|
Post by peterboat on May 23, 2017 18:08:13 GMT
Got it Tony when you are involved in a court case and legal wranglings you live it! when you are trying to follow it its not so easy lets hope the Police do what they are supposed to do and dont say its a civil matter go to court
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 18:12:38 GMT
I can't see CRT losing this but will be interesting to see how it goes !
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on May 23, 2017 18:19:05 GMT
I can't see CRT losing this but will be interesting to see how it goes ! Nor me, CRT will spin the importance of the decision to sell being made while it was berthed on their mooring which has at least some logic. The law is there to grab a bit that fits your arguements and push it to the fore while simultaneously undermining the relative importance of any other bits of law that don't. CRT know they have the best law mincers so always assume, quite rightly, that they will win.
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 23, 2017 18:47:51 GMT
I can't see CRT losing this but will be interesting to see how it goes ! Nor me, CRT will spin the importance of the decision to sell being made while it was berthed on their mooring which has at least some logic. The law is there to grab a bit that fits your arguements and push it to the fore while simultaneously undermining the relative importance of any other bits of law that don't. CRT know they have the best law mincers so always assume, quite rightly, that they will win. A lot of crt's policies going forward , seem to rest on the infalability of their law mincers as you put it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 18:59:43 GMT
How many here are scared to say anything for fear of reprisals from CRT? I am. I would like to offload lots of very offensive and libellous shit about them but I'm scared beyond belief (way down in the shadows). CRT hold all the strings and my life would be turned upside down if I were to upset them too much or admit publicly that they are simply a group of ****ng ****ing ***ts.
|
|
|
Post by Phil on May 23, 2017 19:09:00 GMT
Cheers Tony it is a very log story to go through so I take it you now go to court to get the monies owed for selling something that doesnt belong to them? No, Peter, the next step is a criminal prosecution for theft, by either the Police or the owner, proceeding alongside the civil action for a Court Order for the return of the ship to the owner plus appropriate damages. From a purely legal/technical standpoint C&RT have not 'sold' the ship at all - they can't, simply because they don't have title (in the sense of owning it) and so cannot transfer what lawyers call 'good title' to a third party. As I've indicated in the post above replying to Foxy, had they taken possession and kept the ship in their Docks in Liverpool they could have legitimately sold it, not as owners with 'title' to it but as 'involuntary bailees' under both their Berthing Agreement and the 1977 Torts (Interference with Goods) Act. C&RT have only 'sold' the ship in precisely the same sense that a burglar 'sells' the proceeds of his crimes to someone who handles and deals in stolen goods. In this instance C&RT were the 'burglars' and Comical Boat Services 'fenced' the stolen goods for them ! I think you should drop any idea of a criminal action as a non starter. From what I have read the police won't touch it, claiming it to be a civil matter which it probably is. Should you decide to instigate a private prosecution then at the first hearing the CPS will take over the case and on reviewing the evidence they will discontinue it. You have no say over this process.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on May 23, 2017 21:28:43 GMT
No, Peter, the next step is a criminal prosecution for theft, by either the Police or the owner, proceeding alongside the civil action for a Court Order for the return of the ship to the owner plus appropriate damages. From a purely legal/technical standpoint C&RT have not 'sold' the ship at all - they can't, simply because they don't have title (in the sense of owning it) and so cannot transfer what lawyers call 'good title' to a third party. As I've indicated in the post above replying to Foxy, had they taken possession and kept the ship in their Docks in Liverpool they could have legitimately sold it, not as owners with 'title' to it but as 'involuntary bailees' under both their Berthing Agreement and the 1977 Torts (Interference with Goods) Act. C&RT have only 'sold' the ship in precisely the same sense that a burglar 'sells' the proceeds of his crimes to someone who handles and deals in stolen goods. In this instance C&RT were the 'burglars' and Comical Boat Services 'fenced' the stolen goods for them ! I think you should drop any idea of a criminal action as a non starter. From what I have read the police won't touch it, claiming it to be a civil matter which it probably is. Should you decide to instigate a private prosecution then at the first hearing the CPS will take over the case and on reviewing the evidence they will discontinue it. You have no say over this process. I dont like this but agree with it Phil, its been in the courts already as a civil case so the Police are going to take the path of least resistance. As I have said in the past if the chap had paid his dues none of this would have happened, however I do think that things have gone way to far in the selling of a boat for peanuts literally!! As for title docs I dont know whats needed for the boat? but do know that I have bought a boat without them and CRT have put it in my name happily
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on May 23, 2017 21:41:06 GMT
I think you should drop any idea of a criminal action as a non starter. From what I have read the police won't touch it, claiming it to be a civil matter which it probably is. Should you decide to instigate a private prosecution then at the first hearing the CPS will take over the case and on reviewing the evidence they will discontinue it. You have no say over this process. I dont like this but agree with it Phil, its been in the courts already as a civil case so the Police are going to take the path of least resistance. As I have said in the past if the chap had paid his dues none of this would have happened, however I do think that things have gone way to far in the selling of a boat for peanuts literally!! As for title docs I dont know whats needed for the boat? but do know that I have bought a boat without them and CRT have put it in my name happily There is a big difference between a canal (pleasure) boat and a ship, ships are properly registered.
