|
Post by TonyDunkley on Sept 30, 2020 12:32:44 GMT
As this thread is running parallel with the other one covering the same subject, and is similarly littered with the same sort of ill-informed drivel, here's a suitably amended post from the other thread about an hour ago :
C&RT, along with their almost as dishonest predecessors, have been evicting boaters from their homes, and depriving people of their boats and property, without the sanction of the Courts for something like the last 20 years or so, . . and they have been greatly assisted in this by the meek acceptance of their consistent abuse of their statutory powers by the pleasure boating public.
"As alluded to in an earlier post (page 3 of this thread < thunderboat.boards.net/post/254996/thread >) C&RT rely to a great extent on sieve-like memories and the muddled thinking that is invariably paraded out in response to every public announcement of the next chapter in the now all too familiar saga of the Trust's ever growing corporate megalomania."
The link to the TB post in the above quoted paragraph is to a reference in another post to an occasion back in 2014 when for the first, and to date the only time, the fatal flaws in C&RT's standard hole-and-corner procedures for obtaining sham Section 8 boat seizure/removal Court Orders were identified and utilized in both the preliminaries and the Defence filed at Court . Having had sight of the Defence, C&RT filed a Notice of Discontinuance and bore the £15,000 (+) costs of the case themselves, and crucially, they were nervous enough at the prospect of having to air their specious arguments before a Court, the N-o-D was filed BEFORE the case proceeded to hearing.
The Court case reference was CPR Part 8 Claim No.AOONG769 for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and following their ignominious withdrawal C&RT were left with no option but to re-issue the phony 'Rivers only Licence' they had revoked earlier as a pretext for issuing proceedings.
The question that springs to mind is - why, in the 6 years (+) since it was so plainly demonstrated that C&RT's sham Section 8 Court cases can be so easily and effectively stopped dead in their tracks, has no-one else exhibited the inclination or resolve to stand up to them in the same manner, or to recognize that a contrived or wrongfully issued Section 8 Notice, or a meaningless Court Order obtained on the back of such a Notice, really is nothing to fear ? Always provided, of course, that the intended victim's response to the issuing of proceedings is both timely and correct.
Has this gaping hole in C&RT's armour simply been forgotten, . . or is there another reason for the apparent lack of any enthusiasm for exploiting it again ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 14:05:43 GMT
Yes. And here it is.
Most people view going to court as the last option, not the first. Only raving loonies want to go there and find pleasure in it.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Sept 30, 2020 14:26:02 GMT
Yes. And here it is. Most people view going to court as the last option, not the first. Only raving loonies want to go there and find pleasure in it. Hope this helps. "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Sept 30, 2020 14:37:14 GMT
Yes. And here it is. Most people view going to court as the last option, not the first. Only raving loonies want to go there and find pleasure in it. Hope this helps. Presumably you don’t include the highly paid barristers in this comment. I am sure they are more than happy turning up at £500 per hour. Though I agree those paying should view court as the place to go only when all else has failed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 14:38:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Sept 30, 2020 16:55:45 GMT
Yes. And here it is. Most people view going to court as the last option, not the first. Only raving loonies want to go there and find pleasure in it. Hope this helps. Tony is right in this instance about striking first. It's the way to do it, to challenge the withdrawal of the licence. That can't be challenged when you are up before the beak for not having a licence. It's all very well saying "no one will stand up to CRT". Most boaters probably have a little money in property etc that they can't afford to lose. TonyDunkley why don't you challenge them about "no licence without agreeing T&Cs". Perhaps with Selby Michael, when is the "licence*" due up? *Rivers only Certificate of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 17:11:50 GMT
Yes. And here it is. Most people view going to court as the last option, not the first. Only raving loonies want to go there and find pleasure in it. Hope this helps. Tony is right in this instance about striking first. It's the way to do it, to challenge the withdrawal of the licence. That can't be challenged when you are up before the beak for not having a licence. It's all very well saying "no one will stand up to CRT". Most boaters probably have a little money in property etc that they can't afford to lose. TonyDunkley why don't you challenge them about "no licence without agreeing T&Cs". Perhaps with Selby Michael, when is the "licence*" due up? *Rivers only Certificate of course. I would hazard a guess that he has "a little money in property etc" as you put it.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Sept 30, 2020 17:18:01 GMT
I doubt he pays for a licence or mooring for it. As for the safety cert, well you all know the story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 17:22:10 GMT
This post popped up on facebook this afternoon from Richard Churchill, pretty much sums up the situation I think.
The new survey for changes to the " licence conditions " just proves that they have conned a lot of private licence holders in to believing that they have the power to add their own conditions to these licences , the current licence is issued under the 1995 BW act not as claimed on the licence application form the 1962 Transport act and ALL the conditions for its issue or revocation are set out in the 95 act , BW itself put the bill before parliament to create this act to change the licence conditions but now boaters are being told to believe that BW/ CRT has had the power to add its own arbitrary licence conditions since 1962, as far as I know and I welcome to be proven wrong, a claim they never made or used at the time and at no time until after 1995, if they had this claimed power all the time there would have been no need for the 1995 act to have ever been proposed , BW lawyers or any of its senior staff never claimed they had this power at the time according to the minutes of the 95 bill, the parliamentary lawyers who wrote the legislation had no knowledge of this claimed power either, does it sound likely that BW were given the power to do whatever they want in 1962 but never knew about it until CRT came along then spent years getting a bill through parliament for no reason ? .
