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.

I'll take it we're looking at the same Articles then Alan.

Sorry - I could have been clearer. Follow the link i left above - the Charitable Objects are contained within the Articles of Association. Also in there are the Powers CRT has, and the rules for how governance by trustees work. I'm not changing my stance - the Objects are at the beginning, and the 'defined terms' are at the end, but the latter does relate to the former. Regardless, the object is to manage the waterways for navigation by any boat also used for human habitation - if CRT want boats to move further, they might want to consider what incentives or facilities they can provide under their powers to achieve that - rather than what sanctions they can apply under law. They are empowered to provide education, for example. Mooring rings, dredging, bins, facilities etc..

those are the ones - see p39 as I said. It's there in black and white.

you are yes - see above - defined terms p39 'navigation'

I'm looking at these ones - https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/1338.pdf In 'defined terms' on page 39 - '1.17 “navigation” includes navigation by any ship or boat used for the carriage of freight and by any ship or boat used also for human habitation;' Do you know of a different set of Articles that I should look at instead?

the first one is to manage the waterways for navigation by boats - including boats used for human habitation - for the public benefit. That's 2.1 - the first objective - not what I'd like it to be but what it is. I think doing that properly would require them to consider residential use when carrying out their management activities.

That's true - but having to live 'under the radar' can be extremely uncomfortable and difficult - I don't see why people should have to break the law to live on their boats when they can do so legitimately. People need to live where they have work/ social lives/ etc.. there are loads of empty houses in industrial towns where there's no work (take Sheffield for example). The reason the houses there are empty is that there's no way of living from them. Agree again - but I voted labour last time and still no affordable housing. People don't need to change the politics, they need to get and keep a roof over their heads - waiting for a change of government and the housebuilding to catch up with demand really isn't an option. I understand that people are upset about not being able to find their ideal mooring spots, but that's ALL boaters - not just leisure boaters. I see that a lot of people think that residential cc's in particular are making everything worse for everyone else, but until CRT sets policy with residential use specifically in mind (as they should, as the very first of their charitable objects) I really don't see this going away.

seems to me that they are both - and always have been.

The only way to find out would be to provide enough residential moorings - not sure why you think NBTA members would expect them to be for free? The mile long stretch of empty visitor moorings is a choice that CRT have made- not boaters. If the problem was 'overstaying' they would be full of boats - not empty. If CRT choose to bring in more stringent anti-overstayer measures (which, again, is different from 'compliance with the 14 day rule enforcement) then that's up to them - I'd be against it and it sounds like you would too, but tit would be CRT's responsibility - nobody else's. Like Goliath - I don't 'bat' for anyone - but I do support the NBTA. If their challenges to the enforcement process are succeeding then it'll be because the enforcement process doesn't stand up to scrutiny. CRT are supposed to be looking after the 'heritage' of the waterways for future generations to enjoy - a massive part of that is family boats. I think they could do a better job of it all if they just accepted that as a fact instead of trying to pretend they're an illegitimate nuisance.

People aren't freeloading if they're paying for their licence - everyone gets the same amount of time on visitor moorings. If there are no residential moorings and no housing, I don't know what you think people should do?