CLAIM NO: HC/2015/001906

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION
BETWEEN:
LEIGH RAVENSCROFT
Claimant
and
CANAL and RIVER TRUST
Defendant

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CLAIMANT WITNESS STATEMENT

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

1.

My name is Leigh Ravenscroft, owner at the time of seizure, of the Three

Wise Monkeys, the vessel at the heart of this Claim. [I have since had to
sell the boat at a loss in order to repay the funds borrowed to get it back]. I
make this Statement to record the issues of fact on which I will rely at trial.

2.

The general and prior history leading up to the seizure of my boat is as

detailed in the pleadings thus far and I will not repeat those details here,
other than to note that a sale had been agreed for the boat on 30
December 2014 for the sum of 28,000 subject only to an out of water
survey, which was being arranged.

3.

At about 11.00am on 27 January 2015 I received a phone call from a

distressed Mr John Clark, my moorings provider, saying that some people
were stealing my boat and were heading towards Newark. I asked him if
they had any paperwork and he said no they did not.

4.

I decided to go searching for it, phoned some friends and put a shout on
social media, then drove with my daughter and my father to Newark
Marina, where I found my boat already on a truck.

5.

When I pulled into the Marina there were 5 or 6 men around the truck, and
I asked them who they were and why they were stealing my boat. Several
other friends as well as strangers arrived also, and began videoing what
was happening.
Page 1 of 12

6.

Two of the men were wearing Canal and River Trust [CaRT] jackets, and
the one who I now know was a Mr Stuart Garner started to walk towards
me in an intimidating manner demanding to know if I was the owner, to
which I replied that I was.

7.

I started to walk backwards at this point, because he was getting into my

personal space, when all of a sudden Mr Garner lashed out at the person I
knew as Mario, pushing his phone into his face with his left hand because
Mario was filming him. Mario responded angrily with accusations of
assault; Mr Garner then went to his car for something, and walked over to
the other men. I presume that at this stage he or others called the police.

8.

I asked Mr Garner for his paperwork to prove any claim against me, but he
had none. He said that I owed at least 4 years of licence fees, to which I
replied How much is that? and he said he did not know.

9.

Two police officers then arrived, one of them a Sergeant Brookes, with
whom I had had prior dealings over a car of mine. I explained to Sergeant
Brookes that these people were stealing my boat; that I had asked for
paperwork which they could not provide, and could he ask them for any.

10.

After going over to speak with them, Sergeant Brookes came back and told
me that although the Canal and River Trust people had no paperwork at
all, and although he himself knew nothing about waterways law, he was
prepared to accept that what they told him was true, and that they were
entitled to take my boat. If I or my friends did anything to obstruct them, he
would arrest us for breach of the peace.

11.

I objected that they were committing a crime, and that he [the police officer]
had a responsibility to prevent that. He told me The Canal and River Trust
have said that the only way this situation is going to be sorted out is by
paying the fees that are owed.

12.

I said that I didnt know of any fees that were owed; I did not owe anything
on the boat. I had asked them 4 times what they claimed was owed and
got no answer other than they would speak to me later.

13.

Mr Clark [owner of Farndon Ferry] came over; I asked him what they had
said to him when they went to his property to take my boat, and he said
they just told him they were taking it. The police officer said they claimed to
have sent notices by recorded delivery, which I denied receiving.

14.

When my friend asked the officer what paperwork CaRT had with them
now, he replied that CaRThad didnt have any paperwork, but neither did I,
so I couldnt prove that I owned the boat. When challenged over the fact
Page 2 of 12

that he would not accept I was the owner, so why did he accept that CaRT
had any right to the boat, he said I am not bothered about paperwork, I am
quite happy that Canal and River Trust are acting lawfully, and if they are
not acting lawfully then you need to take it up with them and take them to
court.
15.

I said that they have no claim to own the boat, and you cannot take
anothers property without a warrant in this country. The officer repeated
that without paperwork I could not prove I was the owner, so I was being
hypocritical demanding that CaRT should have paperwork. I then went to
the boat to see what I had onboard.

