Jump to content

CRT v Andy Wingfield Update


cotswoldsman

Featured Posts

CRT are playing stupid games with the law, Parliament should be told, and Richard Parry should face a select committee and be told to get a grip of his legal department.

Is it fair to say that you now have your boats licensed and are enjoying your boating?

The last time we spoke you were keen to pursue some form of compensation,I take

it you are still considering your position or have you indeed taken Grahams advice and

gone via your MP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last few posts had to go. They added nothing to the discussion and were merely inflammatory or responding to inflammatory posts.

 

Theo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CRT are playing stupid games with the law, Parliament should be told, and Richard Parry should face a select committee and be told to get a grip of his legal department.

Go and tell them then. I'm sure they would be really happy to listen to your complaints right now rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it would be interesting to find out how you do that. I expect it starts with writing to your MP.

I'm sure all boaters would support any investigation, I can't imagine any would think it a waste of time to ensure that CRT (or any other authority) are behaving properly.. I mean they pulled in that bloke from Sports Doodaa, all he was doing was running a business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it would be interesting to find out how you do that. I expect it starts with writing to your MP.

 

You can indeed [and probably should] write to your MP – for whatever good that will do.

 

More directly pertinent [though effective, I suspect, only if sufficient numbers of detailed reports were filed with them], would be communication with the oversight committee set up to monitor the performance of the former quangos –

 

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/secondary-legislation-scrutiny-committee/contact-us/

 

Contact details for the Committee [which is the successor to the "Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee", which existed until CaRT was approved] are as follows:

 

Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

House of Lords

London

SW1A 0PW

Telephone number: 020 7219 8821

Email: hlseclegscrutiny@parliament.uk

 

Sadly, the remit of this replacement committee is couched in terms that could allow them to ignore invesitigation into bodies such as CaRT which are now a fait accompli. Principally, they advise on the merits of statutory Instruments within a week or so of their proposal.

 

Bear in mind that DEFRA will vehemently deny any responsibility for exercising oversight in response to complaints; they do, however, have a tame invigilator respecting accountancy.

 

The Public Administration Select Committee carried out an inquiry into public bodies in 2014, but CaRT would have been designedly placed outside of their terms of reference.

 

There were two major Select Committee reports of BW’s performance during their tenure as administrators of the waterways, but no matter how conscientious the examination, the end results were ambivalent in their criticisms [mostly]. Certainly, they had nil visible effect on the quality of the administration [and probably only heightened government’s desire to shove them further away from government responsibility]. Similar investigations could be encouraged respecting CaRT, but it would take extremely vigorous campaigning and questions raised in parliament with evidence of a minimum level of expressed public concern.

 

The Monopolies & Mergers Committee likewise conducted two major investigations into BW’s administration – but the value was minimal. For example, following the first Report’s criticisms of it, the bonus scheme operated for workers was abolished as subject to abuse and excessive payments, yet [as noted in the second Report] a bonus scheme was promptly set up to apply to the executive only! This resulted in even worse abuses, with executive members entitled to set their own goals for earning fat bonuses.

 

The most outrageous goal self-appointed by the London Regional Director, was to earn points for quashing complaints from the boating public! Nigel Johnson set himself a goal of earning points for drafting new byelaws [and was paid thousands of pounds for the achievement] – yet denied in court that he had any direct hand in the matter; it was supposedly left to his minions.

 

Still, for all the lack of immediate visible effect, if no complaints are made - and justified rigorously – that itself will contribute to the firmly established complacency.

 

For the little it is worth, you could always write to Prince Charles as patron, and to the Prime Minister [who will simply refer the matter to DEFRA, who will disclaim responsibility]. It nonetheless would build up - if enough people contributed - a body of evidence should that ever become useful. It is rather like reporting crimes to police; most of the time they will not follow up due to lack of resources, lack of certainty of identification and/or convictions, and policy, yet all such complaints develop a useful body of statistics which have the potential of eventually motivating action.

 

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By way of an update on C&RT's current futile proceedings against me, . . . they blew something in the region of another £1500 at Nottingham County Court yesterday with an Application to get the Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Claim, struck out on 1 June 2016, restored to hearing.

