George ward eviction taking place

[Alan de Enfield]

23 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

I think you're right and MM is correct too. It will eventually shake down into this bylaw being used to lever Mr Ward out of his boat, and by extension everyone else too who cannot nominate another place where they "live".  This will however, shine a torch on what it means to "live" on your boat. A line will have to be drawn defining the difference between "living" on your boat and "spending a lot of time" on your warm comfy boat whilst actually "living" in say, your van or a tent in the woods somewhere. 

 

Is Byelaw infringement a criminal matter rather than civil? I think it is, in which case it would be appropriate for the police to be involved.

 

Can someone be arrested and taken into custody for a byelaw infringement? Just wondering. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe the last paragraph in the following helps ?

 

 

The lack of enforcement of byelaws has been a perennial question - here is one answer from Nigel Moore (8/2/20)

 

 

It was HH Judge Denyer QC in the judgment against George Ward of 20 December 2012 on the Bristol County Court :-

 

“Other than the removal of the boat the only sanction provided for in the legislation in respect of a contravention of the Rules by a person such as the Claimant is that of a derisory fine.  I think it has now reached the sum of £50.  If they are not entitled to take these steps i.e. removal of the boat from the river they are in truth substantially powerless to enforce the obligations of those who use the waterways.  I do not regard the ability to take debt recovery proceedings as being a sufficient alternative remedy.  Aside from anything else they would face problems of enforcement.  No doubt if they did obtain a money judgment the judgment debtor would seek to or could seek to pay at some derisory sum per week or per month.”

 

He overlooked, of course, the fact that the same would apply to any County Court judgment as to costs etc, and also that the seizure of the boat even if leading to a sale could never be used to pay off the debt, because the relevant statute specifically bars that. They can only (legally) retain from the profits of a boat sale, the costs of seizing, storing and selling it. However it may be that this judge (and others) was misled into believing that BW could use possession of the seized boat as a lien on monies owed to them. This was pre-Ravenscroft after all.

 

He was mistaken as to the level of fine which is £100 (plus, of course, costs, and nowadays ‘victim surcharges’). He was also off the mark about “problems of enforcement”. Having obtained a court order for fines and costs and charges, the collection could be left to court bailiffs, or payment could be sought for from central funds as respects costs at least. The judge also seems to be confusing pursuit of money judgments with prosecutions (pursuit of merely a money claim being a third option NOT, as the 1983 Act provides, preclusive of parallel criminal action.

 

If the convicted boater proved evasive and in breach of a court order, then a warrant for their arrest could be issued, and once caught they could be sent to prison for contempt of court. There is nothing “derisory” about such implications as attached to the prosecution process. If this judge was correct, then the EA could be considered “powerless to enforce the obligations of those who use” - their – waterways” – and clearly, that is very far from the truth.

 

[peterboat]

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Maybe the last paragraph in the following helps ?

 

 

The lack of enforcement of byelaws has been a perennial question - here is one answer from Nigel Moore (8/2/20)

 

 

It was HH Judge Denyer QC in the judgment against George Ward of 20 December 2012 on the Bristol County Court :-

 

“Other than the removal of the boat the only sanction provided for in the legislation in respect of a contravention of the Rules by a person such as the Claimant is that of a derisory fine.  I think it has now reached the sum of £50.  If they are not entitled to take these steps i.e. removal of the boat from the river they are in truth substantially powerless to enforce the obligations of those who use the waterways.  I do not regard the ability to take debt recovery proceedings as being a sufficient alternative remedy.  Aside from anything else they would face problems of enforcement.  No doubt if they did obtain a money judgment the judgment debtor would seek to or could seek to pay at some derisory sum per week or per month.”

 

He overlooked, of course, the fact that the same would apply to any County Court judgment as to costs etc, and also that the seizure of the boat even if leading to a sale could never be used to pay off the debt, because the relevant statute specifically bars that. They can only (legally) retain from the profits of a boat sale, the costs of seizing, storing and selling it. However it may be that this judge (and others) was misled into believing that BW could use possession of the seized boat as a lien on monies owed to them. This was pre-Ravenscroft after all.