16.

I came back and showed the officer a receipt I had from British Waterways
for a previous registration some years earlier, showing my name and
previous address as owner of the boat so far as they were concerned. I
told him that having registered the boat with them in 2010, I put the boat on
private property and left it on private property.

17.

I called on Mr Clark to confirm that he owned to the centre of the river, and
he confirmed that was what his deeds showed. The officer asked who
managed the river, and Mr Clark confirmed that they had never managed
anything alongside his bank; he was the only one who maintained his bit.

18.

The officer said that CaRT would have a different idea as to who managed
the waterways; their action in taking my boat was no different to Councils
taking illegally parked cars, and that the letter I showed him from BW was
no proof I owned the boat. I asked what else he needed, and said that you
cannot seize anothers property without due process; you needed a
warrant from the court in this country to take anything off anybody. He
denied that court authorisation was necessary, and said the only way to
deal with this situation was to pay for a solicitor to sue them.

19.

I pointed out that CaRT were not police officers with a right to seize things
if believed connected with a crime; they were not even civil servants, they
just seized the boat and presented a bill [not that they had even produced
a bill, or even said what was owed]. I asked could they do that?

20.

The officer replied I dont know. Im not an expert on Canal and River
Trust . . . Im not an expert on Canal and River Trusts contract or what
theyre entitled to do. He then said he would go and talk to them again.

21.

While he was talking to them, I went to check on my boat on the truck, and
observed that both front and rear canopies had been ripped off, and a
storage unit taken off the roof. I then went into the Newark Marina office
and told the marina owner that in lifting my boat out of the water he was
facilitating a theft, and action would be taken against him.
Page 3 of 12

22.

The police officer finally came back over to us and said that the whole
situation was a civil matter, that he had spoken with his superior, and in
order to prevent the breach of the peace he claimed was happening, they
were sending yet more police officers down.

23.

I told him that I was reporting it to him as a theft, which he had a duty to
prevent, that the theft was the breach of the peace. He insisted that it was
only a civil dispute, and having spoken with his Inspector a small group of
officers were coming to facilitate the boat removal.

24.

I said it was a crime to facilitate the theft of my boat; I owed nothing on the
boat, there was no finance on it, they said there were fines, I didnt know
how much, I didnt know anything. The officer said they had offered me the
chance to pay what was owed, and I said they had offered me nothing.

25.

I confirmed again with Mr Clark what they had said when he said he would
call the owner [me], and they said they were not waiting for me to arrive,
they just cut the ropes and took the boat away by river.

26.

They had refused to wait until I arrived; they did not say now that I owed
them anything, they just said I owed a debt. They had not told me anything
else. They had not said I owed a pound or 500 pounds. They had gone to
the owner of private property who said he was calling the owner. They said
no we dont want the owner, then cut the ropes and took my boat.

27.

My father pointed out the CaRT people standing back with the police cars,
and noted that they were laughing about the situation, thinking it was
funny.

28.

I said that I would go and ask Mr Garner how much they said I owed.
When I reached the group I clarified that CaRT had said that money was
owed on the boat, and I asked them how much money was owed. The
police officer said Mr Garner was talking to someone in order to find out,
and that it involved the cost of removing it from the water which, as I
said, I had not consented to.

29.

After argument over the officers bias in other dealings with me, my friend
asked again how much was the sum alleged to be owed. The officer went
over to Mr Garner and told him that we were wanting to know what he said
was owed; what was the outstanding bill.

30.

Mr Garner told him he was waiting for an updated exact figure. My father
said we had been waiting for two hours by that point, and that he was a
liar. Mr Garner repeated that he had no exact figure, he had told us that, he
wasnt going to lie and give a random figure, he hadnt got an exact figure.
Page 4 of 12

31.

Another bystander said that CaRT needed to produce proof of claim

regarding the monies allegedly owed, and the officer denied that. He said
that to his untrained perspective in the rules of the river, or the laws of the
river, its no different if someones left their car on the highway, and the
council have acted to remove it.

32.

