|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 3, 2021 11:05:04 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. Not at all, . . different circumstances, different location, and don't forget that the argument put forward in the Appeal pleadings against the infinitely variable and remarkably mobile Main Navigable Channel nonsense in the Ravenscroft -v- C&RT Judgment was what made C&RT think it was worth bribing Leigh Ravenscroft with an offer a financial inducement to let him off around £90,000 worth of Costs if he would agree to drop the Appeal.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jan 3, 2021 11:44:39 GMT
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. Not at all, . . different circumstances, different location, and don't forget that the argument put forward in the Appeal pleadings against the infinitely variable and remarkably mobile Main Navigable Channel nonsense in the Ravenscroft -v- C&RT Judgment was what made C&RT think it was worth bribing Leigh Ravenscroft with an offer to let him off around £90,000 worth of Costs if he would agree to drop the Appeal. tut tut Tony, you really should use the term "financial inducement"
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 3, 2021 12:10:53 GMT
Not at all, . . different circumstances, different location, and don't forget that the argument put forward in the Appeal pleadings against the infinitely variable and remarkably mobile Main Navigable Channel nonsense in the Ravenscroft -v- C&RT Judgment was what made C&RT think it was worth bribing Leigh Ravenscroft with an offer to let him off around £90,000 worth of Costs if he would agree to drop the Appeal. tut tut Tony, you really should use the term "financial inducement" Thanks for reminding me of what a touchy sod sensitive and easily offended soul that Mr Deards is, . . I've edited that last post accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Jan 3, 2021 13:19:15 GMT
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. Not at all, . . different circumstances, different location, and don't forget that the argument put forward in the Appeal pleadings against the infinitely variable and remarkably mobile Main Navigable Channel nonsense in the Ravenscroft -v- C&RT Judgment was what made C&RT think it was worth bribing Leigh Ravenscroft with an offer a financial inducement to let him off around £90,000 worth of Costs if he would agree to drop the Appeal. Was the appeal pleadings after your case as I can't work out why you didn't use simular points in your defence?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 3, 2021 18:43:52 GMT
Not at all, . . different circumstances, different location, and don't forget that the argument put forward in the Appeal pleadings against the infinitely variable and remarkably mobile Main Navigable Channel nonsense in the Ravenscroft -v- C&RT Judgment was what made C&RT think it was worth bribing Leigh Ravenscroft with an offer a financial inducement to let him off around £90,000 worth of Costs if he would agree to drop the Appeal. Was the appeal pleadings after your case as I can't work out why you didn't use simular points in your defence? I did, . . but it mostly fell on deaf ears, with the Judge intent on using up as little Court time as possible on disposing of the matter, and remarkably well versed in and sympathetic with the absurdities of the Ravenscroft -v- C&RT Judgment regarding the MNC extending across the full width of the river into the shallow un-navigable margins and the supposed loss of the PRN as a consequence of not having a current "Rivers only Licence". One very useful thing to come away from the hearing with, however, was that for the first time ever the existence of the Pleasure Boat Certificate was acknowledged in the Order made on that day, . . albeit without the Judge quite grasping the full implications.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 4, 2021 16:03:40 GMT
Not at all, . . different circumstances, different location, and don't forget that the argument put forward in the Appeal pleadings against the infinitely variable and remarkably mobile Main Navigable Channel nonsense in the Ravenscroft -v- C&RT Judgment was what made C&RT think it was worth bribing Leigh Ravenscroft with an offer a financial inducement to let him off around £90,000 worth of Costs if he would agree to drop the Appeal. Was the appeal pleadings after your case as I can't work out why you didn't use simular points in your defence? C&RT's apparent, if understandable, dread of having Judgments that have gone in their favour re-examined at Appeal has been mentioned in passing on the "Charity that works to make people homeless" thread. It is, however, well worth looking at again from the standpoint of the Ravenscroft Appeal, on which C&RT blew in the region of £90,000 to suppress, and how my Appeal of the 15 August 2019 Judgment which provided the Trust with an ostensibly lawful cover under which they could unlawfully 'seize' "Halcyon Daze" and its contents, was brought to an untimely end before ever getting anywhere near to a hearing. The