Lightship Advertised for Sale

[WotEver]

Has CRT's actions in this matter been found to be illegal? Or is the situation one where some people have formed the opinion that whilst CRT's actions are legal, they are disproportionate?

I believe that only a court can decide whether their actions are illegal, or illegally disproportionate.

[Naughty Cal]

I believe that only a court can decide whether their actions are illegal, or illegally disproportionate.

Surely if you were the owner of a £100k asset that you thought had been taken illegally you would be starting those court proceedings pretty quickly?

[WotEver]

Surely if you were the owner of a £100k asset that you thought had been taken illegally you would be starting those court proceedings pretty quickly?

 

Even if it's going to cost you £200k in legal fees that you don't have in order to do so?

[NigelMoore]

Has CRT's actions in this matter been found to be illegal? Or is the situation one where some people have formed the opinion that whilst CRT's actions are legal, they are disproportionate?

 

No court action has been filed let alone determined in the lightship case, so the obvious answer is NO, they have not been found to have acted illegally.

 

If their actions in this case were found to be disproportionate, then that would be illegal because against the HRA apart from anything else; the 2 positions are tied together rather than distinct.

 

If, moreover, proportionality aside, it was found that their actions violated other statutes, as alleged, then the situation with individual responsibility would likewise apply. So, for example, if increasing the cost and difficulty of reclaiming the boat was due to it having been "driven out of the county", then those responsible should be "grieviously punished by Amerciament."

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Hen3cc1415/52/1

 

‘Amerciament’ is an arbitrary punishment to be determined by the authorities. The same punishment applies to actions taken that involve any undue and/or unreasonable exercise of lien. It is just such a circumstance as this, that militates - in my opinion - against the Law Commission recommendations that this clause of the statute should be abolished as being rendered redundant by other legislation; no other I know of pinpoints the protection so precisely and elegantly.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Even if it's going to cost you £200k in legal fees that you don't have in order to do so?

 

C&RT have 'unlimited funds' to throw at these cases - the latest being the £500,000+ it cost them when they went for an out of court settlement on the 'dangerous lock' that has snagged many boats and resulted in one sinking.

 

Its not 'their money' they appear to work on the 'lets try it and see what happens - if we look like losing we can settle. - Nothing lost' philosophy

[NigelMoore]

Surely if you were the owner of a £100k asset . . .

 

We cannot be confident that a ‘mere’ £100k is the value of the asset. That is the minimum value that has been placed on it by CaRT [“offers in excess of . . .”], who need only [from their own point of view] to make sure that their outlay is repayable from the proceeds. They do not much care how much is left over for the owner; in fact they probably hope it is not very much. The duty to obtain the best price possible is, of course, a general legal principle regardless of specific legislation.

[NigelMoore]

 

It is just such a circumstance as this, that militates - in my opinion - against the Law Commission recommendations that this clause of the statute should be abolished as being rendered redundant by other legislation;

 

Actually, from my recall of the LC Report, it was not that this clause was now redundant in view of later legislation at all - it was because they considered that the cost and difficulty implications of distance in these days of cheap rapid transport rendered the clause inapplicable.

 

Must try to find it again and check it up. I did write to the commission and to one of the Law Lords over this, but never received any acknowledgement. This case, however, [coming long after my contribution] is a superb example of why Clause IV remains an important protection, potentially applicable to all the s.8 cases as well. It is yet another item for Geoff Mayers to include in any future action over 'Pearl' [which could easily have been moved to the CBS nearby yard instead of taken in the opposite direction to yet another across country].

Edited December 5, 2016 by NigelMoore

[NigelMoore]

Have been trying to find what I referred to earlier, but cannot; things obviously moved on since I first read what must have been a draft of the Report.

 

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/lc357_20th_statute_law_repeals_report.pdf

 

GROUP 5 - MISCELLANEOUS REPEALS

 

Reference Extent of repeal 52 Hen.3 (1267) (Statute of Marlborough) In Chapter 4, the first paragraph. Chapter 15.

 

This final version does appear to have been modified very slightly from when I responded to it, but not significantly enough.

 

There are two elements that apply in Leigh’s case, chapter XV prohibits seizing goods on the King’s Highway [excepting the King or his Officers having special authority to do the same]. I have to admit that this is covered in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, Schedule 12 s.9( b ), so I cannot complain about that one, and for Leigh it does not matter whether the offence was under the 1267 or the 2007 Act; the offence is the same.