The officer said I think that these guys, the Canal and River Trust know
what theyre entitled to do. He was only there to prevent a breach of the
peace, because CaRT had rung to complain that we were being
threatening towards them.

33.

Someone else made the comment that bailiffs were all liars, and the officer
noted that none of the CaRT people or their contractors were bailiffs.

34.

My father said that he had nothing against the contractors who were only
doing their job, his beef was with Mr Garner, who was spending all his time
on the phone. The officer said that Mr Garner was trying to liase with his
boss who was 200 miles away. My father said he is trying to get a figure as
to how much was owed for licence fees, and the officer said that only
means that once hes got a figure and that gets paid, the boat gets put
back in the water.

35.

My father said well then give me the figure thats owed and Ill get the
money out of my pocket; whats the problem?

36.

Mr Garner then said theres the lorry hire, the crane hire, the contractors
time; its not as easy as just going Oh its 50 quid.

37.

My father said they had made a mistake; all they needed to have done was
to send a bill; Mr Garner said they had sent all the paperwork. My father
said say its 30 quid, four times that Mr Garner said Its not 30 quid
though, and my Father said he was talking of the principle, they had said
four years was owing, so what was owing was four times that, and what
they were doing instead was nicking the boat, and then saying they wanted
the money for that as well.

38.

At this point I joined the group and the officer addressed Mr Garner and
said How much was it did you say? Your boss is still working it out? Mr
Garner replied that the ballpark figure was between 8 and 9 grand. He was
asked where he got those figures from.

39.

Mr Garner replied that there was the removal; and it was four years
licence. The officer asked if we were going to pay the 9 grand, and I
walked off in disgust, after promising Mr Garner that I was going to do him
for theft and criminal damage. The officer said go then, and do that.
Page 5 of 12

40.

I returned to add that I had taken plenty of photographs only 2 days

beforehand, which would prove the criminal damage they had done to the
canopies when they removed them.

41.

I phoned up Mr Clark who had left by then, to ask him in front of the officer
how often during the week I was at his place working on the boat and
repeated his answer that I was there every day over the last year [in full
view of anybody on the other side], and not once had any waterways man
come over to talk to me.

42.

The officer then directed one of the other officers who had arrived, to go
and ask the Marina owner to come and ask us all to leave, so that he could
arrest us if we did not comply. This he did, and we all left.

43.

Videos of the incident were posted up on youtube, and numerous

comments were made. One person got in touch to point out that the
Statutes of Marlborough were engaged, seeing that the boat was seized
for non-payment of licence fees without authority of a court order; was
taken from the public highway, and was taken out of the County.

44.

Another person [Ms Tracy Thomas] got in touch to volunteer assistance in

retrieving the boat. She rang people at CaRT as to what it would take to
get the boat back, querying the process in seizing it, and querying the
amounts claimed.

45.

She and I also understood them to say that if it was not sorted within 6
weeks, CaRT could claim ownership and sell or dispose of the boat as they
pleased, to get the money they claimed was owed.

46.

Because of this, Ms Tracy helped me to file an Injunction application with

the local Court on 10 February 2015, asking that The Defendant be
forbidden (whether by himself or by instructing or encouraging or permitting
any other person) to sell or destroy my 43ft vessel Narrow Boat named the
Three Monkeys.

47.

Ms Tracy also asked to be allowed to go on board my boat to retrieve

essential paperwork. This was refused, contrary to undertakings as to this
being given to Parliament in 1993, and Mr Garner himself went on board to
collect what he thought relevant instead.

48.

The youtube video attracted the attention of other boaters, one of whom
posted a link to it on the Canalworld Discussion Forum, and as a result of
many pages of debate and publicity Ms Tracy was alerted to this and made
some contributions, eventually contacting Mr Nigel Moore in mid-February
to ask for advice on handling things, because her expertise did not include
waterways legislation.
Page 6 of 12

49.

In late February Mr Moore advised her that the injunction was

unnecessary, because the 6 week period only applied to situations where
the owner was not known. He suggested that Ms Tracy write to Jackie
Lewis, CaRTs Head of Legal, offering to withdraw the Application on the
basis of no order for costs, if they would only provide a written undertaking
to the same effect as what the Injunction asked.