 

An Order was made as follows :~

IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The Order of HHJ Owen QC made on 1st June 2016 is set aside and the Claimant’s Part 8 claim is restored.
2. The Defendant shall file a witness statement in response to that of the Claimant by 4 pm on 29th July 2016.
3. This matter shall be listed before a District Judge on [fad from 15th August 2016] for directions. Time estimate 30 minutes.
4. There be no order for costs on this application
_______________________________________________
The date for the directions hearing will take this pointless farce to, at the very least, within a day or two of the first anniversary of my refusal to buy a PBC [C&RT's misrepresented 'Rivers only Licence'] whilst my boat is laid up out of commission and moored to private land outside of the main navigable channel.
With yesterdays costs added to the cost of Shoosmiths initially preparing and issuing the Claim, I would think that C&RT must already have squandered something in the region of £5000 on something they know full well that they can't get a result from.
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

By way of an update on C&RT's current futile proceedings against me, . . . they blew something in the region of another £1500 at Nottingham County Court yesterday with an Application to get the Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Claim, struck out on 1 June 2016, restored to hearing.

 

An Order was made as follows :~

IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The Order of HHJ Owen QC made on 1st June 2016 is set aside and the Claimant’s Part 8 claim is restored.
2. The Defendant shall file a witness statement in response to that of the Claimant by 4 pm on 29th July 2016.
3. This matter shall be listed before a District Judge on [fad from 15th August 2016] for directions. Time estimate 30 minutes.
4. There be no order for costs on this application
_______________________________________________
The date for the directions hearing will take this pointless farce to, at the very least, within a day or two of the first anniversary of my refusal to buy a PBC [C&RT's misrepresented 'Rivers only Licence'] whilst my boat is laid up out of commission and moored to private land outside of the main navigable channel.
With yesterdays costs added to the cost of Shoosmiths initially preparing and issuing the Claim, I would think that C&RT must already have squandered something in the region of £5000 on something they know full well that they can't get a result from.

 

Perhaps they think you are worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps they think you are worth it.

 

It IS a little difficult to comprehend the mentality.

 

Having failed to have the Ravenscroft claim struck out, and having acknowledged therein that the High Court was the appropriate venue in order to get a binding precedent ruling on the issue [rather than continue with dozens of individual County Court battles like this one], the only rational rationale would have to be getting Tony’s case well to the fore in readiness for an anticipated victory.

 

The money matters nothing to CaRT, while it means a great deal to Shoosmiths.

 

For now, they can always be hoping that regardless of eventual results, they can give him a hard time in the interim; possibly following the exhortation to “let not his grey head go down to the grave in peace.”

 

Mind you, in Tony's case, I suspect that rather than hounding him into an early grave with all this, they are unwittingly providing him with a sparkling incentive to get his teeth into life.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

they are unwittingly providing him with a sparkling incentive to get his teeth into life.

 

Next time on the Trent I will be looking round anxiously what might be following me up the path. There is an image there, no I don't even want to think about it. Hmm is that a chattering sound I hear behind me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parliament ( or somebody ) should be keeping CRT's legal costs in check, and ensuring they are not wasting public money, or colluding with Shoosmiths to bring about malicious or pointless prosecutions.

Lawyers will milk any money tit they can latch onto.

There are rules, iirc, concerning charities bringing legal actions but I cannot remember them no doubt someone will come along . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are rules, iirc, concerning charities bringing legal actions but I cannot remember them no doubt someone will come along . . .

Well you can complain via the Charities Commision. Some of the complaint categories on this form are interesting.

 

http://forms.charitycommission.gov.uk/contact-us/general-enquiries/report-a-concern-about-a-charity/raising-concerns-about-a-charity/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over the last few weeks it has been established that since revoking Andy Wingfield's Pleasure Boat Certificate [ the phoney and misrepresented 'Rivers only Licence' ] and obtaining a Court Order/Injunction excluding him from their waters, C&RT have siphoned almost £900 from his bank account in the shape of 'Licence' and Mooring fees.

 

Following representations to what passes for management within Enforcement and Licensing, C&RT have agreed to refund, in full, the sum they have misappropriated, but have yet to honour their promise by actually handing over any money.

 

If the stalling and failure to pay persists, then Andy W. will be serving a Statutory Demand on C&RT for the admitted sum owed.

 

Under the terms of a Statutory Demand, which will be served on Parry in person, the Trust has 21 days to either pay up or apply to the Court to have the Statutory Demand set aside, or to apply for an Injunction to prevent the creditor from applying for a Winding up Order.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over the last few weeks it has been established that since revoking Andy Wingfield's Pleasure Boat Certificate [ the phoney and misrepresented 'Rivers only Licence' ] and obtaining a Court Order/Injunction excluding him from their waters, C&RT have siphoned almost £900 from his bank account in the shape of 'Licence' and Mooring fees.