 

For clarity – this clause does not [or at least did not] apply to the lightship case, because “seizure” is not really the correct term; CaRT did not take the boat under their control, it already was under their control, hence the application of the Torts Act on my argument.

 

However – for both cases the first paragraph of Clause IV applies, and this remains recommended for abolition [the whole used to be]. The part of the chapter dealing with undue and unreasonable distresses stays.

 

 

6.34 Chapter 4 This Chapter is now unnecessary in so far as it prohibits the removal of distrained goods out of the debtor’s home county. Civil justice is today administered on a national rather than on a county basis. Moreover the regulations made under the 2007 Act provide that the enforcement agent must, save in exceptional circumstances, remove the goods and secure them in or at a place that is within a reasonable distance from the place where control was taken of them.

 

6.35 The one provision in Chapter 4 that may still have some value is in its final paragraph which provides that “distresses shall be reasonable, and not too great”. This appears to prohibit any distress where more goods are seized than are reasonably required to satisfy the debts and costs. The 2007 Act does in fact prohibit an enforcement agent from taking control of goods that exceed the value of the debt owed. Since, however, the right to levy distress still exists in some circumstances outside the protection of the new regime established by the 2007 Act, the overarching prohibition in Chapter 4 against unreasonable distress may be worth retaining on the statute book. Accordingly we do not propose the repeal of this part of Chapter 4.

 

 

This is new, and differs from the previous [19^th] Report &/or the draft version of the 20^th Report. What this appears to suggest is that removal out of the County was to remove from the appropriate jurisdiction [which can no longer apply], and goes on to say that the 2007 Act covers most of the mischief which this clause was designed to remedy. But it cannot – surely? Unless the common law right of lien is abolished altogether [in which case as I see it, no contractual arrangement can possibly overturn that], then the rules now binding officers of the court need statutory application to the public.

 

For interest, which I have yet to investigate fully, the Report refers to a further ‘amendment’ to the 2007 Act in the form of The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 –

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1894/contents/made

 

Obviously I need to research this more deeply.

 

One little item from the 20^th Statute Law Report on Marlborough is of interest though [cannot find the version I read at the first], was that Clause/Chapter I applied to individuals not just ‘authorities’ so was still of pertinent use.

 

Absolutely says I – in line with my previous posts on individual accountability.

[NigelMoore]

One little item from the 20^th Statute Law Report on Marlborough is of interest though [cannot find the version I read at the first], was that Clause/Chapter I applied to individuals not just ‘authorities’ so was still of pertinent use.

 

Got that slightly wrong; the whole of Marlborough is directed at individual responsibility, and the modern legislation follows suit. It is the fact that the 2007 Act does not impose criminal sanction for the behaviour of taking distress without a court order; only Chapter 1 of Marlborough does that, so the Report recommended [back in 2010] that Chapter 1 should not be repealed.

 

It seems rather extraordinary does it not? Modern legislators go to all that time and trouble after extensive consultation and Parliamentary debate and Select Committee analysis, and still overlook something that less than half a dozen conscientious legislators drafted around 850 years ago!

[raymondh]

Do cart own or rent the dock area that the none paying boat owner occupied whilst trading

 

Just a thought as it would explain the removal

[NigelMoore]

Do cart own or rent the dock area that the none paying boat owner occupied whilst trading

 

Just a thought as it would explain the removal

 

CaRT claim ownership of the dock, and I have no reason to doubt that.

 

How would ownership v rental affect the question of whether the boat ‘needed’ to be removed?

 

To repeat myself over getting the boat removed from their property [whether as owners or tenants makes no difference]: they were fully entitled to require and enable that. The only question is whether they opted to do so legally or illegally.

 

It would have been so easy to have accomplished the removal entirely within the law and with court sanction for extra surety, and to have done this well over a year ago, if that was their inclination. [in fact it was only within the last 6 months or so that they decided they didn’t want Planet/the owner on their premises anymore.]

 

At best, it was an extraordinarily poor decision on every conceivable count, to not rely on the Torts Act process for lawful removal/disposal, which is precisely what that Act was designed to accomplish.

[NigelMoore]

For what it is worth, someone has posted an online petition for return of Planet to Liverpool.

