Jump to content

CRT being sued in the High Court for misuse of Section 8 rule


Horace42

Featured Posts

MT: thank you for an excellent review of the issues. Let's hope we can now discuss them further without getting jumped on by the mods wink.png

I'm assuming Tony's case got stayed (or whatever they call it) in the end until Leigh's comes up. There's a bit about building on water in the weekend paper at https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/oct/29/floating-homes-architecture-build-water-overcrowding-cities-unaffordable-housing- though I personally think the thing they built at Chichester is a monstrosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I will attempt a summary of what is in the public domain, really with the aim of tempting Nigel back to correct anything that I have interpreted incorrectly.

 

 

I had not put you down as quite so Machiavellian as you appear from this post. There are too many obvious discrepancies that can only have been introduced as goads. I will attend to them in time, if permitted [i have rather a lot on my plate just now, and have been offline for days due to remarkable concatenations of circumstances.]

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"concatenations" Now there's a word that isn't used enough these days.

A summary from Nigel as to what's happening at the moment would be most welcome.

 

I think it was one of my grandmother's favourites; I blame her for the alliterative disease.

 

Catching up with summaries etc will have to wait for a bit; I have much on my plate just now.

 

[nice post #23 by the way]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I had not put you down as quite so Machiavellian as you appear from this post. There are too many obvious discrepancies that can only have been introduced as goads. I will attend to them in time, if permitted [i have rather a lot on my plate just now, and have been offline for days due to remarkable concatenations of circumstances.]

Not at all! I was not expecting to have completely captured, or captured correctly, everything that ought to be said about this matter, including the adjoining implications. However, I do feel that this is an important matter - regardless of what one concludes personally about it - and I was very sad indeed that the emotions (inevitable in a way) led to the debate being temporarily suspended. It is my wish - and no Machiavellian content - that we can return to the rational debate that previously obtained. For the sake of all concerned - at least as boaters - it is important that there is a place for such a debate without it descending into yah-boo interchanges- we can leave that to PMQs!

 

Since it is likely that no one case will be able to air in court the full breadth of legal issues - which you have highlighted (courts do seem to prefer to take the narrowest view) - there is a further need to try to create a kind of case law summary out of all of this which can guide those who come after. Who knows - it may even make a tiny contribution to an eventual better legislative basis?

 

Hence my ambition would be not so much to have an on-going interchange as to create a kind of Wiki (I am not sure of the best technical way to achieve this) in which all of the emerging facts and factors are edited together in a single text, one that encompasses the sometimes conflicting and conflicted positions. Of course, this may be hard for some who find it difficult to see opposing views in 'print' and seek to portray even-handedness as a betrayal. I 'goaded' you (more accurately prompted) because I do feel that you are one of those who can see differing sides to these matters, even though no one is in any complete doubt as to where your ultimate sympathies probably lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several acts where created to improve river navigations, so I assume this allows charges to be levied on boats using them. May be its because the boat in question isn't actually using the navigation (I have no knowledge of the basis of this case), though one could then argue that the river weirs are maintained for navigation allowing the vessel to be safe on the river.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

.

 

It wasn't a complete win though. I have long spent the £945 (on a year's licence) and I still miss my lovely bright red Triumph Herald that they had crushed.

Why would British waterways wish to crush your Triumph Herald? Had you parked it for more than 14 days in the same place?

Edited by Athy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone won a case against CRT?

 

0r has CRT losed a case, or gave up.

 

 

Outright wins with costs: -
Burnett v BWB [1973]
Swan Hill Developments v BWB [1997]
Taylor v BWB [2001]
Moore v BWB/CaRT [2012 & 2013]
Default County Court wins known through BW/CaRT discontinuance: -
Carlt
Moore
Dunkley
[only Carlt had the foresight to lodge a counterclaim, so was the only one of those 3 to reclaim costs and get awarded compensation]
Other
Moore v BW Injunction application [2007] At suggestion of judge, BW offered Court Undertaking in lieu of Injunction.
CaRT v Wingfield first hearing was settled at request of judge.
CaRT v Moore [Land Tribunal case] main claim dismissed with no costs orders.
CaRT v Dunkley [round 2] CaRT ask that case adjourned pending Ravenscroft decision
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since it is likely that no one case will be able to air in court the full breadth of legal issues - which you have highlighted (courts do seem to prefer to take the narrowest view) - there is a further need to try to create a kind of case law summary out of all of this which can guide those who come after. Who knows - it may even make a tiny contribution to an eventual better legislative basis?

