CRT v Andy Wingfield Update

[MtB]

You're being silly now. The fact that atrocities are happening in other parts of the world doesn't mean we have to put up with injustice.

 

CRT are bang out of order here.

 

 

Get a grip.

That's not what I said.

[Guest]

Frankly I would rather live in a country were CRT push boaters about than one where the govt shoot bullets at citizens or incarcerate dissidents for torture.

And this has exactly what to do with the discussion?

Edited October 5, 2015 by MJG

[Ange]

 

 

Get a grip.

That's not what I said.

Ok clearly I misunderstood.

 

Would you care to expand on your comments, because it appeared that if we're not being murdered in our beds we're not allowed to complain about poor internet access or bullying by CRT. I'm happy to be put right

[valrene9600]

Frankly I would rather live in a country were CRT push boaters about than one where the govt shoot bullets at citizens or incarcerate dissidents for torture.

I understand what you are saying and I agree. We stand a chance of correcting any injustices of CRT but would have no chance with a gun toting government.

We have the freedom to object and challenge, unlike some countries.

[valrene9600]

On

And this has exactly what to do with the discussion?

Probably about the same as African tribesmen, smart phones and Facebook.

 

Edit. Post 371

Edited October 5, 2015 by valrene9600

[Hawkmoth]

Would it be possible to crowd fund a defence for this, or any other blatantly bad behaviour by CRT.?

Bob

[Arthur Marshall]

So really this is another attempt by CRT to outlaw "ghost moorings", where someone has a home mooring where they don't particularly want it and go and moor long term somewhere else? In this case it seems the mooring Andy was given was five miles from where he wanted to be, so he just went back to where he wanted to be again, which would appear to be pushing your luck if not positively asking for trouble, whether legal or not. Sooner or later I can see CRT getting a proper change in the Acts to define what boaters with home moorings are entitled to do, which would make everyone worse off (apart from the legal profession, no doubt). I presume this is their way of getting a precedent on the T&Cs, which would be a cheaper way of doing the same thing.

[NigelMoore]

So really this is another attempt by CRT to outlaw "ghost moorings", where someone has a home mooring where they don't particularly want it and go and moor long term somewhere else?

 

It has certainly taken on that colouration.

 

For the record, though, according to Andy he WAS cruising around within guidelines until needing specific medical care for a time, and continued doing so thereafter - and has, moreover, utilised the CaRT mooring he is still paying for.

 

Once he was given a fortnight's notice to get off the system however, he stayed where he was - on the private moorings as aforetime.

 

Mr Garner's explanation of the need to get rid of Andy last time -under cross examination - was primarily loss of potential moorings income for CaRT, and potential congestion of visitor moorings and the like. Andy's situation needs to be seen in light of that explanation: CaRT are now receiving payments for a permanent mooring from Andy, and there is no congestion of the river nor any occupation of visitor or even 'towpath' moorings.

 

This makes the present action either - as has been suggested by others - a vindictive personal reprise of the last failed attack, or as you suggest, an institutional reprise of the Dunkley attack for the purpose of establishing a principle just for the sake of it.

 

I would remind people of the answers Jackie Lewis gave to NABO over the issue of this particular principle.

[NigelMoore]

Would it be possible to crowd fund a defence for this, or any other blatantly bad behaviour by CRT.?

 

As this topic has demonstrated, there would appear to be willingness and ability to crowd-fund defences in cases like this in future. Money is not, however, the sole criteria – who are you going to employ as counsel? If they were willing to take the time to sit down and accept instruction and briefings from non-solicitors, public access barristers such as Miss Easty could be a huge asset; but that is a large IF.

 

Others also, might be willing to spend the necessary time to educate themselves in order to develop a specialty in the waterways field, and I am confident that others beside myself would be happy to provide all the assistance and material possible in that regard. It is a limited field however, and hopefully one that had rapidly diminishing opportunities for exploitation!

 

In fairness to the Community Law Partnership – who else have been willing to take on legal aid cases such as this? They do so, because the cases fit loosely within their specialty remit, and they have worked closely with the NBTA to help boaters, where no-one else has. But they are a very small concern working within small margins, without the time for the necessary research.

 

Contrast that situation to Shoosmiths, who are on a more or less permanent retainer as is their favourite QC, with millions to fund time spent on wrangling imaginative distortions of the law for their client.

 

I hope this is not coming across as too dismal and discouraging; I am trying to be realistic in a currently dark frame of mind.

 

 

edit to add: the other hugely important consideration is the differing exposure to costs depending on whether you are legally-aided or not. The moment you go the direct access route, you expose yourself to full costs orders against you in the event of losing - and even if you appeal and go on to win in the end, those costs can chase you for ever. Paying for your own barrister is one thing; paying for the other side's legal costs can involve 6 figure sums. I have said it before - just because you are right, does not guarantee you will win.

