Correspondence on on-going issues
COPY
3.1.98
Legal Department
British Waterways Watford
Herts
Dear Sir/Madam,
It is several months now since a friend of mine asked you about the need for a licence on a private mooring and as yet had no reply.
I now would like to know your position on this matter as my licence runs out at the end of Feb 98. 1 too am on a private mooring with Riparian Rights and due to other events happening in the area, certain information has come to hand.
It would appear that your statements of 1980 to myself and Eddisons to whom I pay rent for my mooring, were incorrect, that you have no jurisdiction on this mooring.
Your claims about the water were wrong and have been since 1937.
It would appear that your only rights on this part of the river is that of navigation channel and that is done through what was the National Rivers Authority, now the Environmental Agency.
As time is of the essence I would appreciate a reply sooner than it is taking you to deal with my friends enquiry,
Yours faithfully
Edwin Holmes
British Waterways
Manager
Aire & Calder Navigations
27 March 1998
Dear Sir
Subject - mooring on the River Aire in Leeds
Thank you for your letter of 3rd January 1998 and please accept my apologies for the delay in dealing with this matter. Having now taken instructions from our Legal Department I can reply as follows.
As you are no doubt aware, the Board is the navigation authority responsible for the section of navigation on which your craft is currently moored and a Pleasure Boat Licence gives you the right to use the waterway. For the record, I disagree with the penultimate paragraph of your letter.
By virtue of Section 43 (3) of the Transport Act 1962 ( " the 1962 act" ) the Board is empowered " to demand , take and recover or waive such charges for their services and facilities and to make use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit". The words " services and facilities " by virtue of Section 43 (a) of the 1962 Act " include, in the case of the British Waterways Board, the use of any inland waterway owned or managed by them by any ship or boat ".The word " charge " is defined in Section 5 (1) (a) of the British Waterways Act 1983 to mean " any sum due to the board under any of the specified enactments or payable to them on compliance with any of the requirements of the specified enactment ".By Section 5 (1) (b) " the specified enactments includes Section 43 of the 1962 Act.
In this case a licence fee is payable and, as you say your craft is currently moored over private land a mooring fee is not payable to the Board.
I trust you will now apply for a Pleasure Boat Licence as a matter of urgency.
Yours faithfully
D.C.CARNALL Patrol Officer
British Waterways, Lock Lane, (Castleford, West Yorkshire WF10 2LH
telephone 01977 554351 Fax 01.977 516329
COPY
30.3.98
Mr D. C. Carnell Patrol Officer
British Waterways Leeds
Dear Sir
In reply to your letter of the 27.3.98 1 must disagree with part of your second paragraph quote (for the section of navigation on which your craft is currently moored).
In your last paragraph you admit I am moored over private property which is not part of your navigation, but part of the natural river.
As for your other paragraph quoting different B.W bylaws, I would ask you to present to me proof positive of your claim relating to this property, bearing in mind the riparian rights of my mooring and the basic law of England & Wales appertaining to land and property.
Yours faithfully
Edwin Holmes.
British Waterways
Corporate Services Director
Jeremy Duffy
29 April 1998
Dear Sir
Re: DISPUTE AS TO WHY A LICENCE FEE IS PAYABLE - AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATIONS
I acknowledge your letter of 30 March 1998 which has been passed to me to deal with. I should be grateful if you would address all future correspondence on this matter direct to myself, quoting the above reference.
In this case, I believe it is important to distinguish between a licence and a mooring permit. The Board manage and maintain the Aire and Calder Navigation and I attach a note as to the devolution of the Board's title. If you wish to use your craft on this section of navigation, you must have in force a valid licence as this gives you the right to use the waterway. This is irrespective of whether or not we own the bed of the navigation at some sections. The right to use the waterway does not include the right to moor for long periods, but as your craft is currently moored over private land, a mooring fee is not chargeable by the Board.
Dave Carnall of our regional office has quoted you the relevant sections of the Transport Act 1962 and the British Waterways Act 1983 which entitle the Board to recover such charges for its services and facilities as the Board thinks fit.
In the circumstances, I suggest that you obtain a licence as a matter of urgency.
Yours faithfully
AO'Shea [Miss] Legal Executive
cc. Dave Carnall, Patrol Officer, Aire & Calder Navigations
AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION
Note as to devolution of the
British Waterways Board's Title
On the passing of the Aire and Calder Navigation Act 1899, on the 13th July 1899, the trustees of the Undertakers for the time being of the Navigation of the Rivers Aire and Calder became incorporated under the name of The Trustees of the Aire and Calder Navigation and the property at the time vested in or held by the then trustees of the Undertakers was vested in the incorporated trustees and the name of the Undertakers changed to The Undertakers of the Aire and Calder Navigation.
On 1st January 1948, the undertaking and property of The Undertakers of the Aire and
Calder Navigation was vested in the British Transport Commission by virtue of the
Transport Act 1947.
The property rights and liabilities comprised in the part of the undertaking of the British Transport Commission constituted (inter alia) by their inland waterways (other than the Lower Ouse Improvement) was vested in the British Waterways Board by the Transport Act 1962, and Statutory Instrument 1962 No. 2634, on 1st January 1963.
COPY
7.5.98
The Legal Executive British Waterways Willow Grange
Church Road
Watford
WDI 3QA
Dear Miss O'Shea
In reply to your letter of the 29.4.98 it is possible that I have not made my position very clear, which I will try to do.
I have no intention of moving from my mooring and have not done so for some time. Indeed I am not ever going to move to get rid of the rubbish and debris that has collected against the illegal construction in the river bank put there by Ceddick Construction
Ltd that is supposed to be my new mooring, which replaces the one I had for many years.
As you point out my craft is moored over private land and that has been my argument in my past letters.
The quoting of B.W.B bylaws does not provide proof positive of your claim.
Yours faithfully
Edwin Holmes
British Waterways
Corporate Services Director
,Jeremy Duffy
27 May 1998
Dear Sir
Re: DISPUTE AS TO WHY A LICENCE FEE IS PAYABLE - AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATIONS
I am in receipt of your letter dated 7 May 1998, the contents of which are noted.
For the record, the Board accept that your craft is currently moored over private land and as stated in my letter of 29 April 1998, the Board is not entitled to charge a mooring fee. In this case, the Board is only concerned with a licence and therefore, it is imperative that you accept the difference between a licence and a mooring permit.
As I have previously stated, the Board manage and maintain the Aire & Calder Navigation and should you wish to use or allow your craft to remain on the Navigation you must have in force a valid licence. If you do not have a valid licence for your craft you are liable for prosecution under the British Waterways General Canal Bye-laws 1965, as amended.
Should you continue to dispute the requirement for a licence I feel that the only way to resolve this dispute is through the Courts. Therefore, I await a response within 14 days.
Yours faithfully
G O'Shea [Miss] Legal Executive
cc. Dave Carnall, Patrol Officer, Aire & Calder Navigations
COPY
8.6.98
The Legal Executive British Waterways Willow Grange
Church Road
Watford
WD1 3QA
Dear Miss O'Shea
In reply to your letter dated 27.5.98 I know the difference between a mooring permit and licence which I would need if I was going to move off my mooring, but as I have no intention of doing so, we are back to the situation where you do not accept the rights of private property.