 

I really have to attend to some issues of my own having nowt to do with CaRT, but for now, one significant issue from those Leigh is bringing [and it is closest to his heart] is failure to abide by legislation protecting the common man from disproportionate excesses in recovering debts and/or punishing breaches of law. This is altogether independent of whether he needed a pleasure boat certificate or not.

CaRT finally and very belatedly admitted in pleadings that s.8 is NOT available for the exercise of a lien respecting debt. Their consequent argument that this does not matter is bewildering. Successive Parliaments over the centuries have fenced powers to recover debt with protections to ensure that due process is followed according to strict procedures and court authority.
What Leigh’s case has already highlighted, is that BW/CaRT have, directly contrary to law [as they now publicly acknowledge] been applying s.8 powers for the last 8 years at least, as the inappropriate and unlawful tool for the extraction of payment for debts, bypassing the mandatory court procedures.
Since the publication of the latest judgment in Leigh’s case, ensuring that I will be able to assist him, and following onionbargee’s direct reference to the CaRT pleadings in demanding a re-write of the “Licence it or Lose it” webpage, that page has now been altered to exclude the wording wherein the institutional policy to act criminally has been proclaimed for the last 8 years at least.
It hopefully follows from all this, even in advance of next year’s hearing, that CaRT will finally understand just how inappropriate s.8 is, for the enforcement of licences. Everyone should note that this does NOT remove a power from CaRT for enforcement of the licence requirement – indeed, it will force CaRT to begin using instead, the appropriate and specifically endowed powers that they were given for precisely that purpose.
My opinion is that we have no need whatsoever for a “better legislative basis”; what we do have need of, is for CaRT to be headed by people of integrity, replacing the present contingent with personnel determined to operate lawfully under the efficient powers already available. It is a matter of practicality and monetary efficiency, even apart from the present moral and legal desuetude.
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I really have to attend to some issues of my own having nowt to do with CaRT, but for now, one significant issue from those Leigh is bringing [and it is closest to his heart] is failure to abide by legislation protecting the common man from disproportionate excesses in recovering debts and/or punishing breaches of law. This is altogether independent of whether he needed a pleasure boat certificate or not.

CaRT finally and very belatedly admitted in pleadings that s.8 is NOT available for the exercise of a lien respecting debt. Their consequent argument that this does not matter is bewildering. Successive Parliaments over the centuries have fenced powers to recover debt with protections to ensure that due process is followed according to strict procedures and court authority.
What Leigh’s case has already highlighted, is that BW/CaRT have, directly contrary to law [as they now publicly acknowledge] been applying s.8 powers for the last 8 years at least, as the inappropriate and unlawful tool for the extraction of payment for debts, bypassing the mandatory court procedures.
Since the publication of the latest judgment in Leigh’s case, ensuring that I will be able to assist him, and following onionbargee’s direct reference to the CaRT pleadings in demanding a re-write of the “Licence it or Lose it” webpage, that page has now been altered to exclude the wording wherein the institutional policy to act criminally has been proclaimed for the last 8 years at least.
It hopefully follows from all this, even in advance of next year’s hearing, that CaRT will finally understand just how inappropriate s.8 is, for the enforcement of licences. Everyone should note that this does NOT remove a power from CaRT for enforcement of the licence requirement – indeed, it will force CaRT to begin using instead, the appropriate and specifically endowed powers that they were given for precisely that purpose.
My opinion is that we have no need whatsoever for a “better legislative basis”; what we do have need of, is for CaRT to be headed by people of integrity, replacing the present contingent with personnel determined to operate lawfully under the efficient powers already available. It is a matter of practicality and monetary efficiency, even apart from the present moral and legal desuetude.

 

CRT still have this page up:

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/boating/licensing-your-boat/licence-it-or-lose-it

 

For those that don't like following links:

"Our main tool for enforcement is the power for the Canal & River Trust to 'section 8' unlicensed boats. This relates to powers given in the British Waterways Act 1983 (and transferred to the Canal & River Trust) and allows us to remove boats from the waterway if they are there without our permission or persistently in breach of our licence terms and conditions – including not having a licence."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had to look up "desuetude"

 

But the rest of your post is extremely interesting and coincides with my own assessment of the attitudes of senior and middle managers in CRT, particularly, I suspect, those who are ex BW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CRT still have this page up:

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/boating/licensing-your-boat/licence-it-or-lose-it

 

For those that don't like following links:

"Our main tool for enforcement is the power for the Canal & River Trust to 'section 8' unlicensed boats. This relates to powers given in the British Waterways Act 1983 (and transferred to the Canal & River Trust) and allows us to remove boats from the waterway if they are there without our permission or persistently in breach of our licence terms and conditions – including not having a licence."

