|
Post by bargemast on May 24, 2017 10:24:47 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 bargemast on May 24, 2017 10:37:08 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. Sorry for making a mess, I'm on m'y phone as thé Laptop doesn't want to communicate with thé signal it get's from thé phone. You're right, my personal experience is only with commercial ships (not pleasure boats) registration, but I'm convinced that it's not very différent in the UK, as American friends that had bought their barge (over 24m) in thé Netherlands, and registered her officially in thé UK, when thé barge was sold, thé buyers needed proof of ownership and a proof that there were no debts on thé ship before thé official change of ownership and registration could be done. Another owner later she's now in Limehouse basin. Hope there aren't too many spelling errors apart from accents everywhere due to thé french spelling corrector. Peter.
|
|
|
Post by Phil on May 24, 2017 10:44:37 GMT
Tony, have a look at the below. It maybe if you have evidence to prove the people who seized your ship misrepresented themselves then they may be guilty of an offence under the fraud act. Again if you can prove they claimed to be Court officers in possession of a warrant and they are not, this offence may be easier to prove. If so you need to report it and provide the evidence to the police where it happened i.e. Liverpool www.marymonson.co.uk/useful-information/fraudulent-misrepresentation/
|
|
|
Post by emma on May 24, 2017 13:36:57 GMT
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. I would have thought the use of bogus bailiffs enough to prove the dishonest part
|
|
|
Post by Bad-Bitch on May 24, 2017 14:19:11 GMT
CRT have replied to a question on FB. . Question : Roy Stokes - Would the Canal and River Trust like to explain why they stole this ship from it's owner, then sold it to an undisclosed buyer for the price of a small springer? . Answer :Canal & River Trust - Taking control of Planet was a difficult decision that had to be made after many attempts to resolve a number of issues with the owner. These included serious health and safety breaches as well as non-payment of berthing fees. She was on the market for many months, and having had enquiries and interest, the Trust accepted the highest offer – which was from someone who plans to restore her rather than break her up for scrap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2017 14:56:27 GMT
CRT have replied to a question on FB. . Question : Roy Stokes - Would the Canal and River Trust like to explain why they stole this ship from it's owner, then sold it to an undisclosed buyer for the price of a small springer?. Answer : Canal & River Trust - Taking control of Planet was a difficult decision that had to be made after many attempts to resolve a number of issues with the owner. These included serious health and safety breaches as well as non-payment of berthing fees. She was on the market for many months, and having had enquiries and interest, the Trust accepted the highest offer – which was from someone who plans to restore her rather than break her up for scrap.the blue text is awfully difficult to read on the blue background. I wonder how it works if someone buys a boat for say £10k and says "I'm not going to scrap it, honest" then scraps it a bit later earning a £40k profit. If that happened the seller would have effectively given the buyer £40k. Or can it be written into a contract that the buyer is not allowed to scrap it? I think its possible to have covenants on properties but can the same be said for boats ? Bit of an odd situation.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 24, 2017 15:10:13 GMT
CRT have replied to a question on FB. . Question : Roy Stokes - Would the Canal and River Trust like to explain why they stole this ship from it's owner, then sold it to an undisclosed buyer for the price of a small springer?. Answer : Canal & River Trust - Taking control of Planet was a difficult decision that had to be made after many attempts to resolve a number of issues with the owner. These included serious health and safety breaches as well as non-payment of berthing fees. She was on the market for many months, and having had enquiries and interest, the Trust accepted the highest offer – which was from someone who plans to restore her rather than break her up for scrap.Thanks for flagging that up GG - let's hope it's the first of many such embarassing questions. There is growing evidence - maybe evidence is a little too strong a word, perhaps 'indications' would better describe what we have so far - that this so-called "sale" that C&RT are so chuffed about is in fact a devious scheme that they've hatched to bring the ship back to Liverpool and create the illusion that they have 'saved' it from some sort of disaster at the hands of the man whom they have been trying to convince everyone, including themselves, is the 'former' owner.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 24, 2017 16:18:17 GMT
