|
Post by Gone on Aug 21, 2019 19:41:07 GMT
The rivers only licence covers the requirements of the pbc, whilst the rivers & canal licence covers the second alternative licence conditions. I think you are in danger of getting hung up over the word ‘licence’, if the rivers only licence had ‘pleasure boat certificate’ across the top would you be happy? You bet I'm 'hung up' over the precise meaning of words, . . it's C&RT's calculated and deliberate attempts to distort the sense and meaning of the words used in certain passages of their governing legislation that's at the very heart of this matter ! As for whether or not I'd be happy if they wrote 'Pleasure Boat Certificate' across the top of one of their phony 'licences', . . well, no, I certainly would NOT be at all happy. The phrase 'Pleasure Boat Certificate' and the word 'licence' denote two entirely different things. One is a 'registration' certificate, which does nothing other than prove that the boat named on the certificate has been registered for identification purposes, and a 'licence' is a form of permission to do something which without the licence would be unlawful. But you can’t keep a boat on the river without a pbc, so a pbc is more than just a registration of identity, it is also a document that confirms your right to keep a boat on the river, so by your definition a pbc is a licence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2019 19:51:22 GMT
The rivers only licence covers the requirements of the pbc, whilst the rivers & canal licence covers the second alternative licence conditions. I think you are in danger of getting hung up over the word ‘licence’, if the rivers only licence had ‘pleasure boat certificate’ across the top would you be happy? You bet I'm 'hung up' over the precise meaning of words.. Yes, unfortunately a wrong’un judge will do that. I’ve seen some good judges, and bad ones. It’s a lottery.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 21, 2019 20:13:55 GMT
You bet I'm 'hung up' over the precise meaning of words, . . it's C&RT's calculated and deliberate attempts to distort the sense and meaning of the words used in certain passages of their governing legislation that's at the very heart of this matter ! As for whether or not I'd be happy if they wrote 'Pleasure Boat Certificate' across the top of one of their phony 'licences', . . well, no, I certainly would NOT be at all happy. The phrase 'Pleasure Boat Certificate' and the word 'licence' denote two entirely different things. One is a 'registration' certificate, which does nothing other than prove that the boat named on the certificate has been registered for identification purposes, and a 'licence' is a form of permission to do something which without the licence would be unlawful. But you can’t keep a boat on the river without a pbc, so a pbc is more than just a registration of identity, it is also a document that confirms your right to keep a boat on the river, so by your definition a pbc is a licence. I think you're one of those people who should have gone to Specsavers !
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Aug 21, 2019 23:06:02 GMT
I haven't read all of this thread so don't understand all the technicalities but the overriding thing I get is the stoicism of the 'little man' fighting the 'big system'. Good on you Tony.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Aug 22, 2019 9:51:22 GMT
I haven't read all of this thread so don't understand all the technicalities but the overriding thing I get is the stoicism of the 'little man' fighting the 'big system'. Good on you Tony. But it is not a game and the consequences can be devastating for the individual if they loose, so consider carefully the probability of winning before encouraging someone down that path.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 22, 2019 10:13:04 GMT
C&RT have been pissing about for a week and have used up half the time allotted for me to comply with last week's Court Order, so this morning I sent them this :
Tony Dunkley 9:58 AM 22 Aug 2019 to Boat_licensing_Team, hearings.derby.countycourt, hearings.nottingham.countycourt
Mr Ashdown,
The link you have sent is of no use whatsoever. Nowhere in the pages linked to is there any reference to the Pleasure Boat Certificate [PBC] that I have been ordered by the Court to obtain, and which the Canal & River Trust [C&RT] is obliged to issue under Section 6 of the British Waterways Act 1971.
I have made every effort to comply with the Order made by HHJ Godsmark QC on Thursday 15 August 2019, but at every turn I have been obstructed and fobbed off by repeatedly being directed to the nonentity which is the C&RT's fictitious 'Rivers Only Licence', notable only by it's complete absence from any of the legislation by which the C&RT is obliged to function and abide.
Unless I am provided with an application form for a PBC and confirmation of the correctly calculated fee for a PBC for my boat (ie. 60% of the cost of a pleasure boat Licence [PBL] before the application of VAT at 20%) by close of business tomorrow, Friday 23 August 2019, I will apply to the Court, for an Order staying the Order made on 15 August 2019 until such time as the C&RT cease obstructing and preventing me from purchasing a correctly priced PBC for my boat.
