section 8 canning dock ?

[Jrtm]

Oh I am quite aware of their continued use, I pass one frequently when out in my boast. The point was made because the claim was made that this was the last one. That claim was incorrect rather it should have been the last crewed light ship.

If you all read my posts i did correct myself as say sorry ment to say last manned light ship.

[Geo]

If you all read my posts i did correct myself as say sorry ment to say last manned light ship.

 

Yes I did see, I was responding to howardang apparently taking my post out of context as if I did not believe light ships were still in use.

[howardang]

Oh I am quite aware of their continued use, I pass one frequently when out in my boast. The point was made because the claim was made that this was the last one. That claim was incorrect rather it should have been the last crewed light ship.

 

 

Sorry, It would have been clearer if you had put a question mark after puzzled.

 

Howard

Edited September 27, 2016 by howardang

[Mike Todd]

 

In fact neither of the two posts you've quoted is ''a load of nonsense".

When the earlier post of the two was made on 21 September C&RT had NOT, at that time and date, obtained a Debt Judgment, or for that matter, any other sort of Judgment, against the owner of the vessel for arrears of berthing fees. The sole inaccuracy in that post arises out of my belief, held in good faith at that time, that C&RT had yet to issue proceedings, and I have no problem in admitting that the information I had relied on was wrong.

 

However, as reflected in the second of the two posts quoted, the situation changed, as situations frequently do with the passage time, when on the afternoon of Friday 23 September a Judgment was entered in C&RT's favour at Liverpool County Court in the sum of £5686.65, being arrears of unpaid berthing fees.

 

What you describe as 'mutually exclusive', and apparently find so difficult to comprehend, are in reality nothing more than the by-products of the passage of time accompanied by a simple change of circumstances.

But the 'final' letter that you shared with us earlier makes no mention of debt recovery,does it? Is that not a red herring in the light of a change of tack to a trespassing case? Do we know what the legal framework for that is - I presume that it is rather different from debt recovery?

[Geo]

 

 

Sorry, It would have been clearer if you had put a question mark after puzzled.

 

Howard

 

Need to read the quoted post thus the context

[mayalld]

 

With regard to your first sentence, . . that isn't in fact what I said.

 

As for 1) No argument there at all, but there was/is a suitable and secure berth with no public access about 250 yards from where the ship was laying, alongside the narrow spit of land between the drydocks and the half-tide dock, in line with the disused gates to the river.

 

As for 2) In light of 1) above, they can't argue any such thing.

 

The cost of moving "Planet" to Sharpness was in excess of £20,000, . . . . the 250 yard tow across to the drydock side wall in the half-tide dock would have cost considerably less.

 

OK (and I paraphrase here), I believe that you said that their detention of the vessel was lawful, but the moment that it passed off their waterways it became unlawful and you suggested legislation that made that the case.

 

Could I invite you to expand upon that position;

 

1. Could they lawfully detain the vessel?
2. Could they lawfully move the vessel?
3. Is there an extent of movement that makes it unlawful, and what is the trigger for it becoming unlawful?
4. What legislative provision supports that view?

[Thorfast]

OK (and I paraphrase here), I believe that you said that their detention of the vessel was lawful, but the moment that it passed off their waterways it became unlawful and you suggested legislation that made that the case.

 

Could I invite you to expand upon that position;

 

 

• Could they lawfully detain the vessel?
• Could they lawfully move the vessel?
• Is there an extent of movement that makes it unlawful, and what is the trigger for it becoming unlawful?
• What legislative provision supports that view?

I hope that Tony answers this by starting with the three words...."In my opinion...".

Much as he has a good knowledge of law it remains only his opinion until a court decides.

[Naughty Cal]

I hope that Tony answers this by starting with the three words...."In my opinion...".

Much as he has a good knowledge of law it remains only his opinion until a court decides.

I wouldn't hold your breathe!

[mayalld]

I hope that Tony answers this by starting with the three words...."In my opinion...".

Much as he has a good knowledge of law it remains only his opinion until a court decides.

 

Quite so.

 

However, I am interested to learn why he believes that their actions in removing it to the south west were unlawful, but moving it in the dock would not have been.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

 

OK (and I paraphrase here), I believe that you said that their detention of the vessel was lawful, but the moment that it passed off their waterways it became unlawful and you suggested legislation that made that the case.

