|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 4, 2016 15:59:26 GMT
Which Government ministers oversee CRT? Surely these are the people ultimately responsible for any misbehaviour? If any minister was to be in a position to hold CaRT to account, it would be the Waterways Minister, or as currently known: the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for water, forestry, rural affairs and resource management, but he has no real remit to stick his nose in, and DEFRA firmly wash their hands of them. The only person with official oversight is the “Protector”, and he only ensures the bookkeeping bears scrutiny. The Charities Commission dodged consideration of such matters before CaRT even applied for Charity status, and would only look at mismanagement or breach of their own particular codes of conduct, not the actual mismanagement of the waterways system itself. The Waterways Ombudsman I have considered from the beginning to be a total waste of space, even while recognising that that is a [very] little unfair. His remit, though, is limited to considering areas of gross mismanagement over issues that ought to be dealt with initially through CaRT’s internal complaints procedure. The House of Lords Scrutiny Committee which was supposed to keep tabs on how the victims of the Public Bodies Bill fared, seems to have evaporated into thin air. There is always their Patron of course, if you could get past the secretarial screening barrier, but he will be disinclined to deal with anything besmirching their credibility. Having tried all these avenues and more, my name would be automatically blocked and pigeon-holed into oblivion, but the more others try it on, the more chance of something maybe getting through. If you have the seeming inexhaustibility of a Panda Smith, you could write to every MP, and to every member of the House of Lords, and hope thereby to get at least some reaction from some of them, to the point perhaps of having questions raised in Parliament. I’ve become cynical over the value of that too, but would never encourage such an attitude in others. National publicity probably stands the best chance of having some impact, but CaRT have a significant on-going investment in image-handling consultancy firms, who are political lobbyists as well. Edit to add: there always remains the Court processes, but CaRT seem impervious even to such mild criticism that judges grudgingly allow themselves to utter. Even in a case of national importance such as Leigh’s, CaRT have already set themselves up to be in a position of “welcoming” any even adverse judgment as an essential “clarification” of the law. It is my personal conviction that only successful criminal prosecution of individual responsible executives could stem the tide of corruption and illegality that threatens the development of a properly accountable authority.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Dec 4, 2016 20:43:29 GMT
What crime can be pinned on a CEO ? Or anyone else in management ?
First dibs on serving Parry with a summonds ?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 5, 2016 0:57:55 GMT
What crime can be pinned on a CEO ? Or anyone else in management ? Anything which they and/or the company they are responsible for have committed. I forget just now what the specific legislation is that covers this, but responsible officers can be held liable for the criminal activity of their company if they have done nothing about it or kept silent/covered it up as well as if they ought to have done something to ensure that things were done which were not. An example is the case of death through negligence of a diver during work on a BW lock some years ago. The sub-contracting company was fined, but so was its Director. Unfortunately, such is the official tenderness towards the canal authorities, that although BW were held to be even more directly responsible in negligence than the sub-contractors, not a single officer was named and shamed, let alone fined [though BW was - nearly £100k if I remember aright]. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/criminal_prosecutionsTo the best of our knowledge, the following is a list of the criminal cases against BW:-
- 2 HSE Prosecutions;
- BW pleaded guilty to the charges;
- BW were fined £87,000 and £100,000; and
- Individual BW officers were not held personally responsible.That latter bit [my bold] is what riles and was so partisan, because, as I say, the Director of the sub-contractor was hit with a £25k fine, yet it was the BW people involved who were most to blame. I missed my chance to have at least a patrol office convicted of contempt of court back in the day, because I did not know how to complain, but there are yet avenues to explore with Parry and Mills when other matters have been settled, and both Leigh and Geoff are biding their time pending prior matters also.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 5:24:14 GMT
What crime can be pinned on a CEO ? Or anyone else in management ? Anything which they and/or the company they are responsible for have committed. I forget just now what the specific legislation is that covers this, but responsible officers can be held liable for the criminal activity of their company if they have done nothing about it or kept silent/covered it up as well as if they ought to have done something to ensure that things were done which were not. An example is the case of death through negligence of a diver during work on a BW lock some years ago. The sub-contracting company was fined, but so was its Director. Unfortunately, such is the official tenderness towards the canal authorities, that although BW were held to be even more directly responsible in negligence than the sub-contractors, not a single officer was named and shamed, let alone fined [though BW was - nearly £100k if I remember aright]. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/criminal_prosecutionsTo the best of our knowledge, the following is a list of the criminal cases against BW:-
- 2 HSE Prosecutions;
- BW pleaded guilty to the charges;
- BW were fined £87,000 and £100,000; and
