|
Post by tadworth on Apr 28, 2016 20:48:31 GMT
Marshal is a real bed wetter, nothing to say, but by god he's going to say it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 20:55:13 GMT
I see lady Cassandra has edited bag of bones post. They really are ego tripping on moderation. Lots of posts have been deleted by her in that thread too. Same thing happened to me earlier today. She/he certainly has a grudge
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 20:57:56 GMT
Nah he is just old school,the boat is his life,absolutely no comparison with the others mentioned here,no viciousness about him,he seemed to be genuinely upset over nothing really
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Apr 29, 2016 17:42:59 GMT
I see lady Cassandra has edited bag of bones post. They really are ego tripping on moderation.
If I was a moderator and made an official post and another moderator edited it, I would be fuming. I would follow her around and delete all her posts. she would be out of the door.
Ive been on a few forums and have seen self moderation at its finest, ive also seen moderators that can control posters and keep things on topic without having to edit posts or put people on mod approval, they are shocking.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 29, 2016 14:17:30 GMT
This is still going on, I am still being unlawfully denied use of Tadworth. At present all the problems CRT have put forward CRT have provided no evidence for, or any legal basis for them, they have dropped all of them now, and are just time wasting, pretending they have done nothing wrong. Mid last week was given as the time they would decide, now its been passed up the food chain, and again the story changes with these liars.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 29, 2016 14:43:54 GMT
That all sounds very vague and without details. Names and times and who said what to whom is what's needed... In the meantime, here is a picture of onions in a frying pan:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2016 14:51:54 GMT
That all sounds very vague and without details. Names and times and who said what to whom is what's needed... In the meantime, here is a picture of onions in a frying pan: If you bother to read the thread on this channel and the other you will see there is all the detail even someone such as yourself would need.In the meantime perhaps rather than winding the guy up with your silly photos you should do him the courtesy of reading his posts before you comment
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2016 14:54:59 GMT
This is still going on, I am still being unlawfully denied use of Tadworth. At present all the problems CRT have put forward CRT have provided no evidence for, or any legal basis for them, they have dropped all of them now, and are just time wasting, pretending they have done nothing wrong. Mid last week was given as the time they would decide, now its been passed up the food chain, and again the story changes with these liars. I think you have no option but to just ride it out a bit further,but I think you have probably already arrived at that conclusion
|
|
|
Post by PaulG2 on May 29, 2016 16:01:01 GMT
This is still going on, I am still being unlawfully denied use of Tadworth. At present all the problems CRT have put forward CRT have provided no evidence for, or any legal basis for them, they have dropped all of them now, and are just time wasting, pretending they have done nothing wrong. Mid last week was given as the time they would decide, now its been passed up the food chain, and again the story changes with these liars. I just read this entire thread and I'm still a bit confused on some of the details. It's been said that details are available on the other channel, but I really can't be arsed to read a long thread that's been all chopped up by moderation. So, please excuse me if I ask a few questions. Are you living on Tadworth? What is your mooring status - IOW do you have one or do you CC? It seems in the past you had a dispute with CRT over whether or not they had the right to charge you or regulate you because of where you were moored. Has that dispute been resolved? What do you mean when you say you are being denied use of Tadworth? How are you being denied use? Briefly, what was the court case about, and what exactly does the order about needing to request and receive permission to use CRT's waterways say? I can see your point that, by definition, applying for a license is asking for permission, but, did the judge specify how you had to go about "asking for permission"? It seems like maybe like there was an implied blowjob that you neglected, or some such thing. None of this is a windup. I'm just trying to get a better idea of what is going on.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 29, 2016 16:52:18 GMT
Thanks Paul - I too have read a lot of the comments but, as I said, it all seems somewhat unclear. Here's a chance for Taddy to put it all into a nutshell. I did give his joke the other day a nod, and, despite my peculiarities, I do wish him a properly satisfying outcome. If I win the Lottery (and I haven't checked last night's coupon/results yet!) I would be more than happy to financially assist Taddy. It all seems so tawdry chasing up canal boaters when the big criminals are running rings round the authorities.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 30, 2016 19:34:58 GMT
1.Given a court order for non payment of licence in 2013. 2.CRT tell me "it would not be appropriate to issue another licence" and lead me to believe the court order requires me to get THEIR consent before I can apply for a new licence. 3. I find out that the wording of the court order " consent" is the legal term for a licence, and not CRT's own consent, and the law states that if you meet the conditions for a licence BSC, insurance, mooring or CC declaration, CRT must issue you the licence. These court orders do not prevent a new licence being granted, BW and CRT have stated this fact previously in court, and in the media.They obviously lied. Later on CRT admit what they said was not true. 4. I apply for licence, and it is granted. 5. CRT cancelled licence days later claiming it was an "administrative error". And threaten me with seizure under the previous court order. 6 . later on CRT claim my boat is "not fit to navigate" under 1962 transport act, they cannot tell me why, and break that same law by not following its due process of telling the owner what the problem is and giving 28 for them to remedy it. 7. CRT drop the above, and claim they are not happy my mooring is genuine, I prove it is. 8. CRT repeatedly say they have refunded my licence fee, but I have never received it. 9 CRT have claimed I do not have a valid licence, and i must not enter onto their waters since 16 th of March, but have no produced any legal or valid reason why my licence is not valid. So I have unlawfully been prevented from use of my boat since that date. Since CRT claimed that granting a licence would be "inappropriate" since Early 2014, they have also deceived me out of obtaining a licence and use of my boat all that time as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2016 19:57:51 GMT