 

Could I invite you to expand upon that position;

 

1. Could they lawfully detain the vessel?
2. Could they lawfully move the vessel?
3. Is there an extent of movement that makes it unlawful, and what is the trigger for it becoming unlawful?
4. What legislative provision supports that view?

 

 

This particular episode of boat thieving differs considerably from C&RT's usual Section 8 antics in that S.8 of the 1983 Act is not applicable to the old Liverpool Docks now under C&RT control, and for that reason they have, correctly, refrained from issuing a Section 8 Notice in respect of "Planet" whilst it remained in Canning Dock.

 

With the vessel now on C&RT waters [the G&S] where S.8 of the 1983 Act is applicable, slapping a Section 8 Notice on it may well be their next move, and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that creating the opportunity to do just that was one of their reasons for moving it to Sharpness.

 

Deprived of their much loved and abused S.8 powers in Liverpool, C&RT had no option but to rely on their Berthing Agreement T&C's, one in particular of which is specific to seizing and selling vessels but not enforceble because it goes beyond what the law requires and permits, and a mix of non-waterways related, UK statute and common law, . . . and they've made a phenomenal bog-up of it !

 

If you go back to post #99, Nigel has already covered what you've asked for.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Tony Dunkley]

E-mail to C&RT earlier today :~

Ex-Light Vessel "Planet" - Liverpool

F.A.O. Chantelle Seaborn.

I am authorized and appointed by the owner, Mr Alan Roberts, to act on his behalf in any and all matters concerning the above named vessel.

We have reason to believe that the forcible seizure of the above named vessel was a criminal act on the part of the Canal and River Trust [C&RT] and that the unidentified, and unidentifiable, personnel who boarded and broke into the vessel on the morning of Monday 19 September 2016 were not authorized Officers of the Court, but employees of either the C&RT or contractors engaged by the C&RT.

It has been established that at the time of the forcible seizure no Writ of Execution or any other Court Order was in force in respect of the vessel.

No paperwork of any sort was either shown to or left with the ship owners representative, who was forcibly prevented from re-boarding while the unidentified personnel, under the direction of C&RT's Harbour Master Andrew Goudie, proceeded to cut off locks and break into cabins and compartments.

As a matter of some urgency we require the C&RT to provide the following :~

* Copies of the documentation upon which the Trust relied as authorization to effect forcible entry into and to seize the ship.

* Identification details, ie. employer, occupation and position, of all the personnel accompanying and assisting the Trust's Harbour Master.

Hard copies to the ship's owner, Mr Alan Roberts, and E-mailed copies to me no later than 3.30pm this afternoon.

Signed A.K.Dunkley.

(Owners representative)

_________________________________________________________

C&RT's reply :~

Dear Mr Dunkley

 

I refer to my earlier email where I indicated to you that we have instructed Shoosmiths to act for the Trust in this matter.

 

Please send any future correspondence relating to Planet Lightship Vessel directly to me and to Lucy Barry at Shoosmiths.

 

With regard to the documents you have requested, the relevant documents are the Trust’s letters to Mr Roberts dated 15^th April 2016 and 5^th August 2016 and the berthing agreement. Mr Roberts already has copies of these documents in his possession.

 

I cannot see the relevance of your request for the identity of persons referred to in your email below.

 

As I stated in my email to you this morning Shoosmiths will be responding to the legal points you have raised.

 

Kind Regards

Thami Nomvete

Solicitor

Legal

_____________________________

In light of the fact that C&RT told the two police officers who attended at their request that the personnel boarding and seizing the ship were "Bailiffs", the desire to preserve their anonymity displayed in the above E-mail, is somewhat odd, and would seem to merit further explanation.

Could it be that the explanation lies in them introducing themselves to the man they ejected from the ship as "Water Bailiffs", . . . is it possible that C&RT pressed them into service having found them on the canal towpath presiding over a local fishing match ?

Edited September 27, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Geo]

I am a bit surprised that the person signing that email describes themselves as a Solicitor a search of the register does not reveal someone of the name being registered. However there is a Nomatamsanqa Sheila Nomvete registered as an employee of CRT.

 

I would ask the question were there Bailiffs amongst the people that boarded Planet and did the have a sealed Court Order or were they just acting as agents/employees of CRT.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Geo

[Tony Dunkley]

I am a bit surprised that the person signing that email describes themselves as a Solicitor a search of the register does not reveal someone of the name being registered. However there is a Nomatamsanqa Sheila Nomvete registered at an employee of CRT.

