Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2021 16:05:01 GMT
Is the BAR lightship for sale? If it isn't advertised then anyone attempting to buy it must have some sort of reason to want to buy it other than because it is actually for sale. It's sort of obvious in a way. And demanding to see bill of sale sort of gives the game away with regard to it being related to the owner at the time of seizure. One must be more cunning. ...it is quite apparent that few have taken the trouble to read... I think you're starting to get the hang of this
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2021 19:54:52 GMT
, the ship was in fact listed for sale for almost the last four and half years on the National Historic Ships Register,
That's interesting. I wonder what other nice old boats they have advertised. I didn't realise the NHSR had a brokerage. Will have to have a look at that as I like pictures of old boats for sale.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 28, 2021 21:22:17 GMT
, the ship was in fact listed for sale for almost the last four and half years on the National Historic Ships Register,
That's interesting. I wonder what other nice old boats they have advertised. I didn't realise the NHSR had a brokerage. Will have to have a look at that as I like pictures of old boats for sale. There aren't any adverts, and there isn't a brokerage, . . merely a list of anything on the registers that NHS UK has been notified is up for sale. Until we advised NHS UK regarding the true position with "Planet"- LV23 on 9 June this year, they had her on the for sale list on the strength of what C&RT told them in January 2017 -- ie. that the ship was owned by the Trust, it was up for sale for £60,000, and that the mooring fees were paid up until March 2017, . . after which, if not sold, it would be 'disposed of'. Chronologically, C&RT's next elaborate lie about the ship was the announcement on 11 April 2017 that it had been sold by C&RT themselves for mere £12,500, . . but, interestingly, this event was preceded by negotiations, that we know were opened at a starting price of £100,000, with both C&RT and its agents, Commercial Boat Services, agreeing that the prospective buyer was at liberty to negotiate a deal with and buy the ship directly from Alan Roberts -- the man that the C&RT had been, up until then, and afterwards, publicly and repeatedly referring to as "the former owner". Here's one of the e-mails that were exchanged between CBS and the prospective buyer in early 2017 : -- 7 Feb 2017 Dear Mr XXXXXXX,
I don’t know where you are at with this boat but I think that C&RT may look at offers lower that 100k within reason. This would give you some spare money for your lawyers to talk to C&RT’s and iron this out. I have spoken to them at length and whoever you buy the boat from it cannot leave Sharpness before the whole bill is settled with C&RT be that by you (if you buy from Mr. Roberts) or by Mr. Roberts himself.
Kind Regards Nick Cousins Commercial Boat Services Souters Lane The Groves CHESTER CH1 1SD
________________________________________________________________ Over 4 years on, from the events outlined above, . . and transcripts of the recent telephone conversations between the latest prospective buyer of "Planet"- LV23 to 'walk away' due to the seller's (Beacham's) inability to produce any documented proof of ownership or title, record Beacham saying -- "as far as we're aware we are entitled [to sell the ship] . . . ", and -- "on the ships register we're told that it's been applied (sic) to the shipyard now". Doesn't sound much like someone who is, or believes he is, the legitimate owner of a ship he's trying to sell, accompanied by a genuine Bill of Sale from who or whatever claimed to be the bona fide previous owner, . . does it ?
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Jul 28, 2021 21:33:38 GMT
That's interesting. I wonder what other nice old boats they have advertised. I didn't realise the NHSR had a brokerage. Will have to have a look at that as I like pictures of old boats for sale. There aren't any adverts, and there isn't a brokerage, . . merely a list of anything on the registers that NHS UK has been notified is up for sale. Until we advised NHS UK regarding the true position with "Planet"- LV23 on 9 June this year, they had her on the for sale list on the strength of what C&RT told them in January 2017 -- ie. that the ship was owned by the Trust, it was up for sale for £60,000, and that the mooring fees were paid up until March 2017, . . after which, if not sold, it would be 'disposed of'. Chronologically, C&RT's next elaborate lie about the ship was the announcement on 11 April 2017 that it had been sold by C&RT themselves for mere £12,500, . . but, interestingly, this event was preceded by negotiations, that we know were opened at a starting price of £100,000, with both C&RT and its agents, Commercial Boat Services, agreeing that the prospective buyer was at liberty to negotiate a deal with and buy the ship directly from Alan Roberts -- the man that the C&RT had been, up until then, and afterwards, publicly and repeatedly referring to as "the former owner". Here's one of the e-mails that were exchanged between CBS and the prospective buyer in early 2017 : -- 7 Feb 2017 Dear Mr XXXXXXX,
I don’t know where you are at with this boat but I think that C&RT may look at offers lower that 100k within reason. This would give you some spare money for your lawyers to talk to C&RT’s and iron this out. I have spoken to them at length and whoever you buy the boat from it cannot leave Sharpness before the whole bill is settled with C&RT be that by you (if you buy from Mr. Roberts) or by Mr. Roberts himself.
