Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 17:17:50 GMT
Well its pretty basic economics if there is a demand for something then someone is going to look to get money. Specially in densley populated urban areas.
Its not exactly rocket science !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 17, 2019 14:22:30 GMT
I'm wondering why CRT would charge VAT when none is due, there's no profit in it for them. I guess the 2 possibilities are that they didn't bother checking with HMRC or otherwise, HMRC (incorrectly) told them that VAT should be charged.
Charging VAT on Pleasure Boat (registration) Certificates [PBC] is simply a ploy on C&RT's part to lend credence to their lies about the PBC really being a 'Licence' [PBL], . . lies which they have to perpetuate in order to facilitate their habitual engaging and exercising of Section 8 removal powers over non-sunk, non-stranded, and non-abandoned boats on the river waterways where the 'lawful authority' to keep and use a vessel on the waterway is conferred under the common law public right of navigation, and NOT something in their gift to grant or refuse by way of any form of 'Licence'. The lawful authority to keep and use a vessel on the river waterways listed in Schedule 1 to the 1971 BW Act IS the common law Public Right of Navigation (PRN), and, much as C&RT would wish everyone to believe otherwise, NOT some phony, so-called 'Licence' issued by a megalomania ridden and thoroughly dishonest navigation authority with a taste for stealing people's boats from them under the guise of action supposedly intended to "manage, conserve and keep the waterways safe", . . the weasel words with which the nauseating bastards generally round off the written statements provided to the Courts. Last Thursday saw a small step forward in the ongoing efforts to expose and put an end to C&RT's 'Rivers Only Licence' VAT fraud, and to get the Courts to look somewhat more carefully at what C&RT's unscrupulous lawyers are asking them to approve via their much loved and wholly inappropriate Part 8 Claims for 'Declaratory and Injunctive Relief', . . or in other words, Judicial approval for unlawfully depriving people of their boats ! The wording of C&RT's standard (draft) Orders - which are one or two pages of largely ultra vires tosh that C&RT persuade the Judges to endorse - has changed twice since 25 September 2017, when the wording forbidding the named party from navigating, mooring, and/or securing their boat on any of the Claimant's (C&RT) waterways changed from - "without the prior written consent of the Claimant" to - "without a relevant consent being issued for the boat by the Claimant". On 2 August 2018, the first Injunction Order obtained after C&RT parted company with Shoosmiths, the wording changed again to - "without a Licence first being issued for the boat by the Claimant". Coincidental with this latest change from 'relevant consent' (the terminology used in the 1995 Act for PBL's and PBC's) to 'Licence', C&RT took up the option available to successful claimants of serving the Court Order on the losing party themselves instead of leaving it to the Court. It is interesting to ponder why C&RT would want to serve the Orders themselves, . . I'm sure it has nothing to do with any desire to tamper with or delay any of the Court paperwork from reaching the defendants before any compliance time limits expire. I personally have had Court papers served by C&RT with vital pages missing, and I've had them sending (ie. serving) paperwork to either non-existent addresses or addresses they knew I had long ago moved away from. I was, however, assured by C&RT and Shoosmiths that every one of these procedural errors was entirely inadvertent ! The Claim that C&RT issued against me on April Fools Day 2016 finally got to a hearing last Thursday morning, and the Judge accepted C&RT's argument that not having a current ''Rivers only Licence" - their fraudulent description of what statute specifies as a Pleasure Boat Certificate in S.5(1) of the 1971 BW Act - puts the vessel outwith the ambit of the common law public right of navigation, and agreed with them that my boat was moored to private land on the river Trent "without lawful authority", as stated in the Section 8 Notice served in 2016. One positive that emerged in the course of this hearing, however, was that after much argument the Judge did eventually accept that a Licence, including the fictitious "Rivers only Licence", is NOT the same thing as a Pleasure Boat (registration) Certificate, and has made an Order to the effect that C&RT are entitled to remove my boat from their 'canals and inland waterways' by a specified date unless I have - "first obtained a Licence or a Pleasure Boat Certificate (as appropriate) for the boat ". As far as I'm aware this is the first occasion that the important distinction between a PBL and a PBC has been clearly drawn in in any C&RT instigated proceedings.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 17, 2019 15:43:22 GMT
It seems then that they successfully leap-frogged the Directions Hearing.
