Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 10:38:51 GMT
It's not a flaky case if they are attempting to get a license issued. CRT are breaking the law by refusing one if he has the relevant documentation. well done for bringing back to the point. People seem to get caught up on the fact it's an immigrants boat or the asthetics and lose sight of the issue cart arbitrarily refused to luscence the boat. That’s why it’s going to court I guess. CRT don’t think they arbitrarily refused a licence, but the NBTA think they did. Do you think being an immigrant or having a scruffy boat will come up at the hearing?
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Jul 31, 2019 10:57:52 GMT
The wider problem here is that CRT, being legally unable to stop this boat being licensed, will go to their masters with the perfect example of why without new laws London and other waterways will turn into a floating shanty town.
Very similar situations previously have ended with laws preventing stopping on highways, made more than 3 people in one place a potential riot and of course put an end to mostly respectful squatting otherwise unoccupied housing.
It's always someone needlessly pushing the envelope messing it up for everyone else. In this case CRT don't need to manufacture the situation, there will always be some selfish arse ready to do it for them while simultaneously masquerading as a freedom fighter, probably to impress the girls. It's a shame that NBTA get themselves in cases where there will be little public sympathy, if they were serious about protecting vulnerable boaters and the future of CCing they'd sacrifice the piss takers and concentrate on the PR positive cases. Just my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 11:03:50 GMT
The wider problem here is that CRT, being legally unable to stop this boat being licensed, will go to their masters with the perfect example of why without new laws London and other waterways will turn into a floating shanty town. Very similar situations previously have ended with laws preventing stopping on highways, made more than 3 people in one place a potential riot and of course put an end to mostly respectful squatting otherwise unoccupied housing. It's always someone needlessly pushing the envelope messing it up for everyone else. In this case CRT don't need to manufacture the situation, there will always be some selfish arse ready to do it for them while simultaneously masquerading as a freedom fighter, probably to impress the girls. It's a shame that NBTA get themselves in cases where there will be little public sympathy, if they were serious about protecting vulnerable boaters and the future of CCing they'd sacrifice the piss takers and concentrate on the PR positive cases. Just my opinion. ...but don’t forget that we live in a time where some of the ‘gentry’ also take the piss and are trying to stop people living on boats and outside their ‘system’.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Jul 31, 2019 11:13:03 GMT
The wider problem here is that CRT, being legally unable to stop this boat being licensed, will go to their masters with the perfect example of why without new laws London and other waterways will turn into a floating shanty town. Very similar situations previously have ended with laws preventing stopping on highways, made more than 3 people in one place a potential riot and of course put an end to mostly respectful squatting otherwise unoccupied housing. It's always someone needlessly pushing the envelope messing it up for everyone else. In this case CRT don't need to manufacture the situation, there will always be some selfish arse ready to do it for them while simultaneously masquerading as a freedom fighter, probably to impress the girls. It's a shame that NBTA get themselves in cases where there will be little public sympathy, if they were serious about protecting vulnerable boaters and the future of CCing they'd sacrifice the piss takers and concentrate on the PR positive cases. Just my opinion. ...but don’t forget that we live in a time where some of the ‘gentry’ also take the piss and are trying to stop people living on boats and outside their ‘system’. Is that a basis to support the piss takers though? Two wrongs don't make a right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 12:29:43 GMT
...but don’t forget that we live in a time where some of the ‘gentry’ also take the piss and are trying to stop people living on boats and outside their ‘system’. Is that a basis to support the piss takers though? Two wrongs don't make a right. No, both sides can be piss takers, nice try though.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 31, 2019 12:30:13 GMT
In the hope of preventing this thread becoming even more obscure and incomprehensible under any more speculative and irrelevant tripe, here are the essential facts, and a post I made on page 2 of this thread on 29 April this year :
* A man constructed a truly awful boat from an ex-Army pontoon which he then kept and lived on in a short stretch of the GU in the north London area due to the air draught being too great to get under the bridges at each end of his chosen length of canal.
* He couldn't comply with C&RT's CC'ing Guidelines so his Licence was revoked and in 2017 C&RT obtained one of their customary County Court Removal and Injunction Orders under Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
* To circumvent the above Order he re-named his floating shed and got his daughter to re-license it. C&RT issued a new Index No. to go with the new Licence application.
* The vessel was destroyed by fire in early 2018 and subsequently rebuilt by it's owner with an air draught reduced sufficiently to get under all the bridges it previously could not.
* The rebuilt and re-named vessel was recognized by C&RT as a completely different vessel, given another new Index No., and issued with a new Licence and a Winter Mooring Permit for 2018-19.
* On expiry of the Winter Mooring Permit the owner began regularly moving the (licensed) boat in full compliance with C&RT's CC'ing Guidelines, only to be rewarded by C&RT once again revoking his Licence, but this time on the invalid and unlawful grounds that they considered the vessel to be 'unsafe'.
* Numerous attempts to intervene and reason with C&RT on the boat owner's behalf by the local NBTA representative came to nought and, with C&RT relying solely on the 2017 Court Order specifying the earlier vessel which had been destroyed by fire in 2018, the present and fully compliant in every respect vessel was, along with the owner's personal effects, possessions, and work tools, forcibly and unlawfully seized by C&RT at Harlesden, towed to Bull's Bridge, lifted out onto a lorry, and transported to C&RT's contractor's yard in Chester.
and :
My post from page 2 of this thread on 29 April 2019 :
I applaud your sentiments patty, but the only way that there's going to be any further Court involvement in this matter will be a Claim against C&RT founded in the unlawful seizure and removal of this man's boat from the canal, . . . which, unless they have legitimate grounds, and go through the entire Section 8 process starting with the mandatory notice called for under Section 17(4) of the 1995 British Waterways Act, will be a wholly unlawful act exceeding their statutory powers and authority, and contrary to the 1267 Statute of Marlborough, the 2007 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act, and the 1977 Torts(Interference with Goods) Act.