1.Given a court order for non payment of licence in 2013. 2.CRT tell me "it would not be appropriate to issue another licence" and lead me to believe the court order requires me to get THEIR consent before I can apply for a new licence. 3. I find out that the wording of the court order " consent" is the legal term for a licence, and not CRT's own consent, and the law states that if you meet the conditions for a licence BSC, insurance, mooring or CC declaration, CRT must issue you the licence. These court orders do not prevent a new licence being granted, BW and CRT have stated this fact previously in court, and in the media.They obviously lied. Later on CRT admit what they said was not true. 4. I apply for licence, and it is granted. 5. CRT cancelled licence days later claiming it was an "administrative error". And threaten me with seizure under the previous court order. 6 . later on CRT claim my boat is "not fit to navigate" under 1962 transport act, they cannot tell me why, and break that same law by not following its due process of telling the owner what the problem is and giving 28 for them to remedy it. 7. CRT drop the above, and claim they are not happy my mooring is genuine, I prove it is. 8. CRT repeatedly say they have refunded my licence fee, but I have never received it. 9 CRT have claimed I do not have a valid licence, and i must not enter onto their waters since 16 th of March, but have no produced any legal or valid reason why my licence is not valid. So I have unlawfully been prevented from use of my boat since that date. Since CRT claimed that granting a licence would be "inappropriate" since Early 2014, they have also deceived me out of obtaining a licence and use of my boat all that time as well. I was under the impression they were coming to a decision by the middle of last week ? I think you have a clear cut case and its how you progress it now,have you any thoughts of YOUR next move legally ? Its a total disgrace the way you are being held in Limbo
|
|
|
Post by PaulG2 on May 30, 2016 19:58:46 GMT
1.Given a court order for non payment of licence in 2013. 2.CRT tell me "it would not be appropriate to issue another licence" and lead me to believe the court order requires me to get THEIR consent before I can apply for a new licence. 3. I find out that the wording of the court order " consent" is the legal term for a licence, and not CRT's own consent, and the law states that if you meet the conditions for a licence BSC, insurance, mooring or CC declaration, CRT must issue you the licence. These court orders do not prevent a new licence being granted, BW and CRT have stated this fact previously in court, and in the media.They obviously lied. Later on CRT admit what they said was not true. 4. I apply for licence, and it is granted. 5. CRT cancelled licence days later claiming it was an "administrative error". And threaten me with seizure under the previous court order. 6 . later on CRT claim my boat is "not fit to navigate" under 1962 transport act, they cannot tell me why, and break that same law by not following its due process of telling the owner what the problem is and giving 28 for them to remedy it. 7. CRT drop the above, and claim they are not happy my mooring is genuine, I prove it is. 8. CRT repeatedly say they have refunded my licence fee, but I have never received it. 9 CRT have claimed I do not have a valid licence, and i must not enter onto their waters since 16 th of March, but have no produced any legal or valid reason why my licence is not valid. So I have unlawfully been prevented from use of my boat since that date. Since CRT claimed that granting a licence would be "inappropriate" since Early 2014, they have also deceived me out of obtaining a licence and use of my boat all that time as well. Let me see if I have this straight. CRT takes you to court to extract license fees from you, but then tell you they don't want your money and that issuing you a license would be a bad move on their part. I suppose that makes sense - in bizarro world! It sounds like you really pissed someone off and that all of CRT are rallying around whomever that is. Are you moored on CRT waters? Do you live on the boat? From what you have said, this really seems like a huge waste of time on CRT's part. What kind of condition is Tadworth in? Is it safe to navigate? I hope you use the word "retaliatory" a lot in your correspondence with CRT. Good luck! Oh, and thanks for the reply. Just for the record, is the 2013 court case concluded and everything sorted on that?
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 30, 2016 20:48:31 GMT
Yes, I agree a business should tell bad paying customers to not come back, however CRT is governed by laws that say it cannot, and must grant a licence to anyone who meets the conditions, and pays.
The boat is moored in a private water marina where CRT have no juristiction.
Tadworth is safe to navigate, its moored there with no bilge pump, so better than some rust buckets. However there is no requirement in any legislation that any boats hull is of any standard. The BSC doesn't cover any superstructure. Crazy but true.
The court order was "expended" after i finally obtained a valid licence, it requires that I seek "consent" before entering CRT waters again, I have done, and paid in full for 12 months. CRT have not provided any genuine reason why they could cancell it.
Why are they doing it ? I simply don't know, either total and utter incompetence, or deliberate harrasment ? Its never been about money, they have tried to prevent me from paying them licence fees far more than what I owed them, and made a heap of terrible PR for themselves, which I will take delight in spinning out for as long as possible, plus the official complaint, the ombudsman, and the judicial review if necessary. It would have been far easier for them if they just told the truth, now they have dug themselves into a deep hole of lies, and are trying to get out of it.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jun 1, 2016 1:58:29 GMT
Naughtfox, I think you are under the missaprehension that CRT are a normal sane bunch who admit mistakes, and apologise, they do no such thing in my and some others experience. They just lie, like a desperate politician, and then when found out pretend it didnt happen. Yes you can go and talk to them face to face in Milton keynes , but they refuse to admit they are wrong, their idea of the legislation is completely distorted, you need a team of lawyers to decipher the half baked nonsense they come out with, and they are not willing to let a mere boater challenge their authority.
The point you made about BSC and insurance companies, yes they may not insure you fully comp on a survey that shows below 4mm hull thickness, but there is no survey needed for third party only, and that is all that is required for licencing purposes.
The reason why I didn't pay it are irrelevant, I wouldn't mind if CRT had told me the truth but they didn't, they lied that the court order prevented them from issuing another licence, and that they had the power to decide who it was " appropriate" to issue licences to, when they knew full well that they must issue a licence by law if the conditions are met. I don't like being lied to.
|
|