|
Post by Bad-Bitch on May 25, 2017 13:00:26 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. peter underwood as published this today. www.thefloater.org/the-floater-may-2017/now-police-investigate-theft-of-planet
|
|
|
Post by trustwatcher on May 26, 2017 14:09:16 GMT
Just my quick 2p worth on this. Having worked for more than one charity over the years and having been responsible for the preliminary discussions with potential asset purchasers I am fairly sure that CaRT aren't complying with the rules. The main thing for me is the massive difference in the survey valuation to agreed sale price. The charity commission clearly states that you must attempt the best deal for the charity concerned. Also, while I figure this is now in the hands of lawyers it also clearly states that the charity must have the tittle to the property. www.gov.uk/guidance/charity-land-and-propertyProbably worth a read Tony, might be another way to show the Trust up for the horrendous way they've dealt with this. I'm happy to report them if you want me to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2017 15:00:23 GMT
Welcome to Thunderboat trustwatcher ..
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 27, 2017 23:31:28 GMT
Just my quick 2p worth on this. Having worked for more than one charity over the years and having been responsible for the preliminary discussions with potential asset purchasers I am fairly sure that CaRT aren't complying with the rules. The main thing for me is the massive difference in the survey valuation to agreed sale price. The charity commission clearly states that you must attempt the best deal for the charity concerned. Also, while I figure this is now in the hands of lawyers it also clearly states that the charity must have the tittle to the property. www.gov.uk/guidance/charity-land-and-propertyProbably worth a read Tony, might be another way to show the Trust up for the horrendous way they've dealt with this. I'm happy to report them if you want me to. Hello, 'trustwatcher', welcome to TB and thank you very much for that link. Although I know that the C&RT does have some sort of charitable status for fund raising, I don't know if all the rules that have to be complied with by what would be described as 'normal' charities apply in the same way to them. I do hope so, and I think that we should explore and use all possible means of bringing the destructive rogue element that's so well ensconced at the top of the organization into line, . . . or, preferably, get rid of them all together ! With regards to the Liverpool Lightship, they definitely don't have legal title, and nor do they have the claimed 'contractual rights' to sell, . . . they blew those when they shifted the ship out of Canning Dock and into the Mersey, . . . so the requirement to realize the best possible price for the charity's property won't apply, but they certainly should not be allowed to get away with squandering upwards of Β£50,000 of the charity's cash on yet another exercise in malice and spite that leaves them with no means of recouping any of it.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 28, 2017 1:05:38 GMT
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. To the best of his recollection shortly after the event, the man on board "Planet" at the time of the seizure was told, by the otherwise unidentified men accompanying C&RT's 'Harbour Manager', that they were ''Water Bailiffs'' who were 'seizing and taking possession of the ship". I have to say that the use of the term 'water bailiffs' sounds to me like just the sort of thing that could be expected to be said by a couple of nightclub bouncers who had been instructed to pretend to be Court authorized 'Bailiffs' enforcing a 'High Court warrant' on a ship in a dock under the control of an inland waterways navigation authority ! CBS did indeed invoice C&RT for their part in depriving Alan Roberts of his ship as a Section 8 seizure. Commercial Boat Services Invoice No. CRT 1053 rendered 24 October 2016 against C&RT Order No. 3500150666 is headed 'Seizure of Section 8 boat Planet Light' , and line 5 in the itemized list specifies 'Bailiffs' at a cost of Β£4500.00.
|
|
|
Post by trustwatcher on May 28, 2017 10:05:44 GMT
"With regards to the Liverpool Lightship, they definitely don't have legal title, and nor do they have the claimed 'contractual rights' to sell, . . . they blew those when they shifted the ship out of Canning Dock and into the Mersey, . . . so the requirement to realize the best possible price for the charity's property won't apply"
Sorry Tony, on a tablet and don't seem to able to quote correctly.
Regarding the above, I'm not 100% but to me it reads that they must achieve best value for the asset AND have the rights to sell rather than achieve best value IF they have rights to sell.
"Although I know that the C&RT does have some sort of charitable status for fund raising, I don't know if all the rules that have to be complied with by what would be described as 'normal' charities apply in the same way to them."
This may be where it falls apart, Tbh I can't figure out exactly where the charity starts and ends. You're right that it'll depend on which bit of the organisation has made the sale... I think.