Edited October 6, 2015 by NigelMoore

[KenK]

Forgive my ignorance but is it not possible to have an expert witness on Andy's side in this type of case?

Someone who Miss Easty could call who understands the current legal position with regard to licence conditions etc.

That would I assume solve the issue of Miss Easty's lack of understanding.

 

Ken

[Hawkmoth]

Thanks to both of the above for their comments, it is shame, but seems to be a universal truth that justice must be bought.

Bob

Edit fir spelin

Edited October 6, 2015 by lyraboat

[kris88]

The hearing is today? Is that right ?

Is there no one from the forum there?

 

Regards kris

[Alenafour]

Would it be possible to crowd fund a defence for this, or any other blatantly bad behaviour by CRT.?

Bob

To employ a load of useless monkeys? Count me out. I am seriously pissed that it appears such an important case against such a flagrant breach of the law ( so much so that even Mayall is silent ) is being contested by a bunch of idiots such as Ms Easty and team.

 

Feel free to sue me Ms Easty.

[Hawkmoth]

To employ a load of useless monkeys? Count me out. I am seriously pissed that it appears such an important case against such a flagrant breach of the law ( so much so that even Mayall is silent ) is being contested by a bunch of idiots such as Ms Easty and team.

 

Feel free to sue me Ms Easty.

No, to try to employ a brief who is interested and knowledgeable. Or even, as suggested by KenK above, an expert witness.

Bob

[Alenafour]

No, to try to employ a brief who is interested and knowledgeable. Or even, as suggested by KenK above, an expert witness.

Bob

Trouble is, unless someone like Andy Wingfield is prepared to tread this route with, as Nigel pointed out, the attendant financial risks, it's not going to work. Andy Wingfield has so many lines of defence, not least those that point to the illegalities of CRT's actions, that this is about the best chance I'm aware of.

 

Davies was told his actions were not in the best interests of boaters and it appears Wingfield is another prepared to tread his own unfathomable path and sod the rest.

 

I understand Nigel is in direct contact with him and if his expertise and knowledge can't persuade him of the foolishness of going with this shower, I see little hope.

[Arthur Marshall]

To employ a load of useless monkeys? Count me out. I am seriously pissed that it appears such an important case against such a flagrant breach of the law ( so much so that even Mayall is silent ) is being contested by a bunch of idiots such as Ms Easty and team.

 

Feel free to sue me Ms Easty.

One of the problems with discussing this, and trying to actually find out what the facts are, is that people start getting emotional about it. Telling people they are idiots is not actually a useful way of getting anyone (be they lawyers or people on this forum) to listen to you. CRT are obviously of the opinion that the law SHOULD be on their side and that the argument is about interpretation, and now seems to be whether they can wangle the new T&Cs into the lawbook without actually amending the original Act. Ms Easty's lot have worked a lot with travellers etc because they actually do care about this sort of thing, and could probably be earing a stack more money if they went into other brances of law - unfortunately, due to government changes, there are fewer and fewer legal aid practices and likely to be a damn sight fewer in the future, so you have to take what you can get and they may not be expert in the areas you want. You have to remember too what, and who, the law is for.

[pearlygeoff]

Perhaps, in the light of recent comments by Nigel, the remaining 'doubters' and CRT supporters, and anyone else interested, would care to read my website and understand that what I say is true and very revealing and important.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2015 by pearlygeoff

[Guest]

Cough......

 

http://www.canalandrivertyranny.co.uk/index.php/psblc

[pearlygeoff]

Cough......

 

http://www.canalandrivertyranny.co.uk/index.php/psblc

 

Thank you.

[mayalld]

To employ a load of useless monkeys? Count me out. I am seriously pissed that it appears such an important case against such a flagrant breach of the law ( so much so that even Mayall is silent )

 

 

 

Never silent Chris.

 

Due to being rather busy, I am still digesting the transcript.

 

If you want an edited highlight to take out of context at a later date;

 

I can only concur with Nigel that the whole argument about continuous cruising houseboats was straight out of Alice in Wonderland.

 

Unfortunately, Ms Easty failed to address the logical error that whilst a houseboat certificate falls within the scope of "a relevant consent", that does not actually mean that all possible consents are available in each case.

 

In the case of a continuous cruiser, the requirements for granting a consent are mutually exclusive with that consent, and as such it is NOT a RELEVANT consent for that part of the act.

 

Quite why they chose to muddy the waters like this mystifies me.

 

Their case was reasonably strong without being silly, and frankly they have everything to lose by being silly, because if Ms Easty had chosen to argue that point, I suspect that the judge would have told CRT to take a hike.

[Tony Dunkley]

Given the BW / C&RT track record of ignoring both the implications and wording of any Judgments that don't go their way and simply continuing to pursue their own agenda regardless, I do question the real value of trying to "win" in Court, given the slim chance that such a win will do anything whatsoever to dull their appetite for unnecessary and inappropriate litigation.

