|
Post by TonyDunkley on Sept 4, 2020 9:39:53 GMT
Good luck Tony..I do hope it all resolves soon The question of 'will they, won't they' is going to be resolved fairly soon by the sound of it. Of course it depends on the decision of the appeal hearing but I for one will be surprised if it goes in TD's favour (it would be a fine thing but it doesn't seem likely). Assuming this all comes to pass before the river is in flood again, I expect CaRT will waste no time in carrying out what Tony, to use his own words, has been 'goading them into' for quite some time. But I doubt very much if that will be the end... The 'goading' had served it's purpose by April Fool's Day 2016, when what passes for a legal department at C&RT's Milton Keynes HQ issued their second standard Part 8 Claim for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief with me named as Defendant. The 3 years 4 months delay before it was rubber stamped by the Court, as is usual with the C&RT version of this process, was entirely down to their reluctance to have the matter proceed to hearing until they had got a decision in Ravenscroft -v- C&RT. Despite the Judge finding for C&RT on 15 August 2019, things didn't go exactly as they were hoping for. The Order was made not in the terms sought by C&RT, but broadly in the terms for which I had asked the Court. The net result was an Order, in the form of a 'declaration' to the effect that ''after 4.00pm on 29 August 2019'' the Trust was entitled to exercise it's statutory powers of boat removal under "S.8 of the 1983 BW Act" . . . "unless on or before that date the Defendant has first obtained a licence or a pleasure boat certificate (as appropriate) . . .".
This was the very first time ever that the terms 'licence' and 'pleasure boat certificate' had appeared together in one of these C&RT boat removal (Court)Orders, and the first occasion on which attention was drawn to the vitally important distinctions which separate the terminologies. A 'licence', being a form of permission to keep and use a boat on the C&RT controlled canals, and the 'pleasure boat certificate' being simply a form of registration applicable only to boats kept and used on the PRN river waterways under C&RT control, and, the PRN being a common law public right, entailing no element of any form of permission. A Court Order binding C&RT to the statutory powers conferred, and more importantly defined, under S.8 of the 1983 Act, and allowing the owner/keeper of the named vessel the option of buying a licence or PBC and staying put on C&RT controlled waters was very definitely NOT what C&RT wanted. Earlier Orders had in effect given them discretion to do pretty well whatever they chose, and by implication, had also denied the boat owner/keeper the means of remaining on C&RT waters. The Order made on 15 August last year was very different, . . as, in fact, is the 1983 Act S.8 wording in comparison with the terminology used in S.9 (Removal of 'Objects' - as opposed to 'boats') of the same Act. S.8(2) of the 1983 Act specifies that - "The Board may remove any relevant craft . . .", whereas S.9(1) reads - "The Board may remove from any inland waterway . . ". C&RT's lawyers are yet to come to grips with explaining away the careful and purposeful addition of the word 'from' in S.9(1) and it's equally careful and purposeful omission from S.8(2). It is also quite apparent that they are similarly hazy when it comes to the dictionary definition of the verb - "remove".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2020 10:36:04 GMT
I'm sure its all very interesting.
After my last post on this thread I reflected that the tone of the email from CaRT you lately shared with us had a very final air to it which in turn suggested to me that they now have everything they need to proceed.
I thought you were waiting for the decision of the final appeal hearing, last mentioned as scheduled to occur as and when a circuit judge was available. Has this happened?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Sept 4, 2020 12:35:43 GMT
As I understand it, The courts told Tony to get a PBC, as defined in the act, appropriate for the waters he is on. He's asked CRT to provide him with one, they have refused. Tony has proof he is trying to comply with the court's wishes, CRT are not, being obstructive, pretending they can ignore an Act of Parliament and make up their own rules. Could their stance be considered contemptuous, hopefully so.
Hi Debbie Figgy, what's your thoughts on the matter? Does your Mum know you work for a bunch of scoundrels?
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Sept 4, 2020 13:12:02 GMT
Tony,
I have sent you a PM which may be of use/interest.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Sept 4, 2020 13:26:54 GMT
I come back to the point about the BSS. It seems to me that Tony is on dodgy grounds by not having a BSS and refusing to engage on the matter. CRT's obligation to issue a PBC is conditional upon this para of the act:
"Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless—
(a)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;"...
Tony has not satisfied the board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel. He says that he doesn't need a BSS because of equipment {not) installed in the vessel, but CRT only has his word for that and he refuses to offer evidence. The exemption from holding a BSS is not enshrined in law, it is just something BW/CRT agreed to under their terms. And they have set out their terms, but Tony has declined to accept them and thus one has to revert to the law. Tony has not complied with the law and thus CRT are entitled to refuse the relevant consent.
All of which is a shame because it totally smokescreens the issue about a "rivers only licence".
