckers.com Sister website for management of the massive scandal of miss-selling cruising licenses. iwantmylicensefeesback.com
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 23, 2016 18:32:58 GMT
What my mum always told me isn't true in all cases then. In some alternate realities two wrongs add up to one right. Or "I've done summat wrong, now you've done summat worserer, so I'm right."
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Dec 23, 2016 18:49:57 GMT
I have no sympathy for piss takers and I believe they should be penalised for their actions. .......However ...... I expect the response from CRT to be fair, reasonable and just. I do not expect a major public organisation to act like a bunch of bully boys. It does sometimes happen that personalities get involved ..... but it shouldn't and decent top management should make damn sure it does not.
The owner of Planet (IMHO) was taking the piss but CRT took him to court for unpaid fees (and won and were paid) there were more fees claimed but the amounts were not huge. CRT acted, deliberately and coldly (in the opinion of some more knowledgeable than I, illegally) to run up an artificially high debt, running into tens of thousands of pounds, Many times greater than the genuine debt.
The actions of CRT and their legal team are a cold, deliberate, vengeful act. The sort of actions one would expect from certain unsavoury individuals of the like of Sir (spit) Philip Green. NOT from an organisation in charge of an National asset and charged with preserving it for US
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Dec 23, 2016 19:14:24 GMT
⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆
That is a mighty fine post.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Dec 24, 2016 15:47:53 GMT
This strikes me as farcical! If Tadworth had paid his licence fee originally (as we all mostly do) then nothing would have happened, no court case, no enforcement, zilch. so CRT would be quids in. So its Tadworths fault that CRT have to spend our money........ Does seem odd. Maybe there should be an organisation set up with the sole intent of not paying CRT for cruising licences. Justdonotpaythefuckers.com Sister website for management of the massive scandal of miss-selling cruising licenses. iwantmylicensefeesback.com I have never complained that CRT took enforcement action against me so your post is wrong. I have only ever complained about CRT acting illegally, which you say I should not do, so if it applies to me it also applies to CRT. If costs are awarded to CRT in a court case it hasn't cost them anything has it.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Dec 24, 2016 15:51:44 GMT
What my mum always told me isn't true in all cases then. In some alternate realities two wrongs add up to one right. Or "I've done summat wrong, now you've done summat worserer, so I'm right." " ive done summat wrong, now you can break the law to stop me breaking the law again " Works both ways dont it ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2016 16:11:53 GMT
What my mum always told me isn't true in all cases then. In some alternate realities two wrongs add up to one right. Or "I've done summat wrong, now you've done summat worserer, so I'm right." " ive done summat wrong, now you can break the law to stop me breaking the law again " Works both ways dont it ? Humans are shit at making up laws. The only rule we need is to be nice. It is that simple.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 24, 2016 16:54:52 GMT
What my mum always told me isn't true in all cases then. In some alternate realities two wrongs add up to one right. Or "I've done summat wrong, now you've done summat worserer, so I'm right." " ive done summat wrong, now you can break the law to stop me breaking the law again " Works both ways dont it ? No. Either way is wrong. Both sides should stay within the law. Merry Christmas.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 1, 2017 15:16:01 GMT
Getting back to the thread, it appears the business trading licence has no basis in any legislation, it is entirely a civil contract, there is therefore no lawful penalty for trading without this licence ?
What LAWFUL legal action could CRT take if you refused to buy a trading licence ? Obviously they will cite sect.43.
I am not advocating trading without the correct licence, I am just finding out the truth of it. Please do not panic.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Jan 1, 2017 17:18:50 GMT
Getting back to the thread, it appears the business trading licence has no basis in any legislation, it is entirely a civil contract, there is therefore no lawful penalty for trading without this licence ? What LAWFUL legal action could CRT take if you refused to buy a trading licence ? Obviously they will cite sect.43. I am not advocating trading without the correct licence, I am just finding out the truth of it. Please do not panic. Playing devil's advocate here a bit, but if CaRT came to that conclusion, and boats were trading without one, could they not say, " hang on, this isn't a pleasure boat anymore, it's commercial, and so the applicable standard under the British Waterways Act 1995 Sec. 17(3) (a) isn't the BSS, it's MCA certification." Which might open up a real can of worms ...
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 1, 2017 18:19:37 GMT
"If a vessel is a hire boat, third-party managed share-owned boat, trip boat, rented residential boat, floating business or some other form of commercial or public vessel, the boat will be examined to the 2002 BSS Standards "
|
|