|
Post by TonyDunkley on Dec 31, 2020 10:31:18 GMT
You're overlooking the crucial point that separates this particular case from the majority, if not almost all, of C&RT's illegally founded and conducted boat 'seizures'. The owner of the boat had an indefensible case against C&RT on the grounds that he DID have a current unexpired "Rivers only Licence". How many more times do you think that's going to happen ? As many times as people decide to empower that particular route. You yourself keep reminding us of the illegal activities of crt, even in the action of taking your boat, so I imagine you could take the same opportunity to take out an injunction. You're still missing the point. The owner of the boat had an indefensible case against C&RT simply because they had founded their actions on their mistaken treatment of a 12 month 'Rivers only Licence' as if it were a 6 month Canal Licence. How many more times is THAT going happen again ? The solicitors who acted for this man had a free shot at C&RT via a number of indefensible actions, . . and they let them off the hook by going for a Judicial Review.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2020 10:39:58 GMT
As many times as people decide to empower that particular route. You yourself keep reminding us of the illegal activities of crt, even in the action of taking your boat, so I imagine you could take the same opportunity to take out an injunction. You're still missing the point. The owner of the boat had an indefensible case against C&RT simply because they had founded their actions on their mistaken treatment of a 12 month 'Rivers only Licence' as if it were a 6 month Canal Licence. How many more times is THAT going happen again ? The solicitors who acted for this man had a free shot at C&RT via a number of indefensible actions, . . and they let them off the hook by going for a Judicial Review. It is you who’s missing the point. If your accusation of crt acting illegally whilst taking your boat has ground, then a judicial review would either get your boat back, plus compensation, or you would have your day in court. There is no argument or debate on this, both are options open to you, yet you seem to want to avoid. As I have stated previously, you will gain nothing from fighting your corner on the internet, the majority will just tire of reading it, and that of course includes crt.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Dec 31, 2020 11:20:47 GMT
But moving a boat over a long distance would mean a crew of 5 - 3 to move the boat and 2 to provide overnight security to prevent the owner taking back their boat. Of course the crew couldn’t be expected to sleep on board and so would need hotels at night, not to mention taxis to and from the hotels and take away meal deliveries, etc etc. Your reference to circumstances whereby the rightful owner of a boat has been illegally deprived of it absent the appropriate Court issued Warrant or Writ and by bogus Bailiffs employed and instructed by the C&RT, begs the question, . . do you believe that, in those circumstances, the owner of the vessel would be acting unlawfully by repossessing it ? If the boat has been unlawfully removed of course the owner has a right to have it returned, and compensated. Whilst I am not legally qualified, I see no reason why repossession by peaceful means would be wrong, but it would NOT be ok to violently attack the crew to gain it’s return.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Dec 31, 2020 11:49:24 GMT
Your reference to circumstances whereby the rightful owner of a boat has been illegally deprived of it absent the appropriate Court issued Warrant or Writ and by bogus Bailiffs employed and instructed by the C&RT, begs the question, . . do you believe that, in those circumstances, the owner of the vessel would be acting unlawfully by repossessing it ? If the boat has been unlawfully removed of course the owner has a right to have it returned, and compensated. Whilst I am not legally qualified, I see no reason why repossession by peaceful means would be wrong, but it would NOT be ok to violently attack the crew to gain it’s return. Surely you are allowed to use reasonable force to protect your property from theft? Or can a yoof just come up to you in the street, grab your phone and you are disallowed from trying to grab it back?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Dec 31, 2020 12:43:25 GMT
If the boat has been unlawfully removed of course the owner has a right to have it returned, and compensated. Whilst I am not legally qualified, I see no reason why repossession by peaceful means would be wrong, but it would NOT be ok to violently attack the crew to gain it’s return. Surely you are allowed to use reasonable force to protect your property from theft? Or can a yoof just come up to you in the street, grab your phone and you are disallowed from trying to grab it back? A yoof in the street won't have a court order authorising him to grab your phone.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Dec 31, 2020 13:16:03 GMT