Kind Regards Nick Cousins Commercial Boat Services Souters Lane The Groves CHESTER CH1 1SD
________________________________________________________________ Over 4 years on, from the events outlined above, . . and transcripts of the recent telephone conversations between the latest prospective buyer of "Planet"- LV23 to 'walk away' due to the seller's (Beacham's) inability to produce any documented proof of ownership or title, record Beacham saying -- "as far as we're aware we are entitled [to sell the ship] . . . ", and -- "on the ships register we're told that it's been applied (sic) to the shipyard now". Doesn't sound much like someone who is, or believes he is, the legitimate owner of a ship he's trying to sell, accompanied by a genuine Bill of Sale from who or whatever claimed to be the bona fide previous owner, . . does it ? So it seems that CRT and/or CBS are not claiming ownership of Planet, but are claiming the right to sell the ship due to the fact that they have taken possession because of the issues in Liverpool which we are all aware of. They seem to acknowledge that Alan Roberts is the legal owner but gave up the right to be in possession of Planet due to unpaid monies.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 28, 2021 21:39:49 GMT
There aren't any adverts, and there isn't a brokerage, . . merely a list of anything on the registers that NHS UK has been notified is up for sale. Until we advised NHS UK regarding the true position with "Planet"- LV23 on 9 June this year, they had her on the for sale list on the strength of what C&RT told them in January 2017 -- ie. that the ship was owned by the Trust, it was up for sale for £60,000, and that the mooring fees were paid up until March 2017, . . after which, if not sold, it would be 'disposed of'. Chronologically, C&RT's next elaborate lie about the ship was the announcement on 11 April 2017 that it had been sold by C&RT themselves for mere £12,500, . . but, interestingly, this event was preceded by negotiations, that we know were opened at a starting price of £100,000, with both C&RT and its agents, Commercial Boat Services, agreeing that the prospective buyer was at liberty to negotiate a deal with and buy the ship directly from Alan Roberts -- the man that the C&RT had been, up until then, and afterwards, publicly and repeatedly referring to as "the former owner". Here's one of the e-mails that were exchanged between CBS and the prospective buyer in early 2017 : -- 7 Feb 2017 Dear Mr XXXXXXX,
I don’t know where you are at with this boat but I think that C&RT may look at offers lower that 100k within reason. This would give you some spare money for your lawyers to talk to C&RT’s and iron this out. I have spoken to them at length and whoever you buy the boat from it cannot leave Sharpness before the whole bill is settled with C&RT be that by you (if you buy from Mr. Roberts) or by Mr. Roberts himself.
Kind Regards Nick Cousins Commercial Boat Services Souters Lane The Groves CHESTER CH1 1SD
________________________________________________________________ Over 4 years on, from the events outlined above, . . and transcripts of the recent telephone conversations between the latest prospective buyer of "Planet"- LV23 to 'walk away' due to the seller's (Beacham's) inability to produce any documented proof of ownership or title, record Beacham saying -- "as far as we're aware we are entitled [to sell the ship] . . . ", and -- "on the ships register we're told that it's been applied (sic) to the shipyard now". Doesn't sound much like someone who is, or believes he is, the legitimate owner of a ship he's trying to sell, accompanied by a genuine Bill of Sale from who or whatever claimed to be the bona fide previous owner, . . does it ? So it seems that CRT and/or CBS are not claiming ownership of Planet, but are claiming the right to sell the ship due to the fact that they have taken possession because of the issues in Liverpool which we are all aware of. They seem to acknowledge that Alan Roberts is the legal owner but gave up the right to be in possession of Planet due to unpaid monies.
But I think the point is that one can’t go around taking possession of other people’s property on a whim to settle a debt. If you lent me a tenner and I refused to repay it, would it be legally ok for you to come round to my house and take possession of my car, and sell it to get your tenner and give me back the excess cash raised? I don’t think so.
