Red Ruth

Maybe - you might be right - I don't know enough about how law firms work with clients in general. In this case though, I suspect Shoesmiths and CRT are pretty much of the same mind - I doubt there's been any disagreement between them about whether to play fair or not!

no not at all!! But they could play fair if they wanted to, was all i was saying - you seem to agree with me that they probably don't.

Strictly specking that's not correct - the lawyers always have to give advice and then take instructions - CRT have the final say on how the case is conducted

And some on other threads wonder why I doubt CRT play fair...

OK so some time to prepare then.. I don't know how these things work - are you usually permitted to use everything you did in the last trial?

Oh dear!!!! looks like they might not have all their messages properly joined up here! Will be interesting to see what the Court makes of that. Any idea when the hearing will be?

Ah good - thanks for clearing that up - it did seem that way but i was confused.. The use of the Part 8 procedure does seem to undermine the good intention somewhat but I hadn't seen the link you posted before, and it's at least something..

You're right - i didn't mean to do that. I was, more generally, just picking one of a number of reasons I could think of why someone might get to this position through no fault of their own. I have no reason to think it was the reason in play here at all, and probably should have been more careful to say that explicitly, although I did say (I think repeatedly) that we don't know the circumstances of this case. Thanks for this Nigel - it certainly helps to resolve the question of whether CRT take these responsibilities seriously. As to this - ''the court action is usually neither expensive nor necessary'' - what I actually said was ''unnecessary'' - and I was referring (briefly) to the need to go to court where Human Rights are engaged - as you have now explained more fully.

Depending on its severity depression could be 'disability' under the EA. I think someone mentioned above their son who has aspergers (or autism?) and is amazing at some things but struggles very much with others. This would constitute a disability under the Act. There's no 'clearly' about it - I'm saying we don't know. Which we don't.

I was hypothesising about various reasons things could get to this stage without it being a person's fault. In my hypothesis - depression. I don't know anything about this case. I have no proof, and I said that I doubt CRT will have done everything they could to establish whether they needed to make reasonable adjustments. Their process document makes no mention of that duty, which is why I doubt they met it. The court action CRT generally take is usually neither expensive nor unnecessary.

I doubt that very much - I'm talking about their Equality Act duties - which require that they do everything possible to establish whether they need to make a reasonable adjustment to their process. The process diagram you linked to there shows no recognition of that at all - which suggests that they won't have met their Equality Act duty.

I think my point was that none of us know anything about the circumstances that led this man to lose his boat - one of the (several) reasons I can think of would be severe depression, in which case it would be very easy to let things get this bad without ever talking to anyone about it, and you're right - under those circumstances you'd probably feel that you didn't expect or deserve help. That doesn't mean you wouldn't deserve help. Hopefully you're lucky enough never to have had to deal with something like that, but there are plenty of ways things can go wrong for people without them being personally at fault. it would just be nice to see a bit of empathy. What we do know is that Slow Tony is well enough loved and respected that now he is visibly in trouble, there are people helping him. So we don't know what went wrong for him, but we have some idea what went right. CRT definitely knew throughout this process that there was serious trouble brewing - they have a duty to do everything they can to find out whether he needs reasonable adjustments or help to understand and overcome the problems. I'm glad he's got help now, and I hope that if you ever find yourself in similar circumstances, you will be helped too.

I have to say completely wow to some of the comments on here. Some of you are amazing. I just hope you never find yourselves extremely vulnerable and in adverse circumstances and needing help - doesn't seem very likely there'd be as much support for people so quick to judge and kick others when they're down.

Hi anniewhere - thanks for posting this, very sad photos. I tried the link but it didn't work - could be my end but might be worth checking - thanks

clearly - they're boats not houses. But the Objects seem to support the position that there is a public benefit in the use of boats for human habitation, as you've seen.