CRT v Andy Wingfield Update

[jenlyn]

 

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

 

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

Have a nice glass of red, you'll feel better.

 

Actually, if you wanted to help CRT save some of your license money, you could offer to tidy up the offside on the stretch you moor Reginald. Its really getting quite overgrown and shabby.

Edited September 5, 2015 by jenlyn

[TheBiscuits]

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

So what are the current penalties for squatters?

 

I understand they were changed recently.

[cotswoldsman]

 

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

 

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

Or maybe from the money they took from General Towpath Winter Moorings. I was at a meeting in Gloucester with other ccers where they were advised to take GTWM as a first step to obtaining a RMP that were later declared illegal and one of the reasons stated was that they were not available to all ccers and boaters.

[cotswoldsman]

So what are the current penalties for squatters?

 

I understand they were changed recently.

I am sure you are trying to make a point but unfortunately it has gone over my head

[kris88]

 

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

 

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

It's nothing wait till a pedestrian who gets hit and injured by a cyclist, gets there act together to sue CRT for failing in it's duty of care!

 

Regards kris

[ROBDEN]

When these cyclist "time trials" started I emailed C&RT about this but never received a reply.

 

Rob....

[Dick Dastardly]

In my experience if you question them or their authority, you'll be a marked man or just too irrelevant a being to answer; as CaRT answer to no one unless they are forced to by a Judge! Very sad.

[MtB]

In my experience if you question them or their authority, you'll be a marked man or just too irrelevant a being to answer; as CaRT answer to no one unless they are forced to by a Judge! Very sad.

 

 

Welcome to the forum Mr D.

 

Sounds to me as though you have a story to tell. You're very welcome to tell what happened. Lots of us here would be interested to hear it and it would add to the collective knowledge.

[Dick Dastardly]

Hi and thanks for the welcome Mr M the B. Being the first time on a forum am getting a feel for it first before I dare divulge all my sewerage.

[madcat]

Don't blame you Mr Dastardly , there's some judgemental types on here and a few who just start a scrap for fun.

[Dick Dastardly]

Don't blame you Mr Dastardly , there's some judgemental types on here and a few who just start a scrap for fun.

That's a shame to hear, as boaters or lovers of the Canal we should unite and helping people to understand it doesn't have to be abusive. If we were more like a community (like it felt in the days gone by) we would have more of a say. CaRT have the power and they will use it, it's our job to get them to act positively with boaters, but this will never happen if we can't interact positively with each other.

[Mike Todd]

 

On CaRT’s argument to the Court, they HAD done all the negotiating they felt was reasonable.

 

Pertinent to other topics over the “sightings” system failures, their prime complaint in this regard was that Andy had declined to provide them with details of his movements. On that basis, they felt justified in assuming non-compliance with the ‘Guidelines’ based on the little evidence they had from the sightings record.

From what you have quoted it does seem that the judge was tending to the view that they could have done more.

[Dick Dastardly]

Fortunately, in court you have to be seen as acting reasonably; if CaRT adopt this tactic they could improve the organisation dramatically and put money received to better use. However, at the moment unfortunately they are a dictatorship, in my experience.

[Tony Dunkley]

From what you have quoted it does seem that the judge was tending to the view that they could have done more.

 

I would say that they could have done considerably less.

They could have not assumed non-compliance in the absence of any evidence, they could have not attempted to steal Andy Wingfield's boat and home out of sheer malice and spite, they could have not wasted a lot money, that would have been better spent on maintenance and repairs, on an unnecessary and pointless exercise.

Behaviour such as this is very indicative of the mentality of the decision makers at C&RT. To any other organization or business, they would be regarded as unemployable.

[MtB]

Fortunately, in court you have to be seen as acting reasonably; if CaRT adopt this tactic they could improve the organisation dramatically and put money received to better use. However, at the moment unfortunately they are a dictatorship, in my experience.

 

 

Now I'm intrigued. In my personal experience, acting reasonably does not end one up in court opposing CRT. So far!

 

Various threads on here show that pushing the envelope/testing the limits sometimes can do though.

[Dick Dastardly]

Now I'm intrigued. In my personal experience, acting reasonably does not end one up in court opposing CRT. So far!

 

Various threads on here show that pushing the envelope/testing the limits sometimes can do though.

Very true, but sometimes its not clear cut, like constructive dismissal.

[MtB]

Very true, but sometimes its not clear cut, like constructive dismissal.

 

 

True. And like constructive dismissal a clash of personalities can be the root cause that kicks it all off, even though points of law are the consideration once it gets to court.

[Dick Dastardly]

True. And like constructive dismissal a clash of personalities can be the root cause that kicks it all off, even though points of law are the consideration once it gets to court.

Darn right there Mr M the B, and extremely unprofessional for an organisation.

[NigelMoore]

 

 

In my personal experience, acting reasonably does not end one up in court opposing CRT.

 

That will be most people’s personal experience also MtB – but I do hope you refer to personal experience as in involving you and your boats, rather than to your own knowledge of what others have experienced.

 

I mean, you would not suggest that I at any time acted unreasonably, now would you?

