|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 27, 2019 9:23:58 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 That approach could well be the way to go if dealing with a fairly normal sort of organization staffed by normal people, John, . . but not with the sort of world-class arseholes who are behind all the nonsense and the personal agendas that are so much in evidence here. The simple truth is that this really isn't about photographs of any boat, or BSS Exemptions, it's about C&RT's management being desperate to avoid issuing me with a PBC, and the consequences for them if they so do. They know only too well that if they do issue the PBC that statute demands and the Court has ordered me to obtain it will effectively put paid to any chance they might have had of escaping the looming consequences of many years of their and their predecessors fraudulently selling registration certificates as licences, and compounding that wrong by collecting and passing on to the Treasury a small fortune in VAT on something which only attracted VAT because they were being thoroughly dishonest about what they were conning their 'river waterway' customers into believing that they were buying. There is also, of course, the loss of face and the psychological damage that the public loss of their imaginary powers to veto a common law public right will inflict on their megalomanic egos. Were I to be foolish enough to make the effort to comply with all or any of C&RT's non-statutory 'requirements', it would make no difference whatsoever to the final outcome. No matter how many of their endless demands and made-up on the fly conditions were to be complied with, it would be a never ending process , . . the goal posts would get moved every time and they would always dream-up yet another pointless new item of nonsense to be complied with every time the previous one was disposed of. I've played this stupid game with BWB too many times before to be willing to do it all over again with their even more bloody-minded successors, . . . the last time was in 1999 when C&RT's predecessors were pulling out all the stops to kill off the proposed movement of AIL's by water to, amongst many other destinations, the new Staythorpe power station on the Trent just outside Newark. I won that one, and I don't see any reason why I shouldn't win this one too !
|
|
|
Post by broccobanks on Oct 27, 2019 15:03:58 GMT
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. The photo and BSC examination are needed to assess whether your boat truly qualifies for exemption from paying the full fee. CRT rightly suspect you are taking the piss.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Oct 27, 2019 15:32:42 GMT
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. The photo and BSC examination are needed to assess whether your boat truly qualifies for exemption from paying the full fee. CRT rightly suspect you are taking the piss. I believe you are one of the hard of reading, and probably hard of thinking too
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 27, 2019 16:56:21 GMT
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. The photo and BSC examination are needed to assess whether your boat truly qualifies for exemption from paying the full fee. CRT rightly suspect you are taking the piss. Well done, . . you've lived down to all my expectations ! If you don't already work for C&RT, you should get your CV into them pronto, . . they're always on the look out for people of your calibre to fill the new managerial posts that Parry creates every few weeks. One of the latest is for a 'Head of Shower Blocks and Shithouses'. The successful candidate will be responsible for ensuring that every one of the Trust's bog emptying facilities is either unspeakably filthy, blocked up, overflowing, or closed down, . . it's just the job for you !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 30, 2019 9:32:34 GMT
C&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 & GovernanceThe e-mail sent to C&RT's Head of Illegal & Governance on 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 ! The above e-mail was followed by self-drafted application form for river registration based on the form of words to be found in Schedule 2 to the BW Act of 1971. There was no response to this either, and so was followed-up with this : Application for Pleasure Boat Certificate - 'Halcyon Daze' - Ind. No. 52721
FAO. The Boat Licensing Team - and pursuant to:
County Court - Claim No C10NG401 & Appeal (Log.No.) BM90161A
Customer Services will be contacted by phone following receipt of this e-mail by an independent third party witness, Xx Xxxxxx, who will tender payment on my behalf of the fee for a 12-month (commencing 1 August 2019) Pleasure Boat Certificate [PBC] for the above named vessel.
As the Trust has previously admitted in both internal communications and published Freedom of Information responses, a PBC does not 'licence' the use of the Trust's river waterways but is simply a mandatory 'registration' certificate issued in respect of pleasure craft exercising the common law Public Right of Navigation [PRN] on the Trust's river waterways. Unlike the Trust's standard Pleasure Boat Licence fees, and in common with the Environment Agency's registration fees for pleasure craft used or kept on their river waterways, the fee for a PBC does not and cannot attract Value Added Tax, and for precisely the same reasons.