It will be interesting to see how readily they issue the PBC once you apply as per the Court directions.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Aug 17, 2019 15:49:57 GMT
If they don't or try to offer you a "Licence" instead are they then up before the judge? I wonder if they will try the vat ruse if they do offer a certificate?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 18, 2019 9:28:57 GMT
If they don't or try to offer you a "Licence" instead are they then up before the judge? I wonder if they will try the vat ruse if they do offer a certificate? Not quite sure how this will pan out yet, Jim, but I did send this to them immediately after getting hold of the Order and checking that the Judge had included the reference to a PBC, as he had agreed to do at the hearing : FAO. Head of Licensing
Dear Sir/Madam,
I need to buy a Pleasure Boat Certificate for my 50' x 7' beam boat, but can find no means of so doing anywhere on the Licensing pages of your website.
Please direct me to where I can find the necessary application forms and advise the fee payable for such registration certificate.
Yours sincerely,
A.K.Dunkley.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Aug 18, 2019 9:51:48 GMT
If they don't or try to offer you a "Licence" instead are they then up before the judge? I wonder if they will try the vat ruse if they do offer a certificate? Not quite sure how this will pan out yet, Jim, but I did send this to them immediately after getting hold of the Order and checking that the Judge had included the reference to a PBC, as he had agreed to do at the hearing : FAO. Head of Licensing
Dear Sir/Madam,
I need to buy a Pleasure Boat Certificate for my 50' x 7' beam boat, but can find no means of so doing anywhere on the Licensing pages of your website.
Please direct me to where I can find the necessary application forms and advise the fee payable for such registration certificate.
Yours sincerely,
A.K.Dunkley.Of course the menial staff at licencing won't have a clue what you are on about, or the background shenanigans. Unless they are reading TB. Morning Debs. Or, just possibly, you are on the Special Treatment List.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 18, 2019 13:06:48 GMT
So is there any action regarding the past or did the judge just comment on future action.
I.e you had a disagreement and its now resolved.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 18, 2019 19:16:17 GMT
Not quite sure how this will pan out yet, Jim, but I did send this to them immediately after getting hold of the Order and checking that the Judge had included the reference to a PBC, as he had agreed to do at the hearing : FAO. Head of Licensing
Dear Sir/Madam,
I need to buy a Pleasure Boat Certificate for my 50' x 7' beam boat, but can find no means of so doing anywhere on the Licensing pages of your website.
Please direct me to where I can find the necessary application forms and advise the fee payable for such registration certificate.
Yours sincerely,
A.K.Dunkley.Of course the menial staff at licencing won't have a clue what you are on about, or the background shenanigans. Unless they are reading TB. Morning Debs. Or, just possibly, you are on the Special Treatment List. I don't think any of C&RT's managerial personnel, from Parry down, really have much of a clue about anything, . . other than telling porkies and producing phony documentation to order, of course ! Being aware that the delightful Ms Barry was off on her jollies from Friday 16 August until Wednesday the 4th of September, I sent this e-mail to Deards, the Head of C&RT's Legal & Governance Services at 1501 on Friday the 16th, . . it's quite enlightening as to how they function ! : Mr Deards,
I have just been informed by the Court at Derby that the Order made at yesterday's hearing will be served on me by you, the Claimant, and that they have no means of providing me with a copy.
Given your department's track record in 'doctoring' written material and providing out of date or non-existent addresses for service, and the need for me to know the precise terms in which the Order was made without undue delay, I would be grateful if you would e-mail a copy of the Order to me at the earliest opportunity.
Signed,
A.K.Dunkley.
___________________________________________ - to which, at 1503, Deards replied: Mr Dunkley
I am copying in Lucy Barry here, as the relevant Trust person – to ask her to email you in due course.
Regards
Tom Deards
__________________________________________ - and to which, at 15:18, I replied: Mr Deards,
Given that your colleague Ms Barry has stated that from tonight she will be on annual leave until 4 September with no access to her e-mails, I am curious to know how your proposed course of action will do anything other than ensure that I am not served with a copy of yesterday's Order until at least 6 clear days after the 14 day time limit for compliance.
Signed,
A.K.Dunkley.
__________________________________________ - eliciting this response from Deards at 1531: Mr Dunkley
As I am also on leave from tonight until 2 September, I am copying in Legal team PA so that she can email the Order to you when it comes in.
