|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 26, 2019 17:37:39 GMT
It does seem, in this case, that Tony is being actively discriminated against, and this BSS safety certificate issue, which is hinged on just one very small point - that he hasn't provided a photo - is a technical 'nail' on which to catch his coat as he leaves through the door. If I worked for CRT I think I'd look as Tony as an asset, with his knowledge and help that he has freely dished out to boaters, and get myself down to handing out the hundreds of fines on the piss-takers who are not displaying licences for starters! That's easy-pickings! And will get the money rolling in to CRT's coffers.
Just give Tony the required Pleasure Boat Licence. Everybody will then be happy. Smooth your ruffled feathers down and move on to a more appropriate way to keep the canals running. How about trying to get more people to use the canals through Tourist Offices all round the world? And get the system fit for purpose, with dredging, repairing/replacing lock gates, and emptying the boaters' bins more frequently? NOT by making silly TV adverts and cheap-looking funny duck and dog signs tied to gates and posts with plastic cable ties? The canals will advertise themselves - as with the bank staff, who, by word of mouth, are usually regarded in high esteem. Because of how they are and what they do.
If Tony's boat got the PBC and was later seen swanning round the system without a valid BSS, THEN is the time to set the rottweilers on him. If it's an out-of-working-order boat on the bank, so what of it? Go after the real piss-taking parasites, the really nasty ones who shouldn't even be on the waterways, the boat stealers, those that steal items off and from the inside of boats, the ones who are abusive to lock keepers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2019 20:04:00 GMT
And the Israelis should just jolly well start getting along with the Palestinians. And Rachel Weisz should announce to the world that she has found a cure for all known diseases. Preferably in the buff. And space aliens should be like the ones in Stephen Spielberg films and not Ridley Scott's because they have big teeth.
|
|
|
Post by broccobanks on Oct 26, 2019 20:31:02 GMT
It does seem, in this case, that Tony is being actively discriminated against, and this BSS safety certificate issue, which is hinged on just one very small point - that he hasn't provided a photo - Erm... no... he is also required to submit an independent boat inspection report....as well provide a photo.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 26, 2019 20:34:26 GMT
space aliens should be like the ones in Stephen Spielberg films and not Ridley Scott's because they have big teeth. I like my aliens with a sense of humour:
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 26, 2019 20:41:34 GMT
It does seem, in this case, that Tony is being actively discriminated against, and this BSS safety certificate issue, which is hinged on just one very small point - that he hasn't provided a photo - Erm... no... he is also required to submit an independent boat inspection report....as well provide a photo. I did say some time ago that perhaps it would have been a good idea to have knocked this one off, yes, but would the persecution have ended there? A BSS examination is for safety - how about the safety of residents living near boaters' bins which seem to be constantly in a state of overflow? I'm surprised the health authorities haven't clamped down on this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2019 20:59:40 GMT
a good idea to have knocked this one off, yes, but would the persecution have ended there? I think it's highly probable that a license or certificate would be issued if the BS thing was dealt with. Obviously there are some other conflicts between TD and the navigation authority currently in charge of the relevant waterways so whether he would get left alone depends on behaviour. It is worth noting the massive numbers of boaters never have any conflict whatsoever with navigation authorities.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 27, 2019 0:33:18 GMT
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 BarryC&RT's Head of (Il)legal's response to my 18 October 2019 e-mail : 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. . . and this was my reply to him 3 days later (21 Oct 2019) : In the Nottingham County Court - Claim No C10NG401 & Appeal (Log.No.) BM90161A
Mr Deards,
Your partial response to my e-mail of 18 October 2019 is unacceptable in that you have failed to answer the second and most important part of the subject query with regard to the Trust meeting it's statutory obligations under the relevant sections of the British Waterways Acts of 1971 and 1995 and issuing me with the Pleasure Boat Certificate defined in the aforementioned Acts, and specified in the Order made by HHJ Godsmark QC at the Derby Court on 15 August 2019.
Unless the Trust desists forthwith from unlawfully obstructing and refusing the issuing of a Pleasure Boat Certificate [PBC] for my boat, 'Halcyon Daze'- Index No.52721, I will apply to the Court for an interim Order staying any action on the part of the Trust under the 15 August 2019 Order pending the outcome of Appeal. The Application will immediately precede a CPR Part 8 Claim for Declaratory Relief in respect of issuing me with a PBC for the above named vessel.
