Request for a breakdown of boats removed/seized by CaRT

Pam Pickett made this Freedom of Information request to Canal & River Trust

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Canal & River Trust,

Please provide the following information. It would be appreciated if on this occasion this could be specific, please.

How many boat owners were taken to court by the authority between July 2012 and August 2014?
>
How many boats were removed/seized following court action for approval of the Section8/13 process?
>
>How many claims (if any) pertaining to boats removed/seized were filed under Part 8 Civil Procedure Rules?
>
How many claims pertaining to boats removed/seized (if any) were filed using some more standard procedure?
>
How many of those served with a Part 8 Claim Form subsequently filed a written defence?
>
How many of those served with a Part 8 Claim Form attended the court Hearing?
>
>How many (if any) of the boats seized are reclaimed by the owners on payment of CaRT's charges?
>
How many (if any) of the boats seized have been disposed of by CaRT following the TORTS Interference with Goods procedure?

Why aren't all judgements as well as Court Orders obtained filed on CaRT's website?

Yours faithfully,

Pam Pickett

Information Request, Canal & River Trust

Dear Ms Pickett,

Thank you for your e-mail and request for information we received on Thursday 2nd October 2014.

We are reviewing our files to identify information relevant to your request and will respond to you as soon as possible or in any case within twenty working days of receipt of your request.

Kind regards,

Sarina Young
Customer Service Co-Ordinator
Canal & River Trust | The Kiln | Mather Road | Newark | NG24 1FB | Tel 01636 675 740 | [mobile number]
Follow the Canal & River Trust’s Customer Service team on Twitter http://twitter.com/CRTContactUs
Please visit our website to find out more about the Canal & River Trust and download our ‘Shaping our Future’ document on the About Us page.

show quoted sections

Dear Information Request,
Request for a breakdown of boats removed/seized by CRT
By law the trust should have now responded to my request as annotated above.
Please now either respond as required, or advise me of any reason for delay, thereby avoiding the necessity for me to take further action.

Yours sincerely,

Pam Pickett

Information Request, Canal & River Trust

Good afternoon Pam,

Thank you for your request for information.  We have responded to some of
your requests and, for others, we first need some clarification before
we’re able to do this for you.  Our replies are set out below in the order
you have asked them for clarity.

It is also worth me explaining at the outset that the Freedom of
Information Act (the Act) entitles you to request information from public
organisations that is already recorded.  In the case of Canal & River
Trust, the Act only applies to the statutory functions transferred to it
from British Waterways through the Transfer Order.  The Act does not
oblige authorities to offer explanations, reasoning or justification
unless it is already recorded.  Nevertheless, in the interests of openness
and transparency and where we have been able, to we have gone beyond our
obligations under the Act and offered you some explanation or information
despite it not being held within already recorded information.

1.     How many boat owners were taken to court by the authority between
July 2012 and  August 2014? 
Our figures show that 57 cases went to court during this period.  However,
please note that the actual number may be fewer as we believe it probable
that status of some cases may not necessarily have been updated within our
records if it was cancelled within a few days of the court date. 

2.     How many  boats  were removed/seized following court action for
approval of the Section 8/13 process?
We publish the details of court cases where boats have been removed or
seized on our website here
[1]https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/publicati...

3.     How many claims (if any) pertaining to  boats removed/seized were
filed under Part 8 Civil Procedure Rules?
We believe that the cost of determining whether we hold the information
and to locate, retrieve and extract this information will far exceed the
appropriate limit provided for under the Freedom of Information and Data
Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004.  Where the cost
of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit (£450) we are relieved of our
obligation to comply with the request (s.12(1) Freedom of Information Act
2000). 

4.     How many claims pertaining to boats removed/seized (if any) were
filed using some more standard procedure?
Please would you clarify this part of your request.  If you could be
specific about what you mean when you say “using some more standard
procedure” that would be very helpful as we’re not aware of any other more
standard procedure.

5.     How many of those served with a Part 8 Claim Form subsequently
filed a written defence?
We believe that the cost of determining whether we hold the information
and to locate, retrieve and extract this information will far exceed the
appropriate limit provided for under the Freedom of Information and Data
Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004.  Where the cost
of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit (£450) we are relieved of our
obligation to comply with the request (s.12(1) Freedom of Information Act
2000). 

6.     How many of those served with a Part 8 Claim Form attended the
court Hearing?
We believe that the cost of determining whether we hold the information
and to locate, retrieve and extract this information will far exceed the
appropriate limit provided for under the Freedom of Information and Data
Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004.  Where the cost
of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit (£450) we are relieved of our
obligation to comply with the request (s.12(1) Freedom of Information Act
2000). 