 

Following representations to what passes for management within Enforcement and Licensing, C&RT have agreed to refund, in full, the sum they have misappropriated, but have yet to honour their promise by actually handing over any money.

 

If the stalling and failure to pay persists, then Andy W. will be serving a Statutory Demand on C&RT for the admitted sum owed.

 

Under the terms of a Statutory Demand, which will be served on Parry in person, the Trust has 21 days to either pay up or apply to the Court to have the Statutory Demand set aside, or to apply for an Injunction to prevent the creditor from applying for a Winding up Order.

 

If this was a book / film you would say its total fantasy, or just ridiculous - the 'real world' is just not like that.

Just shows how wrong you'd be !!!!,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over the last few weeks it has been established that since revoking Andy Wingfield's Pleasure Boat Certificate [ the phoney and misrepresented 'Rivers only Licence' ] and obtaining a Court Order/Injunction excluding him from their waters, C&RT have siphoned almost £900 from his bank account in the shape of 'Licence' and Mooring fees.

 

Following representations to what passes for management within Enforcement and Licensing, C&RT have agreed to refund, in full, the sum they have misappropriated, but have yet to honour their promise by actually handing over any money.

 

If the stalling and failure to pay persists, then Andy W. will be serving a Statutory Demand on C&RT for the admitted sum owed.

 

Under the terms of a Statutory Demand, which will be served on Parry in person, the Trust has 21 days to either pay up or apply to the Court to have the Statutory Demand set aside, or to apply for an Injunction to prevent the creditor from applying for a Winding up Order.

How the hell did they "siphon it off"? He must have provided his bank details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How the hell did they "siphon it off"? He must have provided his bank details.

Siphoning off also suggests to me at least it wasn't done as one charge. If this is the case why wasn't it spotted?

 

EDIT: To Add. Has it been reported to the police as theft/fraud?

Edited by Jerra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How the hell did they "siphon it off"? He must have provided his bank details.

My understanding is that CaRT had his bank details because he paid for his PBC via a standing order and also his mooring at Cranfleet. Despite having obtained a court order against him, CaRT have continued to take money from from his account to licence his boat and monthly for the moorings he can not use due to the court order.

 

Despite, admitting to a 'mistake' and agreeing to refund the money, CaRT have not done so.

 

A statutory demand is the logical next in such circumstances.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Report to the Data Protection Dept as they have misused data by the looks of it

... but they have admitted that. The problem is that they have not given the money back.

 

My own experience, albeit more than 20 years ago, is that the implied threat of a winding up order based on an undisputed debt gets results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Claim issued against me on 1 April 2016 was, in essence, to obtain Declaratory and Injunctive relief to the effect that the Canal and River Trust [C&RT] are entitled to prevent an individual from exercising the Common Law Public Right of Navigation on any or all of the River Navigations [PRN Rivers] listed in Schedule 1 of the British Waterways Act 1971(as amended).

 

 

The Environment Agency is currently prosecuting a case against a number of boat owners on the Thames, scheduled to be heard in a few days’ time.

 

What struck me from their Skeleton Argument is their recognition of exactly the point that I have been making in Leigh’s case, and which Tony is making in his.

 

We are emphasising the legal difference between licences and certificates; claiming that the Pleasure Boat Certificate applicable to the main navigable channel of certain of the public navigable rivers within CaRT’s jurisdiction, being a registration requirement under the 1971 Act and NOT a licence [permission] to be on the waterway, eviction from the rivers on which boats are entitled to be kept by way of the PRN is ultra vires, even in the absence of the certificate.

 

Boats are NOT, in other words, “left or moored therein without lawful authority” merely because the PBC has expired; the lawful authority to be left or moored on the river [supposing the moorings were legitimate which is not in question] derives from the PRN, not the PBC.

 

For all that the EA are as imprecise over the correct terms as are CaRT [simultaneously referring to “Registration Fee” and “licence fee”, their understanding of the principle is sound. Paragraph 24 –

 

Payment of the Registration Fee

 

The payment of the licence fee is a legal requirement under the Environment Agency’s (Inland Waterways) Order 2010 and does not confer a right to be on the River Thames, such right being derived from the non-tidal public right of navigation pursuant to s.79 Thames Conservancy Act 1932.” [my bold]

 

The situation with the Thames is identical in this respect to that of the scheduled rivers. It is gratifying to at last have the relevant argument upheld by a national navigation authority.

