|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 4, 2019 11:06:15 GMT
I'm obviously misunderstanding something as had assumed that the British Waterways 1995 act was relevant for some reason. It also appears there was a BW act 1971 and a BW act 1983. So that would be 12 years between each one including the 1995 act. Then a gap of 24 years. I'm sure I'm got the wrong end of the stick. Yes, but the fault is doubtless all my own, for failing to make my point sufficiently clear. Of course there have been numerous Acts governing different waterways, the latest receiving Royal Assent just last year. The suggestion that DEFRA might propose legislation is what I was responding to, hence my earlier comment respected an “all-embracing Act”, which is what would be required in addressing the concerns of the variety of different waterways authorities involved in the DEFRA group. Any legislation assisting those on the same issues would realistically have to be a nationally empowering piece of legislation covering waterways use, and it is those that are rare to non-existent. I illustrated, with some behind-the-scenes correspondence, the closest government has come to establishing anything of that ilk with the proposed ‘Water Reorganisation Bill’ of the early seventies. That suggested ‘unifying national waterways Act’ as I described it, has not had any real precedent; one might consider the sequence of ‘Magna Carta’s from the 13thC as encompassing all navigable ‘great rivers’, but everything subsequent – especially since the 18thC canal building era – has concerned specific waterways or groups of them. Even the Transport Act of 1968 concerned only the nationalised waterways, though providing for others to be absorbed within the ambit of that legislation. It is not inconceivable that government would consider bringing all waterways under a single umbrella, but my own imagination baulks at the effort.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 5, 2019 11:06:28 GMT
Thank you to erivers and NigelMoore for the clarification on the division of PRN and non-PRN waters between the EA and C&RT.
With regard to the interchangeability of the terms 'licence' and 'licensing' with 'registration' and 'registering' as used by the EA, and their Thames Conservancy predecessors, this is clearly nothing more sinister than a somewhat sloppy and imprecise use of vocabulary. The same misuse of the two very different meaning terms by the C&RT fantasists cannot, however, have the same reasoning applied and is clearly done with the dishonest intention of creating the false impression that they are empowered to 'licence' (ie. to deny or to permit) the exercising of rights of navigation on the river waterways listed in Schedule 1 to the 1971 BW Act.
A request, as yet unanswered or satisfied, to be directed to any legislation that empowers C&RT to 'licence' the use of publicly navigable river waterways was made 3 weeks ago:-
From: Tony Dunkley <tonydtrent@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 9:26 AM Subject: Pleasure Boat Certificate To: <Ben.Ashdown@canalrivertrust.org.uk>
Dear Mr Ashdown,
I refer to your e-mails of 30 November 2018 and 17 December 2018 respectively, in which you first refer to a Pleasure Boat Certificate [PBC] as - quote - "not a term we in Boat Licencing recognise", before proceeding some 17 days later to attempt to pass off the very same PBC as a - quote - "Rivers only Licence" which is, and again I quote you - "valid for ‘River Waterways’ defined in Schedule 1 of the British Waterways Act 1971, as amended, and constitutes a 'pleasure boat certificate' for the purposes of that Act.".
I have searched in vain for any reference to a 'Rivers only Licence' in any relevant primary legislation, and in particular in both the 1971 and 1995 British Waterways Acts. Please direct me to the legislation which empowers the Canal & River Trust [C&RT] as successors to the British Waterways Board [BWB] to permit or deny the use of the publicly navigable [PRN] rivers under it's control by means of any form of 'Licence', which is defined in law as - "The lawful grant of a permission to do something that would otherwise not be legal or allowed".
Yours faithfully, A.K.Dunkley
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Feb 5, 2019 12:00:09 GMT
It's interesting to see how the terms "licence", "licensing" and "registration (or boat or launch) certificate" are used in the Thames Conservancy Act 1932.
The term "Licence" is not used at all in the main body of the legislation in respect of registration of vessels, but only in connection with licensing structures in the river and permission to cut banks. (There is one exception where the navigation authority is empowered to grant a temporary licence for "bona fide trial trips" by craft builders etc.)
However, Part XI empowers the Conservators to make byelaws "for registering and licensing launches used on the Thames" and "for licensing vessels used on the Thames above Teddington Lock".
The Thames Byelaws then do refer to "Licences for Vessels", to applications for registration or licensing of a vessel and state that "no person shall navigate .. a vessel on the Thames unless a licence (where required) is in force". The term "licence" is used in several byelaw paragraphs despite the PRN.