Your claim is based upon a flawed law and it isn't the only one in existence, that is why I think it is a good idea to resolve it through the courts as you suggest, when you will have to present proof positive to uphold your claim which is one document that you haven't got in your possession.
I take this opportunity to ask if British Waterways is prepared to enter into a way leave agreement so to continue the use over this private property of craft licensed by B.W. and for which you receive payment, as at this moment there is no legal agreement between us.
Yours faithfully
Edwin Holmes
British Waterways
Corporate Services Director
Jeremy Duffy
16 June 1998
Dear Sir,
Re: DISPUTE AS TO WHY A LICENCE FEE IS PAYABLE - AIRE AND CALDER
NAVIGATIONS
I acknowledge your letter of 8 June 1998. With reference to the final paragraph of your letter the Board do not need to enter into a Wayleave Agreement for the passage of craft over this land comprised in the Navigation.
Since your craft is currently unlicensed and is liable for prosecution under the British Waterways General Canal Bye-laws 1965, as amended, I have advised our patrol officer, Dave Carnall, to prosecute you accordingly.
Yours faithfully
G O'Shea [Miss] Legal Executive
cc. Dave Carnall, Patrol Officer, Aire & Calder Navigations
British Waterways, Willow Grange, Church Road, Watford 7VD1 3QA 01923 3 226422 Fax 01923 '26081
COPY
2.11.98
Mr Alan Prest
Head of Customer Services British Waterways
Willow Grange
Church Road
Watford
WD 3QA
Dear Sir
Partnership with the people
Re your pamphlet on this subject you are wishing people to get involved into a situation that has not been fully explained in your pamphlet and therefore could cause some difficulties. I am referring to rivers and riparian rights that exist on these navigations.
If you are prepared to be honest on the subject and inform people of these rights you will get more support in the end, including mine. But until you do you are playing a dangerous game.
Make the people aware of the heritage of the rivers, including B.W employees, then your foundations for the future will not be so shakey.
Yours faithfully
Edwin Holmes
British Waterways
10/11/99
Dear Mr Holmes
Thank you for your comments. I have enclosed a copy of the full consultation document to allow you to better understand what we are trying to do.
I would like to respond to you positively with some comments about riparian rights on rivers but unfortunately the issue is so complicated that there is no single answer. The situation regarding these rights varies on all the rivers we manage. The extent of the rights and responsibilities vary as in some cases they extend to the centre of the river and include the bed and in others the rights end at the waters edge. Each case, therefore has to be looked at individually.
As far as canals are concerned the situation is different because British Waterways owns the canal. The position of those owning property backing on to a canal is therefore very different and in general terms they have few if any riparian rights.
As far as the website is concerned, I know of no reason why you could not access the site. It may have been that at the time you tried there was very heavy traffic on the network. I understand this sometimes happens at that time of day as the West Coast of America starts work and the servers get jammed. It amy also have been that the service provider which we use had some kind of problem which prevented access. I note from your letter that you have a space between waterway and partners. This may have just been a slip of the pen as you wrote but waterwaypartners is all one word.
Once again thank you for taking the trouble to write.
Yours sincerely
Alan Prest
Head of Customer Services
4th December 1999
Mr A Prest
British Waterways
Head of Customer Service Willow Grange
Church Road
Watford WD1 3QA
Dear Mr Prest
I am writing in reply to your letter of 10.11.99 and the comments on Riparian Rights in your second paragraph,
All water that is public juris have the same riparian rights invested in the property to which they appertain, and can only be transferred from one party to another by Deed of Assignment just like any part or whole of property and land. This comes under the 1885 Conveyancing act and the 1925 Land Act.
British Waterways appear to rely on an Act of 13.7.1899 to impose their by-laws on the Aire & Calder Navigation in which I am interested. As British Waterways only obtained what was invested in the Trustees of the Aire & Calder it left a lot of private property outside their domain. My mooring is one of them. In the past British Waterways have declined to dredge my mooring as at is private property and yet you state that you maintain the navigation.
Could you expand on your so called responsibilities and also send a copy of the transcript of the actual Act of Parliament that gives you the right to demand a licence fee from me , when I am on my own mooring and not moving, which has been the case for several years. If you know the Riparian Rights as I do there is a question to be answered and which British Waterways have failed to answer for the past two years, maybe you would like to change that if you can.
Yours faithfully
Edwin Holmes
British Waterways
08/12/99
Dear Mr Holmes
Thank you for your letter of 4th December.
You raise a number of technical issues relating both to the Aire and Calder Waterway and to your mooring which require a more detailed response. I have passed a copy of your letter to our legal department for their assistance.
I have also passed a copy of your letter to the local waterway office at Castleford who are responsible for the Aire and Calder.
Yours sincerely
Alan Prest
Head of Customer Services
British Waterways
Corporate Services Director
Jeremy Duffy
21 February 2000
Dear Sir
Re: ONGOING DISPUTE AS TO WHY A LICENCE IS PAYABLE – AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATIONS
I acknowledge safe receipt of your letter of 4 December 1999 which has been passed to me to deal with.
Having retrieved my file of papers on this matter and, as I have previously dealt with the issues raised in your letter, I attach copies of my letters dated 29 April, 27 May and 16 June 1998 which are self-explanatory.
I understand the Waterway Office have successfully prosecuted you for the offence of not having a pleasure boat licence and that you lost your appeal against sentence, which was heard at Leeds Crown Court on 15 November 1999.
In the circumstances, I suggest that you obtain a current licence, that is if you do not have one already, as it is open to the Board to pursue a further prosecution to the Magistrates Court or a civil claim to the County Court.
Yours faithfully
Greta O'Shea
Legal Executive
C. C. Alan Prest, Customer Services, Watford
John Kaye, Patrol Officer, Aire & Calder Navigations
Stephen Talbot's, Waterway Manager, Aire & Calder Navigations Ian White, Regional Director, North East Region
Janice Scanlon, Finance Dept., North East Region
COPY
Address Withheld
Mr. Morton
Carter, Bentley & Gundill Solicitors
33 Ropergate,
Pontefract,
West Yorkshire,
WF8 1LE
17th June 1999.
Dear Mr. Morton,
I have appealed against the Courts verdict re. British Waterways and myself E. Holmes.
There are several points that will be made clear at Crown Court that may have been misunderstood at the first hearing.
I think that the acceptance of Riparian Rights on your part in Court may stop the over claiming response from British Waterways in the future i.e. letter from British Waterways dated 20-11-1998 last paragraph, claiming water to be theirs.
The point you made about the river being a kin to a road is quite right. Navigations were known as highways and were so before roads were made.
However there is a difference, quite right you were in pointing out that a licence does not give you exclusive rights to any particular parts of a road. For example parking outside your own house. If someone parks in front of your house, because you were in the habit of doing so, there is nothing you can do unless they are causing an obstruction.
If driving you wish to stop say at a shop, you can do so, but if the next shop you wish to stop at has double yellow lines, you cannot do so.
Just like a river, it has double yellow lines for most of it. You keep moving in to Navigation channel. If you leave the cannel you are trespassing and if you should damage your boat in this action British Waterways will not be responsible as you are out of their jurisdiction for that part of the river.
