|
Post by JohnV on Sept 29, 2016 12:04:33 GMT
It seems the same old story, crt acting outside of their legal remit. If the owner hadn't paid the mooring fees, then yes he is in the wrong. I'm not defending anyone who doesn't abide by the relevant legislation and pay his/her way. But surely crt should have to abide by the law of the land. The problem as I see it is their is no oversight of crt, the government can't be bothered. So they feel they can do what they like. The only recourse is the courts, that we all know is an expensive and difficult exercise. One thing that's struck me is crt have a legal requirement to gain the market value for boats that they confiscate under section 8? Kris, you are referring to the powers that CRT have over canals and rivers under their jurisdiction, as I asked earlier, does that also apply to places that are NOT canals or rivers i.e a dock. When dealing with canals and rivers they have to (or are meant to) comply with the various acts that have been, and still are, discussed endlessly. But do these actually apply to a dock system which previously had it's own regulations and acts? After all they don't have to use them if someone leaves a boat in one of their carparks.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Sept 29, 2016 13:17:15 GMT
It seems the same old story, crt acting outside of their legal remit. If the owner hadn't paid the mooring fees, then yes he is in the wrong. I'm not defending anyone who doesn't abide by the relevant legislation and pay his/her way. But surely crt should have to abide by the law of the land. The problem as I see it is their is no oversight of crt, the government can't be bothered. So they feel they can do what they like. The only recourse is the courts, that we all know is an expensive and difficult exercise. One thing that's struck me is crt have a legal requirement to gain the market value for boats that they confiscate under section 8? Kris, you are referring to the powers that CRT have over canals and rivers under their jurisdiction, as I asked earlier, does that also apply to places that are NOT canals or rivers i.e a dock. When dealing with canals and rivers they have to (or are meant to) comply with the various acts that have been, and still are, discussed endlessly. But do these actually apply to a dock system which previously had it's own regulations and acts? After all they don't have to use them if someone leaves a boat in one of their carparks. no John I was refering to the legal process of confiscating someone's goods in lue of monies owed. You need to have an officer of the courts present ( who should indentify themselves as such) and most importantly the correct paperwork which has been discussed by Nigel and Tony on the cwdf thread.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Sept 29, 2016 13:20:56 GMT
It has been a year of overdue fees letters passed to him he was still trading he was taking the mick to say the least so CRT removed his boat they have not used section 8 but some other method. If someone moored that boat in my pond and didnt pay I would have towed it to waddies and cut it up a long time ago. A while ago a traded dumped 3 cars in our yard we couldnt get him to respond so we towed them onto the road and NSL removed them for us problem sorted, sometimes you just have to take action Weither it's legal or not? Personally I feel Crt need to act within the law. Being a "charity" well a private company with special discompensation to use trust in their name. I think the easiest thing would be for them to have some oversight.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Sept 29, 2016 13:54:04 GMT
He was acting illegal as well, he wasnt paying his bills and that affects all of us could you imagine if 5 years down the line he still aint handing over the dosh because nowt had happened. At some point somebody has to do something and they have and I suspect the courts will agree with CRT
|
|
|
Post by kris on Sept 29, 2016 14:45:13 GMT
He was acting illegal as well, he wasnt paying his bills and that affects all of us could you imagine if 5 years down the line he still aint handing over the dosh because nowt had happened. At some point somebody has to do something and they have and I suspect the courts will agree with CRT i don't think anybody has been condoning his none payment, I would suggest if he hasn't paid for a year action should have been taken before now. But two wrongs don't make a right, Crt should be careful to follow the letter of the law, if for no other reason than to stop bad publicity. This smacks to me of managers trying to prove there worth. Chantelle seaborne blotted her copy book in a trustees meeting in front of Richard parry very badly this year. So I think she is probably desperately trying to earn brownie points.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Sept 29, 2016 15:04:12 GMT
I agree with you kris, 2 wrongs dont make a right, i think there is a lot more to this than meets the eye, so lets see what happens in court between tony and crt, but i do think if this had happened on your land you would have done the same maybe
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Sept 29, 2016 15:17:16 GMT
SNIP< If the guy was running it as a business and wasn't paying his bills then there must have been other things that CRT could have done ...... it is a heck of a long time since I was in the Port of Liverpool but I would have thought CRT could have found somewhere in the port where they could have borrowed or rented at peppercorn rates, a jetty from the port authorities (on a you scratch my back agreement) where it could have been impounded without any access for the owner. If the owner was just genuinely trying to save an iconic ship for the city then he should have been out raising public support and trying to convert it to charity status, especially if it is correct that he had a year to do something about it. >SNIP My post from a week ago Kris, I agree that they have seemed to have acted in an excessive fashion in removing it so far, as you say I think they will have to have a bloody good reason to present the court for that move, but I don't believe they should need to justify moving it out of Canning Dock to another secure mooring
|
|
|
Post by PaulG2 on Sept 29, 2016 15:28:22 GMT
He was acting illegal as well, he wasnt paying his bills and that affects all of us could you imagine if 5 years down the line he still aint handing over the dosh because nowt had happened. At some point somebody has to do something and they have and I suspect the courts will agree with CRT i don't think anybody has been condoning his none payment, I would suggest if he hasn't paid for a year action should have been taken before now.That's quite a change of attitude on your part, Kris. What's the difference between you freeloading on the system for 16 months and this fellow freeloading on the system for 12 months, other than the fact that you freeloaded longer? Both of you were taking up a mooring space that you weren't paying for. The big difference is that, in the case of the lightship, you think that "if he hasn't paid for a year action should have been taken before now." WOW! When said action was being taken against you, all you could do was piss and moan about how unfair it was. You really are quite the narcissist!
