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.

Stuart Mills

They primarily involve Stuart Mills, now CaRT's Property Director with responsibility for property development, investment, estates, strategic planning, urban design, utilities, joint ventures, boating trade and online moorings. However, at the time the alleged fraud occurred, he was head of property.

Stuart Mills made a Statutory Declaration in 2007, to register the disputed land as belonging to British Waterways. This was not done at Swansea (who would have been well aware of the dispute) but at a different Land Registry Office as part of a wider claim to land ownership. BYB were kept completely in the dark concerning this.

In making the sworn declaration that they owned the land, Stuart Mills stated:

'I have been employed by British Waterways Board for 15 years in the property department in a number of capacities and at present I am head of property for the Board. In the course of my performance of my duties since my employment by the board began I have become fully familiar with the nature and extent of the boards land ownership'.

Despite saying he was 'fully familiar with the nature and extent of the Board' land ownership', Mr Mills went on to declare—'I am not aware of any question or doubt affecting the title to the property or any part thereof or of any matter or thing whereby the title is or may be impeached affected or called in question in any matter whatsoever'.

But how is it that the head of property, who claims to be fully conversant with British Waterways' land ownership, was not aware of a land dispute that had been going on for some years?

.... and who altered the ‘Terrier Map' if it was not somebody in his own department?

Fraud or just mind blowing incompetence?

False declaration

So from having been told that British Waterways would remove the objection to BYB's registration of the land, BYB found that British Waterways had applied to register the land for itself, apparently making a false declaration in order to do so.

British Waterways appeared to accept BYB's view that Stuart Mills had made a false statutory declaration because Cobbetts, yet another solicitors acting for British Waterways, wrote to the Land Registry apologising for the ‘oversight' in including the disputed land in its registration. Indeed, British Waterways went so far as producing new plans excluding the hatched land from the rest of their application. However, these were not put in place and to this day the disputed land remains registered to British Waterways (now CaRT) on the basis of a known false declaration.

Nigel Moore

It should perhaps be stated, at this point, that the director of BYB who accepted British Waterways' offer to remove its claim to the disputed land (not once but twice) was none other than Nigel Moore. Nigel Moore, most will recall, was the boater who spent years in court battles after British Waterways attempted to seize his boat using its ‘Section 8' powers.

The final outcome was that it was decided that he had done nothing wrong which would allow British Waterways to use its powers to seize his boat. (CaRT loses Section 8 Case) Along the way it was found that British Waterways had abused his human rights. Mr Moore was also awarded 75% of his costs which are yet to be assessed and a court has recently been told that BW/CaRT incurred costs of a staggering £250,000.

That the attempted ‘Section 8' took place at the time that Mr Moore was trying to find an amicable settlement with British Waterways really goes without saying!

Richard Parry

.... and it seems that Mr Moore is still trying to find a way to forward on the issue having now appealed direct to Richard Parry. However, at the moment Mr Parry seems to favour the further use of courts.

Obviously, what is needed is alternative dispute resolution rather than wasting further money on further court cases. CaRT need to accept that it has no claim on the disputed land and ensure that it is returned to BYB. CaRT must also investigate the allegations of corruption and take the appropriate action as some of those involved in this tawdry affair are still employed.

What is not needed is the continual cover-up that has been going on for years and the attempts by both British Waterways and CaRT to vilify Nigel Moore as an illegal boater and a troublemaker.

[The following is an extract from a transcript of a case heard on Wednesday 30th October where Deputy Master Jefferis comments on the alleged forgery:

DEPUTY MASTER JEFFERIS: The cross-hatching does look rather less neat, does it not? The cross-hatching on the land is drawn with a ruler and .....

MR. MOORE: Yes, it is done more in freehand. When you have got a good quality copy, and the one I was sent was good copy, and you scan it in, I have been .....

DEPUTY MASTER JEFFERIS: But your later plan showed no sign of it at all.

MR. MOORE: Yes, it did not exist on the original. That very poor copy, it is good enough to see that the hatching is not on there, but I was sent a copy, because I asked for it under disclosure for an entirely different purpose, to be frank, and the quality of copy that I was sent, that was in 2011, was such that was useless for what I wanted because I had wanted to read annotations relating to other things.

DEPUTY MASTER JEFFERIS: Okay.

MR. MOORE: But anyway.

DEPUTY MASTER JEFFERIS: I can see why you are upset about that and I have great sympathy. Let us leave it at that.

MR. MOORE: Right.

DEPUTY MASTER JEFFERIS: I am not sure it is relevant to the issues before me today.]