|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 12, 2023 12:03:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 12, 2023 12:50:41 GMT
I was quite interested of the CRT actually do call CC ers "houseboats" but I can see it is just made up bullshit.
I should have known this in advance but maybe just a slow learner.
If it was demonstrably the case then I think it would be quite useful.
It isn't the case so it is a worthless diversion.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 12, 2023 13:57:29 GMT
I was quite interested of the CRT actually do call CC ers "houseboats" but I can see it is just made up bullshit. I should have known this in advance but maybe just a slow learner. If it was demonstrably the case then I think it would be quite useful. It isn't the case so it is a worthless diversion. canalrivertrust.org.uk/the-publication-scheme/governance/legal-documents/court-action-to-remove-boats-from-our-waterwaysQuoted from (the above linked) C&RT website page :- "If we know, or there is reasonable likelihood, that a boat is being used as a person’s home, we first engage in correspondence with the boat owners before then proceeding to serve the statutory notices under Section 8 and Section 13 of the British Waterways Acts 1983 and 1971."Section 13 of the British Waterways Act 1971 relates specifically and ONLY to 'Houseboats'. Section 13 of the British Waterways Act 1971 is specified as grounds for action in every single one of the Claims for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief that C&RT makes against boatowners with boats with standard boat Licences issued subject to the CC'ing clause (S.17, 3/c/ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995. The provisions of Section 13 of the British Waterways Act 1971 are included, specifically at C&RT's request to the Judge, in every single one of the Orders for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief that C&RT obtains against boats licensed as Continuous Cruisers under the CC'ing clause (S.17, 3/c/ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995, . . . because C&RT states to the Courts, repeatedly, albeit falsely, that boats licensed as Continuous Cruisers under the CC'ing clause (S.17, 3/c/ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 are 'houseboats'.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 12, 2023 14:11:05 GMT
I was quite interested of the CRT actually do call CC ers "houseboats" but I can see it is just made up bullshit. I should have known this in advance but maybe just a slow learner. If it was demonstrably the case then I think it would be quite useful. It isn't the case so it is a worthless diversion. C&RT states to the Courts, repeatedly, albeit falsely, that boats licensed as Continuous Cruisers under the CC'ing clause (S.17, 3/c/ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 are 'houseboats'.Would that be a solely verbal statement or is it encapsulated in a document(s)? If it were then this would be helpful to CCrs attempting to claim the heating dough.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 12, 2023 14:49:44 GMT
C&RT states to the Courts, repeatedly, albeit falsely, that boats licensed as Continuous Cruisers under the CC'ing clause (S.17, 3/c/ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 are 'houseboats'.Would that be a solely verbal statement or is it encapsulated in a document(s)? If it were then this would be helpful to CCrs attempting to claim the heating dough. Courts don't operate, . . or conduct hearings of claims, . . . or make Orders on the strength of verbal evidence, verbal only pleadings, or verbal Statements of Claim. Stupid question !
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 12, 2023 14:51:01 GMT
This is interesting.
Thank you Tony. I'm not sure why we needed the repetition.
So when people say that the CRT "section 8" a boat we should more accurately be saying they "section 13" a boat.
Is this right at least in the case of boats registered without a home mooring?
