Jump to content

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


Horace42

Featured Posts

6 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

More to the point, I'm curious about how Leigh has funded the action taken so far. 

If he ends up being responsible for paying CRT's costs then I would imagine this will bankrupt him. In which case he has nothing more to lose by fighting on.

As they say, "beware the man with nothing left to lose".

It could be argued that if he was backed up financially by lots of sympathisers, it would have a bigger PR effect and encourage that individual to carry on the battle. 

It seems quite a few people here support Nigel in his efforts to help. Why not put your money where your mouth is? 

I'm sure someone here knows how to set up a crowd funding account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Not knowing much asbout rivers is there a single agreed depth for a stretch of river or is it X metres at the bank and Y m in the channel?

Nigel may well 'sort out' my terminology.

Taking the River Trent from Meadow Lane to Cromwell Lock - the Main navigable channel which BW determined to dredge was 11 metres wide and 2 metres deep.

This was confirmed by :

1) The Fraenkel Report of 1975 which set the dredged depth at 2 metres.

2) BW Maintenance standards document dated 2000 (11 metres x 2 metres)

3) MOC Navigation Channel Maintenance Standards 2006 (11 metres x 2 metres)

4) Hydro-Team standards 2010 (11 metres x 2 metres)

 

So my suggestion is that if the MNC is 'good enough' to be bank-to-bank when it comes to collecting licence money, then it should be good enough to go bank-to-bank when it comes to 'spending money'.

However - I think that it will be a case of the MNC changes to suit the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Paul C said:

I shudder to ask but - if Leigh undertook no further legal action from this point on - what's the current bill in £?

Disregarding the approximate £9k that is being appealed in November, there is the £9k awarded against him for CaRT’s partial success in their strike-out application, plus the £81k for the main case [that is ordered to be assessed, with a minimum £30k payable within 2 months].

The latter figure includes the £4,800 spent on their application to have me debarred – even though they lost that; Leigh not only does not get costs awarded in his favour for that hearing, he has to pay their costs! This is because of the wording of the Order following that earlier hearing which obviously neither of us understood the effect of. She said it was not the Order she would have made, but that she could not vary it.

That, I believe, is disingenuous; she could have exercised her discretion even to the point of demanding each side bear their own costs, but she evidently wishes to send a strong signal to anyone else hoping to challenge CaRT. These overall figures are not considered steep for such actions. If you employed an equivalent team on your side, it would costs as much, with the loser facing a cost of around £200k all up.

MtB is right: using such costs as a tactic can backfire; the EA are far more canny, as they illustrated with their actions post their latest Appeal Court win. Having won what they wanted, they offered nominal costs for those prepared to accept the Judgment. It worked.

 

edit to correct summary costs figure.

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

She evidently wishes to send a strong signal to anyone else hoping to challenge CaRT. 

Maybe that's what this is all about, it seems to be working. 

What's your feeling about crowd funding?

Edited by rowland al
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rowland al said:

Maybe that's what this all about, it seems to be working. 

What's your feeling about crowd funding?

I agree with your previous comments. Massive practical backing would send an appropriate and effective message. Otherwise, Leigh is seen as a lone dissident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

I agree with your previous comments. Massive practical backing would send an appropriate and effective message. Otherwise, Leigh is seen as a lone dissident.

No disrespect to Leigh or yourself, but I would imagine if this was about, say an elderly disabled boater who has his boat removed for being incorrectly flagged as overstaying, it might be easier to gain public support. Then again I doubt CRT would be silly enough to take a case like that on.

This case has succeeded in sending the message CRT want, without too much mud in the face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Another question - if the MNC has been set by a court to mean 'bank to bank', will the MNC be dredged to the agreed depths, or will it be as the previous Waterways Ombudsman stated – “British Waterways themselves can sometimes interpret legislation in different ways depending on what suits them in a particular case”.

No. If I have read it aright, she considers that the same phrase means something entirely different in the 1968 Act, and that you cannot use that meaning to assist with the later meaning anyway.

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

Not knowing much asbout rivers is there a single agreed depth for a stretch of river or is it X metres at the bank and Y m in the channel?

The dimension analysis is set out in various papers and spreadsheets: -

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj7qe-nm6TVAhUCIcAKHUc9C3oQFggoMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.britishwaterways.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fdocuments%2Fmeetings%2Fwusig%2FWUSIG-MOC-dimensions-paper-April-2011.doc&usg=AFQjCNERMnyOhnelH3743FNDl0VZOA3ifg

The spreadsheet of various formulae: -

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/meetings/wusig/MOC-dimensions-comparison-v3-110311.xls

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with Mike Leigh now has nothing to lose so he might as well go on CRT must realise that they have backed him into a corner? Also I would have thought that if CRT claim that the whole of the channel is bank to bank then a few measurements proving that in practise its not might go down well with the court ie its all supposed to be 2 meters deep however why is all this at the edges six inches deep?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I tend to agree with Mike Leigh now has nothing to lose so he might as well go on CRT must realise that they have backed him into a corner? Also I would have thought that if CRT claim that the whole of the channel is bank to bank then a few measurements proving that in practise its not might go down well with the court ie its all supposed to be 2 meters deep however why is all this at the edges six inches deep?

