Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2019 19:14:55 GMT
Just out of interest TonyDunkley as you suggest the current navigation authority CRT is "short lived" what do you think is going to replace them? Serious question. I actually think you are wrong and CRT will be with us for a long time but I do often wonder what if anything would be a better arrangement.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 16, 2019 5:49:47 GMT
Just out of interest TonyDunkley as you suggest the current navigation authority CRT is "short lived" what do you think is going to replace them? Serious question. I actually think you are wrong and CRT will be with us for a long time but I do often wonder what if anything would be a better arrangement. I've really no idea what will come after C&RT, . . and although it's already taken much longer to rot away than most heaps of shit usually do, I am absolutely convinced that it won't last for very much longer in it's present form !
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 16, 2019 10:33:26 GMT
I've really no idea what will come after C&RT, . . and although it's already taken much longer to rot away than most heaps of shit usually do, I am absolutely convinced that it won't last for very much longer in it's present form ! For the system to be managed properly for the benefit of the nation, government would have to recognise that wider benefit, and revert to the pre-Cameron understanding that the public purse will always have to supply the inevitable shortfalls in income from direct users. For all my legitimate criticisms of BW, such an accountable public body bolstered by public funds is the only practical and workable method of preserving and improving the system. BW’s problem was the insane method of public funding via DEFRA, which meant that they could never rely on what funds would be available when needed. Instead of reforms as to that funding system, the Cameron government (supported by politicians of whatever colour) greedily swallowed the even more insane suggestion by Evans and Johnson that the public purse could be relieved by privatisation of BW, with reliance on purely voluntary contributions to the upkeep. A ludicrous proposal, the idiocy of which has been increasingly manifest with each passing year. What SHOULD happen is for government to recognise its failed experiment, accept that CaRT Ltd is effectively a bankrupt business, and activate the relevant clauses in the transition Order that allow it to replace CaRT with a properly accountable government body with the necessary assured funding to make it work. The present management team would need wholesale replacement.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 18, 2019 12:15:31 GMT
It was indeed, . . not by me but by an independent witness who was listening in to the call on loudspeaker. Not quite the final nail just yet, though. That phone call, plus a final written application for a PBC, will pretty much fulfill the pre-action protocol called for under the Civil Procedure Rules, and then C&RT will find themselves on the receiving end of a CPR Part 8 Claim for Declaratory Relief and staying of the Order made at the Derby Court on 15 August last, . . almost the same thing that they're so fond of taking boat owners to Court with themselves ! There's been nothing more from C&RT to change any of what was said in the Friday 4 October offering of garbage from the delightful Ms. Barry (page 34 of this thread), so I've sent an e-mail giving them until close of business tomorrow to stop farting about and issue me with a PBC. The e-mail was addressed to Aymes and Deards as heads of the two departments ultimately responsible for selling phony 'licences' which have no basis in law, and refusing to issue me with the PBC that is mandatory under both the 1971 and 1995 BW Acts : In the Nottingham County Court - Claim No C10NG401 Mr Aymes and Mr Deards,
Despite having fulfilled both the conditions published by the Trust for exemption from the requirement to hold a current Boat Safety Certificate and the statutory conditions under Section 17 of the British Waterways Act 1995, I have been and continue to be actively prevented from obtaining the Pleasure Boat Certificate [PBC] ordered by the Court on 15 August 2019 in respect of the above named vessel.
I have been aware of the personal agenda of the Trust's so-called Boat Licence Customer Support Supervisor, Stuart Garner, since before this latest malicious action was first brought before the Courts some three and a half years ago, but during the course of a telephone call to Boat Licensing on Friday 11 Oct 2019 the Trust's Boat Licensing Manager, a Mr. Ben Ashdown, was able to confirm that in refusing to issue the PBC ordered by the Court on 15 August 2019 the Boat Licensing Team were acting not in consequence of any failure on my part to comply with any statutory or published requirements, but solely on the personal instructions of another Trust employee, Lucy Barry, from Legal & Governance Services.
By virtue of the job titles assigned to each of you on the C&RT website you jointly bear the overall responsibility for the Trust's failure firstly to meet it's statutory obligations and issue me with the PBC ordered by the Court, and secondly in failing properly to manage Trust employees Garner and Barry with regard to the blatantly personal agendas they are pursuing against both me and my property.
