|
Post by Allan on Jan 1, 2021 20:43:15 GMT
By way of a follow-up to the previous post, here's the paragraph from the 15 August 2019 Order that precisely specifies what C&RT are entitled, and statutorily authorized, to do with regard to forcibly evicting boat owners from the boats they live aboard prior to forcibly 'seizing' the vessel and then falsely portraying the Trust as voluntary bailees of the vessel and its contents via the issuing of a sham Tort Notice in a very transparent, and a very definitely illegal, attempt to legitimize selling or otherwise disposing of someone else's goods and property : -- IT IS ORDERED THAT :
It is hereby declared that the Claimant is entitled, after 4pm on 29 August 2019, to remove the Defendant's boat "Halcyon Daze" Index No 52721 [the Boat] from the canals and inland waterways under the Claimant's control shown coloured blue on the plan and listed in the Schedule ("the Claimant's waterways"), both annexed hereto, pursuant to its statutory powers under Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 and Section 13 of the British Waterways Act 1971, unless on or before that date the Defendant has obtained a licence or a pleasure boat certificate (as appropriate) for the Boat, or otherwise the consent of the Claimant for the Boat to remain thereon. My understanding is that a Tort notice can only be issued for abandoned goods left on the notice issuers property. Unless I am very much mistaken CRT do not own the Trent, its riverbed or the land against which Halcyon Daze is moored. Also, with Tony living in it and making application for the relevent consent the goods could not be deemed to be abandoned. It would appear to me that the court order above simply confirms what the law says but restricts CRT as to when it can be applied.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2021 21:21:32 GMT
Exactly.
It has been said before and it will be said again that everyone here* would like Tony to succeed in forcing CRT to return his boat and cancel any payments due.
I don't think there will be anyone* who would argue against that outcome.
*There will always be one.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Jan 1, 2021 23:13:08 GMT
I do worry that CRT have forgotten that they work for us not against us, which seems to be happening on far to many occasions. Of course some of them do work for us and I am truly thankful to them shame about the rest
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2021 6:30:04 GMT
It's quite outrageous that the detail regarding the licence was not picked up before solicitors were instructed. I am not sure which CRT employee is responsible, but the buck stops at Parry. While one might assume the solicitos should have checked the nitty gritty, in my, limited, experience solicitors don't do things like that, but take the easiest and most profitable option. It may seem strange that the boater did not point out the mistakes at an earlier stage, but he may well have been too stressed by the complexity.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 2, 2021 9:08:38 GMT
By way of a follow-up to the previous post, here's the paragraph from the 15 August 2019 Order that precisely specifies what C&RT are entitled, and statutorily authorized, to do with regard to forcibly evicting boat owners from the boats they live aboard prior to forcibly 'seizing' the vessel and then falsely portraying the Trust as voluntary bailees of the vessel and its contents via the issuing of a sham Tort Notice in a very transparent, and a very definitely illegal, attempt to legitimize selling or otherwise disposing of someone else's goods and property : -- IT IS ORDERED THAT :
It is hereby declared that the Claimant is entitled, after 4pm on 29 August 2019, to remove the Defendant's boat "Halcyon Daze" Index No 52721 [the Boat] from the canals and inland waterways under the Claimant's control shown coloured blue on the plan and listed in the Schedule ("the Claimant's waterways"), both annexed hereto, pursuant to its statutory powers under Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 and Section 13 of the British Waterways Act 1971, unless on or before that date the Defendant has obtained a licence or a pleasure boat certificate (as appropriate) for the Boat, or otherwise the consent of the Claimant for the Boat to remain thereon. My understanding is that a Tort notice can only be issued for abandoned goods left on the notice issuers property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . As the C&RT's leading Solicitor/Advocate would no doubt tell you by way of one of her much favoured and frequently used phrases , Allan, your views and opinions are misconceived ! Your understanding of the circumstances under which a Tort Notice can legitimately be issued is founded in the terms of the Torts(Interference with Goods)Act that went onto the Statute book with Parliament's approval in 1977, whereas the Act upon which the C&RT now rely is the version amended by the powers that be within C&RT's Legal & Governance Services. The C&RT amendments to the 1977 Act are a somewhat difficult bit of law to understand, but I believe that this particular one provides for a party who has unlawfully 'seized' someone else's goods now being able to declare themselves as the legitimate 'involuntary bailee' of those same goods. Perhaps these first few paragraphs of this letter they've sent will help to clarify the situation : -- 06/11/2020 TORTS(1)/ZE13695201 Dear Mr Dunkley
Re: Halcyon Daze Index No: 52721
I write regarding the seizure of the above craft by Canal & River Trust on 22/10/2020 under Section 8(2) of the British Waterways Act 1983. The craft is now being held by us in storage.
