|
Post by larkboy on Jan 5, 2017 18:54:48 GMT
A list of CRT's illegal acts as well, there needs to be evidence of the harm they are doing, and the money they are handing over to Shoesmiths. If you start detailing a letter with "opinions and greviances", it will cause division. This will result in a lot of people not taking part, therefore impacting on its effectiveness. It just needs to be a simple letter voicing the concerns around CRT not having to account to anyone. This covers many issues, and if folk wish to add opinions to the template before sending it, that's fine. They can make that choice themselves. I agree that it would need to be kept simple, to the point and just cover C&RT accountability concerns as Jenlyn113 says, to avoid division and make it appropriate to the greatest number of people thereby encouraging participation. Once the ball is rolling, then more specific concerns may be raised by those individuals or groups wishing to raise them as the door will then be ajar.....
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 5, 2017 22:16:51 GMT
Well, it's better than the other effort, but it's still a bit of C&RT dreamed up nonsense rather than something carrying any weight in law. S.3(1) of the 1971 BW Act excludes any self-propelled vessel capable of being steered and controlled from being a 'houseboat', . . . something which C&RT find convenient to ignore when selecting boats to be evicted from their waters. I cant see that on my copy. It only says its not any craft used for bona fide navigation ?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 5, 2017 23:09:28 GMT
I recently said (in the other place) that words do not change their meaning just because they are used in legislation. Obviously, I was wrong! Regardlees of any applicability to the context of your comment, as a general comment you were wrong. It has been held possible for legislation to use wording having a specialist meaning in law that differs from common usage. See Bennion on Statute Law reference Ridgeways v Alts. www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/fb/2006/2006-033-aer-2005.pdf “ A word or phrase may have ‘a special legal meaning derived from its legislative history’: Ridgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd v ALTS Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 92, [2005] 2 All ER 304, at [29].” Actually it is clearest in 30: “ The arguments about the natural and ordinary meaning of "proceeding", "action" "enforcement" and "execution" are insufficient to displace the special or technical meaning of "an action upon a judgment" adopted in Lamb and followed through by Parliament into s24(1) of the 1980 Act. Even though this result may follow from the perpetuation by Parliament, via the Law Reform Committee, of an erroneous view of the meaning of an "action" in the Limitation Acts, it is not, in my judgment, an unsatisfactory result . . .” If I am painfully aware of this, it is because it was my case; I was Ridgeway Motors. Not that I represented myself back then, I had two barristers working in tandem on that appeal, the leading Counsel paid for by a group of Lloyds 'names'. p.s. what page of what topic was it where you made that comment? I meant to reply to it there but cannot find it again, and it is an 'interesting' point that bears wider distribution.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 5, 2017 23:17:35 GMT
Yes of course you can have a 'houseboat' if you do not have a mooring, we just wouldn't issue you with a 'Houseboat Certificate' because you don't have a Canal & River Trust Mooring. These are only issued for boats covered by a Canal & River Trust mooring agreement and the houseboat certificate and Trust mooring agreement must run concurrently with the same expiry date. This is yet another example of gross illegality. Houseboat Certificates under the 1971 Act are NOT limited to sites owned or run by CaRT. The legislation specifically provides that in cases where a third party owned mooring has terminated the mooring rights of a certificated houseboat, the Certificate loses validity. that situation could not apply if such certificates were not to be issued to houseboats on moorings other than CaRT's.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 6, 2017 1:29:24 GMT
Well, it's better than the other effort, but it's still a bit of C&RT dreamed up nonsense rather than something carrying any weight in law. S.3(1) of the 1971 BW Act excludes any self-propelled vessel capable of being steered and controlled from being a 'houseboat', . . . something which C&RT find convenient to ignore when selecting boats to be evicted from their waters. I cant see that on my copy. It only says its not any craft used for bona fide navigation ? It's there via inference Richard, . . . a self-propelled vessel equipped with functional and effective steering and engine movement controls would not be so equipped for any purpose other than navigation.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 6, 2017 15:08:24 GMT
News just in over today's case in London.
It went exactly as expected - judge said he should have signed the T&C's under duress, and then brought a Judicial Review.
Having filed no Defence, there was nothing to appeal from a decision that, having no licence he must leave the waterways within 14 days, and pay the costs in the action.