 

It's the word 'Legal' added on after 'Solicitor' that amuses me, . . . perhaps it is intended to avoid any confusion about just what sort of soliciting is going on.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

This particular episode of boat thieving differs considerably from C&RT's usual Section 8 antics in that S.8 of the 1983 Act is not applicable to the old Liverpool Docks now under C&RT control, and for that reason they have, correctly, refrained from issuing a Section 8 Notice in respect of "Planet" whilst it remained in Canning Dock.

 

With the vessel now on C&RT waters [the G&S] where S.8 of the 1983 Act is applicable, slapping a Section 8 Notice on it may well be their next move, and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that creating the opportunity to do just that was one of their reasons for moving it to Sharpness.

 

Deprived of their much loved and abused S.8 powers in Liverpool, C&RT had no option but to rely on their Berthing Agreement T&C's, one in particular of which is specific to seizing and selling vessels but not enforceble because it goes beyond what the law requires and permits, and a mix of non-waterways related, UK statute and common law, . . . and they've made a phenomenal bog-up of it !

 

If you go back to post #99, Nigel has already covered what you've asked for.

You seem to have got the reply from CRT that one would have expected, a longer version of 'wind your neck in'.

 

You deride the T & C's for the berthing agreement but the question arises, did Mr Roberts sign and agree to those T & C's? If so how can he now complain when he breaches them (fails to pay his berthing fees) and CRT impose the sanctions that were outlined in them? It sounds that he is clearly in breach of a Civil contract. The fact that CRT gave Mr Roberts the option of removing the vessel from the docks prior to 14th May (from your post #207) would suggest that they were being more than generous in allowing someone to remove their vessel still owing a significant figure in berthing fees. He chose not to accept that offer and is now where he is, without his boat. I still have little or no sympathy with his situation and can only wish you every failure in your continued efforts to denigrate and deride CRT through this new 'opportunity'..

 

When the Government put canals up for change of ownership and methods of financing them I didn't see any submission from you to take over the running of the system. You constantly berated British Waterways, you now constantly berate CRT and should the Government at some future date decide to change the ownership of the canals again you will berate whoever takes on the job. If you are not up to the job of running them yourself you just become a minor irritation to those that are trying to do so.

[Paul C]

Let's get one thing straight, the owner is not the issue here. The boat, its heritage value, and its accessibility to the public is important. I'd say the events which have occurred are not going to be reversed anytime soon and a 3rd party's involvement is only going to rack up (quite large) legal costs for the owner. Clearly there is a business opportunity for someone, or a group/cooperative, to own and run this boat as a bar/museum/other publically accessible vessel (not necessarily in Liverpool). I'd suggest the current owner has not demonstrated the business acumen to be able to do this. Nothing personal against him, but the facts illustrate it.

 

May I ask what happened to the money raised in appeal, for keeping the ship operating? Are they planning to pay this back to the donators or did it part-pay for the berthing or other relevant costs?

[NigelMoore]

The police are notoriously vague over the legalities of bailff actions and purported bailiff actions. Pressure groups have achieved localised reforms, where police undertake to check the validity of any supposed court authorisation s, but these are in the minority, and indeed - I am told, with no means of verifying - that the met police take an opposite view with a circulated memorandum to facilitate ostensible bailiff action without checks.

 

Tony, on the question of proportionality in multiplying the debt through actions such as removing the goods far away, it might repay you to have a ponder over the implications behind the relevant statutes of Marlborough.

 

Timing is of course of interest here, as you have pointed out. Spending £20k odd to keep the boat away from an owner before the amount sued for was quantified, raises serious questions, especially as they got their court order within hours or days of taking it.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

I would ask the question were there Bailiffs amongst the people that boarded Planet and did the have a sealed Court Order or were they just acting as agents/employees of CRT.

 

If you look back a post or two, I think you'll find those questions have already been answered, and if there were any Certificated Bailiffs present, with or without any sort of Court Order, don't you think C&RT would be falling over themselves to prove it ?

[Gordon Munk]

 

 

OK (and I paraphrase here), I believe that you said that their detention of the vessel was lawful, but the moment that it passed off their waterways it became unlawful and you suggested legislation that made that the case.

 

Could I invite you to expand upon that position;

 

1. Could they lawfully detain the vessel?
2. Could they lawfully move the vessel?
3. Is there an extent of movement that makes it unlawful, and what is the trigger for it becoming unlawful?
4. What legislative provision supports that view?

