Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2017 16:18:50 GMT
I hate "nice guys"
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Mar 11, 2017 17:24:40 GMT
are there any such people in this cruel world?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Mar 11, 2017 17:33:46 GMT
There has been a good deal of confusion amongst those who have posted on this thread, including Andy himself, over the perception that he, along with other boaters who have been subjected to Section 8 action by C&RT, were or are "banned" from C&RT's waterways, . . . posts such as :~ "You did say you were banned from cart waterways a few posts back. I guess you mean you -were banned- but are now no longer banned?" and : "I didn't say he is banned, I said he was banned. It seems OP has a different sense of reality to normal people. I hate liars." and : "Well, apparently you were banned, in your own words. I think this is before my time (I joined Canalworld Autumn 2013) so I don't know the history."
This widespread and common misconception about being 'banned', and the actual effect of the Injunctions, is quite understandable in light of the way they are worded. However, something not generally known is that the wording does not originate from either the presiding Judge or from the Courts, or from statute or common law, but from C&RT and Shoosmiths and it is intentionally couched in terms calculated to make the named party believe that they are permanently 'banned' from the waterways and that they must win the approval and consent of the Trust, in the form of written permission, before they are able once again to apply for or hold a boat Licence [PBL or PBC]. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
The relevant wording in the Injunctions is invariably in the following general form :-
IT IS ORDERED :
*) That the Defendant is forbidden, after [ time and date ] (whether by himself/herself or by instructing or encouraging any other person) without the prior written consent of the Claimant, from navigating, mooring and/or securing the boat [ boat name and Index No ] on any part of the canals and inland waterways controlled by the Claimant.
The crucial wording, with regard to the effect of the Injunction, is emphasized in bold, and it will be seen that the Injunction is in fact specific to one named and identified boat which is excluded from C&RT waters, as opposed to any boat under the control of the Defendant. The Injunction is, somewhat oddly, directed at an inanimate object and NOT the person named in it.
As for the words "prior written consent", they are nothing more than a ploy on the part of C&RT/Shoosmiths to give the impression that the owner or keeper of the exiled boat needs to obtain written permission to apply for a new Licence [PBL] or PBC. The inclusion of the word "written" is relatively recent, only appearing in the Injunctions after 2012 or 2013 in an attempt to embellish and reinforce the intended deception. It is the two words "prior consent" that are C&RT's undoing, simply because 'consent' is in fact a term used in statute, specifically S.17(1) of the 1995 BW Act, which says ~ “relevant consent” means a houseboat certificate, a licence or a pleasure boat certificate. The inclusion of "prior" simply means that to comply with the terms of the Injunction the person named in the Injunction needs to obtain either a PBC or a PBL before bringing the named vessel back onto C&RT waters.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Mar 11, 2017 18:55:47 GMT
and your point is ....... ??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2017 18:57:11 GMT
and your point is ....... ?? <quiet giggling>
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2017 19:37:18 GMT
Is Tony Dunkley a lawyer or schooled in the law
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Mar 11, 2017 20:12:37 GMT
and your point is ....... ?? That the widely held belief that C&RT have the authority and powers to ban boaters and their boats from the waterways is nothing but a myth, perpetrated and foisted on the boating public by the malevolent and dishonest faction that passes for C&RT's management, from the CEO down.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Mar 12, 2017 0:18:46 GMT
Is Tony Dunkley a lawyer or schooled in the law He is correct on this point though, I have it confirmed in writing after CRT lied to me that I could not have another licence for a boat after it had been subject to a CCJ.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Mar 12, 2017 10:33:17 GMT
and your point is ....... ?? That the widely held belief that C&RT have the authority and powers to ban boaters and their boats from the waterways is nothing but a myth, perpetrated and foisted on the boating public by the malevolent and dishonest faction that passes for C&RT's management, from the CEO down. Normally the "Bullying" they are constantly performing is punished by law, but they seem to get away with it almost always, as too few people have the guts the time and money it needs to fight them, and probably lack in the skills of reading and understanding the appropriate laws too.
Peter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2017 10:53:44 GMT
That the widely held belief that C&RT have the authority and powers to ban boaters and their boats from the waterways is nothing but a myth, perpetrated and foisted on the boating public by the malevolent and dishonest faction that passes for C&RT's management, from the CEO down. Normally the "Bullying" they are constantly performing is punished by law, but they seem to get away with it almost always, as too few people have the guts the time and money it needs to fight them, and probably lack in the skills of reading and understanding the appropriate laws too.
Peter.
I think many are afraid of losing there homes through "rocking the boat" so to speak (understandable). However, I do wish they would realise that together, a lot more could be achieved. The Trust have a weakness, bad publicity, they really need to avoid that. Perhaps not the nicest way to fight, but you use what is at your disposal.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Mar 12, 2017 16:36:39 GMT
An unbiased ombudsman would be a start ?
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Mar 12, 2017 16:52:02 GMT
An unbiased ombudsman would be a start ? That would really be a good start to possibly finally solve a bunch of problems that should never have existed, but does that kind of ombudsman exist, as one employed by C&RT will never be an unbiased one.
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 12, 2017 22:32:00 GMT
Is Tony Dunkley a lawyer or schooled in the law He is correct on this point though, I have it confirmed in writing after CRT lied to me that I could not have another licence for a boat after it had been subject to a CCJ. Thinking out loud. When they take out an "injunction" or just when they put it in writing do they just name the boat? Or do they add the boat number? Could you just not rename the boat and relicense it? Just curious, i do understand the prior consent stuff is not what they seek it to be and is given with meeting the legal requirements.
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Mar 13, 2017 6:48:58 GMT
He is correct on this point though, I have it confirmed in writing after CRT lied to me that I could not have another licence for a boat after it had been subject to a CCJ. Thinking out loud. When they take out an "injunction" or just when they put it in writing do they just name the boat? Or do they add the boat number? Could you just not rename the boat and relicense it? Just curious, i do understand the prior consent stuff is not what they seek it to be and is given with meeting the legal requirements. The form letter that Tony posted above stated <boat name and number>, so it's both.
|
|
|
Post by patty on Mar 13, 2017 6:55:48 GMT
An unbiased ombudsman would be a start ? Guess all Ombudsmen different..i once had cause to write to financial one over awful problem caused by mess up by solicitors/endowment and ex..i had been sent intimidating unpleasant letters designed to shred integrity and confidence...all based on misinterpreted facts and legal errors..i was so ill with panic/anxiety/fear couldn't see what to do..hid in Dharma centre..thought i was gonna be dragged through courts..i was the victim as they all tried twisting truth. No-one would believe truth despite all documentation i had proving facts. Anyway the ombudsman rang me up, looked at all my facts and came down firmly on my side..he was, to me a hero...he told me if it went to court there would be egg on lot of faces but not mine..fault lay with the other 3.He insisted that the party at fault wrote letter acknowledging facts.i was the 'little person' in it all. It resolved..there are horrible people out there, but there are also those who do examine facts and come to decision based on truth...i did not go for compensation..sometimes there are more important things in this world and resolution of fear/intimidation is one.
|
|