|
Post by TonyDunkley on Sept 30, 2020 11:06:32 GMT
I expect it is impossible to demand older boats comply with the RCD. . . . . . . . . . but then I would have [thought ?] it impossible for cart to think about evicting people from their homes without ever taking it to court. Which can’t possibly be legal, but that’s what they are intending. C&RT, along with their almost as dishonest predecessors, have been - "evicting people from their homes without ever taking it to court." 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 the statutory powers by the pleasure boating public. Do you recall this paragraph from a recent post : "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."
. . . . . . you probably won't, . . it's just one of a great many that you could only respond to with some meaningless smart-arse remark because the significance of it had gone straight over your head. 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 ?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Sept 30, 2020 11:17:06 GMT
Well that is what I said. Do you disagree? No I don’t disagree at all. I’m just interested in the fact you think so, as it seems to be a change in your thinking about cart? Subjugate just means to bring under control - with an added dash of emotiveness. Of course CRT want to bring boaters under control. Well, I certainly hope so anyway. They want to ensure boats have insurance and BSS and don’t take the piss out of having a cheap remote home mooring but spend all their time moored at honeypot sites. Can’t say I blame them! But of course they should do it within the law, not by means of an unenforceable contract.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 1, 2020 1:07:32 GMT
It’s not a done deal yet. I for one would not hand my boat over to cart on the outcome of an internal closed procedure with no form of appeals process. If they take it to a court and have court papers that’s a different kettle of fish. But they are trying to give themselves the power to circumvent going into a court.He's having a remarkable amount of difficulty in understanding this paragraph : "C&RT, and their predecessors, have had statutory powers enabling them to remove "relevant craft" - defined as - "any vessel which is sunk, stranded or abandoned in any inland waterway or in any reservoir owned or managed by the Board or which is left or moored therein without lawful authority" - without going anywhere near any Court ever since the British Waterways Act of 1983 went onto the statute book."
. . . . . . . . . from this thread < thunderboat.boards.net/post/255067/thread > Why would C&RT want to 'circumvent' a process that they go through voluntarily as a bit of bullshit PR window dressing, . . and that they also routinely and successfully 'rig' to produce the result they want anyway ?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 1, 2020 3:22:01 GMT
Tony I don’t read your posts.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 1, 2020 4:31:38 GMT
That’s what I would have thought, but then I would have it impossible for cart to think about evicting people from their homes without ever taking it to court. Which can’t possibly be legal, but that’s what they are intending. As TD recently pointed out, they do have statutory powers to remove boats in some circumstances although not being in compliance with safety and insurance isn't currently one of them - or is it? Not directly, . . . but if any boat is found at any time to be without the required level of 3rd party insurance cover or not compliant with the - "[safety] standards applicable to the vessel" on the date the PBC or the PBL [" relevant consent"] was issued, Section 17(4) of the 1995 BW Act provides for a minimum of 28 days notice to - "remedy the default", after which the relevant consent - "shall determine on the date the notice expires.".Once the 'relevant consent' is terminated, the - "Board may remove any relevant craft" (the word 'remove' being defined in any recognized dictionary, including the OED, as meaning to 'remove' from a location or place) * at the end of a further 28 days post the service of a Notice under Section 8(2) of the 1983 BW Act.
* I've included this note here as it's a convenient opportunity to draw attention to another example of how C&RT's lawyers habitually and knowingly misdirect the Courts into making ultra vires (Court) Orders, which in fact exceed the statutory powers of boat 'removal' that Parliament conferred on their predecessors in the 1983 Act .
Note the use, in Section 8(2) of the 1983 Act, of the word 'remove' as opposed to the words - " The Board may 'remove from' any inland waterway . . " in Section 9(1) of the same Act, which covers the removal, not of 'relevant craft', but of 'objects' from inland waterways and reservoirs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2020 9:47:32 GMT
Yeah its a really important distinction. Thanks for the dictionary definition of the word 'remove' too, I was just about to look it up. Its all gone a bit quiet on your own situation. Any news?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 1, 2020 17:28:52 GMT
Its all gone a bit quiet on your own situation. Any news? "I've always found hate to be very distasteful." Still, it's fun kicking an old man when he's down, eh?
|
|
|
Post by ianali on Oct 1, 2020 17:55:34 GMT
Its all gone a bit quiet on your own situation. Any news? "I've always found hate to be very distasteful." Still, it's fun kicking an old man when he's down, eh? It’s puzzling that there are so many falling outs on forums like this. In the real world I imagine lots of the people would meet and get on just fine. Stick em behind a screen though and the bitching starts. I mean, even Foxy wasn’t too much of a twat in real life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2020 18:02:20 GMT
Its all gone a bit quiet on your own situation. Any news? "I've always found hate to be very distasteful." Still, it's fun kicking an old man when he's down, eh? 1. I don't hate Tony. 2. I am genuinely interested in just where this story has got to. 3. Tony is not down. He is exactly where he wants to be.
