|
Post by thebfg on May 1, 2019 22:22:06 GMT
Maybe cart should provide him with a mooring if they are so kean on him having one. Well, . . if they're so desperate to have him on a 'home mooring' and want to make it a pre-condition of formally re-instating his Licence, which in reality still has a further 6 months to run, then lacking the statutory powers to insist that anyone or any boat must have a 'home mooring', they would be obliged to provide him with one FoC. Nicely worded reply. I agree with what your saying but do you think it would cause many more people demanding a free mooring?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 2, 2019 4:12:12 GMT
FoC = free of charge, I'm guessing.
|
|
|
Post by patty on May 2, 2019 5:36:03 GMT
Interesting.. I do not like bully boy tactics in any shape or form, I viewed it in court during the time I became involved on a voluntary basis with several cases in tribunals.... It made me feel quite sick that those with money and power could be so dismissive and disrespectful of those with none....in the end I stopped as I became overwhelmed with the inequality of our legal system....the turning point for me was when they 'shredded' a nurses reputation who did, what any of us nurses would have done. I felt her pain and then thought I cannot do this anymore. I admire those who go out of their way to get involved and help the under dog.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 2, 2019 7:41:55 GMT
Well, . . if they're so desperate to have him on a 'home mooring' and want to make it a pre-condition of formally re-instating his Licence, which in reality still has a further 6 months to run, then lacking the statutory powers to insist that anyone or any boat must have a 'home mooring', they would be obliged to provide him with one FoC. I agree with what your saying but do you think it would cause many more people demanding a free mooring? Undoubtedly it would result in a torrent of requests for free moorings. But if C&RT wish to continue acting illegally, and in direct defiance of Parliament's decision not to allow them powers to restrict the issue of boat Licences to being conditional on having a 'home' mooring, then they really should be made to recognize that dishonesty, and contempt for the law, inevitably carries some sort of penalty.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 2, 2019 7:49:34 GMT
FoC = free of charge, I'm guessing. It do !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 9, 2019 16:04:46 GMT
The C&RT's delightful Ms. Barry has decided she doesn't want to talk to me anymore about her new employer's unlawful withdrawal of the Caravan Boat's Licence, and is now e-mailing all of her pseudo-legalistic fantasies to Marcus Trower, the NBTA's representative in the London area.
With the boat now about 10 miles away from where it was a couple of weeks ago, all the nonsense about the boat being 'unsafe', unable to move under it's own power, or 'unfit' for the waterway it's on has now been quietly dropped in favour of refusing a Licence on the grounds of insufficient boat movement up until two years ago, ie. May 2017, and no movement at all during the period 1 November 2018 to 31 March 2019, . . a period which just happens to have been covered by a Winter Mooring Permit !
Here's her latest effort :
Dear Marcus
Thank you for your email.
You have only quoted part of my email of 26 April 2019 in your email below. What I wrote in full was as follows:
“Mr Szymanski has been advised on numerous occasions previously as to how he has failed to meet the requirements, initially in our letter dated 18 April 2017. If he contends that the Trust’s decision is wrong then he is at liberty to provide evidence in support of this in order to satisfy the Trust that he would use the boat “bona fide for navigation”, which would then be considered.”
This was in relation to the fact that he had failed to continuously cruise during his previous licence period, and then also did not start any sort of real movement until April this year. During the period of his 6 month licence between June 2016 to November 2016 he only moved 3 km. During the period of his 6 month licence between December 2016 and May 2017 the boat did not move at all.
The main indicator that the Trust is able to use to consider whether a boater will bona fide navigate in future is what has been done in the past, during the period where the boater has been required to continuously cruise and satisfy the Trust of their ability to do so in the future in order to obtain a further licence on this basis. As Mr Szymanski failed to satisfy the Trust that he would use the boat bona fide for navigation, then he was advised that he would be required to obtain a home mooring in order to obtain a licence; this position remains the same. I apologise if there has been any confusion in this regard.
Kind regards Lucy Barry Senior Solicitor-Advocate ________________________________________________________
. . . and here's the reply :
Ms. Barry,
I refer to the e-mail sent to Mr Marcus Trower yesterday, May 8 2019.
