Boat seized and owner left homeless and sleeping in a car.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Naughty Cal said:

Perhaps quite rightly on CRT's part in this case. If you liveaboard a boat then it is surely to be expected that you have a power source, a heating source and a cooking source all of which would require the boat to have a valid safety certificate.

And he does have a power source, and C&RT demanded to inspect it.

Do the BSS examiners inspect the bollards on your mooring. ?

 

My boat has gas and and electricity and I don't need a BSS - why - because like TD I'm on a private mooring on waters not under C&RTs control

Edited October 28, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[David Schweizer]

Do any of the people posting on this thread, supporting him, actually know Tony Dunkley, or know anything about his "interesting" behavior over the past fifty years?

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, David Schweizer said:

Do any of the people posting on this thread, supporting him, actually know Tony Dunkley, or know anything about his "interesting" behavior over the past fifty years?

Yes.

[Steilsteven]

If no one ever challenged those who set rules or laws we'd be living under tyranny.

 

Keith

[Naughty Cal]

58 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

And he does have a power source, and C&RT demanded to inspect it.

Do the BSS examiners inspect the bollards on your mooring. ?

 

My boat has gas and and electricity and I don't need a BSS - why - because like TD I'm on a private mooring on waters not under C&RTs control

They don't inspect the bollard but they do require a test on the boats onboard systems every four years as you well know. It is difficult to argue that a boat has no onboard systems that require a test when externally there is evidence that it does.

 

Dunkley is not on private waters he is on the river Trent. A separate court case already ruled that boats outside of the main navigable channel on the Trent required a licence resulting in the seizure of that boat. It is difficult to suggest that this situation is any different or find any reason why a court would find differently in this case.

[magnetman]

I find the whole AC power thing quite interesting. 

 

It (AC) does not seem to be covered by the boat safety. 

 

It is entirely feasible, although I would not fancy it, to heat, light and provide cooking facilities on a boat using just AC power. And of course power for everything else which needs electric power. 

 

Technically, putting aside the fact that in reality you do need a fuel burning heater for comfort, it would be possible to have a boat with nothing other than an AC input in which case you may well prove to be BS exempt... 

 

 

[Ally]

I only know what I have read here, about this case, and there have been some useful and interesting contributions,  some less so.

 

However I do remember TD from earlier days here, and don't believe he would challenge without at least one leg to stand on. 

 

I always feel extremely uncomfortable (to put it mildly and gently) however, when anyone is evicted from their boat. It is their home, most times owned outright. I feel it morally wrong a person can be evicted from an owned home, and made homeless, often with use of bullying tactics at the point of eviction. 

 

It seems there is doubt in this case, whether or not c&rt or TD are within their rights, and while a modicum of doubt is held, an individual should be able to retain their owned home. C&rt are (most of) our landlords, yes, but the majority own their own homes, so it can't fully be compared to house landlords evicting tenants,  who would normally be rent paying and not own the property. There needs to be an alternative mechanism that doesn't simply cause homelessness. 

 

Now I know, and understand the cry of "if one can do it, everyone will do it". Well, perhaps not. An amount, yes, and if it eventually is agreed in court that TD was within his rights, then there will need to be a change of thinking/regulation/ rights. But the vast majority of ownerboaters, abide by expectations, regulations and rules. Either way, I still can't accept a seizure of someone's home without right to recourse,  and the fact it is owned property, it surely cant be (or shouldn't be)  permanently seized. Does the owner have the right to sell and regain that value at least? I'm not certain on this. I have a nagging thought that c&rt seize and assume ownership,  but I'm uncertain currently  (I really have been away from the water far too long!)

I will keep up with this.

 

 

 

[Naughty Cal]

4 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

If no one ever challenged those who set rules or laws we'd be living under tyranny.

 

Keith

Is it worth losing your home for the challenge?

 

Is it worth losing your home for the sake of a £125 test every four years and a annual rivers only licence?

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Naughty Cal said:

They don't inspect the bollard but they do require a test on the boats onboard systems every four years as you well know. It is difficult to argue that a boat has no onboard systems that require a test when externally there is evidence that it does.

And, I'm sure you are aware that all of the 'mains' electric stuff in the BSS is Advisory only (ie, non-compliance is not a failure)

[magnetman]

Exactly. 

[LadyG]

2 hours ago, dmr said:

I don't think TD had done anything "wrong", he is choosing to exercise a possible "right" not to pay a licence ,which I think is selfish, though might just be for the greater good if if stops some CRT bad behaviour.

 

Surely the core of his battle is that he does not want to pay what everybody else pays and all this stuff about wanting to pay a PBC, and BSS exception etc are just sideshows and technicalities in this bigger battle?

 

If he wins will that result in the River Kennet and Bristol Avon getting stuffed full of moored boats not paying a licence and causing more bad feeling between boaters and locals?

 

I do think what he is doing is foolish, he should be enjoying boating rather than challenging the legal system.

 

I have never met him in person, people say he is a good man, but I have encountered  him on this forum where he, and some of his followers, took a dislike to me and were rather unpleasant.

 

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

But a lot of people have taken a dislike to you, and you continue to post, one way or another.

Edited October 28, 2020 by LadyG

[magnetman]

5 minutes ago, Ally said:

 

 

 

 

I always feel extremely uncomfortable (to put it mildly and gently) however, when anyone is evicted from their boat. It is their home, most times owned outright. I feel it morally wrong a person can be evicted from an owned home, and made homeless, often with use of bullying tactics at the point of eviction. 

 

 

 

...

Having lived on boats with no other accomodation options myself for the last 26 years I agree with you to an extent. 

 

However when I first decided to do boats rather than houses I did it with my eyes open. Living on a boat does not give you a "right to be anywhere". 