You have 24 hours from the time of transmission of this e-mail to either issue a PBC - ie. not one of your fictitious ''Rivers Only Licences" - in respect of the above named vessel, or to provide a written undertaking that the Trust will suspend any further action pursuant to the 15 August 2019 Order pending the outcome of the Appeal (Log.No. BM90161A) lodged at the Nottingham Court on 5 September 2019.
Failure on the part of the Trust to comply with the above will lead to the immediate issuing of a CPR Part 8 Claim for Declaratory Relief in respect of issuing me with a PBC for the above named vessel and an Order staying execution of the 15 August 2019 Order pending the outcome of Appeal.
Signed, A. K. Dunkley.There was an automatic reply to the above from Aymes's e-mail saying he was unavailable for a fortnight, and instead of replying himself, Deards passed it straight on to the delightful Ms Barry, who responded with this rather revealing amalgam of sheer fantasy and outright distortions of demonstrable fact. The general arrogance is breathtaking, . . and the tripe about a Civil Restraint Order is priceless : Lucy Barry Wed, Oct 16, to me, Tom, Matthew, Stuart, Ben
Dear Mr Dunkley
My email of 4 October 2019 (attached for ease of reference) deals with the points you raise in relation to the issue of a Rivers Only Licence for your boat. I do not propose to repeat these points again and neither I, nor anyone else at the Trust, will be responding any further on the point unless you provide what has been requested of you.
Your allegations against both Mr Garner and me are both untrue and libellous. You are required to desist from making such statements otherwise the Trust may take further action against you in relation to this. A court has confirmed that the action brought against you for failing to have a valid licence for your boat was lawful and granted the order sought against you accordingly. It is also untrue that Ben Ashdown confirmed that the Trust’s inability to issue you with a “PBC” was solely down to my personal instructions and not as a consequence of any failure on your part to comply with any statutory or published requirements. Mr Ashdown has confirmed that he in fact said very little to you, and that as you phoned again attempting to buy a ‘Pleasure Boat Certificate’, despite having been advised on numerous occasions that this was now termed a “Rivers Only Licence”, he simply referred you to the most recent email that I had sent you (referred to above and attached).
For the avoidance of doubt, the court did not order the Trust to issue you with a “PBC”, as suggested in your email below. The court agreed that the Trust’s Rivers Only licence was the equivalent of a Pleasure Boat Certificate and that this is what you would be issued with if you applied for a licence and satisfied the conditions under s17(3) of the British Waterways Act 1995.
In the event that you issue any proceedings against the Trust as proposed, the Trust will immediately issue an application to strike out your claim/application for being utterly devoid of merit and for a Civil Restraint Order against you to prevent you from making any further claims or applications in relation to this issue without the court’s permission.
We will bring this correspondence to the attention of the court if necessary.
Regards Lucy Barry
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 18, 2019 12:39:59 GMT
Did you get a transcript of the proceedings Tony? Very worthwhile to do so under the circumstances, if you have not done so already; then there can be no quibbling over exactly what was said by the judge.
Relying on 'say so' is precarious.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 18, 2019 14:32:38 GMT
I've really no idea what will come after C&RT, . . and although it's already taken much longer to rot away than most heaps of shit usually do, I am absolutely convinced that it won't last for very much longer in it's present form ! What SHOULD happen is for government to recognise its failed experiment, accept that CaRT Ltd is effectively a bankrupt business, and activate the relevant clauses in the transition Order that allow it to replace CaRT with a properly accountable government body with the necessary assured funding to make it work. The present management team would need wholesale replacement. Agree. But will this become another Marples & Beeching? I believe the directors have already awarded themselves splendid salaries and bonuses. What have the members of the 'board' put in? Have they just taken out?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 18, 2019 15:33:52 GMT
What SHOULD happen is for government to recognise its failed experiment, accept that CaRT Ltd is effectively a bankrupt business, and activate the relevant clauses in the transition Order that allow it to replace CaRT with a properly accountable government body with the necessary assured funding to make it work. The present management team would need wholesale replacement. Agree. But will this become another Marples & Beeching? I believe the directors have already awarded themselves splendid salaries and bonuses. What have the members of the 'board' put in? Have they just taken out? If the Board Members have received any payments it will be stated in the annual report, go check Charity Commission website. I've just had to declare my earnings as Chair of Trustees at Skylight Circus Arts for 18/19. And before some cynical twat starts up, I get paid at the standard freelance rate for my teaching, performing or stage damaging services. Members of a Board didn't used to be able to receive anything other than expenses, now you can charge for your normal area of expertise at your standard rate.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 22, 2019 8:50:00 GMT
