|
Post by lollygagger on Apr 2, 2018 20:02:20 GMT
The contents of his boat presumably. If you had 10 minutes (or whatever) to clear your boat I imagine the tow path would look a bit of a mess too and you don't live on yours. But it isn't. Look at the picture. Look at the boat. Look at the grass. I quite like random assortment of relatively useful equipment but I know that even if you do this on your own land (unless you can hide it) it does not end well. Doing it on someone else's land is pushing it and will be stopped. Its blatantly obvious. Towpath smopath wasteland whatever... Looks to me like fishes out things from the water (as they float by in his case, maybe he doesn't have a magnet), so you have something in common. đ
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 2, 2018 20:03:45 GMT
Yes, they're the ones. So, let's hear all about your greater understanding of these procedures and processes, . . . or are you just going to duck the issue and avoid answering, as you usually do whenever you're caught out spouting off about something you don't in truth know anything about ? Just quoting you to get your attention What do you think about the suggestion that the highways agency (it was you who suggested the boat was moored under a motorway bridge) may have requested that CRT remove the boat from their land? I imagine the highways agency may have some other powers available to them for example for removing caravans from their land. So this raises the question of who has the right to do what when it comes to forcefully removing boats from private river or canal banks. This is where you and Nigel can help I've no doubt that Tony's heart is in the right place but, as some folk do, he confuses "It is sad that this is happening" with "It is illegal that this is happening".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2018 20:11:46 GMT
I had assumed that one of the better aspects of this forum was that topics could wander away from the original subject.
As it happens the op made no mention at all of someone being made "homeless" but this seemed to have been grabbed as an opportunity to push a "CRT are evil" type line.
I don't really think that's helpful but discussion of the law regarding mooring to private land definitely seems interesting and as there are at least two experts in this field on here (Nigel and Tony Dunkley) it seems more productive to discuss this rather than get into pointless personal abuse type drivel.
Does anyone object to that ?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 2, 2018 20:21:30 GMT
"I imagine the tow path would look a bit of a mess too and you don't live on yours." We certainly do for 14 weeks of a year - and you're welcome to pop along to anywhere we're moored up to see if we've left the towpath looking like it's been occupied by 'Travellers' for a month. You have totally changed the meaning of my post so you could take umbrage, I believe that makes you a twat. Twat. Rubbish. You're suggesting this pile of crap beside his boat has been hastily turned out within minutes of the CRT-Terms-&-Conditions-Enforcers arriving at 9am. I declare this heap of rubbish has been there for weeks. Prove me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Apr 2, 2018 20:25:40 GMT
You have totally changed the meaning of my post so you could take umbrage, I believe that makes you a twat. Twat.  Rubbish. You're suggesting this pile of crap beside his boat has been hastily turned out within minutes of the CRT-Terms-&-Conditions-Enforcers arriving at 9am. I declare this heap of rubbish has been there for weeks. Prove me wrong. You're still doing it. Twat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2018 20:28:14 GMT
Foxy, go drive a bus or something.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 2, 2018 20:30:24 GMT
Foxy, go drive a bus or something. Yes, Dear. Up at 0320 UK-time tomorrow to do just that
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 2, 2018 20:45:54 GMT
So this raises the question of who has the right to do what when it comes to forcefully removing boats from private river or canal banks. Ultimately, if a registration or licence is a statutory requirement, then the legitimacy of the mooring per se is irrelevant. An unbalanced emphasis is placed upon â left or moored therein without lawful authorityâ. There can be a mooring with lawful authority [by reason of the bankside ownerâs consent], yet the vessel, if in breach of the statutory ârelevant consentâ, is left within the waterway without that relevant consent, and hence subject to s.8. Ultimately, if the statutory sanctions [never hitherto applied] have failed to remedy the situation, it will be subject to removal from the waterway - whether moored to private property or not. The only relevance the mooring situation has, is if a ârelevant consentâ is refused/revoked by reason of a claim that the boat should have been âCCâingâ and was not. Yet, if the boat was moored at a legitimate mooring place absent objection from the mooring owner, then the boat cannot legitimately be regarded as a non-compliant âCCâerâ, whatever the basis upon which the ârelevant consentâ was applied for in the first place; it can â reasonably be kept and may lawfully be leftâ where it is, and ought not to be regarded as in