Jump to content

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


Horace42

Featured Posts

6 hours ago, WotEver said:

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."

Quite so. Wayback Machine records that BW/C&RT policy is to use Section 8 to recover 'outstanding fees' since 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2017 at 16:16, WotEver said:

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."

Yes, someone (not me!) pointed out to them that Section 8 does not allow this. However, it would appear that the policy of  recovery of outstanding licence fees via Section 8 was introduced as part of BW's 'Licence it or lose it!' campaign in 2008. That campaign is still in existence today with changed wording.

I did ask C&RT when its policy to use Section 8 to recover debt had changed giving three examples. They stated that it had never been policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Yes, someone (not me!) pointed out to them that Section 8 does not allow this. However, it would appear that the policy of  recovery of outstanding licence fees via Section 8 was introduced as part of BW's 'Licence it or lose it!' campaign in 2008. That campaign is still in existence today with changed wording.

I did ask C&RT when its policy to use Section 8 to recover debt had changed giving three examples. They stated that it had never been policy.

They also perpetuated the same lie in the run up to the trial which should be coming to a close in the High Court about now. I recall that they tried to laugh off the attempt to use the Section 8'ing of Leigh Ravenscroft's boat at Newark as a means of recovery of alleged debt as a one off, innocent 'mistake' !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

I think not. I am no lawyer but this is a civil litigation issue which I believe demands judgement.

Let's hope so, I do so hate waiting

 

edited to add.... it appears to running over as it is in the court list for tomorrow.

Edited by Phil.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Phil. said:

Let's hope so, I do so hate waiting

 

edited to add.... it appears to running over as it is in the court list for tomorrow.

I may be wrong, but I think that reserving judgement is something that happens when a case raising substantially the same issue is to be heard in a higher court and the judge wants to reserve judgement until after the higher case in order to be guided by it's findings. In this case I think this is the higher court case pending the outcome of which other cases in lower courts are reserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Phil. said:

it appears to running over as it is in the court list for tomorrow.

Where did you find this, Phil?  I've been looking but can still only see last Thursday's listing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, nicknorman said:

However, things such as waybackmachine and dejavue allow cached old copies of CRT's website to be produced, which clearly show their stated policy was that S.8 was a tool to recover debt.

I think anyone can pretty much disown a statement on a web page - most sites have too many errors! It would perhaps be necessary to show that a policy had been formally adopted at an authorised level  eg via Board minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, nicknorman said:

However, things such as waybackmachine and dejavue allow cached old copies of CRT's website to be produced, which clearly show their stated policy was that S.8 was a tool to recover debt.

If that was replying to me, Nick, you are quite right (although it would be better to say 'archived' rather than 'cached'). There are over four dozen 'Licence it or lose it!' webpages archived on Waybackmachine stretching back to 2008. It's also worth noting that when this policy was introduced BW were so keen for boaters to be aware of it that it was linked to from the home page ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

It was listed for four days. It was Nigel that suggested that it would only take three.

Replying to my own post, Nigel has just informed that the hearing has finished (three days as he predicted) but we may have to wait up to three months for the result. He is now enjoying a small whisky ... 

**** Edited for scotch rather than irish ...

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

I have to say that I have found this topic most intriguing. I am far from being a CRT-basher, and, quite frankly, I find some of the constant carping and moaning more than a bit irritating.

The initial seizure of the boat and subsequent events appeared to me to be just another case of a freeloader getting his comeuppance.

However, as things have progressed, I have slowly changed my mind. I've read through Nigel's court paperwork fairly thoroughly, and I have to say that, to my (non-legal) mind, I find many of his arguments to be very persuasive. Those of CRT and their legal advisers less so.

I know that everyday logic sometimes goes out of the window when it comes to application of the law, but I can't see that this will end well for CRT.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PaulG said:

I have to say that I have found this topic most intriguing. I am far from being a CRT-basher, and, quite frankly, I find some of the constant carping and moaning more than a bit irritating.