CRT seems determined to carry on this con that was started long ago by the crooked BW legal dept. to covertly undermine the statutory nature of the private licence and move it to a civil contract basis with their own invented terms and conditions, but there is one unsurmountable obstacle , the fact that contact terms even if agreed to can never override statute, no one is legally bound by such a term, you are not bound by any of these extra terms or conditions even though you agreed to them . The private licence must be issued if any applicant meets the conditions of the 1995 BW act section 17 there are no ifs or buts, this is the law and CRT's own " licence conditions" are not . If boaters allow this to become the norm then they will be willingly removing their own statutory rights under the 1995 act which were put into law to acheive a fair and unprejudiced system of licencing, to being at the whim of CRT ( illegally ) revoking their licence when they see fit.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree either prove me wrong or ignore it, I'm not forcing you to agree .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 17:25:41 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 17:29:17 GMT
If boaters allow this to become the norm then they will be willingly removing their own statutory rights under the 1995 act which were put into law to acheive a fair and unprejudiced system of licencing, to being at the whim of CRT ( illegally ) revoking their licence when they see fit . That seems to be the most interesting bit. Maybe, just maybe, there is a majority of boat owning license payers who do not see CRT as an evil world dominating Bond villain organisation and are willing to accept the move from statute to t&c while carrying on with their boating behaviour and perhaps even feeling slightly pleased. It does seem possible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 17:40:53 GMT
If boaters allow this to become the norm then they will be willingly removing their own statutory rights under the 1995 act which were put into law to acheive a fair and unprejudiced system of licencing, to being at the whim of CRT ( illegally ) revoking their licence when they see fit . That seems to be the most interesting bit. Maybe, just maybe, there is a majority of boat owning license payers who do not see CRT as an evil world dominating Bond villain organisation and are willing to accept the move from statute to t&c while carrying on with their boating behaviour and perhaps even feeling slightly pleased. It does seem possible. Maybe so.
But the law doesn't allow CRT to be an evil world dominating Bond villain organisation.
Thankfully. CRT just needs challenging in the right way - it will either allow a licence to be bought without agreeing to T&Cs for everyone or not. Outcome not certain yet.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 17:48:17 GMT
It will be interesting to see what happens. Keep us updated please.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 17:51:41 GMT
It will be interesting to see what happens. Keep us updated please. It will be a long game, that could fall at the first hurdle, but I will try - if these changes go through significantly unmodified.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Sept 30, 2020 21:14:07 GMT
It will be interesting to see what happens. Keep us updated please. It will be a long game, that could fall at the first hurdle, but I will try - if these changes go through significantly unmodified. Good for you, and if your intention is to challenge C&RT's resolve by way of refusing to agree to their T&C's at your next Licence renewal, I'm not going to wish you luck, because you won't need any, . . provided that you respond in the correct manner and strictly within the Civil Procedure Rules [CPR] Part 8 time limits, if and when C&RT serve you with one of their standard Part 8 Claim Forms for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief after refusing a valid application for a Pleasure Boat Licence [PBL] on the grounds that you haven't agreed to their ultra vires T&C's. The Part 8 Claim for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief is the Court procedure with which C&RT follow up all the Section 8 Notices issued in respect of live-aboard boats. If on the other hand you're planning to challenge this latest C&RT nonsense via Judicial Revue prior to the refusal of a PBL and founded on a possibility or even a probability, all I can say is please don't, . . it won't go anywhere and it could cost you a packet ! Judicial Revue is a long drawn out and potentially very expensive process, both in terms of the expense at the preparatory and application stages, and the costs C&RT would certainly ask for, and almost certainly would be awarded, after the Court declines to proceed could be both punitive and eye-watering. C&RT's lawyers will ask for what are known as Indemnity Costs, as opposed to Costs assessed on the standard basis, the essential difference being that 'standard' Costs have to be proportionate whereas 'indemnity' Costs don't, being in effect a financial penalty for using up the Court's time in pursuing an action with little to no hope of succeeding. The Courts won't conduct Judicial Review on anything that hasn't progressed beyond being simply an indication of intent or action which could occur or materialize at some future date, . . the subject under review has to be something specific, tangible, and historical. Edit (to add to para.1) : In the event that C&RT do refuse to issue or renew a PBL on the grounds that you won't agree to the T&C's, be sure to get the refusal and the reasons for it in writing. You will need to include written proof of the refusal with the Part 8 Claim response papers you will have to return to the Court within the specified time limits, . . so a verbal refusal either in person or over the phone won't do. I won't go into details of how they do it here and now, but C&RT's lawyers have been known, by way of some very underhanded and dishonest routines, to turn the Part 8 Claim Court procedure into nothing more than a 5-10 minute 'rubber stamping' exercise at which their victims are denied any opportunity to mount any sort of defence to the proceedings, or even to address the Court on the day of the hearing. There is a foolproof way by which this hole-and-corner practice is rendered ineffective and turned to the Defendant's advantage. It's not an especially complex or difficult procedure, but it must be followed promptly and assiduously beginning immediately after the first indication of any possibility of the issuing of Part 8 County Court proceedings, . . and well BEFORE the Claim is issued or served.
|
|