They are merely the Navigation Authority (letter from British Waterways dated 12th Feb 1996).
However on mooring, no one else has the right to moor on my mooring and if they did so, I am able to take action against to guilty party under Riparian Rights as it is a land drainage (no public access page 144).
This is the reason British Waterways did not dredge my mooring when asked to do so in1981. Letters dated 12th Jan 1982 and 10th Feb 1982 confirm British Waterways stand at the time on their limited obligations. Again an over statement on their authority, regarding my mooring and if they were willing to let me stay, this, when it has nothing to do with them.
I would also refer to British waterways letter of 25th Feb 1994 when they declaired that the level of the river is maintained for commercial vessels and nothing to do with the public and it’s rights that appear to have been forgotten.
It is also a fact that when acts of Parliament were passed to enable locks and weirs to be conducted ( River Derwent 1702) a toll was payable by vessels only when carrying cargo so that at other times they were on a par with the public. I can see that if by chance you should win that the DVLC would wish to jump on the band wagon and the privilege laying up one’s oar when not in use would go.
It could also extend to Motor Museums and Showrooms, whilst I don’t think it would go down well with anyone, but it would be the same parallel.
On the other hand if I win, it’s going to cause problems for British Waterways as it is, if this goes on and on, I will have to consider financial backing and would no doubt approach a National Newspaper , It could make interesting reading and a good history lesson and it could make people more aware of their rights in the future.
Possibly you may wish to approach British waterways for their comment. It is possible that they wish to do what Yorkshire Water did when met with the Riparian Rights last year and had concede victory to an action group of householders of which I am Chairman so I know what was involved and how use went from one step to the next, dealing with a major Company and Local Authority, until they realised that there were effective in stopping a proposed development from taking place.
Yours Faithfully,
Mr. Edwin Holmes
COPY
Address Withheld
British Waterways,
Legal Department,
Lock Lane,
Castleford,
West Yorkshire,
WF10 2LH
22nd February 2000.
Dear Miss G. Oshea,
Re: Your letter of 21.02.2000, I can see that you are still avoiding the issue of Riparian Rights as you did 2 years ago.
It was not until after the appeal hearing that I could put everything together, indeed it was with help of Mr. Stephen Tallboys that the last piece fell into place; I now know why the reluctance of British Waterways to even acknowledge navigation rights. This extra knowledge came about be studying British Waterways and it’s structure and where and how it gets it’s powers.
As per my letter of 04.12.99 to Mr Alan Prest I asked for something that you cannot provide. That was and I repeat the question now. Send a copy of any section of any act of parliament passed for and on behalf of British Waterways that deals with navigation rights - the answer is that you cannot.
The action to do now is not look backwards as you are doing, but look forward to what has to happen, and who has to make it happen, which is far above our heads. By the way the only act to deal with navigation rights put forward by British Waterways ‘The General Powers Bill’ of 1990/91 was defeated. I wonder if that was in response to the last big case of navigation rights that came to court and you got a bit worried.
Your bylaws on a river may have the same effect as your notice on Limehouse Dock - ineffectual, ‘Burnett v British Waterways 1973.
I would suggest you send a copy of this letter to the people listed in your letter, also a copy to the Chairman of British Waterways and to the Secretary of State who is responsible of the mischief caused, either through ignorance or annoyance, it doesn’t matter which, matters can not stay as they are with 2 sets of clauses for the same area.
My rights under common law will have to be recognised in time and then I will be asking you for the return of any monies paid under duress, plus interest ,plus compensation so if you take me to court again that is your prerogative, which I can’t do anything about at the moment, but, will only add up to more money to pay back once I have won my case, to have my rights recognised.
If this is too much for you, I suggest you hand this matter over to the heads of your department, because from your second paragraph on letter dated 21.02.2000, you have not dealt with the issues brought to your notice but merely ignored them, that is why it is going to become public issue in the near future.
It may take some time, but a Winston Churchill said and I heard him at the time, quote “ This is not the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning” unquote.
I have only lost a couple of battles not the war.
Yours Faithfully,
Mr. Edwin Holmes
COPY
Address Withheld
The Lord Chancellor,
The Court Service.
Southside,
105 Victoria Street,
London,
SW1E 6QT,
9th May 2000.
To Lord Ervine,
I have two complaints to make both of which are interlinked, and both come under your jurisdiction.
Firstly, the Law Courts Library at Leeds is now only open in the mornings, which is very difficult for me and my studies.
I understand it is the lack of funding that has caused this. It has been said that Leeds Library is one of the best in the country as far as books are concerned, but that is no good to those who require further knowledge of the Law to protect civil rights of this country from abuse and total disregard of the same.
This brings me to my second complaint. That the legal profession have neglected (it would appear so from my experiences) navigable rights. I have been studying them for several years due to my conflict with British Waterways on this subject.
It was only after studying British Waterways them selves as a corporate body, did it emerge what has happened and how they think they can impose a company bylaw in place of the civil laws of this country.
On the whole it has been done through ignorance over many years on the subject of Reparian Rights, mainly through the position of the Secretary of State for the environment, transport and regions.
The person in this position has given away things that were not his to give, therefore creating a wrong and British Waterways are very reluctant to give them back.
As an individual I find it very difficult dealing with British Waterways. It took almost two years before they even acknowledged navigable rights and could manage to write the word.
If your good self could intervene and have a word with the present Secretary of State R.H. John Prescott M.P. to stop any further erosion of civil rights taking place and try to establish the publics rights as they should be according to Magna Charta.
At the end of the day, the fact that British Waterways are having financial problems is no reason for breaking the law. Otherwise every thief that comes to court has a good reason in law for committing his crime, it’s no different.
Yours faithfully,
Edwin Holmes.
COPY
COURT
SERVICE
Our ref: T000407
Mr Edwin Holmes 25 May 2000
Thank you for your letter of 9 May to the Lord Chancellor. Your letter has been passed to me for reply as the Court service is responsible for the administration of the Crown and county courts. You are concerned about the opening times at the Leeds library, and also about the activities of British Waterways.
I suggest you contact the library direct with your specific concerns. With regards to your complaint concerning the British Waterways, I should explain that we are not responsible for them. You may wish to contact the Department of the Environment about this.
I am sorry I cannot be of more help.
Yours sincerely
Peter-Valentine Owunna Customer Service Unit
COPY
Address Withheld
Mr. Peter-Valentine Owunna,
The Court Service,
Customer Service Unit,
Southside,
105 Victoria Street,
London,
SW1E 6QT,
3rd June 2000.
To Peter-Valentine Owunna,
Re- your letter dated 25th May 2000. To say I am disappointed in your reply is putting it mildly. The Library, I’ve already registered my complaint before writing to you. The important issue is British waterways, which I know you are not responsible for as they are a Corporate Company. But when it is brought to your attention what is happening, I thought there would be some interest.
Maybe the Lord Chancellor did not actually see my letter, in which case as the situation develops as I think it will over the years, his position could be a little more difficult to deal with.
I will be writing to the R.H John Prescott MP as you have suggested, I had already obtained his address the same time as the Lord Chancellor’s but refrained from writing up to now, due to the fact I did not want to have to deal with Politicians if it could be avoided.