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Jul 28, 2021 21:50:41 GMT
So it seems that CRT and/or CBS are not claiming ownership of Planet, but are claiming the right to sell the ship due to the fact that they have taken possession because of the issues in Liverpool which we are all aware of. They seem to acknowledge that Alan Roberts is the legal owner but gave up the right to be in possession of Planet due to unpaid monies.
But I think the point is that one can’t go around taking possession of other people’s property on a whim to settle a debt. If you lent me a tenner and I refused to repay it, would it be legally ok for you to come round to my house and take possession of my car, and sell it to get your tenner and give me back the excess cash raised? I don’t think so. I am not saying they are right, or that I agree with what they have done. Just trying to understand what both sides are doing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2021 22:34:12 GMT
So it seems that CRT and/or CBS are not claiming ownership of Planet, but are claiming the right to sell the ship due to the fact that they have taken possession because of the issues in Liverpool which we are all aware of. They seem to acknowledge that Alan Roberts is the legal owner but gave up the right to be in possession of Planet due to unpaid monies.
But I think the point is that one can’t go around taking possession of other people’s property on a whim to settle a debt. If you lent me a tenner and I refused to repay it, would it be legally ok for you to come round to my house and take possession of my car, and sell it to get your tenner and give me back the excess cash raised? I don’t think so. You may be surprised to find that precisely that scenario can and does occur quite frequently although the amount in question is often more than a tenner.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 28, 2021 22:39:16 GMT
But I think the point is that one can’t go around taking possession of other people’s property on a whim to settle a debt. If you lent me a tenner and I refused to repay it, would it be legally ok for you to come round to my house and take possession of my car, and sell it to get your tenner and give me back the excess cash raised? I don’t think so. You may be surprised to find that precisely that scenario can and does occur quite frequently although the amount in question is often more than a tenner. But only after due legal process and under the auspices of bailiffs or sheriffs. Not on the whim of some individual or company.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2021 22:47:05 GMT
You may be surprised to find that precisely that scenario can and does occur quite frequently although the amount in question is often more than a tenner. But only after due legal process and under the auspices of bailiffs or sheriffs. Not on the whim of some individual or company. Pass the Kool-Aid brother.
|
|
|
Post by rockdodger on Jul 28, 2021 23:05:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jul 29, 2021 5:32:10 GMT
The very last paragraph is interesting
|
|
|
Post by rockdodger on Jul 29, 2021 5:53:19 GMT
The very last paragraph is interesting I agree, it would also be interesting to know if the Harbours, Docks & Piers Clauses Act 1847 still applied to the dock the Planet was removed from, or if the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 applies - if the latter C&RT could well be on a very sticky wicket if / when it finally goes to court.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2021 7:47:38 GMT
The very last paragraph is interesting if the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 applies Cart's solicitors have already asserted that it does not. But Tony has once or twice indicated he feels that may not be true. Hmm...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2021 8:25:41 GMT
Blackwall Basin in London is a former dock. I don't know if it the same arrangement as Liverpool but CRT reserve the right to do quite a lot of things when it comes to boats on the moorings including even repairing your boat and billing you if they think it's in a dodgy state.. They also claim they can sell the boat to recover costs. www.watersidemooring.com/media/Blackwall%20Basin/Blackwall%20Basin%20-%20Site%20rules%2005.11.19.pdf(Downloads a small pdf) "We have the right to exercise a lien upon the Boat and/or any property on or off the Boat whilst in the Docks until such time as any money due to us including costs and charges incurred under the Conditions are paid in full. If any money due to us under the Conditions is not paid in full within 30 days of the sum having become payable we shall have the right to sell the Boat and/or any such property. Such sale will not take place until we have given you at least 21 days’ notice of our intention to exercise such power of sale." &c. Of course Blackwall is right beside the glitzy Canary wharf business district so that could be part of the reason for the slightly heavy handed approach.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 29, 2021 14:23:56 GMT
