"Ceylon" the UK's top Goodfer nothing

[rumpelstilzchen]

.. I am just a someone

Look on the bright side. Being a someone is one grade above me. I'm still a no one.
Oh how I dream about being promoted to a "someone".

[Bones]

.. I am just a someone

Look on the bright side. Being a someone is one grade above me. I'm still a no one.
Oh how I dream about being promoted to a "someone".

[PeanutGallery]

Chin up Bones, at least you aren't a redshirt.

[NYGman]

I think we should be rewarded each member for every name check by Cak & Mak 1,000 QuatloosRe per use. I was thinking you may also want to copyright your names under common law and send them a fee schedule, but that may be counterproductive.

[Bones]

Not sure if Guy intended to reveal this other Ceylon failure or not.

Remember the guy with the boat, turns out he paid to get it back

[wanglepin]

I think we should be rewarded each member for every name check by Cak & Mak 1,000 QuatloosRe per use. I was thinking you may also want to copyright your names under common law and send them a fee schedule, but that may be counterproductive.

I have had mine mentioned twice. but can't find them.

[Bones]

In my experience on GOODF very few people donate the £7.

In defence of Ceylon on this issue, I have never seen him ask any member to donate and the common line used is "wait 48 hours and all the templates are free"

I would concur with LeTissiers observations, I've not seen anyone make a complaint regarding having to spend money to access information or point out that this would be anathema to the concept of removing ones debts free. I'd also further state that Ceylon is not the owner or operator of GOODF that is Jon Witterick (I believe) he is just a very vocal member of it's community. I was mistaken about that point in the past and feel I should clarify. Ceylon is a part of GOODF but he is not all of it nor does he represent every view.

Today someone has

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... V-1vEYvb6a


Re: The JUDGEMENT EXPLAINED!!!!!!!!!

Postby karon » Sat May 23, 2015 12:02 am

letissier14 wrote:
Embarrassing. Tom needs to get a solicitor asap

HI LETSSIER tom dont need to get any solicitor he needs to listen to other people who is and has given him advice , not people who have lost there properties and not won the fight MAREO who is no longer a moderate of this site what a great UCKING LOST to us all , even i wrote a few weeks back and i could see the danger tom was facing i had a an endowment things never rang right with me,sooo pissed at mareo being ignored he is such a loss to this site as a moderate , people can run riot and he knew and he see shame the people running the show GOODF did not. WHATS going to happen with re bank when it all goes tits up and people have lost there money , i told you so, yea right , soooo ucked off with what im reading here lately keep paying your 7 pound join up fee cos it dont matter mate ,now what ,you wait , are you going to get your money back from re the bank big uck off NO , seen the light karon

[wanglepin]

Deary me,goofer karon is not a happy goofer. This is all going tits up for goodf and Ceylon.
She has picked out both controversial threads and seems to have seen a glimmer of light.

[wanglepin]

Not sure if Guy intended to reveal this other Ceylon failure or not.

Remember the guy with the boat, turns out he paid to get it back

he`s having a great day is Ceylon

[Bones]

Deary me,goofer karon is not a happy goofer. This is all going tits up for goodf and Ceylon.
She has picked out both controversial threads and seems to have seen a glimmer of light.

I am guessing that Guy and Ceylon don't know that when you are in a hole you should stop digging.

I think this is more about them covering themselves now than it is about Tom and his family home.

Thanks to all the adverts, Mark's name is all over this circus

[Bones]

Not sure if Guy intended to reveal this other Ceylon failure or not.

Remember the guy with the boat, turns out he paid to get it back

he`s having a great day is Ceylon

I feel for mark I really do

In case anyone has not seen it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXAiAdcxDqI

As posted above the guy had to pay in the end to get his boat back

[rumpelstilzchen]

I feel for mark I really do

Perfect caption for the still from the video you posted.

[Bones]

I feel for mark I really do

Perfect caption for the still from the video you posted.

stop you made me laugh so hard I started to choke

[wanglepin]

I am now waiting for the video that explains the "The JUDGEMENT EXPLAINED!!!!!!!!!" video.

