Jump to content

Wiltshire canal boat family face eviction 'for not moving enough'


David Mack

Featured Posts

From the article:

 

"Steve and Sarah Holder, who have two children, have lived on the boat near Bradford-on Avon for 14 years."

 

So its taken CRT/BW 14 years to get their act together and enforce the law...

 

Shows just how long you can stick two fingers up at CRT and get away with it.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Add a bit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Holder said he had travelled 17.7 miles, moving every two weeks, and had pictures to prove it.

 

Then he is an idiot.  Half an hour's further cruising over the last 6 months would have let him comply with CRT's minimum acceptable range.  And let him keep his family home roughly where he wanted it.

 

20 miles is a day's cruise for me.  A short day.

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a load of rubbish, typical of The BBC to get it wrong.

Mr & Mrs Holder and their two children have nothing to worry about, they're not being evicted at all.

Eviction is to use the law to remove people from a property.

That's not where they are.

C&RT are not a Housing Authority.

To avoid being in the situation they find themselves all they needed to do was stop taking the pi55 and follow the easy rules of cruising the required miles in a year.

Bunch of to55er5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

From the article:

 

"Steve and Sarah Holder, who have two children, have lived on the boat near Bradford-on Avon for 14 years."

 

So its taken CRT/BW 14 years to get their act together and enforce the law...

 

Shows just how long you can stick two fingers up at CRT and get away with it.

 

 

 

 

Eh? What are you talking about? The story says they've lived on their boat for 14 years not that they've not complied with the rules for 14 years.

 

You're suggesting they didn't comply with the movement requirements in their first year of boating and it's taken the CRT all that time (14 year) to enforce the law. They may have complied with the law for 13 years and not done so for the past 12 months.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NB Caelmiri said:

You're suggesting they didn't comply with the movement requirements in their first year of boating and it's taken the CRT all that time (14 year) to enforce the law.

 

No, that's what the article says happened. You obviously didn't read it. See my quote. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Mr Holder said he had travelled 17.7 miles, moving every two weeks, and had pictures to prove it.

 

Then he is an idiot.  Half an hour's further cruising over the last 6 months would have let him comply with CRT's minimum acceptable range.  And let him keep his family home roughly where he wanted it.

 

20 miles is a day's cruise for me.  A short day.

Yes. They knew they had to do a minimum of 20 miles range. Not sure how they thought 17.7 miles was enough.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

No, that's what the article says happened. You obviously didn't read it. See my quote. 

 

 

I think you read a different article to me. It said:

 

"Steve and Sarah Holder, who have two children, have lived on the boat near Bradford-on Avon for 14 years."

 

Where does it say they didn't comply with the requirements of the licence for the past 14 years? All it says is they lived on their boat for 14 years.

 

Again, they may well have lived on their boat for all that time but only in the past 12 months had been in contravention of the licence conditions. It doesn't say anything about the CRT chasing them for the past 14 years.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also can't understand why they didn't go a bit further to at least cover the 20 miles. Article doesn't say how much warning they were given though...normally a 6 month licence is offered first?

If CRT had been renewing their licence each year after they had only done 17.7 miles I can understand how they could interpret that as meaning they had satisfied CRT with their cruising pattern...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rebotco said:

Mr Holder said he had travelled 17.7 miles, moving every two weeks, and had pictures to prove it.

Thats under 600 yds each week on average. Commonly known as bridge hopping. Perhaps enough to get to the water point and back?

 

But the family have been told to remove their boat by 4 September, which would make them homeless.

Flouting the conditions of their licence for 14 years, that can come as no surprise!

Where does it say they've been flouting the conditions of their licence for 14 years? The 20 mile range rule only came into force a few years ago.

 

I'm not making excuses for them, I think they're plonkers. It's not that difficult to comply with the rules but all this article says is they've lived on their boat for 14 years nothing more. Doesn't say they have been flouting the law for all that time.

Edited by NB Caelmiri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave123 said:

 

If CRT had been renewing their licence each year after they had only done 17.7 miles I can understand how they could interpret that as meaning they had satisfied CRT with their cruising pattern...

