CRT v Andy Wingfield Update

[kris88]

Okay thanks for that Nigel, unfortunately I can't make thurs. So at least we'll get to hear what happens.

 

Regards kris

[NigelMoore]

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

 

You cannot have an 'expert witness' to give legal argument.

[Tony Dunkley]

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

 

Which, all in all, is why I used the phrase "carefully timed".

C&RT do invariably go through the Courts if Section 8'ing liveaboards, although I'm not prepared go into another lengthy explanation of why, at this time.

As for you view that C&RT can make life impossible if they wish to and refuse to issue a new Licence, not only is that a defeatist and far from correct assumption, but you seem to have failed to grasp the fact that they are already doing that for their selected victims

I would be interested to hear the reasoning behind your assertion re. leaving sleeping dogs to lie. Are you promoting meek submission to bullies, and compliance with their unlawful demands as a recipe for a peaceful life ?

[KenK]

You cannot have an 'expert witness' to give legal argument.

I am aware of that but given the nonsense put forward in the previous case re Houseboat certificates the defense does seem to need some advise as to the correct licence. In addition that C&RT's understanding of the 1995 act is at the very least flawed.

Hence a witness for the defence.

 

Ken

[KenK]

Which, all in all, is why I used the phrase "carefully timed".

C&RT do invariably go through the Courts if Section 8'ing liveaboards, although I'm not prepared go into another lengthy explanation of why, at this time.

As for you view that C&RT can make life impossible if they wish to and refuse to issue a new Licence, not only is that a defeatist and far from correct assumption, but you seem to have failed to grasp the fact that they are already doing that for their selected victims

I would be interested to hear the reasoning behind your assertion re. leaving sleeping dogs to lie. Are you promoting meek submission to bullies, and compliance with their unlawful demands as a recipe for a peaceful life ?

No of course not but given Andy's state of health did he really need to poke the stick in the wasp nest quite so soon.

Also why he continues to rely on his previous legal team without demanding they use the existing 1995 act and forget the Human Rights Legislation.

 

I once spent two years fighting an unjust speeding case, I won but even so it wasn't something I wanted to repeat.

 

Ken

[Bod]

All I can say is Good Luck Andy, I'll be there in spirit, if not in body.

 

Bod

Edited October 6, 2015 by Bod

[NigelMoore]

I am aware of that but given the nonsense put forward in the previous case re Houseboat certificates the defense does seem to need some advise as to the correct licence.

 

I have been doing what I could, even to late this afternoon, to provide the solicitor with the relevant material Miss Easty needs, and to encourage him to file Andy's Defence as I revised it. It is far too late to request the court to entertain witnesses.

 

Simon Robbins had offered his services respecting a statement over the houseboat issue, for example, but these are things that need to be organised in good time; to take the stand you need to have provided a Witness Statement as to the facts - but up until this morning, the legal team have been relying on CaRT backing off in view of next year's Appeal Court hearing on the susceptibility of CaRT to the Human Rights Act, and in view of the earnest suggestions that Andy's "excuses" were cast-iron reasons for any alleged overstays. They seemed to believe that that was all that was needed to wrap the case up and frighten CaRT off.

 

Now they know otherwise, I am not even confident that they can file ANY Defence within time, if a judge chose to get picky.

[Alenafour]

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.

I am sorry but "you have to take what you can get" is the counsel of defeat and not helpful. CRT is not one entity, it's a group. That they are running with this ill-founded train of expensive litigation is the action of a small group of people egged on by a bunch of very persuasive legal sales team.

 

This needs to be stopped. Now. with whatever it takes. I am as concerned about travellers rights and human rights as anyone but I trust completely Nigel's legal analysis and I want that properly tested in court. I have read the transcript and Ms Easty has no place in this, it is not her field and she obviously has neither the expertise nor the experience to do what needs to be done.

 

I accept 'idiot' and 'monkey' is on the emotive side but this is a discussion forum and I simply express an opinion. I do not know Andy Wingfield so I see no way of offering more serious advice other than get rid of these people and use instead the expertise of those who have properly studied this ( for 100s of hours) rather than spent a couple of hours trying to shoehorn the arguments into their comfort zone.

 

 

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.

Exactly. Edited October 6, 2015 by Alenafour

[jenlyn]

Edited. Read the post wrong.

Edited October 6, 2015 by jenlyn

[KenK]

 

Edited. Read the post wrong.

 

That's the first time you have let that get in the way of a good punchup

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only joking

 

Ken

[Arthur Marshall]

I never understood why the houseboat nonsense was not stopped in its tracks unless, as seems to be the case, the legal team haven't actually made any real attempt to understand the legal aspects, just relying on the HRA, in which case as alenfour says it obviously would be better to scrabble around to try to find a set of lawyers who actually want to do some work on a case. Sadly, I don't think these are to easy to find, seeing as how they get paid whether they do or they don't.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I have been doing what I could, even to late this afternoon, to provide the solicitor with the relevant material Miss Easty needs, and to encourage him to file Andy's Defence as I revised it. It is far too late to request the court to entertain witnesses.