Despite having been unable to comply with our earlier request to direct us to any legislation empowering the Trust to refuse or revoke a Licence on the grounds of an historical inability to 'continously cruise' with a previous boat which was too high to pass under many of the bridges along the canal upon which it was kept, you persist in harking back to those same periods of bridge height restricted boat usage from June 2016 to May 2017, all of which which precede the starting date of the 12 month Licence the Trust, quite properly, issued to Mr Szymanski's modified and rebuilt boat to run from 1 November 2018.
The fact that -quote-"Mr Szymanski's boat did not start any sort of real movement until April this year" is also cited as further justification for refusing to renew or reinstate the Licence issued for Mr Szymanski's boat on 1 November 2018 and subsequently, absent lawful grounds or process, declared by the Trust to have been terminated.
The period during which the vessel in question was static on a towpath mooring from 1 November 2018 to the end of March 2019, and upon which the Trust now relies to justify refusal of a Licence, was in fact covered by a Winter Mooring Permit which ran from 1 November 2018 to 16 March 2019. The vessel's presence in that same place and for that period was therefore, authorized, paid for, and entirely lawful.
It is abundantly clear that the threats and harassment to which Mr Szymanski is being subjected either have their origins in the Trust's Customer Services (sic) shambolic administration and record keeping, or are simply part of a dishonest and targeted campaign against a potentially vulnerable individual and his home. I suggest that the most appropriate way out of this intentionally created muddle would be a written apology for the distress that has been inflicted on Mr Szymanski, followed by a polite request for him to repay the unused, or unexpired, balance of the Licence fee which the Trust paid back into his bank account for no other reason than to manufacture a situation in which his boat would be ostensibly 'unlicensed' and therefore open to further contrived Section 8 and Court action.
Signed,
A.K.Dunkley (on behalf of Mr A.Szymanski)
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 9, 2019 16:09:45 GMT
Would I be right in saying he does not actually have to satisfy the TRUST about anything.
I'd like to see a judges face when he provides the evidence as to why he hasent moved until April year
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 9, 2019 16:21:14 GMT
Would I be right in saying he does not actually have to satisfy the TRUST about anything. I'd like to see a judges face when he provides the evidence as to why he hasent moved until April year Without a 'home' mooring he still has to 'satisfy' C&RT that he'll comply with Section 17(3)[c](ii) of the 1995 BW Act, but he has in fact already done that in applying for the Licence that ran from 1 November 2018, . . and which they are falsely claiming to have terminated !
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 10, 2019 18:24:09 GMT
Would I be right in saying he does not actually have to satisfy the TRUST about anything. I'd like to see a judges face when he provides the evidence as to why he hasent moved until April year Without a 'home' mooring he still has to 'satisfy' C&RT that he'll comply with Section 17(3)[c](ii) of the 1995 BW Act, but he has in fact already done that in applying for the Licence that ran from 1 November 2018, . . and which they are falsely claiming to have terminated ! Sorry I was being pedantic. It was he has to satisfy the board.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 11, 2019 7:33:21 GMT
The C&RT's delightful Ms. Barry has decided she doesn't want to talk to me anymore about her new employer's unlawful withdrawal of the Caravan Boat's Licence, and is now e-mailing all of her pseudo-legalistic fantasies to Marcus Trower, the NBTA's representative in the London area. With the boat now about 10 miles away from where it was a couple of weeks ago, all the nonsense about the boat being 'unsafe', unable to move under it's own power, or 'unfit' for the waterway it's on has now been quietly dropped in favour of refusing a Licence on the grounds of insufficient boat movement up until two years ago, ie. May 2017, and no movement at all during the period 1 November 2018 to 31 March 2019, . . a period which just happens to have been covered by a Winter Mooring Permit ! Here's her latest effort : Dear Marcus Thank you for your email. You have only quoted part of my email of 26 April 2019 in your email below. What I wrote in full was as follows: “Mr Szymanski has been advised on numerous occasions previously as to how he has failed to meet the requirements, initially in our letter dated 18 April 2017. If he contends that the Trust’s decision is wrong then he is at liberty to provide evidence in support of this in order to satisfy the Trust that he would use the boat “bona fide for navigation”, which would then be considered.” This was in relation to the fact that he had failed to continuously cruise during his previous licence period, and then also did not start any sort of real movement until April this year. During the period of his 6 month licence between June 2016 to November 2016 he only moved 3 km. During the period of his 6 month licence between December 2016 and May 2017 the boat did not move at all. The main indicator that the Trust is able to use to consider whether a boater will bona fide navigate in future is what has been done in the past, during the period where the boater has been required to continuously cruise and satisfy the Trust of their ability to do so in the future in order to obtain a further licence on this basis. As Mr Szymanski failed to satisfy the Trust that he would use the boat bona fide for navigation, then he was advised that he would be required to obtain a home mooring in order to obtain a licence; this position remains the same. I apologise if there has been any confusion in this regard. Kind regards Lucy Barry Senior Solicitor-Advocate________________________________________________________
. . . and here's the reply :
Ms. Barry,
I refer to the e-mail sent to Mr Marcus Trower yesterday, May 8 2019.