Given that statute limits the amount the Trust may charge to register a pleasure boat, by issuing a PBC, to 60% of - " the amount payable to the Board for the licensing of such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971" - (ie. the licence fee prior to the addition of the VAT payable to HMRC ), the fee payable to the Board [C&RT] for a PBC for my 50' LOA boat is therefore £455.10, and this is the sum that will be tendered on my behalf.
The completed and signed application form for BSC exemption and proof of the vessel's Third Party Insurance cover previously e-mailed to Customer Services on 29 August 2019 are again attached to this e-mail, together with the registration details referred to in Schedule 2 to the Act of 1971. As before, it is not considered necessary to include recent photographs of the boat with the BSC exemption application for identification purposes as your Customer Licence Support staff already have the vessel's details and location on record.
Please note that this is not an application for any form of boat Licence, and in the event of this second attempt to register the above named vessel by means of the ''pleasure boat certificate'' referred to in the Court Order made at the Derby Court on 15 August 2019 being once again unlawfully refused by the Trust, this e-mail and it's attachments will be included in the evidence exhibited pursuant to the resulting proceedings.
Signed, A.K. Dunkley. (3 Attachments)
_______________________________________________ . . . . . . which brought the following response from C&RT's 'Licensing Manager' : Dear Mr Dunkley
Our position has not changed since the last email you received from Lucy Barry. If you have objections to this then please contact Lucy Barry directly.
Regards Ben Ashdown Licensing Manager_______________________________________________ . . . . . . and in turn was followed by these two e-mails, both on 28 October 2019, from the delightful Ms Barry to the independent third party witness, who by now had made no less than 3 separate attempts to tender payment for my PBC to the 'Boat Licensing Team', . . all of which were refused on a variety of implausable grounds ranging from a ''breach of data protection regulations'' to ''you will have to speak to our legal department" : Dear Xx Xxxxxx,
This has been passed to me further to your emails with Richard Parry and your conversation of today with Patsy Dorset.
Mr Dunkley has been advised on numerous occasions that he needs to either obtain a valid Boat Safety Certificate (“BSC”) or evidence to confirm his declared exemption; to date he has not provided either of these. There have been numerous emails between various members of the Trust with Mr Dunkley for over a month in relation to this. He is well aware of what he is required to do in order to be granted a licence, but is choosing not to comply. He has also raised unexplained arguments regarding the fact that VAT is not payable, and provided a self-drafted application for a Pleasure Boat Certificate despite having been advised that he is required to complete an application for a Rivers Only Licence. The position as to the name of the licence was made clear to him by both me and the Judge at the court hearing.
The Trust’s position throughout this has been quite clear and in line with its policies; the Trust is completely satisfied that it has acted properly if it needs to defend its position against any threatened court action brought by Mr Dunkley.
If Mr Dunkley now provides either a valid BSC for the boat, or evidence to confirm the declared exemption as previously specified by Stuart Garner in his emails of 12 and 18 September, together with a completed application for a Rivers Only Licence and full payment for the same, then Mr Dunkley will be granted a licence for his boat. If he fails to do this then the Trust will proceed to enforce the court order and remove the boat.
Kind regards Lucy Barry Senior Solicitor-Advocate
. . . and :
Dear Xx Xxxxxx,
I am confused as to your reference to the misreading of the court order. If you wish me to respond to this point then you will need to be more specific.
Mr Dunkley’s boat has previously been licensed with BSCs in place. He has been asked to explain what has changed on the boat to mean that it would now be BSC exempt, but has failed to provide any explanation. The Trust has offered for its employees to come out to inspect the boat, but Mr Dunkley has declined this offer. Mr Dunkley has been requested to provide photographs of the boat to evidence that it is BSC exempt, but he has failed to do so. These options remain open to Mr Dunkley and would be a step to resolving the situation.
Kind regards Lucy Barry Senior Solicitor-Advocate _______________________________________________
The C&RT is in total denial with regards to the legislation by which it is governed. Not only is the Court Order made on 15 August 2019 being ignored, but so are long-standing obligations that have remained, unamended and unrepealed, on the statute book since 1971.
