|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 22, 2021 18:29:15 GMT
On passing the grumpy dunks layer yesterday, there was some major work going on. Is it still the dunks? I can’t imagine Tony paying for any work he’s too tight.
layer : - NOUN - a sheet, quantity, or thickness of material, typically one of several, covering a surface or body.or : lair : - NOUN - a place where a wild animal, especially a fierce or dangerous one, lives.Either include a least some measure of consistency in the semi-literate garbage that you post, . . . or change the thread title - yet again - to remove the word - " allegedly".
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 21, 2021 16:37:54 GMT
Oh it won't take two years for Selby Michael to be taken. It won't even need to go to court. Selby Michael isn't a liveaboard and is currently sunk on a visitors mooring. It will be removed under Section 8 powers CRT already have. Hang on. So crt put water in the boat to stop it floating away and then section 8 it because its sunk. Would be laughed put of court. It would, . . but C&RT have no need in this instance to go to any Court for the sort of Declaration/Injunction Order that they usually obtain for the sole purpose of serving as window dressing to create the illusion of a 'lawful removal' to disguise what are in fact unlawful 'seizures' of pleasure craft. Section 8 0f the 1983 Act is a self-contained statutory power of removal [of 'relevant craft'] - nothing else is needed, . . at least, that is, for the lawful removal [from its present location] of any relevant craft. The sole purpose behind the sham 'legal action' by which C&RT obtain the Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Court) Orders they're so sickeningly proud of is to acquire a piece of paper - the 'Order' - bearing a warning that the defendant's "assets may be seized". C&RT's so-called Customer Licence Support 'Team' then pretend that the warning that's printed on every one of the Declaration/Injunction Forms of Judgment they get stating that non-compliance could lead to the defendants assets being "seized" is something that the Court is authorizing the C&RT to do. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH ! It's a shameless exploiting, by the C&RT, of the boating public's lack of knowledge of Court procedures and paperwork. The seizure of the defendant's assets is a sanction reserved for ONLY the Court to order and execute, if necessary, and at some future occasion. Seizure of any of the defendant's assets, including the boat itself, IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE COURT ORDER that the C&RT obtain when Section 8 cases are taken to Court. The 'seizure' of assets warning is simply to make the defendant aware that THE COURT MAY ORDER/AUTHORIZE THE SEIZURE of any of the defendant's assets as all or part of a penalty imposed BY THE COURT at some FUTURE date AFTER another separate hearing listed specifically to deal with any alleged non-compliance on the part of the defendant with the terms of the original Order. It is NOT, as C&RT has been happy to leave all their Section 8 victims believing, a blanket authorization from the Court for them [the C&RT] to assume the role and authority of the Court and to seize and dispose of the defendant's boat and other assets at its own discretion and as it sees fit. C&RT have no statutory powers or any other lawful authority to 'seize' any vessel, other than in the event of the Court making an Order specifically to that effect, AND at the same time issuing a Warrant or Writ of Control to BE EXECUTED WITH AND AT THE SAME TIME AS THE ORDER, and by Court authorized and certificated Enforcement Agents or Officers [Bailiffs]. If anyone has any doubts as to the truth of any of the above, then I suggest that they click onto this link --- < assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/688442/n16-eng.pdf > --- and read what's printed about one third of the way down page 1 on that N16 Injunction Order form, . . which is the Court form on which the claimant(applicant) drafts out the terms of the Injunction being applied for. If anyone still harbours any lingering doubts about the wording on the N16 Injunction Order form, . . then make a phone call to the Clerks in any County Court office, draw their attention to the seizure of assets warning on the N16 Injunction Order form, and ask them to explain what it means. Ask if it refers to rights that the claimant(applicant) will be entitled to enforce themselves under the Order using their own private Bailiffs, . . or if it refers to an entitlement to action that ONLY the Court itself has the powers and authority to order and execute.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 21, 2021 15:29:25 GMT
there's been no effective challenge to what's been happening. Which begs the obvious question. Will we see one soon? Yes, . . we will, . . but only when I'm satisfied that I've gathered enough written evidence from every potential source to put the outcome beyond doubt. We're nearly there, . . but I think that there's a bit more useful stuff to be had, mainly from the two individuals that C&RT's lawyers are leaving the most exposed and isolated. One of those individuals is Brian Clarke, MD of Commercial Boat Services, and who by tomorrow morning will have held "Halcyon Daze" in his possession for six calendar months whilst unlawfully refusing the undisputed rightful owner access to the vessel, and simultaneously refusing to produce any form of documentation as to the lawful authority for holding the boat in his possession and refusing access to it. The other one is C&RT's 'National Customer Support Manager', Matthew Aymes, the author of yesterday's remarkable e-mail in which he demoted to "contracted security professionals" the 'Enforcement Officers' that C&RT's S.Garner had earlier lied to Nottinghamshire Police about as having been working under his (Garner's) TCE Act S.63(2) authority to act as an Enforcement Agent when they "seized" "Halcyon Daze" on 22 October 2020. I've also a sneaking feeling that there just might be some useful evidence to be had from Gerard Mills, one of the bogus Bailiffs that were provided by CBS. It could be that he was treated to the same pack of lies with which C&RT's S.Garner conned Nottinghamshire Police - ie. that he [G.Mills] would be working under the instructions of someone with the necessary TCE Act S.63(2) authority to act as an Enforcement Agent or Officer.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 21, 2021 13:53:01 GMT