___________________________________________
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 12:47:38 GMT
NBTA are claiming against CRT for not issuing a licence, not for ‘unlawful seizure’. Well not yet it would appear. I can see that might be the next stage.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 31, 2019 12:55:09 GMT
The wider problem here is that CRT, being legally unable to stop this boat being licensed, will go to their masters with the perfect example of why without new laws London and other waterways will turn into a floating shanty town. Very similar situations previously have ended with laws preventing stopping on highways, made more than 3 people in one place a potential riot and of course put an end to mostly respectful squatting otherwise unoccupied housing. Being “ legally unable to stop this (or any other) boat being licensed” has never stopped them before. It should be borne in mind that the preponderance of lawsuits they have instigated have all been in the County Courts, where authorities are usually given the benefit of the doubt as to the proportionality of their proposed actions, although that assumption was dented somewhat following the successful Jones v Canal and River Trust appeal in 2017. CaRT have no powers to promote new primary legislation, which is what would be necessary to amend licensing law, though they could promote useful byelaws for the control of moorings. Any amending primary legislation would have to originate from government, although I accept that CaRT could utilise the lobbying firms they employ, to help persuade Parliament of the necessity. It is possible that any such legislation would only be countenanced if it could be made as part of a over-arching Act covering all major navigation authorities.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jul 31, 2019 13:05:10 GMT
It does seem to me that after his first licence was revoked as it was physically incapable of bone fide cruising, simply renaming the boat and getting his daughter to licence it working on the assumption that it would be considered to be a different vessel possibly marked his card as a bit of a piss taker. Perhaps CRT are wrong for allowing previous form to influence subsequent applications but this is pretty much the way any licencing authority behaves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 13:18:52 GMT
It does seem to me that after his first licence was revoked as it was physically incapable of bone fide cruising, simply renaming the boat and getting his daughter to licence it working on the assumption that it would be considered to be a different vessel possibly marked his card as a bit of a piss taker. Perhaps CRT are wrong for allowing previous form to influence subsequent applications but this is pretty much the way any licencing authority behaves. As a new owner, she does not, and cannot be lumbered with the previous history of the previous owner. No licensing authority behaves like that. The law is only interested in the law. What she did was perfectly legal. CRT are now praying that they will get away with the illegal behaviour they employed. If CRT lose this, they are in deep shit.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 31, 2019 13:33:01 GMT
NBTA are claiming against CRT for not issuing a licence, not for ‘unlawful seizure’. Well not yet it would appear. I can see that might be the next stage. Were that so, then they would be barking up completely the wrong tree ! C&RT didn't refuse to issue a Licence, . . they simply stated that they had revoked the current Licence on the grounds that the vessel was deemed to be 'unsafe', . . something which is NOT within their authority or power to do. The action such as that taken by C&RT in seizing and depriving Mr Szymanski of his boat has been illegal and punishable as a criminal offence under the Statute of Marlborough since 1267, the provisions of which are expanded upon and furthered under the 2007 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act. The taking possession of and removal of the vessel and it's contents absent an authorizing Order from a Court lays C&RT open to a civil action for 'wrongful interference with goods' under the 1977 Torts (Interference with Goods) Act.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jul 31, 2019 13:37:27 GMT
It does seem to me that after his first licence was revoked as it was physically incapable of bone fide cruising, simply renaming the boat and getting his daughter to licence it working on the assumption that it would be considered to be a different vessel possibly marked his card as a bit of a piss taker. Perhaps CRT are wrong for allowing previous form to influence subsequent applications but this is pretty much the way any licencing authority behaves. As a new owner, she does not, and cannot be lumbered with the previous history of the previous owner. No licensing authority behaves like that. Well I disagree here because Traffic Commissioners can and regularly do refuse to issue an Operator's Licence because they feel that that the applicant is a "ghost" and that the operation would in reality be undertaken by a previously disqualified operator.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 13:41:03 GMT
As a new owner, she does not, and cannot be lumbered with the previous history of the previous owner. No licensing authority behaves like that. Well I disagree here because Traffic Commissioners can and regularly do refuse to issue an Operator's Licence because they feel that that the applicant is a "ghost" and that the operation would in reality be undertaken by a previously disqualified operator. She was not refused the licence, neither was she a ghost in the eye of the law. Also, CRT cannot disqualify anyone from their waterways. Like I said, no other licensing authority behaves like this.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 31, 2019 13:45:28 GMT
As a new owner, she does not, and cannot be lumbered with the previous history of the previous owner. No licensing authority behaves like that. Well I disagree here because Traffic Commissioners can and regularly do refuse to issue an Operator's Licence because they feel that that the applicant is a "ghost" and that the operation would in reality be undertaken by a previously disqualified operator. In what way do you imagine that an Operators Licence issued by the Traffic Commissioners bears any resemblance to or compares in any way with a Pleasure Boat Licence issued by the C&RT ?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jul 31, 2019 13:49:24 GMT
Well I disagree here because Traffic Commissioners can and regularly do refuse to issue an Operator's Licence because they feel that that the applicant is a "ghost" and that the operation would in reality be undertaken by a previously disqualified operator. In what way do you imagine that an Operators Licence issued by the Traffic Commissioners bears any resemblance to or compares in any way with a Pleasure Boat Licence issued by the C&RT ? Both are issued by licensing authorities.
|
|