As a final word, did you try to ring me on 020 8400 9500 as I can not ring back on that number.
Yours faithfully,
Edwin Holmes
COPY
THE COURT SERVICE
Customer Service Unit Southside
105 Victoria Street
London
SW1E 6QT
Telephone: 020 7210 2266
Fax 020 7210 2176
E-mail cust.ser.cs@gtnet.gov.uk Website www.courtservice.gov.uk
Your Ref:
Our Ref: T000407
Mr Edwin Holmes
12th June 2000
Dear Mr Holmes
Thank you for your letter of 3 June to Mr Owunna. Your letter has been passed to me for reply. I am afraid this is not a matter upon which I can comment, so I have noted your remarks and placed your letter on file.
I am sorry I cannot be of help in this matter.
Yours sincerely
Adam Wynyard
Customer Service Unit
COPY
Address Withheld
Mr. Adam Wynyard,
The Court Service,
Customer Service Unit,
Southside,
105 Victoria Street,
London,
SW1E 6QT,
3rd June 2000.
Dear Mr. Wynyard,
In reply to your letter of 12-06-00, I find it incredible as a lay person that my letter of 03-06-00 should have been passed to you, as you admit you cannot comment. But as a person of many years experience of third rate officialdom I find your reply is the typical one trying to end a situation.
On this occasion that will not happen, at the end of the day all names, their positions and replies could be published when the time comes.
The Lord Chancellor has been made aware of a wrongful situation and he is the top man in this country under who’s administration this wrong comes. If he is not prepared to do anything about it , who is?
The courts are not clear on the law and need guidance as the subject of Riparian & Navigational Rights is not a common subject. As yet I have not come across a single person with whom I can hold an intelligent conversation with on the matter, that’s how bad it is.
The public will have to be made aware, especially those who have Riparian Rights and are not aware what is happening, before British Waterways gets the public involved in British Waterways, which is what British Waterways hoping for according to the big P.R. job done recently by them.
My campaign will go on, with or without you.
Yours faithfully,
Edwin Holmes
COPY
THE COURT SERVICE
Southside
105 Victoria Street
London
SW I E 6QT
Telephone 020 7210 10 A,7/ Fax 020 7210 1,q~
Mr Edwin Holmes
Our Reference: T000407
5 July 2000
Dear Mr Holmes,
CORRESPONDENCE
Thank you for your letter of 3 July, which has been passed to me for reply.
I am afraid there is nothing I can add to the content of our previous replies. I have, therefore, placed your letter on file.
Yours sincerely
Simon Parsons
Customer Service Unit
COPY
Address Withheld
R.H. John Prescott MP,
House of Commons,
London,
SW1A 0AA
3rd June 2000.
To The R.H. John Prescott MP,
I am writing about a situation that has gone on for some time now and concerns the position that you hold now.
It would appear that many of your predecessors has been causing problems with civil rights of this country.
The rights I am referring to are Riparian Rights as ignored by British Waterways, who have had acts of parliament past in their favour over a number of years, which are in direct conflict with these civil rights which were granted in 1188 and are recorded in Magna Charta.
I would be grateful and so would many others if you could reverse this mischief caused by your predecessors.
I know it is a complicated situation, as I have studied Riparian Rights for several years and I realise the consequences both legal and financial, but what British Waterways is doing is illegal.
My connection is I have a boat on the River Aire in Leeds, British Waterways demand I have a pleasure boat licence under their bylaws, which is indirect conflict with the Riparian and Navigation Rights that I should be enjoying and which were upheld in the very first act of parliament past for this river, which should set a precedence.
Yours faithfully,
Edwin Holmes
COPY
JULIAN STONE
INLAND WATERWAYS 13RANC14
ENVIRONMENT
OUR REF: WS 182/1/2
DIRECT LINE: 020 7944 6602 F.Ax: 020 7944 6569
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONIAENT TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
ASHDOWN HOUSE
I23 VICTORIA STREET
LONDON
SWIE6DE
16 JUNE 2000
Dear Mr Holmes,
Thank you for your letter of 3 June to the Deputy Prime Minister about British Waterways (BW) and riparian rights on the River Aire. I have been asked to reply.
The issue of riparian rights is complex and I can only suggest that you seek legal advice in respect your dispute with BW over the need for a pleasure boat licence.
Yours sincerely
JULIAN STONE
G:\EASN\EASN3\JST0NE\2000' RNVGENERAL\11()L65EJ.D0C
COPY
Address Withheld
Mr. Julian Stone,
Inland Waterways Branch,
Department for the Environment,
Transport and the Regions,
Zone 5/D10,
Ashdown House,
123 Victoria Street,
London,
SW1E 6DE,
29th June 2000.
Dear Julian Stone,
In reply to your letter of 16-06-00 and the way your replied, it would appear to me that you are another person who does not know about Riparian Rights, at least Mr Alan Prest, Head of Customer Services was honest and admitted he didn’t know much about them.
The issue of Navigation and Riparian Rights and British Waterways demanding a licence fee is straight forward when you know how it was done.
It only comes more complex when we come to the issue of the illegal use of the water by British Waterways, that’s when the fun begins and the legal beagles have a hay day.
Your legal department is already having problems with a situation I have put to them. In view of this I hope that the R.H. John Prescott MP was actually made aware of the contents of my letter 03.06.00 to him as more proposals are to be made by British Waterways in the near future.
He is the person who puts these proposals to parliament and his predecessors have made mistakes which have caused this situation.
Because most people know nothing about Riparian Rights (including the legal profession) it has been easy to get into this position.
I don’t want him pleading ignorance at the end of the day, and this should be dealt with before you get the public involved ‘Partnership with the people campaign’.
Yours faithfully,
Edwin Holmes.
COPY
Address Withheld
R.H William Hague,
House of Commons,
London,
SW1A 0AA
10th July 2000.
To The R.H. William Hague,
Subject Riparian and Navigation Rights.
Please find enclosed copies of letters I have sent and the replies I have received in return. Not including British Waterways letters and replies.
I was hoping the government would deal with the matter in hand. The Lord Chancellor, who is appointed by parliament and is head of civil law in this country and the R.H. John Prescott who is Secretary of State, the position that has caused this problem over the years, have both been notified.
I believe that as parliament has caused this situation, it is up to parliament to put it right, but as you can see by their replies they are more interested in keeping their jobs rather than doing their jobs.
I know that the Conservative Government has been as guilty as the Labour Government in the past in taking people’s rights away, when parliament has no authority over other people’s property, but now it is being brought to people’s attention there is no excuse for continuing the wrong that has been done.
When you study these rights as they were evoked by Henry II in 1188, you will understand why they were drawn up in such a manner and who and what they were protecting.
Yours faithfully,
Edwin Holmes.
COPY
HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SWIA OAA
FROM THE OFFICTOFTIIE LEADER oi--rm' OPPOSITION
WH/ip 19 July 2000
Dear Mr Holmes,
Mr Hague has asked me to thank you for your letter of 10 July and to reply on his behalf.
He appreciates you bringing your concerns to his attention which he has carefully noted.
Thank you again for writing.
Yours sincerely,
Ian Philps
Correspondence Secretary
Edwin Holmes Esq
COPY
Address Withheld Sir David Frost OBE
Breakfast with Frost,
Room G650,
BBC Television Centre,
Wood lane,
London,
W12 7RJ
19th March 2001.
