STATEMENT OF NIGEL PETER MOORE 1, My name is Nigel Peter Moore. I live aboard the narrowboat “Platypus” at Ridgeways Wharf, Brent Way, Brentford, Middlesex, TW8 8ES. I have been living in, working in and latterly running, the boatyard at Ridgeways in Brentford since March 1990. 2. Faced with re-development plans involving destruction of the boatyard, I necessarily began campaigning for its retention. This led to my election as a Representative for the London Mayor's Thames & Waterways Stakeholders Forum, reporting to the Thames & Waterways Steering Group that advised the Mayor on what became the Blue Ribbon Network policies of the London Plan. 3. Paradoxical as it may seem to those not familiar with waterways issues, seeking to preserve boatyards has brought me into direct conflict with British Waterways Board; (Exhibit 1) a conflict that still finds us on opposing sides in planning appeals and policy determinations. 4. The antagonistic situation reached a point last June, when new developers unlawfully evicted us from the major part of the boatyard, while being careful to keep their ally British Waterways Board apprised of matters as they developed. (Exhibit 2) Page 1 of 125, British Waterways Board followed that up a few weeks later with their own unlawful boarding of our boats, to serve Section 8 Notices demanding removal of the boats from the waterways network. The contemptuous and ill-informed email from Ed Fox and the response from the Exterior Relationships Manager of BW, demonstrates how closely these heads of departments were being kept informed of the developer's actions, and reveals that all the key London personnel were notified of the boats ending up on the mainline of the navigation, even as it was happening. There is no possible way for them to argue that they had no way of determining, who was responsible for the boats. The action above was swiftly followed by their entering into joint litigation with the developers, designed to defeat our legitimate claim on the property. My first reaction was to write to the legal department to remonstrate and suggest that they withdraw their notices as legally unsustainable. That was summarily dismissed. I responded with clear legal argument, demanded an undertaking from them to refrain from interfering with the boats, and notified them that if necessary, I would apply for an injunction to that effect. (Exhibit 3) ‘That was ignored, so I duly applied to this Court and served notice upon British Waterways Board. (Exhibit 4) British Waterways Board then decided that it would be preferable after all, to volunteer an undertaking not to interfere with the boats. This was to have effect until] such time as we could reach agreement, or until the Court had settled the Page 2 of 1210. a. 12, 13. 14, matter, I agreed to this, and withdrew the application upon receiving a signed letter from British Waterways Board's legal department, (Exhibit 5) In the ensuing weeks I sought to engage in discussion with British Waterways Board over the issues, without success. (Exhibit 6) When | realised that British Waterways Board had no intention of conducting any discussion, but were simply buying time while they consulted outside legal advice, 1 took the step of issuing proceedings myself. ixhibit 7) Pleadings in the case were exchanged, and on 16 January we met in front of Master Bragge for Directions in the case, which were issued by the Master on 13" February 2008. While the matter of the Directions was proceeding however, on the 24% January, British Waterways Board sent out letters by post, recorded delivery and by email, to all those parties they knew to be owners of the various boats concemed. ‘These in effect, invited the owners to consider the legal implications of keeping their boats in my care. (Exhibit 8) On the 8" February I was disturbed by someone boarding my boat at the bows, and by the somewhat perplexed and agitated voice of my next-door ‘neighbour’ in converse with someone. On going out to investigate, I was initially reassured to see that it was someone I knew as a boyftiend of yet another neighbouring boater (both of them British Waterways Board employees with whom we were on good terms). Page 3 of 1215. My heart dropped when I saw that he was dispensing yet more notices, though he assured me there was nothing ‘controversial’ in them. They turned out to be copies of the same letters that had been sent out by post and email a fortnight earlier. A copy had been left on 'Kalzar's deck and on 'Kamelya's deck. (Exhibit 9) 16. Further to having to cope with the upset and indignation of my neighbour (who could initially see only that yet another ‘official’ legal notice was being served on us), T was incensed that advantage had been taken of an hitherto amiable situation, to perpetrate this provocative and wholly unnecessary action. This was now the third time that my boats had been boarded in the last 18 months, the first ti e having been by agents of British Waterways Board's business partner Ballymore. It was inevitable that British Waterways Board - now sharing the same solicitors in the joint litigation with a Ballymore subsidiary (Geronimo Ltd), against my company in property disputes - would take cognisance and encouragement from this, (Exhibit 10) 17. My complaints in that first instance had been dismissed with no explanation, so 1 could think of no effective defence against any future occurrence, without yet more complicated court proceedings for which 1 was ill-equipped. Accordingly I gave the matter some serious thought (in the middle of all the other preparation for both cases in which British Waterways Board were involved against us), and then wrote to Shoosmiths to register my complaint and invite their comment, (Exhibit 11) 18. Ensuing correspondence revealed that British Waterways Board were unrepentant, did not consider that boarding boats was an offence, did not consider that it violated Page 4 of 1219. 20. 