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

[David Schweizer]

1 minute ago, Horace42 said:

Yes. That is one of the 'rules'......

Which in most instances would not stand up to Legal challenge.

[frangar]

5 minutes ago, carlt said:

 

I've wracked my brains and, nope, I can't think of a single way they have made my life harder. 

That is not to say CRT shouldn't go through the due process of enforcement.

 

It's just none of my business. 

So so it’s not affecting how the general public think of liveaboard boaters in general? Or increasing the chance of no mooring signs appearing alongside housing on the towpath.....I could go on but I’m sure it might bore you. Personally I think it’s the business of all of those who take care to follow the very easy rules for boating....I really don’t know how I haven’t had any nasty letters from BWB/CRT in 28 years of living aboard.......

[doratheexplorer]

24 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

I've done just short of 400 miles this year, also singled handed and also with a full time job. However, I don't have kids and work remotely, so it's not really a fair comparison, certainly for me, I don't know about your situation.

 

 

It's a comparison.  Whether it's fair is a matter of opinion.  However, my empathy is limitless provided people take responsibility for their decisions.  Such decisions include starting a family and living on a boat.  Expecting to be able to make decisions which impact negatively on others and then to expect the world to shift to accomodate - that's where you'll find the limit of my empathy.

 

Also, I don't work remotely.  I commute to a fixed work place.  I wish I didn't, but it's the deal I signed up to when i took the job and chose to live on a boat.  I could ask my employer if I could work from home every day to accomodate my choices, but I'm fairly sure of the response I'd get.

 

I've also seen Billy a couple of times and tend to align quite closely with his politics/views.  I'd agree he advocates empathy, but isn't a big fan of selfishness.

[Dave123]

I think part of the issue with doing more than 20 miles for cc'ers based around BoA is that it is just under 20 miles from Bath to the bottom of Caen hill. So to considerably extend their range means a trip onto the River Avon or going up Caen hill. The Avon is frequently on strong stream and CRT advice has been to avoid unnecessary movement onto or over the summit and long pound of the K&A for most of the summer as the pumps were AWOL and water low...

It's not like other parts of the system where it is easy to 'just do some more miles'. But that said, many other's manage to cc in the area without problems...

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, frangar said:

So so it’s not affecting how the general public think of liveaboard boaters in general? Or increasing the chance of no mooring signs appearing alongside housing on the towpath.....I could go on but I’m sure it might bore you. Personally I think it’s the business of all of those who take care to follow the very easy rules for boating....I really don’t know how I haven’t had any nasty letters from BWB/CRT in 28 years of living aboard.......

Eh? What do the general public know about the movement of boaters? They walk along the towpath and see a load of boats there. They don't know who is coming or going.

[Dave123]

I have also heard that there was an established community of liveaboards based around BoA before Caen hill was reopened/restored and so they had become used to staying in that area...anyone know the truth behind this.

[doratheexplorer]

2 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

I think part of the issue with doing more than 20 miles for cc'ers based around BoA is that it is just under 20 miles from Bath to the bottom of Caen hill. So to considerably extend their range means a trip onto the River Avon or going up Caen hill. The Avon is frequently on strong stream and CRT advice has been to avoid unnecessary movement onto or over the summit and long pound of the K&A for most of the summer as the pumps were AWOL and water low...

It's not like other parts of the system where it is easy to 'just do some more miles'. But that said, many other's manage to cc in the area without problems...

Oh my!!  Imagine making boaters go up a flight of locks!!  The humanity!

[Guest]

1 minute ago, doratheexplorer said:

It's a comparison.  Whether it's fair is a matter of opinion.  However, my empathy is limitless provided people take responsibility for their decisions.  Such decisions include starting a family and living on a boat.  Expecting to be able to make decisions which impact negatively on others and then to expect the world to shift to accomodate - that's where you'll find the limit of my empathy.

 

Also, I don't work remotely.  I commute to a fixed work place.  I wish I didn't, but it's the deal I signed up to when i took the job and chose to live on a boat.  I could ask my employer if I could work from home every day to accomodate my choices, but I'm fairly sure of the response I'd get.

