CRT v Andy Wingfield Update

[Nige G]

 

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.

 

I'd be interested to see it if you could PM it please.

[Phoenix_V]

 

I'd be interested to see it if you could PM it please.

it appears to be on london boaters facebook page

[jenlyn]

it appears to be on london boaters facebook page

Been removed.

In which case, it is even more bizarre because precedent has been set.

Not true.

[Mike Todd]

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.

I suspect that it might be unwise to draw as general a conclusion as this. A boater in exactly (or sufficiently close) circumstances might be able to conclude that they could challenge but the judgement for CaRT in any other case - as for any litigant - is how clear cut is their case.

[StarUKKiwi]

Been removed.

 

Not true.

Edited after speaking to a solicitor today. They also suggested that every case is different and that reasons may not be at all clear in the present. They also said that making defamatory statements online was trolling and the best action is to report those to the admin and block the troll. Edited October 11, 2015 by StarUKKiwi

[jenlyn]

Edited after speaking to a solicitor today. They also suggested that every case is different and that reasons may not be at all clear in the present.

Lol.

I guess there is a lesson to be learnt there then.

Don't make such a statement if you don't have the facts.

Edited October 11, 2015 by jenlyn

[gaggle]

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!

Yes goodbye

Sorry don't understand meaning 'dummy profiles; assume it's not related to my comment above ?

?? thought you were going or gone .

[Tony Dunkley]

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

 

The plain truth can't really be anything but 'close to the bone'. The contents of that Post weren't an opinion, it was simply a brief report of what took place.

I E-mailed the Statement and supporting Docs ( my own Defence from last year and BW/C&RT's own EoG stuff) to the Court after everyone had closed up and gone home on Wednesday afternoon. This is twice now that this material and these tactics have stopped things dead, with C&RT unwilling to argue their case on the basis of waterways law. It's pretty clear that they know there is no sound basis in Law for all this new T&C's nonsense.

The conduct of Andy W's legal team is almost beyond belief, and I would think that any other instances of Defence lawyers rejecting an offer from the Plaintiff to withdraw and settle on favourable terms, without even going into Court, would be rare to say the least.

[Tony Dunkley]

I suspect that it might be unwise to draw as general a conclusion as this. A boater in exactly (or sufficiently close) circumstances might be able to conclude that they could challenge but the judgement for CaRT in any other case - as for any litigant - is how clear cut is their case.

 

It seems to have escaped your notice that C&RT did make a judgement on the soundness of their own case, and that judgement prompted an offer from them to withdraw, and issue Andy Wingfield with a new Licence, albeit subject to the sour grapes proviso that it would be a 3 month 'probationary' one.

[Naughty Cal]

So what is Andy's situation now?

[jenlyn]

 

The plain truth can't really be anything but 'close to the bone'. The contents of that Post weren't an opinion, it was simply a brief report of what took place.

I E-mailed the Statement and supporting Docs ( my own Defence from last year and BW/C&RT's own EoG stuff) to the Court after everyone had closed up and gone home on Wednesday afternoon. This is twice now that this material and these tactics have stopped things dead, with C&RT unwilling to argue their case on the basis of waterways law. It's pretty clear that they know there is no sound basis in Law for all this new T&C's nonsense.

The conduct of Andy W's legal team is almost beyond belief, and I would think that any other instances of Defence lawyers rejecting an offer from the Plaintiff to withdraw and settle on favourable terms, without even going into Court, would be rare to say the least.

As I said, I didn't disagree with you, but I could see the implications your post could have had for the site owner.

Personally, I'm glad you posted it, you have b*lls. Good on ya.

[gaggle]

So what is Andy's situation now?

 

Whats yours , happy as larry ?

[jenlyn]

As I said, I didn't disagree with you, but I could see the implications your post could have had for the site owner.

Personally, I'm glad you posted it, you have b*lls. Good on ya.

I dunno why you don't fire up a web page Tony. Some of the knowledge you hold is valuable to others. That's pretty obvious. I suspect your sharing it would be greatly appreciated.

[Graham Davis]

 

Whats yours , happy as larry ?

 

I saw Rachael's post as a simple and honest question, and then you have to highjack it!