However copious C&RT's Boater Persecution Budget may appear to be, there will be some point at which they would have to stop throwing money at Shoosmiths in the pursuit of actions they can't win

Prior to issuing a Section 8 Notice C&RT are obliged, by law, to give a boater a minimum of 28 days notice to remedy any alleged transgressions before revoking the boat Licence as a precursor to Section 8.

If, having filed a carefully timed and worded response to the Declaration and Injunction Application, and attended what then becomes a preliminary Hearing rather than the granting of the Declaration / Injunction that C&RT were expecting, the intended victim then complies with the requirements of the 28 day ultimatum, whether lawful or not, C&RT are then obliged to renew the Licence that they revoked earlier, and in doing that, they completely destroy the case they've just paid Shoosmiths to put together, and have no option but to discontinue.

If this, for C&RT, costly and time wasting pantomime was quite deliberately foisted on every unlawful licence revoking / Section 8'ing attempt made by C&RT, then even they eventually may feel it wise to cease wasting money on a lost cause.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[KenK]

Given the BW / C&RT track record of ignoring both the implications and wording of any Judgments that don't go their way and simply continuing to pursue their own agenda regardless, I do question the real value of trying to "win" in Court, given the slim chance that it will do anything whatsoever to dull their appetite for unnecessary and inappropriate litigation.

However copious C&RT's Boater Persecution Budget may appear to be, there will be some point at which they would have to stop throwing money at Shoosmiths in the pursuit of actions they can't win

Prior to issuing a Section 8 Notice C&RT are obliged, by law, to give a boater a minimum of 28 days notice to remedy any alleged transgressions before revoking the boat Licence as a precursor to Section 8.

If, having filed a carefully timed and worded response to the Declaration and Injunction Application, and attended what then becomes a preliminary Hearing rather than the granting of the Declaration / Injunction that C&RT were expecting, the intended victim then complies with the requirements of the 28 day ultimatum, whether lawful or not, C&RT are then obliged to renew the Licence that they revoked earlier, and in doing that, they completely destroy the case they've just paid Shoosmiths to put together, and have no option but to discontinue.

If this costly and time wasting pantomime was quite deliberately foisted on every unlawful licence revoking / Section 8'ing attempt made by C&RT, then even they eventually may feel it wise to cease wasting money on a lost cause.

The above might be true but of course C&RT do not actually have to use the courts. Once a Section 8 notice is issued the can after 28 days simply remove the boat if the boater does not mend their ways. Equally if the boater then does do as requested they will keep a close eye and repeat the Section 8 should they lapse, done a couple of times then simply refuse to issue a licence. Then it is up to the boater to take the matter up with the court and you will not get legal aid in those circumstances.

Lets not get carried away, at the end of the day C&RT can make life impossible should they wish to but some boaters really do just ask for trouble. All organisations make mistakes and have bad apples within them, give some individuals a little authority and it brings out the worst in them. Equally some boaters and for that matter any other tag you choose to use refuse to follow simple rules just because they are human beings and then instead of using a little common sense they defend their right to be an idiot.

It looks, as far as I understand it, as though Andy Wingfield has the right of it but equally if he had been a little more sensible he wouldn't be back in court. Win or lose it is not something I would wish to keep doing. Insisting on your rights is all very well but sometimes it is better to let sleeping dogs lie.

The other problem is if C&RT do win then they have a judgement which goes against the 1995 act, not something I would wish for.

 

Ken

[NigelMoore]

Ms Easty's lot have worked a lot with travellers etc because they actually do care about this sort of thing, and could probably be earing a stack more money if they went into other brances of law -

 

Quite true, and that does need, as you say, to be recognised.

 

Whether they will accept necessary outside assistance from rank amateurs, however, remains to be seen. A true professional will not allow false pride to get in the way of their client's interests.

[NigelMoore]

The other problem is if C&RT do win then they have a judgement which goes against the 1995 act, not something I would wish for.

 

That is not something to worry about. Do not forget that these County Court judgments are not binding, even at peer level [as HHJ Pugsley got somewhat vehement over].

 

Moreover, IF Andy's defence team do NOT file the arguments he wishes, the case will not be decided on those relevant legal arguments. The only decision made will be whether the HRA in his particular circumstances, bites sufficiently to offset the [untested] presumption that CaRT were entitled to refuse the licence and enable s.8.

 

The end result would not in that eventuality be disastrous for any other boater - only for Andy himself.

[NigelMoore]

The hearing is today? Is that right ?

Is there no one from the forum there?

 

No, the hearing is at 10am in the Nottingham County Court this Thursday morning, 8th October.

 

Several of us are proposing to be there, though that can only be, at this stage, purely for moral support, and to discombobulate the Shoosmiths/CaRT contingent.