Blackwall Basin in London is a former dock. I don't know if it the same arrangement as Liverpool but CRT reserve the right to do quite a lot of things when it comes to boats on the moorings including even repairing your boat and billing you if they think it's in a dodgy state.. They also claim they can sell the boat to recover costs. www.watersidemooring.com/media/Blackwall%20Basin/Blackwall%20Basin%20-%20Site%20rules%2005.11.19.pdf(Downloads a small pdf) "We have the right to exercise a lien upon the Boat and/or any property on or off the Boat whilst in the Docks until such time as any money due to us including costs and charges incurred under the Conditions are paid in full. If any money due to us under the Conditions is not paid in full within 30 days of the sum having become payable we shall have the right to sell the Boat and/or any such property. Such sale will not take place until we have given you at least 21 days’ notice of our intention to exercise such power of sale." &c. Of course Blackwall is right beside the glitzy Canary wharf business district so that could be part of the reason for the slightly heavy handed approach. Blackwall Basin’ was built/opened in 1806 as part of the West India Docks, and therefore, like Canning Dock and the Canning Half Tide Basin, opened in 1813 and where "Planet"- LV23 seized and removed from, falls outside the ambit of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847. Section 1 of the HD&PC Act 1847 [Extent of Act] states : -- " This Act shall extend only to such harbours, docks, or piers as shall be authorized by any Act of Parliament hereafter to be passed . . .". Section 2 of the 1847 Act states : -- "The expression “the special Act” used in this Act shall be construed to mean any Act which shall be hereafter passed authorizing the construction or improving of an harbour, dock, or pier, and with which this Act shall be incorporated; . . .". If it could be demonstrated to a Court that any post construction and opening 'improvements' under an enactment post dating 1847 were made to Canning Half Tide Basin there would be persuasive arguments to put to the Court that the HD&PC Act 1847 is applicable to the circumstances under which C&RT seized and removed Alan Roberts' ship. Absent any such post 1847 enactments, and I'm not aware of any, invoking the HD&PC Act 1847 would be a pointless time-wasting diversion of the Court's attention. Conversely, the Torts(Interference with Goods)Act 1977, as referred to in the article accessible via rockdodger's link, and specifically the 'Uncollected goods' provisions of S.12, is unquestionably applicable to C&RT's unlawful seizure, and subsequent removal to Sharpness, of "Planet"- LV23 on 19 September 2016. The effect of the 1977 Torts Act was included, and argued as best he could in Court, by the Applicant (Alan Roberts) in his Witness Statement and Submissions for the Injunction hearing at Chester Court - to prevent the sale of the ship - on 19 December 2016, . . although all to no avail, as the Judge's mind appeared to have been already made up in favour of the C&RT's lawyer's arguments by virtue of the false written evidence submitted shortly before the hearing by C&RT's lawyers. The knowingly false written evidence exhibited before the Court on 19 December 2016 was in the form of a C&RT commissioned Survey Report by Braemar Technical Services, and submitted to the Court purely as a means of perpetuating and gaining further advantage from the outright blatant lie about seizing the ship under a 'High Court Warrant' that was first told to the Merseyside Police, and later to the the media, by the C&RT and the Commercial Boat Services bogus Bailiffs who forcibly seized the ship on 19 September 2016. The report stated, on page 1 (the cover page), that BTS were instructed to board and inspect the ship immediately after it was "seized" by the C&RT, and in the last paragraph on page 1 it stated that the ship was seized pursuant to a "High Court Warrant". The BTS Survey Report submitted as evidence in the 19 December Injunction hearing with the clear intention of deceiving Court, was in fact one of two versions of the same report, both in the possession of the C&RT at the time, and both bearing the same suryeyor's signature and the same date, and differing only in respect of the wording of the last paragraph on page 1. The second version of the BTS Survey Report, the one that C&RT's lawyers kept hidden from the Court prior to and during the !=19 December 2016 Injunction hearing, stated in the last paragraph on page 1 that the ship had been seized by virtue of the C&RT enforcing - "their rights under the berthing agreement" - with absolutely no reference, anywhere else in the rest of the report, to any "High Court Warrant", or to any other form of authority to seize, remove and sell the ship. It is worthy of note at this juncture that the BTS Survey Report - both 'versions' of it - was entirely irrelevant to, and had no bearing on, the arguments before the Court with regard to the Injunction application, . . apart, that is, from the predictable effect on the outcome of the Injunction hearing of the blatant lie on page 1 of the version of the report with which C&RT and its lawyers knowingly deceived the Court on 19 December 2016 into believing that the seizure, removal and sale of "Planet" - LV23 had already been subject to the prior approval of the High Court.
|
|