Appeal process is initiated by filing (delivering to the Court), amongst other documents, the 'Appellant's Notice'. Page 1 of the Notice has a box for the Appellant's address, to be used by the Court for the service of any documents or Orders sent out by the Court in the course of the Appeal process. The Appellant's Notice I filed at the Nottingham Court following the 15 August 2019 Judgment bore my then current Barton-in-Fabis postal address that I moved to from the old Holme Lock, Nottingham postal address in 2014. To cut a long story short by way of omitting unnecessary details, Appeals of cases originating in the Nottingham Court are now passed on to the Appeals Section of the Birmingham Court for processing and hearing, but after receiving nothing back from Birmingham after some three months, I telephoned to enquire as to the reasons for the delay. I was told that Appeals through the Birmingham Court were subject to lengthy delays due to a huge backlog of cases, but that a Circuit Judge would be visiting in the near future and that my Appeal papers should be reviewed before too much longer. Following yet more delay, and still nothing from the Court, I telephoned again, this time to be told that my Appeal had been struck out due to my failure to respond to two Directions Orders served on me at my postal address. It further transpired that these Orders had both been sent to the six year out of date Holme Lock, Nottingham postal address instead of to the Barton-in-Fabis postal address (for service) that was on page 1 of the Appellant's Notice originally filed at the Nottingham Court. Would anyone, and I include in the invitation the C&RT stooges who are looking in, care to take a shot at explaining how a six year out of date 2014 postal address from C&RT's records and the Nottingham Court records , comes to be given as the current address for service on an Appellant's Notice filed at the Nottingham Court in September 2019 and before a Judge sitting at the Birmingham Court Appeals Section sometime in early 2020 ?
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Jan 4, 2021 16:46:02 GMT
Was the appeal pleadings after your case as I can't work out why you didn't use simular points in your defence? C&RT's apparent, if understandable, dread of having Judgments that have gone in their favour re-examined at Appeal has been mentioned in passing on the "Charity that works to make people homeless" thread. It is, however, well worth looking at again from the standpoint of the Ravenscroft Appeal, on which C&RT blew in the region of £90,000 to suppress, and how my Appeal of the 15 August 2019 Judgment which provided the Trust with an ostensibly lawful cover under which they could unlawfully 'seize' "Halcyon Daze" and its contents, was brought to an untimely end before ever getting anywhere near to a hearing. The Appeal process is initiated by filing (delivering to the Court), amongst other documents, the 'Appellant's Notice'. Page 1 of the Notice has a box for the Appellant's address, to be used by the Court for the service of any documents or Orders sent out by the Court in the course of the Appeal process. The Appellant's Notice I filed at the Nottingham Court following the 15 August 2019 Judgment bore my then current Barton-in-Fabis postal address that I moved to from the old Holme Lock, Nottingham postal address in 2014. To cut a long story short by way of omitting unnecessary details, Appeals of cases originating in the Nottingham Court are now passed on to the Appeals Section of the Birmingham Court for processing and hearing, but after receiving nothing back from Birmingham after some three months, I telephoned to enquire as to the reasons for the delay. I was told that Appeals through the Birmingham Court were subject to lengthy delays due to a huge backlog of cases, but that a Circuit Judge would be visiting in the near future and that my Appeal papers should be reviewed before too much longer. Following yet more delay, and still nothing from the Court, I telephoned again, this time to be told that my Appeal had been struck out due to my failure to respond to two Directions Orders served on me at my postal address. It further transpired that these Orders had both been sent to the six year out of date Holme Lock, Nottingham postal address instead of to the Barton-in-Fabis postal address (for service) that was on page 1 of the Appellant's Notice originally filed at the Nottingham Court. Would anyone, and I include in the invitation the C&RT stooges who are looking in, care to take a shot at explaining how a six year out of date 2014 postal address from C&RT's records and the Nottingham Court records , comes to be given as the current address for service on an Appellant's Notice filed at the Nottingham Court in September 2019 and before a Judge sitting at the Birmingham Court Appeals Section sometime in early 2020 ? Tony you need legal aid mate, none of this would have happened as it would go to them as well
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2021 18:02:11 GMT
We've had this out of date address discussion before.
