George Ward evicted.

[magnetman]

11 minutes ago, kris88 said:

In my opinion this is where crt will become unstuck. Because any sensible legal challenge to crt usurping legislation with contract law will get upheld. It would probably  have to go to the highest court. But at the end of the day no judge is going to agree that the ceo of a third sector organisation has the ability to change legislation. Forget all your other arguments they are just distractions this is the core of the matter. 
 So if they crt get too creative with their t&c’s they will hasten the happening of this event. 

 

 

I still think they should try it out. 

[David Mack]

18 minutes ago, magnetman said:

There would be no need for private sector rented houses. 

There will always be people who need rented housing, and who won't necessarily come very high on the priority list for public sector/social housing - people who are only in an area for a short term and don't want to incur the costs and hassle of buying and selling, people whose credit record is not good enough for mortgage lenders, young people who don't feel ready to 'settle down' in one place with all the responsibilities of home ownership, people who have had a change of circumstances (e.g. divorce) and need short term accommodation while they sort other things out etc. So there will always be a need for a private rented sector.

The thing that people who say nobody should own more than one house never acknowledge is that a house rented out is still a house that is providing a home for somebody. And that is rather different from a house which is owned simply to rent out to holiday makers, or even kept vacant most of the time with only occasional holiday use by the owner and his family/friends. Those houses have been lost to the housing market.

[magnetman]

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

The canals are simply not a solution to the UK housing problem.

I wonder if anyone has done a survey of canal land (which does include towpaths) and put a value on it. 

 

I know people do like canals but priorities change over the yars and it could be useful brown field land especially in urban areas. 

[David Mack]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I wonder if anyone has done a survey of canal land (which does include towpaths) and put a value on it. 

 

I know people do like canals but priorities change over the yars and it could be useful brown field land especially in urban areas. 

Most local authority planning policies view the canals and towpaths in their areas as assets to be protected for leisure, heritage, environmental and wellbeing reasons.

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, David Mack said:

There will always be people who need rented housing, and who won't necessarily come very high on the priority list for public sector/social housing - people who are only in an area for a short term and don't want to incur the costs and hassle of buying and selling, people whose credit record is not good enough for mortgage lenders, young people who don't feel ready to 'settle down' in one place with all the responsibilities of home ownership, people who have had a change of circumstances (e.g. divorce) and need short term accommodation while they sort other things out etc. So there will always be a need for a private rented sector.

The thing that people who say nobody should own more than one house never acknowledge is that a house rented out is still a house that is providing a home for somebody. And that is rather different from a house which is owned simply to rent out to holiday makers, or even kept vacant most of the time with only occasional holiday use by the owner and his family/friends. Those houses have been lost to the housing market.

It's not whether the rented houses are privately or publicly owned that is the real issue, it's the lack of security and rent control and supervision of housing quality, and the fact that all this means that residential housing is seen as a cash cow (e.g. BTL, developers building "executive" homes not "affordable" ones) by many in the UK, so many (not all!) people invest in it without bothering with things like decent maintenance, and can kick tenants out when they want to sell on at a profit or raise the rent massively.

 

In other countries the sector is much more tightly controlled and regulated regardless of whether its publicly or privately owned, there is less money to be made in it so houses are seen more as places to live than investments -- which makes them less attractive to private landlords and more attractive to public ones, where the state is willing to invest to provide decent housing for its citizens.

 

Holiday homes and AirBnB are a plague in many popular areas of the UK and have effectively priced locals out of the market... 😞

Edited June 13, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

6 minutes ago, David Mack said:

There will always be people who need rented housing, and who won't necessarily come very high on the priority list for public sector/social housing - people who are only in an area for a short term and don't want to incur the costs and hassle of buying and selling, people whose credit record is not good enough for mortgage lenders, young people who don't feel ready to 'settle down' in one place with all the responsibilities of home ownership, people who have had a change of circumstances (e.g. divorce) and need short term accommodation while they sort other things out etc. So there will always be a need for a private rented sector.

The thing that people who say nobody should own more than one house never acknowledge is that a house rented out is still a house that is providing a home for somebody. And that is rather different from a house which is owned simply to rent out to holiday makers, or even kept vacant most of the time with only occasional holiday use by the owner and his family/friends. Those houses have been lost to the housing market.

Fair enough but it is getting a bit shit when a family who know where they want to live, can provide a deposit and have jobs are pushed out because the BTL scum seem more reliable to the lender. 

 

Maybe this is changing with interest hates going up.

 

It is when the lower end of the market which I think they call 'starter homes' is skewed towards the BTL that it winds me up. 

 

I have no concerns personally on this as the woman and children live in a council owned property and I live on boats. 

 

I still think it is wrong for people to profit from others basic needs such as housing. 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

I still think it is wrong for people to profit from others basic needs such as housing. 

 

 

That's a bit like saying farmers shouldn't profit from providing food. The profit motive makes the world go round, nothing else does. It just needs to be regulated by the society it happens in, which is what we elect people to do, only mostly they can't be bothered to do their jobs.

CRT could profit from renting moorings, and while it wouldn't dent the housing problem as a whole, obviously, it might go some way to help those who either want to live on a boat, or can only afford to do so, and who either don't want to move, or need to stay for work.