 

I've also seen Billy a couple of times and tend to align quite closely with his politics/views.  I'd agree he advocates empathy, but isn't a big fan of selfishness.

All we have to go on, in this particular story, is what is reported in the article, which isn't much. There could be any number of reasons why they haven't moved enough - obviously them having kids in a particular school is one of them. It's just far too easy to point the finger and I feel like we're far too quick to judge.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

12 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

You've had some bad experiences then?

Not really, usually just issues over deposits. And I’m not hateful or spiteful either. 

 

Just fed up of a system that encourages money grabbing. 

 

I’ve been a landlord myself and it’s money for nothing. 

Have had lodgers and have rented a house out.  

 

 

[frangar]

2 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

Eh? What do the general public know about the movement of boaters? They walk along the towpath and see a load of boats there. They don't know who is coming or going.

Well thanks to the article being all over the press I suggest that they now think

that liveaboards are a bunch of freeloaders trying to get something for nothing while they try to scrape together the rent for a small flat...and if they “make life better by water” it’s not hard to spot the same boats month after month. 

[doratheexplorer]

2 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

All we have to go on, in this particular story, is what is reported in the article, which isn't much. There could be any number of reasons why they haven't moved enough - obviously them having kids in a particular school is one of them. It's just far too easy to point the finger and I feel like we're far too quick to judge.

Could you give some examples of other reasons?

[cuthound]

56 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

Not neccesarily, I rented, what was legally, an end of garden mooring from the property owner, which cost less than a towpath mooring from C&RT in the same area.

 

Interesting, my EoG agreement specifically excludes sub-letting part or all of the mooring.

[carlt]

Just now, cuthound said:

 

Interesting, my EoG agreement specifically excludes sub-letting part or all of the mooring.

How can the owner "sublet"? 

Subletting is when a tenant rents something out, not the owner. 

It would be interesting to see how such an agreement stands up in court should you choose to let your mooring and CRT objects. 

[Horace42]

9 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

Can you think of a reason why it should not be allowed. it is privastely owned land? The only reasons I can think of are if mooring a boat would cause an obstruction to navigation, or if the property's deeds forbid it.  There was a time when BW tried to claim that they owned the first three feet of the bank side, which in most cases is not correct. Again it depends on what is quoted in the deeds or any conditions containe within the original Enabling Act

 

 

It could be nothing to do with mooring. If all done officially, the householder would be obliged to declare the income and pay income tax on it.

Also a 'change of use' needing  council approval (to bump up the rates), and now at risk of being classed as a business by HMRC, could land you with a capital gains tax when you sell. 

Life is already complicated enough .....

[David Schweizer]

12 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

I have also heard that there was an established community of liveaboards based around BoA before Caen hill was reopened/restored and so they had become used to staying in that area...anyone know the truth behind this.

They would have needed to be craned in because the section between Avoncliffe and Claverton was still dry.

[cuthound]

9 minutes ago, carlt said:

How can the owner "sublet"? 

Subletting is when a tenant rents something out, not the owner. 

It would be interesting to see how such an agreement stands up in court should you choose to let your mooring and CRT objects. 

 

CRT own the canal bed over which I moor. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs I  have no intention of taking them to court, since if I lost, then I would probably have to sell my house and boat to pay their legal fees. For the save of a few hundred pounds a year, for me it is not worth the risk.

 

Nick Grazebrook, who was a solicitor, was in the process of challenging this when he unfortunately drowned in a lock back in 2002. Since then no one has tried to challenge it, presumably because of the risk against the small award (per individual) of winning.

[carlt]

1 minute ago, cuthound said:

 

CRT own the canal bed over which I moor....

 

Fair enough. 

I am merely commenting as someone who rented an EOG mooring from a landowner with BW's blessing. 

 

Either times have changed or it varies from case to case. 

[David Schweizer]

16 minutes ago, Horace42 said:

It could be nothing to do with mooring. If all done officially, the householder would be obliged to declare the income and pay income tax on it.

Also a 'change of use' needing  council approval (to bump up the rates), and now at risk of being classed as a business by HMRC, could land you with a capital gains tax when you sell. 

Life is already complicated enough .....

