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.

The claim

Mr Ravenscroft claims that the boat, Grandma Molly (previously named Three Wise Monkeys) was moored over water and against land where CaRT have no jurisdiction. Furthermore, for most of the four years when it did not have a licence it was not owned by him.

He has asked that the Court makes declarations regarding the meaning of ‘main navigable channel' in two British Waterways Acts such that dimensions are limited to that which CaRT are under statutory obligation to maintain.

He has also asked the court to declare that a licence is not needed for boats kept out of the main navigable channel.

Section 8 as 'taking revenge'

Furthermore, the court has been asked to make declarations regarding Section 8 of the 1983 Act that allows CaRT to seize boats. In particular Mr Ravenscroft is asking the court to declare that Section 8 is not intended to be used for the recovery of debts (e.g. licence fees or court costs) or taking ‘revenge' against individuals.

He is also asking the court to rule that a court order is needed to take possession of a boat where the owner is known.

Illegal seizure

Regarding the boat itself, the court is asked to rule that Grandma Molly's seizure was illegal because:

• the boat was kept outside the main navigable channel of the River Trent.
• it was unlawful under the terms of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1997.
• it was unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1988.
• it was unlawful under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

Criminal offence

Based on the above, the court is being asked to declare that seizure of the boat was a criminal offence at common law and that, in denying statutory rights and obligations, CaRT is guilty of the common law offence of Contempt of the Sovereign.

Mr Ravenscroft is asking the court to order refund of all monies unlawfully extorted, with such penalties and compensation as it sees fit.

[Leigh Ravenscroft's claim is in addition to a court hearing on 4th June regarding costs in a discontinued injunction application.]