Regards
Tom Deards
__________________________________________ - and then this, at 1558 and despite having no access to her e-mails !?! - from the delightful Ms Barry : Dear Mr Dunkley
Please find attached a copy of the order, which the court provided to me yesterday.
Stuart Garner will also be arranging for this to be served on your boat.
I look forward to receiving payment of the costs ordered by 29 August 2019. Payment should be made by cheque to Canal & River Trust and sent to the Milton Keynes office for my attention. If you wish to make an offer to pay by instalments, then I can send out a financial information form for you to complete and return, so that we can consider the instalments offered.
Regards
Lucy Barry
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 18, 2019 19:28:08 GMT
Oh dear, do you have to pay their costs?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 18, 2019 19:44:42 GMT
Oh dear, do you have to pay their costs? As things stand for now, yes, or at least that's what the Order says ! I will, of course, be taking up their kind offer of paying by installments, . . if the appeal against the Order and the costs is unsuccessful.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 19, 2019 9:17:06 GMT
It seems then that they successfully leap-frogged the Directions Hearing. It will be interesting to see how readily they issue the PBC once you apply as per the Court directions. They did, Nigel, and disappointing as this was I feel that it might prove to be among the things that could well come back to bite them. Procedurally, I think persuading the Court to dispose of this as a Part 8 Claim when it was demonstrably nothing of the sort, and that it was defended on grounds to which I can only find the briefest of references in passing in the Asplin Judgment, could turn out to be something of a problem for them. From the Judge's reaction to Barry's opening remarks it was evident that C&RT's skeleton, and therefore the false contention that my Defence relied entirely on the MNC argument, had been swallowed whole. Of the two written Statements/Submissions I had filed ahead of Thursday's hearing the one from last January's Directions hearing - adjourned on C&RT's application - mentioned the MNC as a secondary issue to the PRN, and the one filed for last Thursday's hearing made no mention of the MNC issue at all. Both statements were to all intents and purposes ignored, apart from the briefest of mentions for the MNC issue from the Judge when announcing that he was obliged to find for the Claimant in light of Asplin LJ's pronouncements on the MNC issue, until some persistent arguing on my part with regard to the common law PRN being the "lawful authority" for any boat to be on any scheduled river waterway gave rise to the remarkable decision that my committing of the offence of keeping or using a boat on a river waterway without a current PBC in force - S.5(2) of the 1971 Act - had the effect of nullifying the PRN and rendering the presence of the boat on any river waterway 'unlawful'. The recognition of the distinction between a PBL and a PBC, and the fact that a PBL is not required if holding a PBC, was the only useful fall-out from last Thursday's proceedings.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 19, 2019 11:31:34 GMT
Yes, it is a ticklish issue for a County Court judge to get their heads around. I only lightly touched on the lawful authority of the PRN in Leigh’s case, and I don’t recall any response from Asplin J to it.
As I have repeatedly stated, the proper response to a failure to have a pleasure boat certificate is that provided for in the 1971 Act, not the s.8 process. The argument is less applicable to Licences, although even then proportionality would demand prosecuting the byelaw offence instead.
It would be useful to obtain a transcript of the proceedings; it could even be vital for a viable appeal. The fact that you managed to get at least an acknowledgement of the differences from the judge, could found an argument that he failed to take that into consideration when approving the use of s.8.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 19, 2019 16:47:08 GMT
If they don't or try to offer you a "Licence" instead are they then up before the judge? I wonder if they will try the vat ruse if they do offer a certificate? Not quite sure how this will pan out yet, Jim, but I did send this to them immediately after getting hold of the Order and checking that the Judge had included the reference to a PBC, as he had agreed to do at the hearing : FAO. Head of Licensing
Dear Sir/Madam,
I need to buy a Pleasure Boat Certificate for my 50' x 7' beam boat, but can find no means of so doing anywhere on the Licensing pages of your website.
Please direct me to where I can find the necessary application forms and advise the fee payable for such registration certificate.
Yours sincerely,
A.K.Dunkley.I got a very predictable reply to the above e-mail this morning, . . . a Licence 'Professor' sent the following : Mon, Aug 19, Boat Licensing Team :
Hello Mr Dunkley,
If you call our Customer Services team on 0303 040 4040 they should be able to assist you with this matter and get your vessel licenced for you.