I'll make an advisory phonecall to the charity commission on Tuesday to clarify if you're happy for me to do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2017 10:15:02 GMT
"With regards to the Liverpool Lightship, they definitely don't have legal title, and nor do they have the claimed 'contractual rights' to sell, . . . they blew those when they shifted the ship out of Canning Dock and into the Mersey, . . . so the requirement to realize the best possible price for the charity's property won't apply" Sorry Tony, on a tablet and don't seem to able to quote correctly. Regarding the above, I'm not 100% but to me it reads that they must achieve best value for the asset AND have the rights to sell rather than achieve best value IF they have rights to sell. "Although I know that the C&RT does have some sort of charitable status for fund raising, I don't know if all the rules that have to be complied with by what would be described as 'normal' charities apply in the same way to them." This may be where it falls apart, Tbh I can't figure out exactly where the charity starts and ends. You're right that it'll depend on which bit of the organisation has made the sale... I think. I'll make an advisory phonecall to the charity commission on Tuesday to clarify if you're happy for me to do so. I remember a thread on the other channel where the 'charity' bit of CRT was debated. It resulted in certain people trying to redefine the word 'charity' to justify CRT's actions. I'm guessing many court cases waste time and money fighting over definitions. Those with the money seem to end up being able to cement definitions with little regard to the right and wrongs.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 28, 2017 16:18:39 GMT
Just my quick 2p worth on this. Having worked for more than one charity over the years and having been responsible for the preliminary discussions with potential asset purchasers I am fairly sure that CaRT aren't complying with the rules. The main thing for me is the massive difference in the survey valuation to agreed sale price. The charity commission clearly states that you must attempt the best deal for the charity concerned. Also, while I figure this is now in the hands of lawyers it also clearly states that the charity must have the tittle to the property. www.gov.uk/guidance/charity-land-and-propertyProbably worth a read Tony, might be another way to show the Trust up for the horrendous way they've dealt with this. I'm happy to report them if you want me to. Hello, 'trustwatcher', welcome to TB and thank you very much for that link. Although I know that the C&RT does have some sort of charitable status for fund raising, I don't know if all the rules that have to be complied with by what would be described as 'normal' charities apply in the same way to them. I do hope so, and I think that we should explore and use all possible means of bringing the destructive rogue element that's so well ensconced at the top of the organization into line, . . . or, preferably, get rid of them all together ! With regards to the Liverpool Lightship, they definitely don't have legal title, and nor do they have the claimed 'contractual rights' to sell, . . . they blew those when they shifted the ship out of Canning Dock and into the Mersey, . . . so the requirement to realize the best possible price for the charity's property won't apply, but they certainly should not be allowed to get away with squandering upwards of Β£50,000 of the charity's cash on yet another exercise in malice and spite that leaves them with no means of recouping any of it. You might want to contact andrew.gilligan@sunday-times.co.uk about this, he has expressed an interest to me about a CRT story.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on May 29, 2017 6:24:14 GMT
Hello, 'trustwatcher', welcome to TB and thank you very much for that link. Although I know that the C&RT does have some sort of charitable status for fund raising, I don't know if all the rules that have to be complied with by what would be described as 'normal' charities apply in the same way to them. I do hope so, and I think that we should explore and use all possible means of bringing the destructive rogue element that's so well ensconced at the top of the organization into line, . . . or, preferably, get rid of them all together ! With regards to the Liverpool Lightship, they definitely don't have legal title, and nor do they have the claimed 'contractual rights' to sell, . . . they blew those when they shifted the ship out of Canning Dock and into the Mersey, . . . so the requirement to realize the best possible price for the charity's property won't apply, but they certainly should not be allowed to get away with squandering upwards of Β£50,000 of the charity's cash on yet another exercise in malice and spite that leaves them with no means of recouping any of it. You might want to contact andrew.gilligan@sunday-times.co.uk about this, he has expressed an interest to me about a CRT story. I contacted the Liverpool Echo last week - www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-lightship-sold-just-12500-13104021
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 29, 2017 8:02:38 GMT
CaRT is a registered charity,probably also a company limited by guarantee. So is subject to charity commission rules. It must operate within its own rules, "memorandum and articles". They should be available on the charity commission website.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 29, 2017 9:03:44 GMT
I'll make an advisory phonecall to the charity commission on Tuesday to clarify if you're happy for me to do so. Yes please, that would be very useful.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 29, 2017 9:06:08 GMT
Hello, 'trustwatcher', welcome to TB and thank you very much for that link. Although I know that the C&RT does have some sort of charitable status for fund raising, I don't know if all the rules that have to be complied with by what would be described as 'normal' charities apply in the same way to them. I do hope so, and I think that we should explore and use all possible means of bringing the destructive rogue element that's so well ensconced at the top of the organization into line, . . . or, preferably, get rid of them all together ! With regards to the Liverpool Lightship, they definitely don't have legal title, and nor do they have the claimed 'contractual rights' to sell, . . . they blew those when they shifted the ship out of Canning Dock and into the Mersey, . . . so the requirement to realize the best possible price for the charity's property won't apply, but they certainly should not be allowed to get away with squandering upwards of Β£50,000 of the charity's cash on yet another exercise in malice and spite that leaves them with no means of recouping any of it. You might want to contact andrew.gilligan@sunday-times.co.uk about this, he has expressed an interest to me about a CRT story. Thanks, Richard, we'll be in touch with him on Tuesday morning.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 29, 2017 9:11:39 GMT
I'm becoming increasingly disappointed and irritated by the Liverpool Echo's coverage of this story - from the very start they have simply regurgitated all the tripe that C&RT has fed them about the seizure being over "unpaid berthing fees" and Alan Roberts being the "former owner".
