Boater Sues C&RT for Section 8

[Alan de Enfield]

Full story here : http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/8063-boater-sues-cart

 

 

A CLAIM has been lodged in the Royal Courts of Justice and papers served on Canal & River Trust (CaRT) following its seizure of a boat in January, writes Allan Richards.

Having paid out over £8,000 in removal and storage costs plus four years of alleged licence arrears to recover his boat, Leigh Ravenscroft's hopes his claim will show that CaRT was acting beyond its powers in seizing it and demanding back payment of licence fees.

[MtB]

This is the chap who posted the video of his attempts to stop his boat being taken by the CRT lorry to Chester, IIRC.

 

Seems rather unrealisic to expect a court to hold that CRT had no right to demand back payment of licence fees, or are there extenuating circumstances we don't know about?

 

Is he being supported in this by NBTA? (I'm not prepared to visit NBW and give them the traffic!)

 

 

MtB

[jenlyn]

Best wait and see the result. No smoke without fire.

[zenataomm]

Not enough information to even start to understand the "ins & outs".

 

Human Rights?

 

The boat was kept outside the main navigable channel of the River Trent?

[DHutch]

Watch this space eh.... ?

 

This is the chap who posted the video of his attempts to stop his boat being taken by the CRT lorry to Chester, IIRC.

 

I think so, yes.

 

 

 

Daniel

[Sabcat]

If this is the bloke from the video I hope he's got more than a rant to go to court with

[John Williamson 1955]

If he's got no documents showing the ownership of the boat during the period in question, he won't get his money paid for the outstanding licences back, and I can't see a court ruling on the definition of the main channel, as it will, by necessity, vary over time. Then again, if the court do rule that C&RT only have to maintain the main navigable channel, then a lot of moorings will be lost as they silt up. I can imagine a strip of water the width of two boats just deep enough to float the normal traffic, with 6 inches of water to the edge of the navigable channel, especially if they just dump the dredgings on the bit that doesn't have to be navigable to save money.

 

I'd also like to see which of his Human Rights he claims to have been breached, especially if the court rule that the seizure was within the powers of C&RT.

[Dave Clinton]

This is the chap who posted the video of his attempts to stop his boat being taken by the CRT lorry to Chester, IIRC.

 

Seems rather unrealisic to expect a court to hold that CRT had no right to demand back payment of licence fees, or are there extenuating circumstances we don't know about?

 

Is he being supported in this by NBTA? (I'm not prepared to visit NBW and give them the traffic!)

 

 

MtB

 

No, just the circumstances you don't know about.

 

And before you lot go off like a pack of hounds tearing into another 'piss-taker' perhaps you'd like to take a little time to reflect on what it means if CRT win - i.e. they are found to be able to claim licenses for all boats moored outside the main navigable channel. This would be a serious change in waterways law and would affect a lot of people.

 

I would guess (with a little more information than you) that CRT will claim that the whole of the Trent at that point is 'navigable channel' - but they will have to be pretty certain that there isn't a judgement - which could be buried in the past - that won't get up and bite them. But, hey, they'll throw a couple of hundred grand of your money at Shoosmiths who will find somewhere to wriggle so I wouldn't worry too much at this stage about all those piss-takers getting away with something (or as they prefer to see it, not paying for something they don't have to legally)

If this is the bloke from the video I hope he's got more than a rant to go to court with

 

Do you think you would be calm and rational if you'd just caught CRT loading your boat onto a trailer with the support of the police?

 

 

I'd also like to see which of his Human Rights he claims to have been breached, especially if the court rule that the seizure was within the powers of C&RT.

 

It's all right John, as you probably voted for the spawn of Maggie you won't have to worry for too much longer that

 

"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law."

(Protocol 1, Article 1: Protection of property)

But you are right that if the court holds CRT behaved properly in the seizure then the 'except..... subject to the conditions provided for by law' will kick in and you then start to put the boot in again.

