Crowdfunding gets elusive CaRT document

SHORTLY after its formation some three years ago, Canal & River Trust was suggesting that about two thirds of boats without a home mooring were not compliant, but it is understood that only three boaters, Andy Wingfield, Tony Dunkley and Geoff Mayers have been ever been taken to court.

In two of those cases CaRT failed in its objective of gaining a court order allowing it to seize the boat (thus making the boater homeless) if it was not permanently removed from its waters.

...and in all three cases CaRT has been left with substantial legal costs (CaRT's £100,000 court case).

Whilst CaRT has claimed that it does not hold a copy of an important court document, this has not stopped concerned boaters from obtaining it. A *crowdfunding appeal by boater John Sloan to obtain a copy of the transcript resulted in pledges of over £2,000 in 24 hours and as a result the document is now available to all those that pledged money.

The Wingfield case

In the case of Andy Wingfield, a request for CaRT to put documents in the public domain produced only a court order. This confirmed that the Trust had failed to gain the order that it wanted but instead had entered into a confidential agreement with the defendant.

With regard to that agreement, CaRT maintained that it did not hold a copy and thus could not disclose it. Likewise it has stated that it does not hold a copy of the transcript.

Hardly credible is it?

Court's time being wasted

Snippets of the transcript have now started appearing on the internet and it is possible that the full document will be made available shortly.

In summary, Mr Wingfield had a mooring for many years but lost it in 2010. Since then he has cruised over a small area with occasional longer trips. He has a serious medical condition and is on income support. The judge made it clear very early on that the court's time was being wasted and that the parties needed to reach an accommodation such that Mr Wingfield could continue to live on his boat.

The accommodation reached was that CaRT re-licenced Mr Wingfield's boat and provided him with a mooring which will be paid for via housing benefit. It cannot take further action against him without the permission of the court.

Wider issues

The transcript demonstrates, once again, how convoluted CaRT can make a very simple piece of legislation, this time attempting to argue that Mr Wingfield should have had a houseboat certificate despite not having a mooring and moving his boat regularly.

It also demonstrates the lengths that CaRT will go to in attempting to hide its ‘failed' court cases...

[* Crowdfunding is a website that allows cases to be documented and invites those interest to give money to achieve an objective, in this case to obtain the illusive document.]