breach of statute. On the other hand, regardless of the possession of a ârelevant consentâ to be on the waterway, private riparian owners have their own legal recourse to prevent an unauthorised trespass to their land, and may require by civil action, removal of a boat attached to it without their consent â but that is a very different case to powers to remove from the waterway. CaRT could doubtless be involved in such a case having been informed that the boat is there without the landownerâs consent, resulting in the eventual classification of the trespassing vessel as a ârelevant craftâ for the purpose of s.8, though that would be an unnecessarily protracted and convoluted way for the landowner to deal with the situation. Easier and quicker to ask the courts for an injunction against a trespassing boat, if summary self-help is not actioned.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 2, 2018 20:55:06 GMT
So this raises the question of who has the right to do what when it comes to forcefully removing boats from private river or canal banks. CaRT could doubtless be involved in such a case having been informed that the boat is there without the landownerâs consent, resulting in the eventual classification of the trespassing vessel as a ârelevant craftâ for the purpose of s.8, though that would be an unnecessarily protracted and convoluted way for the landowner to deal with the situation. I believe that in this case, it was removed because it had no licence, insurance or Boat Safety Certificate rather than there being an issue with trespassing.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 2, 2018 21:05:21 GMT
I think your last few posts, and this latest most helpful and constructive of contributions, serve well to illustrate what, amongst other things, a complete and utter moron you really are. There is probably little else that needs saying to or about you, except perhaps that my earlier description of you as a 'fucking idiot' has proved wholly inadequate, if not somewhat over complimentary. Your comments have been noted and are receiving the appropriate consideration.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 2:19:24 GMT
NigelMoore Thanks as always Nigel. There was some suggestion earlier that the boat had been refused relevant consent due to not moving enough "to satisfy the board" ie no home mooring, and that it was moored outside of the MNC on a non crt owned non towpath side river bank. If that were the case what options would the land owner (let's say for sake of argument the highways agency rather than a private land owner) have at their disposal in order to remove the vessel from their land - and would it necessarily need to involve CRT. Assuming direct removal by craneage is not an option and the boat would have to be removed by water.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 3, 2018 9:10:09 GMT
There was some suggestion earlier that the boat had been refused relevant consent due to not moving enough "to satisfy the board" ie no home mooring, and that it was moored outside of the MNC on a non crt owned non towpath side river bank. If that were the case what options would the land owner (let's say for sake of argument the highways agency rather than a private land owner) have at their disposal in order to remove the vessel from their land - and would it necessarily need to involve CRT. Assuming direct removal by craneage is not an option and the boat would have to be removed by water. It is never necessary to involve CaRT in removing a boat from your own property. However, insofar as courtesy demands, when I have had occasion to move a boat off my property and onto the towpath, I have informed the local waterways manager beforehand, which they have always appreciated [even if not appreciating the situation they have been landed with]. As to the position with a statutory body rather than a real person, that will depend upon their relevant underpinning statutes, and that will be different for all such bodies. Railway companies in particular had very wide powers to deal with trespass; I would imagine a Highways agency's statutes would follow suit, but do not know. Then again, most statutory bodies act as though they had the same freedom of action relating to their own land as natural persons, even where that is not the case â and tend to get away with it. Local Authorities have the dubious power under a Localism Act to act as natural persons, though the extent of that is doubted by some legal analysts [quite rightly in my opinion]. For them, the safe route is to have relevant byelaws approved, with appropriate sanctions by way of enforcement, and that is how Richmond approached their problem in 2014. If moving off summarily is not considered; no byelaws apply, nor statutory sanctions granted, then the usual course would be to issue a couple of Torts Act Notices â you inform the owner that you want their âgoodsâ removed from your property by a certain time; you simultaneously issue a Notice informing the owner that if their âgoodsâ are not collected by the stated date, then the goods [i.e. the boat] will be put up for public auction, and any sums accruing held for collection by the owner, less any costs of the process. There was a very recent case like that on the Grand Union, where boats were sometimes moored to private business property.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 3, 2018 10:13:01 GMT