[StarUKKiwi]

Well Geoff has highlighted that transcripts of cross-examinations from his own case are published on his website, which is on point I would have thought. This excerpt is rather classic: -

 

THE JUDGE: The locks are a standard either 14 feet or seven feet—

A. Yeah, I’d say—

Q. —and the Trent and Mersey locks are mostly 14 feet, are they not?

A. Yeah.

Q. The canal would be, generally speaking, between 20 and 30 feet wide.

A. Yeah.

Q. Sometimes a bit wider, sometimes a bit narrower, but generally 20 to 30 feet wide, enough for two seven-foot narrow boats to pass one another if required.

A. (inaudible), yeah.

Q. The traditional canal narrow boat was just under seven feet, is that right?

A. I don’t know.

Q. You do not know?

A. I don’t know the general width of a boat.

Q. Well, the locks are seven feet, are they not, or 14? Llangollen branch are seven foot.

A. Right.

Q. The Shropshire Union are 14, are they not? You tell me.

A. I don’t know. I don’t know the widths of…

Q. As it happens, I do, but I am not allowed to give evidence. You really ought to know. How long have you been working for the canals?

A. Four years.

AH Yes, that person no longer works for CRT, but that was about the intelligence level

[NigelMoore]

From what you have quoted it does seem that the judge was tending to the view that they could have done more.

 

I suspect he listened to Mr Fowles demanding eviction of the boat for non-compliance with philosophical guidelines, while puzzling over his refusal to give practical guidelines, and wondering why such nonsensical proceedings were ever allowed to darken his door in the first place.

 

Andy’s counsel was saying: tell us what would satisfy you, and we will undertake to abide by that; Mr Fowles was saying: we can’t and won’t define that, we want the court to do it.

 

The problem with the CaRT mindset was that they could not [and cannot] think in any terms other than “obey or else”. To their mind they were negotiating reasonably in insisting Andy travel more, without specifying what that more should entail.

 

I am sure you are right; that the judge felt that there was a great deal more positive effort that ought to have been put in to resolve the essential issue.

 

Above all, he was critical of their inability to factor in individual circumstance and places in the wider context of what they were really seeking to achieve.

AH Yes, that person no longer works for CRT, but that was about the intelligence level

 

The what level?

[Mike Todd]

 

I suspect he listened to Mr Fowles demanding eviction of the boat for non-compliance with philosophical guidelines, while puzzling over his refusal to give practical guidelines, and wondering why such nonsensical proceedings were ever allowed to darken his door in the first place.

 

Andy’s counsel was saying: tell us what would satisfy you, and we will undertake to abide by that; Mr Fowles was saying: we can’t and won’t define that, we want the court to do it.

 

The problem with the CaRT mindset was that they could not [and cannot] think in any terms other than “obey or else”. To their mind they were negotiating reasonably in insisting Andy travel more, without specifying what that more should entail.

 

I am sure you are right; that the judge felt that there was a great deal more positive effort that ought to have been put in to resolve the essential issue.

 

Above all, he was critical of their inability to factor in individual circumstance and places in the wider context of what they were really seeking to achieve.

 

The what level?

I can see how it was heading for an impasse: clearly the judge wanted an individually negotiated settlement as the sensible way forward but if AW put forward, in open court, the question "What will satisfy you?" then it was never going to work. If CaRT's counsel had given an answer then that would probably have been challenged by others as ultra vires, which is the fundamental problem with this issue as it would be seen as setting general guidance.. In specific cases, a boater can seek to 'satisfy the Board' but that is an individual matter. What is not possible - and we all wish that it could be much better - is for CaRT ('The Board') to give more specific rules which, if transgressed, could be better decided in court.

 

I'm not sure whether AW's counsel understood what she(?) was asking - it would have been better to have asked something along the lines, "Is there a basis on which you could discuss with my client that his pattern of boating satisfies The Board?" That discussion would then have taken place outside the court (as indeed it eventually did largely because of a judge that seems to have understood the situation better than either counsel)

[NigelMoore]

Very good synopsis Mike, I agree.

 

I believe that the same problem is inevitable in all cases where CaRT revoke/refuse licenses on the basis of being dissatisfied with the cruising pattern.

 

At least AW's barrister understood that the statutory test of 'bona fide for navigation' was actually defined by the 14 day specification, and that the only ambiguity lay in defining 'place'.

[NigelMoore]

While waiting for other recipients of the Transcripts to make pertinent observations, here is another bit of light relief from the Mayers case, during cross-examination of Helen Waterman –

 

THE JUDGE: What is the functional location?
A. If you had a home mooring it would be a different one and that one states that the boat’s a continuous cruiser.
Q. Yes, sorry, but there are different numbers, though. BW065007, what does that mean? BW presumably stands for British Waterways.
A. Yeah.
Q. And 065 –what is that?
A. A continuous cruiser.
Q. A continuous cruiser, and 007, what is 007?
A. I think that was, without looking—
Q. It belongs to James Bond?

 

 

[jenlyn]

While waiting for other recipients of the Transcripts to make pertinent observations, here is another bit of light relief from the Mayers case, during cross-examination of Helen Waterman –

 

THE JUDGE: What is the functional location?

A. If you had a home mooring it would be a different one and that one states that the boat’s a continuous cruiser.

Q. Yes, sorry, but there are different numbers, though. BW065007, what does that mean? BW presumably stands for British Waterways.

A. Yeah.

Q. And 065 –what is that?

A. A continuous cruiser.

Q. A continuous cruiser, and 007, what is 007?

A. I think that was, without looking—

Q. It belongs to James Bond?

 

 

Did she resemble Rosa klebb in any way?