21. the terms of their undertaking, and most tellingly of all, did not accept that the undertaking was, in any event, an undertaking to the Court, They forbore to answer the questions I had put to them, and offered no alternatives to my suggestion that it might otherwise prove necessary to apply again for injunctive relief. (Exhibit 12) ‘As no one had been identified as personally responsible for ordering the boarding of my boats, I took the step of writing also to the Chairman of the British Waterways Board, inviting him to visit and discuss the matter, in the hope of rendering further Court action unnecessary. It is now a fortnight since my last emails to both Mr Hales and to his solicit ‘ors, and I have not even received an acknowledgement. (Exhibit 13) Thave pointed out both criminal and civil protections against unauthorised boarding of boats. The rejection by British Waterways of their applicability is evidence of their preparedness to take the same action whenever their legal advisers deem it useful, . It is perhaps impossible for anyone not living aboard a boat, to comprehend the psychological impact of discovering strangers aboard your vessel. Amongst the community of boat dwellers, the protocol of boarding boats is understood and adhered to as a matter of course, as a socially necessary courtesy. As people in possession of the least legal rights of any form of dwelling, such as we do possess are to be guarded all the more jealously. No one might be expected to know this better than than British Waterways Board, who are amongst the largest of navigational authorities in this country. (Exhibit 14) Page 5 of 1222. The situation is not akin to someone walking up a garden path through private property to knock on the front door; it is more akin to finding someone has entered in through the front door without your knowledge. It is an emotional undermining of all feeling of security in one's home. 23. The example that I was given that purportedly justified the action is absurd ~ the letter had the desired effect (of removing yet anther boat from my care), not because a copy had been placed physically on board, but because British a Waterways Board had communicated it ith the owner in Australia. This example, in fact, only emphasises the ridiculous nature of the argument. 24. British Waterways Board have made it clear that they regard boarding the boats as they have done, to be a trivial matter. They do not regard it as a violation of either the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, or of the undertaking they provided, not to interfere with the boats in my care, That attitude completely dismisses the phrasing of my original application for an injunction, wherein I had asked that they be prevented from approaching the boats concerned. It was natural and reasonable for me to assume that in writing their letter of undertaking, “interference” would embrace the intent of that injunction request. 25. Laying aside for the moment, the issue of criminal or civil offence, and as to whether British Waterways Board have the relevant authority over this stretch of ‘water, the question as to service of notices on boat owners is in any event governed by their Parliamentary Acts. Service of a notice on or nearby a vessel, is an action Page 6 of 1226. 27. 28. to take in the event that the proper postal address has not been discovered, after all reasonable efforts to find that information has failed. (Exhibit 15) . Even when the postal address of the owner or master of a vessel has not been discovered, so that attachment of a notice on or nearby the vessel becomes necessary, there is no provision under the Act for boarding the vessel for that purpose (which would be quite unnecessary in any case). The circumstances in which British Waterways Board employees may board a vessel in the absence of the master are spelled out with some precision, in matters affecting the safety of the navigation and of the public. That such specific provision has been made, is clear indication that those circumstances are exceptional. Those circumstances did not apply in either of the incidents complained of, nor have British Waterways Board attempted to suggest that they did, (Exhibit 16) Beyond all that, my belief is that for so long as the question of their powers over this section of waterway is held in question awaiting the determination of the Court, they should not in any event, be acting as though that decision had already been determined in their favour. I believe their actions to be in contempt of the Court thereby, even aside from issues raised above. Clearly, whether the offence be criminal or civil, and though in the first instance, ignorance of the law is no excuse, I believe it to be inequitable that the employees sent to board the boats should be the only parties to bear the consequences of their employer's decisions. It further appears evident to me that those directing these actions are able all too easily to hide within the corporate structure, so that the Page 7 of 12actions of such individuals within that corporate body, are effectively free from sanction, My request for those persons to be identified went unheeded. 29, I have therefore nominated Mr Tony Hales as not only being the titular head of the organisation and in corporate law responsible for the organisation's actions, but also because he has been fully acquainted with the facts of the case. British Waterways Board are signatories to the Corporate Governance Code, and the Board is responsible for all actions by the corporation. (Exhibit 17) 30.1 have observed that the difficulty of dealing with large organisations respecting effective sanctions, is not new. In the case of Seymour v Leeds City Council (Leeds Crown Court, 1986/7), the Council ignored an Order to put a road into repair. Another action for Contempt was commenced, and the Court took the step of issuing a further Order in the specific name of The Director of Highways personally. The Court also stated that if the road was not repaired within the stated time the Director would be brought before the Court and held to account for his failure to comply. As the Judge said (Arthur Myerson QC) “I may not be able to Jail the City Council, but I can jail a named officer”. (Exhibit 18, para 20) 31.1 needs must, however, accept the Court's guidance on this matter. If Mr Hales is not the appropriate officer of the corporation to be named in this connection, he is nonetheless the only person who can make the appropriate identification, and if necessary should be requested to do so. The Crown Prosecution Service rules lays down guidance on specifying individual responsibility within companies in relation to offences, but for the present I am not seeking indictment, merely restraint from Page 8 of 1232. 