Did you get a transcript of the proceedings Tony? Very worthwhile to do so under the circumstances, if you have not done so already; then there can be no quibbling over exactly what was said by the judge. Relying on 'say so' is precarious. I'll shortly be ordering a transcript, Nigel, but at present I only have my own written record of events on 15 August, when although everything the Judge said was clearly audible, the same cannot be said for the dark mutterings of the delightful Ms Barry. Soon after lodging the Appeal at the Nottingham Court I was told by them that they no longer have the appropriate level of Judge visiting and have sent the Appeal papers to Birmingham to be put before the next visiting High Court Judge. The HMC&TS Appeals Section at Brum confirmed this when they sent me a sealed notice on 17 September saying that the next High Court Judge may not visit for another 2 to 3 months, . . what a bloody shambles ! Whilst essential for the Appeal, the lack of an official transcript is no impediment to arguing against the present shenanigans over what was actually put in the 15 August 2019 Order, which although Ms Barry is insisting was an endorsement of the 'Rivers Only Licence' nonsense, was in fact nothing of the sort, with the Judge specifying that I obtain -"as appropriate" - either a - ''licence'' - as referred to and defined in the 1971, 1983, and 1995 BW Acts, or a "pleasure boat certificate" - as referred to and defined under S.5(1) of the 1971 Act, and included in the definitions of a 'relevant consent' in S.17(1) of the 1995 Act.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 26, 2019 6:06:28 GMT
There's been nothing more from C&RT to change any of what was said in the Friday 4 October offering of garbage from the delightful Ms. Barry (page 34 of this thread), so I've sent an e-mail giving them until close of business tomorrow to stop farting about and issue me with a PBC. The e-mail was addressed to Aymes and Deards as heads of the two departments ultimately responsible for selling phony 'licences' which have no basis in law, and refusing to issue me with the PBC that is mandatory under both the 1971 and 1995 BW Acts : In the Nottingham County Court - Claim No C10NG401 Mr Aymes and Mr Deards,
Despite having fulfilled both the conditions published by the Trust for exemption from the requirement to hold a current Boat Safety Certificate and the statutory conditions under Section 17 of the British Waterways Act 1995, I have been and continue to be actively prevented from obtaining the Pleasure Boat Certificate [PBC] ordered by the Court on 15 August 2019 in respect of the above named vessel.
I have been aware of the personal agenda of the Trust's so-called Boat Licence Customer Support Supervisor, Stuart Garner, since before this latest malicious action was first brought before the Courts some three and a half years ago, but during the course of a telephone call to Boat Licensing on Friday 11 Oct 2019 the Trust's Boat Licensing Manager, a Mr. Ben Ashdown, was able to confirm that in refusing to issue the PBC ordered by the Court on 15 August 2019 the Boat Licensing Team were acting not in consequence of any failure on my part to comply with any statutory or published requirements, but solely on the personal instructions of another Trust employee, Lucy Barry, from Legal & Governance Services.
By virtue of the job titles assigned to each of you on the C&RT website you jointly bear the overall responsibility for the Trust's failure firstly to meet it's statutory obligations and issue me with the PBC ordered by the Court, and secondly in failing properly to manage Trust employees Garner and Barry with regard to the blatantly personal agendas they are pursuing against both me and my property.
You have 24 hours from the time of transmission of this e-mail to either issue a PBC - ie. not one of your fictitious ''Rivers Only Licences" - in respect of the above named vessel, or to provide a written undertaking that the Trust will suspend any further action pursuant to the 15 August 2019 Order pending the outcome of the Appeal (Log.No. BM90161A) lodged at the Nottingham Court on 5 September 2019.
Failure on the part of the Trust to comply with the above will lead to the immediate issuing of a CPR Part 8 Claim for Declaratory Relief in respect of issuing me with a PBC for the above named vessel and an Order staying execution of the 15 August 2019 Order pending the outcome of Appeal.
Signed, A. K. Dunkley. Lucy Barry Wed, Oct 16, to me, Tom, Matthew, Stuart, Ben
Dear Mr Dunkley
My email of 4 October 2019 (attached for ease of reference) deals with the points you raise in relation to the issue of a Rivers Only Licence for your boat. I do not propose to repeat these points again and neither I, nor anyone else at the Trust, will be responding any further on the point unless you provide what has been requested of you.