 

Simon Robbins had offered his services respecting a statement over the houseboat issue, for example, but these are things that need to be organised in good time; to take the stand you need to have provided a Witness Statement as to the facts - but up until this morning, the legal team have been relying on CaRT backing off in view of next year's Appeal Court hearing on the susceptibility of CaRT to the Human Rights Act, and in view of the earnest suggestions that Andy's "excuses" were cast-iron reasons for any alleged overstays. They seemed to believe that that was all that was needed to wrap the case up and frighten CaRT off.

 

Now they know otherwise, I am not even confident that they can file ANY Defence within time, if a judge chose to get picky.

I'm pleased to see that Simon Robbins has come forward as an expert witness on houseboats as he is 'the man' in this area.

 

****Edited to sort out quoting

 

However, do we know if this now forms part of CaRT's 'new' case against Andy?

Edited October 7, 2015 by Allan(nb Albert)

[NigelMoore]

I'm pleased to see that Simon Robbins has come forward as an expert witness on houseboats as he is 'the man' in this area.

 

However, do we know if this now forms part of CaRT's 'new' case against Andy?

 

He offered, I passed that offer on - awhile ago.

 

I heard nothing further, whether Andy passed it on or not I do not know - but so far as I understand they were unprepared to even file the defence as yet, thinking they would not have to - let alone contact potential witnesses.

 

CaRT's 'new case' is not any new one; they simply claim that as resident on 'their' waterways without a relevant consent, they are entitled to an Order chucking him off, and to an Injunction forbidding him from returning his boat to any CaRT controlled waters anywhere in the country. They justify revoking and refusing his 'licence' on the grounds that he was overstaying beyond 14 days at one particular spot, regardless of the fact that that mooring was NOT a visitor nor even a general towpath mooring.

 

They complain [untruthfully, as if it mattered anyway] that he never used their own mooring that he continues to pay for.

 

The "Houseboat" classification comes into its own when they want to establish that he absolutely does need a "relevant consent" [as in 'houseboat'] even though he is moored outside of the main navigable channel.

[Alenafour]

Let's look on the bright side, Andy may be doing everything to sabotage himself except pulling out his fingernails but such puerile arguments from CRT will be no use against any future, properly prepared, case.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Alenafour

[gaggle]

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.

 

Yet another attempt to derail a thread ?

[SimonRNABO]

Just wanted to say that I am not and do not claim to be an expert witness on Houseboat Certificates in any formal sense, as Alan (inadvertently) implied.

 

What I have is 20 plus years of correspondence, complaints and a couple of Ombudsman cases with/against BW/CRT plus a reasonable archive of their different policies, procedures and statements in that area over that time. All this exists largely as a matter of self preservation, as one of the few people who still has a Houseboat Certificate on my boat.

 

It just means that from time to time I can refute some of BW/CRT's attempts to re-write history with the benefit of documentary evidence.

[Bod]

Just wanted to say that I am not and do not claim to be an expert witness on Houseboat Certificates in any formal sense, as Alan (inadvertently) implied.

 

What I have is 20 plus years of correspondence, complaints and a couple of Ombudsman cases with/against BW/CRT plus a reasonable archive of their different policies, procedures and statements in that area over that time. All this exists largely as a matter of self preservation, as one of the few people who still has a Houseboat Certificate on my boat.

 

It just means that from time to time I can refute some of BW/CRT's attempts to re-write history with the benefit of documentary evidence.

 

Thanks for coming on, I fear your hard won knowledge will be used in full, should C&RT continue to follow the "Houseboat" path.

 

Bod

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Just wanted to say that I am not and do not claim to be an expert witness on Houseboat Certificates in any formal sense, as Alan (inadvertently) implied.

 

What I have is 20 plus years of correspondence, complaints and a couple of Ombudsman cases with/against BW/CRT plus a reasonable archive of their different policies, procedures and statements in that area over that time. All this exists largely as a matter of self preservation, as one of the few people who still has a Houseboat Certificate on my boat.

 

It just means that from time to time I can refute some of BW/CRT's attempts to re-write history with the benefit of documentary evidence.

I consider my wrist slapped!

 

However, as far as I am aware, Simon is the only person who has fought to protect the interests of those entitled to houseboat certificates over the years.

 

[Alenafour]

Best of luck today Andy.

[Hawkmoth]

Seconded!

Bob

[kris88]

Anybody going to let us know what happened today?

 

Regards kris

[StarUKKiwi]

Was it a one day or two day trial? If a two day,I would have thought they can't report much until it finishes.

[Bod]

Gentlemen

Can we have a bit of peace here please.

I'm sure that an update, will appear, when there is anything to say.

 

Bod

[Lady Muck]

Gentlemen

Can we have a bit of peace here please.

I'm sure that an update, will appear, when there is anything to say.

 

Bod

yes, agreed, please lets keep this thread factual. Thank you

[Phil.]

One can only assume that this time the outcome is so confidential were not even allowed to know if it's finished yet.