50.

In the beginning of March we met together to discuss the matter with the
relevant background. Mr Moore agreed that the boat did not need a licence
or certificate where it was, and said he would look into the Marlborough
legislation.

51.

Following that meeting Mr Moore advised that Ms Tracy should first send a
letter to a Mr Griffiths as Head of Enforcement, asking for clarification over
the chief immediate concerns. The suggested letter would say:
Dear Mr Griffiths
I want to clear up some of the things that have been said to me by you and Mr
Garner, as far as Leigh being able to retrieve his boat.
It seemed to me that both of you were saying that you would or could refuse to
licence his boat, so that he would not be able to return the boat to his mooring.
Your clarification of your position on this would be appreciated, so Leigh can plan
accordingly.
Also, Mr Garner has apparently told Leigh that you would hold the boat for a
minimum 6 weeks for which you would charge whether he paid off the storage to
date or not. I would like confirmation of whether this is the case too, and what is
the official policy or understanding on title to the boat being vested in the Board
after 6 weeks. You can understand Leighs worries over this.

52.

Secondly, he again suggested that she write to Jackie Lewis with an offer
to vacate the impending Injunction Hearing if Ms Lewis agrees to provide a
formal undertaking on behalf of CaRT, that they will take no action to sell or
dispose of Leighs boat [giving name and registration number] until such time as
agreement has been reached with Leigh regarding its retrieval, or until a Court
has ruled on their legal right to have seized the boat. This will satisfy Leighs fears
that they intend to sell his boat off while he is still sorting things out, in the
interests of saving costs on all sides, and court time.

53.

Ms Thomas did all that, but received nothing from the CaRT officers at all.
Instead, by letter dated 10 March from Shoosmiths LLP, she received
confirmation that title did not vest after 6 weeks where the owner was
known as in this case; but that CaRT did not agree to vacate the hearing
on the terms proposed.
Page 7 of 12

54.

Their position was that they had clarified the exact amounts owed, so all I
needed to do was pay up in order to get my boat back the sum including
both costs of removal and storage, plus four years licence arrears.

55.

On Mr Moores advice, Ms Tracy with my agreement wrote to say that,

despite their refusal to give any undertakings and agree to vacating the
proceedings, given that they had confirmed that title did not invest in them,
I would discontinue the Application.

56.

As it happened, I had by then received disturbing news to do with family

matters that demanded I travel to Ireland as a matter of extreme urgency to
deal with it, and I was only able to return on the day before the hearing. I
went to the court and was assured that I was still in time; the
discontinuance was filed and I was assured the hearing would be vacated.

57.

I was also trying to arrange through Ms Thomas the return of my boat. I

was told that before it would be released, I needed to pay 12,676.00
including court awarded costs relating to the vacated injunction application.
It turned out that Shoosmiths had attended the court regardless, and were
awarded costs.

58.

Friction between Ms Tracy and I regarding this turn of events resulted in

her refusing to take any more part in assisting and representing me.

59.

By email dated 3 April 2015 Shoosmiths acknowledged that Ms Tracy no

longer represented me, and re-sent their costs demands for return of my
boat, including the injunction costs and the four years alleged licence
arrears.

60.

I replied denying any entitlement to use possession of my boat to extract

costs orders or licence fees in addition to the removal and storage costs. I
said I had been informed that they were not entitled under their legislation
to hold the boat as lien on any debt other than those costs, as well as that
being contrary to the Statutes of Marlborough.

61.

I further said I would arrange for craning the boat off their transport as soon
as they confirmed that I need pay only the removal and storage costs to
have the boat released, which I would be paying under protest, because I
believed they had no right to take the boat in the first place.

62.

Given that the costs were the subject of appeal, they agreed to my not
paying the costs order, but still insisted on the licence fees, so I sent an
email on 13 April 2015, telling them I was arranging payment under
protest. I said Shoosmiths as solicitors had to know the illegality of the
demand, and were failing in their professional duty in not so informing their
client. I confirmed that I would be asking the court to order repayment of all
these sums.
Page 8 of 12

63.

