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

[Slim]

On ‎01‎/‎09‎/‎2019 at 19:50, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Not really, sounds like a nightmare property to find a decent tenant for.

 

Rentals are a bit like boats. The property usually matches the occupier quite well. The scummy properties are occupied by the scummy tenants who don't pay the rent, grow cannabis, wreck the place, deal from there, don't pay the rent and generally make a bloody nuisance of themselves. The landlords usually match the properties too, but in a different way.

 

I get to see a lot of rentals in this job. There are lots of decent, honest and and fair landlords renting very nice properties too, to nice decent honest tenants, and often at no higher rents than the hovels funded by housing benefit. 

 

In addition even the decent and honest benefit-funded tenants can be infuriatingly unreliable tenants, paying their rent as they get it from the council, who dick them about royally by suspending their benefits payments every time their circumstances change, (e.g. by them getting a job, or a better job, or a pay rise, or a pay cut. etc etc) so they simply cannot pay their rent on time. This is the root reason good landlords tend to shun benefits-funded tenants. 

 

Rambling off topic here really....

 

 

 

  

Sorry, I didn't give enough information. The building is a warehouse in the middle of Watford which the 'developer' wants to convert into 10 ? flats for sale. Seemingly due to legislation the Local Authority are powerless to refuse the application. Can't provide a link but covered by the Watford Observer in late July / early August complete with photograph. Worth looking at.

 

Also guilty of rambling...….

[Alan de Enfield]

Now the Telegraph has the story :

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/01/canal-boat-family-facing-eviction-waterways-not-moving-barge/

[Sir Nibble]

There is a stretch between where CaRT water ends at hanham and where you get charged for a harbour license.

[Flyboy]

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Now the Telegraph has the story :

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/01/canal-boat-family-facing-eviction-waterways-not-moving-barge/

The article confirms the boat is a "houseboat" so not a cont. cruiser.  To me this implies the boat is permaneantly moored at this spot so CaRT are well within their remit to evict it.

[Chewbacka]

17 minutes ago, Flyboy said:

The article confirms the boat is a "houseboat" so not a cont. cruiser.  To me this implies the boat is permaneantly moored at this spot so CaRT are well within their remit to evict it.

I suspect the word “houseboat” in a newspaper story simply means a boat that houses people, ie their home, I very much doubt it has anything to do with the licence status of that craft.

[Alan de Enfield]

20 minutes ago, Flyboy said:

The article confirms the boat is a "houseboat" so not a cont. cruiser.  To me this implies the boat is permaneantly moored at this spot so CaRT are well within their remit to evict it.

 

1 minute ago, Chewbacka said:

I suspect the word “houseboat” in a newspaper story simply means a boat that houses people, ie their home, I very much doubt it has anything to do with the licence status of that craft.

It will certainly not be a 'house boat' under C&RTs definition :

 

C&RT require a house boat to have a permanent mooring (for a start)

 

2. What’s the difference between a standard Pleasure Boat Licence and a Houseboat Certificate
These are alternative forms of licence for keeping a boat on our waterways.  The terms and conditions – i.e. your obligations and ours – are essentially the same.   You may opt for a houseboat certificate if the predominant use of your boat is NOT for cruising – for example, it is your home and you keep it on a long term mooring.
The main reason why you might want to consider a Houseboat Certificate instead of a standard licence is that, providing you hold a permit issued by the Trust for a long term residential mooring, you gain a limited right of assignment of the permit as and when you decide to sell your boat.  The permit and Houseboat Certificate must run concurrently with the same expiry dates.
 

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Now the Telegraph has the story :

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/01/canal-boat-family-facing-eviction-waterways-not-moving-barge/

"Barge", "houseboat", "canal boat"... make up your mind Telegraph. Which is it?

[Chewbacka]

1 minute ago, NB Caelmiri said:

"Barge", "houseboat", "canal boat"... make up your mind Telegraph. Which is it?

It’s a newspaper, words all mean the same thing, in fact using different words makes the story more interesting to read.

 

I just noticed that his 17.7mile range was raised by CRT as a problem in 2017, so presumably made little effort to improve in 2018/2019.  Very strange.

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

...............… Very strange.

I guess not in some peoples world.

[Paul C]

34 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It will certainly not be a 'house boat' under C&RTs definition :

 

C&RT require a house boat to have a permanent mooring (for a start)

 

2. What’s the difference between a standard Pleasure Boat Licence and a Houseboat Certificate
These are alternative forms of licence for keeping a boat on our waterways.  The terms and conditions – i.e. your obligations and ours – are essentially the same.   You may opt for a houseboat certificate if the predominant use of your boat is NOT for cruising – for example, it is your home and you keep it on a long term mooring.
The main reason why you might want to consider a Houseboat Certificate instead of a standard licence is that, providing you hold a permit issued by the Trust for a long term residential mooring, you gain a limited right of assignment of the permit as and when you decide to sell your boat.  The permit and Houseboat Certificate must run concurrently with the same expiry dates.
 