 

He was mistaken as to the level of fine which is £100 (plus, of course, costs, and nowadays ‘victim surcharges’). He was also off the mark about “problems of enforcement”. Having obtained a court order for fines and costs and charges, the collection could be left to court bailiffs, or payment could be sought for from central funds as respects costs at least. The judge also seems to be confusing pursuit of money judgments with prosecutions (pursuit of merely a money claim being a third option NOT, as the 1983 Act provides, preclusive of parallel criminal action.

 

If the convicted boater proved evasive and in breach of a court order, then a warrant for their arrest could be issued, and once caught they could be sent to prison for contempt of court. There is nothing “derisory” about such implications as attached to the prosecution process. If this judge was correct, then the EA could be considered “powerless to enforce the obligations of those who use” - their – waterways” – and clearly, that is very far from the truth.

 

I do wonder if NBTA were to get enough funds together they could in this case real future problems for CRT? A judgement going there way could effectively stop enforcement and bankrupt CRT as more and more boaters refused to pay

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I do wonder if NBTA were to get enough funds together they could in this case real future problems for CRT? A judgement going there way could effectively stop enforcement and bankrupt CRT as more and more boaters refused to pay

 

Whilst we do not know exactly what the court order says, if it says that C&RT can sieze the boat and George is found to be stopping them enforcing the order it is maybe that he is in breach of the court order and could be arrested and even 'serve time'.

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I do wonder if NBTA were to get enough funds together they could in this case real future problems for CRT? A judgement going there way could effectively stop enforcement and bankrupt CRT as more and more boaters refused to pay

 

 

CRT are headed in that direction anyway when the government de-funds them. 

 

I suspect the George Ward thing will be overtaken by events when CRT goes to the wall.

 

[magnetman]

This needs dealing with at a local level because it is a local problem.

 

 

Using navigation authority funds to deal with slum housing problems is not appropriate allocation of resources.

 

I'd do a Dr Beeching and transfer the K&A into remainder waterways and withdraw funding. Leave it to local councils to deal with their problem and spend money maintaining parts of the canal network people want to use for boating.

 

 

 

 

It is a nice enough canal but at the end of the day a problem and an expensive one.

 

IF it were no longer maintained as a canal would the CRT be obliged to deal with licence evasion or could they just drop the problem altogether?
 

[GUMPY]

Pity they can't treat him like a refugee on a boat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hoik him off the boat and deport him to Rwanda🤔

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It was HH Judge Denyer QC in the judgment against George Ward of 20 December 2012 on the Bristol County Court :-

 

 

So it looks as though this has been going on a lot longer than the 10 years stated earlier in this thread. 

 

Either that or he had a previous boat removed and obtained the MARCH HARE as a replacement, to carry on as before.

One can see how Mr Ward has been taught firstly by BW and subsequently CRT that there is always a way to kick the can down the road and carry on CMing. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

So it looks as though this has been going on a lot longer than the 10 years stated earlier in this thread. 

 

Either that or he had a previous boat removed and obtained the MARCH HARE as a replacement, to carry on as before.

 

It has been said all along that he is been "extracting the urine" for 10+ years.

 

He (and his friends and neighbours) have had 10 years to help him ease out of the situation, instead they just "do an Arthur"™ and say we don't like the laws so we'll ignore them.

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

It has been said all along that he is been "extracting the urine" for 10+ years.

 

We can probably safely change that to "15+ years".

 

 

[David Mack]

51 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I'd do a Dr Beeching and transfer the K&A into remainder waterways and withdraw funding. Leave it to local councils to deal with their problem and spend money maintaining parts of the canal network people want to use for boating.

...

IF it were no longer maintained as a canal would the CRT be obliged to deal with licence evasion or could they just drop the problem altogether?

Boat licencing and byelaw enforcement are a separate matter from waterway classification.  If Ward was doing this on a remainder waterway I think CRT would still be taking the same position. And the local authority would be no more likely to get involved.