Troll.

[Tony Dunkley]

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.

 

Yes, and that, in my view, is the most valuable and most significant thing to emerge from this.

C&RT clearly recognize that their stance with regard to their mythical powers to refuse Licences and to dictate the manner in which boats are used, will not survive being argued in Court in the event of that argument having it's basis in the relevant and applicable BW Acts.

All future Defences must be primarily focused on their persistent misuse and misapplication of the Statutory powers they do in fact have. Human Rights issues can and should be included, not as a plea to be let off as lightly as the Court may see fit, but as an adjunct to a well constructed argument arising out of waterways Law.

Edited October 11, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Tuscan]

Yes, and that, in my view, is the most valuable and most significant thing to emerge from this.

C&RT clearly recognize that their stance with regard to their mythical powers to refuse Licences and to dictate the manner in which boats are used, will not survive being argued in Court in the event of that argument having it's basis in the relevant and applicable BW Acts.

All future Defences must be primarily focused on their persistent misuse and misapplication of the Statutory powers they do in fact have.

This would appear indeed to be the case the difficulty presumeably will be finding someone to represent you with this level of knowledge given the twin risks of losing your home and financial risk of costs.

[jenlyn]

 

Yes, and that, in my view, is the most valuable and most significant thing to emerge from this.

C&RT clearly recognize that their stance with regard to their mythical powers to refuse Licences and to dictate the manner in which boats are used, will not survive being argued in Court in the event of that argument having it's basis in the relevant and applicable BW Acts.

All future Defences must be primarily focused on their persistent misuse and misapplication of the Statutory powers they do in fact have. Human Rights issues can and should be included, not as a plea to be let off as lightly as the Court may see fit, but as an adjunct to a well constructed argument arising out of waterways Law.

All the more reason for you to fire up a web page Tony. Get the info into the public so it's accessible.

We can't rely on the main associations, they are just talking shops and shy away from any real issues.

[Naughty Cal]

 

I saw Rachael's post as a simple and honest question, and then you have to highjack it!

Troll.

It was indeed an honest question which is why I ignored his comment.

 

Don't feed the trolls. They soon get bored if you ignore them.

 

So back to the question. Where does this leave Andy?

[tidal]

All the more reason for you to fire up a web page Tony. Get the info into the public so it's accessible.

We can't rely on the main associations, they are just talking shops and shy away from any real issues.

 

I totally agree with the first line. It would be of huge benefit for that info to be publicly accessible.

I'm not sure about the 2nd due to lack of modern experience with such groups (and the "main" qualifier)

[Phoenix_V]

Its a pretty poor state of affairs in this "free" country when all sorts of threats actual or implied are made to prevent reporting and commenting on a settled court case, I can understand why this site is shy of carrying such but it is strange that facebook have seen fit to remove Tony's post. It is simple to launch a website on Weebly or similar it would be good to put the information back into the public domain.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Phoenix_V

[kris88]

I'm really confused, so the case is over, but CRT have done some sort of deal so no one can talk about it? If that's correct it begs the question what are CRT afraid of? ( more people realising the way they operate as an organisation maybe?)

 

Regards kris

[GreyLady]

I'm really confused, so the case is over, but CRT have done some sort of deal so no one can talk about it? If that's correct it begs the question what are CRT afraid of? ( more people realising the way they operate as an organisation maybe?)

Regards kris

 

Maybe their were £ penalty charges/fines, maybe these were dropped if a non disclosure was signed.

Edited October 12, 2015 by grumpy146

[kris88]

Speculation is only a guess not fact, I guess no one will ever know.

I think this is one instance where anybody who is interested should pay attention to Tony.

 

Regards kris

[bassplayer]

I'm really confused, so the case is over, but CRT have done some sort of deal so no one can talk about it? If that's correct it begs the question what are CRT afraid of? ( more people realising the way they operate as an organisation maybe?)

Regards kris

Any attempt to hide the truth just adds weight to the distrust in the so called 'Trust'...

[Phil.]

Are you all sure it is CRT trying to hide the circumstances of the outcome and not the defence legal team if the reports on how it ended are correct.