The initial seizure of the boat and subsequent events appeared to me to be just another case of a freeloader getting his comeuppance.

However, as things have progressed, I have slowly changed my mind. I've read through Nigel's court paperwork fairly thoroughly, and I have to say that, to my (non-legal) mind, I find many of his arguments to be very persuasive. Those of CRT and their legal advisers less so.

I know that everyday logic sometimes goes out of the window when it comes to application of the law, but I can't see that this will end well for CRT.

 

 

I'm inclined to agree!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sir Nibble said:

I think we are all sweating on hearing more about events at the hearing.

Nigel stated elsewhere that the ruling will probably take 3 months of deliberations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-5-24 at 16:28, Cheshire cat said:

Regarding the question you have posed in the other place. I think it would not be wise for Nigel to offer a running commentary on the case. I look forward to a summary once it is over. 

The judge at no time made any mention of running online commentaries – but I was/am being cautious nonetheless.

First day was very curious; the judge began by expressing her dismay that the High Court were being asked to deliberate over the issues behind a case wherein Mr Ravenscroft was asking for relatively little, and where the costs in the event of failure would be ruinous to him, and she was concerned that his case was being’ hijacked’ for the purposes of others. At whom that was directed I cannot say; I hope she was not thinking it was me &/or a group of disenchanted boaters – the phraseology was uncomfortable close to what CaRT were accusing me of in the CMC’s. Given that Chief Master Marsh had not agreed with that accusation so far as I can tell, and given that both Leigh and I had hopefully got across that he had always been willing to come to some accommodation providing only that CaRT published their admission respecting holding the boat as lien on the licence arrears, then it could be that she actually had CaRT in mind. Anyway, she left the court for 10 minutes to give the 2 sides a chance to settle. Leigh would have been willing, despite his passion to “see justice done”, to rest content with the figure he was claiming free and clear plus an agreed order as to the lien issue, but CaRT felt [somewhat understandably it has to be said] that having come this far, to leave without a binding finding would be too frustrating and the costs for nothing – Mr Stoner cited the example of the Brown Judicial Review in his explanations for failure to reach agreement between the parties, though he began by saying they would not rule out the possibility, but that 10 mins was too short for realistic negotiations.

The Judge then said if more time was needed she would give an hour – so Leigh said much as he always had, to Mr Stoner, then off we went to have a quick smoke outside while the CaRT/Shoosmiths contingent huddled in a conference room. They unilaterally decided that agreement was not going to be feasible, so when the hour was over Mr Stoner regretfully announced that agreement was not going to be possible, and we made a rather late start with me outlining Leigh’s case.

As usual, once I started deviating from my written notes I was faced with having to talk off the cuff, and I just hope I managed to cover the salient points in the hour or so before we broke off for lunch. I had to finish with saying I would need to refer her to the Skeleton for anything I had omitted, but in retrospect, I do wish I had taken more time, and had taken her through my exhibits and authorities to make my points, rather than simply referring to them. In fact, some of the going through those were done by Mr Stoner, which was tactical on his part [intending to ward off some of the stronger points], but helpful in my opinion, to Leigh’s case, thankfully. I am still not entirely sure of the “rules” regarding this.

From some of the Judge’s earlier comments, and discussing with Mr Stoner, we decided that we could dispense with cross-examination provided that we could not be held to agree with anything disputed. The judge took a very pragmatic approach to that, and suggested we hand up a list of those things in the statement we disagreed with. Surprisingly, then, Mr Stoner said that witnesses should at least take the stand and be sworn in, and once there, he really went to town on Leigh, attempting to get enough to trip him. In my opinion, Leigh did very well. I doubt that Mr Stoner’s main angle that the licence fees were only brought up by Mr Garner in reply to Leigh did him any good. He made an issue of Leigh having said “What do I owe on licence fees” on the video, as an acknowledgment that he owed them and that Mr Garner was only answering that question, so that the question over whether they should be paid as well to get the boat back was not in evidence at that point in time – the demand was a later slip-up.