- Individual BW officers were not held personally responsible.That latter bit [my bold] is what riles and was so partisan, because, as I say, the Director of the sub-contractor was hit with a £25k fine, yet it was the BW people involved who were most to blame. I missed my chance to have at least a patrol office convicted of contempt of court back in the day, because I did not know how to complain, but there are yet avenues to explore with Parry and Mills when other matters have been settled, and both Leigh and Geoff are biding their time pending prior matters also. The whole thing about 'fining' a company or an organisation is a joke anyway. I mean, who ultimately ends up footing most of the bill? We do, as customers.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Dec 5, 2016 8:09:10 GMT
What crime can be pinned on a CEO ? Or anyone else in management ? Anything which they and/or the company they are responsible for have committed. I forget just now what the specific legislation is that covers this, but responsible officers can be held liable for the criminal activity of their company if they have done nothing about it or kept silent/covered it up as well as if they ought to have done something to ensure that things were done which were not. An example is the case of death through negligence of a diver during work on a BW lock some years ago. The sub-contracting company was fined, but so was its Director. Unfortunately, such is the official tenderness towards the canal authorities, that although BW were held to be even more directly responsible in negligence than the sub-contractors, not a single officer was named and shamed, let alone fined [though BW was - nearly £100k if I remember aright]. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/criminal_prosecutionsTo the best of our knowledge, the following is a list of the criminal cases against BW:-
- 2 HSE Prosecutions;
- BW pleaded guilty to the charges;
- BW were fined £87,000 and £100,000; and
- Individual BW officers were not held personally responsible.That latter bit [my bold] is what riles and was so partisan, because, as I say, the Director of the sub-contractor was hit with a £25k fine, yet it was the BW people involved who were most to blame. I missed my chance to have at least a patrol office convicted of contempt of court back in the day, because I did not know how to complain, but there are yet avenues to explore with Parry and Mills when other matters have been settled, and both Leigh and Geoff are biding their time pending prior matters also. Here is an example, taken from CaRT board papers, of HSE deciding that it was not in the public interest to bring a criminal prosecution -
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 5, 2016 13:01:27 GMT
The whole thing about 'fining' a company or an organisation is a joke anyway. I mean, who ultimately ends up footing most of the bill? We do, as customers. I agree, other than the fact that it is a PR damage that makes them squirm a bit. Hitting the individual directors is more to the point, but certainly in BW’s case, they had passed a resolution many years back, to set aside a fund for just such eventualities, so that no employee would have to pay personally [which is the only real point to the fine]. Whether CaRT carry that on I cannot say. I wish I had filed that snippet of information where I could find it again, but I have never managed to locate it since [it was in some meeting's minutes]. Ideally, of course, the greatest effect would be achieved, not by fines but by imprisonment of the individual. If officers of the companies knew that this could be a likely outcome from which they could not be protected, then they would necessarily be more punctilious, if only by reason of self-interest. In my submission for an Injunction, when attempting to have Tony Hales held responsible for any future boarding of my boats, I cited the example of the judge in the case of Seymour v Leeds City Council, 1986/7. The Council had ignored a Court Order to put a road into repair, and as Seymour later recounted: “ Another action for Contempt was commenced, and the Court took the step of issuing a further Order in the specific name of the Director of Highways personally. The Court also stated that if the road was not repaired within the stated time the Director would be brought before the Court and held to account for his failure to comply. As the Judge said (Arthur Myerson QC) “I may not be able to jail the City Council, but I can jail a named officer".”
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 1, 2017 23:42:25 GMT
I would reccomend anyone who is renewing a licence to refuse to agree to the T & C ,s, and see what happens. This is something that needs to be sorted out at some point, because I think CRT's unofficial policy is now to only ever refer to the T & C's document and push the actual law to the background, in an attempt to reinforce the presumption with boaters that it is a legally binding document. CRT cannot change the law, but they can invent any condition they want, which is obviously a very dangerous road to go down, which will end in tears in court for CRT. One boater has done just this and, if he does nothing to wriggle out of the situation, will be in court this Friday. Sadly, being unfamiliar with English Court procedures, he has filed no acknowledgement of service nor Defence, and has only prepared an affidavit that principally challenges the court's jurisdiction. At best, the judge will be one of those rare ones who can see the overall situation with some sympathy, and extend his discretion to allow for a proper Defence to be filed [as the judge did in the Gallions Reach Marina case]. CaRT's application is, as always, only for a Part 8 Claim for approval of the eviction without arguing for the validity of their reason for refusing to issue the licence. The EO's Witness Statement though, has really laid down the gauntlet for challenge at some point: “ On 5th April 2015 I sent an email to the Defendant. The email confirmed that I was the enforcement officer for the area in which the Boat was moored. The email highlighted that acceptance of the T&Cs was mandatory to licensing the Boat and that if the Defendant was not happy with anything in the T&Cs and chose not to accept them then the Boat would remain unlicensed and enforcement action would continue.” [my bold]
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 2, 2017 1:08:29 GMT
I saw your post on CWDF today Nigel, the EO's witness statement is false, he can argue that he beleives it to be true though..
"Proceedings for contempt of court maybe brought against a person who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth."
So not contempt of court yet.
Can someone contact the boater and help him ?
Can the court be contacted about the false witness statement ?