 

I am disgusted that the initial view of this forum should be so against someone who had his boat seized. You call yourselves boaters?

 

How about a little empathy and understanding how you might feel in the same situation and if CRT behaved so gung-ho with you.

[jenlyn]

 

No, just the circumstances you don't know about.

 

And before you lot go off like a pack of hounds tearing into another 'piss-taker' perhaps you'd like to take a little time to reflect on what it means if CRT win - i.e. they are found to be able to claim licenses for all boats moored outside the main navigable channel. This would be a serious change in waterways law and would affect a lot of people.

 

I would guess (with a little more information than you) that CRT will claim that the whole of the Trent at that point is 'navigable channel' - but they will have to be pretty certain that there isn't a judgement - which could be buried in the past - that won't get up and bite them. But, hey, they'll throw a couple of hundred grand of your money at Shoosmiths who will find somewhere to wriggle so I wouldn't worry too much at this stage about all those piss-takers getting away with something (or as they prefer to see it, not paying for something they don't have to legally)

 

Do you think you would be calm and rational if you'd just caught CRT loading your boat onto a trailer with the support of the police?

 

It's all right John, as you probably voted for the spawn of Maggie you won't have to worry for too much longer that

 

"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law."

(Protocol 1, Article 1: Protection of property)

But you are right that if the court holds CRT behaved properly in the seizure then the 'except..... subject to the conditions provided for by law' will kick in and you then start to put the boot in again.

 

I am disgusted that the initial view of this forum should be so against someone who had his boat seized. You call yourselves boaters?

 

How about a little empathy and understanding how you might feel in the same situation and if CRT behaved so gung-ho with you.

Greenie.

[Dave Clinton]

But thank you Alan for giving me a good laugh about another forum bête noire ;

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/leatest/8061-a-cautionary-talebut-for-whom

[billS]

Was that the video which had the chap shouting that he was going to arrest the policeman?

[Higgs]

 

No, just the circumstances you don't know about.

 

And before you lot go off like a pack of hounds tearing into another 'piss-taker' perhaps you'd like to take a little time to reflect on what it means if CRT win - i.e. they are found to be able to claim licenses for all boats moored outside the main navigable channel. This would be a serious change in waterways law and would affect a lot of people.How about a little empathy and understanding how you might feel in the same situation and if CRT behaved so gung-ho with you.

 

 

They do that anyway, but contrive to manipulate around that via the NAA for private marinas.

[nicknorman]

I am disgusted

From Tunbridge Wells, presumably?

 

that the initial view of this forum should be so against someone who had his boat seized. You call yourselves boaters?

 

Surely it depends on the fine detail of the justification for seizing his boat? Do you expect the forum to be sympathetic to all boat seizures even where the owner was clearly and persistently acting illegally or antisocially? If so, you will be repeatedly disappointed until you move into the real world.

 

On the one hand I can see the point about the letter of the law (perhaps) not requiring him to have a licence should mean he doesn't have to have one, but then again has the boat really been static all that time, or has it sneaked off to the water point etc under cover of early morning etc? Seems a bit unlikely it has never moved if it is not connected to services.

 

And then again, the waterways have to be paid for and some chap exploiting a loophole to avoid paying for a licence is similar in concept to the multinationals exploiting loopholes to avoid paying tax. Both are legal, but both are socially reprehensible.

 

Anyway, let's wait to find out the details before getting too carried away.

[Jerra]

I am disgusted that the initial view of this forum should be so against someone who had his boat seized.

I find this statement interesting. What is your initial feeling if you see the police confiscating a car for no insurance or "road tax"? Do you automatically think they are wrong? Your statement reads to me as if you think CRT are automatically wrong.

 

OK you may have knowledge that isn't in the public domain but I don't see it as unreasonable to assume that if things have progressed to the point of seizing property be it car or boat there is a strong possibility the person is in the wrong.

[Dave Clinton]

From Tunbridge Wells, presumably?