I had a chat with Leigh, and we decided to stick with the ‘minimal intervention’ plan, so my cross-examination was minimal. I rather liked Mr Deards; it would be profitable to sit down and discuss with him the whole approach they take at some point, though it could have been a court persona of reasonableness that has taken me in; I would hope not. Maybe thinking over some of what I have said will sink in, having been forced to sit and hear the case for the disproportionality of how they use s.8.

Mr Garner I spent very little time with and only asked 2 questions. The last was simply whether he had been shown Leigh’s response to the late Shoosmiths letter proposing narrowing the issues by dropping that which they had admitted [Yes], and then asking why he did not see fit to include that response which demonstrated that Leigh had not simply refused flatly the proposal, but had explained his position and made a counter proposal [it is buried in a separate bundle unrelated to the Garner Statement exhibits]. But the first of those was the one bit I decided I could not let go by, where he claimed in his sworn statement that Shoosmiths had written on a certain date affirming that CaRT was not holding the boat as a lien on debt. I took him to that email and asked him to show the court just exactly where that was said. As he had to admit, it simply was not there at all [it was an invention to play down the problem for them over this issue]. I am told by those at the back that his expression was a picture.

The Judge had something else on the next morning, so we didn’t start until 2pm. We were not able to work out the Court’s Monitor and connection to my laptop, so we adjourned the video watching for the next day, while Mr Stoner put the case for CaRT. The rest of the afternoon was on the main navigable channel interpretation.

Wednesday morning was the chance to play the videos, and after a chat with Leigh, decided to show only 3 clips, but I think they were telling ones, despite having too much extraneous nonsense involving the police. Significantly, the first showing Mr Garner trying to get close to Leigh while Leigh was walking back from as he spoke, was a significantly different picture to the nose to nose intimidation as portrayed in the witness statement, and how anyone can mistake the lashing out of his hand at the camera without even looking at whoever it was, for a polite reasoned request with a hand held up just to block the view and not striking the camera, is beyond me. We also had the very clear introduction of the 4 year licence fee being mentioned, and Leigh’s father demanding to know what those amounted to so he could pay on the spot.

Mr Stoner then took the rest of the time to one o’clock presenting CaRT’s case re: proportionality and “distress”.

After lunch I had about 2&1/2 hours to address certain points raised by Mr Stoner, and because I had introduced something not dealt with earlier, Mr Stoner was able to briefly respond to those.

I am not going to say much more than this for now, while the Judge deliberates; others who were there could provide their own views freely should they wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-5-24 at 16:52, Phil. said:

It will be surprising if a result is known for sometime after the hearing as I would expect judgement will be reserved.

Yes, the Judge has reserved judgment. This is normal in any complex case where the Judge is going to have to recount the pros & cons; cite case law and legal maxims, and demonstrate the reasoning that has led to their decision. And this case has 3 layers to it. That takes time. The 3 months is the maximum time they have for handing down a judgment [unless that has changed since last I looked].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-5-24 at 15:41, PhilAtterley said:

They also perpetuated the same lie in the run up to the trial which should be coming to a close in the High Court about now. I recall that they tried to laugh off the attempt to use the Section 8'ing of Leigh Ravenscroft's boat at Newark as a means of recovery of alleged debt as a one off, innocent 'mistake' !

This aspect was the last considered, and Mr Stoner really went to town seeking to play the whole thing down - to a rather dangerous extent I thought; some of what was said almost seemed to suggest that even the communications admitted by CaRT to be wrong, could be interpreted as not explicitly demanding payment of the alleged arrears.

Thankfully, that was one area where my response gave an opportunity to read out the relevant correspondence over a month - from Mr Garner's own exhibits no less - that definitively give the lie to any suggestion that Shoosmiths & CaRT were not fully aware of the challenge on this specific point both by Ms Thomas and Leigh, to which nothing was said other than "your points are noted", while saying he could only get the boat back upon paying the demanded sums [they only backed off on the Court costs order originally included, because that was subject to appeal]!

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.