Having received my payment for both licence arrears and removal costs,
they then sent a further demand that before releasing my boat they also
wanted confirmation that it would not be put back in their waters, unless I
also sent confirmation of BSSC, Insurance, mooring details with a licence
application, and duplicated licence fees in addition to the money they had
already been paid for those fees with several months yet to expire.

64.

By this time I was so disgusted I wanted nothing more to do with them or

their waterways. I wrote to that effect and arranged to have the boat
delivered to a nearby farm.

65.

Even then, they went back on their word to deliver without cost [having
refused to allow me to arrange my own pick-up and delivery] and wanted
more money to cover half the delivery costs. I wrote saying they could not
back off from the agreement, and in the end they accepted that, and
delivered the boat to the farm on the 6 May 2015, where I had to pay 300
to crane it off the truck onto the hardstanding.

66.

On 4 May 2015 I had written a letter before action, embracing the imminent
hearing on the Injunction proceedings, saying:
As to the content of your clients expensive Defence, dealing solely, as it
does, with the question of whether they were entitled to seize the boat at
all in the first place, I will be preparing a case regarding that, as I said from
the beginning, for the High Court. It is appropriate therefore that at this
juncture I ask you to take this as a formal Letter Before Action, in an
attempt to avoid what will certainly turn out to be far more costly litigation which I expect to win, even if I have to take it all the way to the Supreme
Court.
I propose that your client drop all claim to the Court costs in the current
matter and I will seek no costs for myself; that your client acknowledge
that my boat was not in the main navigable channel of the Trent when
seized or at any time previous [other than taking it to the south bank for its
MOT on a single occasion]; that no Licence or Certificate is necessary for
boats kept and used outside of the main navigable channel [I note that no
response was given to Ms Thomas on her questioning this], and that the
seizure be therefore acknowledged as illegal.
I would consequently require that my boat be returned forthwith and all
sums given to you under duress returned. I would then refrain from taking
any further action against you and your client regardless of my feelings in
the matter.
Failure to agree with these terms - which I feel are far more than
reasonable under the circumstances - will leave me with no alternative but
to pursue the matter at the appropriate High Court level. In such a case I
Page 9 of 12

will also be arguing, as I claimed to the police at the Newark Marina, that
CaRT have no powers to seize the property of known individuals regardless of your s.8 - without appropriate court orders/warrant.
67.

On 7 May 2015 Shoosmiths responded by saying they did not accept my

email as a letter before action and I needed to inform them of the grounds
of my claim, with 14 days notice.

68.

On 8 May 2015 I replied to these solicitors, saying:

As to the legal basis of my claim I have already made that clear from the
beginning.Ms Thomas raised the issue of my needing a licence if outside the main
navigable channel at her first meeting with your client. The fact that this
has been ignored does not mean that it was not raised. As was mentioned
by me at the time of the seizure as recorded in the video, I understood that
pleasure boats did not need a licence when on private property on the
river, and I later understood that this is true so long as the boat is outside
the main navigable channel.
Your client [as indeed, I presume, yourself] will always have understood
that the power to demand pleasure boat certificates on the river Trent is
derived from the British Waterways Act 1971, and that the relevant
sections apply only to the main navigable channel of the rivers listed in the
Schedule to that Act. That is the simple and straightforward legal basis of
my primary claim; your client understands that, and it is disingenuous to
pretend otherwise.
I and Ms Thomas have also protested from the beginning that your client
has never been entitled to seize my boat over any alleged debt for licences
[or anything else] without a court order. I made that very clear throughout
the video of the seizure, and this has a legal basis stretching back to the
Statute of Marlborough which I have also raised in previous
correspondence as well as the Torts Act and the Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act.
I have also protested that the action in seizing a 30,000 boat over a minor
alleged debt is hugely disproportionate, and so is against the Statute of
Marlborough, and also against the Human Rights Act. Nothing in your s.8
powers could entitle you to take my boat when you knew and always
claimed to hold me to be the owner [even though I had sold the boat after
getting the first licence, and had only recently re-purchased it.] Given that
your client always acknowledged their belief that I was the owner at the
time, there is no legal basis in s.8 for your client to have done what they
did.
They were watching me from across the river for a year, while I was
working on the boat and could have approached me by boat any of those
times, but chose to rely only on mail and finally sticking notices on my boat.
At the boatyard while the boat was on the trailer, we said we would pay the
4 years licence if that was what we had to do to prevent the boat being
Page 10 of 12

