Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 16:46:20 GMT
Arrrr they all pirate boats kept there then? They seem to be making a mess breaking up boats there, its a veritable scrap yard. I wonder if the environment folk know? You need special licence now to run a scrappers and it has to all be on concrete, not the bare ground or grass as it is here. Renting a crane if and when at both ends of a road trip is an expensive way of doing things. I wonder how much C&RT pay per snatch? I bet there are others on here could do it cheaper. Seems crazy not to use a yard near Chester with canal access. I believe the idea is to maximise the costs as it is the boat owner who gets billed. That is for boats which are worth sensible money. Obviously for small GRP vessels you would just trailer them and use the cheapest option available. For the TonyDunkley boat I seem to recall a cost of around £7000 to remove the vessel but I am not quite sure if that one was road transported or if it is still afloat somewhere. And I may be wrong about the costs and what they represent. There was a breakdown of costs somewhere on the other thread about Tony's boat.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Dec 30, 2020 17:29:33 GMT
Arrrr they all pirate boats kept there then? They seem to be making a mess breaking up boats there, its a veritable scrap yard. I wonder if the environment folk know? You need special licence now to run a scrappers and it has to all be on concrete, not the bare ground or grass as it is here. Renting a crane if and when at both ends of a road trip is an expensive way of doing things. I wonder how much C&RT pay per snatch? I bet there are others on here could do it cheaper. Seems crazy not to use a yard near Chester with canal access. But moving a boat over a long distance would mean a crew of 5 - 3 to move the boat and 2 to provide overnight security to prevent the owner taking back their boat. Of course the crew couldn’t be expected to sleep on board and so would need hotels at night, not to mention taxis to and from the hotels and take away meal deliveries, etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Dec 30, 2020 20:03:54 GMT
It does kind of back up some of Tony's points. The man srarts a judicial review and all of a sudden his boat is returned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 20:10:53 GMT
It does kind of back up some of Tony's points. The man srarts a judicial review and all of a sudden his boat is returned. I think some judges still have a soul, but if our career politicians have anything to do with it, we're fucked.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Dec 30, 2020 21:08:17 GMT
It does kind of back up some of Tony's points. The man srarts a judicial review and all of a sudden his boat is returned. Yes but the only thing is, it’s under the human rights act. I’m not sure Trolls are considered human?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 21:49:43 GMT
I’ve emailed the article to a bbc researcher I’ve had contact with before. Hopefully it might get picked up. They’ve run a few stories on boaty stuff in the past.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 22:13:26 GMT
I’ve emailed the article to a bbc researcher I’ve had contact with before. Hopefully it might get picked up. They’ve run a few stories on boaty stuff in the past. I'm not sure the BBC are that popular at the moment seeing as they have censored most peoples protests this year
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Dec 31, 2020 1:42:05 GMT
Whilst the return of this man's boat was undoubtedly a good result following the customary appalling treatment he's been subjected to by C&RT's so-called legal department and the 'Customer Licence Support Team', the manner in which that result was achieved was anything but good.
Parry's boat thieves were once again provided with a convenient means of escaping having their ultra vires actions, and the criminal offences committed in the course of those actions, subjected to a thorough scrutiny in Court.
By its very nature ultimate control of, and the power to halt, the Judicial Review process remains with the Defendant, in this instance the C&RT. On the other hand, the Defendant has no control over the progress of criminal proceedings, and only limited control in the shape of an offer to settle out of Court in the face of civil proceedings.
Civil actions for wrongful interference with goods against the C&RT itself and criminal charges of at least fraud and possibly theft against C&RT's bogus 'Bailiffs' and against the Trust itself would have left the C&RT with no means of escaping either hearing or trial via the compromise and concession of returning the illegally 'seized' vessel to the owner.
The choice of Judicial Review as the first line of attack was, put quite simply, bad tactics and insufficiently aggressive, . . but by far the most serious of shortcomings was that it left C&RT in the driving seat, and once again able to buy its way out of trouble by writing off the cost of the unlawful 'seizure' and removal of the vessel, and returning it to the owner FOC, . . and whatever sum the owner now succeeds in getting out of of this shitpile of an organization by way of compensation for what he's been put through.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2020 8:45:52 GMT
The point here is that the guy took the legal route, and in doing so had his boat returned. Although there was no day in court, it will be a massive embarrassment for crt, and will probably include a hefty compensation payout, which will result the trustees demanding answers from Richard Parry. He will not stutter out of this one easily, the mistakes are becoming far to frequent.