Signed,
A.K.Dunkley.
. . . which was completely ignored !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 27, 2019 5:59:09 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. I haven't yet tried the Legal Ombudsman, Nigel, but I doubt that he or she will be of any more use, or any more interested, than the SRA and the Law Society were. As you say, unless you've retained the services of any their 'members', and I use that word in it's broadest possible sense, they really aren't the slightest bit interested. It appears to me at present that the best way forward is to maintain pressure on C&RT to start recognizing and complying with the statutory obligations that they and they predecessors have been successfully ducking since sometime back in the 1990's. I think some amongst C&RT's management are seriously fearful of the lid being lifted off this particular aspect of their wrongdoings for obvious reasons, and, courtesy of Mr Deards and his somewhat brief response to my query about the delightful Ms Barry's conduct to date, I also think that they've decided on who is going to be left without a chair when the music stops.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 27, 2019 6:06:28 GMT
a good idea to have knocked this one off, yes, but would the persecution have ended there? It is worth noting the massive numbers of boaters never have any conflict whatsoever with navigation authorities. Rather like the 17.4 million British who can't be bothered to do very much about their democratic voting results being ignored. Off to the slaughterhouse.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 27, 2019 7:39:11 GMT
It does seem, in this case, that Tony is being actively discriminated against, and this BSS safety certificate issue, which is hinged on just one very small point - that he hasn't provided a photo - Erm... no... he is also required to submit an independent boat inspection report....as well provide a photo. For the benefit of those without your stunning insight and understanding, . . explain what the photo of the boat is for, and the reasons for the local 'Customer Licence Support Supervisor' insisting that a photo plus a full BSS examination is necessary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2019 7:50:49 GMT
I'm sure that refusal to send a photo would be seen by a reasonable man as unreasonable.
If as you claim they already have pictures of the boat then where is the harm in sending another one??
The only logical reason for refusing to do this would be if the photo would demonstrate that the boat is not suitable for BSS exemption.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Oct 27, 2019 7:54:54 GMT
One line line of thought could be that every time you comply with an "unreasonable request" and they still refuse to issue your registration, they have dug an even deeper hole
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2019 7:58:49 GMT
Just googled the BS exemption and found this interesting little bit of text.
"The exemption remains valid until such time as you advise us that your boat no longer meets the criteria above."
Ah. Got it now. if you can successfully gain a BS exemption the boat will never need a BS unless the owner decides it does.
Now that is a loophole if I have ever seen one !!
I previously did not understand why there was the stubbornness but if there is a way of removing oneself completely from the requirements of the BSS then it's worth going for it.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Oct 27, 2019 8:01:08 GMT
I approached the 'Law Society' a few years ago. My conveyancing solicitor made an error that cost me £500. My conveyancing solicitor agreed with this. However, they were unable to explain this to the other party's solicitor (who had gained £500). My solicitor left it at that, saying I'd need to sue either the other solicitor or the bloke I bought the house off. Are you kidding?? This was detailed in a letter to the 'Law Society'. I received a letter back along the lines of 'we are unable to deal with individual cases'. WTF? A letter to the Ombudsman did the trick though. I had a call from an extremely rude and aggressive man who introduced himself as a partner in my conveyancing firm. He said I was trying to destroy their good reputation with this. WTF?? Their carelessness when completing the purchase resulted in me being £500 out of pocket, they were unable to sort this out, how would he feel? Eventually he agreed to send me £500 providing that I immediately cancelled the case with the Ombudsman. I agreed this through gritted teeth, really hating his attitude, feeling tempted to tell him to sling his hook and that I'd allow the case with the Ombudsman to roll, and sue his firm for the £500.
I'd always had a deep mistrust of the legal 'profession' before this incident, this just confirmed it. Bunch of arrogant robbing bastards, the lot of them.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 27, 2019 8:57:58 GMT
When swmbo was getting divorced, her ex's solicitor proposed to divide up the spoils as follows, figs are examples, House was worth 30k, we agreed her ex had done 5 k of work since, so he proposed split 50/50 then take added value from swmbos share. leaving her with 10k, not the 12.5 due.
|
|