Forgery and fraud

THE Canal & River Trust (CaRT) and ex British Waterways staff have been accused of illegal acts on a canal Forum, writes Allan Richards.

Comments, which are still on the site accuse CaRT staff of both forgery and fraud. Bearing in mind that it was not so long ago that CaRT were threatening a boater with legal action simply for making an ‘unauthorised mockery of the Trust's logo', one wonders why it has not taken steps to sue the poster.

Criminal activity

One of the posts on the site alleges that CaRT 'is run by people who engage in criminal activity, and by those who work to keep a lid on that alleged activity, angling to protect their fellow directors and their departments from any adverse consequences of being found out, instead of confronting the situation and taking remedial action'.

Strong stuff! But is it true? Read on and make up your own mind.

Mooring dispute

Many years ago, 2003 to be precise, a mooring dispute arose between British Waterways and Brentford Yacht and Boat Co. Ltd. (BYB). To protect its interests, in 2005, BYB applied for first registration of its land alongside and under the footbridge south of Workhouse Dock in Brentford on the Grand Union Canal.

However, British Waterways objected to the BYB registration claiming that it (British Waterways) owned the land. In particular it's solicitors Wright Hassall wrote to the Land Registry Office in Swansea enclosing a copy of a portion of British Waterways' 'Terrier Map' showing coloured hatching almost exactly matching the land that BYB was attempting to register. (The term 'Terrier Map' is probably unfamiliar to many but a land terrier is a record system for an institution's land and property holdings, maintained for the organisations own needs.)

Terrier Map

The photo shows the 'Terrier Map' and the disputed land is the hatching shown under the word 'DOCK'.

Wright Hassall's letter stated 'Further to our letter dated 27 October 2005, we also enclose our client's Terrier Plan, which indicates land owned by British Waterways Board. The land hatched blue is the land in question and this is further evidence within our clients records that they own this land'.

The dispute rumbled on and the matter was referred to the Land Registry Adjudicator. British Waterways' solicitors, Wright Hassall (yes that really is their name!) were replaced by TLT who produced the copied portion of the 'Terrier Map' in British Waterways' statement of case list of documents saying it was a 'Terrier plan indicating land owned by British Waterways Board'.

Forgery?

It is this copied portion of British Waterways' 'Terrier Map' that is the alleged forgery. The reason that the allegation was made is because the hatching purporting to show that British Waterways owned the disputed land simply does not appear on the original!

That the document had been altered (apparently to bolster British Waterways claim) was not found out until some time later. It alteration has been tacitly admitted by another of British Waterways solicitors in one of several related court cases. In a witness statement dated 11th November 2011, Nicholas Robert Shepherd a partner of Shoosmiths stated '.....it is right to record, however, that in so far as Wright Hassall suggested in their letter to the Chief Land Registrar ..... that the Terrier Plan was evidence of BWB's ownership of the area hatched blue that was wrong'.

So does altering a document to demonstrate ownership of land constitute forgery? And in doing so has a fraud been committed?

Offer to withdraw objection

For whatever reason, British Waterways offered to withdraw its objection. This was immediately accepted by BYB and would have ended the matter but nothing happened. When BYB asked why, they were told that the agreement was subject to Board approval.

However, Tony Hales the Boards Chairman claimed that this was not the case and it was a matter for the executive.

Whilst altering a document may in itself be both forgery and fraud, the fraud allegations go further.