I now attach to this letter a Notice of Intention to sell goods under the Torts(interference with Goods)Act 1977 Section 12(3). You will see from the attached Notice that the sum of £7,360.00 is currently owed to Canal & River Trust in respect of the expenses that Canal & River Trust has incurred, which we are entitled to recover, under Section 8 of the 1983 Act :-
2 Seizure: including banksmen, crane, transport, slipway fee = £6,110.00 2.1 Suryeyor = £350.002 2.2 Bailiffs = £900.00
Total amount due under TORTS =£7,360.0
You will also see from the Notice that we intend to sell the craft on 06/02/2021, if you have not paid the sum of £7,630.00 and taken delivery or given directions as to delivery of the craft by that date. In addition please note that after you have taken delivery of the craft it must be removed from our waterways.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2021 9:16:41 GMT
My understanding is that a Tort notice can only be issued for abandoned goods left on the notice issuers property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . As the C&RT's leading Solicitor/Advocate would no doubt tell you by way of one of her much favoured and frequently used phrases , Allan, your views and opinions are misconceived ! Your understanding of the circumstances under which a Tort Notice can legitimately be issued is founded in the terms of the Torts(Interference with Goods)Act that went onto the Statute book with Parliament's approval in 1977, whereas the Act upon which the C&RT now rely is the version amended by the powers that be within C&RT's Legal & Governance Services. The C&RT amendments to the 1977 Act are a somewhat difficult bit of law to understand, but I believe that this particular one provides for a party who has unlawfully 'seized' someone else's goods now being able to declare themselves as the legitimate 'involuntary bailee' of those same goods. Perhaps these first few paragraphs of this letter they've sent will help to clarify the situation : -- 06/11/2020 TORTS(1)/ZE13695201 Dear Mr Dunkley
Re: Halcyon Daze Index No: 52721
I write regarding the seizure of the above craft by Canal & River Trust on 22/10/2020 under Section 8(2) of the British Waterways Act 1983. The craft is now being held by us in storage.
I now attach to this letter a Notice of Intention to sell goods under the Torts(interference with Goods)Act 1977 Section 12(3). You will see from the attached Notice that the sum of £7,360.00 is currently owed to Canal & River Trust in respect of the expenses that Canal & River Trust has incurred, which we are entitled to recover, under Section 8 of the 1983 Act :-
2 Seizure: including banksmen, crane, transport, slipway fee = £6,110.00 2.1 Suryeyor = £350.002 2.2 Bailiffs = £900.00
Total amount due under TORTS =£7,360.0
You will also see from the Notice that we intend to sell the craft on 06/02/2021, if you have not paid the sum of £7,630.00 and taken delivery or given directions as to delivery of the craft by that date. In addition please note that after you have taken delivery of the craft it must be removed from our waterways.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .What are your solicitors views, and more importantly, actions?
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Jan 2, 2021 15:41:30 GMT
My understanding is that a Tort notice can only be issued for abandoned goods left on the notice issuers property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . As the C&RT's leading Solicitor/Advocate would no doubt tell you by way of one of her much favoured and frequently used phrases , Allan, your views and opinions are misconceived ! Your understanding of the circumstances under which a Tort Notice can legitimately be issued is founded in the terms of the Torts(Interference with Goods)Act that went onto the Statute book with Parliament's approval in 1977, whereas the Act upon which the C&RT now rely is the version amended by the powers that be within C&RT's Legal & Governance Services. The C&RT amendments to the 1977 Act are a somewhat difficult bit of law to understand, but I believe that this particular one provides for a party who has unlawfully 'seized' someone else's goods now being able to declare themselves as the legitimate 'involuntary bailee' of those same goods. Perhaps these first few paragraphs of this letter they've sent will help to clarify the situation : -- 06/11/2020 TORTS(1)/ZE13695201 Dear Mr Dunkley
Re: Halcyon Daze Index No: 52721
I write regarding the seizure of the above craft by Canal & River Trust on 22/10/2020 under Section 8(2) of the British Waterways Act 1983. The craft is now being held by us in storage.