 

People need to understand this

 

Even if you own the land the boat is tied to you are subject to other things like planning law. 

 

That's just the way it is. Living on boats is a nice thing to do but "security of tenure" ? Forget it. 

Edited October 28, 2020 by magnetman

[LadyG]

If there is a claim that the boat is on non navigable waters, how did the boat get towed away?

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It is entirely feasible, although I would not fancy it, to heat, light and provide cooking facilities on a boat using just AC power. And of course power for everything else which needs electric power. 

The last few weeks whikst in the marina we have been virtully 100% electric.

 

Cooked with 230v (Air fryers)

230v Toaster for breakfast toast and lunchtime Pikelets.

Hot water with 230v (Immersion heater)

Heating with 230v (Oil filled radiators and fan heaters) But we did occasionally use the Eber for a quick blast Morning or night.

Battery charging 230v battery charger

230v electric kettle for Tea / Coffee.

 

12v lights, pumps and Eber powered by 12v batteries, charged by 230v battery charger.

 

Cost about £2 per day.

 

Did have to 'manage' the demand, ie switching off the electric heaters whilst running the Air-Fryers, or boiling the kettle but most of our 'stuff' is low wattage camping equipment. Kettle and toaster are both 900w so take a while but get the job done.

[Ally]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

That's just the way it is. Living on boats is a nice thing to do but "security of tenure" ? Forget it. 

Yes, I do agree we have no security of tenure with any mooring. But security of tenure refers to property or land , business premises, etc, that you have a tenancy for. So whilst I am completely with you as regards moorings, I still believe if you own your boat, your home, it should not morally be seized and removed completely and permanently. 

[Tony Brooks]

3 minutes ago, LadyG said:

If there is a claim that the boat is on non navigable waters, how did the boat get towed away?

I think it was on waters that can be navigated but not the man navigation. Remember the riparian owners own the riverbed and I suspect there is an argument that back waters are not the main navigation so outside CaRT's remit.

[mrsmelly]

47 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Yes.

As do I. A bit eccentric but one of lifes characters. I have chatted with him re boats and boating on the Trent on a few occasions, once at Holme lock when I had taken the Princess in and was stood shore side when he still had Selby Michael moored alongside near Lady bay bridge and we discussed it and other stuff. He doesnt suffer fools and has probably crossed swords with many over the years. He is completely un PC and all the better for it.

[magnetman]

18 minutes ago, Ally said:

Yes, I do agree we have no security of tenure with any mooring. But security of tenure refers to property or land , business premises, etc, that you have a tenancy for. So whilst I am completely with you as regards moorings, I still believe if you own your boat, your home, it should not morally be seized and removed completely and permanently. 

Well that's fair enough but that is sort of what you sign up to by choosing to live on a boat on inland waterways which are generally (but not always) managed by some sort of authority which has the power to demand licensing or registration of boats. 

 

Yes the S8 procedure is not very attractive and it is difficult to work out why CRT choose this route but also worth bearing in mind the incredibly large percentage of people living on boats on inland waterways who this never happens to. 

 

 

[magnetman]

30 minutes ago, LadyG said:

If there is a claim that the boat is on non navigable waters, how did the boat get towed away?

It wasn't on non-navigable waters, the claim is that it was outside of the Main Navigable Channel which (as I understand it) is the section of waterway which the navigation have an obligation to maintain to certain depth.

 

One of the other things which happened here is that TD apparently asked CRT to dredge the section where his boat was moored but they said it was outside the MNC so not subject to depth management.

 

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by magnetman
Edit to remove classified information

[dmr]

35 minutes ago, LadyG said:

But a lot of people have taken a dislike to you, and you continue to post, one way or another.

Can you explain, especially the one way or another???

 

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

[Jim Riley]

42 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

Is it worth losing your home for the challenge?

 

Is it worth losing your home for the sake of a £125 test every four years and a annual rivers only licence?

 

Which act specifies a rivers only licence then? Perhaps there's a copy filed with the lift bridge info at the back of your cupboard?

[Chewbacka]

36 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

And, I'm sure you are aware that all of the 'mains' electric stuff in the BSS is Advisory only (ie, non-compliance is not a failure)

Sorry, but you are wrong.  There are a number of Required checks for AC systems.

Including clauses 3.2 cables, 3.3 cable location, 3.4 cable connections, 3.5 fuses & circuit breakers.

[dmr]

2 hours ago, nicknorman said:

 

I think it is also a personal and vindictive attack on TD following his successful court case against CRT whereby the judge found that CRT was not empowered to restrict moorings to 14 days for someone with a home mooring.
 

 

I have not heard anything about this, do you have a link of any sort?

 

Is this why CRT have recently stated "we request that boats without a home mooring.............

 

Does this mean that a home moorer can moor anywhere for as long as they want? I was under the impression that 14 day moves were required but not any minimum distance etc.

 

I am aware of another long term challenge to CRT that  went very quiet, it does feel that the cases that CRT win become a lot more public.

 

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

[TheBiscuits]

6 minutes ago, dmr said:

Can you explain, especially the one way or another???

 

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

 

Sometimes on a laptop, sometimes on a phone?

 

I'm not sure you are widely disliked though.  Especially now you are an honorary Northern boater instead of just another one of the hippy hutches on the K&A! 

 

[TheBiscuits]

4 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Sorry, but you are wrong.  There are a number of Required checks for AC systems.

Including clauses 3.2 cables, 3.3 cable location, 3.4 cable connections, 3.5 fuses & circuit breakers.

 

Can you quote the requirement for non-installed AC power please?  I'm pretty sure that a cable coming in through a window is not in scope for the BSS - even though it probably should be!