 

It could have been worded more accurately, and it is concerned only with the Liverpudlian heritage aspect, so those approving of CaRT’s actions as against the owner could still sign up on the basis of wanting to see the boat return to the area [i see no need to return it to CaRT’s dock at all, and see no justification for imposing such a requirement – such a comment could be added when signing].

 

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/bring-back-liverpool-s-planet-lightship

[hounddog]

In the unlikely event of the petition succeeding CBS will still get their corrupt £50K out of our money.

 

That they will still collect even when CRT fail at the court steps.

[Chewbacka]

In the unlikely event of the petition succeeding CBS will still get their corrupt £50K out of our money.

 

That they will still collect even when CRT fail at the court steps.

Bit harsh, they quoted for the job and were given the contract.

[NigelMoore]

Bit harsh, they quoted for the job and were given the contract.

 

I am really not sure of the CBS position. Much will depend upon the degree of responsibility such contractors bear, when asked to remove third party property in this manner. Have they an obligation to ensure that what they are asked to do is legal? Would that gain a greater imperative when they know that dispute over the legality of their actions exists?

 

It could be pertinent to know which party in all this purported to employ the “bailiffs”, who remain resolutely anonymous. As is usual with similar situations, doubtless the police presence lent a misplaced confidence in the validity of the seizure.

 

The procedure followed by police in these circumstances is not uniform across the country; some automatically assume that if something is done by an authority such as CaRT, then that is good enough for them to support their actions, and they see no reason to question whether “bailiffs” are even court authorised officers, let alone acting on proper warrants or court orders.

 

Others demand to see the credentials of alleged bailiffs, and check out what are often bogus Orders for possession. This latter category of police department seem to be rare though.

 

It would seem inevitable that the supposed bailiffs were employed by either CaRT or CBS, but neither is willing to elucidate. If they have falsely represented them as court authorised officers, then a grave offence has occurred and the very fact of the dissimulation would indicate knowledge of shaky ground.

 

There seems less uncertainty over the sale procedure. If, as has been suggested, prospective buyers are being assured by CBS – following phone calls from the CaRT solicitor – “that the Trust are now the legal owners under 'contractual rights' following seizure 'against unpaid debts'”, then they are being horrendously careless. Is there some oversight body responsible for ensuring that brokers take proper steps to satisfy themselves that those instructing them have the right to sell?

 

[Paul C]

I vaguely recall an anomoly with the actual ownership of the vessel, in that the ownership was transferred quite recently, while it was still in Liverpool and disputed etc. I'll have a quick look in the previous thread and see if I can find it.

 

In that case (and indeed irrespective)....can the current claimed owner prove ownership moreso than CRT can prove they can sell it due to the seizure/contract etc?

 

Update: http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=86936&p=1887268

 

Indeed, it was suggested, and the boat's own website showed that a change of ownership occured very recently.

 

 

 

Interestingly, while Mr Roberts may have shouted “Stop, stop. It’s my ship, my ship”, according to the boat's website, it isn't. It's now owned by a Gary Anderton, to whom it was transferred sometime this year. Alan Roberts owned it from 2008, so it's odd that the fact that he (or whoever actually does own it now) owed a few bob in fees came as such a surprise. Nor why he should be so upset if he doesn't own it any more. Why ownership was transferred is open to speculation, which I won't.

 

If this is true then it puts a significantly different light on things, Alan Roberts would be unable to gain an injunction preventing selling someone else's boat etc, and Tony Dunkley isn't "the owner's representative" etc etc

Edited December 6, 2016 by Paul C

[hounddog]

Bit harsh, they quoted for the job and were given the contract.

 

Really? Due diligence? Over £50,000 to tow a boat Liverpool to Sharpness?

 

What is it? The Titanic?

 

I am sorry but any measure this is corruption of a high degree. I don' know how they got this contract but you can be sure it wasn't through competitive tender.

 

Even if CRT do eventually recover this cost from the sale, it's no way for a public body to behave, this is essentially gambling with our money.

No-one is personally liable so who gives a toss?

 

It's not going to cost the 'responsible' officers of CRT a penny no matter which way it falls.

[Arthur Marshall]

I vaguely recall an anomoly with the actual ownership of the vessel, in that the ownership was transferred quite recently, while it was still in Liverpool and disputed etc. I'll have a quick look in the previous thread and see if I can find it.