You're obsessed with this misconception that C&RT have some sort of extraordinary lawful powers to help themselves to other people's property and goods and to do whatever they choose with them. C&RT don't have any such powers or rights - no organization or individual does - and the fact that C&RT and its predecessors have been able to get away with unlawfully depriving people of their boats and possessions for so long is down entirely to the fact that there's been no effective challenge to what's been happening. . . . . . . You’re going to lose yet another boat. When are you going to get the fact that crt and the law are out to get you? . . . . . . Not that I've already 'lost' anything, . . but explain how I'm - "going to lose yet another boat". Direct me, and those you seek to persuade, to the statute or the common law that confers on the C&RT the lawful authority to "seize" and to dispose of others goods and property as and when it chooses. We, in the UK, are fortunate in living in a country in which the legislation - ie. statute - that protects its citizens from being unlawfully deprived of their goods and property has had the best part of the last 800 years to be created and to evolve. Why are you so supportive of an organization that behaves like a 12th Century landowner exercising the then common law rights to help himself to whatever he chooses ?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 21, 2021 13:09:37 GMT
To continue chipping away at the obvious weaknesses in C&RT's armour, . . and, in light of yesterday's remarkable e-mailed letter from the "National Customer Support Manager - Licence Support", to make a decision on whether or not to give Nottinghamshire Police another shot at getting things right. First task to dispose of, however, is to deal with the current C&RT plans for helping themselves to my 250 ton commercial barge "Selby Michael" via a re-run of the unlawful seizure of "Halcyon Daze". Sell it, before you lose it. You're obsessed with this misconception that C&RT have some sort of extraordinary lawful powers to help themselves to other people's property and goods and to do whatever they choose with them. C&RT don't have any such powers or rights - no organization or individual does - and the fact that C&RT and its predecessors have been able to get away with unlawfully depriving people of their boats and possessions for so long is down entirely to the fact that there's been no effective challenge to what's been happening.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 21, 2021 11:34:29 GMT
To continue chipping away at the obvious weaknesses in C&RT's armour, . . and, in light of yesterday's remarkable e-mailed letter from the "National Customer Support Manager - Licence Support", to make a decision on whether or not to give Nottinghamshire Police another shot at getting things right. First task to dispose of, however, is to deal with the current C&RT plans for helping themselves to my 250 ton commercial barge "Selby Michael" via a re-run of the unlawful seizure of "Halcyon Daze".
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 20, 2021 17:10:03 GMT
Have you asked the people involved? I don't know who they are... they haven't said... so not sure how I'm supposed to ask them... and ask them what? Have you asked them? Dinky, aka. bedruthan, knows !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 20, 2021 16:55:40 GMT
Am I the only one that has completely forgotten the main legal points which TD wants to fight. Something about being outside the channel that CRT control. I think it showing to take a massive effort to get everything into place to fight them. One case or lots of separate ones. We all know CRT will throw the chequebook put of the window to fight any of this. I think CRT will take you in more circles than this thread. The case was lost when ravenscroft walked away. It will take a similar case to start it all off again. I don’t see that happening. Many believe that time has moved on from older legislation, and feel that the vat is not an issue. Neither do they believe a boat should be on a waterway without a licence. I tend to agree. Personally, I feel effort should go into making crt a better organisation, maintenance, money management etc. This I believe is important for the future. This whole business with dunkley and ravenscroft was just crt bullying, and throwing ridiculous amounts of money for little gain. We really need an independent adjudicator who is not paid by crt. Talking through your backside, as usual, . . you've understood little to nothing of anything I've posted throughout the entirety of this thread, . . and you know just as little about the way the Courts function, or how Judge's minds work. C&RT won't change, or improve in its performance, until it's been ridded of the current system of management along with the specimens who've made such a mess of everything since the Trust was farted into being in 2012. For your 'independent adjudicator' you need look no further than the Courts. By no means all of the Judiciary measures up to the standards it should attain, . . but there's an awful lot of it that does !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 20, 2021 12:44:34 GMT
This e-mail went to C&RT's Matthew Aymes [National Customer Support Manager - Licence Support] and C&RT's Tom Deards [Head of Legal and Governance Services] last Thursday. So far, not a peep out of Deards, but there has now been a response from Aymes - reproduced below this one in yellow italics : -
Fao. M. Aymes and T. Deards. 15 April 2021 (5 days ago)
Mr Aymes and Mr Deards,
This communication is addressed to you jointly as the heads of the C&RT departments directly responsible for the unlawful seizure of residential boat "Halcyon Daze", and my unlawful eviction from the vessel, at Barton Wharf on the river Trent on 22 October 2020.