All a bit academic as far as Thames goes because the EA vessel registration requirement now comes via the 2010 Order.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 14, 2019 22:21:57 GMT
An interesting development today in C&RT's ongoing County Court Claim for the Court's approval of their intention to unlawfully remove my boat from the publicly navigable (PRN) river waterways under their control, and an Injunction barring me from returning it to those same waters unless I buy one of their fraudulent 'Rivers only Licences', which of course, they have no authority or powers to issue.
The Claim was first issued, appropriately enough, on April Fools Day 2016, 'struck out' by Order of the Court on 1 June 2016 when Poosmiths failed to turn up to a Application Hearing to 'stay' the case pending the outcome of Leigh Ravenscroft's High Court Claim, 'restored' on Application on 5 July 2016, with C&RT bearing their own costs both times, 'stayed' on Application yet again, and again with C&RT bearing their own costs, on 17 October 2016 before being once again resurrected on Application on 23 October 2018 with a Directions Hearing listed for 25 January 2019, at which Poosmiths' substitutes, the newly formed C&RT Legal & Governance Services failed to persuade the Court to rubber stamp their specious Claim without it going to a full hearing, and an Order was made for a final hearing listed for 13 March 2019.
Believe it or not, having jumped through all these hoops of their own making and eventually obtaining this final hearing date, they have written to me today saying that they're unable to attend at Court on the 13th of March and asking if I'll sign a Consent Order agreeing to adjourn the hearing to some future, unspecified date. It would seem that their reluctance to have the PRN and Main Navigable Channel issues treated to a repeat airing in Court remains undiminished.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2019 22:28:24 GMT
An interesting development today in C&RT's ongoing County Court Claim for the Court's approval of their intention to unlawfully remove my boat from the publicly navigable (PRN) river waterways under their control, and an Injunction barring me from returning it to those same waters unless I buy one of their fraudulent 'Rivers only Licences', which of course, they have no authority or powers to issue. The Claim was first issued, appropriately enough, on April Fools Day 2016, 'struck out' by Order of the Court on 1 June 2016 when Poosmiths failed to turn up to a Application Hearing to 'stay' the case pending the outcome of Leigh Ravenscroft's High Court Claim, 'restored' on Application on 5 July 2016, with C&RT bearing their own costs both times, 'stayed' on Application yet again, and again with C&RT bearing their own costs, on 17 October 2016 before being once again resurrected on Application on 23 October 2018 with a Directions Hearing listed for 25 January 2019, at which Poosmiths' substitutes, the newly formed C&RT Legal & Governance Services failed to persuade the Court to rubber stamp their specious Claim without it going to a full hearing, and an Order was made for a final hearing listed for 13 March 2019. Believe it or not, having jumped through all these hoops of their own making and eventually obtaining this final hearing date, they have written to me today saying that they're unable to attend at Court on the 13th of March and asking if I'll sign a Consent Order agreeing to adjourn the hearing to some future, unspecified date. It would seem that their reluctance to have the PRN and Main Navigable Channel issues treated to a repeat airing in Court remains undiminished. They are hiding something. Possibly another court case elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 18, 2019 17:19:57 GMT
So what are the pros and cons of agreeing, or not, to the consent order?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 21, 2019 22:50:04 GMT
An interesting development today in C&RT's ongoing County Court Claim for the Court's approval of their intention to unlawfully remove my boat from the publicly navigable (PRN) river waterways under their control, and an Injunction barring me from returning it to those same waters unless I buy one of their fraudulent 'Rivers only Licences', which of course, they have no authority or powers to issue. The Claim was first issued, appropriately enough, on April Fools Day 2016, 'struck out' by Order of the Court on 1 June 2016 when Poosmiths failed to turn up to a Application Hearing to 'stay' the case pending the outcome of Leigh Ravenscroft's High Court Claim, 'restored' on Application on 5 July 2016, with C&RT bearing their own costs both times, 'stayed' on Application yet again, and again with C&RT bearing their own costs, on 17 October 2016 before being once again resurrected on Application on 23 October 2018 with a Directions Hearing listed for 25 January 2019, at which Poosmiths' substitutes, the newly formed C&RT Legal & Governance Services failed to persuade the Court to rubber stamp their specious Claim without it going to a full hearing, and an Order was made for a final hearing listed for 13 March 2019. Believe it or not, having jumped through all these hoops of their own making and eventually obtaining this final hearing date, they have written to me today saying that they're unable to attend at Court on the 13th of March and asking if I'll sign a Consent Order agreeing to adjourn the hearing to some future, unspecified date. It would seem that their reluctance to have the PRN and Main Navigable Channel issues treated to a repeat airing in Court remains undiminished. . . . . . . . . . following on from the above :~ My reply to C&RT/LaGS request for an adjournment : Fao. Head of Legal - C&RT/LaGs. 15 Feb 2019Dear Sir, Reference yesterday's enquiry as to the signing of a Consent Order agreeing to an adjournment of the hearing listed for 13 March 2019 in Claim No. C10NG401.
