Case CaRT could not win

THE Canal & River Trust (CaRT) has been accused by the National Bargee Travellers Association (NBTA) of keeping the outcome of a continuous cruising case confidential, writes Allan Richards.

The news follows a 10,000 signatory petition to the prime minister ‘to prevent the eviction of boat dwellers' (Eviction of boat dwellers).

Andy Wingfield

The case relates to Andy Wingfield who has already been mentioned in narrowboatworld with an enforcement officer insisting he move his boat despite him having a broken ankle (Victor: Going down).

The NBTA press release reads:

‘CaRT settled with a boater and kept the outcome confidential in a continuous cruising case last year. The case of CaRT v Wingfield (3NG01237) was heard by HHJ Pugsley in Chesterfield County Court on 3rd and 4th March 2014. The resulting court order included a confidentiality clause preventing anyone from disclosing the terms of the settlement'.

Trapped in floods

Nick Brown, NBTA's Legal Officer states that they believe the Trust settled with Mr Wingfield because they realised that they could not win the case due to Mr Wingfield's cruising distance and the fact that his licence was terminated when he was trapped in the flooding Trent.

Kept secret

Investigation has shown that there is no record of the case on CaRT's website. This, despite the Trust providing information relating to two other cases where a settlement has been reached.

A request under the Freedom of information Act has, however, forced the Trust to produce the court order (known as a consent order) with the Trust stating that a judgment was not made and that it does not hold a transcript of court proceedings.

The Trust has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation as to why it failed to publish the consent order for almost a year, and as yet, has not provided other information relating to the case.

Hiding information

At face value it would appear that this is yet another case of the Trust hiding important information from boaters and boating user groups despite claiming that it publishes details of court cases.

[A copy of the consent order that CaRT failed to publish can now be found  <HERE>]