If each and every one off these actions by crt were treated in the same way, I’ve no doubt whatsoever that crt policy and behaviour would change. The trustees would not wish for crt to get embroiled in multiple court actions, they are the puppet masters, and they are the ones most likely to suffer from any such legal wrangling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2020 8:55:55 GMT
I'm s little surprised, given the value of some of the boats, that more people haven't taken this route.
Perhaps CRT are in the habit of deliberately targeting people they judge are probably not "together enough" to get organised like that.
Either that or they have devised a way of assessing if someone is living on a boat or not.
This makes me wonder if the data collectors recording index numbers are doing anything else like checking for flue gases or other undercover ways of checking occupation of boat.
Also intriguing to think about how it would in fact be possible to prove whether someone was living on a boat or not.
I can't really see how you do that other than by spying on them.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Dec 31, 2020 8:56:20 GMT
Renting a crane if and when at both ends of a road trip is an expensive way of doing things. I wonder how much C&RT pay per snatch? I bet there are others on here could do it cheaper. Seems crazy not to use a yard near Chester with canal access. But moving a boat over a long distance would mean a crew of 5 - 3 to move the boat and 2 to provide overnight security to prevent the owner taking back their boat. Of course the crew couldn’t be expected to sleep on board and so would need hotels at night, not to mention taxis to and from the hotels and take away meal deliveries, etc etc. Your reference to circumstances whereby the rightful owner of a boat has been illegally deprived of it absent the appropriate Court issued Warrant or Writ and by bogus Bailiffs employed and instructed by the C&RT, begs the question, . . do you believe that, in those circumstances, the owner of the vessel would be acting unlawfully by repossessing it ?
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Dec 31, 2020 9:02:24 GMT
Arrrr they all pirate boats kept there then? They seem to be making a mess breaking up boats there, its a veritable scrap yard. I wonder if the environment folk know? You need special licence now to run a scrappers and it has to all be on concrete, not the bare ground or grass as it is here. Renting a crane if and when at both ends of a road trip is an expensive way of doing things. I wonder how much C&RT pay per snatch? I bet there are others on here could do it cheaper. Seems crazy not to use a yard near Chester with canal access. This has always been a major beef that I have had about CRT's behaviour.
It always seems that they deliberately and even spitefully run up the largest possible bill for expenses, purely to "punish" the offender. It is so blatently a missuse of the powers granted under the waterways acts, that were never intended for this kind of thing. The terrible thing is that with no government department having oversight (they all scuttle back into the woodwork when asked) we're stuffed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2020 9:06:09 GMT
Perhaps CRT are in the habit of deliberately targeting people they judge are probably not "together enough" to get organised like that. This makes me wonder if the data collectors recording index numbers are doing anything else like checking for flue gases or other undercover ways of checking occupation of boat. On your first remark quoted above, yes, absolutely this happens. on your second remark, the term you seek is customer profiling, and yes, absolutely this happens.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Dec 31, 2020 9:13:21 GMT
The point here is that the guy took the legal route, and in doing so had his boat returned. Although there was no day in court, it will be a massive embarrassment for crt, and will probably include a hefty compensation payout, which will result the trustees demanding answers from Richard Parry. He will not stutter out of this one easily, the mistakes are becoming far to frequent. If each and every one off these actions by crt were treated in the same way, I’ve no doubt whatsoever that crt policy and behaviour would change. The trustees would not wish for crt to get embroiled in multiple court actions, they are the puppet masters, and they are the ones most likely to suffer from any such legal wrangling. You're overlooking the crucial point that separates this particular case from the majority, if not almost all, of C&RT's illegally founded and conducted boat 'seizures'. The owner of the boat had an indefensible case against C&RT on the grounds that he DID have a current unexpired "Rivers only Licence". How many more times do you think that's going to happen ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2020 9:18:48 GMT
The point here is that the guy took the legal route, and in doing so had his boat returned. Although there was no day in court, it will be a massive embarrassment for crt, and will probably include a hefty compensation payout, which will result the trustees demanding answers from Richard Parry. He will not stutter out of this one easily, the mistakes are becoming far to frequent. If each and every one off these actions by crt were treated in the same way, I’ve no doubt whatsoever that crt policy and behaviour would change. The trustees would not wish for crt to get embroiled in multiple court actions, they are the puppet masters, and they are the ones most likely to suffer from any such legal wrangling. You're overlooking the crucial point that separates this particular case from the majority, if not almost all, of C&RT's illegally founded and conducted boat 'seizures'. The owner of the boat had an indefensible case against C&RT on the grounds that he DID have a current unexpired "Rivers only Licence". How many more times do you think that's going to happen ? As many times as people decide to empower that particular route. You yourself keep reminding us of the illegal activities of crt, even in the action of taking your boat, so I imagine you could take the same opportunity to take out an injunction.
|
|