You are in the right place but quoting the wrong part of the page.

 

For some eight years (at least) CaRT and BW) have claimed that they can use Section 8 to recover debt. The wording of the 'Licence it or lose it' webpages for both has always supported this assertion -

 

Once we've removed the boat we can either sell it or, if it is of little value, we may destroy it. We have first claim on any sale proceeds which we use to recover outstanding fees and to cover our costs of taking enforcement action.

 

However, as Nigel has pointed out, in the pleadings of the Ravenscroft case, CaRT now admit that they have no such power and making Mr Ravenscroft pay alleged PBC arrears as a condition of returning his boat was 'inadvertent'. In other words a mistake - something that was unintentional.

 

A month ago, CaRT changed the wording on the webpage and removed the five words in red - words that have been used on both BW and CaRT 'licence it or lose it web pages' for at least eight years.

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In effect then, they can still take their costs out of the boat sale proceeds, but have to either write off unpaid licence fees or claim those via another route.

 

Precisely. Under s.8 they are able to recover from the proceeds of sale whatever it has cost them to remove and store the boat – no more. They [legally] gain absolutely nothing from the exercise. It was never intended to be an enforcement tool, only one enabling them to remove boats that ought not to be there, where owners could not be found.

To lawfully claim owed licence fees they must either prosecute the offence, or issue a small claims. Prosecuting, instead of going the small claims route, is more onerous in consequences for the boat owner, as in addition to the Order for the outstanding sums owed, there will be the fines and criminal record on top of that.
One has to ask – what purpose then, does going to the expense and trouble of seizing and storing a boat achieve, if the owner is already known?
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Precisely. Under s.8 they are able to recover from the proceeds of sale whatever it has cost them to remove and store the boat – no more. They [legally] gain absolutely nothing from the exercise. It was never intended to be an enforcement tool, only one enabling them to remove boats that ought not to be there, where owners could not be found.

To lawfully claim owed licence fees they must either prosecute the offence, or issue a small claims. Prosecuting, instead of going the small claims route, is more onerous in consequences for the boat owner, as in addition to the Order for the outstanding sums owed, there will be the fines and criminal record on top of that.
One has to ask – what purpose then, does going to the expense and trouble of seizing and storing a boat achieve, if the owner is already known?

 

 

 

I'd have thought the purpose was to let it me known amongst boat owners that CRT will seize an unlicenced boat in preference to prosecuting, in the (possibly mistaken) belief that boaters with no licences fear losing their boat more than they fear a fine and a criminal record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'd have thought the purpose was to let it me known amongst boat owners that CRT will seize an unlicenced boat in preference to prosecuting, in the (possibly mistaken) belief that boaters with no licences fear losing their boat more than they fear a fine and a criminal record.

 

Not mistaken MtB: that is the sole effective point to the threat of seizures, and to the examples set. However, once it becomes sufficiently established as a known fact - endorsed by the High Court - that such intimidation is criminal, then the unlawful blackmailing will cease and the legitimate threat of lawful sanctions will take its place.

 

It is all, as the HRA has vainly sought to establish these past years [in conformity with the ancient statutes of Marlborough], a question of proportionality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'd have thought the purpose was to let it me known amongst boat owners that CRT will seize an unlicenced boat in preference to prosecuting, in the (possibly mistaken) belief that boaters with no licences fear losing their boat more than they fear a fine and a criminal record.

I'd have thought it was because they didn't expect ever to get any money from the unlicensed boat owner so might as well at least stop them clogging up the system. If they then managed to bamboozle the legalities so they got debts as well, that's a double win.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have thought it was because they didn't expect ever to get any money from the unlicensed boat owner so might as well at least stop them clogging up the system. If they then managed to bamboozle the legalities so they got debts as well, that's a double win.

 

I am very surprised that a man of your 'alleged morality' would condone any such illegal acts.

At what point would you then 'stand up and say ENOUGH' ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I am very surprised that a man of your 'alleged morality' would condone any such illegal acts.

At what point would you then 'stand up and say ENOUGH' ?

When, through misfortune, he falls on hard times and they come for him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have thought it was because they didn't expect ever to get any money from the unlicensed boat owner so might as well at least stop them clogging up the system. If they then managed to bamboozle the legalities so they got debts as well, that's a double win.

 

I would say that that is quite close to the truth in many instances Arthur. Not the emotionally based driving force that the British public should expect from those granted authority over them.

Of course, for so long as the majority of vocal customers applaud such responses, they will continue. They are not effective in maintaining and improving use of the system for the benefit of all, but they serve to placate the atavistic urge for retaliation against those perceived to be getting something more than oneself can get.
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.