|
|
|
Post by brummieboy on Oct 2, 2020 14:08:35 GMT
Having had the time and inclination to wade through the survey, I've completed it, mainly disagreeing with all the power grabs, the lack of any appeal or arbitration (save for the expensive legal options where CaRT have a bottomless pocket) and the invasion of privacy. My main gripes are: a. If you vehemently disagree with any CaRT personnel and they construe it as offensive or harassment you can lose your licence.( Wigan volockies and Telemachus?) b. If CaRT decide you are using your boat in contravention of your insurance, they can inform your insurers and cause you hassle . c. At any time, a CaRT official can demand entry to your boat to inspect it for BSS transgressions. d. CaRT's word will be law in any perceived transgression of the terms and conditions. e. CaRT take no responsibility for maintenance, and if you are stranded in a backwater because of their inefficiency, you still have to pay the full price of your licence with no hope of any refund or extension. CaRT already have the opportunity to enact all of the powers they are seeking, by engaging with licence holders and 'customers' in a businesslike fashion, but they are looking for the opportunity to instigate legal proceedings in the same way that the BBC do with licencing, and the Post Office do with Postmasters. I don't see why they should be exploring these avenues when those undertakings are about to have those unilateral powers taken away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2020 14:44:54 GMT
Something has gone rotten somewhere and it's not just the heel posts.
I'm glad from a personal point of view to be shortly leaving CRT waters for more pleasant water but it's sad for people who have an interest in the future of living on the canals because it is going to get more awkward and that will probably happen quite quickly.
Once change starts it moves fast.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2020 14:52:46 GMT
Having had the time and inclination to wade through the survey, I've completed it, mainly disagreeing with all the power grabs, the lack of any appeal or arbitration (save for the expensive legal options where CaRT have a bottomless pocket) and the invasion of privacy. My main gripes are: a. If you vehemently disagree with any CaRT personnel and they construe it as offensive or harassment you can lose your licence.( Wigan volockies and Telemachus?) b. If CaRT decide you are using your boat in contravention of your insurance, they can inform your insurers and cause you hassle . c. At any time, a CaRT official can demand entry to your boat to inspect it for BSS transgressions. d. CaRT's word will be law in any perceived transgression of the terms and conditions. e. CaRT take no responsibility for maintenance, and if you are stranded in a backwater because of their inefficiency, you still have to pay the full price of your licence with no hope of any refund or extension. CaRT already have the opportunity to enact all of the powers they are seeking, by engaging with licence holders and 'customers' in a businesslike fashion, but they are looking for the opportunity to instigate legal proceedings in the same way that the BBC do with licencing, and the Post Office do with Postmasters. I don't see why they should be exploring these avenues when those undertakings are about to have those unilateral powers taken away. Re ranting at CaRT officials including volockies: No-one should have to suffer the demented rage of a self-entitled arsehole. The part about reporting to insurers is outrageous. Its completely outside of their remit. Its unlikely every time you see a CaRT employee they will demand to inspect your boat. I expect it will be a bit like driving a scruffy car - a tatty motor is more likely to get pulled on the basis it is statistically more likely to have a serious defect. You might not like it but that's the way the world works. Remember that bloke whose boat sank because a big wave hit it? I bet everything else was tip-top. Not. I agree CaRT already have the tools they need bar the ability to check to see if insurance is held. Its in everyone's interest that all boats are insured. Knowing who to call if someone hits you will be most comforting. Don't kid yourself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2020 14:55:31 GMT
Something has gone rotten somewhere and it's not just the heel posts. I'm glad from a personal point of view to be shortly leaving CRT waters for more pleasant water but it's sad for people who have an interest in the future of living on the canals because it is going to get more awkward and that will probably happen quite quickly. Once change starts it moves fast. Isn't the Thames EA?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2020 15:01:00 GMT
Yes the Thames is EA. ie not CRT.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2020 15:19:03 GMT
Something has gone rotten somewhere and it's not just the heel posts. I'm glad from a personal point of view to be shortly leaving CRT waters for more pleasant water but it's sad for people who have an interest in the future of living on the canals because it is going to get more awkward and that will probably happen quite quickly. Once change starts it moves fast. I hear there are some great places in the Swale/Medway/Crouch/Blackwater region Good Barge country up there.
|
|