Are we talking about a boat moored to an off side bank on the Lea navigation? I didn't realise there were no licensing or PBC requirements there. That's interesting but unless you explain the details a bit more its virtually irrelevant. Yes, we are, . . and from what I've been told, he spends a fair proportion of his moored-up time under the M25 bridge, and therefore on land which C&RT have no say over, and where they cannot lawfully exercise any kind of control unless appointed so to do by, probably, either the Highways Agency or the Local Authority. There is certainly no obligation to Licence a boat on the Lea Navigation, . . it's a PRN river waterway listed in Schedule 1 to the 1971 BW Act. There is, however, a statutory obligation to register (by buying what C&RT fraudulently sell as a 'Rivers only Licence') any pleasure craft exercising the public right of navigation [PRN] by way of being either kept or used within the Main Navigable Channel [MNC] of a scheduled river waterway. The boat was in fact snatched by the C&RT Einsatzgruppe from just topside of Stonebridge Lock, and I'm told, was destined for immediate destruction and disposal into a large skip down at Tottenham, . . which, in itself, would be yet another flagrant violation of C&RT's 1983 Act S.8 powers, which stipulate a six week interval before any 'relevant craft' - 'vests in the Board', . . in other words, before they are entitled to sell or destroy it. It's also worth noting that in taking this action against this boater now, C&RT seem to be banking on the Appeal Court upholding the crackpot findings in respect of the MNC in the Judgment in Ravenscroft -v- C&RT, . . as far as I can ascertain thus far the boat was outside of the MNC at the time/point of seizure, and certainly would be at other times whilst occupying it's owner's favourite mooring. If the Trust were hellbent on dragging this man through the Courts, the the legitimate route for them to achieve that ambition would have been to sue for recovery of any unpaid registration fees as a civil debt, and a Magistrates Court prosecution under S.5(1 & 2) of the 1971 BW Act. In that the boat was NOT in the MNC at the time it was seized, there is in fact a remarkable parallel with the C&RT/Ravenscroft boat seizure on private land and well outside of the MNC at Farndon Ferry on the river Trent. A certain amount of confusion arising out of either poor memory or a problem with reading and understanding earlier posts seems to be creeping into this thread. For the benefit of anyone experiencing any such difficulties, here (above) is what I actually said back on page 37. With regard to the location of Slow Tony's boat at the time it was seized, reference to BW/C&RT's dredging specifications for the MNC in the river Lea Navigation will preclude any doubt as to the fact that any vessel tied to the bank above Stonebridge Lock cannot be other than well outside the MNC.
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Apr 3, 2018 10:54:12 GMT
Anyone know how Jennifer Lop-ears, his now homeless dog, is coping? đ
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 3, 2018 11:19:18 GMT
If the Trust were hellbent on dragging this man through the Courts, the the legitimate route for them to achieve that ambition would have been to sue for recovery of any unpaid registration fees as a civil debt, and a Magistrates Court prosecution under S.5(1 & 2) of the 1971 BW Act. If the Trust were hellbent on dragging this man through the Courts, the the legitimate route for them to achieve that ambition would have been to sue for recovery of any unpaid registration fees as a civil debt, and a Magistrates Court prosecution under S.5(1 & 2) of the 1971 BW Act. Just for clarity, they do not need to pursue both actions; a magistrate could be asked to order payment of any costs owing, in the event of a successful prosecution, along with an order to comply with whatever else was necessary to effect registration - the daily fine thereafter being an encouragement to reach compliance as soon as possible. The daily fine, though, applies only to the PBC rather than to the PBL. The civil debt procedure would be the least expensive option, suitable for cases where all other conditions were met other than payment. Under the 1983 Act, such proceedings do not prejudice the ability to go on and pursue criminal action, should that be considered necessary, but pursuing both simultaneously would be redundant. It can be noted as a matter of interest, from a perusal of the published Court Orders on CaRT's website, that a [very] few more enlightened judges in the injunction cases brought by BW even ordered payment plans where appropriate, and only on failure to comply with that could s.8 removal be actioned. I cannot recall whether any such sensible judgments have been made during CaRT's tenure as Trustee. Ah yes [just checked] - the first Wingfield hearing, wherein the estimable Judge Pugsley rather tersely suggested that if the problem was a lack of a home mooring, then CaRT should give him one instead of trying to chuck him off the system for alleged failure to CC. If only there were a few more like him.
|
|