Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2019 21:19:55 GMT
I just toe the line. If I don't do this they will take me out.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 30, 2019 4:31:45 GMT
So yet again I ask you, this means it's okay for cart to act outside of the law does it? I don't know what the law is so I can't really comment on whether CRT are acting within it or outside it, although I'd be surprised if there wasn't a by-law covering non-conventional vessels such as this. You - ''know what the law is" - now, because you were referred to the relevant Bye-laws on page 4) of this thread. BWB General Canal Bye-laws 3), 9), and 28) cover vessels being fit for use on the waterway they're intended for, being adequately and competently crewed, and being properly moored with adequate ropes ashore. Whilst you believe that BWB Bye-law 3) should be rigorously applied to the point of illegally removing Mr Szymanski and his boat from the waterways, it is apparent that you also believe that you are personally exempt from complying with BWB Bye-laws 9) and 28), . . presumably in much the same as you exempted yourself from complying with Port of London Authority Bye-law 8.1(d) in August last year.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 30, 2019 4:54:54 GMT
Yes but then your not a great authority on sanity. Or compassion ? - made much of another poor person on the Shroppie near Nantwich with photos etc …. I seem to remember..? This is the boat that's covered in bags of rubbish, is it? Floating health hazard? Bet you don't want it parked up beside you!
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 30, 2019 6:07:42 GMT
There's a boat just up from where I work that looks equally or more DIY than the boat discussed in this thread. I'll take a photo of it later. Yet, the CRT (as far as I understand) have not only not sought to remove it from the cut but have given the boat permission to remain where it is on what is apparently a visitor mooring. I don't know the full details (or any details for that matter) but I wonder how they let one DIY boat remain on the canal but not another.
Weird thing about that story is if he's trying to pull his boat to London from Liverpool, surely he's going the wrong way if he's ended up in Leeds.
**Thread drift warning** Apologies to the elderly of spirit and infirm of mind that get confused. Reading wellies post, this was a suggested read, I was drawn to the shot of TimnPru on the summit of the Rochdale. www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/775257/living-on-a-narrowboatAs you were....
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 30, 2019 6:13:13 GMT
He's not putting any effort into any of those shots, slack hauling ropes. No wonder he's taking 25 years. He should be s8ed for those shirts.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 30, 2019 6:14:58 GMT
That's very gracious of you to call me erudite. Your welcome, I don't know what it means. it's a glue.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 30, 2019 7:16:25 GMT
Perhaps the biggest tragedy is that Mr Dunkley did not end up working for CRT as an advisor, and the same with Nigel Moore (?).
Then, things would have been done properly, I'd suggest. Is it too late to apply for a position as 'Special Advisor' or somesuch title?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2019 7:25:17 GMT
I believe the Piano boat is a thing of beauty and enhances a rather dreary spot where he has a legitimate offside mooring (or that was the case last year when we passed by).
I don't believe the Piano boat is in the same category as the subject of the o.p.
Regarding the caravan/boat, I have read the interpretations of the relevant legislation posted here, but have yet to see C&RT's explanation of their actions. Without both sides it is difficult to draw a conclusion.
Having said that C&RT's track record in pursuing 'non comformist boaters' helps.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 30, 2019 8:03:08 GMT
I don't think anybody has ever claimed its a good boat. But that doesn't give cart the right to just arbitrarily decide revoke its liscence. Well it should do. Ownership of aesthetically displeasing boats should have been outlawed years ago. Best tidy your rooves then!
|
|
|
Post by patty on Apr 30, 2019 14:06:33 GMT
I like that boat..it has a certain something...as for pulling it along, its going to take sometime to get wherever but I guess he has the rest of his life...
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Apr 30, 2019 14:45:38 GMT
At least he has made the effort to tie it up properly ! And he hasn't taken the engine out and sat it on the stern deck for three weeks for no discernible reason. Your boat looks big enough to have room for a few more records, they sell them very cheap in Oxfam stores, if you treat yourself with a few of these (or even with only one) you can throw this broken one out. Peter.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 30, 2019 16:47:34 GMT
Regarding the caravan/boat, I have read the interpretations of the relevant legislation posted here, but have yet to see C&RT's explanation of their actions. Without both sides it is difficult to draw a conclusion. C&RT haven't in fact taken any real action action yet, Rog. So far their activity has been confined to making only threats of action which is beyond that which statute empowers them to take. C&RT have been, and still are being, questioned by the owner of the boat and those assisting him as to precisely which parts or sections of the relevant waterway legislation they are ultimately relying upon to lend the force of the law to their threats to seize and remove his boat, and to refuse to issue a new Licence to replace the one that they are claiming to have terminated solely by means of voluntarily paying the unused portion of the November 2018 Licence fee back into the boat owner's bank account immediately after his Winter Mooring Permit expired. So far they've been unable to comply with any of these written requests for clarification, and their latest e-mail, received this morning, ends with the words - " [we] do not propose to enter into further discussions with you on this point."