Subject to receipt of one of the following, I will give due consideration to your request: * Identification of and directions to the legislation empowering the C&RT to permit or deny the use of any part of the publicly navigable (PRN) river waterways listed in Schedule 1 to the British Waterways Act 1971, as amended, by way of the issuing or withholding of a 'Rivers only Licence', as requested on 14 January 2019 by e-mail to your Licensing Manager, B.Ashdown, and copied to you and the CEO. - or: * Written acknowledgement that the common law PRN is the lawful authority for any pleasure boat to be kept or used on any of the river waterways listed in Schedule 1 to the British Waterways Act 1971, as amended, irrespective of whether or not the vessel is registered at the time by means of the Pleasure Boat Certificate called for under Section 5(1) of the same Act. Yours faithfully, A.K.Dunkley. _______________________________________________________ Despite the above reply being addressed to C&RT's Head of Legal, Tom Deards, it was answered by former Shoosmiths mouthpiece Lucy Barry, now C&RT's 'Senior Solicitor-Advocate'. In keeping with C&RT's customary operating procedures and gutter ethics in the conduct of all their County Court boat snatching claims, the wording of the following letter represents a clear attempt to mislead me into believing that the 25 January 2019 Directions Hearing, which I was unable to attend for medical reasons, was adjourned, and that in signing their wretched Consent Order I would simply be agreeing to the relisting of a adjourned Directions Hearing.
Nothing could be further from the truth, the Direction Hearing listed for 25 January 2019 was disposed of in my absence and the hearing listed for 13 March is in fact a 'Final Hearing' for the Court to determine the outcome of C&RT's specious Claim : On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 2:10 PM Lucy Barry <Lucy.Barry@canalrivertrust.org.uk> wrote:
Dear Mr Dunkley
Section 5(1) of the British Waterways Act 1971 states that: “It shall not be lawful to keep, let for hire or use any pleasure boat on a river waterway unless a certificate, in this Act referred to as a “Pleasure Boat Certificate”, in relation to the pleasure boat is then in force or unless there is then in force in relation to it a licence issued by the Board allowing the use of all inland waterways without further payment”.
You are already aware of the Trust’s position on this issue, confirmed to you in the email from Ben Ashdown dated 22 January 2019, and stated in my skeleton argument for the hearing on 25 January 2019.
The term “licence“ is an umbrella term used by the Trust to cover Pleasure Boat Certificates, Houseboat Certificates and other relevant consents referred to in the relevant primary legislation.
You were also referred to the Trust’s General Terms and Conditions for Boat Licences (a copy of which was attached to Ben’s email). At page 15 it confirms that “The Rivers Only Licence is valid for ‘River Waterways’ defined in Schedule 1 of the British Waterways Act 1971, as amended and constitutes a ‘pleasure boat certificate’ for the purposes of that Act”.
We have nothing more to add in relation to this issue. If you are unhappy with our response then you can raise this with the Judge at the adjourned hearing for the court to determine.
With regards to the request for an adjournment of the hearing on 13 March 2019, please provide your answer to this request by the end of Wednesday 20th February 2019. If you do not consent to an adjournment of this hearing to the next available date after 17 March 2019, then we will be forced to make an application to court. This will further increase the costs in the case which we will be seeking from you in the event of our claim being successful. We will also be referring the court to the fact that we have previously agreed to your request for an adjournment of the first listed hearing, and that the hearing on 22* January 2019 was also adjourned because of your inability to attend.
