|
Post by tadworth on Apr 24, 2016 15:12:31 GMT
The court order requires that you pay what you owe, and costs. So I now owe CRT zero. Money is not an issue in this case.
|
|
|
Post by ammodels on Apr 24, 2016 15:17:31 GMT
I dont understand the ins and outs,tbh I havent read most of the thread on cwdf as there are some very one sided posts there. I was trying to get a clear picture in my own head, does that mean you paid for the period when the boat was unlicenced and on CRT waters?
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Apr 24, 2016 15:34:05 GMT
Yes, CRT draft the order to include what they want paid.
They use the elaborate and expensive court order process because they can manipulate it in various ways, whereas just claiming for the money owed in a small claims court earns Shoesmiths nothing, and CRT then have no order against you they can try to harrass you with.
|
|
|
Post by ammodels on Apr 24, 2016 15:50:45 GMT
Got you, small claims - ccj - sherrifs would be the usual route I would have thought.
I cant understand why they would now cancel your licence when it was paid for, its not costing them anything directly the opposite really. Are they trying to say that because you didnt pay in the past the fact you paid now means you might not pay in the future?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2016 16:06:40 GMT
I am only interested in the publicity that posting it on CWDF gets for my case. The longer the tread keeps going the better, even if the usual suspects crayon all over it. I can't do anything more until I get a reply from CRT. Here we were hoping you had joined the forum to contribute as well as take
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2016 16:21:27 GMT
The biggest problem CRT have in my view, is that they show nothing but contempt for their customer base. Its ridiculous, and in due course will no doubt help destroy the canals themselves. They see themselves as a property company, rather than a heritage management team.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Apr 24, 2016 18:50:30 GMT
I am only interested in the publicity that posting it on CWDF gets for my case. The longer the tread keeps going the better, even if the usual suspects crayon all over it. I can't do anything more until I get a reply from CRT. Here we were hoping you had joined the forum to contribute as well as take I was referring to CWDF there, not this forum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2016 19:00:46 GMT
Here we were hoping you had joined the forum to contribute as well as take I was referring to CWDF there, not this forum. Good man,get posting.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Apr 24, 2016 19:50:17 GMT
If there is a court order that requires OnionBargee to request permission to enter the "inland waterways" as has been suggested and it remains in force, CRT will probably claim (I would suggest with some justification)that by applying for his licence "on line" Onionbargee was attempting to avoid the vetting system that would be used during other methods of application. As such he was attempting to avoid the implications of the court order that he should request prior permission to return to the inland waterways. As I said I think there is a lot going on that we do not have information about and it is a long way from a simple cut and dried case.
I will wade in with a first post. This was a sticking point for some on the other side, but the way I see it is that he has used a legal and legitimate way of applying for a license, Unless of course there is something in law that would prevent him from using their own online system?
However I was sceptical at first, but from hearing his side and from Tony, I now agree they should of followed the rules as they have stated It was cancelled because of Tadworth being unsafe.
I feel history is just that history and it sucks of a personal vendetta that is not totally being backed up by CRT.
I'm just here for the debates well and for the valued snippets of advice for on the waterways. I know i'm not a real boater, but Location and two little ones do not help, so I will enjoy hiring. (Only mentioned because I really laughed at a comment earlier about one of the new moderators, someone posted I bet they have not even got a boat)
|
|
|
Post by smileypete on Apr 24, 2016 19:59:22 GMT
welcome bfg
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Apr 24, 2016 20:04:45 GMT
welcome bfg
Thank you. But I mostly just read. Not being an expert an all.
|
|
|
Post by Saltysplash on Apr 24, 2016 20:36:23 GMT
Welcome BFG
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Apr 24, 2016 20:48:44 GMT
Welcome BFG Does hitting the blue button make it a bluey. And thank you.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Apr 24, 2016 21:01:24 GMT
In fact I didn't do the licence on line, I filled out the form and handed it in to the HQ in MK. Not that it makes any difference, an application is an application however you do it.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Apr 24, 2016 21:49:29 GMT
In fact I didn't do the licence on line, I filled out the form and handed it in to the HQ in MK. Not that it makes any difference, an application is an application however you do it. thank you, Well that ruined a lot of peoples argument. you even did it manually and in person. And the last bit was my point. You applied and they approved, I don't think your application is the problem. Otherwise they would of refunded you. just employees getting over their paygrade.
Makes me wonder what there official policies are or can they just do what they want and prey no one will notice? in my job If I break any policy let alone one based on law I would be suspended with job at risk.
Not Knowing the byelaw what is the punishment scale for their breach, I presume its the same as what they impose on boaters. I will sneak back into the background now.
|
|