Despite having been unable to comply with our earlier request to direct us to any legislation empowering the Trust to refuse or revoke a Licence on the grounds of an historical inability to 'continously cruise' with a previous boat which was too high to pass under many of the bridges along the canal upon which it was kept, you persist in harking back to those same periods of bridge height restricted boat usage from June 2016 to May 2017, all of which which precede the starting date of the 12 month Licence the Trust, quite properly, issued to Mr Szymanski's modified and rebuilt boat to run from 1 November 2018.
The fact that -quote-"Mr Szymanski's boat did not start any sort of real movement until April this year" is also cited as further justification for refusing to renew or reinstate the Licence issued for Mr Szymanski's boat on 1 November 2018 and subsequently, absent lawful grounds or process, declared by the Trust to have been terminated.
The period during which the vessel in question was static on a towpath mooring from 1 November 2018 to the end of March 2019, and upon which the Trust now relies to justify refusal of a Licence, was in fact covered by a Winter Mooring Permit which ran from 1 November 2018 to 16 March 2019. The vessel's presence in that same place and for that period was therefore, authorized, paid for, and entirely lawful.
It is abundantly clear that the threats and harassment to which Mr Szymanski is being subjected either have their origins in the Trust's Customer Services (sic) shambolic administration and record keeping, or are simply part of a dishonest and targeted campaign against a potentially vulnerable individual and his home. I suggest that the most appropriate way out of this intentionally created muddle would be a written apology for the distress that has been inflicted on Mr Szymanski, followed by a polite request for him to repay the unused, or unexpired, balance of the Licence fee which the Trust paid back into his bank account for no other reason than to manufacture a situation in which his boat would be ostensibly 'unlicensed' and therefore open to further contrived Section 8 and Court action.
Signed,
A.K.Dunkley (on behalf of Mr A.Szymanski)
When I posted the above last Thursday, I neglected to mention the current position with regard to C&RT's earlier threats to snatch Mr Szymanski's boat under a spent Court Order/Injunction from back in 2017. There's been no further mention of the 2017 Court Order by the C&RT LaGS or the hypocritically mis-named 'Boat Licence Customer Support' Team for about 3 weeks now, with all the more recent communications suggesting that if Mr Szymanski would care to provide some evidence of future intention to comply with S.17(3)[c](ii) of the 1995 BW Act that they will "reconsider" the matter of his boat Licence.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 11, 2019 8:04:58 GMT
How do you provide evidence of doing something in the future? Can you do any more than say you intend to comply?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2019 8:17:32 GMT
With one of these
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2019 8:22:54 GMT
The C&RT's delightful Ms. Barry has decided she doesn't want to talk to me anymore about her new employer's unlawful withdrawal of the Caravan Boat's Licence, and is now e-mailing all of her pseudo-legalistic fantasies to Marcus Trower, the NBTA's representative in the London area. With the boat now about 10 miles away from where it was a couple of weeks ago, all the nonsense about the boat being 'unsafe', unable to move under it's own power, or 'unfit' for the waterway it's on has now been quietly dropped in favour of refusing a Licence on the grounds of insufficient boat movement up until two years ago, ie. May 2017, and no movement at all during the period 1 November 2018 to 31 March 2019, . . a period which just happens to have been covered by a Winter Mooring Permit ! Here's her latest effort : Dear Marcus Thank you for your email. You have only quoted part of my email of 26 April 2019 in your email below. What I wrote in full was as follows: “Mr Szymanski has been advised on numerous occasions previously as to how he has failed to meet the requirements, initially in our letter dated 18 April 2017. If he contends that the Trust’s decision is wrong then he is at liberty to provide evidence in support of this in order to satisfy the Trust that he would use the boat “bona fide for navigation”, which would then be considered.” This was in relation to the fact that he had failed to continuously cruise during his previous licence period, and then also did not start any sort of