[magnetman]

I think they might when the CRT work out they can't eject the person from the boat. 

My reference to remainder waterways was that it appears there is no obligation to continue maintenance. 

 

If the waterway was falling into disuse I'd wager that a large majority of people with boats would go elsewhere. Problem at least partly solved. 

 

 

[dmr]

George Ward is a boating matter, he is breaking the rules (and the 14 day law) and using a bit of canal as his own such that other boaters can't use it. Its a CRT matter.

Getting local councils involved in sorting CRT problems could be a disaster, councils don't understand canals and certainly don't understand boating, they may well decide that boating is just an expensive problem to be banned.

Remember...its often the councils who are turning our towpaths into cycleways, and was the council in B'ham who decided to widen their cyclepath right into the canal (I believe CRT were not 100% happy about this)

[David Mack]

6 minutes ago, dmr said:

was the council in B'ham who decided to widen their cyclepath right into the canal (I believe CRT were not 100% happy about this)

CRT 100% had the right to refuse it. But I imagine they took the view that narrowing the wide tunnel on a narrow canal was not an unreasonable restriction for boaters, whereas the old narrow towpath was a restriction for towpath walkers and cyclists, who are also their 'customers', albeit ones who don't pay directly.

[Mike Todd]

On 28/04/2023 at 10:35, MtB said:

 

This touches on another aspect which may or may not be relevant. Does it say anywhere that the applicant for a licence MUST be the same person as the boat owner? 

 

Is it possible for say, an interested well-wisher to apply for a license on a boat owned and occupied by someone who has, for example, 'fallen on hard times'? 

 

How does it work when the LA licences a boat with housing benefit? Do they just hand over the money to the boater and hope they buy a license with it? Or doers the LA make the application and buy the license itself?

 

Just wondering. 

 

 

 

 

 I think it usually comes with UC.

[David Mack]

21 minutes ago, magnetman said:

My reference to remainder waterways was that it appears there is no obligation to continue maintenance. 

There is a legal obligation to maintain remainder waterways in the most cost effective manner, and since the 1968 Act when this obligation was imposed, BW and CRT have generally interpreted that as continuing to maintain waterways which were then navigable in a navigable condition (there have been some exceptions).

Short of draining the canal, I suspect a lack of maintenance is not going to make any difference to the likes of George Ward who never use the canal for navigation anyway.

[dmr]

Looking at the current trajectory of boating it appears likely that the future will be far more residential boats breaking the rules and moving over a very short distance or not at all. Many of these will be homeless people with mental health  issues on little plastic things, and many will be big expensive widebeams with owners who can probably mount a much better legal challemge than Goerge can. If the approach to this problem is to turn any canal or river where they congregate into an unfunded remainder waterway then there is no future for our waterways.

 

The entire K&A, all of London including the Lee, and the GU for several miles above London, The Thames anywhere near Oxford, and Dukes cut, a couple of bits of the Nene, and several more than I can't think of right now.

(and some of these are not CRT waters which is another whole subject).

[ditchcrawler]

4 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

Yes I agree, this is interesting. 

 

The legalities of separating the boater from the boat prior to lifting and removal from the canal is something not yet explored as far as I have seen.

 

I guess CRT will have to go back and get some sort of court order instructing Mr Ward to vacate his boat. I can see that taking another ten years to reach a conclusion.

Basically what I was thinking here  

 

4 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

Edited April 30, 2023 by ditchcrawler

[magnetman]

It might just be a legal loophole. 

 

Something has to give at some stage. 

 

Maybe I'm misguided and certainly out of touch and out of time but you can't really have a navigation authority dealing with housing problems. 

 

You can have a navigation authority who gain financially from housing by taking money for moorings but it is a bad idea for them to be dealing with what is in effect low grade accomodation for some people. This is a basically Bad Idea. 

 

Other than possibly living in vehicles and proper slum landlords who avoid the law it is quite rare to find situations where people living in very poor conditions is viewed as an acceptable outcome.

 

 

 

 

 

[kris88]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It might just be a legal loophole. 