Kind Regards, Andrew Wood Licence Processor To which I have replied : Mr Wood,
As I said in my e-mail of 16 August 2019, I need to buy a Pleasure Boat Certificate for my 50' x 7' beam boat. The boat is kept on the river Trent, a scheduled river waterway under the British Waterways Act 1971, and therefore does not require any form of Licence.
I am obliged to buy a Pleasure Boat Certificate for my boat by close of business on Thursday 29 August 2019 under the terms of a Court Order made on 15 August 2019, and under the terms of Section 6(1)[c] of the 1971 Act, the Trust is obliged to issue a Pleasure Boat Certificate.
I repeat my previous request, please send, or direct me to where I can find, the appropriate application forms and advise the fee payable.
Signed, A.K.Dunkley.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 19, 2019 16:56:07 GMT
It seems then that they successfully leap-frogged the Directions Hearing. It will be interesting to see how readily they issue the PBC once you apply as per the Court directions. They did, Nigel, and disappointing as this was I feel that it might prove to be among the things that could well come back to bite them. Procedurally, I think persuading the Court to dispose of this as a Part 8 Claim when it was demonstrably nothing of the sort, and that it was defended on grounds to which I can only find the briefest of references in passing in the Asplin Judgment, could turn out to be something of a problem for them. From the Judge's reaction to Barry's opening remarks it was evident that C&RT's skeleton, and therefore the false contention that my Defence relied entirely on the MNC argument, had been swallowed whole. Of the two written Statements/Submissions I had filed ahead of Thursday's hearing the one from last January's Directions hearing - adjourned on C&RT's application - mentioned the MNC as a secondary issue to the PRN, and the one filed for last Thursday's hearing made no mention of the MNC issue at all. Both statements were to all intents and purposes ignored, apart from the briefest of mentions for the MNC issue from the Judge when announcing that he was obliged to find for the Claimant in light of Asplin LJ's pronouncements on the MNC issue, until some persistent arguing on my part with regard to the common law PRN being the "lawful authority" for any boat to be on any scheduled river waterway gave rise to the remarkable decision that my committing of the offence of keeping or using a boat on a river waterway without a current PBC in force - S.5(2) of the 1971 Act - had the effect of nullifying the PRN and rendering the presence of the boat on any river waterway 'unlawful'. The recognition of the distinction between a PBL and a PBC, and the fact that a PBL is not required if holding a PBC, was the only useful fall-out from last Thursday's proceedings. I'm sad you didn't tell me the date of your hearing Tony I would have liked to come and supported you. So it was in Derby and not Nottigham?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 19, 2019 17:43:25 GMT
They did, Nigel, and disappointing as this was I feel that it might prove to be among the things that could well come back to bite them. Procedurally, I think persuading the Court to dispose of this as a Part 8 Claim when it was demonstrably nothing of the sort, and that it was defended on grounds to which I can only find the briefest of references in passing in the Asplin Judgment, could turn out to be something of a problem for them. From the Judge's reaction to Barry's opening remarks it was evident that C&RT's skeleton, and therefore the false contention that my Defence relied entirely on the MNC argument, had been swallowed whole. Of the two written Statements/Submissions I had filed ahead of Thursday's hearing the one from last January's Directions hearing - adjourned on C&RT's application - mentioned the MNC as a secondary issue to the PRN, and the one filed for last Thursday's hearing made no mention of the MNC issue at all. Both statements were to all intents and purposes ignored, apart from the briefest of mentions for the MNC issue from the Judge when announcing that he was obliged to find for the Claimant in light of Asplin LJ's pronouncements on the MNC issue, until some persistent arguing on my part with regard to the common law PRN being the "lawful authority" for any boat to be on any scheduled river waterway gave rise to the remarkable decision that my committing of the offence of keeping or using a boat on a river waterway without a current PBC in force - S.5(2) of the 1971 Act - had the effect of nullifying the PRN and rendering the presence of the boat on any river waterway 'unlawful'. The recognition of the distinction between a PBL and a PBC, and the fact that a PBL is not required if holding a PBC, was the only useful fall-out from last Thursday's proceedings. I'm sad you didn't tell me the date of your hearing Tony I would have liked to come and supported you. So it was in Derby and not Nottigham? You didn't miss anything Kris, . . some more of that old infection in my left leg had flared up again, . . and with my leg swollen up like a balloon up to the knee, and unable to walk or travel, the Judge agreed to conduct the hearing over the phone.
|
|