Your allegations against both Mr Garner and me are both untrue and libellous. You are required to desist from making such statements otherwise the Trust may take further action against you in relation to this. A court has confirmed that the action brought against you for failing to have a valid licence for your boat was lawful and granted the order sought against you accordingly. It is also untrue that Ben Ashdown confirmed that the Trust’s inability to issue you with a “PBC” was solely down to my personal instructions and not as a consequence of any failure on your part to comply with any statutory or published requirements. Mr Ashdown has confirmed that he in fact said very little to you, and that as you phoned again attempting to buy a ‘Pleasure Boat Certificate’, despite having been advised on numerous occasions that this was now termed a “Rivers Only Licence”, he simply referred you to the most recent email that I had sent you (referred to above and attached).
For the avoidance of doubt, the court did not order the Trust to issue you with a “PBC”, as suggested in your email below. The court agreed that the Trust’s Rivers Only licence was the equivalent of a Pleasure Boat Certificate and that this is what you would be issued with if you applied for a licence and satisfied the conditions under s17(3) of the British Waterways Act 1995.
In the event that you issue any proceedings against the Trust as proposed, the Trust will immediately issue an application to strike out your claim/application for being utterly devoid of merit and for a Civil Restraint Order against you to prevent you from making any further claims or applications in relation to this issue without the court’s permission.
We will bring this correspondence to the attention of the court if necessary.
Regards Lucy BarryI didn't reply to the delightful Ms Barry's e-mailed letter, . . there's no point in try to communicate with anyone who's far gone enough to put their name to tripe like that ! With a view to getting some idea of just how far up the C&RT pecking order their current antics originate from, I replied to the head of C&RT's legal department, . . the LAGS ! In the Nottingham County Court - Claim No C10NG401 & Appeal (Log.No.) BM90161A
Mr Deards,
The e-mail addressed to you and your colleague Mr Aymes and transmitted at 1629 on Tuesday 15 October 2018 was sent in the hope and expectation that those ultimately responsible for boat licensing and legal matters at the Trust would be alerted to the fact that they should be paying rather more attention to the activities of two Trust employees in their respective departments, Lucy Barry and Stuart Garner, who appear to have a free hand to pursue personal and highly questionable agendas of their own under the false pretence of legitimate action in respect of boat licence evasion.
Given that Customer Services refused to issue a 'Rivers Only Licence' for my boat when an independent witness/third party who, after my insurance details and a completed and signed BSC Exemption Form were sent to and had been received by Boat Licensing, called and tendered the full published Rivers Only Licence fee on my behalf on 29 August last, the contents and tone of Ms. Barry's e-mail of Wednesday 16 October 2019 leave not the slightest doubt as to the Trust's intentions with regard to me and my boat. It is all too clear that both Barry and Garner, acting in their capacity as representatives of the Trust, are intent on having my boat removed, from C&RT's waters in preference to issuing any type of Licence or Pleasure Boat Certificate and that they are both prepared to resort to whatever measures prove necessary to that end, including actively preventing me from obtaining the "appropriate" Licence or Pleasure Boat Certificate specified in the 15 August 2019 Court Order as one means of compliance with the Order.
If, in the event, Ms Barry is permitted to continue in the manner in which she has, and can be proved to have, conducted herself to date, then the proposed course of action indicated in my e-mail of 15 October 2019 addressed jointly to you and Mr Aymes, will be insufficient to protect my interests.
I now need to know from you, Mr Deards, as a matter of some urgency, firstly if your Ms Barry is acting within her remit and with your approval, and if she is to be permitted to continue in the same manner, and secondly if the Trust intends to meet it's statutory obligations, under the relevant sections of the British Waterways Acts of 1971 and 1995, and issue me with the Pleasure Boat Certificate defined in the aforementioned Acts, and specified in the Court Order made at the Derby Court on 15 August 2019.
Signed,
A. K. Dunkley. ___________________________________________________ . . . his reply was nothing if not predictable : Tom Deards, Oct 18, 2019. Mr Dunkley
I confirm that Lucy Barry has full authority to act on this matter on behalf of the Trust. Please direct all future correspondence to Lucy.
Regards Tom Deards Head of Legal & Governance Service Canal & TrustThe last line - 'Canal & Trust' , by the way, isn't a copy & paste balls-up on my part, . . that's how it was transmitted !
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Oct 26, 2019 6:32:56 GMT
How can one still trust these people ? They seem to have forgotten the real name of the unclear business that's paying their wages.
BTW Tony, didn't you make a slight mistake in the date at the beginning of your letter to them ? Shouldn't it have been 15 October 2019 ?