33. 34. further offence. (Exhibit 19) . I have not rushed into Court for this; I have endeavoured to give Mr Hales and his, team every opportunity to acknowledge that their actions were not appropriate, and for them to give assurance (such as it would be worth), that it would not happen again. | have given generous time for replies (perhaps perforce, given my immersion in the difficulties of simultaneously preparing a Witness Statement), and have appealed, not only to the solicitors but to Mr Hales himself. Such response as Thave received is sadly indicative of every intent to continue their behaviour. For so long as I am attempting to cope with the two lots of litigation concerning my rights to be here, with severe limitations of space and facilities, with all but one of the boater owners having succumbed to the pressures to dissociate themselves from ‘me, I am under quite sufficient strain and anxiety. I have no resources to resort to professional help and must rely upon myself. I am under medication from my GP for stress-related illness, on income support because of this, and therefore have heightened sensitivity to any and all invasions of privacy, especially ‘official’ physical incursions upon my property and home. . Alarm and distress to myself is bad enough, but this is added to when the occupants of the other boats are intimidated and alarmed by these trespasses. The agitation suffered by the remaining boat owner (a female old age pensioner), over the incursions into her home and property, is a very distressing addition to the burden of my responsibility. Page 9 of 1235. 1 believe that this is a violation of our Human Rights under the Act, to freedom from harassment and to peaceful enjoyment of our home and property. 36. Never knowing when BW might consider themselves possessed of the ‘need’ to take similar action in future, whenever they deem it ‘essential’ to acquaint boat owners of proceedings, | live in constant dread of such boarding at any time. 37. This is not merely extremely distressing on its own account; living in such a state of anxiety is extremely prejudicial to my ability to adequately deal with the task of demonstrating my case against Mr Hales’ corporation. It is intolerable that I should have to attempt dealing with the - to a layman such as myself - awesome task of preparing for the forthcoming Hearings, when simultaneously experiencing unrelieved trepidation as to any fresh attacks upon my equanimity. For Mr Hales, however, being restrained from sending in staff to interfere with boats in my care in this gratuitous and offensive way, can have no deleterious effect upon his organisation's case. Confining communications to the postal system is all that is required in the conduct of his case ~ anything more is simply planned provocation. 38. I repeat that it never had been, nor is, nor will be, needful for BW to board the boats for the placement of their legal letters or for any other purpose whatsoever. They have at all times been possessed of my contact details and had full knowledge of the circumstances of our placement on the surviving moorings facilities we have used (with BW’s full awareness) for decades. They knew perfectly well that I would have had the knowledge of contact details for the various owners if they felt that those were details that needed double-checking, (Exhibit 2) Page 10 of 1239. Mr Hales has been briefed on the situation by his executive, and has been appealed to more than once by myself. He claims to believe that he ought not to comment, as the matters are the subject of Court proceedings. He therefore considers that all correspondence should be limited to the solicitors. My understanding, however, is that parties should do all that they can to reach accommodation without involving the Courts where possible, and in that spirit I sought his cooperation in this and the related matters. My last letter invited him to visit personally to see the situation first hand and to discuss the issues. He has not deigned to reply either himself or through his solicitors, so that this appli ion to the Courts has, with the greatest of reluctance, become necessary. I should not be subjected to continued harassment of this nature, nor to the constant fear and anticipation of such harassment. 40. I have not the resources, nor the knowledge, to pursue the legal implications of the boarding of the boats, nor do I know how to even go about it in the first place. I do not ask the Court to consider this matter now, I simply ask that Mr Hales and his, organisation be restrained from acting as though it was settled law that they were immune from prosecution on such a matter. Once was bad enough; a second time ‘was inexcusable, and their attitude is clear that they feel entitled to repeat the offence at will. 4. I believe it to be perfectly reasonable for Mr Hales to be restrained from having his organisation trespass upon my property, at least until such time as the Court has had the opportunity to determine whether they have any reasonable pretension to rights of doing so. Page 11 of 1242. The relief I respectfully seek from the Court is an Injunction in the terms originally applied for, that is: to prevent Mr Hales and/or any member of his organisation, from approaching near to, touching or boarding any of the boats in my care, for any purpose whatsoever, until such time as the present Action in case number HC07C02340 has determined whether Mr Hales’ organisation is empowered in any way to take those actions. I declare the facts in the above Statement to be true. ih bi. lew Bw oF Nigel of Moore Date In the presence of: SARAH STANDLEY Solicitor LLOYD BRENNAND 202 HIGH STREET BRENTFORD. MIDDLESEX TW8 8AH 020 8569 9020 Page 12 of 12