|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 8, 2024 12:22:37 GMT
Do they sell merely to recover outstanding debt or (rare occasion I would guess) if worth more do they return any excess cash to the previous owner ? Anyone know ? Rog If by "they" you mean the C&RT, the answer is that neither C&RT, nor any agent of C&RT has any legal/lawful right to sell anyone's boat, goods or belongings as a means of debt recovery. Only a Court has the powers and authority to order the sale of someone's boat, goods or belongings as a means of debt recovery. These simple undeniable facts have been related and explained repeatedly in posts on this forum, . . but you, and your equally bigoted and stupid internet friends, persist in your blinkered denials of the inescapable truth :- 'Seizing' goods, an item, property, or belongings does not equate with acquiring 'good title', . . unless the seizure of the goods (etc.) has been properly and specifically authorized or ordered by way of an enactment, a Writ, or a Warrant.
This, apparently, incomprehensible (for all C&RT's gullible, unthinking supporters) and (for C&RT and CBS) inconvenient but undeniable fact, is what makes every single one of C&RT's Section 8 boat "removals" unlawful, . . because the 'seizure' of the vessel in question is executed with the predetermined intention of either destroying the vessel, or selling it on to a third party, . . entirely absent any authority or documentation originating from any enactment or Court ordered 'seizure power' to do so lawfully/legally. ___________________________________________________ Paragraph 2) of Schedule 12) to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 states :- Enforcement agents2(1) In this Schedule “enforcement agent” means an individual authorised by section 63(2) to act as an enforcement agent. 2(2) Only an enforcement agent may take control of goods and sell them under an enforcement power. _____________________________________________ The words - "enforcement power" (Para, 2(2) of Schedule 12 to TCE Act 2007) are of special significance with regard to C&RT's unlawful seizures of Section 8'd boats from their rightful owners. Neither C&RT, nor Commercial Boat Services bogus Bailiffs, have ever acted or are ever, or ever have been authorized to act under any such "enforcement power", although it is a matter of record that both organizations routinely and wilfully mislead and lie to the Police to lead them to believe that such powers are being lawfully exercised when 'removing' boats subject to Section 8 Notices from C&RT managed or controlled inland waterways. It follows therefore that C&RT's Section 8 boat 'seizures', and the 'evictions' of the owners that usually accompany the 'seizing' of the vessel are all, without exception, wholly unlawful/illegal.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 8, 2024 12:36:55 GMT
Cor you don't half sound like an expert. You should do something about it.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 8, 2024 18:01:45 GMT
Do they sell merely to recover outstanding debt or (rare occasion I would guess) if worth more do they return any excess cash to the previous owner ? Anyone know ? Rog If by "they" you mean the C&RT, the answer is that neither C&RT, nor any agent of C&RT has any legal/lawful right to sell anyone's boat, goods or belongings as a means of debt recovery.
Only a Court has the powers and authority to order the sale of someone's boat, goods or belongings as a means of debt recovery. These simple undeniable facts have been related and explained repeatedly in posts on this forum, . . but you, and your equally bigoted and stupid internet friends, persist in your blinkered denials of the inescapable truth :- 'Seizing' goods, an item, property, or belongings does not equate with acquiring 'good title', . . unless the seizure of the goods (etc.) has been properly and specifically authorized or ordered by way of an enactment, a Writ, or a Warrant.
This, apparently, incomprehensible (for all C&RT's gullible, unthinking supporters) and (for C&RT and CBS) inconvenient but undeniable fact, is what makes every single one of C&RT's Section 8 boat "removals" unlawful, . . because the 'seizure' of the vessel in question is executed with the predetermined intention of either destroying the vessel, or selling it on to a third party, . . entirely absent any authority or documentation originating from any enactment or Court ordered 'seizure power' to do so lawfully/legally.
___________________________________________________ Paragraph 2) of Schedule 12) to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 states :- Enforcement agents
2(1) In this Schedule “enforcement agent” means an individual authorised by section 63(2) to act as an enforcement agent. 2(2) Only an enforcement agent may take control of goods and sell them under an enforcement power. _____________________________________________ The words - " enforcement power" (Para, 2(2) of Schedule 12 to TCE Act 2007) are of special significance with regard to C&RT's unlawful seizures of Section 8'd boats from their rightful owners. Neither C&RT, nor Commercial Boat Services bogus Bailiffs, have ever acted or are ever, or ever have been authorized to act under any such "enforcement power", although it is a matter of record that both organizations routinely and wilfully mislead and lie to the Police to lead them to believe that such powers are being lawfully exercised when 'removing' boats subject to Section 8 Notices from C&RT managed or controlled inland waterways. It follows therefore that C&RT's Section 8 boat 'seizures', and the 'evictions' of the owners that usually accompany the 'seizing' of the vessel are all, without exception, wholly unlawful/illegal.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 8, 2024 18:42:41 GMT
Do they sell merely to recover outstanding debt or (rare occasion I would guess) if worth more do they return any excess cash to the previous owner ? Anyone know ? Rog Yes, after costs have been deducted, any surplus would be returned to the previous owner although in practice this rarely if ever happens as the overwhelming majority of boats removed under Section 8 are worth little more than scrap value.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Apr 8, 2024 18:50:31 GMT
That's one of the issues, they build up such high costs there's no chance there will very be any surplus.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 8, 2024 19:18:45 GMT
Do they sell merely to recover outstanding debt or (rare occasion I would guess) if worth more do they return any excess cash to the previous owner ? Anyone know ? Rog Yes, after costs have been deducted, any surplus would be returned to the previous owner although in practice this rarely if ever happens as the overwhelming majority of boats removed under Section 8 are worth little more than scrap value. Your ill-considered worthless answer to your internet stalking buddy's question is of no use or value whatsoever, Shit-for-Brains. You're quite incapable of answering such a question, . . so there is no point in attemping to do so Your internet stalking buddy, dogless, has been provided with the answer and the information he needs, but he is far too stupid and ignorant to acknowledge, read or understand the definitive answer he has, . . and so are you !