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 12, 2023 14:58:28 GMT
Would that be a solely verbal statement or is it encapsulated in a document(s)? If it were then this would be helpful to CCrs attempting to claim the heating dough. Courts don't operate, . . or conduct hearings of claims, . . . or make Orders on the strength of verbal evidence, verbal only pleadings, or verbal Statements of Claim. Stupid question ! Of course. Silly me. Do you have a copy of the document in question?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 12, 2023 21:58:30 GMT
So when people say that the CRT "section 8" a boat we should more accurately be saying they "section 13" a boat. No, . . not really, . . it's not a matter of either/or, . . C&RT serve both Section 8 and Section 13 Notices simultaneously on targeted boats. The draft Order that C&RT, the Claimant, submits to the Court to inform and guide the Judge in making the applied for Order for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief invariably includes a request for S.13 of the 1971 Act to be included with S.8 of the 1983 Act in the recital to the Order, . . both having equal standing and effect. In other words, . . C&RT's lawyers are knowingly misleading Judges into making (Court) Orders founded on lies perpetrated by the Trust management stating, or implying, in contempt of due process and the Court, that self-propelled canal and river boats licensed under the Continuous Cruising clause ((S.17, subsection 3/c/ii) of the 1995 Act are in fact houseboats registered, by the C&RT, under Section 14 of the 1971 Act. The current story - relating to ineligibility for EBSS fuel payments - being fed to the Government's Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy in respect of canal and river boats licensed by the C&RT under the Continuous Cruising clause ((S.17, subsection 3/c/ii) of the 1995 Act, . . is of course the exact opposite of the blatant lies fed to the Courts when the C&RT management wants the Court misled into making an Order that its crooked contractors and bogus Bailiffs can fraudulently misrepresent to Police and boatowners to aid the process of stealing people's boats, homes, and property from them.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 13, 2023 7:56:13 GMT
So when people say that the CRT "section 8" a boat we should more accurately be saying they "section 13" a boat. The draft Order that C&RT, the Claimant, submits to the Court to inform and guide the Judge in making the applied for Order for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief invariably includes a request for S.13 of the 1971 Act to be included with S.8 of the 1983 Act, . . both having equal standing and effect. And do you have a copy of this draft or a link where it can be accessed?
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 13, 2023 8:16:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 13, 2023 8:22:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by on Mar 13, 2023 8:27:30 GMT
From the page:
Note:
Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 permits us, after giving at least 28 days notice, to remove a craft which is sunk, stranded, abandoned or unlawfully moored on our waterways.
Section 13 of the British Waterways Act 1971 states that it is unlawful to moor or keep any houseboat (defined mainly as any vessel not used for navigation) on our waterways without a valid licence. It further gives us the power to remove or (ultimately) demolish a houseboat if, following proper notice, the owner does not first remove it.
-----------------
I see they are using the fact the boat is not being used for navigation as a way of defining it as a houseboat for the purpose of section 13.
It seems to me if the boat was moved somewhere else under its own power before the point of seizure it would no longer be classed as a houseboat and the procedure would be stalled.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Mar 13, 2023 8:36:02 GMT
Doesn't matter. Its all just bullshit anyway.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 13, 2023 15:56:27 GMT
Doesn't matter. Its all just bullshit anyway. Like your entire life.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Mar 13, 2023 15:58:19 GMT
From the page: Note: Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 permits us, after giving at least 28 days notice, to remove a craft which is sunk, stranded, abandoned or unlawfully moored on our waterways. Section 13 of the British Waterways Act 1971 states that it is unlawful to moor or keep any houseboat (defined mainly as any vessel not used for navigation) on our waterways without a valid licence. It further gives us the power to remove or (ultimately) demolish a houseboat if, following proper notice, the owner does not first remove it. The wording on the C&RT webpage relating to S.8 of the 1983 Act is correct, . . the wording relating to S.13 of the 1971 Act is incorrect and is indicative of either C&RT not having full working knowledge of the current legislation by which it is bound, . . or a calculated intention to misinform and deceive. Its sorry track record favours the latter. Under the whole of the current applicable waterways specific primary legislation, houseboats are not and never have been subject to any form of licensing. S.13 0f the 1971 Act does NOT even mention, let alone require any form of houseboat Licence. To even begin to understand the dishonest intent and purpose behind this particular piece of typically pseudo-legalistic C&RT misinformation, reference to and a thorough grasp of the unrepealed/unamended to this day Sections 3, 13 and 14 of the 1971 Act, and Sections 17(1) and (3) of the 1995 Act is necessary, . . together with the realisation that, as far as its governing legislation is concerned, nothing stated on C&RT's webpages can be believed unless and until it's cross checked against the current legislative reality, . . in other words, the truth.
|
|