But as Nigel points out the Judge considers the  MNC for registration (licence) is bank-to-bank, but the MNC as referenced for the purposes of dredging is totally different and is only 11m x 2 m running down (the approximate) centre of the River.

Don't forget that a 'place' also has a variable meaning - it can be a specific boat shaped/sized area when applied to a boat with a home mooring, or it can be 'half of a county' when applied to a boat without a home mooring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

This stinks.

How was Leigh supposed to comply with a definition of the law many years ago that was only made up by the judge last week, and he couldn't have possibly known that the MNC means something different to all the known evidence at the time ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Muddy Ditch Rich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

"the Judge considers the  MNC for registration (licence) is bank-to-bank, but the MNC as referenced for the purposes of dredging is totally different "

 

This stinks.

How was Leigh supposed to comply with a definition of the law many years ago that was only made up by the judge last week, and he couldn't have possibly known that the MNC means something different to all the known evidence at the time ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it is the 'case' then I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

 

 

This stinks.

How was Leigh supposed to comply with a definition of the law many years ago that was only made up by the judge last week, and he couldn't have possibly known that the MNC means something different to all the known evidence at the time ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess the easier way around it would have been to licence the boat and then argue the point in court to get those costs refunded.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is true that this would have been a simpler way supposing you wanted to make a point of it - but Leigh didn't want to make a point of it. He was confident enough that he did not need a licence while moored to the bank, and was just finishing off preparation to get one when the boat was taken. The lesson in that is that it is always sensible to talk with the authority and let them know your intentions and position, but that was spilt milk after the event. Besides, supposing that court action was determined upon either way, the costs liability would be the same, so "easier way around" is not really true - there was though, a mild drawback in the evident history of ignoring communications, which may have factored into the attitude taken by the court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

I guess the easier way around it would have been to licence the boat and then argue the point in court to get those costs refunded.

 

But that wouldn't have been as effective as a means of sending a message. Would that have caused as much fuss on here, farcebook and other social media sources?

As is often the case with this sort of thing, there may be many agendas involved. People with a chip on their shoulder, people who genuinely  care, people with a political or business agenda jumping on the bandwagon. 

Look how the story with that poor baby Charlie has been used. Look how much crowd funding was raised come to think about it. Hopefully going to a good cause.

 

Edited by rowland al
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rowland al said:

No disrespect to Leigh or yourself, but I would imagine if this was about, say an elderly disabled boater who has his boat removed for being incorrectly flagged as overstaying, it might be easier to gain public support. Then again I doubt CRT would be silly enough to take a case like that on.

The evidence is that they are perfectly prepared to take on such cases, An extreme case was Leslie Horne, where summary expenses were awarded of £20k [they might have spent double that] for achieving a court order enabling them to spend in excess of another £5k to remove the boat leaving her on the towpath alone. There was a fair bit of flak over that, but nothing they could not take in their stride. Then you have the bizarre case of Mayers, which overall cost them in excess of £110k and counting, plus other dubious instances where vulnerable people were involved.

I agree that such cases are more likely to attract sympathy - but I have never heard of any of those cases attracting financial support. The closest thing was the Cotswoldsman drive for funding transcripts of the first Wingfield case - and very useful material that produced too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

The evidence is that they are perfectly prepared to take on such cases, An extreme case was Leslie Horne, where summary expenses were awarded of £20k [they might have spent double that] for achieving a court order enabling them to spend in excess of another £5k to remove the boat leaving her on the towpath alone. There was a fair bit of flak over that, but nothing they could not take in their stride. Then you have the bizarre case of Mayers, which overall cost them in excess of £110k and counting, plus other dubious instances where vulnerable people were involved.

I agree that such cases are more likely to attract sympathy - but I have never heard of any of those cases attracting financial support. The closest thing was the Cotswoldsman drive for funding transcripts of the first Wingfield case - and very useful material that produced too.

 

To which I contributed, in case rowland al has forgotten. 

 

4 hours ago, rowland al said:

 

It seems quite a few people here support Nigel in his efforts to help. Why not put your money where your mouth is? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

The evidence is that they are perfectly prepared to take on such cases, An extreme case was Leslie Horne, where summary expenses were awarded of £20k [they might have spent double that] for achieving a court order enabling them to spend in excess of another £5k to remove the boat leaving her on the towpath alone. There was a fair bit of flak over that, but nothing they could not take in their stride. Then you have the bizarre case of Mayers, which overall cost them in excess of £110k and counting, plus other dubious instances where vulnerable people were involved.

