|
Post by tadworth on Feb 19, 2017 22:06:09 GMT
Why are the legal dept. not doing this basic legal work, presumably what they are paid for ?
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Feb 19, 2017 22:10:35 GMT
Why are the legal dept. not doing this basic legal work, presumably what they are paid for ? You wonder what they actually do.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Feb 19, 2017 22:29:18 GMT
Why are the legal dept. not doing this basic legal work, presumably what they are paid for ? You wonder what they actually do. They've obviously never read any of the legislation.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 19, 2017 23:19:56 GMT
Do you think that checklist document is genuine, Nigel, or could it be something they've concocted purely for including with the answer to the FOI request ? Call me a cynic, but it leaves me with the impression of something produced in response to a need, rather than an item of standard procedural paperwork. It's dated 30 September 2014 on both pages, but attributed to an 'UNKNOWN' on page 2, . . . yet another anonymous and unidentified figure joining the ranks of incognito Debt Collectors and bogus 'Bailiffs' in C&RT's boat thieving team. If it is genuine, and still in use, then it does also raise the question of why they are continuing to use a form in conjunction with the S.8 process with references to Licence/mooring fees arrears [in para's 2,3 and 5] post acknowledgement that the S.8 process is not a debt collecting tool?
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Feb 20, 2017 7:51:55 GMT
Do you think that checklist document is genuine, Nigel, or could it be something they've concocted purely for including with the answer to the FOI request ? Call me a cynic, but it leaves me with the impression of something produced in response to a need, rather than an item of standard procedural paperwork. It's dated 30 September 2014 on both pages, but attributed to an 'UNKNOWN' on page 2, . . . yet another anonymous and unidentified figure joining the ranks of incognito Debt Collectors and bogus 'Bailiffs' in C&RT's boat thieving team. If it is genuine, and still in use, then it does also raise the question of why they are continuing to use a form in conjunction with the S.8 process with references to Licence/mooring fees arrears [in para's 2,3 and 5] post acknowledgement that the S.8 process is not a debt collecting tool? If you look at the Properties of the Word file, it shows that: The document was created on 03 November 2015 at 15.42 by Steven Holder. The current version is "Revision 3" edited for 5 minutes by Aileen O'Connor.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 20, 2017 8:24:43 GMT
Do you think that checklist document is genuine, Nigel, or could it be something they've concocted purely for including with the answer to the FOI request ? Call me a cynic, but it leaves me with the impression of something produced in response to a need, rather than an item of standard procedural paperwork. It's dated 30 September 2014 on both pages, but attributed to an 'UNKNOWN' on page 2, . . . yet another anonymous and unidentified figure joining the ranks of incognito Debt Collectors and bogus 'Bailiffs' in C&RT's boat thieving team. If it is genuine, and still in use, then it does also raise the question of why they are continuing to use a form in conjunction with the S.8 process with references to Licence/mooring fees arrears [in para's 2,3 and 5] post acknowledgement that the S.8 process is not a debt collecting tool? If you look at the Properties of the Word file, it shows that: The document was created on 03 November 2015 at 15.42 by Steven Holder. The current version is "Revision 3" edited for 5 minutes by Aileen O'Connor. Thank you for that, . . . my computer skills preclude me from accessing anything much other than the document itself. Holder is a member of the, apparently, superfluous/redundant 'in house' legal team, but Aileen O'Connor isn't known to me, . . . I wonder, could she be from the 'in pocket' legal team, otherwise known as Shoosmiths? In contrast with their consistent inconsistency when interpreting legislation and statute, there consistently seems to be something dubious and/or inconsistent about virtually every document C&RT produce.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Feb 20, 2017 9:14:32 GMT
In computer terms, putting a word doc on the internet is dumb in the extreme. Anyone with half a brain would have converted it to a pdf. This method of spreading documents in a "safer" format has been the norm for decades.
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Feb 20, 2017 10:01:57 GMT
In terms of the Jones case, the chronology may indeed be rather interesting!
The footnote on the document shows the date as 30/09/2014 - a week after the original High Court appeal on 22/09/14.
But the document properties show it as actually being created over a year later on 03/11/2015 - between the second appeal earlier in 2015 and the current proceedings.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 20, 2017 10:47:13 GMT
In terms of the Jones case, the chronology may indeed be rather interesting! The footnote on the document shows the date as 30/09/2014 - a week after the original High Court appeal on 22/09/14. But the document properties show it as actually being created over a year later on 03/11/2015 - between the second appeal earlier in 2015 and the current proceedings. I'm a little unsure as to which parts of their corporate anatomies C&RT are presently shooting themselves in, . . . they used up all their feet long ago !
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Feb 20, 2017 11:49:13 GMT
They certainly appear to be aiming high!
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Feb 28, 2017 17:31:46 GMT
Stephen Holder lied to me claiming I had to have the ,"written consent of the trust" before I applied for a licence for Tadworth.
"Please note, the court Order against you remains valid and enforceable, therefore you must not allow your boat to come onto CRT’s waterways under any circumstances without the prior written consent of the Trust "
email 27/08/14 from Stephen Holder
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Feb 28, 2017 20:30:32 GMT
Stephen Holder lied to me claiming I had to have the ,"written consent of the trust" before I applied for a licence for Tadworth. "Please note, the court Order against you remains valid and enforceable, therefore you must not allow your boat to come onto CRT’s waterways under any circumstances without the prior written consent of the Trust " email 27/08/14 from Stephen Holder Have you not emailed him backing asking for an explanation to his mistake
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Feb 28, 2017 21:45:15 GMT
Stephen Holder lied to me claiming I had to have the ,"written consent of the trust" before I applied for a licence for Tadworth. "Please note, the court Order against you remains valid and enforceable, therefore you must not allow your boat to come onto CRT’s waterways under any circumstances without the prior written consent of the Trust " email 27/08/14 from Stephen Holder Have you not emailed him backing asking for an explanation to his mistake You haven't dealt with the CRT complaints process have you Its utterly biased and worthless.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Feb 28, 2017 21:48:14 GMT
Have you not emailed him backing asking for an explanation to his mistake You haven't dealt with the CRT complaints process have you Its utterly biased and worthless. No. Only what I see here and over there. I was going for a direct reply to him. Just querying his mistake. But your right. I have seen your other post with there reply.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 22:58:09 GMT
Gonna be applying for a cart licence myself soon. After being kicked off carts waterways some time ago.I got a moorings. insurance. and bss certificate.oh and a years licence fee to pay.i wonder if I will succeed in this matter.
|
|