Further to enquiries made by Nottinghamshire Police the following items of information are now required :
1) Details of the certificate under S.64 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 [the Act] under which the Trust's S.Garner has claimed to have acted in directing the unauthorized and uncertificated "Bailiffs" provided by C&RT contractors Commercial Boat Services to evict me from "Halcyon Daze" and to seize and remove the boat and its entire contents to an undisclosed destination on 22 October 2020.
or ;
2) Details of the exemption applicable to S.Garner and/or the unauthorized and uncertificated "Bailiffs" provided by C&RT contractors Commercial Boat Services under S.63(2) of the Act under which S.Garner and the unauthorized and uncertificated "Bailiffs" provided by C&RT contractors Commercial Boat Services seized and removed the boat and its entire contents to an undisclosed destination on 22 October 2020.
and ;
3) Details of the Warrants or Writs of Control or Possession under which S.Garner and the unauthorized and uncertificated "Bailiffs" provided by C&RT contractors Commercial Boat Services evicted me from the residential boat "Halcyon Daze" (Index No. 52721) prior to removing the boat and its entire contents, including domestic appliances, cooking utensils, clothing, food, and bedding to an undisclosed destination on 22 October 2020.
Signed, A.K.Dunkley. (owner of boat and sole resident). ____________________________________________________________
Today's (20 April 2021) response from Aymes : -
Good morning, Mr. Dunkley.
To respond point-by-point to your email:
1) Halcyon Daze was lawfully removed from Trust Waters. You may see it as a separate matter, but the Trust view, supported by the outcome of Ravenscroft v C&RT, it that Halcyon Daze was on our water and at no point have you previously suggested, or provided evidence to, the contrary.
2) Halcyon Daze was removed using powers from the British Waterways Act 1983, and in accordance with an associated court order.
3) The removal of Halcyon Daze was neither ‘seizure’ nor ‘eviction’. You were given much opportunity to remove the boat from the water or obtain a boat safety certificate and licence. You did none of these things and the boat was removed, as allowed by The Act and as described in the court order. The persistent, knowingly unlawful, presence of the boat on the water – and any items that happened to be on it - was your responsibility.
4) High Court Enforcement Officers or other certified Bailiffs are not required by the Trust when removing boats from our water, even when lived aboard and in accordance with a court order. This has been explained to you previously. The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act (TC&E Act) 2007 is not relevant here. The parts you cite and allude to relate to taking control of goods and selling them to clear an owed debt. In this case, Halcyon Daze was removed from the water because it was there unlawfully, without a licence, and you refused to remedy the situation. It was not removed to realise its value and settle debt. The Trust, at times where it’s anticipated these removals will have an elevated risk of conflict, use the services of contracted security professionals to support the lawful completion of removals and to try to reduce the risk of, and help manage, conflict. This is not the same as outlined in Chapter 3 of the TC&E Act.
5) Stuart Garner’s responses to Nottinghamshire Police were to provide body camera footage from the removal and to provide contact details for our contractors on the day. His response, in my view, shows irrefutable evidence of providing transparent information to the police.
6) In reiteration of my previous response – I am unable to provide you further information in respect of your numbered points 1-3, as none are relevant or required in this case and therefore aren’t available to provide. As previously mentioned, if you would like further information on these points, Lucy Barry will be able explain the position, as in previous conversations with you. I will not be responding further to you on these points as our position is clear.