|
|
|
Post by kris on Sept 29, 2016 16:45:17 GMT
i don't think anybody has been condoning his none payment, I would suggest if he hasn't paid for a year action should have been taken before now. That's quite a change of attitude on your part, Kris. What's the difference between you freeloading on the system for 16 months and this fellow freeloading on the system for 12 months, other than the fact that you freeloaded longer? Both of you were taking up a mooring space that you weren't paying for. The big difference is that, in the case of the lightship, you think that "if he hasn't paid for a year action should have been taken before now." WOW! When said action was being taken against you, all you could do was piss and moan about how unfair it was. You really are quite the narcissist! if you knew what you are talking about you might make some sense but otherwise wtf are you on about? I was broken down and stationary four about 24 months. This is a situation that is provided for in law. I communicated with Crt at all times. Believe me if they thought they could have towed it away they would have done. Oh and just so you know I wasn't on A mooring. I was tied to a piece of the 2000 miles of muddy towpath, which is what I pay my liscence for. So again wtf are you on about no change of attitude on my part. Notice I haven't resorted to calling you anything which is what you seem to like doing.
|
|
|
Post by PaulG2 on Sept 29, 2016 17:37:40 GMT
That's quite a change of attitude on your part, Kris. What's the difference between you freeloading on the system for 16 months and this fellow freeloading on the system for 12 months, other than the fact that you freeloaded longer? Both of you were taking up a mooring space that you weren't paying for. The big difference is that, in the case of the lightship, you think that "if he hasn't paid for a year action should have been taken before now." WOW! When said action was being taken against you, all you could do was piss and moan about how unfair it was. You really are quite the narcissist! if you knew what you are talking about you might make some sense but otherwise wtf are you on about? I was broken down and stationary four about 24 months. This is a situation that is provided for in law. I communicated with Crt at all times. Believe me if they thought they could have towed it away they would have done. Oh and just so you know I wasn't on A mooring. I was tied to a piece of the 2000 miles of muddy towpath, which is what I pay my liscence for. So again wtf are you on about no change of attitude on my part. Notice I haven't resorted to calling you anything which is what you seem to like doing. Kris, I'm not saying you were wrong doing what you did. But you did have your ups and downs with CRT during those two years and you did bellyache about it. Now, you seem to have no sympathy for a fellow boat owner in similar circumstances. Your lack of empathy is narcissistic by definition. If I'm not mistaken, the terms of use of the waterways is that you can stay in one place on the towpath for 14 days, and then you have to move, except under certain circumstances such as breakdown. You gamed that part of the system for two years, but now, all of a sudden, you are a "rules are rules" kinda guy. Can't you see how hypocritical that is? I'm really in favor of you being you, that's what makes the world interesting. But do try to be consistent, won't you? "People in glass houses" and all that rot.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Sept 29, 2016 19:01:30 GMT
Whatever Paul
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Oct 3, 2016 20:28:00 GMT
The sanctimonious Welsh sheepshagger blows a fuse at Dunkley!! 😂😂 OFFS!!! Please remove the chip!! You know exactly what he meant; a properly qualified barrister who understands the legal system and how it can be argued about.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 3, 2016 20:38:36 GMT
Think from the little I have seen that guy needs experience legal advice. The contract said they could do it. If the contract is unfair then that needs a court hearing and a good barrister who believes it is unfair.
|
|
|
Post by phil70 on Oct 4, 2016 7:16:47 GMT
OFFS!!! - on a Family Forum? Oh dear.... looks like Rabies is going to be banned, eh, readers? I translate it as: Oi Fancy Fucking Sheep. Was that a statement or a question? Phil
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2016 10:31:08 GMT
Graham Rabies has probably had one or two to many
|
|