 

The remedy for the EA respecting failure to obtain/maintain a pleasure boat certificate is pursuit under their statutory powers through the Magistrates Court – as they have been doing of course.

 

Likewise, CaRT’s only remedy for PBC enforcement is the same, as provided for under the 1971 Act, with the additional power to issue Claims on the civil debt involved as an alternative/additional recourse under the 1983 Act. Section 8 can have no applicability to boats on PRN waters unless sunk, stranded or abandoned – they already have their “lawful authority” to be there, as the EA have understood.

 

It follows that all the County Court injunctions banning boats from the rivers unless CaRT’s consent is first obtained [through licence or certificate] are unlawful in their breadth. The Courts have no jurisdiction to unilaterally countermand the common law rights of the public. The judges involved will not have been aware of the implications of what they were acceding to, and it is high time they were acquainted with the relevant law.

 

Edited by NigelMoore
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

C&RT have demonstrated what a bunch of spoilsports they really are by denying Andy W. the pleasure of serving a Statutory Demand on the CEO.

 

They have refunded in full all the PBC [Licence] and Mooring fees misappropriated from him since obtaining a Court Order banning him from their waters.

 

The next thing to be addressed is an appropriate figure for C&RT to pay Andy by way of compensation/ goodwill gesture in consideration of their actions.

 

In light of the £150 late payment fee that C&RT regard as an appropriate penalty for late payment for PBC's and Licences, I think that figure, plus interest at County Court rate [ 8% pa.] on the £879.00 looted from Andy's bank account would be a suitable sum with which they could begin to make amends.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

By way of keeping everyone up to date re. the progress, or lack of it, of C&RT's latest pointless and idiotic attempt to have me abolished, here is the [my] Witness Statement, ordered to be filed prior to the Directions Hearing, which, according to what the Listings Office in Nottingham told me today, will probably be sometime in early September.

____________________________________

 

Witness Statement of Anthony K. Dunkley

Para. 4, from Line 2 :

The river bank to which 'Halcyon Daze' Index No.52721[ 'the boat' ] is moored is private property and is not under the management or control of Canal and River Trust [ C&RT ].

 

From line 6 :

It is true that the boat is moored at the stated location without a C&RT boat Licence, but the river Trent at Barton-in-Fabis where the boat is moored is a River Navigation listed in Schedule 1 of the British Waterways Act 1971 [as amended - BW Act 1974] upon which there is a Common Law Public Right of Navigation and vessels thereon do not require a boat Licence issued by the Navigation Authority.

Any vessel kept or used within the main navigable channel [MNC] of a Scheduled River Navigation is required under Section 5(1) of the 1971 BW Act to be registered by means of a Pleasure Boat Certificate [PBC] issued by the Navigation Authority. The penalty for keeping or using a vessel within the MNC without such a Certificate in force is prescribed in S.5(2) of the same Act.

Extracts from the British Waterways Act 1971 are exhibited by the Claimant, but the page bearing the above mentioned Section 5 has been omitted entirely from the exhibit.

The river Trent at Barton-in-Fabis is approximately 150 feet wide and the MNC [as defined in C&RT dredging and maintenance documentation] is less than 40 feet wide on this section of the river. My boat has been moored against the privately owned riverbank at this location since the last PBC expired on 31 August 2015 and is therefore well outside of the MNC. Whilst it remains so, it is exempted from the requirement for a PBC under Section 4(1) of the 1971 Act.

Having now fully recovered from a lengthy and debilitating illness, I am presently undertaking repair and refitting work on my boat. On completion of this work it is, as C&RT have been made aware, my intention to apply for a new PBC prior to resuming use of the vessel on the river Trent and other adjoining waterways for which no boat Licence is required.

 

From line 10 :

C&RT is not entitled to remove my boat from 'the Property', or the waterway, under Section 8 of the 1983 British Waterways Act as is stated.

The statutory powers under the 1983 Act entitle C&RT to remove vessels 'sunk, stranded or abandoned' in any waterway, or to remove any vessel left or moored without 'lawful authority', in a waterway owned or controlled by them.

My boat is not 'sunk, stranded or abandoned', and the Common Law PRN applicable on the entire navigable length of the river Trent is the 'lawful authority' for my boat to be on the river Trent, with or without a current PBC.

