CRT v Andy Wingfield Update

[NigelMoore]

They see it as a game that they are bound to win. They're right. . . . other means of challenging them and exposing them are important.

 

I agree with the latter statement; not with the first.

 

They are NOT “bound to win”, but that is definitely the impression they and their predecessors have sought to convey publicly. Don't let's encourage that propaganda.

 

Yes, they have huge advantages, which no-one should underestimate. Not least of those advantages is the declared bias at County Court level towards upholding the decisions of public bodies exercising public functions. Nonetheless they have lost several significant cases over the decades, even if those had to be obtained from High Court and Appeal Court level judges.

 

It has been at County Court level where their “wins” have been obtained, and as the most recent cases including the Wingfield one have demonstrated: the outcomes are no longer so assured.

 

Even where “successful”, the more publicised "wins" could accurately be characterised, as costalot says, as pyrrhic victories.

[NigelMoore]

It would be nice if NABO were a little more active in this field, whereas their expensive legal questions are useful to challenge CRT in the executive their role on the ground is rubbish.

 

I admit to being puzzled over NABO’s approach. They have been willing to spend significant sums in obtaining Counsel Opinions on a number of issues – which are an excellent and potentially valuable resource.

 

What I do not understand, is why they wish to keep those Opinions in the closet, when they could be published for the benefit of all. Bit of a waste of money if not used, which they are not – other than as a stick to wave at the authority.

[bassplayer]

Stereotyping is dangerous but understandably happens when one has felt let down by a number of people in the same 'group'. A pattern starts to build up, quite often an unjustified pattern.

 

I certainly had a grudge with BWB many years ago and seeing the way CRT is now being run doesn't help me put my grudges behind me. The good news is that nice people are everywhere if you look and they will help so long as you don't mix them up with those who aren't nice.

 

As hinted by a couple of others, it is wise to keep a balanced argument and not let your emotions take over the logic. Emotions are as important as logic but it can get in the way of us all moving forward.

[LoneWolf]

 

I had a look through Geoff’s material while I was in the middle of preparing Leigh’s case, so was not able to spend the time it merits, but have said I will pay closer attention once that case is settled. Apart from anything else, the outcome may well be of assistance to Geoff.

 

Whether or no – my opinion is that his best chance is an action for Contempt of Court. As I alluded to earlier in this thread, Geoff’s judge had told CaRT he would hold them to the undertaking he considered them to have given, which was not unlike the judge’s proposals for the Wingfield settlement. A little creative misinterpretation was subsequently applied to the situation; I believe that it is capable of remedy to that extent.

 

Meanwhile, putting material into the public domain is one of the most effective things people can do. Those with a desire to search out the facts will be willing to persevere through stylistic hurdles and emotive outbursts.

 

Remember too, that at least two pertinent characteristics must apply to those bringing or defending lawsuits against powerful corporations: one is the skill-set that mayalld correctly refers to [you have to know the rules of the game and how to apply them]; the other is an element of assertive aggression capable of sustained deployment [you have to have the ‘stomach’ for the fight].

 

Those with the necessary latter characteristic can sometimes, through sheer frustration, find that expression of it becomes at times understandably unfocused.

 

thanks for the reply Nigel, wise words as usual

[ROBDEN]

 

I admit to being puzzled over NABO’s approach. They have been willing to spend significant sums in obtaining Counsel Opinions on a number of issues – which are an excellent and potentially valuable resource.

 

What I do not understand, is why they wish to keep those Opinions in the closet, when they could be published for the benefit of all. Bit of a waste of money if not used, which they are not – other than as a stick to wave at the authority.

Nigel. The least we can do for all your outstanding work in this thread, is give you a greenie.

On it's way.

 

Rob....

[jenlyn]

 

I admit to being puzzled over NABO’s approach. They have been willing to spend significant sums in obtaining Counsel Opinions on a number of issues – which are an excellent and potentially valuable resource.

 

What I do not understand, is why they wish to keep those Opinions in the closet, when they could be published for the benefit of all. Bit of a waste of money if not used, which they are not – other than as a stick to wave at the authority.

The day David Fletcher stood down as chair of NABO, in my opinion was the start of the end. As for money NABO have spent on legal advice? Maybe they did in years gone by, but in the last 5-6 years, nope. Don't believe everything you hear.

What they say, and what it means can be misleading.