 

Something has to give at some stage. 

 

Maybe I'm misguided and certainly out of touch and out of time but you can't really have a navigation authority dealing with housing problems. 

 

You can have a navigation authority who gain financially from housing by taking money for moorings but it is a bad idea for them to be dealing with what is in effect low grade accomodation for some people. This is a basically Bad Idea. 

 

Other than possibly living in vehicles and proper slum landlords who avoid the law it is quite rare to find situations where people living in very poor conditions is viewed as an acceptable outcome.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes but the reality is crt is a navigation authority with an ongoing housing situation but it really wants to be a property development company. 

Edited April 30, 2023 by kris88

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

16 hours ago, Dyertribe said:

How perceptive of you 

Well, my other comment when I called you an idiot was deleted. 

occasionally over sensitive types complain to the mods. 😃

 

 

[MtB]

39 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Other than possibly living in vehicles and proper slum landlords who avoid the law it is quite rare to find situations where people living in very poor conditions is viewed as an acceptable outcome.

 

 

This is another avenue open for exploration by the authorities perhaps.

 

Back in the day when the local council was evicting us from our moorings in Eton, the basic tack of the LA (in local newspaper articles about it) was we boat dwellers must be living in squalor and therefore we needed to be 'helped' out of our obviously desperate situation.

 

 

This was about as far from the truth as you can imagine for most of us but there was one 'George Ward' type of boater on the mooring for whom it was true. 'Helping' Mr Ward by extracting him from his boat under the guise of rescuing him from 'living in squalor' on his boat might yet be a way forward for the TPTB. 

 

MARCH HARE is, I think, in generally reasonable condition compared to the wooden boat (now removed) that drew all the attention but TPTB may choose to overlook this if it suits them in using this argument for resolving the situation. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Orwellian]

2 hours ago, kris88 said:

Yes but the reality is crt is a navigation authority with an ongoing housing situation but it really wants to be a property development company. 

What's your evidence for this statement?

[magnetman]

25 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

What's your evidence for this statement?

I don't think it is necessarily correct but One could draw conclusions. 

 

 

 

Without the defra funding the property thing does look like the biggest income generator so it would be reasonable to suppose that perhaps if the defra thing is torpedoed things could move even more towards real estate. 

 

 

ETA did this little icon give the game away? 

why is there a £ sign on top and is this the minaret? 

 

 

 

[Orwellian]

What property development company would want to take on an organisation where only 22% of the income came from property? And if as you say 'the DEFRA thing is torpedoed' where would the capital come from to 'move even more to real estate'? Property development or investment companies would only be interested in acquiring CRT's property assets but without the massive liability of looking after the waterways.

[David Mack]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Without the defra funding the property thing does look like the biggest income generator so it would be reasonable to suppose that perhaps if the defra thing is torpedoed things could move even more towards real estate. 

You are adding two and two and getting five.

Historically BW had a large estate of mostly waterside property which was connected to the operation and maintenance of the waterways and to the carriage, storage and handling of freight. With the virtual ending of carrying and changes in operational and maintenance practice, much of this property was not needed for operational reasons, but BW continued to let it out to other users, and to upgrade and develop it to suit market requirements, bringing in rental income which was put towards the costs of operating and maintaining the waterways. Over time the portfolio of property has moved away from older waterside premises, which offer a relatively low return, so BW and CRT have sold off such property, sometimes for redevelopment, and reinvested the proceeds of sale in more commercially attractive property.  

When CRT was set up some in government wanted to get their hands on BW's non operational property, but it was pointed out that this produced a significant part of BW's income, and if it was taken away then government would have to increase the grant funding. Since the whole purpose of establishing CRT was to make the waterways less (and eventually not) dependent on central government funding, that was obviously a non starter. Hence CRT kept the property portfolio, and is strongly incentivised to maximise its contribution to CRT's funding. But that has always been the aim - to have the property support the waterways. If CRT were to cease spending that income on the waterways, there is a very strong chance that it would be snaffled back by government.