1

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

3. 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.

4. On later advice, I wrote to CaRTs 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.

2

5. Having at least - after the prior ignored requests for confirmation that they were not

claiming title to the boat being given that assurance on refusal of the undertaking, I

promised to discontinue the action and filed an application to that effect.

6. The Court having assured me that this was done in time, CaRTs 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. This demand that I not put the boat back in their water, despite my being in

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

been compelled to pay licence fees up until the end of June this year, is ultra vires.

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

prevailing, and denied their right to hold my boat as a lien upon debt beyond the removal

and storage costs. This they have noted, without substantive response.

3

11. The Defendant claims powers to demand toll for the keeping and using of pleasure

boats anywhere within the river Trent, which is denied.

12. The Defendant also claims powers to seize and hold boats perceived to be in

violation of that alleged requirement to hold their Pleasure Boat Certificate [alternatively their Pleasure Boat Licence], despite the identity of the owner being known - and also to hold the boats as lien upon debt; all without sanction of Court Orders and without

employment of authorised Court Officers. I dispute all their claims as to the legal

interpretation of the relevant legislation.

13. The Defendant claims that my narrowboat Grandma Molly/Three Wise Monkeys

was within the main navigable channel of the river Trent at Farnham, and was in arrears

of 4 years licence fees. These are disputed facts.

14. For the reasons set out in my Statement of Case, I am asking the Court for

Declarations as follows: -

15. As to the meaning of main navigable channel in the 1971 Act: -

* That the term main navigable channel bears the same meaning in both the

1968 Act and the 1971 Act;

* That the main navigable channel of the relevant BW waterways does not

extend from bank to bank; it is limited to the dimensions of a navigable channel the

authority is under statutory obligation to maintain suitable for such vessels as used

them in the 9 months prior to 8 December 1967.

4

* That neither Pleasure Boat Licence nor Pleasure Boat Certificate is required for

boats kept out of the main navigable channel of the rivers listed in Schedule 1 of

the 1971 Act, as amended in the BW Acts of 1974 and 1995.

16. As to the effect of s.8 under the provisions of the 1983 Act: -

* That s.8 is not intended for the taking of a lien on debts, whether as to licence

fees, payment of Court costs, or any other.

* That s.8 is not intended to be used as a punitive measure by way of taking

revenges against known individuals;

* That s.8 does not dispense with the need for a Court Order to take possession of

any boat belonging to known individuals;

* That s.8 for lack of lawful authority is not exercisable in any event, where the

owner is a known individual, unless and until the prescribed sanctions for

Licence/Certificate evasion have been applied without success.

17. As to Grandma Molly/Three Wise Monkeys: -

* That the boat was kept outside of the main navigable channel of the river Trent,

and so did not require a Pleasure Boat Certificate, such that seizure of the boat

was unlawful under the terms of the British Waterways Act 1971;

* That seizure of the boat was unlawful under the Statute of Marlborough

chapters (I); (IV), and (XV).

5

* That seizure of the boat was unlawful under the terms of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977;

* That seizure of the boat was a violation of the Human Rights Act 1988; Articles

6 & 7 of the Convention Rights, and Article 1 of the First Protocol.

* That seizure of the boat was unlawful under the terms of the Tribunals, Courts

and Enforcement Act 2007;

* That seizure of the boat was a criminal offence at common law, being an illegal

denial of and interference with the common law rights of navigation.

* That for all the above offences in denial of statutory rights and obligations, CaRT

are guilty of the common law offence of Contempt of the Sovereign.

18. And the Court is asked to order refund of all monies unlawfully extorted, with such

penalties and compensation as it sees fit.

Leigh Ravenscroft

c/- The Croft

Moor Lane

Newark

Nottingham

NG23 5QD

Email: midlandlogs@hotmail.com