I've had quite a few commercial barges in my younger days, and they were always properly registered too, it was impossible to just do a deal between someone who said he was the owner of a ship and a prospective buyer, normally a solliciter would check at the registry office if there were debts on the ship, and if the seller was the official registered owner before the ships title can be changed.
Peter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 21:54:50 GMT
Possibly but are you talking about the UK or European mainland?
Not certain but I think your background may be France and Holland and maybe Belgium?
Englandland is a different kettle of fish.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 23, 2017 22:23:23 GMT
I think you should drop any idea of a criminal action as a non starter. From what I have read the police won't touch it, claiming it to be a civil matter which it probably is. Should you decide to instigate a private prosecution then at the first hearing the CPS will take over the case and on reviewing the evidence they will discontinue it. You have no say over this process. I dont like this but agree with it Phil, its been in the courts already as a civil case so the Police are going to take the path of least resistance. As I have said in the past if the chap had paid his dues none of this would have happened, however I do think that things have gone way to far in the selling of a boat for peanuts literally!! As for title docs I dont know whats needed for the boat? but do know that I have bought a boat without them and CRT have put it in my name happily Your licence doesn't prove that you own the boat. Nor is it relevant to obtaining a licence.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on May 24, 2017 6:16:09 GMT
Possibly but are you talking about the UK or European mainland? Not certain but I think your background may be France and Holland and maybe Belgium? Englandland is a different kettle of fish. In the Uk it may be on part 1, part 2 or part 3 of the register with the MCA. Part 1 for commercial or for private vessels where there is a need to show nationality or ownership or you want to have a marine mortgage. Part 2 for fishing vessels Part 3 (or SSR Small Ships Register) This is a simpler format (and cheaper) used for private boats less than 24 metres long and can be done on line (and less secure) Or of course in the UK (if private) no registration at all
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2017 7:52:26 GMT
Possibly but are you talking about the UK or European mainland? Not certain but I think your background may be France and Holland and maybe Belgium? Englandland is a different kettle of fish. In the Uk it may be on part 1, part 2 or part 3 of the register with the MCA. Part 1 for commercial or for private vessels where there is a need to show nationality or ownership or you want to have a marine mortgage. Part 2 for fishing vessels Part 3 (or SSR Small Ships Register) This is a simpler format (and cheaper) used for private boats less than 24 metres long and can be done on line (and less secure) Or of course in the UK (if private) no registration at all Part 3 is a piece of cake to do online, I cant remember the exact wording but it does clearly state SSR part 3 does not prove legal ownership. I'll look at my registration later this week to jog my memory.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 24, 2017 9:37:21 GMT
No, Peter, the next step is a criminal prosecution for theft, by either the Police or the owner, proceeding alongside the civil action for a Court Order for the return of the ship to the owner plus appropriate damages. From a purely legal/technical standpoint C&RT have not 'sold' the ship at all - they can't, simply because they don't have title (in the sense of owning it) and so cannot transfer what lawyers call 'good title' to a third party. As I've indicated in the post above replying to Foxy, had they taken possession and kept the ship in their Docks in Liverpool they could have legitimately sold it, not as owners with 'title' to it but as 'involuntary bailees' under both their Berthing Agreement and the 1977 Torts (Interference with Goods) Act. C&RT have only 'sold' the ship in precisely the same sense that a burglar 'sells' the proceeds of his crimes to someone who handles and deals in stolen goods. In this instance C&RT were the 'burglars' and Comical Boat Services 'fenced' the stolen goods for them ! I think you should drop any idea of a criminal action as a non starter. From what I have read the police won't touch it, claiming it to be a civil matter which it probably is. Should you decide to instigate a private prosecution then at the first hearing the CPS will take over the case and on reviewing the evidence they will discontinue it. You have no say over this process. You are correct in some of what you say, however, C&RT's actions coupled with everything they've now put in writing do satisfy the 'intention to permanently deprive' test, and Gloucestershire Police are investigating the matter, although no one would be more surprised than me if the police investigation proceeds all the way to a prosecution. It is very likely, if for no other reason than C&RT being 'who' they are, that the CPS would hijack a private prosecution, but with the situation as it now stands Alan Roberts has no real alternative other than to pursue any and every possible remedy. C&RT's actions have, on several occasions since 19 September last year, strayed into the realms of outright criminality, starting on the very first day of this saga when they forcibly seized the ship with the assistance of two nightclub bouncers impersonating officers of the Court in the guise of 'Bailiffs', and whilst claiming to be 'enforcing a High Court Warrant'.