Apparently, they believe that if they persist in pretending they have the powers and authority to impose a licensing regime on PRN river waterways, whilst at the same time ignoring the statutory obligation they are under to register pleasure boats using only PRN river waterways by simply issuing the mandatory Pleasure Boat Certificate in place of the standard boat Licence, that their megalomanic fantasies will one day come true !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2019 9:57:07 GMT
Why don't you send them a picture of the boat?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 30, 2019 10:03:48 GMT
Tony I think you risk the primary point about PBC vs ROL, VAT etc, being buried in issues about the photograph and BSC. You are handing CRT a valid defence on a plate. Why not go along with their photograph and BSC requirements to avoid muddying the waters? As it stands, you will lose the battle, which would be a shame.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2019 10:08:04 GMT
It's almost like he is an undercover crt agent.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 30, 2019 12:53:56 GMT
Tony I think you risk the primary point about PBC vs ROL, VAT etc, being buried in issues about the photograph and BSC. You are handing CRT a valid defence on a plate. Why not go along with their photograph and BSC requirements to avoid muddying the waters? As it stands, you will lose the battle, which would be a shame. I agree, TonyDunkley, though I understand your point, I don't think you should be pedantic about it, give it up to win a bigger battle.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 30, 2019 15:37:36 GMT
Which government ministers / department controls CRT? Who doles out public money to them? I'd be inclined to contact them and ask them how they feel about CRT bending the law to suit themselves, in this case changing the term 'certificate' to 'licence'. I also think it worth contacting the Tax Office (the one which deals with VAT) and see what they have to say about CRT's peculiar insistence that VAT has to be paid on a Pleasure Boat certificate. Will CRT be sueing Private Eye for calling them liars? Edition 1507 18-31 Oct 2019:
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 31, 2019 10:01:21 GMT
I'm sure the general advice to provide C&RT with the photograph and/or to arrange the illogical alternative of the BSS examination, to determine that the boat in it's current condition doesn't need a BSC, that they've been vapouring on about for the last 8 or 9 weeks has been offered up with the best of intentions, but I cannot and will not go down that road for one very important reason, . . the wording of the Court Order that C&RT thought they had succeeded in obtaining on 15 August 2019 !
Never before has one of C&RT's Injunction Orders held the words [underlined in bold] " . . unless on or before that date the Defendant has obtained a licence or pleasure boat certificate (as appropriate) for the boat . .", . . which is terminology lifted by the Judge straight from the very Act of Parliament that first created the boat registration certificate that BW, and now C&RT, have been fraudulently selling as a 'Rivers Only Licence' to a pleasure boating public who have been lied to, charged VAT that was not due, and deceived into thinking that the navigation authority [BW and C&RT] had statutory powers to 'licence' the use of publicly navigable [PRN] river waterways.
To comply now with C&RT's diversionary demands for pointless photographs and needless BSS examinations would be to throw away what could, and should, be a decisive factor in putting and end to this particular facet of C&RT's oppressive dishonesty. Were I now to comply with C&RT's photograph and BSC nonsense, they could escape from the predicament they now find themselves in by simply issuing me with one of their fictitious Rivers Only Licences. Why would I, or should I, allow them to do that ?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 31, 2019 10:11:16 GMT
Ok fair enough, but I would now delete that post, it could be used against you to demonstrate that you are being vexatious.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 31, 2019 13:04:33 GMT
So, to clarify, a pleasure boat registration certificate does not need a bss? Or insurance? If no bss mentioned in the act then you have a fair point and CRT are being vexatious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2019 13:14:55 GMT
Ah that's another interesting loophole isn't it. So is a BSS something you require only if you have a "license". One for NigelMoore me thinks. I don't think it's the case but it might be !! It puts a whole different angle on it if boats only used on scheduled rivers are excluded from the requirement to have a BS certificste...
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 31, 2019 13:23:15 GMT
PBC's are not exempted from the requirements for insurance and safety certificate. Tony is not suggesting otherwise.
|
|