If the boat has been unlawfully removed of course the owner has a right to have it returned, and compensated. Whilst I am not legally qualified, I see no reason why repossession by peaceful means would be wrong, but it would NOT be ok to violently attack the crew to gain it’s return. Surely you are allowed to use reasonable force to protect your property from theft? Or can a yoof just come up to you in the street, grab your phone and you are disallowed from trying to grab it back? Reasonable force may be permitted, but beating the ‘yoof’ to a bloody pulp may be considered unreasonable.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Dec 31, 2020 13:23:08 GMT
Surely you are allowed to use reasonable force to protect your property from theft? Or can a yoof just come up to you in the street, grab your phone and you are disallowed from trying to grab it back? A yoof in the street won't have a court order authorising him to grab your phone. Neither did CRT.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Dec 31, 2020 17:06:24 GMT
You're still missing the point. The owner of the boat had an indefensible case against C&RT simply because they had founded their actions on their mistaken treatment of a 12 month 'Rivers only Licence' as if it were a 6 month Canal Licence. How many more times is THAT going happen again ? The solicitors who acted for this man had a free shot at C&RT via a number of indefensible actions, . . and they let them off the hook by going for a Judicial Review. It is you who’s missing the point. If your accusation of crt acting illegally whilst taking your boat has ground, then a judicial review would either get your boat back, plus compensation, or you would have your day in court. There is no argument or debate on this, both are options open to you, yet you seem to want to avoid. As I have stated previously, you will gain nothing from fighting your corner on the internet, the majority will just tire of reading it, and that of course includes crt. If you want to speculate and advise on what you've incorrectly surmised about the action I'm taking with regard to C&RT's illegal activities, you would do well to first spend some time acquainting yourself with Court procedures, paying particular attention to the possible outcomes, and the inevitable limitations, that can be expected from the various different paths open to litigants. I'll ask the question once more, . . this time in a slightly different form. What are the chances of C&RT ever again 'seizing', under S.8(2) of the 1983 Act, any more boats with a valid/current 'licence' and thereby leaving themselves open to proceedings against which there would be no viable Defence ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2020 17:41:09 GMT
This one does seem slightly unusual in that the boat was (according to the nbta) licensed.
I believe that in the case of your own boat Halcyon Daze there was a "we require these three things" problem and the boat was unlicensed at the time.
A similar thing will happen with one of my boats at the end of February if I am still alive but it is the "or can reasonably be kept" part which will kick in in my case. They won't relicense the boat unless I do one or go and live in a treehouse.
Make of that what you will
Fortunately my friend is going to remove the boat before CRT get a round tuit.
ETA and given the current case rate I would be surprised if I survive anyway.
Definitely better for a friend to get the boat than CRT .
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Dec 31, 2020 20:35:40 GMT
Your reference to circumstances whereby the rightful owner of a boat has been illegally deprived of it absent the appropriate Court issued Warrant or Writ and by bogus Bailiffs employed and instructed by the C&RT, begs the question, . . do you believe that, in those circumstances, the owner of the vessel would be acting unlawfully by repossessing it ? If the boat has been unlawfully removed of course the owner has a right to have it returned, and compensated. Whilst I am not legally qualified, I see no reason why repossession by peaceful means would be wrong, but it would NOT be ok to violently attack the crew to gain it’s return. Every boat belonging to a known and contactable owner that is 'seized' by or on the instructions of the C&RT is 'unlawfully' removed. Section 8 of the BW Act 1983 confers no authority, statutory or otherwise, to 'seize' anything from anybody, . . and neither does the much vaunted 'Court Order' that C&RT enjoy bragging over having obtained on their fantasy webpage headed - "Court action to remove boats from our waterways".