taken away, and yet the vague sum of 8 or 9 thousand pounds was
demanded as the booked cost of removal. That makes it a purely punitive
measure, which the 1983 Act can never have contemplated. I believe that
it applies only to boats that shouldnt be on the water yet your client cannot
identify the owner. They should have taken me to court for non-payment of
licence fees if that was what they believed I owed, not go ahead and take
my boat in lieu thereof.
I have repeatedly asserted the invalidity of taking and holding my boat
pending payment of the disputed licence arrears, in the email
correspondence over what needed to be paid for return of my boat.
Even if they were entitled to take the boat as a lien on the licence fees
allegedly owed [which I have denied], that could not free them from the
requirement for a warrant, as I said at the time [they admitted that they had
no paperwork whatsoever, to the policeman who was present at our
confrontation]. It is pertinent, moreover, that your client is very well aware
of the essential basis of such a claim as mine from the correspondence
with Tony Dunkley over exactly the same issue.
There is nothing new, therefore, in my claim, nor anything of which they
have not been aware for a very long time, and they are well able to present
me with any argument against these particulars of my claim, with no need
to research any argument, which, it must be presumed, has been ready to
hand for rebuttal of any such protest since the 1971 Act was passed, not to
mention the 1983 Act.
So I reject the idea that I have not fully set out the basis of my claim. I do
take on board the comment about the time period though, despite the fact
that they would scarcely need even a week to respond given what I have
said above, and will extend the deadline to the following Sunday 17 May
2015.
69.

Nothing at all was heard from them, in response to any of those points I
made, so on the 18 May 2015 I lodged my Claim in the High Court.

70.

On 3 June 2015, prior to the scheduled appeal hearing on the injunction

costs, I wrote suggesting that we could all save costs and time by agreeing
to adjourn consideration of the issues in that appeal to the case filed in the
High Court, seeing that that CaRTs Defence over the Appeal only dealt
with their justifications for seizure.

71.

That suggestion was refused, and the judge awarded yet more costs to
CaRT in the subsequent hearing, saying that I could have applied to have
the issues formally joined to the High Court case but had not. I have
appealed that decision and have yet to be heard on the matter.

72.

On 21 July 2015 I wrote suggesting a temporary stay to give time for

alternative dispute resolution, which was agreed to, but this failed to work
out and proceedings carried on as history relates, with three Case
Management Conferences ensuing, the last on 1 September 2016.
Page 11 of 12

73.

Following the last hearing an Order was made for conduct of the trial, and
in a reserved judgment a couple of weeks later my application for the
assistance of a Mackenzie Friend with right of audience was granted.

74.

Adjournment of the time to file Witness Statements, as specified in the

Order, was agreed between the parties to explore a suggestion by the
Defendant as to the narrowing of issues.

75.

On 3 January 2017 I wrote to the Defendant to disagree with their

suggestions, instead suggesting that if they agreed to the two issues
respecting proportionality and their use of s.8 powers as creating a lien on
alleged debts [and agreed to the declarations I am seeking in those
respects], we could ask the Court to deal only with the prime issue over the
meaning of main navigable channel with each side bearing their own
costs in the interests of establishing certainty on a point of general public
interest.

76.

No response to or acknowledgement of that was received, so that all

issues remain to be determined according to the Order of Chief Master
Marsh.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe the facts stated in this Witness Statement of mine to be true.

Date: 12 January 2017

Leigh Ravenscroft
c/- The Croft
Moor Lane
Newark
Nottingham
NG23 5QD
Email: midlandlogs@hotmail.com

Page 12 of 12