Tony, have a look at the below. It maybe if you have evidence to prove the people who seized your ship misrepresented themselves then they may be guilty of an offence under the fraud act. Again if you can prove they claimed to be Court officers in possession of a warrant and they are not, this offence may be easier to prove. If so you need to report it and provide the evidence to the police where it happened i.e. Liverpool www.marymonson.co.uk/useful-information/fraudulent-misrepresentation/Many thanks for this, and your immediately previous post, Phil. Your input is, as always, very informative and most welcome. The best evidence we have to satisfy the 'dishonestly' test for theft is within the confidential Survey Report and Valuation supplied to C&RT by Braemar Technical Services Ltd. Page 1 of the Report names the instructing party as Commercial Boat Services, carries an 'Instruction Date' of 28 July 2016, and the following paragraph: 19th SEPTEMBER 2017 - SEIZURE OF VESSEL
At 08:30 hours on 19 September 2016 agents acting for Canal and River Trust enforced a High Court warrant and seized the Vessel which was moored port side to alongside the east wall at Canning Dock, Liverpool. Our instructions were to attend aboard the Vessel immediately thereafter to undertake a general condition survey, provide a valuation for the Vessel and to provide recommendations for a proposed one-off tow from Liverpool to Sharpness.Page 2 of the Report carries a list of attendees at the seizure which is devoid of mention of any authorized officers of the Court but ends by including and naming 'Paramount Security' - full trading name Paramount Security and Stewarding Ltd., a local company with no authorized enforcement agents on their strength. I'm busying myself at the moment trawling through everything we have, including paperwork prior to the seizure, for anything else useful as indication and/or evidence of C&RT's awareness as to the true nature of their intentions prior to seizing the ship.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2017 16:26:55 GMT
I did the same thing then noticed when it was highlighted it was readable.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on May 24, 2017 16:28:50 GMT
the blue text is awfully difficult to read on the blue background. I thought to copy it into a different colour and paste it so that people here could read it, but when you 'paint' the blue text it turns white automatically, so just paint it and read it. Why goodgurl has put it into an unreadable colour is beyond my brain's capabilities. GG sees things in black and white
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on May 24, 2017 16:31:56 GMT
when they forcibly seized the ship with the assistance of two nightclub bouncers impersonating officers of the Court in the guise of 'Bailiffs' I should like to know who these bouncers were, if they really received £2250 per head for one day's work, and if the Inland Revenue knows how much they earned on that one day. Use your Noddle, that was the charge their company made for their attendance not their take home pay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2017 16:33:35 GMT
I wonder how it works if someone buys a boat for say £10k and says "I'm not going to scrap it, honest" then scraps it a bit later earning a £40k profit. If that happened the seller would have effectively given the buyer £40k. I thought the scrap value was around £70,000 ? I'd say if giving away someone else's boat to a bloke for £12,500 so he can get £70,000 for scrapping it is tantamount to 30 years in Holloway. I was using £10k and £50k as theoretical figures not the exact figures in this case. It does seem an interesting case but I can't see how CRT can be allowed to lose this, personally.
|
|
|
Post by Phil on May 24, 2017 16:47:42 GMT
Tony, have a look at the below. It maybe if you have evidence to prove the people who seized your ship misrepresented themselves then they may be guilty of an offence under the fraud act. Again if you can prove they claimed to be Court officers in possession of a warrant and they are not, this offence may be easier to prove. If so you need to report it and provide the evidence to the police where it happened i.e. Liverpool www.marymonson.co.uk/useful-information/fraudulent-misrepresentation/Many thanks for this, and your immediately previous post, Phil. Your input is, as always, very informative and most welcome. The best evidence we have to satisfy the 'dishonestly' test for theft is within the confidential Survey Report and Valuation supplied to C&RT by Braemar Technical Services Ltd. Page 1 of the Report names the instructing party as Commercial Boat Services, carries an 'Instruction Date' of 28 July 2016, and the following paragraph: 19th SEPTEMBER 2017 - SEIZURE OF VESSEL
At 08:30 hours on 19 September 2016 agents acting for Canal and River Trust enforced a High Court warrant and seized the Vessel which was moored port side to alongside the east wall at Canning Dock, Liverpool. Our instructions were to attend aboard the Vessel immediately thereafter to undertake a general condition survey, provide a valuation for the Vessel and to provide recommendations for a proposed one-off tow from Liverpool to Sharpness.Page 2 of the Report carries a list of attendees at the seizure which is devoid of mention of any authorized officers of the Court but ends by including and naming 'Paramount Security' - full trading name Paramount Security and Stewarding Ltd., a local company with no authorized enforcement agents on their strength. I'm busying myself at the moment trawling through everything we have, including paperwork prior to the seizure, for anything else useful as indication and/or evidence of C&RT's awareness as to the true nature of their intentions prior to seizing the ship. Ok, this in itself would