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Dec 31, 2020 21:22:05 GMT
If the boat has been unlawfully removed of course the owner has a right to have it returned, and compensated. Whilst I am not legally qualified, I see no reason why repossession by peaceful means would be wrong, but it would NOT be ok to violently attack the crew to gain it’s return. Section 8 of the BW Act 1983 confers no authority, statutory or otherwise, to 'seize' anything from anybody, . . and neither does the much vaunted 'Court Order' that C&RT enjoy bragging over having obtained on their fantasy webpage headed - "Court action to remove boats from our waterways". Actually, I have to correct you here. If a Court Order is issued then the plaintiff is legally entitled to carry out any such action against the defendant as is stipulated in the Court Order. You may consider this to be unjust or unfair but that is neither here nor there.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jan 1, 2021 10:40:41 GMT
Section 8 of the BW Act 1983 confers no authority, statutory or otherwise, to 'seize' anything from anybody, . . and neither does the much vaunted 'Court Order' that C&RT enjoy bragging over having obtained on their fantasy webpage headed - "Court action to remove boats from our waterways". Actually, I have to correct you here. If a Court Order is issued then the plaintiff is legally entitled to carry out any such action against the defendant as is stipulated in the Court Order. You may consider this to be unjust or unfair but that is neither here nor there. that is not correct when it is a dwelling ....... that has been determined by a court.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2021 10:47:49 GMT
I'm really intrigued about how you prove whether or not a boat is a dwelling.
There must be certain things but loads of people live in boats perfectly comfortably in very old fashioned ways without properly functioning services.
It seems to me the only way would be by observation and that would be tricky to prove.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 1, 2021 16:13:19 GMT
Section 8 of the BW Act 1983 confers no authority, statutory or otherwise, to 'seize' anything from anybody, . . and neither does the much vaunted 'Court Order' that C&RT enjoy bragging over having obtained on their fantasy webpage headed - "Court action to remove boats from our waterways". Actually, I have to correct you here. If a Court Order is issued then the plaintiff is legally entitled to carry out any such action against the defendant as is stipulated in the Court Order. You may consider this to be unjust or unfair but that is neither here nor there. You're neither wholly correct, nor wholly accurate in any of that, . . . but I do get the gist of what you're trying to say. In common with the four remarkably stupid Nottinghamshire police officers who actively assisted C&RT's bogus Bailiffs with the unlawful 'seizure' of "Halcyon Daze" on 22 October last, you've made the same mistake of believing that a "Court Order" of the sort that C&RT brag over obtaining on their website amounts to the Court's written approval/authority for Trust instructed bogus Bailiffs to assume the role of "Officers of the Court" and then to exceed the terms of the Order that the Court had made in a manner which would be illegal if executed by genuine Enforcement Agents or High Court Enforcement Officers armed with genuine Warrants or Writs of Control.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 1, 2021 20:03:28 GMT
By way of a follow-up to the previous post, here's the paragraph from the 15 August 2019 Order that precisely specifies what C&RT are entitled, and statutorily authorized, to do with regard to forcibly evicting boat owners from the boats they live aboard prior to forcibly 'seizing' the vessel and then falsely portraying the Trust as voluntary bailees of the vessel and its contents via the issuing of a sham Tort Notice in a very transparent, and a very definitely illegal, attempt to legitimize selling or otherwise disposing of someone else's goods and property : --
IT IS ORDERED THAT :
It is hereby declared that the Claimant is entitled, after 4pm on 29 August 2019, to remove the Defendant's boat "Halcyon Daze" Index No 52721 [the Boat] from the canals and inland waterways under the Claimant's control shown coloured blue on the plan and listed in the Schedule ("the Claimant's waterways"), both annexed hereto, pursuant to its statutory powers under Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 and Section 13 of the British Waterways Act 1971, unless on or before that date the Defendant has obtained a licence or a pleasure boat certificate (as appropriate) for the Boat, or otherwise the consent of the Claimant for the Boat to remain thereon.
|
|