Signed,
A.K.Dunkley. ______________________________________________
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2019 10:13:13 GMT
But you can’t keep a boat on the river without a pbc, so a pbc is more than just a registration of identity, it is also a document that confirms your right to keep a boat on the river, so by your definition a pbc is a licence. I think you're one of those people who should have gone to Specsavers ! I'd say at least listen to Chewy, take his thoughts and try to ensure your arguments can with stand such scrutiny. You maybe right but you still have to prove it... (even if that seems to go against the basics of our legal system...). Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 22, 2019 10:21:40 GMT
De minimis non curat lex. For those didn’t go to a proper school, this means that the law doesn’t concern itself with trivia.
Tony I think you are at risk of being accused of hair-splitting by the court. So the name of the item isn’t to your liking, but the function is as required by the legislation. You therefore have a pretty minor and trivial point. That is, until it is made clear that by misusing the term “licence”, VAT at 20% is applied. I suggest that this point needs to be forefront in your objection to what CRT are offering. But are you sure of your ground? Where does it say that a Licence attracts VAT at 20% whereas a Registration doesn’t?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 22, 2019 10:30:45 GMT
I think you're one of those people who should have gone to Specsavers ! I'd say at least listen to Chewy, take his thoughts and try to ensure your arguments can with stand such scrutiny. You maybe right but you still have to prove it... (even if that seems to go against the basics of our legal system...). Good luck. I appreciate both yours and Chewy's concern, and thank you to you both. There is however something which you both seem to have overlooked. What you refer to as my arguments aren't really arguments at all, and they certainly don't originate from me ! Everything I've said or written with regard to this is lifted directly from statutes by which C&RT is governed, whereas what they have said or written, on the other hand, is pure invention and CANNOT be found anywhere in or verified under any statute.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2019 10:43:07 GMT
De minimis non curat lex. For those didn’t go to a proper school, this means that the law doesn’t concern itself with trivia. Tony I think you are at risk of being accused of hair-splitting by the court. So the name of the item isn’t to your liking, but the function is as required by the legislation. You therefore have a pretty minor and trivial point. That is, until it is made clear that by misusing the term “licence”, VAT at 20% is applied. I suggest that this point needs to be forefront in your objection to what CRT are offering. But are you sure of your ground? Where does it say that a Licence attracts VAT at 20% whereas a Registration doesn’t? Personally I think the Judge will view the VAT rules and the words Licence/Certificate are irrelevant in this case (even though they are important to why the situation arrived). From my reading of things Tony is right but should have gone down a different legal route, however what has been done is done. I could be wrong though.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Aug 22, 2019 10:46:14 GMT
I haven't read all of this thread so don't understand all the technicalities but the overriding thing I get is the stoicism of the 'little man' fighting the 'big system'. Good on you Tony. But it is not a game and the consequences can be devastating for the individual if they loose, so consider carefully the probability of winning before encouraging someone down that path. It's a good job you weren't in charge during World War 2! Run away! Run away! It's behind you!
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Aug 22, 2019 10:52:42 GMT
If I were the judge, I'd have a chat with Tony and see what's what, look it up to see what's true, and get this whole nonsense sorted out once and for all.
Perhaps Tony and Parry in the same room at the same time with the judge.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Aug 22, 2019 10:58:18 GMT
But it is not a game and the consequences can be devastating for the individual if they loose, so consider carefully the probability of winning before encouraging someone down that path. It's a good job you weren't in charge during World War 2! Run away! Run away! It's behind you! Maybe, but how many encouraged Leigh Ravenscroft in his battle with CRT, and how many of those then contributed to his legal costs when he lost? Easy to be big with another's money.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Aug 22, 2019 11:18:07 GMT
It's a good job you weren't in charge during World War 2! Run away! Run away! It's behind you! Maybe Yeah... I do agree with you. There's no real need to go to stupid extremes which is why I think the judge should get Tony and CRT in one room and thrash it out to a sensible conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Aug 22, 2019 11:39:33 GMT
Yeah... I do agree with you. There's no real need to go to stupid extremes which is why I think the judge should get Tony and CRT in one room and thrash it out to a sensible conclusion. Sadly that is not how the law works, our system is adversarial with a winner and looser. It would be good if the waterways ombudsman were to offer an INDEPENDENT arbitration service to resolve these kind of issues, but I doubt anyone would trust the current system, so it’s not going to happen anytime soon.
|
|