not be enough. It is simply a report written by a third party to the action and it may be that they have misunderstood to the true position, or simply assumed a warrant was in existence, or they have been duped. What you would need for it to be evidence, would be for the author of the report, if they were actually present, or if not the person or persons who were to provide a witness statement, stating that they were told, by the persons presenting themselves, that a warrant existed, and for them to give evidence to that effect. Having said that it would be appropriate for the police to investigate this and assuming that they obtain witness evidence to that effect then there may be a case. I think the biggest hurdle you face is to get the police to instigate an investigation, as once this is done, they will be able to secure communication between the parties that you cannot. To do this you need to provide sufficient for them to take the view that an offence may well have occurred. I think you have a better chance with the fraud by misrepresentation than theft, as the report you have whilst not evidence certainly indicates misrepresentation may have occurred.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on May 24, 2017 18:30:35 GMT
Many thanks for this, and your immediately previous post, Phil. Your input is, as always, very informative and most welcome. The best evidence we have to satisfy the 'dishonestly' test for theft is within the confidential Survey Report and Valuation supplied to C&RT by Braemar Technical Services Ltd. Page 1 of the Report names the instructing party as Commercial Boat Services, carries an 'Instruction Date' of 28 July 2016, and the following paragraph: 19th SEPTEMBER 2017 - SEIZURE OF VESSEL
At 08:30 hours on 19 September 2016 agents acting for Canal and River Trust enforced a High Court warrant and seized the Vessel which was moored port side to alongside the east wall at Canning Dock, Liverpool. Our instructions were to attend aboard the Vessel immediately thereafter to undertake a general condition survey, provide a valuation for the Vessel and to provide recommendations for a proposed one-off tow from Liverpool to Sharpness.Page 2 of the Report carries a list of attendees at the seizure which is devoid of mention of any authorized officers of the Court but ends by including and naming 'Paramount Security' - full trading name Paramount Security and Stewarding Ltd., a local company with no authorized enforcement agents on their strength. I'm busying myself at the moment trawling through everything we have, including paperwork prior to the seizure, for anything else useful as indication and/or evidence of C&RT's awareness as to the true nature of their intentions prior to seizing the ship. Ok, this in itself would not be enough. It is simply a report written by a third party to the action and it may be that they have misunderstood to the true position, or simply assumed a warrant was in existence, or they have been duped. What you would need for it to be evidence, would be for the author of the report, if they were actually present, or if not the person or persons who were to provide a witness statement, stating that they were told, by the persons presenting themselves, that a warrant existed, and for them to give evidence to that effect. Having said that it would be appropriate for the police to investigate this and assuming that they obtain witness evidence to that effect then there may be a case. I think the biggest hurdle you face is to get the police to instigate an investigation, as once this is done, they will be able to secure communication between the parties that you cannot. To do this you need to provide sufficient for them to take the view that an offence may well have occurred. I think you have a better chance with the fraud by misrepresentation than theft, as the report you have whilst not evidence certainly indicates misrepresentation may have occurred. Two things spring to my mind. There was somebody on the ship when it was seized. What was said to him to get him to leave and what did the policeman who CRB checked him say to him. Also, I seem to recall that CBS were invoicing as a Section 8. What were they told as to the authority for seizure.
|
|
|
Post by Bad-Bitch on May 25, 2017 12:50:41 GMT
the blue text is awfully difficult to read on the blue background. I thought to copy it into a different colour and paste it so that people here could read it, but when you 'paint' the blue text it turns white automatically, so just paint it and read it. Why goodgurl has put it into an unreadable colour is beyond my brain's capabilities. Better? CRT have replied to a question on FB. . Question : Roy Stokes - Would the Canal and River Trust like to explain why they stole this ship from it's owner, then sold it to an undisclosed buyer for the price of a small springer? . Answer :Canal & River Trust - Taking control of Planet was a difficult decision that had to be made after many attempts to resolve a number of issues with the owner. These included serious health and safety breaches as well as non-payment of berthing fees. She was on the market for many months, and having had enquiries and interest, the Trust accepted the highest offer – which was from someone who plans to restore her rather than break her up for scrap. Read more: thunderboat.boards.net/thread/642/bar-lightship-impounded-crt-yesterday?page=57#ixzz4i5uitQso
|
|