[pearlygeoff]

 

Sorry Geoff but that's just contradictory rubbish. What did you need legal aid for if you had the arguments? Shoo smiths will not 'run up your costs' - they will certainly make an attempt but mostly they fail, courts are not, despite your impressions, stupid. They would rather you weren't a litigant ion person but once you are they have to deal with it. It's the law.

 

I suppose Arthur is part of the conspiracy against you when he says you are 'ranting about women' - which has absolutely nothing to do with your case

 

If you think you are successfully challenging CRT then you delude yourself. They won. You allowed them to win. You continue to allow them to win as long as you refuse to take the action allowed to you.

 

NABO do not represent boat clubs - at all. But I agree, they don't do on behalf of their members what I would hope they would do but then perhaps you weren't a member?

 

Emotions are, as I say, motivational, but have no place in the courtroom battle. That's exactly how they won.

 

You don't help yourself.

 

 

Exactly so.

 

I don't agree with anything you say and don't see the point of your saying it.

 

If I just wanted to avoid the injunction at the first hearing - which I could have done anyway - I wouldn't have bothered to go to court. I would have simply moved my boat. I tried to turn their claim for an injunction into a more comprehensive 'trial' where their unlawful rules could submitted to the court. I succeeded - up to a point. As I said, it wasn't about winning or losing it was about exposing their corrupt practices and those of their legal representatives and the failings of the court process. In that I was successful. I didn't know legal aid would be withdrawn did I? And I couldn't predict all the other 'misbehaviour' of both parties representatives, could I?

 

But I could record them for my account. Much more useful than merely avoiding an injunction at a hearing that could have been avoided anyway.

 

I'm not as 'stupid' as you appear to think I am. I did what I intended and to 'remove my boat' they had to steal it which will be dealt with in due course.

 

Read the website.

[mayalld]

 

The truth is the truth. I don't subscribe to the 'preferred truth' of politically correct lies. You experience is not, necessarily, my experience and you will not have had the experience of dealing with BW/CRT enforcement staff that I have had. I have lived on the towpath for over 20 years I have observed what goes on. Why don't you look at the positive instead of finding fault?

The truth is the truth, and you are the sole arbiter of the truth.

 

Your bigoted views on management types, you have already exhibited, but now you compound it by a positively medieval attitude towards women.

 

What you spout isn't the truth. It is gross prejudice.

[NigelMoore]

As for money NABO have spent on legal advice? Maybe they did in years gone by, but in the last 5-6 years, nope.

 

Well the years do seem to be slipping by apace. I was thinking of what they claimed back in 2010, which would accord with your time frame –

 

“. . . we have sought legal guidance through our solicitor, Shakespeare Putsman, and legal Counsel.”

 

They have made this available all hush-hush to some, on an unquotable basis, but although it had potential to be valuable to my own case, I never even had my request for sight of it acknowledged – as per:

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=59244&p=1129487

[Dave Clinton]

as it is the property of its members there should be some transparency about it.

[sueb]

I believe the info received is available to members. If more boaters joined there would be more money to help.

[NigelMoore]

as it is the property of its members there should be some transparency about it.

 

Agreed – I mean, what was the point of it, and was it paid for out of members’ subscriptions or from private pockets?

 

If the point was to challenge the imposition of arbitrary rules affecting their ‘own’ boaters, it necessarily affected all boaters. You could not benefit one without t’other, so if you were going to give your members the benefit of what they contributed to [if so], you have to accept that you cannot exclude other boaters from the benefit.

 

It seems a bit ‘dog-in-a-manger’ –ish. And for so long as they were never going to be prepared to test the Opinion in court at their own risk, why not allow others to do so?

 

That is what puzzled me most about their ignoring me. I could have had their mere Opinion validated in Court at nil cost to them [well, supposing I agreed with it of course].

[jenlyn]

 

Well the years do seem to be slipping by apace. I was thinking of what they claimed back in 2010, which would accord with your time frame –

 

“. . . we have sought legal guidance through our solicitor, Shakespeare Putsman, and legal Counsel.”

 

They have made this available all hush-hush to some, on an unquotable basis, but although it had potential to be valuable to my own case, I never even had my request for sight of it acknowledged – as per:

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=59244&p=1129487

They turned up to a crt-association meeting with their "legal eagle". To say it was embarrassing would be an understatement.