|
|
|
Post by on Apr 8, 2024 19:33:29 GMT
Do they sell merely to recover outstanding debt or (rare occasion I would guess) if worth more do they return any excess cash to the previous owner ? Anyone know ? Rog Yes, after costs have been deducted, any surplus would be returned to the previous owner although in practice this rarely if ever happens as the overwhelming majority of boats removed under Section 8 are worth little more than scrap value. Interesting to see the old L&L Boats approaching scrap value. I wouldn't touch them with a largepole. Too dodgy. Ageing is a terrible phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 8, 2024 19:42:38 GMT
Yes, after costs have been deducted, any surplus would be returned to the previous owner although in practice this rarely if ever happens as the overwhelming majority of boats removed under Section 8 are worth little more than scrap value. Ageing is a terrible phenomenon. We see it all the time.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 8, 2024 19:59:11 GMT
That's one of the issues, they build up such high costs there's no chance there will very be any surplus. The C&RT/Commercial Boat Services[CBS] boat thieving scam has to operate that way, . . because the purpose behind the scheme is purely to enable Brian Clarke, the crook who owns and runs Commercial Boat Services, to send unnecessary and grossly inflated invoices to C&RT, . . the huge profits from which can then be shared with the crooked managers and bent Solicitors at C&RT who arrange and ensure that all the Section 8 boat stealing work comes Brian Clarke/CBS's way.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 8, 2024 20:07:52 GMT
Yes, after costs have been deducted, any surplus would be returned to the previous owner although in practice this rarely if ever happens as the overwhelming majority of boats removed under Section 8 are worth little more than scrap value. Interesting to see the old L&L Boats approaching scrap value. I wouldn't touch them with a largepole. Too dodgy. Ageing is a terrible phenomenon. The reality is that neither Wyre nor Mersey are currently advertised for sale by Commercial Boat Services, and they are telling enquirers that both have been sold.
This, . . as I've said previously, . . means that either the boats have been sold, in which case Commercial Boat Services/C&RT have sold something that wasn't theirs to sell, and are therefore in big trouble. Or, Commercial Boat Services/C&RT have taken both boats off the market because of the increasingly widespread publicity about them NOT, and never, being Commercial Boat Services' or C&RT's to sell in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by on Apr 8, 2024 20:11:26 GMT
Ageing is a terrible phenomenon. We see it all the time. There is that.
|
|
|
Post by on Apr 8, 2024 20:12:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 8, 2024 20:19:30 GMT
I blame the Thatcher Government for closing down all the mental hospitals. Previously the afflicted would have somewhere warm to live and three square meals a day, they wouldn't have to live on narrowboats in such a dilapidated state that they were exempt from BSS requirements.
"Care in the Community" was a fine idea in theory, it's just a bit of a PITA for the community who are exposed to these medical grade idiots.
|
|
|
Post by on Apr 8, 2024 20:43:00 GMT
I blame the Thatcher Government for closing down all the mental hospitals. Previously the afflicted would have somewhere warm to live and three square meals a day, they wouldn't have to live on narrowboats in such a dilapidated state that they were exempt from BSS requirements. "Care in the Community" was a fine idea in theory, it's just a bit of a PITA for the community who are exposed to these medical grade idiots. Yes I remember a bloke I knew on a Boat back in the 90s. He was a nurse in an asylum called the Fairmile hospital. Near Wallingford by the Thames. They even had a little Boat house. And a small farm. It was a proper asylum then it got closed. Now it is moderately expensive South Oxon housing. He was a funny bloke. "Care in the community-the community don't care". Having said that my older sister is a care in the community case and the community do often sort it out if done right. She isn't a geriatric case. I can see awkward situations occurring if you get geriatric loonies. Nobody can deal with the taboo but in a lot of situations it would be worth actively encouraging and facilitating suicide or euthanasia. Some people really aren't worth keeping alive. The people who this applies to are aware of it but they may not possess the nous or intelligence to sort it out. Guidance will be needed. The world could be a better plaice without fish and chip shops. For cod's hake !
|
|
|
Post by dyertribe on Apr 8, 2024 20:54:01 GMT
Ageing is a terrible phenomenon. We see it all the time. It is better than the alternative ……
|
|