|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 23, 2019 18:05:52 GMT
Which is exactly what they are doing, and what you are whinging about! Alright then, . . let's have some instances of C&RT doing that ! Let me know when you're tired of looking, . . C&RT have never prosecuted any boater for Licence/Registration evasion, or sought to recover unpaid fees and/or charges under the appropriate legislation since they came into existence in 2012. They have, and that’s what they are seeking to do to you. Just not using the method that you would prefer them to use.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 23, 2019 18:47:47 GMT
Alright then, . . let's have some instances of C&RT doing that ! Let me know when you're tired of looking, . . C&RT have never prosecuted any boater for Licence/Registration evasion, or sought to recover unpaid fees and/or charges under the appropriate legislation since they came into existence in 2012. They have, and that’s what they are seeking to do to you. Just not using the method that you would prefer them to use. I suspect that you're simply indulging in some rather silly games here, Nick, and that you do in fact know that what you're posting is complete and utter nonsense. For the benefit of anyone who is genuinely confused, however, I'll explain the reality just once more. C&RT have filed a Part 8 Claim (under the Civil Procedure Rules) for : 1) A Declaration (by the Court) that they (the Trust) are entitled to remove my boat from it's private mooring on the River Trent, ie. take possession of and transport across the country to Chester by lorry. This is to be accomplished at C&RT's expense by contractors to whom they will hand over around £5000 to cover initial expenses. The contractors will then charge C&RT for storage at a weekly rate. The Declaration will NOT, and cannot by law, include any Order for the payment of Licence or Registration fee arrears. 2) An ultra vires Injunction preventing me from returning the boat to any C&RT controlled waters, including publicly navigable (PRN) river waterways without first buying a boat Licence, which covers future use of the boat on C&RT controlled canals and river waterways. Again, and by it's very nature and form, the Injunction would make no stipulations as to the payment of any alleged arrears. . . . . . . . . . and that is it, . . nothing to be paid except the contractors invoiced craneage, transport and storage charges. So, come on Nick, treat everyone to the benefit of your astounding insight and explain exactly how any of that will help the Trust to recover a single penny of what they claim I owe them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2019 18:56:01 GMT
Looking at it from the point of view of a martian who has just landed here the logical suggestion would be that the people charging for the vessel removal and storage are in cahoots with the CRT people who themselves are able to provide more or less limitless funds to whoever they choose.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 23, 2019 22:12:41 GMT
They have, and that’s what they are seeking to do to you. Just not using the method that you would prefer them to use. I suspect that you're simply indulging in some rather silly games here, Nick, and that you do in fact know that what you're posting is complete and utter nonsense. For the benefit of anyone who is genuinely confused, however, I'll explain the reality just once more. C&RT have filed a Part 8 Claim (under the Civil Procedure Rules) for : 1) A Declaration (by the Court) that they (the Trust) are entitled to remove my boat from it's private mooring on the River Trent, ie. take possession of and transport across the country to Chester by lorry. This is to be accomplished at C&RT's expense by contractors to whom they will hand over around £5000 to cover initial expenses. The contractors will then charge C&RT for storage at a weekly rate. The Declaration will NOT, and cannot by law, include any Order for the payment of Licence or Registration fee arrears. 2) An ultra vires Injunction preventing me from returning the boat to any C&RT controlled waters, including publicly navigable (PRN) river waterways without first buying a boat Licence, which covers future use of the boat on C&RT controlled canals and river waterways. Again, and by it's very nature and form, the Injunction would make no stipulations as to the payment of any alleged arrears. . . . . . . . . . and that is it, . . nothing to be paid except the contractors invoiced craneage, transport and storage charges. So, come on Nick, treat everyone to the benefit of your astounding insight and explain exactly how any of that will help the Trust to recover a single penny of what they claim I owe them. Your fundamental mistake is to presume that CRT’s primary motivation is to extract money from you. You are quite mistaken. The fundamental motivation for CRT is to demonstrate that “licence evasion” (as they see it) doesn’t pay and you risk losing your boat as a consequence. In other words, deterrent. If the worst case scenario was losing a few hundred quid for a failure to buy a “licence” costing many hundreds of quids, where would be the deterrent? And with a consequence that the great unwashed boater would say “fuck you CRT, I’m not buying a “licence”, and bring it on!”