[Tonka]

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

Fair enough but it is getting a bit shit when a family who know where they want to live, can provide a deposit and have jobs are pushed out because the BTL scum seem more reliable to the lender. 

 

Maybe this is changing with interest hates going up.

 

It is when the lower end of the market which I think they call 'starter homes' is skewed towards the BTL that it winds me up. 

 

I have no concerns personally on this as the woman and children live in a council owned property and I live on boats. 

 

I still think it is wrong for people to profit from others basic needs such as housing. 

 

 

So is it OK to profit from basic needs like food for instance

[IanD]

13 minutes ago, Tonka said:

So is it OK to profit from basic needs like food for instance

Profit as such isn't the problem even for basic human needs, so long as it's regulated and not excessive, delivers a good result, and the scales are not stacked heavily in favour of business profit (e.g. creaming off a big slice to shareholders and executives) and against the customer and the public sector (e.g. asking for government subsidies/tax relief).

 

Which is clearly not the case in the UK for privatised housing, water/sewage, public transport, electricity -- for these a state-controlled supplier (or heavily-regulated private sector) is better than leaving it to the free markets, as shown by most comparable countries who do a better job of these than the UK.

 

A perfect example of privatised profit and public risk is the UK water companies -- no competition (you can only get water from your local supplier), have paid over £60B out to shareholders instead of spending it on improving the infrastructure, and are now looking for a similar level of public subsidy to fix the sewage system because otherwise consumers will have to pay for it... 😞

 

52 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

That's a bit like saying farmers shouldn't profit from providing food. The profit motive makes the world go round, nothing else does. It just needs to be regulated by the society it happens in, which is what we elect people to do, only mostly they can't be bothered to do their jobs.

CRT could profit from renting moorings, and while it wouldn't dent the housing problem as a whole, obviously, it might go some way to help those who either want to live on a boat, or can only afford to do so, and who either don't want to move, or need to stay for work.

 

And there you have the UK problem in one sentence... 😞

 

(though it's often not that they can't be bothered, but tighter regulation would reduce the oodles of money they and their chums make by not having it...)

Edited June 13, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

4 minutes ago, Tonka said:

So is it OK to profit from basic needs like food for instance

 

OK. 

 

The food argument. 

 

Is there a shortage of food? Can you think of anyone who is financially stressed because they can't afford food? Yes. OK. Food banks. 

 

Yes there are some but not nearly as many as those who are basically stressed by having to pay someone else to use a house to live in. 

 

The effect on society as a whole caused by people having no security of dwelling is profound, long lasting and serious. 

 

Food is a daily requirement. It isn't all that expensive and if you don't get it you die. In fact it is very like beer. 

 

Housing is a basic need. Get people competing against each other and shit happens. 

 

 

 

 

[Jerra]

17 minutes ago, Tonka said:

So is it OK to profit from basic needs like food for instance

I was wondering if it was OK to profit from supplying clean fresh water.  It is after all a very basic need which you can't do without for too long.

[Tonka]

16 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

OK. 

 

The food argument. 

 

Is there a shortage of food? Can you think of anyone who is financially stressed because they can't afford food? Yes. OK. Food banks. 

 

Yes there are some but not nearly as many as those who are basically stressed by having to pay someone else to use a house to live in. 

 

The effect on society as a whole caused by people having no security of dwelling is profound, long lasting and serious. 

 

Food is a daily requirement. It isn't all that expensive and if you don't get it you die. In fact it is very like beer. 

 

Housing is a basic need. Get people competing against each other and shit happens. 

 

 

 

 

Inflation is high at the moment because food prices are going up. The war in Ukraine and now the dam being blown up will cause a shortage. 

I am not sure which world you are living in but it is not the same world as the rest of us

[Arthur Marshall]

7 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Inflation is high at the moment because food prices are going up. The war in Ukraine and now the dam being blown up will cause a shortage. 

I am not sure which world you are living in but it is not the same world as the rest of us

I don't think a 50% hike in my car insurance is caused by the increase in food prices. I think you've got cause and effect muddled up where inflation is concerned - it's a bit more complex than that, too.

At the moment, one cause of inflation is firms making excessive profits, just because they can. Hardship is caused by wages being kept artificially low by government support - benefits are overwhelmingly paid to people in work, not out of it.

Take fuel prices. The main oil suppliers have just decided to cut production in order to keep prices high. That raises the cost of everything including, to revert sort of to the forum focus, driving everybody's boat except Peterboat's. I don't think food prices were in the Saudis minds at the time.

[magnetman]

17 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Inflation is high at the moment because food prices are going up. The war in Ukraine and now the dam being blown up will cause a shortage. 

I am not sure which world you are living in but it is not the same world as the rest of us

 

No need to get into whose world we are living in. I am a human and therefore subject to things other humans are subject to. 

 

I reject entirely the principle of one man owning the house another man lives in and gaining from the toil of the other man by demanding payment for living in the house.

 

If this ends up with me having no money then so be it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

43 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

No need to get into whose world we are living in. I am a human and therefore subject to things other humans are subject to. 