Regards Matthew Aymes National Customer Support Manager - Licence Support _______________________________________________________________
The above response is, unfortunately for Aymes, somewhat at odds with what C&RT's S.Garner stated to the Police, and with the Nottinghamshire Police version, from which I posted the essential points yesterday. Here they are again for ease of comparison : -
I have reviewed the court order which was used by the Canal and River Trust to seize your boat and I am in agreement with Pc Cartwright in that it was valid at the time it was enforced. The order was issued on 15/08/2019 at the County Court and outlines several conditions.
and :-
Mr Garner explained that he and several colleagues from the Canal and River Trust attended the moorings, along with enforcement officers employed by Greyknight Ltd, who had been hired by the Canal and River Trust to assist in the seizure of your boat on that day
and :-
I have reviewed Section 63 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which provides for enforcement agents;
63(2) an individual may act as an enforcement agent only if one of these applies -
(a) he acts under a certificate under section 64; (b) he is exempt; (c) he acts in the presence and under the direction of a person to whom paragraph (a) or (b) applies.
Under these circumstances the Canal and River Trust have been issued with a County Court order authorising them to remove your boat which therefore allows their employees to act under section 64. The additional enforcement officers hired by the Canal and River Trust are therefore acting in the presence and direction of an authorised person.
and :-
In summary I find that the attending response officers conducted sufficient checks of the parties who seized your boat on 22/10/2020, there has been no criminal offence of fraud or impersonating an enforcement officer, and the only offence which took place was your assault of one the enforcement officers.
and :-
I cannot go any further than Sgt Mackell’s very thorough investigation into your allegations. I note that Sgt Mackell has answered your query about prosecuting the enforcement officers. I have looked through the investigation he conducted and agree with his summary that states: ‘….there has been no criminal offence of fraud or impersonating an enforcement officer, and the only offence which took place was your assault of one the enforcement officers.’ Therefore, Nottinghamshire Police will not be prosecuting the Enforcement Officers.
Nottinghamshire Police 19/04/2021 _________________________________________________________________________
Of great significance with regard to C&RT's basic dishonesty and its willingness to lie its way through or out of anything, is point No 4 of Aymes's response, . . wherein C&RT's "Bailiffs" appear to have undergone a miraculous transformation from being said to be 'Enforcement Officers' stated to be acting under his (Garner's) wholly fictitious TCE Act 2007 S.63(2) authority when C&RT's S.Garner was responding to Police questioning, . . and being itemized as 'Bailiffs' on the C&RT Invoice for the boat 'seizure', . . into what Aymes, at last being almost truthful for once in his wretched life, is now describing as "contracted security professionals". Oh dear !
Anyone remember the so-called 'Bailiffs' who, said by C&RT to be "enforcing a High Court Warrant", broke into and, under the disinterested gaze of the Merseyside Police, forcibly seized the Liverpool Lightship "Planet" on 19 September 2016 ? That was the same fictitious 'High Court Warrant', by the way, that took such a prominent part in the false documentation that C&RT's lawyers exhibited in evidence in the (Chester) High Court on 19 December 2016 in support of their application to the Court to lift the Injunction that was preventing C&RT from selling the ship.
The bogus C&RT 'Bailiffs' who forcibly seized the Liverpool Lightship "Planet" on 19 September 2016, turned out to be local nightclub bouncers and football match stewards, or "contracted security professionals" as Aymes would no doubt now call them. They were provided, again through C&RT contractors Commercial Boat Services, who, in the shape of managing director Brian Clarke both orchestrated and attended the unlawful seizure, by a firm called Paramount Security from just up the road in Bootle.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 20, 2021 7:05:06 GMT
There is a reason why crt treat unoccupied and occupied boats differently under section 8. Yes, CRT don't obtain a court order in the case of an unoccupied boat, and in the case of an occupied boat although there is no reason why they have to, they do anyway to demonstrate that the seizure has been sanctioned by a higher authority. However, in the case under discussion this was not in legal terms an eviction. At what stage in the proceedings, and by what means, do you imagine that the "seizure" of Section 8'd boats is "sanctioned by a higher authority" ? There is no mention of C&RT being authorized to seize anything, boat or goods, in the recital to the standard Declaration and Injunction Orders that C&RT deceive the County Courts into making.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 20, 2021 6:08:27 GMT