Your first statement would be correct, assuming they are not tax excempt. However, Planning Regulations would recognise that if the property already has mooring rights there would be no "change of use" unless the mooring rights had a specific designation such as agricultural wharfage.

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

CRT own the canal bed over which I moor. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs I  have no intention of taking them to court, since if I lost, then I would probably have to sell my house and boat to pay their legal fees. For the save of a few hundred pounds a year, for me it is not worth the risk.

 

Nick Grazebrook, who was a solicitor, was in the process of challenging this when he unfortunately drowned in a lock back in 2002. Since then no one has tried to challenge it, presumably because of the risk against the small award (per individual) of winning.

Technically correct, but I used to moor on an end of garden owned by someone else, and when BW tried to charge mooring fees, the owner produced his deeds which gave specific rights transferred from the original owners for the right to moor against his property without charge. From recollection that was after 2002 and BW withdrew their legal threats.

 

 

Edited September 2, 2019 by David Schweizer

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Could you give some examples of other reasons?

I can't because I've got nothing else to go on other than what's reported in the article.

28 minutes ago, frangar said:

Well thanks to the article being all over the press I suggest that they now think

that liveaboards are a bunch of freeloaders trying to get something for nothing while they try to scrape together the rent for a small flat...and if they “make life better by water” it’s not hard to spot the same boats month after month. 

That's your interpretation of the story. I don't think everyone is quite as spiteful.

[carlt]

44 minutes ago, frangar said:

So so it’s not affecting how the general public think of liveaboard boaters in general? Or increasing the chance of no mooring signs appearing alongside housing on the towpath.....I could go on but I’m sure it might bore you. Personally I think it’s the business of all of those who take care to follow the very easy rules for boating....I really don’t know how I haven’t had any nasty letters from BWB/CRT in 28 years of living aboard.......

 

[The Welsh Cruiser]

1 hour ago, doratheexplorer said:

Show me the canal where you can average 4 mph including locks?  Even without locks 4 mph is caning it, and probably unachievable on many shallower canals.

Indeed. I kayak daily, top speed is 3.5mph. I've been overtaken once in 5 years, by a cruiser. Narrowboats in narrow, shallow canals do something in the region of 3.3mph. 

[doratheexplorer]

10 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

I can't because I've got nothing else to go on other than what's reported in the article.

 

I meant use your imagination.  In general, what sorts of things would, in your opinion, be a reasonable excuse for only moving 17 miles in a year?

 

I'm not trying to catch you out.  I'm just interested?  I know CRT make allowance for illness and mechanical breakdown, so it can't be those.

Just now, The Welsh Cruiser said:

Indeed. I kayak daily, top speed is 3.5mph. I've been overtaken once in 5 years, by a cruiser. Narrowboats in narrow, shallow canals do something in the region of 3.3mph. 

At most.  On many narrow canals, a comfortable cruising speed is about 2.5mph, slower when passing moored craft.  Anything over 3mph and you're starting to push it a bit.

[Dave123]

45 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Oh my!!  Imagine making boaters go up a flight of locks!!  The humanity!

Personally I enjoyed the challenge of trying to do Caen hill as efficiently as possible...I'm just trying to put myself in their shoes. And the point is about water resources really. Hire boats were being discouraged from going over the summit just to immediately wind and go back...so why make boats do it if they don't want to when boats that do want to are being told not to...?

[mayalld]

26 minutes ago, carlt said:

 

Fair enough. 

I am merely commenting as someone who rented an EOG mooring from a landowner with BW's blessing. 

 

Either times have changed or it varies from case to case. 

I believe that times have changed.

 

CRT are less than keen on on-line moorings, and their policy is that they won't give permission for EOG Moorings unless the owner of the property is the moorer

[doratheexplorer]

10 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

Personally I enjoyed the challenge of trying to do Caen hill as efficiently as possible...I'm just trying to put myself in their shoes. And the point is about water resources really. Hire boats were being discouraged from going over the summit just to immediately wind and go back...so why make boats do it if they don't want to when boats that do want to are being told not to...?

I get the point, but if they don't want to then they're not bona fide navigating and therefore need to get a mooring.