Jump to content

CRT v Andy Wingfield Update

cotswoldsman

By cotswoldsman
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

mango Experienced

mango

Posted
Posted

If I was injured, I would still have to make sure my car had current tax, insurance and MOT if kept on the road. In Mr Wingfield's position I would have asked a fellow boater to move my boat to a marina or other mooring until I was fit to use the boat again.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jenlyn Veteran II

jenlyn

Posted
Posted

If I was injured, I would still have to make sure my car had current tax, insurance and MOT if kept on the road. In Mr Wingfield's position I would have asked a fellow boater to move my boat to a marina or other mooring until I was fit to use the boat again.

Your my hero cloud9.gifcloud9.gifcloud9.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoodGurl Experienced

GoodGurl

Posted
Posted

If what Jenlyn posted is correct (no reason to think it isn't) then it seems that it will be the thin end of the wedge for CRT to go ahead with more prosecutions.

Bob

yes I agree, if he did lose his case marina moorers had better beware because Andy had a mooring this time. This could be bad news for all boaters with a home mooring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phil. Gongoozler

Phil.

Posted
Posted

yes I agree, if he did lose his case marina moorers had better beware because Andy had a mooring this time. This could be bad news for all boaters with a home mooring.

That depends on what his defence was. If it was about his human rights then it was likely to fail as it was never a human rights issue. If he lost it but his defence was that he had not contravened the waterways acts then it would be more concerning. The fact the reason is not being made known is a little frustrating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kris88 Experienced

kris88

Posted
Posted

If I was injured, I would still have to make sure my car had current tax, insurance and MOT if kept on the road. In Mr Wingfield's position I would have asked a fellow boater to move my boat to a marina or other mooring until I was fit to use the boat again.

Nothing like kicking someone when they are down, eh?

 

Regards kris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoodGurl Experienced

GoodGurl

Posted
Posted

That depends on what his defence was. If it was about his human rights then it was likely to fail as it was never a human rights issue. If he lost it but his defence was that he had not contravened the waterways acts then it would be more concerning. The fact the reason is not being made known is a little frustrating.

According to NBW they revoked his license because they didn't like his new cruising pattern even tho he had a home mooring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tollerton Gongoozler

Tollerton

Posted
Posted (edited)

Delighted to discover Canalworld recently have found the postings by boaters to be interesting and helpful.

 

My attention was caught by the rather lengthy thread CRT vs Andy Wingfield.

Although it is long in length postings don’t make it clear to a new reader as to the reason(s) for the court case. The gist of the case would seem to be that Mr Wingfield was injured and thereby not able to move his boat to comply with mooring time limits. There may be other aspects to the case that I have not picked up, apologies if that is so.

 

Not knowing the full facts it is difficult to comment, however a while ago incapacity (a pulled muscle or muscles in my back) prevented me from moving my boat off visitor moorings

 

Sought medical treatment initially and then knowing roughly how long my recovery was likely to be I contacted the local CRT office to explain the situation and asked them for their advice as regards mooring.

Have to say CRT couldn’t have been more understanding and helpful to my plight.

 

Edit: Moral of the story: Be reasonable and those nice people at CaRT are most likely to be reasonable in return. Taking liberties usually has unwanted consequences. Goodbye!

Edited by Tollerton
Link to comment
Share on other sites
StarUKKiwi Proficient

StarUKKiwi

Posted
Posted (edited)

Very bizarre, is this the same legal team given the right to appeal the boat is a home case before the Court of Appeal. In which case, it is even more bizarre because would a precedent have been set? Edited to add that I have asked and been told it doesn't necessarily. I don't suppose we will ever know the reasons and Andy has 28 days to remove his boat

Edited by StarUKKiwi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted (edited)

Have we "lost" a recent contribution to this topic? ie posted last night and gone this morning

Ray

 

Yes, taken down after 20 minutes after one of the Moderators deemed it to be libellous.

 

Copies available by PM, or E-mail, on request.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jenlyn Veteran II

jenlyn

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

Yes, taken down after 20 minutes after one of the Moderators deemed it to be libellous.

 

Copies available by PM, or E-mail, on request.

To be fair to the mods Tony, it was a tad close to the bone lol. (not that I disagreed with it).

Edited by jenlyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phil. Gongoozler

Phil.

Posted
Posted (edited)

The crux of the missing post without remotely libellous content is that the case was lost because it was defended on the basis of human rights being breached rather than defending on the basis of the relevant waterways acts. It was suggested that an offer to settle was made by the Authority and their legal representatives when they became aware the case may be defended on the basis of waterways legislation. Ultimately the case went ahead using the human rights aspect alone and was lost.

 

Following on from this I can see some positives.

 

The first is that Authority and their legal representatives have shown their hand to any future unfortunates in that if confronted by a defence based on the waterways laws as they stand they will settle. They are clearly aware of the limitations of the law in what they are doing and whilst trying it on will avoid going into court if correctly challenged.

 

Second I now wonder if the opportunity for appeal exits in this current case as the suggestion is that The Authority may have obtained a result which the waterways acts do not entitle them to because they may have acted outside the acts to remove the license that then led to the injunction. If this information was not used in the initial case as it is suggested it may be the grounds needed to appeal the decision. The benefit of this is it would take it from a court which does not set precedents into one that does.

Edited by Phil.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.