[wanglepin]

I am guessing that Guy and Ceylon don't know that when you are in a hole you should stop digging.I think this is more about them covering themselves now than it is about Tom and his family home.Thanks to all the adverts, Mark's name is all over this circus

Gerrish oddly seems to be giving this balls up a wide berth. I am missing the customary interview with Taylor, and where is Roger " Bradford and Bingley have now opened a door" Hayes?

[Normal Wisdom]

Not sure if Guy intended to reveal this other Ceylon failure or not.

Remember the guy with the boat, turns out he paid to get it back

So does this mean that Leigh "Cockroach" Ravenscroft is trying to sue the Canal & River Trust for the money he had to pay to get the boat back (plus damages)?

[Bones]

It would appear so

Good bye £480

[Hercule Parrot]

So does this mean that Leigh "Cockroach" Ravenscroft is trying to sue the Canal & River Trust for the money he had to pay to get the boat back (plus damages)?

So it seems. But that's okay, it's what he should have done in the first place.

Imagine if a friend or family member phoned you and said they had bailiffs and police on their doorstep with court papers to take their boat, but they didn't know why. You would probably advise them to pay under protest, and then go to a solicitor and sue the pants off whoever had made this cock-up.

(I suspect that in reality Cocky does owe a load of money, because he has tried some BS idea that his boat is a 'freeman's private conveyance' or some such nonsense. But if he's right and they shouldn't have tried to charge him for a certificate, then he deserves a full refund and compensation. The system is not always right, but the way to deal with that is through the courts rather than by mobs of idiots quoting cod latin)

[Hercule Parrot]

It would appear so

Good bye £480

That's an interesting fee. If he had simply claimed back what he had to pay, plus some reasonable sum for costs and inconvenience caused, then he could have had the matter heard by a county court for around £100.

Instead he's asking for a High Court hearing to address Declaratory Relief, eg he doesn't just want his money back but he also wants an order that he cannot be required to pay for a pleasure boat certificate.

I suspect he's going to fail, but he's doing it the right way now and good luck to him. The Canal & Rivers Trust does have a reputation for being commercially greedy and unsympathetic to the ordinary users and residents of UK waterways. It's good that Cocky is taking them on through the proper process, so that if he wins they will have to change their policies.

[Bones]

It gets worse, or you could say better in terms of amusement

Thanks to his legal team - I am guessing Guy as he is in possession of the paperwork and Ceylon, he is quoting the wrong legislation in his claim.

He says that he boat was seized under section 8 of the waterways act 1983 for being in arrears for a pleasure boat certificate.

If they bothered to do a little research before making this claim, they might have found this

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/publicat ... -waterways

Court action to remove boats from our waterways

After a lengthy warning process, we are sometimes left with no choice but to remove boats from our waterways even when the boats are peoples’ homes. A number of people have asked us to document the action we take and to publish the Court Orders we have already obtained. This page does so.

If we know or there is reasonable likelihood that a boat is being used as a person’s home, then we do not simply serve notices under Section 8 and Section 13 of the British Waterways Acts 1983 and 1971, respectively, and remove the boat from our waterways. Instead we rather engage in correspondence with the boat owners before then proceeding to serve the statutory notices, which will then not be enforced without the prior sanction of the court. We therefore ask the courts to decide on individual cases and these cases proceed to court unless a prior agreement is reached with the boat owner(s).

Listed below are the details of the cases where we have issued legal proceedings and obtained Court Orders or the parties have reached an agreement since April 2012. We will continue to add any future Court Orders received once they have been enforced.

Note:

Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 permits the Trust, after giving at least 28 days notice, to remove a craft which is sunk, stranded, abandoned or unlawfully moored on the Trust’s waterways.

Section 13 of the British Waterways Act 1971 states that it is unlawful to moor or keep any houseboat (defined mainly as any vessel not used for navigation) on the Trust’s waterways without a valid licence. It further gives the Trust the power to remove or (ultimately) demolish a houseboat if, following proper notice, the owner does not first remove it.

The Z Team - the legal team refer to section 8 of the 1983 act, when it is section 13 of the 1971 act