I agree that such cases are more likely to attract sympathy - but I have never heard of any of those cases attracting financial support. The closest thing was the Cotswoldsman drive for funding transcripts of the first Wingfield case - and very useful material that produced too.

Maybe getting to the bottom of the truth is more important than supporting a cause sometimes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

It is true that this would have been a simpler way supposing you wanted to make a point of it - but Leigh didn't want to make a point of it. He was confident enough that he did not need a licence while moored to the bank, and was just finishing off preparation to get one when the boat was taken. The lesson in that is that it is always sensible to talk with the authority and let them know your intentions and position, but that was spilt milk after the event. Besides, supposing that court action was determined upon either way, the costs liability would be the same, so "easier way around" is not really true - there was though, a mild drawback in the evident history of ignoring communications, which may have factored into the attitude taken by the court.

 

I suspect this is the nub of it. Had Leigh engaged with CRT in the first place, each side's arguments could have been rehearsed in advance at virtually zero cost. Whereas CRT, faced (IIRC) with radio silence from Leigh, felt they had no choice but to take the boat. Is that a fair summary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I suspect this is the nub of it. Had Leigh engaged with CRT in the first place, each side's arguments could have been rehearsed in advance at virtually zero cost. Whereas CRT, faced (IIRC) with radio silence from Leigh, felt they had no choice but to take the boat. Is that a fair summary?

I would say that was a fair summary of what they thought. I would disagree with them [and did] that this was the only choice open to them, but as argued in the Defence documents and at court, they feel it is the only effective choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

The final corrected judgment has now been approved, for those wanting first hand material to analyse.

https://www.scribd.com/document/354679706/FINAL-Ravenscroft-v-CRT

I will be interested in informed comments.

I think I would tend to think along the same lines as MtB in that Leigh's failure to engage with CRT at an early stage is probably the crux of the problem. Whilst you made a spirited effort of highlighting the Enforcement Officer, Stuart Garner's 'perjuries in his evidence, Justice Asplin seems to directly accuse Leigh of much the same in his evidence as she itemises in 24, 25 and 26 of the Judgement to quote, ".... I am unable to accept his evidence in this regard....." regarding his reasons  for not responding to the various letters and patrol notices dating back to 2012, call me old fashioned but she is effectively calling him a liar. Whilst I accept his dyslexia, ignoring such notices, even if you feel that you are in the right, is similar to ignoring debt enforcement notices even if you don't owe any money, it is unlikely to end well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t need to call you old fashioned to agree that she certainly IS calling Leigh a liar, and that this had to be prejudicial to his case. Still, however natural it might be to have feelings influenced by that, the question ought to have been whether, and if so in what way, his [rejected] evidence affected the issues in the case.

The fact that he ought to have responded – at least having finally had sight of the last notice, which he admits to seeing – and did not, makes it easier for CaRT to justify going ahead and taking the boat, but does not affect the issue of whether he was in or out of the MNC, whether that was a proportionate response, and most definitely cannot adversely influence any decision on whether they should get away with using possession as leverage to force payment of the alleged arrears.

Garner’s evidence, on the other hand, was a transparent effort to place words in their solicitor’s mouths to deny that they had even the intention of holding the boat as lien on the ‘licence’ fees, which in itself shows a recognition that they were on dodgy ground on this issue. Yet the judge not only makes no criticism of him for the bald lie, she goes so far as to suggest that the wording was his evidence of what CaRT’s intentions were, which she is obviously accepting – that is extraordinary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

The evidence is that they are perfectly prepared to take on such cases, An extreme case was Leslie Horne, where summary expenses were awarded of £20k [they might have spent double that] for achieving a court order enabling them to spend in excess of another £5k to remove the boat leaving her on the towpath alone. There was a fair bit of flak over that, but nothing they could not take in their stride. Then you have the bizarre case of Mayers, which overall cost them in excess of £110k and counting, plus other dubious instances where vulnerable people were involved.

I agree that such cases are more likely to attract sympathy - but I have never heard of any of those cases attracting financial support. The closest thing was the Cotswoldsman drive for funding transcripts of the first Wingfield case - and very useful material that produced too.

The Horne case was NEVER going to end well, and I'm not sure what alternatives there were.

Here we had a lady, who had mental health issues, moored up for well over 12 months (might have been 2 years) in a prime mooring spot, with a mocked up licence saying "Here by Right", with a tent occupying part of the towpath.

Just ignoring her wasn't a long term option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, mayalld said:

The Horne case was NEVER going to end well, and I'm not sure what alternatives there were.

No arguing with that, though I think there were certainly far better alternatives; it is a good illustration though, that they do not shy away from situations that provoke public outcry and sympathy - and that fellow-boater support tends more to the verbal rather than practical variety on the whole in such situations. That is a gross generalisation of course and there are many who do not fit into that category - but it is valid for the point at issue I believe.

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.