I now attach to this letter a Notice of Intention to sell goods under the Torts(interference with Goods)Act 1977 Section 12(3). You will see from the attached Notice that the sum of £7,360.00 is currently owed to Canal & River Trust in respect of the expenses that Canal & River Trust has incurred, which we are entitled to recover, under Section 8 of the 1983 Act :-
2 Seizure: including banksmen, crane, transport, slipway fee = £6,110.00 2.1 Suryeyor = £350.002 2.2 Bailiffs = £900.00
Total amount due under TORTS =£7,360.0
You will also see from the Notice that we intend to sell the craft on 06/02/2021, if you have not paid the sum of £7,630.00 and taken delivery or given directions as to delivery of the craft by that date. In addition please note that after you have taken delivery of the craft it must be removed from our waterways.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Still claiming for bailiffs, I see. Personally I'd pay(sue them after) obtain a BSS, pay for a rivers only licence and immediately against their wishes put it straight back on their waterways. Obviously continue with the legal actions you may be taking.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Jan 2, 2021 15:45:00 GMT
Out of interest why did they write the last sentence the way they did, are they going to return it to you by putting it back where there got it from or is it still on their waterway?
If it is why are they invoicing for cranes etc.
If it isn't why will you need to remove it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2021 15:59:03 GMT
Out of interest why did they write the last sentence the way they did, are they going to return it to you by putting it back where there got it from or is it still on their waterway? If it is why are they invoicing for cranes etc. If it isn't why will you need to remove it? It is indeed an idiotic jumble of words. Stupidity of that sort only further illustrates what an amateur organisation crt are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2021 17:04:16 GMT
Out of interest why did they write the last sentence the way they did, are they going to return it to you by putting it back where there got it from or is it still on their waterway? If it is why are they invoicing for cranes etc. If it isn't why will you need to remove it? It is indeed an idiotic jumble of words. Stupidity of that sort only further illustrates what an amateur organisation crt are. Everyone is an amateur, money just makes it worse...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2021 17:08:17 GMT
Out of interest why did they write the last sentence the way they did, are they going to return it to you by putting it back where there got it from or is it still on their waterway? If it is why are they invoicing for cranes etc. If it isn't why will you need to remove it? I was wondering about that too. The bill seems to include road transport, which is the normal MO, but the last bit almost looks like someone has let the cat out of the bag about the boat still having a wet bottom. I wonder if any intrepid drone person has had a little scan around the farm. ETA this farm: goo.gl/maps/1JR7FmG7Pk5TWmfz8 The part of this topic which really intrigues me is the personal effects or chattels contained within the boat. In some cases these could be worth more than the boat itself. What about if there was fifty grands worth of cocaine on the boat? CRT sell it and new owner finds the drugs under the floor. It's too dodgy.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Jan 2, 2021 17:16:39 GMT
Out of interest why did they write the last sentence the way they did, are they going to return it to you by putting it back where there got it from or is it still on their waterway? If it is why are they invoicing for cranes etc. If it isn't why will you need to remove it? It is not well written, but I think what they are attempting to say is that under section 8 together with the court order they were allowed to remove the boat from their waterway. It is still owned by the boat owner and not CRT. They then go on to say that after paying their removal costs they will return the boat to the owner. When payment is made the owner must then arrange to take procession of the boat and remove it from where CRT are keeping it. I do not know if they are legally allowed to do the next bit, which is that if payment is not made by a certain date, they will sell the boat for as much as they reasonably can to cover their removal costs, returning any monies (if any) over and above that amount to the boat owner, presumably the sale will include all contents including personal items etc on the boat if not claimed prior to the sale. I would not ignore this letter, as even if subsequently it is proved that CRT were wrong to sell the boat, any personal items ‘sold’ may be unrecoverable, which could be very upsetting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2021 17:18:38 GMT
The last sentence is worded to prevent TD putting boat back on cart waterways, however they cannot stop him having his boat on their waterways provided he has got a bss and a licence/registration. I am waiting for his court case to see just what he is going to do, I am expecting greatness 🌚
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2021 17:22:15 GMT
The original argument in this whole topic was that the boat was not on CRT controlled water in the first place. This argument was lost once the boat owner decided to apply for a registration certificate from, you guessed it, CRT.
"foot self the in shoot your" comes to mind.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Jan 2, 2021 17:49:32 GMT
The original argument in this whole topic was that the boat was not on CRT controlled water in the first place. This argument was lost once the boat owner decided to apply for a registration certificate from, you guessed it, CRT. "foot self the in shoot your" comes to mind. I think in all fairness to TD, the claim that the boat was not on CRT waters was lost in the high court - Ravenscroft case judgement.
|
|