Ah yes. Let's not forget you also own Selby Michael which is left sunk on the Hazelford Lock visitors moorings after it took itself on a trip down Trent. If you want to talk about "Selby Michael", let's get a few things straight to start with - like facts, for instance. Firstly, it didn't take 'itself' anywhere, it was deliberate set adrift by letting go the three ropes that had been put back on after it was moved off its designated commercial mooring by C&RT to the lowside of Hazleford Weir, from deck bollards on board. All the ropes were left intact and undamaged, hanging and floating from the shore bollards on the weir side of the low-end bullnose. Secondly, that it was tied up in its present location by C&RT, not by me . . and, it was pumped down, again by C&RT, immediately after it was put there.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 20, 2021 0:10:32 GMT
Mr Shit-for-Brains LLB, . . very impressive ! Mr Shit-for-Brains has a boat. Mr Senile Dementia has a £10,000 legal bill and no boat. I've got several boats, . . but I guess that you're probably referring to "Halcyon Daze", . . the one that was unlawfully seized on the Trust's instructions by C&RT Customer and Licence Support Supervisor arse-wipe, Stuart Garner, and the phony 'Bailiffs' supplied to C&RT by Commercial Criminal Boat Services of Chester, its equally dishonest contractor and long standing partner in thinly disguised fraud, bordering on theft . As for the £10,000 'legal' bill you keep mentioning, . . that's not really an accurate way to describe it, . . the figure is way out, and calling it an 'illegal' bill would be much nearer the mark ! With the £6769.00 costs bill awarded to C&RT at the 15 August 2019 hearing, when the Declaration and Injunction Order was made, added to the C&RT Invoice for (illegal) seizure, (bogus) Bailiffs, transport etc. @ £7360.00, the total is £14,129.00, . . out of which C&RT won't be pursuing me for a single penny. The reason why C&RT won't pursue the costs award from the 2019 Declaration/Injunction hearing or the artificially created so-called debt relating to the unlawful seizure of "Halcyon Daze", is that to do so through the Courts would entail far too much risk, . . the risk of having the thoroughly dishonest and underhanded manner in which the C&RT 'manufactures' and conducts its spurious Section 8 cases exposed to a second and more thorough scrutiny by the Courts, and the shameful truth laid bare for all to see.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 19, 2021 19:17:52 GMT
There is a reason why crt treat unoccupied and occupied boats differently under section 8. Yes, CRT don't obtain a court order in the case of an unoccupied boat, and in the case of an occupied boat although there is no reason why they have to, they do anyway to demonstrate that the seizure has been sanctioned by a higher authority. However, in the case under discussion this was not in legal terms an eviction. Mr Shit-for-Brains LLB, . . very impressive !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 19, 2021 18:15:34 GMT
Yes, . . the C&RT's S.Garner lied to the Police under questioning that the 15 August 2019 Court Order was in fact the mandatory 'certificate to act as an Enforcement Agent/Officer [Bailiff]' specified under S.63(2)(a) of the TCE Act 2007, . . . and the Police have been sufficiently stupid, or incompetent, or dishonest and sly to take what he said at face value. Then prove that wrong and you have won a battle.
Up to you if you want to provide your arguments online and in the open though.
There really doesn't amount to much to argue. An (Court) Order is 'made' by a Judge during the course of a hearing - the correct full terminology for the 15 August 2019 Order (page 221 of this thread) is an 'Order for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief' - the same wording that's used on the CPR Part 8 Claim Forms that C&RT issue against the owners of Section 8'd boats. The Certificates to act as an Enforcement Agent/Officer [Bailiff] - specified in S.64 of the 2007 TCE Act - are a completely different and unrelated document. It's quite a lengthy process to get one, with exhaustive vetting procedures to go through. They last for just 2 years before having to be renewed, are issued by a Court and MUST carry what's known as the 'wet ink' signature of the issuing Judge. They have to be applied for on Court Form EAC1, which is obtainable via this link : - < www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-eac1-application-for-certificate-to-act-as-an-enforcement-agent >
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 19, 2021 17:40:35 GMT
Well, . . the Police shot at a written cover up didn't take long in coming. Most of the report is the same rambling crap that they dished out over the phone last week. Here are the relevant parts of the e-mail attachment it came as, . . everything I needed and hoped for, . . especially the parts underlined and in bold :- I have reviewed the court order which was used by the Canal and River Trust to seize Sniped for brevity So you argue that CRT were not issued with a certificate under S64 - is that right? Yes, . . the C&RT's S.Garner lied to the Police under questioning that the 15 August 2019 Court Order was in fact the mandatory 'certificate to act as an Enforcement Agent/Officer [Bailiff]' specified under S.63(2)(a) of the TCE Act 2007, . . . and the Police have been sufficiently stupid, or incompetent, or dishonest and sly to take what he said at face value.
|
|