To Sir David Frost OBE,
As a person who has confronted many prominent people on many subjects, I wonder if you would care to take on another challenge? Riparian Rights, what are they you ask? A good question and one that even the legal profession have a great deal of difficulty with, as most Solicitors and Barristers study other aspects of Law, as I have found whilst studying at the Law Library in Leeds.
Riparian Rights covers all aspects of natural water within a defined boundary, whether a river, stream, pond or lake and has done from 1188. Even the aspect of flood plains are covered, which have been ignored by many authorities, causing more problems. But that is not my battle. Mine is with British Waterways and their demanding a licence fee for having a boat on a river. When you know Riparian Rights you know that it is illegal and Parliament is one act short of making it legal.
I have challenged the Lord chancellor on 09-05-00 as he is the top man in the country for Civil Law. Also the RH John Prescott on 03-06-00 as he holds the position at present in Parliament that has caused the mischief that is happening and most people are not aware of.
As I am a nobody (my only claim is to fame was being Chairman of our Local Community Association for 2 years) I find that I’m not getting anywhere. Even my M.P. is supposed to be tableing a letter in the House of Commons on the subject and I’ve not heard anything in 3 months.
It is time that the public were made aware of those rights. I told British Waterways 12 months ago that it was time they were honest with people before trying to get them involved with British Waterways (a big publicity campaign they had some 18 months ago).
In 2 years of writing (,my first letter dated 03-01-98) British Waterways legal department have yet to acknowledge Riparian Rights.
The Lord Chancellor and John Prescott have both tried to sweep the subject under the carpet, as it is such a big hot potato when you realise the consequences of what would happen when the Laws adhered to, as it should be, it is obvious that you would have to study the subject to know enough about it before you could challenge anybody.
The best book I’ve found is ‘Water and Land Drainage’ by Coulston and Forbes 6th edition. As for British Waterways it would appear their problem starts right at the beginning in the mid 1940’s when they had to decide how to structure British Waterways. I hope I have aroused sufficient interest for you to consider my request.
Yours faithfully,
Edwin Holmes.
COPY
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION
Date for answer: 23rd April 2001
Fabian Hamilton declarabale interest Name Constituency ( Leeds North East):
Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions
“What plans does he have to ensure that Riparian rights granted under Chapter 22 of Magna Charta are restored to those wishing, to use Britain's waterways for leisure?”
(MEMBER'S SIGNATURE)
For Questions for oral and written answer on a named day under paragraph (4) of Standing Waterways
Mr. Fabian Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport Regions what plans he has to reform riparian rights for those wishing to use Britain's waterways for leisure. [158437]
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: We currently have no plans to reform riparian rights. After discussion with the main interest groups, we made a commitment to commission research into the extent of access to waterways for leisure activities. That contract was recently awarded to the University of Brighton. The results of the research will inform the future development of our policies for water-based leisure.
COPY
Address Withheld
Ms. Margaret Beckett,
House of Commons,
London,
SW1A 0AA
20th August 2001.
To Margaret Beckett,
I write to you, as you are now the Minister responsible for where the R.H. John Prescott left off after the election and the question put to him and answered on 23rd April 2001.
Unfortunately the question asked by my MP Mr. Fabian Hamilton for me I quote “ what plans does he have to ensure that Riparian Rights granted under chapter 22 of Magna Charta are restored to those wishing to use British Waterways for leisure” unquote was altered to, I quote” To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to reform Riparian Rights for those wishing to use British Waterways for leisure (No158437)” unquote. Thus loosing the essence of the question and hinting that parliament can alter Riparian Rights. When you know your Riparian Rights you know that cannot be the case.
I have been informed that some unnamed civil servant could have altered the question, if so, if I had my way they would collect their P45 at the end of the week.
I hope that in the future, there will be no more encroachment on these civil rights at present, as you are the Minister in charge, I wish you would make sure that whatever the local authority on Corporate Company, that they all work within the parameters of the law, as laid down in Magna Charta. If this had been done years ago a lot of misery and damage would have been avoided. I put this down to ignorance of the law and this includes the legal profession, who during my 4 years of research into the subject of Riparian Rights have faired no better than the public at large. I also note a commission to research waterways has been awarded to Brighton University. I think it only fair that I should inform you of the problems ahead created by governments of both kinds over many years. I refer mainly to British Waterways and the acts of parliament past for and on their behalf the best being the 1971 act.
Yours faithfully,
Edwin Holmes.
COPY
DEFRA
Mr E Holmes
JULIAN STONE
INLAND WATERWAYS BRANCH
DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
ZONE 5/1) 10
ASHDOWN HOUSE
123 VICTORIA STREET
LONDON
SWIE6DE
DIRECT LINE: 020 7944 6602 FAX: 020 7944 6569
GTN CODE: 3533 6602
OUR REF: WS 18 1/ 14/2
28 AUGUST 2001
Dear Mr Holmes,
Thank you for your letter of 20 August to Margaret Beckett about riparian rights. Your letter was passed to me, and your comments are noted.
JULIAN STONE
COPY
Address Withheld
The University of Brighton,
Lewes Road,
Brighton,
BN2 4AT.
20th August 2001.
To the person in charge of the Commission for Waterways Leisure.
I write to you as I have been informed through Hansard that you are conducting a survey into the Waterways of Britain for Leisure.
This should include Riparian Rights, a subject I have researched over the last 4 years, and noticed how it has been ignored mainly through ignorance. Even Parliament is guilty of this and has caused bigger problems that need to be dealt with so that we can enjoy the Law as it’s recorded in Magna Charta.
I don’t know how long your commission will take, or if you know of the problems ahead, but I do know that you will need to know and study the laws of Riparian Rights, otherwise you will get things wrong.
Hope you can keep me informed developments.
Yours faithfully,
Edwin Holmes.
COPY
Address Withheld
Mr. Julian Stone,
Inland Waterways Branch,
Department for the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs,
Zone 5/D10,
Ashdown House,
123 Victoria Street,
London,
SW1E 6DE,
03rd September 2001.
Dear Julian Stone,
Mistakes may come and go but you are still there in the background making no comment.
Are you going to act on the information given to you? As you did not make that point in your reply or are you hoping it will go away?
One thing I am not sure about is do you work for the Government? Or is it that your allegiance is with British Waterways.
You must realise by now that too much research has gone into this subject for it to die away and your reply is even shorter than that of 16th June 2000.
Yours faithfully,
Edwin Holmes.
COPY
DEFRA
Department for
Environment,
Food & Rural Affairs
Mr. Edwin Holmes
INLAND WATERWAYS BRANCH
DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
5/DIO
ASHDOWN HOUSE
123 VICTORIA STREET
LONDON
SWIE6DE
DIRECT LINE: 020 7944 6598 DIVISIONAL ENQUIRIES: 020 7944 6602 FAX: 020 7944 6569
GTN CODE: 3533
E-MAIL: so1ey.esatgdefra.gs1.gov.uk
OUR REF: WS 182/1/2
17 SEPTEMBER 2001
Dear Mr Holmes,
Thank you for your letter to Julian Stone. Julian has now moved to another post so your letter has been passed to me for reply.
