1

CLAIM NO: HC/2015/001906 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION BETWEEN:

LEIGH RAVENSCROFT Claimant

and

CANAL and RIVER TRUST Defendant

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

draft Amended

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. My name is Leigh Ravenscroft, c/- ‘The Croft’, Moor Lane, Newark,

Nottingham, NG23 5QD.

2. This Amended Particulars of Claim is drafted pursuant to the Order of Chief

Master Marsh dated 4 April 2016.

Factual Background

3. I am the owner of the 34 foot narrowboat "Grandma Molly/Three Wise

Monkeys", which at all material times was moored to private riparian property over

privately owned riverbed with the consent of the riparian owner of Farndon Ferry on

the north bank of the non-tidal river Trent near Newark, Nottingham.

4. Having previously bought; renovated; insured; obtained a Boat Safety

Certificate [26 June 2010] and then a Pleasure Boat Certificate [8 July 2010] for the

boat [then named "Grandma Molly"], I sold it on 21 April 2011. Having noticed over

the ensuing years that the new owner was leaving the boat to fall into disrepair, on 9

January 2014 I re-purchased the boat in its dilapidated state, with the intent of once

more repeating the exercise for a profit. This took the best part of a year.

2

5. Having completed essential work I obtained a fresh Boat Safety Certificate on

23 July 2014. Following that, I had welding work done; repainted it, had it sign-written

with a new name ["Three Wise Monkeys"] made canopies and awnings etc, but once

completed, and before I could re-license it for the market, the boat was seized by

Canal and River Trust [CaRT] and removed - in the face of my objections and offer to

pay whatever they considered owing - across country to Chester. That was on the 26

January 2015.

6. During the recorded confrontation at the Marina, before the boat was driven

away, I protested that the boat did not need a licence or certificate because it was

moored to and over private property, and called the owner over to attest to that, but

this was dismissed as irrelevant by the police officer CaRT had called to ‘keep the

peace’, believing as he told me, that they knew the relevant law and would be right.

7. I also repeatedly demanded to see the paperwork which CaRT admitted they

did not have and claimed they did not need, and the Police agreed that they did not

need to produce any evidence of authority to seize my boat, on the grounds that

CaRT would know what they were entitled to do.

8. My father offered to pay the alleged arrears, but was told that in order for

CaRT not to continue with removing the boat, he would have to pay, not only those

arrears, but also the quoted cost of removal and storage of approximately £9

thousand pounds in total. Having been told that this was impossible, they continued

with removing my boat across country.

9. I understood the Enforcement Officer [Mr Stuart Garner] to say that they would

hold it for 6 weeks then sell or otherwise dispose of it. I therefore applied in the local

County Court for an Injunction [18 February 2015] to prevent them selling or

disposing of the boat. On later advice, I wrote to CaRT's legal department offering to

discontinue the application if they would give an undertaking to not sell or dispose of

my boat until the amounts had been agreed and/or a Court had confirmed their rights

to their actions. This was rejected.

10. Having at least - after the prior ignored requests for confirmation that they

were not claiming title to the boat - been given that assurance on refusal of the

undertaking, I promised to discontinue the action and filed an application to do so.

3

11. The Court having assured me that this was done in time, CaRT's solicitors

nonetheless attended in my absence — the case having not been discontinued after

all, unknown to me — and succeeded in obtaining a Court Order for £4,500 of their

alleged costs in preparing a Defence to the Injunction application. This, I am in the

process of appealing.

12. They then refused to release the boat until I had paid their claimed costs of

removal and storage; the labour costs for the presence of their Enforcement Officer

and Debt Collector; the alleged 4 years of arrears in `licence' fees, and the £4,500

Costs Order.

13. On my suggestion that I pay under protest all but the appealed Costs Order,

they agreed, but once paid, they still refused to return the boat — even though I had

given them a farm address for delivery far from the river - unless I undertook to never

return the boat to 'their' water without their permission; otherwise they threatened to

take me to Court for an injunction to that effect and hit me with those further costs.

14. This demand that I not put the boat back in 'their' water was despite my being

in possession of a safety certificate; insurance; a place to legally keep the boat, and

having been compelled to pay the Pleasure Boat Certificate fees up until the end of

June that year.

15. I put them on notice that I denied their right to s.8 my boat under the

circumstances prevailing; denied their right to hold my boat as a lien upon debt

beyond the removal and storage costs, and denied their right to seize and hold goods

without Court paperwork. This they "noted", without substantive response.

16. CaRT declined to agree to my suggestions for resolution in my letters before

action, and this Claim was accordingly filed.

Damages

17. On seizure of my boat I lost an agreed sale, and have been unable to find a

buyer since storing it on a nearby farm at a continuing cost.

4

18. I have been compelled to pay for 4 years of pleasure boat registration, totalling

£1,685.20, even for years I did not own the boat, and even for months in advance for

which CaRT refused consent for the boat to be put back in the water, and this despite

being under no statutory obligation to keep the boat registered at all, while outside

the main navigable channel.