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 24, 2017 9:56:46 GMT
I think you should drop any idea of a criminal action as a non starter. From what I have read the police won't touch it, claiming it to be a civil matter which it probably is. Should you decide to instigate a private prosecution then at the first hearing the CPS will take over the case and on reviewing the evidence they will discontinue it. You have no say over this process. You are correct in some of what you say, however, C&RT's actions coupled with everything they've now put in writing do satisfy the 'intention to permanently deprive' test, and Gloucestershire Police are investigating the matter, although no one would be more surprised than me if the police investigation proceeds all the way to a prosecution. It is very likely, if for no other reason than C&RT being 'who' they are, that the CPS would hijack a private prosecution, but with the situation as it now stands Alan Roberts has no real alternative other than to pursue any and every possible remedy. C&RT's actions have, on several occasions since 19 September last year, strayed into the realms of outright criminality, starting on the very first day of this saga when they forcibly seized the ship with the assistance of two nightclub bouncers impersonating officers of the Court in the guise of 'Bailiffs', and whilst claiming to be 'enforcing a High Court Warrant'. Let's hope that the real culprits face justice over this case.
|
|
|
Post by Phil on May 24, 2017 10:14:52 GMT
I think you should drop any idea of a criminal action as a non starter. From what I have read the police won't touch it, claiming it to be a civil matter which it probably is. Should you decide to instigate a private prosecution then at the first hearing the CPS will take over the case and on reviewing the evidence they will discontinue it. You have no say over this process. You are correct in some of what you say, however, C&RT's actions coupled with everything they've now put in writing do satisfy the 'intention to permanently deprive' test, and Gloucestershire Police are investigating the matter, although no one would be more surprised than me if the police investigation proceeds all the way to a prosecution. It is very likely, if for no other reason than C&RT being 'who' they are, that the CPS would hijack a private prosecution, but with the situation as it now stands Alan Roberts has no real alternative other than to pursue any and every possible remedy. C&RT's actions have, on several occasions since 19 September last year, strayed into the realms of outright criminality, starting on the very first day of this saga when they forcibly seized the ship with the assistance of two nightclub bouncers impersonating officers of the Court in the guise of 'Bailiffs', and whilst claiming to be 'enforcing a High Court Warrant'. Yes I do understand the frustration of the true owner, and only seek to save you from wasting time and effort. You are correct in that the actions of CRT, do prove an intent to permanently deprive, however theft requires several points to prove, and you have to meet all the points, not just some of them. The only one on the face of it you don't at present is, Dishonestly. You have to prove to the criminal standard that CRT acted dishonestly. Now they will claim, that it is their belief that the contract allows them to act in the way they have. Even if this is wrong, if they honestly believe that, you fail to prove the dishonesty point, and therefore the whole action fails. I don't know anything about civil law, but I suspect your only course of action is, either seize the boat, or to obtain injunctions against CRT, the person currently holding the boat, and if you know who they are the prospective buyer. The criminal route will not help you. re your last point about how they acted on day one, can you prove this i.e. Do you actually have evidence to support this. If so then it could be a game changer as in addition to any seperate offences that impersonating may have occurred it could show a dishonest intent if you can prove it, in which case game on. So you can gauge whether you have ALL the points, theft is as follows, Dishonestly, Appropriates property, Belonging to another, With the intention, Of permanently depriving the other of it. on the face of what I have read CRT actions would be enough to prove the above, apart from point one. If you can do that, then go for and good luck, if not don't waste your time and effort.
|
|