CRT tend to take action under the dual-pronged approach of interpreting the boat, by definition, as both "houseboat" and "pleasure boat". The reason being, a "pleasure boat" is defined as moving around every 14 days or so. I dare say some innovative defence might involve arguing that CRT can't take action using legislation featuring a pleasure boat because it isn't one. So they're covering their arse. Its effectively a pleasure boat that doesn't move enough; or a houseboat that doesn't have a valid mooring.

[doratheexplorer]

16 hours ago, carlt said:

Because people like Carlt have been hearing the same doom laden predictions since the early 80s and it never happened even when there was little or no regulation. 

In the early 80s the situation was very different, as you know.  Since the 95 act, numbers of liveaboards (and boats generally) has risen hugely.  I accept that BW didn't enforce as strictly as CRT in general but that overlooks the fact that many people instinctively abide by rules even if they know there's no sanction for breaking them.  However, if the the rules were officially changed to allow unlimited mooring anywhere outside visitor moorings, I would predict a huge number of boats would abandon their home moorings and stick themselves on their favourite bit of towpath.  You might disagree, but you don't really know because it's not happened.  I know that if the current rules were dropped, I wouldn't bother paying for a mooring.

[KevMc]

4 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

In the early 80s the situation was very different, as you know.  Since the 95 act, numbers of liveaboards (and boats generally) has risen hugely.  I accept that BW didn't enforce as strictly as CRT in general but that overlooks the fact that many people instinctively abide by rules even if they know there's no sanction for breaking them.  However, if the the rules were officially changed to allow unlimited mooring anywhere outside visitor moorings, I would predict a huge number of boats would abandon their home moorings and stick themselves on their favourite bit of towpath.  You might disagree, but you don't really know because it's not happened.  I know that if the current rules were dropped, I wouldn't bother paying for a mooring.

I'm an instinctive rule abider ... they usually make sense... but I also envy those that stretch the rules and do pretty much as they please. We need the free spirits that march to a different drum to give us hope for the future.

[dmr]

1 hour ago, Sir Nibble said:

There is a stretch between where CaRT water ends at hanham and where you get charged for a harbour license.

But I believe that is still controlled by Bristol Harbour so they may well technically require payment even though they don't usually collect it till you get to Nethom?.

There are a few long term moorers on this water just below Hanham Lock but otherwise its not a place where a sane person would moor as its subject to significant spring tides, I saw one yesterday    Lock keeper said somebody did moor recently, against their advice, and the wreckage had to be cleared off the weir.

 

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

[Sir Nibble]

13 minutes ago, dmr said:

But I believe that is still controlled by Bristol Harbour so they may well technically require payment even though they don't usually collect it till you get to Nethom?.

There are a few long term moorers on this water just below Hanham Lock but otherwise its not a place where a sane person would moor as its subject to significant spring tides, I saw one yesterday    Lock keeper said somebody did moor recently, against their advice, and the wreckage had to be cleared off the weir.

 

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

Wonder what those few long term moorers would do if hanham lock were padlocked overnight. They wouldn't have sneaky midnight access to CaRTs water supply and sewage disposal. Until the padlock were ground off that is.

[AndrewIC]

On 01/09/2019 at 23:42, Tuscan said:

To give an idea of the scale of the problem from CRTs perspective  , this is from a meeting held in early 2015 prior to CRT introducing their guidance (which became miles not kilometres. I thought this figures were high at the time but if true then CRTs change of policy has achieved what it set out to do with the vast majority of boats exceeding a range of 20 miles.

• the current information relating to boaters without a home mooring are: 

16 % of c.5,400 CC-ers were recorded cruising within a range of <5 kms, and 66% in a range of <20 kms. X stated these were top line figures that were still being verified – they include some boats licensed later in the year - but they were likely to be a reasonable indication of the numbers with a very limited range of movement.

The question is, what has this policy achieved? Has it led to a material reduction (or even a levelling off) in the number of “reluctant cruisers” (“continuous moorers” now being harried to keep moving) for whom the fact that their home happens to be a boat might be incidental, or has it just made life more difficult for people who may have little other real choice? Has it led to an improvement in the perceived lack of availability of visitor moorings space? Has it improved the ambience of areas with relatively large numbers of such boats? I know what the law says, but what’s the practical benefit returned on the cost of this enforcement? And if it hasn’t reduced or levelled off the numbers, does it follow that not enforcing this made-up policy would result in an explosion in numbers? 

[Arthur Marshall]

52 minutes ago, AndrewIC said:

And if it hasn’t reduced or levelled off the numbers, does it follow that not enforcing this made-up policy would result in an explosion in numbers? 

I think it would, yes. The housing problems are likely to get worse, not better, and with a recession imminent, boats are going to get cheaper. Whether an explosion of canal dossers is a good or bad thing rather depends on whether you think people are better off under a bridge or in a crappy boat. I know what I think, but I'm biased. 