Tony will lose his boat and along with it, but unnoticed by the powers that be, any battle about rivers only licence vs PBC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2020 13:47:12 GMT
I agree about the BSS. It's not that difficult to get a BS sorted out. Nobody particularly likes the BS scheme but it is part of the law surrounding getting a license/registration for boats on most inland waterways. "That's just the way it is". Attempting to circumvent it by using an exemption will probably lead to that exemption being withdrawn as CRT are not obliged to offer it.
The deliberate choice not to do this seems to be verging on devilment and as you say, Nick, will probably be the deciding factor in this story and sadly it is simply playing into crt's hands.
Very odd really. Stubbornness is quite an awkward thing to bypass though to be fair.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2020 14:14:20 GMT
And there is still time to change that fact. Oh well. What a waste of effort and words (many words) it will all finally be.
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Sept 4, 2020 15:10:41 GMT
I come back to the point about the BSS. It seems to me that Tony is on dodgy grounds by not having a BSS and refusing to engage on the matter. CRT's obligation to issue a PBC is conditional upon this para of the act: "Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless— (a)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;"... Tony has not satisfied the board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel. He says that he doesn't need a BSS because of equipment {not) installed in the vessel, but CRT only has his word for that and he refuses to offer evidence. The exemption from holding a BSS is not enshrined in law, it is just something BW/CRT agreed to under their terms. And they have set out their terms, but Tony has declined to accept them and thus one has to revert to the law. Tony has not complied with the law and thus CRT are entitled to refuse the relevant consent. All of which is a shame because it totally smokescreens the issue about a "rivers only licence". Tony will lose his boat and along with it, but unnoticed by the powers that be, any battle about rivers only licence vs PBC. But in his post of 2nd September Tony said that CRT had sent someone to take the relevant photographs which presumably now provide the evidence required.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Sept 4, 2020 15:28:37 GMT
I'd forgotten about the bss issue, agree with the above. Small price to pay to sort out the pbc issue.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Sept 4, 2020 15:34:38 GMT
I come back to the point about the BSS. It seems to me that Tony is on dodgy grounds by not having a BSS and refusing to engage on the matter. CRT's obligation to issue a PBC is conditional upon this para of the act: "Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless— (a)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;"... Tony has not satisfied the board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel. He says that he doesn't need a BSS because of equipment {not) installed in the vessel, but CRT only has his word for that and he refuses to offer evidence. The exemption from holding a BSS is not enshrined in law, it is just something BW/CRT agreed to under their terms. And they have set out their terms, but Tony has declined to accept them and thus one has to revert to the law. Tony has not complied with the law and thus CRT are entitled to refuse the relevant consent. All of which is a shame because it totally smokescreens the issue about a "rivers only licence". Tony will lose his boat and along with it, but unnoticed by the powers that be, any battle about rivers only licence vs PBC. But in his post of 2nd September Tony said that CRT had sent someone to take the relevant photographs which presumably now provide the evidence required. I’m pretty sure he refused to let them aboard. I’ll check... No, can’t find a post of 2nd sept and don’t have the will to trawl through 60 pages ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2020 16:12:25 GMT
Telemachus, it was here on the 2nd September. Must say I did read it but had forgotten it when I agreed with you earlier. Having no means of taking the internal photographs of my boat, I invited Mr Garner to come and take as many of these urgently required photo's as he wanted of my partially removed knackered engine and it's disconnected fuel system, my non-existent LPG system and appliances, and my non-existent batteries and electrical system. In the event he chose not to visit me and my boat in person, and instead sent along an extremely pleasant young lady to obtain the photo's in his place. That was a week ago, on Wednesday 26 August, and despite the apparent urgency in the need for the photo's as proof that my boat meets the Trust's own published BSS Exemption criteria, the final decision on this purely technical matter awaits the return from holiday of the delightful Ms Barry, . . So actually it looks like TD is not that stubborn after all and has recognised that it is necessary to either prove exemption or just get a BS ticket. Which is what I predicted ages ago!! Another prediction: this will not be accepted as proof...
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Sept 4, 2020 16:42:02 GMT
But in his post of 2nd September Tony said that CRT had sent someone to take the relevant photographs which presumably now provide the evidence required. I’m pretty sure he refused to let them aboard. I’ll check... No, can’t find a post of 2nd sept and don’t have the will to trawl through 60 pages ... 2 days and 1 page ago, not much trawling needed.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Sept 4, 2020 16:49:45 GMT
I’m pretty sure he refused to let them aboard. I’ll check... No, can’t find a post of 2nd sept and don’t have the will to trawl through 60 pages ... 2 days and 1 page ago, not much trawling needed. Sorry, I had forgotten we were into september 2020! I was looking at september 2019!
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Sept 4, 2020 16:49:48 GMT
I’m pretty sure he refused to let them aboard. I’ll check... No, can’t find a post of 2nd sept and don’t have the will to trawl through 60 pages ... 2 days and 1 page ago, not much trawling needed. 'specially when we have young andrew to find it for us.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Sept 4, 2020 16:51:40 GMT
|
|