Jump to content

George Ward evicted.


Featured Posts

4 hours ago, MtB said:

 

It's probably just be you. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is that English or some strange dialect? 
 

 

 

 

 

Issuing a license is by definition granting permission to do something that you don’t have permission for without a license. So defacto if crt issue you a license whilst they know you live aboard the boat. They are giving you permission. 
 

Edited by kris88
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does issuing a licence override byelaws?

I thought there were only a few conditions for issuing of licence such as having a BS ticket, insurance and a place to keep the boat or satisfy the board that you are bona fide navigating. 

 

It seems to me that the byelaw disallowing using the boat as a dwelling is separate from licensing requirements. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Barneyp said:

 

I can see that magpie patricks example meets the requirements and that the boat in question would not be classified as a dwelling - although I can see that some people would say it didn't meet the intention or spirit of continuous cruising.

 

 

In my case, which I will agree is a bit of a one off, the boat travelled from Manchester to Bath so I certainly complied with the spirit. I've done the same with previous boars but always had a home mooring. "Weekending" round the system used to be a thing that many people did , maybe it still is? 

18 minutes ago, kris88 said:

Is that English or some strange dialect? 
 

 

 

 

 

Issuing a license is by definition granting permission to do something that you don’t have permission for without a license. So defacto if crt issue you a license whilst they know you live aboard the boat. They are giving you permission. 
 

It's only permission to live aboard if that was taken into account when granting the license - whether they knew doesn't come into it, it's more a case of whether they sought the information and were entitled to an answer in deciding whether to issue a licence. They don't seek this information - they do ask for your home mooring or as an alternative that you will engage in bona fide navigation 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, kris88 said:

……

Issuing a license is by definition granting permission to do something that you don’t have permission for without a license. So defacto if crt issue you a license whilst they know you live aboard the boat. They are giving you permission. 
 

Just because you cc doesn’t mean you ‘live’ on the boat, as you may have a house even if you don’t live in it much.  The big assumption here is that the bit of CRT that ‘knows’ you live on a boat talks to the bit of CRT that issues licences.  Probably doesn’t happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Just because you cc doesn’t mean you ‘live’ on the boat, as you may have a house even if you don’t live in it much.  The big assumption here is that the bit of CRT that ‘knows’ you live on a boat talks to the bit of CRT that issues licences.  Probably doesn’t happen.

Pleading incompetence would not be a defense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, kris88 said:

Pleading incompetence would not be a defense. 

Let’s put it another way - are you advocating CRT should cease to offer CC licences, because there is this assumption all CCers are illegal liveaboards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The terms of continuous cruising seem not to be limited by time, apart from the requirement to engage in navigation. So, it seems you may carry on as long as you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, magnetman said:

Does issuing a licence override byelaws?

I thought there were only a few conditions for issuing of licence such as having a BS ticket, insurance and a place to keep the boat or satisfy the board that you are bona fide navigating. 

 

It seems to me that the byelaw disallowing using the boat as a dwelling is separate from licensing requirements. 

It's not about the licence over-riding the byelaws.

IF the board choose to issue licences which permit (or are specifically for liveaboards) then the licence and the byelaws would be in alignment.

The cc guidance doesn't make it clear if permanent living aboard is intended to be permitted, the fact that BWB/CRT stopped enforcing section 30 when the right to CC was given could be taken as a sign that they think they have given permission, or it may not.

My guess is that while lawyers and legal experts may have opinions, the only way to get a totally solid answer would be to test it in court. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/05/2023 at 22:09, magpie patrick said:

 If (and it's a big if) the local authority use their powers - which might be planning or one of their other statutory functions, the CRT will be given a relatively short period to act or the authority will do it for them. Planning authorities have had houses demolished before now so the fact it's a tent that someone is living in won't stop them - lack of resources and lack of political will might. 

He would just move twenty yards and set up again. Absolute pia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

, the only way to get a totally solid answer would be to test it in court. 

 

Certainly. 

However this won't happen because the CRT never seek to enforce byelaws. 

 

Maybe it will just remain a grey area but one wonders if things might change as the proportion of boats on waterways which are used as primary residences increases over time. 

 

 

11 minutes ago, LadyG said:

He would just move twenty yards and set up again. Absolute pia.

 

I've seen tents beside canal towpaths which have been removed as litter when unoccupied. Not big ones. to be fair and they may not have intended to remain. 

 

It is littering. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it not likely, that having removed Mr Ward's boats from their waters, C&RT  will be entirely unconcerned  and happy to be ignorant of Mr Ward's ongoing housing situation.

 

It is a fact that C&RT do not, and never have enforced byelaws (who knows why) and they have demonstrated yet again their painfully slow but ultimately effective way of dealing with none compliant boats.

 

There are unfortunately many around the system seen to sleep in tents on or adjacent to towpaths.

 

If sufficient complaints are made to the local council by residents, perhaps some action may be taken, but as far as C&RT are concerned I suspect Mr Ward will be filed under 'Sorted' like other boat owners who chose to push-back rather than simply comply with the very minimal requirements of ownership.