 

I reject entirely the principle of one man owning the house another man lives in and gaining from the toil of the other man by demanding payment for living in the house.

 

If this ends up with me having no money then so be it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m with you to a certain point. 
There should still be good housing provided by the State. 
I guess leaving it to pirate’s private ears is simple easy cash with no responsibility for the Government 
 

 

(there was some predictive text going on which I thought appropriate)

[dmr]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

No need to get into whose world we are living in. I am a human and therefore subject to things other humans are subject to. 

 

I reject entirely the principle of one man owning the house another man lives in and gaining from the toil of the other man by demanding payment for living in the house.

 

If this ends up with me having no money then so be it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I got a lump sum when I got redundant/very early retirement, this has to keep me going for the rest of my life. We tried various investment things but I was very uncomfortable about getting involved in the capitalist stockmarket "gambling" system and did not like or trust the people who were "advising" us. So we now have a couple of houses that we rent out. We charge a fair rent and respond rapidly to all problems. In fact we only put the rent up when the tenants change and they rarely change, so the current rents are ludicrously low.  There is a need for rental accomodation, a lot of people change jobs and locations often and don't want to pin themselves down with home ownership. Some people actually prefer to rent. Its like CC'ers and CM'ers, a number of bad landlords give us all a bad reputation.

 

Its just providing a service thats needed, like car hire or tool hire 😀

 

I accept that cash buyers do have an unfair advantage over youngsters trying to raise a mortgage (my children struggled with this), but thats not my fault and I don't know what the answer is, but we certainly did not intentionally get involved in any competitive bidding type purchasing

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, dmr said:

There is a need for rental accomodation, a lot of people change jobs and locations often and don't want to pin themselves down with home ownership

 

Like Mr Ward for example, the subject of this thread?

 

Can any of us here imagine him say, deciding to buy a house since queering his pitch with CRT?

 

Which lenders might accept his mortgage application? Consider him a good bet to lend the money to...

 

 

[dmr]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

Like Mr Ward for example, the subject of this thread?

 

Can any of us here imagine him say, deciding to buy a house since queering his pitch with CRT?

 

Which lenders might accept his mortgage application? Consider him a good bet to lend the money to...

 

 

 

I'll add him to my list....

 

No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs, No exBoaters.

 

(this is a joke for those who don't have a sense of humour, but also an observation on how times have changed)

 

 

[magnetman]

5 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Like Mr Ward for example, the subject of this thread?

 

Can any of us here imagine him say, deciding to buy a house since queering his pitch with CRT?

 

Which lenders might accept his mortgage application? Consider him a good bet to lend the money to...

 

 

He may already have a house which he could be renting out or a council flat. 

It would be a whole lot more comfortable pushing the system if one had an alternative place to live if it all gets awkward ! 

 

Easy to claim one is homeless but difficult for other people other than professionals in the services to access the proof isn't it. 

 

An old friend of mine lives in a boat which is a proper floating shed. He also has a council flat a

(not sublet) as the sole tenant but he prefers the boat. Anyone seeing him on the boat might easily make assumptions about his residential status but in reality he is satisfactorily housed by the state. 

 

Not saying this is the case with Mr Ward but it is important not to make assumptions about people's housing status based on their presentation and chosen lifestyles. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cuthound]

CRT are trying to recover costs from George Ward by selling his boats if he can't raise the money.

 

Good luck with that .. 😅🤣https://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/23668459.boater-served-huge-bill-eviction-notice-canal-rivers-trust/

[magnetman]

Yes and if there are some others doing similar this could get expensive. 

 

It is an interesting battle but one which the CRT should not be funding. 

 

[Paul C]

Credit card companies can and do force bankruptcy on non-payers, there is no reason why CRT shouldn't try to recover its money either. Obviously it is worth gaining intel on the other party, if they obviously have no money then it might not be worth the extra legal expense for it to not progress further.

 

Maybe NBTA could do a fundraiser for him, to stump up the £30k?

[cuthound]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

Yes and if there are some others doing similar this could get expensive. 

 

It is an interesting battle but one which the CRT should not be funding. 

 

 

If they acted much more quickly to deal with overstayers, then their costs would be substantially lower because it would discourage, rather than encourage others with a similar mindset.

[Heartland]

There was a video made in British Waterways days where boaters in Wiltshire were interviewed and their comments and complaints about the services provided by BW were mentioned. George Ward was featured in that video with his comments about the lack of services. Did he say that he was a former traveller, who bought at boat?

[MtB]

2 hours ago, cuthound said:

 

If they acted much more quickly to deal with overstayers, then their costs would be substantially lower because it would discourage, rather than encourage others with a similar mindset.

 

I do get the feeling that a Section 21 <or whatever it is called> lift-out could actually be done and dusted inside three months if they treated them with the urgency with which they should be treated. All this twattery applying to the court with liveaboards strikes me as totally unnecessary and is just used as an excuse for their tardiness.

 

The occupants should be allowed to continue living aboard once the boat is in the compound in Chester, if they don't like the accommodation offered by the local authority. 

 

 

 

Edited July 21, 2023 by MtB
add a missing word.