NBTA Press Release : The continuous cruising case CRT couldn't win

[MtB]

One wonders how it came to court in the first place. I doubt the enforcement officer cancelled the licence without attempting to contact Mr Wingfield. Probably many times over, in writing.

 

Does anyone have any links to his FB postings at the time?

[Guest]

I can see what you are saying Martin at no point does it say that CRT settled it says the parties settled and dont talk about it. Surly this means that NBTA or whatever they call themselves should not be talking about it just a thought

 

Peter

Niether parties are allowed to talk about the terms of the settlement correct.

 

That is not the same as saying CRT kept the terms of the settlement confidential, any more so than saying Mr. Wingfield did.

 

My point is niether of them could.

 

As to who applied for it to be so simply remains fodder for speculation and rumour as far as I can see.

Edited February 22, 2015 by MJG

[jenlyn]

One wonders how it came to court in the first place. I doubt the enforcement officer cancelled the licence without attempting to contact Mr Wingfield. Probably many times over, in writing.

 

Does anyone have any links to his FB postings at the time?

Yeh, plenty on fb, all over the place. You just need to trudge back a bit to find them. Nug is one you could start with.

[Thorfast]

How have you arrived at that conclusion ?

The same way as I arrived at this statement....'Zebras are black'

[dmr]

Do you think that the man who stayed tied up because the Trent was in flood was 'bending the rules' ?

 

I bend the rules but on the whole am a pretty good CC'er, I hope CaRT don't come after me due to a genuine breakdown or similar.

I suspect this bloke has bent the rules and upset CaRT (or one or two people within CaRT) and they foolishly saw the floods as their chance to get him. This is not the way to do things.

I don't know all the details of your case but maybe it was similar.????

CaRT really need to concentrate on people who do really bad stuff, rather than looking for an excuse to get people who have pissed them off.

 

I have been to 4 CaRT pumpouts this winter, every single one has been broken (am on my way to find another right now). I really want to make an official complaint...but will this put me on their hit list??????

 

.............Dave

[Peter X]

One wonders how it came to court in the first place. I doubt the enforcement officer cancelled the licence without attempting to contact Mr Wingfield. Probably many times over, in writing.

 

Does anyone have any links to his FB postings at the time?

But... if Mr Wingfield was trapped by a flood, could the postman have reached him?

[GoodGurl]

One wonders how it came to court in the first place. I doubt the enforcement officer cancelled the licence without attempting to contact Mr Wingfield. Probably many times over, in writing.

 

Does anyone have any links to his FB postings at the time?

he wasn't hard to find on FB, however you cant read his page as it is private

[jenlyn]

 

I have been to 4 CaRT pumpouts this winter, every single one has been broken (am on my way to find another right now). I really want to make an official complaint...but will this put me on their hit list??????

 

.............Dave

 

That's not a very good mindset Dave, and it should not be so.

That's where "bullying" remarks rear up from.

That's the very sad part in all of this, the fear that's being instilled into the minds of people that do very little wrong.

[Tony Dunkley]

The same way as I arrived at this statement....'Zebras are black'

 

Oh , I see, you've ignored at least half of the story.

[thunderbird]

And not the only boater totally unfairly hounded for overstaying due to floods breakdown etc. during the same period. Richard Parry praised his enforcement officer at the Nottingham Boaters meeting, spurred him on it seems!!!!

 

It's not exactly good though, is it? On the face of it they've gone after a boater for overstaying when the reasons for doing so were flooding. They've taken this all the way to court and wasted a lot of money in doing so. Sure, there's always 2 sides to a story but in this case, we're not going to hear it because the settlement is confidential.

[MtB]

But... if Mr Wingfield was trapped by a flood, could the postman have reached him?

 

I doubt he was trapped on his boat for three months. He didn't starve after all. I'd say he was claiming his boat was trapped.

 

Anyway as you probably well know, the law considers multiple letters posted to the address given by a licencee on their application form as being successfully delivered to the licencee.

[jenlyn]

I doubt he was trapped on his boat for three months. He didn't starve after all. I'd say he was claiming his boat was trapped.

 

Anyway as you probably well know, the law considers multiple letters posted to the address given by a licencee on their application form as being successfully delivered to the licencee.

If the letters and communication repeatedly stated he had to move his boat, and he could not owing to flood, why take him to court.

What option did he have other than to refuse?

[MtB]

If the letters and communication repeatedly stated he had to move his boat, and he could not owing to flood, why take him to court.

What option did he have other than to refuse?

 

Answer the letters courteously, explaining, and requesting permission to overstay?

 

The other possibility is he aggressively told CRT to shove it.