 

I'm inclined to agree CRT bear a degree of blame for their extreme tardiness is applying the law. The way they bend over backwards to 'help' piss takers start 'cruising compliantly' with streams of warning letters, progressively shorter licenses, diagrams, carefully crafted 'cruising plans', meetings etc etc certainly teaches piss takers that they can get away with it for years.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snowflakes .... break the perceived rules and suffer the consequence. Mention the children and expect everyone to give in and let them do what they want. It's about time people that take the piss are dealt with properly - speaking from my highly un polished 20 year old boat .... Am I a wealthy ruiner of the canal system ?, I must have a harsh word with my self !!

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

From the link:

 

"Mr Holder said a permanent mooring could cost as much as £6,000 per year, plus the cost of a permanent licence at £1,000"

 

 

So that's £7,000 a year, much the same as everyone else with a young family pays for their accommodation. What's the problem? 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

From the link:

 

"Mr Holder said a permanent mooring could cost as much as £6,000 per year, plus the cost of a permanent licence at £1,000"

 

 

So that's £7,000 a year, much the same as everyone else with a young family pays for their accommodation. What's the problem? 

 

 

But but why should he pay the same as others...he’s entitled to get everything for free....he’s got the NBTA involved so fellow snowflakes & freeloaders can soothe his troubled brow. 

  • Greenie 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume £6000 is for a fully residential mooring at the Thames and Kennet Marina, many many miles from BoA. They could get a CRT leisure mooring for much much less, but maybe they would not want to live on that for fear of breaking the rules :)

 

...............Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dmr said:

I assume £6000 is for a fully residential mooring at the Thames and Kennet Marina, many many miles from BoA. They could get a CRT leisure mooring for much much less, but maybe they would not want to live on that for fear of breaking the rules :)

 

...............Dave

 

But not in BoA, where they are entitled to live....

 

Yes, my K&A on line mooring costs £3,300 a year but that would not suit the tenor of the BBC article, and it is not in BoA, although a lot closer than Thames and Kennet which I suspect is not officially resi either. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are almost 50 CRT moorings in that General Area, Avoncliff down to Bathampton, surely they could have got one of those in the last 14 years?  Would involve a bit of effort to get the kids the kids to school, but probably less than my daughter cycles everyday to get to the school were she teaches.

 

A lot of CCers put in a lot of effort to maintain the lifesyle and get the kids to school and this sort of thing just reflects badly on the whole community.

 

...............Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, dmr said:

There are almost 50 CRT moorings in that General Area, Avoncliff down to Bathampton, surely they could have got one of those in the last 14 years?  Would involve a bit of effort to get the kids the kids to school, but probably less than my daughter cycles everyday to get to the school were she teaches.

 

A lot of CCers put in a lot of effort to maintain the lifesyle and get the kids to school and this sort of thing just reflects badly on the whole community.

 

...............Dave

 

AFAIK none of those moorings permit residential occupation, and planning applications in the past by BW to make some of them eligible for residential mooring were fought vehemently by local residents and Local Councils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I'm inclined to agree CRT bear a degree of blame for their extreme tardiness is applying the law. The way they bend over backwards to 'help' piss takers start 'cruising compliantly' with streams of warning letters, progressively shorter licenses, diagrams, carefully crafted 'cruising plans', meetings etc etc certainly teaches piss takers that they can get away with it for years.

 

 

I agree: CRT's approach to compliance does seem to be far too accommodating and light-touch, probably due to some extent to the vociferous reactions of the hard-done-by P-takers and their supporters. I appreciate that the law is not entirely helpful in getting these issues quickly resolved but I don't see the need to pussy-foot around these people to such an extent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rebotco said:

Mr Holder said he had travelled 17.7 miles, moving every two weeks, and had pictures to prove it.

Thats under 600 yds each week on average. Commonly known as bridge hopping. Perhaps enough to get to the water point and back?

 

I wonder if Mr Holder knows the difference between distance travelled and 'range' ?

 

If he has travelled a total of 17.7 miles in a year, that could be :

Point A  then 600 yards to point B, then 600 yards back to Point A …………………. Repeat …………………………...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.