 

Rog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dogless said:

There are unfortunately many around the system seen to sleep in tents on or adjacent to towpaths.

 

If sufficient complaints are made to the local council by residents, perhaps some action may be taken, but as far as C&RT are concerned I suspect Mr Ward will be filed under 'Sorted' like other boat owners who chose to push-back rather than simply comply with the very minimal requirements of ownership.

 

Rog

There are plenty of fishermen who pitch tents on the towpath and sleep overnight, as well as hikers and so on. The only difference is that they are temporary, but it makes it impossible to discriminate against those doing it as a home - as does the fact that you can't just shoot the homeless as you could a stray dog. They got to be somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

There are plenty of fishermen who pitch tents on the towpath and sleep overnight, as well as hikers and so on. The only difference is that they are temporary, but it makes it impossible to discriminate against those doing it as a home - as does the fact that you can't just shoot the homeless as you could a stray dog. They got to be somewhere.

But none of those normally leave their tents unattended. 

If George goes out he could find on his return that his tent and other belongings have been removed as litter/flytipped rubbish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

There are plenty of fishermen who pitch tents on the towpath and sleep overnight, as well as hikers and so on. The only difference is that they are temporary, but it makes it impossible to discriminate against those doing it as a home - as does the fact that you can't just shoot the homeless as you could a stray dog. They got to be somewhere.

Surely once the same tent has been pitched in the same place for more than a week it's clear that it has either been abandoned or is being used for longterm accommodation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be a shame if the long term outcome of George Ward's behaviour was a clampdown on camping on the towpath. I am sure there are hundreds/thousands who do it as a temporary overnight or two while transiting, remain completely unobtrusive, and it would be deeply unfair on them to remove this pastime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 the fact that you can't just shoot the homeless as you could a stray dog. They got to be somewhere.

Of course they have to be somewhere. 

 

Should this problem be something which a national limited charity company deal with? 

 

I think most people would say no. 

At the end of the day (and the beginning) the CRT are a navigation authority. They do have limited responsibilities around housing as they offer residential moorings to let but other than that is it really appropriate for this organisation to be dealing with people severe and often massively unsatisfactory housing needs?

 

I'm sure local authorities love to pass the buck on this. 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Paul C said:

It would be a shame if the long term outcome of George Ward's behaviour was a clampdown on camping on the towpath. I am sure there are hundreds/thousands who do it as a temporary overnight or two while transiting, remain completely unobtrusive, and it would be deeply unfair on them to remove this pastime.

 

That is unlikely - the rules around camping are considerably more straightforward. Basically boats are part of the canal scene, so they don't need permission to be there and the problem is one of degree rather than fact. It is a planning matter whether a moored boat is a dwelling, and not an easy one to define. A boat may not have a safety certificate but by the time enforecement comes along one may have been acquired - they are never all that far from being legal because boats belong on a canal 

 

For camping, whilst technically land owner consent is required, the starting point is that tents are NOT an intrinsic part of the canal scene, and thus camping in any one place for more than 28 days (I think) in a year is a breach of planning consent. Place is not well defined but that works boat ways - if the planning authority decides that moving it 100 yards is still in the same "planning unit" then you'll have to argue the toss when enforcement comes along. 

54 minutes ago, David Mack said:

But none of those normally leave their tents unattended. 

If George goes out he could find on his return that his tent and other belongings have been removed as litter/flytipped rubbish.

 

As often happens when homeless people leave their sleeping bag in doorways or stairwells of car parks - and they haven't been there anything like ten years when that happens. 

46 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

Surely once the same tent has been pitched in the same place for more than a week it's clear that it has either been abandoned or is being used for longterm accommodation. 

 For planning 28 days in any one year (and any camper - not the same one) - the days need not be consecutive. 

 

George Ward is either very ill or very awkward (possibly both), but when it comes to tents look in almost any urban park and you'll see the problem repeated, admittedly without the detritus around the tent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

There are plenty of fishermen who pitch tents on the towpath and sleep overnight, as well as hikers and so on. The only difference is that they are temporary, but it makes it impossible to discriminate against those doing it as a home - as does the fact that you can't just shoot the homeless as you could a stray dog. They got to be somewhere.

Discussion about homelessness is a very different , though worthwhile subject to C&RT's interest in Mr Ward.

 

The point I was making (poorly it seems) is that I suspect C&RT's interest in Mr Ward is now at an end.

 

Rog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

But none of those normally leave their tents unattended. 

If George goes out he could find on his return that his tent and other belongings have been removed as litter/flytipped rubbish.

Totally agree and living 2 minutes walk from the K&A, I stealth camp a few times a month either hiking or biking. The tent is pitched when the sun goes down and packed away when the sun comes up and I/we leave no trace. How do you police that and is it worth policing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dogless said:

Discussion about homelessness is a very different , though worthwhile subject to C&RT's interest in Mr Ward.

 

The point I was making (poorly it seems) is that I suspect C&RT's interest in Mr Ward is now at an end.

 

Rog

I agree, not CRTs problem. Not anybody's, really, except his.

  • Greenie 1
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.