I'm a neighbour of the couple in question.
I've read the comments above - some are misinformed, some ill-informed, some potentially libellous.
Firstly, please don't suggest that Rod has mental health issues. He doesn't. Derek Newton's use of the word 'aggressive' in his Termination Notice was a lie to back up a shaky case. We have suggested in a response to him that the word is potentially defamatory, and the comments here will make for useful evidence if there is a final court case to evict Rod and Annie.
This issue boils down to the reason that Newton gave for evicting the couple. His letter states that this is purely because they followed the prescribed complaints procedure, through to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman ruled that it was not in his brief to rule on certain issues, and recommended that a court, or the Office of Fair Trading, were the only place to resolve some of the issues raised. Rod took the case to the Small Claims Court, represented himself, and lost. The Judge explicitly stated that there were valid questions to consider, and that the case was not vexatious. Rod lost the case - but before he'd even had time to consider whether to follow up his right to appeal, he received the Termination Notice. The reason given was Rod's complaint, pure and simple.
The Ombudsman case that people have been quoting above is a different case.
If people want to make this about market forces, please explain why Limehouse Marina is 30% cheaper than Poplar for 80%+ of Poplar boats.
For an extra £500 per annum, Poplar boaters were offered residential use of their boats in 2006 when BWML had recently taken over the marina. At this time, the marina had existed since 1999 WITH NO PLANNING PERMISSION WHATSOEVER after BW withdrew its original application, built the marina anyway, and neveer paid a penny in Section 106 payments to the local authority.
When BWML received Planning Approval for Change of Use of 50% of berths to 'Residential' - on the grounds stated in their application that this "provided much needed low cost housing in the area", they promptly informed the 'residents' that a NEW residential flat berth fee would be introduced. Ignoring a PLA Consultation into Residential rates in London, they set a price which almost tripled the cost for smaller boats. On top of this, they piled on a further 30% widebeam surcharge on the basis that Poplar Dock is "inland' when it is clearly a sea-going dock. They lied to the Ombudsman that this inland classification was because boats with masts couldn't access the dock. The surcharge was in breach of their own contractual terms and conditions, as was ruled by the Ombudsman - and yet they haven't taken the simple measure of changing these T&C's - such is their contempt for their customers and for due process.
Ultimately, after 3 years of our community trying unsuccessfully to reason with BWML, Rod's court case, supported by his neighbours, was in response to the Waterways Ombudsman's recommendation, and was a test case on all the issues above, and more. He lost the case - he has to accommodate the repercussions of this - ie, higher mooring fees against a litany of broken promises and dishonoured contractual agreements by BWML over the years. Should he also be evicted, simply for holding BWML to account ?
C&RT control the moorings market in London, and, as Robin Evans stated to a Parliamentary Committee, there is no elasticity in this market.
At the same time, as BW was being transferred to C&RT, he made an assurance that moorings would not rise, in the 15yr Business Plan, substantially more than inflation.
All the facts above are documented. This case, and the real fear of Poplar residents, is that there is no protection for people who live on boats. We have a '28 days notice - no reason needed' clause in contracts. C&RT and BWML can evict any of us at any time - if we complain, we get the chop. And they accuse Rod of being aggressive?