 

Neither way should have resulted in court action but one of these options did, and I wonder which one...

 

 

 

.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Mike the Boilerman

[Sabcat]

 

Answer the letters?

 

I doubt that would have made any difference, if the press release is accurate - there was a full hearing - he submitted a defence to the court that CRT would have seen yet still the proceeded.

[peterboat]

 

I doubt he was trapped on his boat for three months. He didn't starve after all. I'd say he was claiming his boat was trapped.

 

Anyway as you probably well know, the law considers multiple letters posted to the address given by a licencee on their application form as being successfully delivered to the licencee.

True Mike I used the same law when dealing with DVLA last year anyway surly they put a notice on his boat

 

Peter

[jenlyn]

Answer the letters?

Well, that's sort of my point. He has replied stating he cannot move because of the flood?

CRT then " carried on regardless"?

[Tony Dunkley]

It appears to me that it's likely that C&RT ended the action by persuading Mr Wingfield to sign a Consent Order drafted by them, in the terms they wanted. It's a clever, but underhanded, way of getting the Court to make an Order in the terms they want, because once both parties names are on a Consent Order the Judge will make an Order in the terms in which the Consent Order was drafted, which to a bystander may create the illusion of it being a Court decision . . . it isn't.

This would not only relieve them of any liability for Mr Wingfield's costs, but it would also enable them to impose, in effect, a 'gagging' agreement on him.

If the action had been ended by the usual County Court procedure in which the Applicant files a Notice of Discontinuance, then the Court would not have made any Order restricting the Defendant in any way.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[bassplayer]

It appears to me that it's likely that C&RT ended the action by persuading Mr Wingfield to sign a Consent Order drafted by them, in the terms they wanted.

This would not only relieve them of any liability for Mr Wingfield's costs, but it would also enable them to impose a 'gagging' agreement on him.

Isn't a gagging order just a bribe to stop wrongdoing from being exposed (even though it's in the public's interest)? Or put another way, if it was exposed to the public and there was no wrongdoing, there wouldn't be so much suspicion and rumour against CRT's practices.

[Tony Dunkley]

Isn't a gagging order just a bribe to stop wrongdoing from being exposed (even though it's in the public's interest)? Or put another way, if it was exposed to the public and there was no wrongdoing, there wouldn't be so much suspicion and rumour against CRT's practices.

 

'Gagging' orders are not a bribe, but in common with anything else having similar effect, are a favourite resort of those who would prefer their conduct, dishonesty and motives to be exposed for examination as little as possible.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Ange]

**mod cap off**

so it's ok for CRT to publish a case if it won but not if it loses? double standards or what.

It does smell that way to me too.

[bassplayer]

It does smell that way to me too.

A solicitor freind I once knew was advised that he could only do his job properly if he accepted the law was an ass. Whichever way one dresses it up, a cover up is a cover up. Justice is as much about luck and money as anything else.

 

Those running CRT would gain far more freinds if they were more transparent and held their hands up to mistakes when they happen. Actually, the same could apply to our politicians if they weren't so afraid of the blame culture,

[cotswoldsman]

 

'Gagging' orders are not a bribe, but in common with anything else having similar effect, are a favourite resort of those who would prefer their conduct, dishonesty and motives to be exposed for examination as little as possible.

Or maybe would prefer the comments the Judge made kept out of the public domain.

[Tony Dunkley]

I see you haven't understood the meaning of the word 'settlement'.

 

Nor does he understand how the County Court process can be manipulated by lawyers.

[BrumSaint]

NATIONAL BARGEE TRAVELLERS ASSOCIATION

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

22nd February 2015

 

THE CONTINUOUS CRUISING CASE CRT COULDN'T WIN

 

CRT settled with a boater and kept the outcome confidential in a

continuous cruising case last year. The case of CRT v Wingfield (3NG01237)

was heard by HHJ Pugsley in Chesterfield County Court on 3rd and 4th March

2014. The resulting court order included a confidentiality clause

preventing anyone from disclosing the terms of the settlement.

 

A letter from Nottingham County Court to the NBTA on 18th June 2014 stated

The Order of 4th March does specifically say that settlement was reached

by the parties and that a copy of the settlement shall not be released to

anyone other than the solicitors for the parties

 

 

Why have NBTA decided to release this now? It would be interesting to know what the motive is for releasing this now (and I'm not talking about exposing C&RT's alleged wrongdoing, but the reason for the press release now). Perhaps Alf Roberts could tell us why, when the NBTA knew of this case 8 months ago, they have only now decided to release a press statement?

[Naughty Cal]

When was the Trent in flood for two months?