Keep on fighting these criminals.
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 26, 2019 9:28:22 GMT
Have you looked into alternative avenues of complaint Tony? For example - The Law Society www.lawsociety.org.uk/for-the-public/using-a-solicitor/complain-about-a-solicitor/Legal Ombudsman www.legalombudsman.org.uk/helping-the-public/Solicitors Regulation Authority www.sra.org.uk/consumers/The possible problem there is that complaint appears only to be possible when it involves a solicitor you have hired, rather than one who is acting badly in a situation involving you; I cannot find anywhere that regulates solicitors’ conduct regardless of whether you are their client or not. It could, however, be of some value to file a complaint through any and all of the bodies regardless. Many years ago, at least, such bodies as the relevant Ombudsman or the Law Society would act with immediate and valuable effect if contacted by phone. I complained to the Banking Ombudsman about a bank manager once, who had refused to release funds held by a company I had purchased, and by the next day the problem was sorted! Again, I once complained to the Law Society about a firm of solicitors I was using, who were stone walling on communication while deadlines for filing court papers were looming – which resulted in a very hastily convened meeting with senior partners to assure me of improved service. They were frightfully indignant that I had reported them, but as I said – if you do not answer my calls and emails, what was I supposed to do? However, in both cases I was a client, and I somehow doubt that so instant a response would happen these days anyway. Another boater I know filed a complaint with the Bar Standards Board against Mr Stoner QC, who was definitely not acting for him! The Board specifically investigate complaints about barristers working for someone other than yourself – if they do work for you, the Legal Ombudsman is the route to take. They eventually cleared Mr Stoner of any wrong-doing, but the complaint was taken seriously and involved considerable work on his side to prepare a detailed defence/analysis of the grounds on which he was accused. Whatever the outcome of such complaints, it makes the subject very careful of their future conduct! www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/for-the-public/concerns-about-a-barrister.htmlThat body regulates only barristers and “specialised legal services businesses” whatever that entails. One might have thought that an equivalent body had oversight of ‘lesser mortals’ such as solicitors and solicitor/advocates, but I cannot find such. It could be, though, that any one of the above regulating bodies could provide such information. I am not suggesting, of course, that there has been any identifiable wrong-doing that would justify such a recourse as this; a difference in legal interpretation is the lifeblood of the industry after all, but it might be food for thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2019 9:46:45 GMT
I still think this whole Boat Safety exemption thing is where the problem is arising.
Let's say they agree you are exempt. presumably this is a temporary solution while works take place or you have removed everything including the doors and fitted an outboard.
So what happens at the next renewal? Another attempt at exemption?
It seems to be quite a silly situation. The BSS is something a lot of boaters resent but generally people comply with it rather than squeezing themselves through the loopholes.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 26, 2019 15:34:52 GMT
How can one still trust these people ? They seem to have forgotten the real name of the unclear business that's paying their wages. BTW Tony, didn't you make a slight mistake in the date at the beginning of your letter to them ? Shouldn't it have been 15 October 2019 ? Keep on fighting these criminals. Peter. Yes, Peter, . . if they put as much effort, and money, into maintenance and repairs as they do into behaving like complete arseholes, our inland waterways would be in considerably better shape than they are now. I don't have any figures for how much their legal department costs per year, but as far as I know the 'Enforcement' budget - or Customer Licence Support (sic) as it's now known - is in excess of £3 million.
|
|
|
Post by broccobanks on Oct 26, 2019 16:43:39 GMT
The CRT enforcement budget would be less if people like you paid for your licence. You know full well that in order to get a BSC exemption you must submit a recent boat photo, and in your case submit to a boat inspection, all of which is self explanatory in the exemption form you keep exhibiting. So why not save everyone time and money that could be spent on maintenance and either pay the full licence fee or, if you want to pay the reduced exemption fee, do the simple things that are as clear as a bell that you need to do to get a BSC exemption.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2019 17:28:43 GMT
It is a bit of a broken record on this topic but it really seems very very obvious that attempting to circumvent the requirement for a Boat Safety certificate in this way is going to lead to negative outcomes.
I believe it would fail the reasonable man test.
I reckon the reasonable man would declare that anyone should be able to apply for a BSS exemption on a fully cabined boat with an inboard engine.
Where would that get us?
Surely the only outcome will be costs to the navigation authority which will be borne by license payers and removal of the option to exempt vessels from the BS scheme.
Which incidentally the EA have already removed.
I declare devilment.
|
|