British Waterways (BW) is a corporate public body which is sponsored by and responsible to the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA).
As my colleague Julian Stone mentioned the issue of riparian rights is indeed a complex one. I understand that this matter between yourself and BW has gone as far as the courts.
I sympathise with your position but I'm afraid my only advice would be to contact a solicitor and seek legal advice on this matter.
Yours sincerely
SOLEY ESAT
COPY
Address Withheld
Mr. Soley Esat,
Inland Waterways Branch,
Department of the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs,
5/D10,
Ashdown House,
123 Victoria Street,
London,
SW1E 6DE,
22nd September 2001.
Dear Mr. Soley Esat,
Thank you for your letter of 17-09-01. If you have access to Julian Stone’s file you will see we have gone down the road of Riparian Rights before, and how it is illegal of British Waterways to charge a licence fee for being on a river. That’s the laws of the country where as British Waterways are imposing their bylaws as a Corporate public body and which British Waterways have tried to install through parliament.
Parliament gave away something it had no right to give and British Waterways are reluctant to let go of what it shouldn’t have, that’s the bottom line, and it should be up to parliament to admit it made a mistake.
I ask you the same question I asked Julian Stone, do you work for the government or is your allegiance with British Waterways?
When you tell me, I will know how to phrase some questions to you, so don’t go away.
As for your comments about seeking legal advise, I tried that in 1982, and the legal profession is no better at Riparian Rights today as it was then. That’s why I have studied the subject in depth and now know when people are lying to me about Riparian Rights.
So Solicitors, Barristers, Servants of the Crown, if you start lying to me I’ll shoot you down (verbally)
I only studied British Waterways and their acts of Parliament after the court cases, and that’s why they won’t take me to court again, because I’ve found out how it was done and they know it.
Yours faithfully,
Edwin Holmes.
COPY
Address Withheld
Professor Andrew Church.
The University of Brighton.
Lewes Road,
Brighton,
BN2 4AT
22nd September 2001.
Dear Professor Andrew Church,
Further to your telephone call of 20-09-01 to me, I thank you for the phone number you gave me (0115 9821100) which I rang and spoke to Mr. Chris Hawksworth who has provisionally invited me to a meeting in Nottingham for the N.C.A.
It was only after speaking to him that it came to me that you might be interested in the first conflict with Riparian and Navigational Rights.
Landowners began erecting weirs on rivers to aid catching fish, thus obstructing navigation so Edward 1st in 1301 declared all weirs obstructing Navigation built after 1301 were illegal, so upholding Navigational Rights as being the prime right.
Mr. Hawksworth did mention about a report which comes out 30-10-01, but I thought you still had a few months to go, as I will be interested in the final outcome.
Yours faithfully,
Edwin Holmes.
COPY
Address Withheld
Mr. Soley Esat,
Inland Waterways Branch,
Department of the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs,
5/D10,
Ashdown House,
123 Victoria Street,
London,
SW1E 6DE,
18th October 2001.
Dear Mr. Soley Esat,
Looking through my file I find that you have not replied to my letter of 22-09-01. Is it so difficult for you to answer my questions?
Can you tell me is R.H. Margaret Beckett MP just a figure head and that it is you and your colleagues behind the scene that organise the running events?
Is it the present civil servants and the one’s in the past that are responsible for what happens and has happened? Do you have to consult a Solicitor on every subject that comes up? Are you afraid of making a reply that would admit there was something wrong?
Do you feel like Miss Greta O’Shea (British Waterways Legal Department) a loss for words? She has not replied to my letter to her of 22-02-00, and never in all her replies before then did she even admit to Riparian Rights, she couldn’t bring herself to put the words in print.
I have brought to my MP’s attention Mr Fabian Hamilton, the fact that the question he tabled on my behalf on 23-04-01, had been altered by someone behind the scenes. I informed him this was not good enough and he agreed in future, any interference will not tolerated with.
Yours faithfully,
Edwin Holmes.
COPY
BRITISH
CANOE
UNION
Adbolton Lane
West Bridgford
Nottingham
NG2 5AS
Tel. 0115 - 982 1100 Fax. 01 1 5 - 982 1797
From: Colin Kempson
108 East Street, Olney, Bucks, MK46 4DJ.
21 November 2001
Dear Edwin,
We have been following up on the outcome of our meeting and the attached letter is the best response that we have had so far. I think it sets the situation out quite clearly and justifies its conclusion.
We have traced an interesting document. 'Treatise of the Laws and Customs of England by Glanville around the time of Henry 11. This is said to set out the various rights at this time.
We shall however be carrying out some further research as indicated in the letter but this will take some time.
Yours truly,
British Canoe Union
Registered in Encland as a company by guarantee wit-iout a share capital. Reg. No. 1525484
Registered Ace
John Dudder ' dge House Adbolton Lane
West Bridgford
Nottingham NG2 5AS
COPY
Address Withheld
Mr. D.J.M. Caffyn,
255 King’s Drive,
Eastbourne,
East Sussex,
BN21 2UR,
03rd December 2001.
Dear Mr. D.J.M. Caffyn,
In reply to your letter of 29-11-01, welcome to the club. I began 4 ½ years ago and could write a thesis on all the wise and wherefores of the evoking of Riparian Rights. It’s a pity you don’t live nearer to me. I could spend a day or more going through the hole subject to put you in the picture but I will answer your questions as much as I can.
Your 2nd Paragraph, how did the laws change? The answer is it did not, it was only ignored.
3rd Paragraph, I use Leeds Law Library, which is the best in the country outside London. It is supposed to be for the legal beagles only, therefore is not advertised to the public, but the public can use it, if they know about it.
4th Paragraph, The best book I have read is ‘The Law of Waters, Sea, Tidal and Inland and Land Drainage’ 6th edition by Coulson & Forbes to give it it’s full title “which I didn’t know until today” published by Sweet & Maxwell in 1952. The following pages are of the most interest, 96 - 99, 114, 115, 122, 123,128-134, 138, 139, 144, 145, 130, 314, 315, 518-520, 524 - 528, 537, 547 & 548. Another book who’s only name I know is Pickering’s Statutes 10 1696 - 1701 will III - Anne II’.
5th Paragraph, Henry II Evoked Riparian Rights in 1188, that I found in another book by Coulson & Forbes which is no longer available. The book by Coulson & Forbes will explain the situation for you. Basically the Law of Riparian Rights covers all aspects of natural water within a defined boundary. That’s why the Environment Agency is in such a mess regarding flooding. The Law was ignored for years by everyone. Even Leeds City Council have broken the Law and allowed building on a flood plain.
The only true copy of the Law is in Magna Charta, chapter 22 of which there are 3 copies in the country, one being in Lincoln Cathedral. But is not available to the public.
6th Paragraph, Again this was an action by a King in 1301 I find no reference to Parliament until the reign of Henry IV in the 1400’s, so Riparian Rights have nothing to do with Parliament in the early days and being a civil law, which is inherent in property which is owned by the public, Parliament cannot take these Rights away from the public.
But the Rights of Navigation supersedes Riparian rights because it had taken place before 1188 and can be proved in many cases.
Hope this helps you.
Yours faithfully,
Edwin Holmes.