. But unfortunately (or fortunately, if you like being entertained) you can’t see beyond your own specific and personal circumstance.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 23, 2019 22:26:18 GMT
Looking at it from the point of view of a martian who has just landed here the logical suggestion would be that the people charging for the vessel removal and storage are in cahoots with the CRT people who themselves are able to provide more or less limitless funds to whoever they choose. . . . . . . . . . and who could blame him ?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 23, 2019 22:47:38 GMT
I suspect that you're simply indulging in some rather silly games here, Nick, and that you do in fact know that what you're posting is complete and utter nonsense. For the benefit of anyone who is genuinely confused, however, I'll explain the reality just once more. C&RT have filed a Part 8 Claim (under the Civil Procedure Rules) for : 1) A Declaration (by the Court) that they (the Trust) are entitled to remove my boat from it's private mooring on the River Trent, ie. take possession of and transport across the country to Chester by lorry. This is to be accomplished at C&RT's expense by contractors to whom they will hand over around £5000 to cover initial expenses. The contractors will then charge C&RT for storage at a weekly rate. The Declaration will NOT, and cannot by law, include any Order for the payment of Licence or Registration fee arrears. 2) An ultra vires Injunction preventing me from returning the boat to any C&RT controlled waters, including publicly navigable (PRN) river waterways without first buying a boat Licence, which covers future use of the boat on C&RT controlled canals and river waterways. Again, and by it's very nature and form, the Injunction would make no stipulations as to the payment of any alleged arrears. . . . . . . . . . and that is it, . . nothing to be paid except the contractors invoiced craneage, transport and storage charges. So, come on Nick, treat everyone to the benefit of your astounding insight and explain exactly how any of that will help the Trust to recover a single penny of what they claim I owe them. If the worst case scenario was losing a few hundred quid for a failure to buy a “licence” costing many hundreds of quids, where would be the deterrent? And with a consequence that the great unwashed boater would say “fuck you CRT, I’m not buying a “licence”, and bring it on!”. Stop being obtuse, Nick, moneys recovered as a Judgment debt invariably end up costing the defendant a lot more than the sum claimed. Can't you do any better than to parrot the same lame argument that C&RT always hides behind when challenged over their inappropriate use of Section 8 powers ?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 23, 2019 22:54:40 GMT
If the worst case scenario was losing a few hundred quid for a failure to buy a “licence” costing many hundreds of quids, where would be the deterrent? And with a consequence that the great unwashed boater would say “fuck you CRT, I’m not buying a “licence”, and bring it on!”. Stop being obtuse, Nick, moneys recovered as a Judgment debt invariably end up costing the defendant a lot more than the sum claimed. Can't you do any better than to parrot the same lame argument that C&RT always hides behind when challenged over their inappropriate use of Section 8 powers ? Well alright a few hundred quid plus a bit. But are you really unable to see the point, which is that the ends justify the means - ie the deterrent factor is the agenda, not the cash sums involved in an individual case? Even if we raise the penalty under your idea of what it should be, to say the cost of a “licence”, it’s probably still worth the risk. But when the penalty is your boat, suddenly maybe it isn’t worth the risk. All of which said, the above is about licence evasion generally, not necessarily your specific case where the need for a “licence” is questionable. But as I said, it isn’t all about your personal circumstances, no matter how much you wish it was.