real movement until April this year. During the period of his 6 month licence between June 2016 to November 2016 he only moved 3 km. During the period of his 6 month licence between December 2016 and May 2017 the boat did not move at all. The main indicator that the Trust is able to use to consider whether a boater will bona fide navigate in future is what has been done in the past, during the period where the boater has been required to continuously cruise and satisfy the Trust of their ability to do so in the future in order to obtain a further licence on this basis. As Mr Szymanski failed to satisfy the Trust that he would use the boat bona fide for navigation, then he was advised that he would be required to obtain a home mooring in order to obtain a licence; this position remains the same. I apologise if there has been any confusion in this regard. Kind regards Lucy Barry Senior Solicitor-Advocate________________________________________________________
. . . and here's the reply :
Ms. Barry,
I refer to the e-mail sent to Mr Marcus Trower yesterday, May 8 2019.
Despite having been unable to comply with our earlier request to direct us to any legislation empowering the Trust to refuse or revoke a Licence on the grounds of an historical inability to 'continously cruise' with a previous boat which was too high to pass under many of the bridges along the canal upon which it was kept, you persist in harking back to those same periods of bridge height restricted boat usage from June 2016 to May 2017, all of which which precede the starting date of the 12 month Licence the Trust, quite properly, issued to Mr Szymanski's modified and rebuilt boat to run from 1 November 2018.
The fact that -quote-"Mr Szymanski's boat did not start any sort of real movement until April this year" is also cited as further justification for refusing to renew or reinstate the Licence issued for Mr Szymanski's boat on 1 November 2018 and subsequently, absent lawful grounds or process, declared by the Trust to have been terminated.
The period during which the vessel in question was static on a towpath mooring from 1 November 2018 to the end of March 2019, and upon which the Trust now relies to justify refusal of a Licence, was in fact covered by a Winter Mooring Permit which ran from 1 November 2018 to 16 March 2019. The vessel's presence in that same place and for that period was therefore, authorized, paid for, and entirely lawful.
It is abundantly clear that the threats and harassment to which Mr Szymanski is being subjected either have their origins in the Trust's Customer Services (sic) shambolic administration and record keeping, or are simply part of a dishonest and targeted campaign against a potentially vulnerable individual and his home. I suggest that the most appropriate way out of this intentionally created muddle would be a written apology for the distress that has been inflicted on Mr Szymanski, followed by a polite request for him to repay the unused, or unexpired, balance of the Licence fee which the Trust paid back into his bank account for no other reason than to manufacture a situation in which his boat would be ostensibly 'unlicensed' and therefore open to further contrived Section 8 and Court action.
Signed,
A.K.Dunkley (on behalf of Mr A.Szymanski)
When I posted the above last Thursday, I neglected to mention the current position with regard to C&RT's earlier threats to snatch Mr Szymanski's boat under a spent Court Order/Injunction from back in 2017. There's been no further mention of the 2017 Court Order by the C&RT LaGS or the hypocritically mis-named 'Boat Licence Customer Support' Team for about 3 weeks now, with all the more recent communications suggesting that if Mr Szymanski would care to provide some evidence of future intention to comply with S.17(3)[c](ii) of the 1995 BW Act that they will "reconsider" the matter of his boat Licence. Hmmm, I remember them pulling this one out of the hat a few years ago, and consequently getting slapped down.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 11, 2019 8:25:05 GMT
How do you provide evidence of doing something in the future? Can you do any more than say you intend to comply? You could have a marina booked in a distant location from where you are now - like wot we have.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 11, 2019 8:26:53 GMT
How do you provide evidence of doing something in the future? Can you do any more than say you intend to comply? You could have a marina booked in a distant location from where you are now - like wot we have. but there is no proof you will ever get there, not with dodgy second hand safety kit.
|
|