Ultimately, the use of the canal system changes to follow social change, and I suspect it turning into a housing system is only a matter of time. As a navigation, its days are probably numbered, anyway.

[Paul C]

I think yes, but only in certain areas. Part of the "issue" is that there are some sensitive areas; and the rest of the thousands of miles of canal network suffers no ill effects from overstayers. But the legislation, as it exists today, is in theory applied nationally.

[AndrewIC]

3 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think it would, yes. The housing problems are likely to get worse, not better, and with a recession imminent, boats are going to get cheaper. Whether an explosion of canal dossers is a good or bad thing rather depends on whether you think people are better off under a bridge or in a crappy boat. I know what I think, but I'm biased. 

Ultimately, the use of the canal system changes to follow social change, and I suspect it turning into a housing system is only a matter of time. As a navigation, its days are probably numbered, anyway.

 

3 hours ago, Paul C said:

I think yes, but only in certain areas. Part of the "issue" is that there are some sensitive areas; and the rest of the thousands of miles of canal network suffers no ill effects from overstayers. But the legislation, as it exists today, is in theory applied nationally.

 

A term like “dosser ... in a crappy boat”  is the kind of pejorative language I was being careful to avoid. I don’t question what the owners of shiny boats in my marina do with their boats, provided they don’t nick my stuff or threaten my safety. So, if the numbers of people living on what happen to be boats, particularly in big cities, is not going down, or even stable (and I haven’t seen any evidence yet that either of things are they case), and numbers are still rising then the policy doesn’t work; so what’s the next limiting factor? Conditions on some boats in some areas are reputed to be fairly dire, at least by middle class land dwelllers’ standards in a developed country (and, frankly, that’s probably most of us), but they are still a long way from what some humans will tolerate in some parts of the world. So if the only tool which might limit growth doesn’t work, what would be the next supervening event?

[Paul C]

Probably takeover by the local council followed by specific (enforced) bylaws which are aimed at specific local issues. CRT would probably remain and run the majority of the network though - vaguely similar to how local councils look after local roads, but Highways Agency are responsible for eg motorways and trunk routes. (But with CRT also looking after what you'd call non-trunk route areas with no issues, eg quieter rural canals).

[Arthur Marshall]

I used the words I did deliberately as, in general, the boats people complain about are not the shiny or expensive overstayers, nor are they the ones likely to proliferate should CRT decide to stop their processes. But as these do appear to work this is unlikely to happen unless the economy's roof really falls in, in which case we'll all have a bit more to worry about than boats on the towpath.

[dmr]

8 hours ago, Sir Nibble said:

Wonder what those few long term moorers would do if hanham lock were padlocked overnight. They wouldn't have sneaky midnight access to CaRTs water supply and sewage disposal. Until the padlock were ground off that is.

I have always assumed they are some sort of End of Garden type moorers so have a water supply from the land, and Its a long trip to the nearest CRT facilities.

 

There are a lot of boats now moored on the CRT Bristol Avon and quite a few showing no licence, name or number. I assume the legal situation on a River is even less clear cut than on the canal so maybe CRT are not inclined to get involved.

 

Spent last night at Hanham lock and came up the first bit on the tide which was rather fun.

 

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

[Murflynn]

the 'good people' were interviewed on ITV West this evening. 

so sad - they said that moorings were rare and could cost a few thousand squid every year. 

perhaps if they had tried to get a mooring 14 years ago they would not be in the present pickle.

the rest of us have to live with the consequences of our actions - why do they think it doesn't apply to them?

[Chewbacka]

58 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

the 'good people' were interviewed on ITV West this evening. 

so sad - they said that moorings were rare and could cost a few thousand squid every year. 

perhaps if they had tried to get a mooring 14 years ago they would not be in the present pickle.

the rest of us have to live with the consequences of our actions - why do they think it doesn't apply to them?

By not getting a mooring 14 years ago they have saved over £20k, considerably more if it had been residential mooring including council tax.

Edited September 3, 2019 by Chewbacka

[AndrewIC]

4 hours ago, Paul C said:

Probably takeover by the local council followed by specific (enforced) bylaws which are aimed at specific local issues. CRT would probably remain and run the majority of the network though - vaguely similar to how local councils look after local roads, but Highways Agency are responsible for eg motorways and trunk routes. (But with CRT also looking after what you'd call non-trunk route areas with no issues, eg quieter rural canals).

Perhaps, but councils have no money, and no desire to increase the numbers of homeless people, for whom they are responsible.

[Richard10002]

2 minutes ago, AndrewIC said:

Perhaps, but councils have no money, and no desire to increase the numbers of homeless people, for whom they are responsible.

Which is why some councils make people, who are going to be made homeless, wait for the bailiffs to evict them, rather than organising a less stressful and straightforward transition.