 

Para.5 :

It is stated that my boat is moored on C&RT's 'Property'. This is untrue. The river bank to which the boat is moored is privately owned, and ownership extends to the centre of the river.

 

Para.6 :

In as far as this has any relevance to this Claim, this paragraph is a concoction of both distorted and misrepresented truths, half truths and untruths.

In January 2014 C&RT informed me that they had 'revoked' my boat Licence. This action was solely in order to facilitate a Claim, identical to the present one, to remove my boat from their waters.

At that time my boat, which was not Licensed, and did not need to be, but was registered by means of a current PBC, valid until 30 June 2014, was in constant, almost daily use, on the river Trent mainly between Barton-in Fabis and Holme Pierrepont, downriver from Nottingham, and was frequently and regularly moored overnight near to Holme Lock.

The grounds for revoking what C&RT incorrectly referred to as a Licence were variously stated as contraventions of Licence Terms and Conditions by either ''mooring too frequently and for too long whilst cruising'' or "not cruising sufficiently whilst mooring away from the boat's 'home' mooring'', or ''not complying with the C&RT Cruising Guidelines for boats without a 'home' mooring'', none of which makes any kind of sense, or are lawful grounds under Section 17(4) of the 1995 BW Act to terminate either a boat Licence or a PBC.

C&RT issued a Claim [No.A00NG769] in June 2014 for the removal of my boat from their waters, a Defence was filed, and I applied to renew my boat's PBC just prior to the normal annual renewal date on 1 July 2014, but C&RT refused the renewal of the PBC on the grounds that, despite having issued the two preceding annual PBC's on the basis of my having a 'home' mooring, a mooring where the boat could be lawfully kept when not in use, at Barton-in-Fabis, they now chose to believe that the mooring didn't really exist.

 

Para.7 :

After a further interval and confirmation from the landowner that my mooring really did exist C&RT issued, not a new Licence, but a new PBC for my boat, and Discontinued the Claim, whilst complaining that my use of the mooring that they had questioned the existence of, and my ongoing compliance with the statutory conditions for holding a PBC had rendered their Claim "worthless and academic".

 

Para.9, from lines 2 to 25.

C&RT's erroneous beliefs as to the extent of the main navigable channel [MNC] of a river navigation, and the unsupportable assertion that it extends over the full width of the river from bank to bank are shown to be incorrect in the wording of their own General Canal Byelaws.

 

Byelaw 19(1) states :~

Navigation of Pleasure boats:

19. (1) A pleasure boat when meeting, overtaking or being overtaken by a power-driven vessel other than a pleasure boat shall as far as possible keep out of the main navigable channel.

 

If, as C&RT claim, the MNC did extend for the full width of the navigation, then it would not be possible for any conventional vessel to comply with this Byelaw, and the only type of craft capable of compliance when confronted by either an oncoming or overtaking commercial vessel would be an amphibious vessel able to remove itself onto dry land under it's own power, or a canoe or similar craft which could be manhandled out of the water.

As either type of craft is in a very small minority of the vessels that customarily use, or have used, C&RT's navigable waterways, it is not conceivable that this Byelaw was drafted with such vessels in mind.

 

Para.19.

In making this specious Claim, C&RT are well aware that in the event of my compliance, at any time prior to trial, with their unlawful demands that I obtain that which they misleadingly and wrongly describe as a 'Rivers only Licence' for my boat whilst it is confined to use on a Scheduled, PRN River Navigation, they would be obliged to Discontinue, as they were, in similar circumstances, in July 2014.

I believe that, far from being necessary to (quote) - "enable C&RT to comply with it's statutory duty to ensure that the inland waterways controlled by C&RT are safe, well managed and properly conserved", this Claim for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief is both contemptuous of Statute, in that it disregards the distinction made between a boat Licence and a Pleasure Boat Certificate made in Section 5(1) of the 1971 BW Act and Section 17(1) of the 1995 BW Act, and amounts to an attempt to prevent an individual from exercising a Common Law Public Right, and that as such it is asking the Court to act beyond it's powers and jurisdiction.

I respectfully ask that the Claim be struck out.

 

Statement of Truth.

I believe that the facts stated in this Statement are true.

Dated day of 2016

 

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Anthony Kenneth Dunkley

Defendant

Edited by Tony Dunkley
  • Greenie 3
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
  • 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.