David Fletcher used to turn up at every meeting, but what impressed me, was the fact he did it from the heart, not like the ego seeking folk they have now.

[Tuscan]

 

I admit to being puzzled over NABO’s approach. They have been willing to spend significant sums in obtaining Counsel Opinions on a number of issues – which are an excellent and potentially valuable resource.

 

What I do not understand, is why they wish to keep those Opinions in the closet, when they could be published for the benefit of all. Bit of a waste of money if not used, which they are not – other than as a stick to wave at the authority.

A decision was made shortly after the appointment of Richard Parry and the retirement of CRTs legal director that the councils opinion that NABO had obtained should be shared with CRT so that they could not later claim that they were unaware of the matters raised therein and It was also published as an extract in NABO news.

The day David Fletcher stood down as chair of NABO, in my opinion was the start of the end. As for money NABO have spent on legal advice? Maybe they did in years gone by, but in the last 5-6 years, nope. Don't believe everything you hear.

What they say, and what it means can be misleading.

Yes very true in your case the last legal advice obtained was around the recent changes to the terms and conditions

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

 

Yes very true in your case the last legal advice obtained was around the recent changes to the terms and conditions

And what about the legal advise on General Towpath Winter Moorings?

[Tuscan]

And what about the legal advise on General Towpath Winter Moorings?

 

I wasn't aware the law had changed can you enlighten me?

[cotswoldsman]

I wasn't aware the law had changed can you enlighten me?

Do you mean changed since you spoke to CRT about General Towpath Winter Moorings?

[cotswoldsman]

As I think you are aware a number of us are currently taking legal on whether CART sold us an illegal product

Edited September 5, 2015 by cotswoldsman

[jenlyn]

As I think you are aware a number of us are currently taking legal on whether CART sold us an illegal product

Don't give to much, they will want to claim the credits.

[Dave Clinton]

A decision was made shortly after the appointment of Richard Parry and the retirement of CRTs legal director that the councils opinion that NABO had obtained should be shared with CRT so that they could not later claim that they were unaware of the matters raised therein and It was also published as an extract in NABO news.

 

 

Would you mind answering a few questions, Mark:

 

1. Why were/are not NABO willing to share the decision with Nigel Moore if they were prepared to share it with CRT?

 

2. Can any of NABO's members obtain a verbatim copy of the advice?

 

3. What is NABO's policy of aiding with legal advice any of its individual members who find themselves on the wrong side of one of CRT's recent actions?

[Tuscan]

Would you mind answering a few questions, Mark:

 

1. Why were/are not NABO willing to share the decision with Nigel Moore if they were prepared to share it with CRT?

 

2. Can any of NABO's members obtain a verbatim copy of the advice?

 

3. What is NABO's policy of aiding with legal advice any of its individual members who find themselves on the wrong side of one of CRT's recent actions?

 

I will answer from a personal perspective as I am abroad and have not consulted my colleagues.

 

1. This was before my time on Council so I am afraid I am unaware of the background. Personally I would have no problem with sharing it with any member. From memory this policy changed late 2013 or early 2014.

 

2. A detailed extract was published in May 2014 NABO News this available in the public section of the website., I thought the original was available in the reference section of the members section of the website. I'm struggling to log in from France to check as I don't have my password with me but I will try and check this.

 

3. Nabo does not provide legal advice to members in the sense of engaging with lawyers for legal services, it does not have the funds to do so. However where we can we provide practical support by taking up the case direct with CRT or networking with other members with legal, welfare and housing experience for advice.

[Dave Clinton]

Thank you Mark.

[nicknorman]

As I think you are aware a number of us are currently taking legal on whether CART sold us an illegal product

If you really are, I think that is just sour grapes. You encouraged the concept, you had and enjoyed the product. Are you now trying to use that as a stick to beat CRT?

[jenlyn]

If you really are, I think that is just sour grapes. You encouraged the concept, you had and enjoyed the product. Are you now trying to use that as a stick to beat CRT?

Depends how you look at it. Obviously your previous views so vehemently put forward on what's right or what's wrong has just gone out the window. Multi coloured coat springs to mind.

[MtB]

As I think you are aware a number of us are currently taking legal on whether CART sold us an illegal product

 

Had an accident that wasn't your fault???

 

CRT will pay, out of my licence fee...