Can someone turn up at the hearing and challenge the witness statement ?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 2, 2017 11:40:19 GMT
It is too late for intervention at this stage I believe; it will be entirely down to the discretion of the judge how this plays out. Given that the main item within the response – supposing that will be considered at all – is a direct challenge as to the jurisdiction of the court, the judge will have to be possessed of saintly dispassion to give the Defendant a second chance.
How far the boater is actually asking for help, and if so of what nature, is unclear to me. Obviously, he has contacted people for comment [otherwise I would not have heard of it] and several have expressed opinions on his best course of action at this stage – which is rather too late in the day to assist with an active defence.
His research is impressive, and his affidavit peppered with comprehensive footnotes of references, and some of his stance – for all that it appears out of left wing as it were – may yet influence matters .
At the end of the day it is his case and his decision how to play it. He hopes to at least lay down grounds for an appeal. As you know, I have attempted to help people out at the very last minute before, and only later realised that it was all for naught because necessary prior actions had not been taken by the official representatives. To the point that it helped at all in establishing a boater’s relation of the facts, the acceptance was again down to the judge – but in that instance even that little was only possible because the boater himself wanted that degree of help. That does not appear to be the situation in this case.
Remember that nothing that comes from this hearing will affect future cases in any relevant or forceful way, because the core bone of contention will not be addressed, and even if it was, the judgment would create no precedent.
Regardless of the folly of challenging the issue whilst actually unprepared for whatever reason to deal with engagement effectively, and regardless whether one might think it shows unnecessary obstreperousness, this boater is absolutely in the right; but that means nothing of itself. It is awhile since I have heard any more; I had thought of going down to London for the hearing, but I really have too much on to sacrifice a couple of days simply to watch from the sidelines.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 2, 2017 14:06:34 GMT
He's not trying on the "freeman of the land" drivel is he ? If he is he needs a psychiatrist rather than a lawyer.
I would go to the court and embarrass CRT by stating why they are breaking the law if I could. Maybe the court can be informed that the Trust is attempting a contempt of court ?
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Jan 2, 2017 17:24:51 GMT
He's not trying on the "freeman of the land" drivel is he ? If he is he needs a psychiatrist rather than a lawyer. I would go to the court and embarrass CRT by stating why they are breaking the law if I could. Maybe the court can be informed that the Trust is attempting a contempt of court ? It seems that he is. Never a good idea. It has got people with a decent chance of winning right up the creek with no paddle. I don't know what stage he is at but he could ask CaRT for permission to amend the statements of the case. You never know. Or drop the freeman rubbish and ask the court for permission although he may have to pay a fee. Or as you say accuse the other party of contempt of court.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 2, 2017 18:30:12 GMT
He's not trying on the "freeman of the land" drivel is he ? If he is he needs a psychiatrist rather than a lawyer. I would go to the court and embarrass CRT by stating why they are breaking the law if I could. Maybe the court can be informed that the Trust is attempting a contempt of court ? Nobody other than the protagonists are entitled to pipe up in court and address the judge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2017 18:36:47 GMT
He's not trying on the "freeman of the land" drivel is he ? If he is he needs a psychiatrist rather than a lawyer. I would go to the court and embarrass CRT by stating why they are breaking the law if I could. Maybe the court can be informed that the Trust is attempting a contempt of court ? Nobody other than the protagonists are entitled to pipe up in court and address the judge. In my own view towards courts and the law, you chose an apt description of its participants.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 4, 2017 21:53:25 GMT
Useful legal authority on the subject as exhibited in the forthcoming action: -
“I have added your insurance details to the online account, but you still need to accept the terms and Conditions of holding a licence before we can proceed.” Natalie Jones, Customer Service Advisor.
“EO has been clear (following previous guidance on the matter) that he does not have to accept terms, but that means the boat won’t be able to remain on CRT waters and will be subject to enforcement action if it remains. The terms are the terms, they are published. We will make reasonable attempts to clear up any specific questions about meaning but if the customer wants to quibble on legalities then we won’t engage with that – it’s a voluntary contract which he can accept or not.” Simon Cadek, London Region Enforcement Supervisor.
“you have been asked to accept the term and conditions of the licence, which is mandatory . . .” “If you are not happy with anything within the terms and conditions you can choose not to accept them, this will mean the craft would remain unlicensed and as such would have further letters of Enforcement served upon it . . .” Tony Smith, Enforcement Officer, London Region.
Best of all: -
“CRT has the power to make the licence subject to such terms and conditions as it thinks fit by virtue of section 43(3) of the Transport Act 1962, section 14 of the British Waterways Act 1971 and section 16 of the British Waterways Act 1995.” Lucy Barry, Associate Solicitor-Advocate, Shoosmiths LLP.
That last is classic – the two latter sections she refers to apply only to houseboat certificates, not to licences [nor even to pleasure boat certificates]. They are two sections that would be totally redundant had the 1962 Act had the force she claims for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 22:41:12 GMT
%$#@€¥* & %/ $#@&*¥
|
|