 

Surely it depends on the fine detail of the justification for seizing his boat? Do you expect the forum to be sympathetic to all boat seizures even where the owner was clearly and persistently acting illegally or antisocially? If so, you will be repeatedly disappointed until you move into the real world.

 

On the one hand I can see the point about the letter of the law (perhaps) not requiring him to have a licence should mean he doesn't have to have one, but then again has the boat really been static all that time, or has it sneaked off to the water point etc under cover of early morning etc? Seems a bit unlikely it has never moved if it is not connected to services.

 

And then again, the waterways have to be paid for and some chap exploiting a loophole to avoid paying for a licence is similar in concept to the multinationals exploiting loopholes to avoid paying tax. Both are legal, but both are socially reprehensible.

 

Anyway, let's wait to find out the details before getting too carried away.

 

No. I would expect a boating forum to be , in the first instance, supportive rather than making broad assumptions as to his guilt because he was outed on camera having a hissy fit.

 

I would have a hissy fit if that happened to me and probably wouldn't be that proud of what appeared on camera. Given the fat end of a year and some good advice I would be a bad enemy in court as I hope he will be.

 

'sneaked off' 'exploiting a loophole' 'clearly and persistently actiing illegally' 'antisocial' - You'll have evidence for those assumptions?

 

See my assumption would be that after this time if he didn't have a bloody good case, he would probably shut up and take the £8k hit rather than risk 10s of £1,000s in the high court.

 

Strange it should be so different to yours. And no, I don't have any evidence for that assumption either.

[nicknorman]

No. I would expect a boating forum to be , in the first instance, supportive rather than making broad assumptions as to his guilt because he was outed on camera having a hissy fit.

 

I would have a hissy fit if that happened to me and probably wouldn't be that proud of what appeared on camera. Given the fat end of a year and some good advice I would be a bad enemy in court as I hope he will be.

 

'sneaked off' 'exploiting a loophole' 'clearly and persistently actiing illegally' 'antisocial' - You'll have evidence for those assumptions?

 

See my assumption would be that after this time if he didn't have a bloody good case, he would probably shut up and take the £8k hit rather than risk 10s of £1,000s in the high court.

 

Strange it should be so different to yours. And no, I don't have any evidence for that assumption either.

So, it seems we both have differing views of the probable situation, neither of us has much in the way of proof or evidence. You are of the "presumed innocent until proven guilty" whereas I am more of the "no smoke without fire". This is hardly surprising since different people see things in different ways. The main difference between us, however, is that I am quite happy for you to hold your views whereas you are "disgusted" by anyone who doesn't hold identical views to you.

[PaulG]

From Tunbridge Wells, presumably?

 

Surely it depends on the fine detail of the justification for seizing his boat? Do you expect the forum to be sympathetic to all boat seizures even where the owner was clearly and persistently acting illegally or antisocially? If so, you will be repeatedly disappointed until you move into the real world.

 

On the one hand I can see the point about the letter of the law (perhaps) not requiring him to have a licence should mean he doesn't have to have one, but then again has the boat really been static all that time, or has it sneaked off to the water point etc under cover of early morning etc? Seems a bit unlikely it has never moved if it is not connected to services.

 

And then again, the waterways have to be paid for and some chap exploiting a loophole to avoid paying for a licence is similar in concept to the multinationals exploiting loopholes to avoid paying tax. Both are legal, but both are socially reprehensible.

 

Anyway, let's wait to find out the details before getting too carried away.

Some of the details of his case (as reported by Allan Richards on NBW) seem just as dodgy as the "Freeman on the Land" rubbish that was being spouted in the video.

 

For example, the "Contempt of the Sovereign" bit.

 

From Wikipedia " 'Contempt of the Sovereign' (also called contempt of statute) was an ancient doctrine in English law dating from medieval times, and now obsolete.....the last time it was used was in 1840."

 

Seems unlikely that the court will make the declaration that he asking for!

