Limitations Act 1980

[Mudlark]

Thank you,Rob, much appreciated.
The Thames Conservancy Act 1932 s60 s79,2 and 262 bestowes rights on the riverbank owner ,/occupier.
We have title good against the world except him wit greater (paper) title.
The conservators have admitted we own/occuoy the bank legally
This will probably go to trial to settle it
Thank you again, please be assured of my appreciation for your help

[atticus]

I hope we have helped clarify your thinking. Good luck to you.

[Mudlark]

Hi again.
I wonder if we have another defence!

We are being accused of trespass under CPR55 rules. It seems to me that all mooring on the non tidal thames is strictly regulated by the Thames Conservancy Act 1932, Eg. TCA 1932 s79.

The House of Lotds decision,dated 10th Dec 1914,D&J Nicol v Dundee Harbour Trustees
whereby it was established, it is now well settled by the judgment of this House in the appeal of this case and by subsequent decisions which this House has given, that the answer to the question whether a corporation created by statute has a particular power depends exclusively on whether that power has been expressly given to it by the statute regulating it.....

Is the EA a creature of statute? Yes!

The Government website explains

The Environment Agency is a Non Departmental Public Body established by Parliament in 1996 under the Environment act 1995.

As a creature of statute it must enforce by statute not by CPR55.

I would value your comments please.

[atticus]

You slightly miss the point. Statute creates the body and gives the body its powers (in this case the Environment Act 1995). The Civil Procedure Rules govern the use of court processes in exercise of those powers.

[Mudlark]

Thank you again ATTICUS.
I think the point is that the TCA gives the EA their power,but there is no statute to allow to remove boats from mooring over their riverbed.
The boat removal protocol only allows them to remove boats moored TO (not over) their riverbed.
This is inline with the right of a riparian owner to allow or disallow mooring to their land irrespective of the ownership of the riverbed.

[atticus]

TCA?

[Mudlark]

Thames convervancy act 1932.
the rules of the Thames in effect

[atticus]

Ah, ok. You had been referring to the Environment Act 1995 as giving the Environment Agency its powers. I may be missing some nuance in your argument. If correct, you may have a defence.

Be that as it may, court proceedings are governed by the Civil Procedure Rules, even if brought under authority of statute.

[Mudlark]

IMG-20231115-WA0005.jpg

[Mudlark]

This is the EAs boat removal protocol

[Mudlark]

Thank you ATTICUS, your comments are much valued

[Mudlark]

Screenshot_20231115_190809_WhatsApp.jpg

[R0b]

What is it you are actually trying to achieve?

[Mudlark]

Hi Rob, I'm looking for a defence against the charge of trespass which I know to be untrue.
I am lfulfilling all the legal requirements of the laws of England and Wales for adverse posession.
As the land I legally occupy is adjacent to the river Thames, I acquire riparian rights.
These rights include the right to stop others mooring to my land and I have the legal right to prosecute trespassers that enter my land without my permission.
No permission are required from the riverbed owner for me to moor to my land.
Only he with greater title (paper title or superior adverse posession) can move me from on.
In the mean time, I exercise freehold rights over the land,this is confirmed in writing by HM Land Registry (Land Act 2002)
Ipswitch Borough Council v Moore establishes that the riverbed owner has no right to stop mooring allowed by the riparian owner (Harbour authority)
Lord Cairns also makes this point very well .
lyon v Fishmongers

[R0b]

Just to be clear, trespass is not a criminal offence, it is a civil one so there is no 'charge'.

I'm struggling to wrap my head around the authority claiming that you are trespassing if you legally own the land, so something doesn't quite add up because the authority won't just hand out trespass notices unless they have reason to believe they own the land, not yourself. There is always two sides to a story so are you able to expand on why the council thinks you are trespassing?

Is the land that you say you occupy, the land that you are claiming to own as a result of adverse possession or is that land separate to the trespass notice you have received?