 

 

How about..... instead of starting an enjoyable but pointless fight with Tony Dunkley you put your not inconsiderable learning and intelligence into an examination of the extremely valid points that Nigel Moore has made?

 

Or do you simply believe the maxim that if CRT did it, it must be right?

[Naughty Cal]

 

If you look back a post or two, I think you'll find those questions have already been answered, and if there were any Certificated Bailiffs present, with or without any sort of Court Order, don't you think C&RT would be falling over themselves to prove it ?

What makes you think that CRT have to prove anything to you?

 

I am a little surprised that they are communicating with you at all in fact as this case has bugger all to do with you!

[NigelMoore]

Plus - having a court order, whether for costs, monies owed, or for possession, does not entitle unilateral action. If there is failure to comply with the order, then one must go back to court for an enforcement order, which can only be carried out by authorised court officers. In this case, the court order re sums owed had not even been made before the fake bailiffs took action.

[Gordon Munk]

What makes you think that CRT have to prove anything to you?

 

I am a little surprised that they are communicating with you at all in fact as this case has bugger all to do with you!

You may have missed this bit;

 

I am authorized and appointed by the owner, Mr Alan Roberts, to act on his behalf in any and all matters concerning the above named vessel.

[NigelMoore]

Another bit of legislation to get your head around Tony, if you have not already done so, is the Courts,Tribunals and Enforcement Act.

Edited September 27, 2016 by NigelMoore

[Naughty Cal]

 

You may have missed this bit;

 

I didn't miss it. Any Tom, Dick or Harry could write that in an email, doesn't mean it is true.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Naughty Cal

[Wanderer Vagabond]

The police are notoriously vague over the legalities of bailff actions and purported bailiff actions. Pressure groups have achieved localised reforms, where police undertake to check the validity of any supposed court authorisation s, but these are in the minority, and indeed - I am told, with no means of verifying - that the met police take an opposite view with a circulated memorandum to facilitate ostensible bailiff action without checks.

 

Tony, on the question of proportionality in multiplying the debt through actions such as removing the goods far away, it might repay you to have a ponder over the implications behind the relevant statutes of Marlborough.

 

Timing is of course of interest here, as you have pointed out. Spending £20k odd to keep the boat away from an owner before the amount sued for was quantified, raises serious questions, especially as they got their court order within hours or days of taking it.

 

 

Plus - having a court order, whether for costs, monies owed, or for possession, does not entitle unilateral action. If there is failure to comply with the order, then one must go back to court for an enforcement order, which can only be carried out by authorised court officers. In this case, the court order re sums owed had not even been made before the fake bailiffs took action.

From the documentation that Tony has shared with us it seems that CRT, rather than going down the debt recovery path, are going down the trespass path. Having given the boat owner the opportunity to remove the vessel from the dock under his own volition, which he chose not to do, they have now removed it themselves. Had he removed it himself he would still have the vessel under his control and have none of the difficulties that currently beset him. The question of who pays for what will now lie with the courts but my understanding of the laws of trespass is that if you ask someone to leave and they refuse/decline to do so, you may use 'reasonable force' to remove them. Is this still correct?

[Mike Todd]

The police are notoriously vague over the legalities of bailff actions and purported bailiff actions. Pressure groups have achieved localised reforms, where police undertake to check the validity of any supposed court authorisation s, but these are in the minority, and indeed - I am told, with no means of verifying - that the met police take an opposite view with a circulated memorandum to facilitate ostensible bailiff action without checks.

 

Tony, on the question of proportionality in multiplying the debt through actions such as removing the goods far away, it might repay you to have a ponder over the implications behind the relevant statutes of Marlborough.

 

Timing is of course of interest here, as you have pointed out. Spending £20k odd to keep the boat away from an owner before the amount sued for was quantified, raises serious questions, especially as they got their court order within hours or days of taking it.

I'm not sure how it helps to continue to focus on whether or not the action was legitimate in a context of recovering debts. Unless I have misread it (always possible!) the CaRT case is based on Trespass and it would be necessary to counter that action either by proving that the matter of Trespass as set out did not occur or that the action is not allowed in a case of Trespass (ie can a landowner legitimately remove a trespasser from his/her property - presumably with a proportionality test thrown in somewhere as was the case of the person who shot and killed a trespasser)