[Alan de Enfield]

From a previous thread :

 

Post by Nigel Moore

 

The 1971 Act is worded very specifically; BW being mindful [back then anyway, as the Select Committee minutes and Hansard discussions make clear] of the sensitivity over any amendment of the public rights of navigation, they chose the wording of the legislation carefully. Had they desired to obtain a right to demand registration/licensing over the whole width of the rivers from bank to bank, they need only have specified the rivers where registration was to be required. They did not; they specified that the requirement would only apply to the main navigable channel “which channel so specified is in this Act referred to as a ‘river waterway’.” In doing so, they had followed the example of the Thames Conservancy Act re: the Thames [the application of which to the whole area of the navigation was only achieved with the EA’s Inland Waterways Order of 2010], which they cited as a reasonable precedent for what they were seeking.

 

The fact that a main navigable channel was specified carries the irresistible implication that there were areas outside of that main navigable channel – necessarily acknowledging secondary navigable areas.

 

This is clarified by the recognition that disputes could arise over the extent of that specified area: in such cases, the Act provided that the Secretary of State could be asked to have definitive maps drawn up to define the channel with authorised particularity for any disputed section – Part II, s.4(2) “The description of any waterway contained in the said schedule shall be read subject to any order made by the Secretary of State for further defining the waterway by reference to a map”. If the main navigable channel extended from bank to bank, no such necessity could arise.

 

This is not to say that along some lengths a main navigable channel could not extend from bank to bank over a certain distance, nor does it preclude the possibility that some moorings could even involve occupation within a main navigable channel, but absolutely no such drastic action as a pursuit of s.8 powers for licence evasion where the definition of the channel was in dispute could be lawfully countenanced - application to the SoS for a defined map in such circumstances would be de rigueur.

 

It is a fact that NO such defining maps have ever been produced for any length of river waterway. The one instance of which I was aware where a map had been drawn by BW themselves for a portion of the Trent did NOT – according to BW themselves – purport to show “the main navigable channel”, but instead the whole of the extent of their jurisdiction. I suspect that this map is the one you referred to, in which case BW themselves have acknowledged that it did not indicate that "the main navigation channel of the Trent was shown to be from bank to bank" as you understood [as I also had thought it purported to do - rather naturally from the context of its production]. If you refer to some other instance, I would be interested to learn of it - but regardless, it would have no authority if not the product of the SoS].

 

For those who want the background to this case (boater sues C&RT) here is the previous thread (33 pages)

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=73581&hl

[Allan(nb Albert)]

But thank you Alan for giving me a good laugh about another forum bête noire ;

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/leatest/8061-a-cautionary-talebut-for-whom

Sadly, not my article.

[mrsmelly]

So, it seems we both have differing views of the probable situation, neither of us has much in the way of proof or evidence. You are of the "presumed innocent until proven guilty" whereas I am more of the "no smoke without fire". This is hardly surprising since different people see things in different ways. The main difference between us, however, is that I am quite happy for you to hold your views whereas you are "disgusted" by anyone who doesn't hold identical views to you.

 

Greenie

[churchward]

I would guess (with a little more information than you) that CRT will claim that the whole of the Trent at that point is 'navigable channel' - but they will have to be pretty certain that there isn't a judgement - which could be buried in the past - that won't get up and bite them. But, hey, they'll throw a couple of hundred grand of your money at Shoosmiths who will find somewhere to wriggle...

But CRT would not have to spend any money on lawyers if the chap wasn't taking them to court. They do have a right to defend their position as it is someone else who has instigated the proceedings.

 

Anyway I imagine more details will emerge in time and of course the courts will pass judgement and so we will see what happens and what the consequences of the judgement may be.

[Phil Ambrose]

Just curious but does the wording Main navigable channel indicate that there are other secondary navigable channels? Try the analogy of main roads and secondary roads, license required on which ever you drive on

Phil

[Alan de Enfield]

Just curious but does the wording Main navigable channel indicate that there are other secondary navigable channels? Try the analogy of main roads and secondary roads, license required on which ever you drive on

Phil

 

Maybe a better comparison would be the 'road' and the fields alongside the road.