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Apr 30, 2019 17:10:27 GMT
This one to keep for the reasonable argument in caught.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Apr 30, 2019 17:11:27 GMT
I believe the Piano boat is a thing of beauty and enhances a rather dreary spot where he has a legitimate offside mooring (or that was the case last year when we passed by). I don't believe the Piano boat is in the same category as the subject of the o.p. Regarding the caravan/boat, I have read the interpretations of the relevant legislation posted here, but have yet to see C&RT's explanation of their actions. Without both sides it is difficult to draw a conclusion. Having said that C&RT's track record in pursuing 'non comformist boaters' helps. Rog I'm leaning on the fact they have no explanation that they could ever let out to be public knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 1, 2019 16:24:30 GMT
Here is the 30 April C&RT e-mail that I quoted from a little way back on this page :
Dear Mr Dunkley
The legislation cited does not prescribe what the Trust may or may not take into account when considering whether it is satisfied or not as to whether a boat will be used “bona fide for navigation”. Further the court, in this instance and in all others involving the consideration of this issue, has not found that it is not appropriate for the Trust to take into account past movement of a boat in carrying out this assessment.
I repeat my comments in my email below, and do not propose to enter into further discussions with you on this point.
Kind regards Lucy Barry Senior Solicitor-Advocate
_________________________________________________________
and here's the initial reply :
Ms. Barry,
Reference your e-mailed reply of 1029 hrs 30 April 2019.
Let us first dispose of your apparent confusion as to the nature of these communications. This exchange of e-mails is not simply a discussion from which you in your role as representative of the Trust can opt out of at will, unless of course, you wish formerly to abdicate responsibility for orchestrating the Trust's unlawful actions and pass it on to another employee. If this is so, please identify them to us, and pass this and and all future communications over to them.
Contrary to what is stated in in the above mentioned e-mail, S.17(3)[c](ii) of the 1995 Act is quite clear that an applicant for a relevant consent is required to "satisfy the Board" only with regard to the future use of the vessel in question, ie :
"the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates WILL be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid . . .".
There is nothing within Section 17, or elsewhere within the 1995 Act which empowers the Trust [the present 'Board'] to arbitrarily refuse, or revoke, a relevant consent on the grounds of some ill-defined historical non-compliance with mere 'guidelines' as to 'cruising' range with another vessel.
Before moving on from the question of the Trust's statutory obligation to renew, or more correctly, to re-issue and confirm the new expiry date of the current 12 month boat Licence it issued to Mr Szymanski in November 2018, it is appropriate to record how the Trust has again sought to engineer a situation in which it can once more satisfy it's appetite for imposing the most unnecessary of costly and draconian sanctions on another paying customer.
In order to manouevre Mr Szymanski into what would appear to outside observers or a Court to be the keeping and use of an unlicensed vessel on their waters the Trust wrote to him supposedly, and unlawfully, revoking his boat Licence with immediate effect following the expiry of the Winter Mooring Permit it had earlier been quite happy to issue to him. In it's unseemly haste to deprive Mr Szymanski of his boat and his home, however, the Trust failed to adhere to the procedure for terminating relevant consents laid down in S.17(4) of the 1995 Act, electing instead to attempt to lend legitimacy to this highly questionable act by voluntarily refunding the unused portion of the Licence fee back into his bank account.
Wishing to regularize the position with regard to the boat Licence, and to pay his just dues, Mr Szymanski has submitted a valid application for a replacement Licence to run from the date on which the previous Licence was supposedly terminated and the unused portion of the fee refunded. Despite the application being sent to the Trust by post and being recorded as received and signed for, the Licensing staff are now denying that it has ever been received, claiming that it cannot be found, and telling him over the phone that they cannot issue anything to Mr Szymanski without first referring the matter to the - quote - "local enforcement officer".
Following a satisfactory response to the above, attention will turn to other issues arising from the Trust's conduct in this matter.
Signed,
A.K.Dunkley (on behalf of Mr A.Szymanski)
|
|