COPY
Address Withheld
Mr. David G. Carey ,
Patrol Officer
British Waterways,
Customer Service Team,
Lock Lane,
Castleford,
WF10 2LH
11th February 2002.
Dear Mr. David G. Carey,
Thank you for your letter of 05-02-11, re your 4th paragraph, I think you have only been partly briefed on the subject.
What you need now is a full understanding of the Laws of Riparian & Navigation Rights. When you can write a thesis on why they were written the way they were and why that particular time you will be part way there. Then you need to study the company you work for ( which is what I hadn’t done at the time of the court action) and it’s parent company and the acts of Parliament past for and on behalf of British Waterways and find out the one that is unlawful,
If you are like the predecessors before you, you are an ex Policeman then you should know the theft act. It would help you if you know how committees work, that explains how it was done.
It has taken me 4 ½ years of research to find out all the answers, so I don’t think it will be resolved quickly as it will take you sometime to unravel the intrigue that’s gone on.
Yours faithfully,
Edwin Holmes.
COPY
Address Withheld
Mr. David G. Carey ,
Patrol Officer
British Waterways,
Customer Service Team,
Lock Lane,
Castleford,
WF10 2LH
11th February 2002.
Dear Mr. David G. Carey,
Thank you for your letter of 05-02-02, re your 4th paragraph, I think you have only been partly briefed on the subject.
What you need now is a full understanding of the Laws of Riparian & Navigation Rights. When you can write a thesis on why they were written the way they were and why that particular time you will be part way there. Then you need to study the company you work for ( which is what I hadn’t done at the time of the court action) and it’s parent company and the acts of Parliament past for and on behalf of British Waterways and find out the one that is unlawful,
If you are like the predecessors before you, you are an ex Policeman then you should know the theft act. It would help you if you know how committees work, that explains how it was done.
It has taken me 4 ½ years of research to find out all the answers, so I don’t think it will be resolved quickly as it will take you sometime to unravel the intrigue that’s gone on.
Yours faithfully,
Edwin Holmes.
COPY
Address Withheld
Mr. Fabian Hamilton MP.
House of Commons,
London,
SW1A 0AA
Email fabian@leedsne.co.uk
21st April 2004.
Dear Mr. Hamilton,
Having rang 5 times over 5 weeks and finally being told why on-one was getting back to me, I would refer to your letter of 07-01-01. Second paragraph, I quote ‘ you can rest assured that I will continue to follow up on this matter as your local labour MP’ unquote.
I now would like another question raised in Parliament to whoever if concerns, question being, ‘ When is the minister going to make British Waterways work within the parameters of the Law like everybody else’. I am referring to what happened in 1962 and 1968, when both Parliament and British Waterways were less than honest as to what happened and the advantage they have taken of people ever since.
I also wanted you to be the first to be aware, that I am now on-line, I shall be using the internet to send and receive more information on this subject, to which British Waterways have no answer, as they know as I do ‘ that not knowing the Law is no excuse for not obeying the Law‘.
Parliament does make mistakes at times and this is a big one and it’s about time they rectified their mistake.
Yours faithfully,
Edwin Holmes.
COPY
Address Withheld
Mr. Fabian Hamilton MP.
House of Commons,
London,
SW1A 0AA
Email Fabian@leedsne.co.uk
08th April 2006.
Dear Mr. Hamilton,
Further to our meeting of 25-03-06 at The Alwoodley Community Centre (ACA). To bring you up to date; I have now got the answers to the questions I have asked in the past, to which nobody was able or willing to give answers. This includes British waterways, Courts & Parliament, with Parliament it is something that began just after WW II. It has crept on further and further and taken our civil rights away from the public. Mainly the right to navigate the rivers of this country unencumbered as in the original laws of 1188, which has never been revoked or repealed.
This is the main reason why nobody is willing to discuss the situation and I think you may encounter difficulties in Parliament if and when you try to resolve the situation.
After British Waterways threatened me with Court action again in a letter of 21-02-2000. I replied on 22-02-2000 and pointed out, they would have to produce in court, the relevant paragraphs of the relevant act of Parliament dealing with Riparian rights. There isn’t one, that’s their problem. Since them I’ve never heard from their legal department and still haven’t got a licence, which I think proves my case.
If you would like to see me, please make arrangements for us to discuss further action.
Yours faithfully,
Edwin Holmes.
COPY
Address Withheld
Mr. David G. Carey ,
Patrol Officer
British Waterways,
Customer Service Team,
Lock Lane,
Castleford,
WF10 2LH
08th April 2006.
Dear Mr. David G. Carey,
It is 4 years since we last spoke with no further action from you or your Legal Department, that being 2 further years back. I take it that means that British Waterways is accepting that I am in the right in stating I do not need a licence for being on a river.
As I may wish to Navigate on the river later on this year, can I take it that I will be able to do so unhindered by British Waterways?
Yours faithfully,
Edwin Holmes.
COPY
Address Withheld
Mr. Keith Richards ,
British Waterways.
Fearns Wharf,
Neptune Street,
Leeds,
LS9 8PB
03rd March 2008.
Dear Mr. Keith Richards,
In reply to your notice of 25-02-08. I inform you that if this notice is not withdrawn and notice intended removed from my boat ‘Valour’ Monday 17th march, an injunction will be applied for in the appropriate court.
I know you have stated you know the Law of Riparian rights, this I very much doubt due to your remarks. I can tell you, the only water that British Waterways owns on this river is the water in front of Fearns Wharf and when it flows past, you have to give it to your neighbour downstream and so it goes on ever changing under the Laws of Riparian Rights. That’s why I’m not on your water and no act of Parliament can legally change it. That was and is the problem and why a plan of deception was thought out of World War II vintage(that’s how far it goes back). This can be proved by a certain event in the past.
I found that knowing the Law of Riparian rights is not enough, you have to know a lot more, like the company you work for who are not honest with you, also acts of Parliament and Parliament itself. These will be explained to you and the court in great detail, leaving nobody in doubt as to what the true situation is. The cost to British Waterways could be millions upon millions of pounds when everyone who’s paid a licence fee wants to jump on the band wagon, once the deception in uncovered and how illegal your acts pf Parliament are. May be you never knew why you Legal Department stopped in its tracts when going to take me to court again. It was my letter of 22-02-00 in reply to a letter of 21-02-00 from Greta O’Shea, when I gave her too much information. That’s why there has been no action from your Legal department since them. They realised I know too much and they would not win
Yours Faithfully,
Edwin Holmes.
COPY
Address Withheld
Mr. Robert Broadbent ,
British Waterways,
Fearns Wharf,
Neptune Street,
Leeds,
LS9 8PB.
17-11-09 2009.
Dear Mr. Robert Broadbent,
I understand from Mr. Oliver Williams of Eddison’s that he has asked on several occasions for the return of a mooring rope and chain taken from the mooring at 78/80/82 East Street LS9 on 02-05-09 when the boat ‘Valour’ was removed from it’s mooring.
These items were not for British Waterways to take as they belong to the mooring.
If these items are not returned or payment made of £150.00 for the value of these items within 14 days, proceedings will be issued without further notice.
Yours Faithfully,
Edwin Holmes.