 

DVLA responsible for licensing a vehicle for the road. but have no authority for the fields alongside - you can drive your car / tractor parallel to the road with no licence, MOT or insurance.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

From a previous thread :

 

Post by Nigel Moore

 

The 1971 Act is worded very specifically; BW being mindful [back then anyway, as the Select Committee minutes and Hansard discussions make clear] of the sensitivity over any amendment of the public rights of navigation, they chose the wording of the legislation carefully. Had they desired to obtain a right to demand registration/licensing over the whole width of the rivers from bank to bank, they need only have specified the rivers where registration was to be required. They did not; they specified that the requirement would only apply to the main navigable channel “which channel so specified is in this Act referred to as a ‘river waterway’.” In doing so, they had followed the example of the Thames Conservancy Act re: the Thames [the application of which to the whole area of the navigation was only achieved with the EA’s Inland Waterways Order of 2010], which they cited as a reasonable precedent for what they were seeking.

 

The fact that a main navigable channel was specified carries the irresistible implication that there were areas outside of that main navigable channel – necessarily acknowledging secondary navigable areas.

 

This is clarified by the recognition that disputes could arise over the extent of that specified area: in such cases, the Act provided that the Secretary of State could be asked to have definitive maps drawn up to define the channel with authorised particularity for any disputed section – Part II, s.4(2) “The description of any waterway contained in the said schedule shall be read subject to any order made by the Secretary of State for further defining the waterway by reference to a map”. If the main navigable channel extended from bank to bank, no such necessity could arise.

 

This is not to say that along some lengths a main navigable channel could not extend from bank to bank over a certain distance, nor does it preclude the possibility that some moorings could even involve occupation within a main navigable channel, but absolutely no such drastic action as a pursuit of s.8 powers for licence evasion where the definition of the channel was in dispute could be lawfully countenanced - application to the SoS for a defined map in such circumstances would be de rigueur.

 

It is a fact that NO such defining maps have ever been produced for any length of river waterway. The one instance of which I was aware where a map had been drawn by BW themselves for a portion of the Trent did NOT – according to BW themselves – purport to show “the main navigable channel”, but instead the whole of the extent of their jurisdiction. I suspect that this map is the one you referred to, in which case BW themselves have acknowledged that it did not indicate that "the main navigation channel of the Trent was shown to be from bank to bank" as you understood [as I also had thought it purported to do - rather naturally from the context of its production]. If you refer to some other instance, I would be interested to learn of it - but regardless, it would have no authority if not the product of the SoS].

 

For those who want the background to this case (boater sues C&RT) here is the previous thread (33 pages)

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=73581&hl

This, of course, is the main issue regarding this case. Was the boat on part of the Trent where it requires a licence?

 

Many (but not all) other issues stem from this.

 

I understand that the width (but not the location of the main navigable channel) for the Trent was specified in the 1975 Fraenkel report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

 

I understand that the width (but not the location of the main navigable channel) for the Trent was specified in the 1975 Fraenkel report.

 

 

 

 

That's the one I was thinking of but cannot find it now.

 

From his Obituary :

 

"In the UK, he quickly made a name for himself by carrying out research that led to the regeneration of Britain's stricken canal network. Fraenkel was asked to put together teams to walk along some of the country's 3,100km of canals to research the feasibility of bringing them back into commercial use. Many had fallen into dereliction and only through the efforts of enthusiasts had the occasional pumping house or lock been restored. The Fraenkel report (1975) argued persuasively that there was a case for restoring much of the network, aided by central government funding.

This report, for the Department of the Environment, was a catalyst for some early projects, such as the restoration of 39 locks on the Kennet and Avon canal and the restoration of the Avoncliff aqueduct, which Peter Fraenkel and Partners (PFP) carried out. By the turn of the millennium, he was able to look back with pride at his role in the UK-wide regeneration of the 18th- and 19th-century waterways.