I asked CRT what was happening with this when it happened to me and they said it was a multiple database problem.
Jenlyn aka @bedruthan suggested that this has happened on other occasions and that it was a deliberate strategy.
I'm unsure which is the more plausible explanation.
It certainly is very dodgy if it results in things being "struck out".
In my case it was particularly odd as my address is a CRT residential mooring and the boat in question, which is not based at the mooring, had a license on it which I received via post to the correct address.
For some reason they had dredged up a completely out of date address to send relevant paperwork to (the cc1 and cc2 letters) .
It could just be incompetence but then incompetence is a handy excuse I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 4, 2021 21:00:53 GMT
Jenlyn aka @bedruthan suggested that this has happened on other occasions and that it was a deliberate strategy. It certainly is very dodgy if it results in things being "struck out". It could just be incompetence but then incompetence is a handy excuse I suppose. There is no possibility of this being anything other than deliberate, . . if only for the fact that the six year out of date 2014 Holme Lock, Nottingham address can only have been provided to the Courts by C&RT's lawyers, . . and in circumstances when normally there would be no communication at all between the Court and the Respondent, the C&RT, on the subject of changing the Appellant's address for service. What I can't yet be sure of, is exactly where, when, and at what stage in the appeal process the address for service on the Appellant's Notice was altered, who altered the address, and on whose instructions it was altered. What C&RT's lawyers can be absolutely sure of is that whoever was behind this serious contempt of both due process and the Court will be held to account. We saw, via his e-mailed letter of 1 December 2020, just how resolute C&RT's Head of Legal can be in the face of any questioning of the integrity and the professional ethics of the staff in his department, . . and we know that the contents of this post will be conveyed to him by the C&RT stooges who monitor publications and social media. I look forward to reading his account of how the, no doubt inadvertent and entirely innocent, alterations to my Appellant's Notice came about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2021 21:04:39 GMT
The other possibility is that you put the wrong address down on the form and forgot about it.
It will, or at least would, be quite an interesting thing to try to prove.
This is where asking for a photocopy signed by the person receiving the document would be rather handy.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 4, 2021 21:56:40 GMT
The other possibility is that you put the wrong address down on the form and forgot about it. It will, or at least would, be quite an interesting thing to try to prove. This is where asking for a photocopy signed by the person receiving the document would be rather handy. How likely is anyone to put a postal address that they moved away from some six years earlier on something as important as an Appellant's Notice for filing at Court ? As for proving that the correct, current address for service was on the filed papers, . . and that the Appeal Court sent the Directions Orders to the six year out of date address instead, . . the proof is already there in the Nottingham and Birmingham Court records/files.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2021 21:59:01 GMT
That's excellent if the proof is there in the documentation.
Cut and dried case then.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 4, 2021 22:07:19 GMT
That's excellent if the proof is there in the documentation. Cut and dried case then. Where else, other than in the Nottingham and Birmingham Court's own records and documentation, would the irrefutable written evidence and proof be ? All that's lacking for now are the details of exactly where, when, and at what stage in the appeal process the address for service on the Appellant's Notice was altered, who altered the address, and on whose instructions it was altered. The fact that the Appeal was struck out as a direct consequence of the Appellant's Notice being altered to show an incorrect and long disused address for service is undeniable, . . as is the fact that the six year out of date (2014) address for service could only have been provided to either of the two Courts from C&RT's own records. Add to the above that the one beneficiary from this seemingly 'inadvertent', but in truth calculated and intentional, 'clerical' error is the organization that unlawfully 'seized' "Halcyon Daze" on 22 October 2020, and the search for the culprit is considerably narrowed down.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 5, 2021 10:04:04 GMT
Who’s going to be searching for the culprit?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2021 10:10:53 GMT
I was a little surprised how quickly crt are looking to sell the boat on.
Plus with the lockdown would it even be legal for Tony to go and get it back even if he was willing to pay.
Maybe time flies and it's six months.
October 22nd to February 6th so that's about 3 and a half months between removing boat from mooring and selling it.
|
|