CLAIM NO: BOING135 IN THE NOTTINGHAM COUNTY COURT BETWEEN: CANAL AND RIVER TRUST Claimant -and- ANDREW WINGFIELD (aka ANDY WINGFIELD) Defendant Defendant Witness Statement 1. My name is Andy Wingfield, and | am the owner of, and resident on, the vessel named “Hildegard” Index Number 45205, c/o 46 Musters Road, Nottingham NG2 7PR. 2. My case is being conducted by the Community Law Partnership, but as of this afternoon on the 7 October | am uncertain as to whether the revised Defence that I signed has been filed with the Court and with the Claimant. | am producing this statement, therefore, in order to ensure that the essential elements of my Defence to the Claimant's actions are a matter of Court record.3. | have been served with both s.8 and s.13 Notices demanding the removal of my boat from Canal and River Trust [CaRT] waters, in the grounds that | have no “relevant consent” to be on them, and therefore fall to be classified as ‘left or moored therein without lawful authority’, as defined in s.8 of the British Waterways Act 1983. 4. | submit that Section 13 of the British Waterways Act 1971 is irrelevant in my case, as Hildegard is not a “houseboat” as therein defined, and s.13 applies solely to houseboats. Paragraphs 8 to 11 of the Claimant's skeleton are wrong, 5. Contrary to the assertion in paragraph 9, the issue of human habitation is expressly removed from the 1971 houseboat definition; the purpose of the vessel is the defining factor. As a boat genuinely designed to navigate, Hildegard can only be a pleasure boat, regardless of whether it is laid up or moored for extended periods, and regardless of whether it is lived on or not. The only relevant legislation affecting this case is, therefore, Part II of the 1971 Act, not Part Ill as alleged. 6. | deny that | have not complied with my ‘licence’ conditions, even though failure to abide by these cannot be grounds for revoking the relevant consent. | have moved Hildegard every 14 days until unable to do so while | had to attend hospital appointments for a severe bleeding stomach complaint, and subsequently fractured my leg. Even for ‘Continuous Cruisers’, which | no longer am, staying longer than 14 days is reasonable under such circumstances, even if on CaRT property, as provided for in the 1995 Act. 7. The Claimant was informed about these circumstances, yet the Claimant unlawfully revoked Hildegard's pleasure boat certificate on or about 17 November 2014. From that point for me to move from my present position [at private moorings not within CaRT’s ownership or control], | would have to navigate in the main navigable channel, where | would be subject to the requirement to hold the pleasure boat certificate that they refuse to issue to me.8. | note that the extent of the Claimant's right to demand the pleasure boat certificate on the River Trent is currently the subject of a High Court challenge in the case of Ravenscroft v CaRT, Claim No: HC/2015/001906. 9. Notwithstanding that, | have desired to have a pleasure boat certificate; have paid for it, and in conformity with the Settlement agreed between CaRT and myself at a previous trial before HHJ Pugsley in Chesterfield County Court last year, | have been and am stil, paying CaRT for a home mooring, and | applied for and obtained the “Rivers Only ‘Licence’ for Hildegard on that basis. 10. The legal position according to the British Waterways Act 1995 is that the Claimant can ONLY revoke or refuse a relevant consent IF any one of the three Statutory conditions are not met. 11. | confirm that | have not only met ALL the Statutory conditions, | have at all times, in conformity with the 2014 Settlement agreement, paid for both the mooring AND the pleasure boat certificate. The last payment for the pleasure boat certificate was made by standing order in full payment for a year, not expiring until April 2016. CaRT still retain that payment, even though they refuse to issue the pleasure boat certificate [my ‘relevant consent'] 12. In revoking and refusing my relevant consent, CaRT have acted unlawfully, contrary to the British Waterways Act 1995, section 17(3). This provided that “the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel UNLESS — (a) the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel; (b) an insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence that it exists and is in force has been produced to the Board; and {as applicable to my circumstances] - (0)(i) the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where he vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel13. It follows that refusal of a relevant consent when all 3 conditions are met, is ultra vires, and in contempt of the Statute. The facts are: 8.17(3)(a)— Hildegard has a BSSC valid for the next 4 years; 8.17(3)(b)- Hildegard has insurance in force; and 8.17(3)(c)() — Hildegard has a paid up home mooring supplied by CaRT. 14. Under the circumstances there were and are NO grounds for revoking or refusing my pleasure boat certificate; CaRT must be condemned for this contempt and ordered to re-issue it. 15. No other reason for refusal being permitted, such claims as relate to alleged overstaying, while potentially applicable [if on towpath or other CaRT owned or controlled land] to relevant consents issued on the basis of “Continuous Cruising” [as per the altemative, for those without a home mooring, under .17(3)(c)(i)], cannot be applicable to consents based on s.17(3)(c)(i) 16. It follows that any alleged mooring offences [and | deny that any have been or are being committed] can only be dealt with by CaRT under any appropriate legislation relating to that. | refer the Court to the Claimant's “End of Garden Moorings” Informative, which agrees that in rivers such as this, mooring is subject only to permission of the landowner, although a relevant consent is still required to cruise the river. The 2013 Appeal Court judgment in Moore v BWB therefore applies, and there is nothing unlawful about my using the current mooring additionally to my permanent home mooring. 17. Although redundant because of the above, | note that the width of the injunction claimed extends to ALL waterways within the Claimant's control. 18. The Court should be aware that, in the injunction claim above it is being asked to make an unlawful order subverting and denying the public rights of navigation as still subsist unmodified throughout sections of CaRT’s waterways.19. Some of those areas are not subject to any licence requirement at all, while in the rivers with amended public rights of navigation [such as the River Trent], the requirement is limited to the main navigable channel as aforesaid. The 2012 Judgment of HHJ Hildeyard in Moore v BWB applies, and the Claimant is legally prevented from banning boats from waterways outside of the relevant legislative constraints. 17. | would like the Court to consider the arguments presented in the very similar case of CaRT v Tony Dunkley, which proceedings were discontinued by the Claimant after having read the Defence. Paragraphs 20 to 28 relate to use of the Home Mooring, plus use of additional, legitimate moorings. Paragraphs 38 to 42 relate to the “Houseboat” classification Paragraphs 43 to 50 relate to whether usage has been according to the TaC's. Paragraphs 57 to 83 relate to whether breach of licence conditions justifies revocation of the licence. Paragraphs 84 to 85 relate to the legality of revoking the licence. Paragraphs 124 to 127 relate to licence requirements outside the ‘main navigable channel’ 18. In summary | deny that my lack of a current relevant consent is my fault, as | had paid for the full year before it was revoked by the Claimant without proper cause, with 3 months left to run. The Claimant has unlawfully refused to issue a new pleasure boat certificate, in circumstances where all the pre-requisites of the British Waterways Act 1995 as to s.17(a); (b), & (c)(i) obtain. 19. | would ask the Court to rule that CaRT must issue the relevant consent to which | am entitled, and to dismiss their claim in its entirety.| believe that the facts stated in this Statement are true. 4 More, bild Signed: J Mr Andy Wingfield Dated: 7 October 2015 Attachments: 1. End of Garden Mooring Informative 2. CaRT v Tony Dunkley, Defence