Jump to content

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


Horace42

Featured Posts

I have just read in Waterways World - page 31 of November 2016 issue that a boat owner is suing CRT in the High Court for return of £8,000 being the charges and costs he had to pay CRT for the return of his boat that they had removed under Section 8 rule for non payment of the license fee.

His basic case is a license is not required for a boat not moored in the 'main navigable channel' - for which he wants the court to narrow down the meaning.

This is my precis of the WW article.

I could post a verbatim copy of it, but I am not sure about copyright laws in this respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following significant review and on going discussion, I would like to re-open this thread.

 

Please respect this decision, and my apologies for the time taken to review this case and others.

 

 

 

Daniel

Site Owner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I was gong to put a funny (snide) reply.

But having read DHutchs comment I won't.

Thanks for letting it go. I would like this to continue.

Horace please share some of your good fortune with me ( & no that wasn't the snide remark I was going to make)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone won a case against CRT?

 

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

 

It seems that if you have a watertight case against CRT, you need buckets of money because then legal team for CRT will play with you till you can't afford to fight anymore. Knowing it's our own (not theirs) money their fighting you with

 

Am I right, or have I missed a chunk of news so where?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone won a case against CRT?

 

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

 

It seems that if you have a watertight case against CRT, you need buckets of money because then legal team for CRT will play with you till you can't afford to fight anymore. Knowing it's our own (not theirs) money their fighting you with

 

Am I right, or have I missed a chunk of news so where?

I think you will find that Mr. Moore did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winning a case would mean

That you continue doing what they tried to stop you doing

And award solicitor costs etc.

And any compensation or recourse asked for.

 

Just wondered if this ever happened

Appearing at least once, they have lossed. Mr Moore?

 

At least there's one,

So wondering how many cases have CRT won against us the boaters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone won a case against CRT?

 

 

Yes I have.

 

I was unable to continue what I was doing because I wasn't doing anything.

 

I wasn't awarded solicitor's costs because I represented myself.

 

I was awarded the full amount of my counter claim.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been other 'cases' where C&RT have decided to stop the legal process after a date has been given by the court, but, before that date 'arrives'

 

Does that count as a 'win' ?

There have also been other cases where the person being taken to court has at the last moment halted proceedings by, for example purchasing a licence, before the court date.

 

Does that count as a "win?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have also been other cases where the person being taken to court has at the last moment halted proceedings by, for example purchasing a licence, before the court date.

 

Does that count as a "win?"

 

Maybe because C&RT used the 'wrong' legislation to commence legal action, that 'loophole' would not be available if they followed the correct route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sir, is a win

 

But my (now edited) glaring "there's/theirs" error was a definite lose.

 

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.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carlt To me that was a Win, well done sir

 

Loosing your triumph herald I agree a great loss

 

But reading through, right to the end shoesmiths were playing you.

If you hadn't gone to court, Being told it was over.

As far as the court was concerned it was still commencing

 

 

 

Dog and bone comes to mind

 

Greenie time

Edited by bigcol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mackenzie Friends issue is, I think, going to get more and more difficult for he courts to refuse, as legal aid is now virtually impossible to get and lawyers are out of the price range of anyone short of a couple of million quid - the effect of which means that any access to justice available to the ordinary person is virtually nil. Courts are already complaining they're getting clogged up by litigants in person (I mean, for gods sake, some of them don't even understand Latin) and important people like judges are actually having to help them. And there still seem to be one or two judges actually interested in seeing justice done rather than just getting a quick exit to the golf course. Probably not many, but maybe one or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mackenzie Friends issue is, I think, going to get more and more difficult for he courts to refuse, as legal aid is now virtually impossible to get and lawyers are out of the price range of anyone short of a couple of million quid - the effect of which means that any access to justice available to the ordinary person is virtually nil. Courts are already complaining they're getting clogged up by litigants in person (I mean, for gods sake, some of them don't even understand Latin) and important people like judges are actually having to help them. And there still seem to be one or two judges actually interested in seeing justice done rather than just getting a quick exit to the golf course. Probably not many, but maybe one or two.

You are I am sure right but MFs are not new. What is getting the legal community in a bit of a tiz is the matter of allowing MFs to speak to the court. Hitherto they have largely been confined to 'whispering in the ear' of the litigant.

 

L-i-p may possibly also be at the less substantial end of the wealth spectrum (shall we say) and thus unable to meet any costs awarded against them. Hence, the other party has an interest in keeping costs as low as possible since they end up meeting at least their own side's costs. Courts also don't like having to spend more that necessary on cases, especially those with limited chance of success.

 

It is clear that even with the ever-so-slightly-less austerity-minded government, the pressure is going to be on the reduction of the cost to the public purse of justice and that will inevitably be to the detriment of those with limited means (and not-so-limited as well)

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.