 

In that case (and indeed irrespective)....can the current claimed owner prove ownership moreso than CRT can prove they can sell it due to the seizure/contract etc?

 

Update: http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=86936&p=1887268

 

Indeed, it was suggested, and the boat's own website showed that a change of ownership occured very recently.

 

 

 

 

If this is true then it puts a significantly different light on things, Alan Roberts would be unable to gain an injunction preventing selling someone else's boat etc, and Tony Dunkley isn't "the owner's representative" etc etc

He seems to be now treated as the owner by everyone concerned, which makes me think it was just a (failed) ploy to muddy the waters a bit and to try to evade any responsibility by claiming it was under different ownership, presumably by the standard business practice of flogging it to another interested party for a couple of quid who will then disclaim any responsibility for past debts while the original owner avoids any personal liability under the limited company rules. As far as I know, no-one is claiming that Mr Roberts is an example of good business behaviour. I can't imagine that Tony would be involved unless he'd made certain at least of the basic facts.

[Arthur Marshall]

Even if CRT do eventually recover this cost from the sale, it's no way for a public body to behave, this is essentially gambling with our money.

No-one is personally liable so who gives a toss?

 

.

I'm not sure that CRT is a public body, technically. BW was, but I think CRT is a different sort of entity. Nigel will know. There again, if it's no way to behave, I can't see it makes much difference whether it is or isn't, unless you think private companies shouldn't behave ethically, which I don't imagine you do. But once you get into a debate about the ethics of it, this could go on for ever, which is why the courts deal with law and facts, not opinion and morality.

[Paul C]

He seems to be now treated as the owner by everyone concerned, which makes me think it was just a (failed) ploy to muddy the waters a bit and to try to evade any responsibility by claiming it was under different ownership, presumably by the standard business practice of flogging it to another interested party for a couple of quid who will then disclaim any responsibility for past debts while the original owner avoids any personal liability under the limited company rules. As far as I know, no-one is claiming that Mr Roberts is an example of good business behaviour. I can't imagine that Tony would be involved unless he'd made certain at least of the basic facts.

 

That's my understanding too, but in doing so it could prove to be a fatal flaw, if there is a challenge on the "legality" of CRT selling it; then a counterchallenge on the actual ownership of the vessel anyway. Hence why I asked about SSR, which is by no means infallible but is a more respected system of formally recording ownership than the options without.

[David Mack]

Do cart own or rent the dock area that the none paying boat owner occupied whilst trading

 

Just a thought as it would explain the removal

The southern docks were transferred to the Merseyside Development Corporation in the 1980s, when the Albert Dock buildings were refurbished and the whole area was opened up to the public. When MDC was abolished the docks were transferred to English Partnerships, and on the winding up of EP BW took over the water space.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

That's my understanding too, but in doing so it could prove to be a fatal flaw, if there is a challenge on the "legality" of CRT selling it; then a counterchallenge on the actual ownership of the vessel anyway. Hence why I asked about SSR, which is by no means infallible but is a more respected system of formally recording ownership than the options without.

There is little doubt that Alan Roberts can produce evidence that he purchased Planet from Gary McClarnan in 2008.

Unless Gary Anderton comes forward and presents evidence that he purchased the ship from Alan Roberts, CaRT have absolutely no evidence that Mr Roberts is not the owner.

[Paul C]

There is little doubt that Alan Roberts can produce evidence that he purchased Planet from Gary McClarnan in 2008.

Unless Gary Anderton comes forward and presents evidence that he purchased the ship from Alan Roberts, CaRT have absolutely no evidence that Mr Roberts is not the owner.

 

Plenty of people who have bought, then subsequently sold a boat, can produce the evidence that they bought the boat.

[Graham Davis]

I would suggest that if someone else owned the boat they would have been making a major hue and cry by now.......................

 

The silence is telling!!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Plenty of people who have bought, then subsequently sold a boat, can produce the evidence that they bought the boat.

Plenty of people who have brought a boat can produce evidence that they brought the boat.

 

Gary Anderton has produced no evidence ...

I would suggest that if someone else owned the boat they would have been making a major hue and cry by now.......................

 

The silence is telling!!

You are quite right. However, you fail to explain what the silence is telling ...