COPY
CCU 4th Floor
Ergon House
Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 2AL
Email: helpline@defra.gsi.gov.uk Website: www.defra.gov.uk
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
Mr Edwin Holmes
CCU Ref: DW0239507
2 August 2011
defra
Dear Mr Holmes, British Waterways
Thank you for your letter of 2 June to the Prime Minister about British Waterways. It has been passed to Defra and I have been asked to reply. I apologise for the delay in responding.
Defra does not deal with interpretation of the law, and cannot intervene in legal issues. Such matters are for the courts to decide. Although you have clearly put in a great deal of time in researching this issue, I would recommend consulting a legal professional should you decide to pursue a legal action.
I am sorry I cannot be of more help.
Yours sincerely,
James Sheffield
Defra - Customer Contact Unit
COPY
British Waterways
2 August 2011
Dear Mr Holmes,
I write in reply to your letter dated 26th July 2011.
In order to deal with the matters referred to in your letter and provide the answers requested, I will need more information on which to base my investigation.
If you could provide the following, I will sort out the issues arising:-
Boat Name
Index Number
Canal / River / Navigation
Mooring Location of the boat
Copy of 1996 letter from BVV
Copy of the 2008 notice
Is there a reason why you did not raise this matter in 2008 or if you did, may I ask, what was the outcome of you enquiry ?
Once I received the above information I will be able to find out what has happened and if there have been any changes.
Yours sincerely
Paul Griffin
Enforcement Operations Manager
COPY
Mr P Griffin
Enforcement Operation Manager
British Waterways
91h August 2011
Dear Mr Griffin
I find the reply of your letter dated 2.8.11 Interesting. I would have thought that you would have been looking at what, if any, legislation had been passed during these years, I already know the answer.
As for the details requested, this case has been going on for some time and I am sure that BW have the details on file, ask Greta O'Shea in Watford.
The only detail she may not have is of the hearing in 2008 when Judge Cockcroft was given the opportunity to read up and study the Law of Riparian Rights which he appeared to have declined because he showed a remarkable high degree of ignorance of what was before him, hence his decision not to grant my injunction against BW. There are other aspects for you to consider now that you have been given the job. There were three boats altogether on the River Aire mine being at 78, 80, 82 East Street Leeds and the other two craft followed on. At the time Keith Richards stated the other two craft would be going first, this did not happen. As it was, the narrow boat Olive was sold and went away. The other boat a barge called Rodger is still there and having spoken to the owner quite some time ago was told that provided the boat stayed on its moorings no further action would be taken so can you explain these inconsistencies as they are very interesting to me and will be to anyone else reading this file when it goes on the blog that has been set up on the internet.
As for the experience with Judge Cockcroft it proves that there is too much ignorance on the subject and this will have to change. As yet I have not met anyone with whom I can have an intelligent conversation with on the subject of Riparian Rights and I don't think that will change just yet.
Yours faithfully
Edwin Holmes
COPY
6th August 2011 Your ref: CCU DW0239507
Dear Mr Sheffield
Re BRITISH WATERWAYS
Thank you for your reply of the 2nd August and your comments which are par for the course. This is typical of the departments etc. that I have had dealings with over the years.
The statement that you make that defra does not deal with legal issues poses the question, then why was it given to defra to deal with as it is quite clear that there is a legal issue involved?
Your letter along with many others will be going on a blog that has been set up for all to read in the near future.
It does show that Parliament is not willing to rectify its own mistakes and therefore the public and courts of this country should be made aware of this situation.
Yours faithfully
COPY
CCU 4t" Floor Ergon House
Horseferry Road London
SW1 2AL
Email: helpline@defra.gsi.gov.uk Website: www.defra.gov.uk
Mr E Holmes
defra4
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
CCU Ref: DW0244253
19 August 2011
Dear Mr Holmes,
Riparian rights
Thank you for your letter of 6 August as a reply to our previous letter, our reference DW0239507, concerning riparian rights. I have been asked to reply.
I have nothing further to add to our previous correspondence. Defra cannot become involved in specific cases. It is for the courts to interpret the law.
I suggest you consult either your normal legal representative or the Citizens Advice Bureau for advice as how to proceed with this issue.
COPY
British Waterways
Edwin Holmes
1 September 2011
Dear Mr Holmes,
I would like to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 9th August 2011.
As Greta O'Shea is still our lawyer and still based in Watford, I will ask for any information which may be held and her comments. I will also attempt to ascertain the status of the boats to which you refer, once I have the information I will write to you again.
Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I would ask you to provide the name and index number of your boat.
Yours sincerely
Paul Griffin
Enforcement Operations Manager
COPY
06.09.2011
Mr P. Griffin
British Waterways
Canal Lane
Hatton
CV35 7J L
Dear Mr Griffin
In reply to your letter of 1.9.2011 I can inform you that my boat was named Valour' with index No. 63544.
When you ask Greta O'Shea for more information ask her if she can go back to 1982 when this case first began and when British Waterways first showed what a two faced company they are.
Yours faithfully
Mr E. Holmes
COPY
Address withheld
05.10.2011
As yet no reply received to my letter of 6.9.2011 to British Waterways, when they do I have another problem for them.
I think anyone reading this file will see a pattern in it and may come to the conclusion that there are a number of people surplus to requirements.
This is not the end but could be the beginning of the end. I therefore wish to thank all who have helped me, including the typists who had to deal with my writing, they are:
Betty Jackson, Rachael Reed, Jane Grace and my daughter.
Edwin Holmes.
Address withheld
31st October 2011
FAO Mr P Griffin
Dear Sir
As yet, I have not had a reply to my letter of the 6th September 2011. Are you having problems coming up with an answer that is feasible?
I now have another problem for you, when you get the answer.
Find out what were the last words said to me by Patrol Officer D.G.Carey (of Lock Lane Castleford) on 9th April 2002. Those words summed it all up for me and I then knew it was only a matter of time before British Waterways would have to explain their actions and statements before a judge, which hope will be early next year.
Yours faithfully
Mr Edwin Holmes
Address withheld
19th December 2011
F.A.O. Mr P Griffin
Enforcement Operations Manager
British Waterways
Canal Lane Hatton
Warwickshire CV35 7JL
Dear Sir,
re: Valour Index number 63544
As yet I still have not had a reply to my letter of 06.09.2011, are the problems too great?
As for your letter of the 03.11.2011 second paragraph, there is only one version of that conversation, it being, last words "we are going to try and get you for trespass" and my reply was "that will be interesting". Mr Carey had stated in a letter some time before, that he had been fully briefed. That I doubt, as he would have known about the letter of 1996 when British Waterways stated that 'they had no vested interest in the area of any mooring, they were merely the navigation authority'. So a case of trespass would have been very difficult. Therefore I waited to see what would happen
It was only in 2008 when we got a New Kid on the Block, so to speak, Keith Richards, who was very bombastic and full of his own verbosity, who jumped in with both his big feet where Greta O'Shea had dare not tread, and we all know what happened after that. That is why I will be taking British Waterways to court next year for the full compensation I am seeking, and full explanations of your actions.
I have had my Dieppe and now getting ready for the main event, after which do not be surprised if hundreds or even thousands of other claims are made against British Waterways.
Yours faithfully
Edwin Holmes.