7.     How many (if any) of the  boats seized are reclaimed by the owners
on payment of CaRT's charges? 
9 boats were returned after they were seized.

8.     How many (if any) of the boats seized have been disposed of by CaRT
following the TORTS Interference with Goods procedure?   
From July 2012 to date eight boats have been disposed of.

9.     Why aren't all judgements as well as Court Orders obtained filed on
CaRT's website?
Most County Court judgments are given ex tempore so we frequently do not
have written judgments to publish.  Additionally, in most cases we would
not wish to publish because we feel it would be insensitive to do so and
unnecessarily intrusive into the personal circumstances of individuals,
given the level of detail in judgments. 

I look forward to hearing from you further on the point four above where
we’ve asked for some clarification.

Kind regards,

Sarina Young
Customer Service Co-Ordinator

Canal & River Trust  |  The Kiln  |  Mather Road  |  Newark  |  NG24 1FB 
| Tel 01636 675 740 | [mobile number]

Follow the Canal & River Trust’s Customer Service team on Twitter
[2]http://twitter.com/CRTContactUs 

Please visit our [3]website to find out more about the Canal & River
Trust and download our ‘Shaping our Future’ document on the About Us page.

show quoted sections

Nigel Moore left an annotation ()

This is a bit of a joke response I think, so far as 3 & 4 are concerned. The other figures given are useful.

If you can say, respecting Q4: “we are not aware of any other more standard procedure”, then the answer to Q3 must be “ALL of them were filed under Part 8 Civil Procedure Rules of course, because we do not know of any others”.

Why not give the clarification allegedly required, and see what they come up with? You never know, once their solicitors have been educated as to the fact that one can file a claim that acknowledges the possibility of the defendant having a defence, they may be happy to drop the use of Part 8.

Dear Information Request,
Prevarication is it seems again the name of the game for the trust.
Cutting to the chase here one should expect the information requested in paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 to be a matter of record in any well run office, given the use of computers.
The reference to such exorbitant cost in respect of supplying the information requested in paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 is therefore not understood.
Is it that the trust is lax in its record keeping meaning the information has not been recorded, or that it has some extremely expensive office staff, or could it be that this information is expensively outsourced to Shoosmiths computers?
With regard to Paragraph 4.
To clarify. How many boats were seized using any method other than a Part 8 Procedure?
Additionally, and in line with Paragraph 8 how many of the 8 boats disposed of following the TORTS Interference With Goods procedure raised sufficient funds to cover the costs of the trust.

If the interests of openness and transparency are to be served a reply would be appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

Pam Pickett

geoff mayers left an annotation ()

Again they refuse to answer questions relating to Part 8 procedure. An abuse of process compounded by their refusal to admit to their abuse. In my case a refusal to respond at all or respond to a request for an internal review - which is contempt of court.
With regard to question 4:- How many claims pertaining to boats removed/seized (if any) were filed using some more standard procedure?
Answer:- '.......we are not aware of any other more standard procedure'.
The 'standard procedure' is to allow the victim/defendant to offer a defence rather than mislead them, and the court, by by confusing them with an, improperly issued, Part 8 claim. Without legal representation - legal aid is now not easily available - the defendant would not understand that they had 14 days to file a defence or no defence would be considered. With representation under legal aid, as I had, the defendants representative is likely to go along with the Part 8 procedure and offer no defence. In my case I have discovered that the bullying I was subject to to offer no defence, which I resisted, was because the Part 8 procedure was being followed for 18 months without my being aware of it.
Following a change of barrister a request was made to the court to change from a Part 8 procedure to a Part 7 procedure - the 'more standard procedure'. Shoosmiths, the agent of Canal and River Trust wrote a 4 page submission to the court objecting to the change to Part 7 and my having a defence.
Part 7 is the more standard procedure and and CRT/Shoosmiths don't use it or object to it as they don't want their victim/defendant to have a defence.
Harassment, intimidation, deliberately misleading serving of court papers to prevent a defence being offered, objections to any defence subsequently offered if the defendant gets past the first hearing, refusal to account for their actions.

Question 9. Why aren't all judgments, as well as court orders obtained, filed on CaRT's website?
They say:- ' ....in most cases we would not wish to publish because we feel it would be insensitive to do so and unnecessarily intrusive into the personal circumstances of individuals given the level of details in judgments'.
The intrusion into the personal lives of individuals, and gross violation, has already taken place when they deliberately sought to take that individuals property - in some cases their home - by fraudulent means through their misuse of the legal process.
Their actions are criminal and there needs to be a joint complaint to the police who, otherwise, i.e. if a complaint from a single individual, won't listen.
For further instances of the abuses by CRT and Shoosmiths see website 'Canal and River Tyranny'.