We look forward to hearing from you in due course. {* = Presumed typo or just plain sloppiness}
Kind regards Lucy Barry Senior Solicitor-Advocate . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . The references to the 25 January 2019 hearing being adjourned in the above letter become all the more sinister when one takes into account the efforts which C&RT and the delightful Ms Barry have made to ensure that nothing mailed by the Court will ever reach me.
They have supplied the Court with two completely useless addresses (for postal service by the Court), . . one which I moved away from over 4 years ago, but which just by chance happens to be the postal address of some C&RT long term moorings in the Main Navigable Channel of the Trent (Holme Lock Cut) :
1) Holme Lock, Adbolton Lane, Nottingham, NG12 2LU . . . . ( which I moved away from over 4 years ago) and : 2) Craft "Halcyon Daze", Index Number 52721, Moored At Barton-in Fabis, On The River Trent Navigation . . . . (which I'm sure the Royal Mail will have no trouble in finding and delivering to !) They are, of course, perfectly well aware of my current address and postcode, having visited on numerous occasions to serve Court papers by hand, and when first serving/affixing various preliminary Notices, and the Section 8 and 13 Notices on me and to my boat, but C&RT/LaGS never pass-up any opportunity to stack the odds in their favour. If left without the option of out of date addresses, they resort to "inadvertently omitting" certain vital items and forms from the Court papers they are entrusted by the Court to serve pursuant to their specious Claims.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Feb 22, 2019 8:52:00 GMT
Regarding Tom Deards, he appears to have just embarrassed Richard Parry over the Middlewich Breach. Parry has been telling his board that the Middlewich breach was due to vandalism. Deards has been fighting a battle to prevent publication of information relating to the causes. However, on February 11, his department released information showing that C&RT had failed to carry out recommended remedial work which would raised the freeboard of the embankment to 350mm (from a low of 150mm).
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Feb 22, 2019 9:22:15 GMT
I presume the address issue has been brought to the attention of the court and the SRA.
Good luck
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2019 9:54:08 GMT
Maybe someone pulled out some old crap with a magnet and left a windlass by the lock. Then a scrote came along and lifted all paddles.
I never leave windlasses about if I don't want them they go back in the cut.
Mind you I have retired from magging now anyway but have noticed a lot of people are leaving the crap lying around.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Feb 22, 2019 10:11:38 GMT
Maybe someone pulled out some old crap with a magnet and left a windlass by the lock. Then a scrote came along and lifted all paddles. I never leave windlasses about if I don't want them they go back in the cut. Mind you I have retired from magging now anyway but have noticed a lot of people are leaving the crap lying around. I still do it. Passes a bit of time and gets the kids out for a walk. However I have never left anything lying around. Mind you my magnet isnquite small so dont drag out anything big
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2019 10:46:12 GMT
Jim found a windlass left by a lock which someone had pulled out. Its an invitation to troublemakers. Could easily explain a lock with all paddles up.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 22, 2019 11:35:44 GMT
Jim found a windlass left by a lock which someone had pulled out. Its an invitation to troublemakers. Could easily explain a lock with all paddles up. 2 ordinary and 1 long double throw! Not that simple though, the adjacent paddles all need a handcuff key. Middlewich could have had preventative action though, so the flood would have gone down the by washes and or over spills rather than over topping the towpath.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Feb 22, 2019 15:23:24 GMT
Regarding Tom Deards, he appears to have just embarrassed Richard Parry over the Middlewich Breach. Parry has been telling his board that the Middlewich breach was due to vandalism. Deards has been fighting a battle to prevent publication of information relating to the causes. However, on February 11, his department released information showing that C&RT had failed to carry out recommended remedial work which would have raised the freeboard of the embankment to 350mm (from a low of 150mm). What evidence does Parry have of 'vandalism'? As far as I am aware he has no evidence. There is good evidence that all four paddles were left open at Stanthorn Lock but C&RT are no longer suggesting that vandalism was the cause.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2019 15:44:21 GMT
I can't really see what else it could be.
How would all 4 paddles on a lock with 4 paddles end up open otherwise?
Did someone open all the paddles in order to run water down to a low pound then simply forget about it ??
The only time I have seen all 4 paddles on a lock with 4 paddles being left open was deliberate vandalism at Kentish town lock on the GU regents section. I know it was vandalism because I was watching from below the lock. 3am. I the morning I found a stilson wrench by the lock which must have been used to lift the paddles. I still have the stilson. Quite a nice stilson actually.
|
|