Jump to content

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


Horace42

Featured Posts

1 minute ago, NigelMoore said:

I wanted to leave some comment, money, and food for you in recognition of your contributions to the thread, but your signature link appears not to work.

I practice what I preach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

As important as this case is to all of us, I can't help thinking the thread should be renamed ........

"The link appears not to work. Works for me. Me too"

Trouble is in two years time the link may not work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I thing "Elephanty" is coming 'very late to the party', is unaware of the circumstances behind it, he is not aware it relates to a River, not a canal, is not aware of the relevant legislation and has admitted he got bored with reading the thread and 'gave up'.

Not to worry; their interest has obviously revived, and every question starting from afresh is an opportunity to see things with fresh eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I thing "Elephanty" is coming 'very late to the party', is unaware of the circumstances behind it, he is not aware it relates to a River, not a canal, is not aware of the relevant legislation and has admitted he got bored with reading the thread and 'gave up'.

didnt get bored, just with so many posts many of which dealt with so many details rather than the real substance of the thread it did get confusing.  Obviously, it being a legal case sometimes the details are just as important as the substance,  but it makes it harder for a newcomer to grasp what's going on.

Once I get my boat I definitely will be venturing onto what rivers I feel safe to do so,  I'm a keen fisherman and would love a crack at fishing for barbel and chub which I have never had a chance to catch before, so while this case does not affect me now it might in the future.

 

thankfully thanks to some really good posts, and clarifications of my misconceptions  I think I understand now how potentially important this case might be and the real issues why the case was brought in the first place..  Thank you NigelMore and WotEver for being patient

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Bod said:

Am I right in thinking that when BW, was transformed into C&RT, the government washed their hands of the waterways, save for a reducing financial contribution.

Therefore no ministerial evolvement is now possible.

Essentially you are perfectly correct- government wanted shot of the responsibility and costs, and happily fell in with the “rats leaving the sinking ship” plans that the then Chairman & CEO had been working on for some years. The then Legal Director Nigel Johnson was hugely instrumental in formulating the details and lobbying the sympathetic MP’s and Waterways Minister of the time [who had vested interests in the matter].

 However that does not negate the possibility of Ministers stepping in should they wish to. They remain adamant that CaRT is no longer any responsibility of theirs, and lean on the fact that a “Protector” has oversight of affairs [though in practice he concerns himself only with whether they are gambling unacceptably with their share of the public purse]. Nonetheless, the legislation still provides the statutory right/responsibility for intervention should they see fit.

 In fact, they could at any time pull the plug on CaRT altogether and replace them with a different trustee of the national assets, should they prove insolvent. Technically of course, they have been insolvent from the beginning. However the inclination to intervene is not there – although if enough public exposure threatened to draw sufficient adverse attention, then they could well decide to involve themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/05/2017 at 18:33, NigelMoore said:

 You are absolutely correct that the courts and only the courts can authorise seizure of goods in order to recoup a debt. CaRT do not [NOW] disagree; they say that the boat was seized because it was unlicensed, NOT because it had not paid for a licence [if you can unravel the subtle distinction for me, I would be obliged].

Sorry to be coming in very late, and it's perhaps not important.  But

CaRT are saying NOW that they did not seize the boat to recoup the debt, but you have a video of what was actually said at the time.

That may or may not be relevant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Fu Manchu said:

Sorry to be coming in very late, and it's perhaps not important.  But

CaRT are saying NOW that they did not seize the boat to recoup the debt, but you have a video of what was actually said at the time.

That may or may not be relevant?

I'm pretty sure that i read that in the argument put forward Nigel has asked for permission to include the video as evidence. Fwiw, CaRT said 'sorry' I believe. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, WotEver said:

I'm pretty sure that i read that in the argument put forward Nigel has asked for permission to include the video as evidence. Fwiw, CaRT said 'sorry' I believe. ;)

What do you expect :

"Of course you can Mr Moore, please feel free to use anything you have that shows we broke the law, told lies and behaved very badly"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, WotEver said:

I'm pretty sure that i read that in the argument put forward Nigel has asked for permission to include the video as evidence. Fwiw, CaRT said 'sorry' I believe. ;)

The video will be used in evidence with both parties drawing attention to different parts of it. C&RT have not said 'sorry' but rather that it was a 'mistake'. They have agreed that S8 does not allow them to seize a boat for the recovery of debt.

However, up until recently, C&RT's website suggested that it was policy recover debt via section 8. There are also previous recorded instances of them doing so.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

up until recently, C&RT's website suggested that it was policy recover debt via section 8

As recently as March: https://web.archive.org/web/20160322092758/https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/boating/licensing-your-boat/licence-it-or-lose-it

"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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First day over; Judge began urging settlement and gave us first 10 minutes to decide if there was potential, and then when Mr Stoner came back and told her that though it was not ruled out the time was too short, she gave a full hour of time out. No dice from CaRT, so we went ahead, First precis of case outlined from me with quite a few probing questions from the Judge, then Leigh cross-examined on his witness statement by Mr Stoner, followed by an exceptionally brief cross of Garner and Mr Deards by me, despite having prepared lengthy lists of questions - but I took my cue from the Judge that she wanted tight focus on issues directly determinative of the questions she had to decide, which meant that there was really no point in just making them look bad over their opinions.

Tomorrow will be afternoon only from 2pm, when we watch a selection of video clips on the court's widescreen - if my laptop works with Shoosmiths' lead and both work with the courts equipment. We will then have the benefit of Mr Stoner's exposition for the rest of the day and probably into Wednesday, with time for a final word on Leigh's behalf. 3 days max.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

If he loses he'll be a sulk.

That's funny, however my experience of the legal profession, and barristers in particular, is providing their greasy palms have been crossed with the appropriate amount of silver, they don't give a toss about the result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Phil. said:

That's funny, however my experience of the legal profession, and barristers in particular, is providing their greasy palms have been crossed with the appropriate amount of silver, they don't give a toss about the result.

Well they do a bit, because a defeat when they should have won, counts against their reputation and thus ability to charge exorbitant fees next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

We will then have the benefit of Mr Stoner's exposition for the rest of the day and probably into Wednesday, with time for a final word on Leigh's behalf.

How does the procedure work, Nigel? If Stoner comes out with a whopper can you shout 'Objection!' like in the movies? Basically, what's to stop him putting the usual CaRT spin on the regs and interpretation thereof?

Edited by WotEver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite like the movies! However, as I said, Leigh as Claimant gets the last word, so I can pick up and deal with anything said that needs contradicting.

One good thing was that I was able to refer to documents such as the Waterways Ombudsman Report 2010 that were in the bundle CaRT objected to, and in response to the Judge noting that it was largely public domain material anyway, Mr Stoner sensibly declined to make an issue over it.

A freelance reporter was there, wanting details of the argument for an article on this case and others, while Leigh afterwards received a message from somebody asking if he would help with a documentary. There were several observers in the back of the court, a few of whom I knew, but did not have time to chat to. One was a member of this Forum.

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.