Allegedly, the judge had not even seen or read the boater's "affidavit" - which if true was probably as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2017 15:19:08 GMT
In that case, I shall have a look at doing exactly what the judge advised.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 6, 2017 16:10:31 GMT
This was my first response 9 days ago on seeing the 'affidavit' prepared by the boater [but apparently never read by the judge]: -
Well that was all very entertaining, and I like the way this chap thinks – but his approach means he will lose this case, despite the fact that on the core issue, he is absolutely correct that CaRT had no business claiming that his consent to T&C’s was mandatory before they issued the licence. The case is so simple – if the 1962 Act had the effect claimed, the 1995 Act s.17 was otiose – except that as we DO now have the 1995 Act, IF the 1962 Act had had the effect claimed, it no longer does, because that would be incompatible with the later Act. HOWEVER – NONE of that simple argument has been put forward, and it is far too late to do so now. It is a pity, because the Witness Statement sets out a case based on this stupidity that is unequivocal and beautifully challengeable. It makes for a case of blinding simplicity. That is all a lost opportunity. Largely, I suspect that for all the fascinating concepts that Mr x has brought into this [and some of them will repay consideration], he has failed to understand how jurisprudence works here, and the relevant CPR. The court will not now be looking at any argument in defence, and will certainly not consider any of the esoteric challenges, which will only serve to rile the judge. None of the material presented by the defendant being relevant to the request under Part 8, the judge will rubber stamp that, and under the circumstances he will have so exercised his discretion as to be unchallengeable at Appeal. The facts are: for whatever reason the boat has no licence; the boat requires a licence to be where it is; ergo CaRT are entitled to remove the boat because it is where it is without lawful authority. My recommendation remains the same: send the money with the application ticked in all the asked for boxes, and with info re insurance and BSSC provided, together with a CC declaration; include a cover letter noting that this is done under protest and that it does not, in his opinion, constitute a legal contract. Write to the Court indicating that all demands have been met without concession to his claims. Later, should he wish, he can bring an appropriate action. Ideally, should he wish his day in court, wait until the next renewal date looms, and have a Judicial Review case very well prepared in advance, with the assistance of as much NBTA and others advice that is available. That would simply and clearly challenge the authority’s decision to refuse a licence for a boat that met all the statutory conditions. A fight for another day.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 6, 2017 16:38:16 GMT
In that case, I shall have a look at doing exactly what the judge advised. One of the interesting details from this boater’s affidavit was a quote from R v Lancashire County Council, ex p Huddleston[1986] 2 All ER 941 at 945, 136 NLJ Rep 562, CA
Whatever his reason for including it, and regardless of the overall tone of the message [that government should be held accountable], there is an element in this judgment from Sir John Donaldson MR that disturbingly reinforces an impression I have gained from Administrative Court proceedings: - ' Notwithstanding that the courts have for centuries exercised a limited supervisory jurisdiction by means of the prerogative writs, the wider remedy of judicial review and the evolution of what is, in effect, a specialist administrative or public law court is a post-war development. This development has created a new relationship between the courts and those who derive their authority from the public law, one of partnership based on a common aim, namely the maintenance of the highest standards of public administration'. Maintaining highest standards is admirable – but the relationship between the court and public authorities being “ a partnership”?!!!! It is a consideration to bear in mind before bring Judicial Reviews – which are matters for the Administrative Court – because the inevitable bias will always be in favour of upholding the probity of authorities in the interests of public confidence. Cases must be extraordinarily well researched and prepared beforehand.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 6, 2017 18:25:37 GMT
News just in over today's case in London. It went exactly as expected - judge said he should have signed the T&C's under duress, and then brought a Judicial Review. Having filed no Defence, there was nothing to appeal from a decision that, having no licence he must leave the waterways within 14 days, and pay the costs in the action. Allegedly, the judge had not even seen or read the boater's "affidavit" - which if true was probably as well. Are there any indications as to what his immediate intentions are ? My inclination would be to render today's Declaration/Injunction academic and pointless by putting in an un-refuseable application, filled in as advised by the Judge, for a fresh Licence first thing on Monday morning.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 6, 2017 18:38:51 GMT
I would like to see whether those involved in the Tadworth case who have admitted in writing that the CCJ does not prevent a new licence application, try this lie on again.
I will write to the new head of legal dept. to confirm he is aware of this. They seem to keep forgetting !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 6, 2017 18:56:25 GMT
I would like to see whether those involved in the Tadworth case who have admitted in writing that the CCJ does not prevent a new licence application, try this lie on again. I couldn't agree more, Richard, . . . C&RT have just dug themselves a nice big hole, and the opportunity to shove them into it should not be missed.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 6, 2017 18:57:28 GMT
Are there any indications as to what his immediate intentions are ? My inclination would be to render today's Declaration/Injunction academic and pointless by putting in an un-refuseable application, filled in as advised by the Judge, for a fresh Licence first thing on Monday morning. I have been firing off queries Tony [indirectly, because I am not in direct communication], with no responses thus far. On past performance, the chap having politely accepted advice but not taking it, it seems unlikely that he is going to belatedly apply it. The whole scenario should be a lesson to everyone who feels gung-ho about their rights and the iniquity of the authority, that challenges to the abuses simply has to be informed and considered, with advantage taken of all the available advice and sources of help, well in advance of necessity for it.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Jan 6, 2017 18:59:31 GMT
I recently said (in the other place) that words do not change their meaning just because they are used in legislation. Obviously, I was wrong! Regardlees of any applicability to the context of your comment, as a general comment you were wrong. It has been held possible for legislation to use wording having a specialist meaning in law that differs from common usage. See Bennion on Statute Law reference Ridgeways v Alts. www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/fb/2006/2006-033-aer-2005.pdf “ A word or phrase may have ‘a special legal meaning derived from its legislative history’: Ridgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd v ALTS Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 92, [2005] 2 All ER 304, at [29].” (snip) p.s. what page of what topic was it where you made that comment? I meant to reply to it there but cannot find it again, and it is an 'interesting' point that bears wider distribution. Thanks for picking me up for loose language! I accept that a word can have a more precise meaning in legislation than in general use: an excellent example of this is, in fact, the word "houseboat" ! However, I would find it odd if a word when used in legislation had a LESS precise meaning than in general use. I used it in post 11 here P.S. I really should have put a couple of smileys on my quoted comment
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 6, 2017 19:46:39 GMT
News just in over today's case in London. It went exactly as expected - judge said he should have signed the T&C's under duress, and then brought a Judicial Review. Having filed no Defence, there was nothing to appeal from a decision that, having no licence he must leave the waterways within 14 days, and pay the costs in the action. Allegedly, the judge had not even seen or read the boater's "affidavit" - which if true was probably as well. He doesnt have to go anywhere, he just has to put a licence application in , I would have given it to CRT in the court room to really make them look stupid. They have just gone to court and only acheived to get the cost of their own action awarded to them. They might as well sue themselves for the cost of suing themselves.
|
|