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 29, 2017 9:25:02 GMT
CaRT is a registered charity,probably also a company limited by guarantee. So is subject to charity commission rules. It must operate within its own rules, "memorandum and articles". They should be available on the charity commission website. This is right at the heart of what has gone wrong with C&RT - there are rules laid down, within which they should be operating, but those rules are ignored and with a great deal of assistance from what Nigel Moore so aptly describes as the "presumption of probity", they have, so far, got away with doing pretty much just as they like !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 29, 2017 10:41:36 GMT
Perhaps a million miles off, but here's a thought: The 2006 Fraud Act defines fraud in three ways: false representation (night club bouncers as 'High Court bailiffs')failing to disclose information abusing power. In each case, the defendantβs conduct must be dishonest with the intention of making a gain, or must cause a loss (or the risk of a loss) to another person or individual. Crucially, no actual gain or loss needs to be proved β the fraud might have been unsuccessful or it was stopped before it could take place. No distance off at all, Ross - C&RT's violation of the 2006 Fraud Act has now been added to the report of theft made to the Police last week. After the theft report was made to Gloucestershire Police last week they assigned an Incident No. and began enquiries. This put the wind up C&RT sufficiently to immediately send them running to Shoosmiths again, but unfortunately Gloucestershire weren't able to continue with the investigation beyond establishing that the originating incident occurred out of their jurisdiction. Understandably, following the Manchester bombing, the Liverpool Police are fairly well preoccupied at the moment, and some police stations normally manned and open to the public are temporarily closed. As a result it wasn't possible to get Alan Roberts' amended report and statement, now including the Fraud Act violation, logged in and looked at before all the local C&RT gits had finished work for the weekend. So, come Tuesday morning, Liverpool (Merseyside) Police will be seeking answers to a few questions which they hope will allow them to write off the whole thing as a 'civil matter' which they can walk away from. However, the fraud aspect arising from the 'High Court warrant' that C&RT's 'Bailiffs' executed on 19 September 2016 cannot be dismissed as such; it is unquestionably a criminal matter ! Reproduced below is the amended report and statement now in the hands of Liverpool Police :-
Report and Statement of Alan Roberts.
This statement relates to the taking possession of and depriving me of the ex-Lightvessel LV23 - "Planet" by the Canal & River Trust in Canning Dock, Liverpool on the morning of Monday 19 September 2016.
On Friday 19 May 2017 I was notified by the Canal & River Trust [C&RT] that they had sold my ship to an unnamed third party for the sum of Β£12,500, which is less than one-fifth of it's value as scrap and no more than one-fifteenth of it's market value based on past selling prices of comparable vessels.
At the time the vessel was seized the C&RT dishonestly and publicly announced that they had taken possession of, and removed, it pursuant to an unpaid debt in respect of berthing fees. After the ship had been towed to Sharpness in Gloucestershire to be impounded by their agents, they changed their story to admit that the ship had in fact been seized and removed, not pursuant to any debt, but simply because they no longer wanted it in their Docks and that in seizing and towing away the ship they had acted and relied upon what they describe as 'contractual rights' entitling them to take possession, remove and sell it at their sole and absolute discretion.
In consequence of the above, I believe that the C&RT acted dishonestly and with the intention from the outset to permanently deprive me of my ship. I also believe that they were unsure as to the extent and veracity of the contractual rights they now claim to have to dispose of my property as they see fit and at their absolute discretion, and it was for that reason they felt it necessary to release a misleading and untruthful cover story about unpaid berthing fees in an attempt to justify the seizure of my ship in September of last year.
As the ship is still at present located in Sharpness Dock, Gloucestershire, the matter was reported as a theft to Gloucestershire Constabulary on Monday 22 May 2017. In light of the fact that the seizure and removal of the ship occurred in Liverpool, the Gloucestershire force has passed on the report and Incident No. to be investigated by Merseyside police. A copy of the theft report to Gloucestershire is enclosed with this report.
Further to the facts as set out above, I believe that the forcible seizure of the ship in Canning Dock, Liverpool was conducted in a fraudulent manner with the intention of deceiving both myself and others into believing that authorized/certificated Bailiffs or Enforcement Agents were executing/enforcing a High Court warrant. The enclosed copies of an 'Interim Schedule of Costs' compiled by the C&RT, and page 1 of the Survey and Valuation Report on the ship ordered by the C&RT support this contention.
Signed ............................................ Date.............................................. Alan Roberts
Enc. copies. Report of Theft to Gloucestershire Constabulary - 22 May 2017. Interim Schedule of Costs. Page 1 of Braemar Technical Services Report.
__________________________________________________ Page 1 of Braemar Technical Services Ltd. 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 VESSELAt 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 Vesselimmediately 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.C&RT's 'Interim Schedule of Costs' :-Item 5 of the 'schedule' - "Bailiffs 2x12 hour shifts, 2x Officers"____________________________________________________
|
|