19. I have been compelled to pay the sum of £6,490.80 in removal and storage

costs, when CaRT had no reason to seize the boat and remove it instead of lodging a

small claims suit as provided for in the relevant legislation, even if they did have a

legitimate claim over the alleged arrears.

20. I have had to borrow the money to retrieve my boat and to pursue this claim,

which continues to cost time, anxiety, ongoing costs, and Court fees.

Legislative Background

21. The Defendant’s powers to demand registration of private pleasure boats on

the public navigable rivers within their jurisdiction are limited to the “river waterways”

listed in Schedule 1 of the British Waterways Act 1971 Act [as amended in 1974 and

1995]. The dispute between myself and the Defendant in this regard concerns only

the extent of the “main navigable channel”.

22. The 1971 legislation provides that where a boat is kept or used within the main

navigable channel of the scheduled rivers without complying with the registration

requirement, action may be taken for Court determination that this is unlawful, with

set penalties upon summary conviction.

23. The British Waterways Act 1983 further provides that in such cases CaRT

may, without prejudice to any aforementioned action on the criminal offence, pursue

the civil debt for monies owed under the registration requirement.

24. The 1983 legislation, relating to powers of removal of vessels present on their

waterways without lawful authority, provides that CaRT must return any removed

boat to the owner once identified, upon payment only of the costs of removal and

storage; it makes no provision for seizing and/or holding the boat as lien upon

claimed arrears.

5

25. The Human Rights Act 1998 provides that it is unlawful for a public authority to

act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right, and this is only

inapplicable if, as the result of one or more provisions of primary legislation, the

authority could not have acted differently. The Courts have declared that if some less

onerous action is provided for, then acting in contravention of the HRA is unlawful.

26. Even if, then, which is denied, the action taken in depriving me of my boat was a

legitimate avenue for CaRT to pursue otherwise, the provision of specific less

onerous actions over the alleged breach means that they could have acted

differently, and thus have acted in violation of the HRA, Article 1 of the First Protocol.

26. Likewise, even if, which is denied, CaRT were entitled to seize goods as lien on

the alleged debt, the relevant legislation covering such acts requires the

endorsement of a Court. By acting as they did without any relevant paperwork

establishing Court involvement, CaRT have acted in violation of Articles 6 & 7 of Part

I of the Convention Rights.

Claim

27. I claim that the Defendant had no right to seize and hold my boat for alleged

arrears of fees for the boat’s registration, because at all material times it was kept

moored on a public navigable river, against and over private riparian property,

outside of the main navigable channel of the river Trent.

28. Further, and in the alternative, I claim that even if I am wrong in my belief that

my boat was kept outside of the main navigable channel, such that I was in breach of

the registration requirement, the Defendant had no right to seize and hold my boat as

a lien on the alleged debt relating to that.

29. I also claim that by reason of the specific legislated recourses available to the

Defendant in relation to the alleged breaches of Statute, even if – which is denied -

they were otherwise entitled to take the most draconian action within their Statutory

powers, their use of such powers - that violated my Human Rights – was unlawful by

reason of the more proportionate actions available to them.

6

Remedies Sought

30. I am seeking a variety of declaratory reliefs and compensation as follows:

(a) That the term “main navigable channel” in the British Waterways Act 1971

bears the same meaning as it does in the Transport Act 1968, such that no

pleasure boat registration was required for ‘Grandma Molly/Three Wise

Monkeys’ during the relevant period while she was moored at Farndon

Ferry, and seizure of the boat was therefore unlawful.

(b) That the powers under s.8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 do not entitle

seizure and keeping of boats as a lien on prior debts, such that taking

“Grandma Molly/Three Wise Monkeys” without Court sanction and refusing

to return “Grandma Molly/Three Wise Monkeys” unless the alleged arrears

were paid, was unlawful.

(c) That exercising the powers claimed under s.8 of the British Waterways Act

1983 to seize and hold Grandma Molly/Three Wise Monkeys”, in

preference to exercising legitimate alternative powers to enforce

compliance with the 1971 Act through the Magistrates Court, &/or to

pursue the monetary claim through the Small Claims Court, was

unnecessary and disproportionate, hence in violation of the Human Rights

Acts 1998 and consequently unlawful.

31. If the Court agrees with my principal claim, then in addition to the declaratory

relief above I ask for full refund of the monies illegally extracted from me, in the sum

of £8,176.00 plus such compensation as it considers just and appropriate.

32. If the Court finds against me on the principal claim, but agrees that taking my

boat as lien on debt was unlawful, then in addition to the declaration to that effect I

ask for refund of the removal and storage costs of £6,490.80 and subsequent costs,

plus such compensation as the Court considers just and appropriate.

33. In any event, if the Court finds in my favour on the Human Rights claim, then

in addition to a declaration to that effect I ask that it grant such relief or remedy within

its powers as it considers just and appropriate.

7

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in these particulars of claim are true.

29 April 2016

Leigh Ravenscroft

c/- The Croft

Moor Lane

Newark

Nottingham

NG23 5QD

Email: midlandlogs@hotmail.com