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Feb 23, 2019 23:02:53 GMT
Tony, I am sure you will have picked up on it even though you make no mention here, but Ms Barry’s email of 21 Feb displays an even more glaring example of sloppiness and iincompetence. She is asking you you return your signed Consent Order for a hearing on 13th March no later than 25th March - “to be in good time for the hearing”. Perhaps she needs some compassionate leave for stress!.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 23, 2019 23:13:20 GMT
Stop being obtuse, Nick, moneys recovered as a Judgment debt invariably end up costing the defendant a lot more than the sum claimed. Can't you do any better than to parrot the same lame argument that C&RT always hides behind when challenged over their inappropriate use of Section 8 powers ? Well alright a few hundred quid plus a bit. But are you really unable to see the point, which is that the ends justify the means - ie the deterrent factor is the agenda, not the cash sums involved in an individual case? Even if we raise the penalty under your idea of what it should be, to say the cost of a “licence”, it’s probably still worth the risk. But when the penalty is your boat, suddenly maybe it isn’t worth the risk. All of which said, the above is about licence evasion generally, not necessarily your specific case where the need for a “licence” is questionable. But as I said, it isn’t all about your personal circumstances, no matter how much you wish it was. Why the assumption that any of this arises from my ''personal circumstances'', . . that's something completely irrelevant that you alone have chosen to introduce. C&RT's contempt for the law, and due process, is but one aspect of my general beef with the world class bog-up they've made of the job they were created to do.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 23, 2019 23:24:03 GMT
Well alright a few hundred quid plus a bit. But are you really unable to see the point, which is that the ends justify the means - ie the deterrent factor is the agenda, not the cash sums involved in an individual case? Even if we raise the penalty under your idea of what it should be, to say the cost of a “licence”, it’s probably still worth the risk. But when the penalty is your boat, suddenly maybe it isn’t worth the risk. All of which said, the above is about licence evasion generally, not necessarily your specific case where the need for a “licence” is questionable. But as I said, it isn’t all about your personal circumstances, no matter how much you wish it was. Why the assumption that any of this arises from my ''personal circumstances'', . . that's something completely irrelevant that you alone have chosen to introduce. So remind us, how many other people are in the same situation as you - boat moored to private land on the Trent outside MNC and never moving, but with CRT harassing them to pay for a “licence”?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 24, 2019 0:28:05 GMT
Tony, I am sure you will have picked up on it even though you make no mention here, but Ms Barry’s email of 21 Feb displays an even more glaring example of sloppiness and iincompetence. She is asking you you return your signed Consent Order for a hearing on 13th March no later than 25th March - “to be in good time for the hearing”. Perhaps she needs some compassionate leave for stress!. Yes, I had a good chuckle about that, David. I've collected a fair quantity of correspondence with the delightful Ms. Barry since our first encounter in 2014, and it has to be said that her propensity for glaring errors in paperwork is sometimes quite staggering. She also has a rather endearing habit of adding or omitting single words from quoted parts or sections of statutes in pleadings, and the odd thing is that, quite by chance I'm sure, her additions or omissions always seem to alter the meaning of the affected passage in her side's favour. One could almost be forgiven for regarding such oddities as deliberate attempts to misdirect Judges who don't have the time, or the inclination, to verify the wording for themselves. If she is suffering from stress arising out of her relatively new lofty position as the Trust's Senior Solicitor-Advocate, it would be gratifying to think that I may have made some small contribution to it. Back on page 4 of this thread you put up a post referring to the way the terms 'licence' and 'licensing' were used by the TC and their EA successors in connection with the Thames registration requirements and the 1932 TC Act. I didn't reply to your post at the time, but it did prompt me to a thorough trawl through the 1932 Act and very enlightening it was too, particularly the way a 'licence' is defined in respect of the Act together with the concept of 'licensing' an unregistered vessel to permit it to be used on the Thames for a specific purpose. There are distinct echoes of the 1932 Act's treatment of 'licences' and 'licensing' in the 1971 BW Act's provision to exempt holders of Boat (canal) Licences from the requirement to register a pleasure boat for use on the river waterways listed in Schedule 1 of the 1971 BW Act. Thank you very much for drawing attention to it.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 24, 2019 1:00:37 GMT
Why the assumption that any of this arises from my ''personal circumstances'', . . that's something completely irrelevant that you alone have chosen to introduce. So remind us, how many other people are in the same situation as you - boat moored to private land on the Trent outside MNC and never moving, but with CRT harassing them to pay for a “licence”? It is apparent that before we take this any further you, and any other like-minded C&RT devotees, need reminding of the fact that I, and not the C&RT, instigated this dispute, and that in 36 days time it will attain it's third birthday. To describe such hesitant and unspectacular progress on the part of the Trust's high turnover gang of bumbling lawyers as a form of harassment is hardly apposite. I've no idea how many others are being pursued by the C&RT in similar, somewhat farcical proceedings, and nor is the number of any relevance to the constraints the PRN imposes on C&RT, which incidentally, is the mainstay of my argument, and not the MNC issue as you, in your confusion, stated earlier. Re-reading my 22 February e-mail to C&RT's lawyers might help you to get a better grasp of the true situation. I am, however, very interested in the thousands of phony 'Rivers only Licences' that C&RT have fraudulently issued in place of the Pleasure Boat Certificate specified and called for in statute to be issued against a registration fee payable by the boat owner. I am also very interested in the total VAT take that C&RT have illegally collected from every boat owner they have lied to and conned into believing that they are buying a 'Rivers only Licence' since July 2012. Boat Licences do attract VAT, and applying it to Boat Licence fees is therefore perfectly legitimate. Boat Registration fees, however, do NOT attract VAT and therefore collecting it on phony 'Licence' fees which in truth are 'registration' fees is illegal. Anyone having any doubts about this should check with HMRC, and the EA as to HMRC's instructions on not collecting VAT on boat registration fees.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 24, 2019 9:58:25 GMT
Why the assumption that any of this arises from my ''personal circumstances'', . . that's something completely irrelevant that you alone have chosen to introduce. So remind us, how many other people are in the same situation as you - boat moored to private land on the Trent outside MNC and never moving, but with CRT harassing them to pay for a “licence”? There are more than just Tony, quite a few are in similar situations. Not just on the Trent either, but rather than discuss the issues you'd rather revert to type and try to wind Tony up.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 24, 2019 10:21:45 GMT
It seems to me that people chipping away at the edge of the law is liable to eventually lead to the law being tightened up. Like they did with squatting in residential buildings. There is plenty of freedom but some people to insist on trying their hardest to get those freedoms taken away just to save a few quid. And its not a lot of money a few hundred quid a year. It seems to me your thinking on these issues is a little muddled. Who is chipping away at the law? The freedoms as you put it are getting taken away, but in a dishonest and under hand way. If cart want to change any of the legislation they should go back to parliment and do it legally. Trying to do it the way they are at the moment isn't legal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2019 10:34:27 GMT
It seems to me that people chipping away at the edge of the law is liable to eventually lead to the law being tightened up. Like they did with squatting in residential buildings. There is plenty of freedom but some people to insist on trying their hardest to get those freedoms taken away just to save a few quid. And its not a lot of money a few hundred quid a year. It seems to me your thinking on these issues is a little muddled. Who is chipping away at the law? The freedoms as you put it are getting taken away, but in a dishonest and under hand way. If cart want to change any of the legislation they should go back to parliment and do it legally. Trying to do it the way they are at the moment isn't legal. There are piss takers at both ends of the scale though (and in the middle). The ones with lots of money and power often get away with it and can cause more damage to society. The trick is not to give the powers that be the excuse to impose new rules and laws. Don’t forget that many boaters agree with CRT’s stance even if we don’t. We don’t want to give them the excuse to moan at CRT either (bearing in mind some of them also take the piss and expect special privalages). It is impossible to keep everyone happy. Although I don’t always see eye to eye with CRT, I have to admit they have a difficult balancing act,
|
|