George Ward evicted.

[MtB]

33 minutes ago, 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. 

 

Yes I know, I've seen it happen once, long ago.

 

Given it can be done to a house someone is living in without getting a court order first, I think CRT will eventually have to drop the delaying and pointless farce they currently go though of applying to the court for an order permitting them to remove a boat they are already permitted to remove.

[wandering snail]

On 27/05/2023 at 16:42, magnetman said:

It does not seem to mention the land. 

 

CRT could use section 31 of the byelaws.

[magnetman]

CRT never use byelaws. 

 

Maybe it is time they started. 

It could get a bit awkward if they did as Byelaw no.30 says

 

-----

30. No vessel on any canal shall without the permission of the Board

be used as a club, shop, store, workshop, dwelling or houseboat.

-----

 

Dwelling. Hmm. 

 

Oops!

[MtB]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

CRT never use byelaws. 

 

Maybe it is time they started. 

It could get a bit awkward if they did as Byelaw no.30 says

 

-----

30. No vessel on any canal shall without the permission of the Board

be used as a club, shop, store, workshop, dwelling or houseboat.

-----

 

Dwelling. Hmm. 

 

Oops!

 

Indeed. 

 

When I first started living on boats I stuck to the Thames as I was aware even then that living on boats was illegal. 

 

I only really became aware in about 1995 this law was not being enforced on canals and living in boats was widespread.

[magnetman]

1995 is about right. 

 

The annotations are interesting on this 

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/general_canal_byelaws_1965

I wonder if a boat name "Section 17(3)(c)(ii)" would be accepted. 

 

 

[kris88]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

CRT never use byelaws. 

 

Maybe it is time they started. 

It could get a bit awkward if they did as Byelaw no.30 says

 

-----

30. No vessel on any canal shall without the permission of the Board

be used as a club, shop, store, workshop, dwelling or houseboat.

-----

 

Dwelling. Hmm. 

 

Oops!

Surely issuing a license to a boat that you know is lived on is granting “permission.”

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, kris88 said:

Surely issuing a license to a boat that you know is lived on is granting “permission.”

 

 

How would they know that? Do licence applicants not have to supply a land address?

 

 

[kris88]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

 

How would they know that? Do licence applicants not have to supply a land address?

 

 

Your telling me you think crt don’t have lots of imformation about each boat it liscences? It would be stupid to not collect as much data as it can, whilst I know it’s stupid  In lots of ways data collection isn’t one of them. 

[Paul C]

33 minutes ago, kris88 said:

Your telling me you think crt don’t have lots of imformation about each boat it liscences? It would be stupid to not collect as much data as it can, whilst I know it’s stupid  In lots of ways data collection isn’t one of them. 

 

Living aboard isn't the problem, the non-movement is the problem. So they cross-reference a licence app with enforcement action, but don't care if its lived on (or not). 

44 minutes ago, kris88 said:

Surely issuing a license to a boat that you know is lived on is granting “permission.”

 

Nope, I don't think you can take that as a granting of permission, implied or otherwise, unless they changed the form to explicitly ask the question "Do you live on this boat" and even then, what's the basis for refusing to ISSUE A LICENCE because of that? Surely it could only be used as evidence towards a contravention of Byelaw 30.

[Tony Brooks]

46 minutes ago, kris88 said:

Your telling me you think crt don’t have lots of imformation about each boat it liscences? It would be stupid to not collect as much data as it can, whilst I know it’s stupid  In lots of ways data collection isn’t one of them. 

 

I suspect the Information Commissioner would have something to say if CaRT collected information not directly applicable to licensing, BSS and movement.

[MtB]

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

CRT never use byelaws. 

 

Maybe it is time they started. 

It could get a bit awkward if they did as Byelaw no.30 says

 

-----

30. No vessel on any canal shall without the permission of the Board

be used as a club, shop, store, workshop, dwelling or houseboat.

-----

 

Dwelling. Hmm. 

 

Oops!

 

 

In reality, pinning down a definition of "dwelling" is notoriously difficult. 

 

On an old property forum (long gone), it was discussed at length and opinion converged on the view that to be a "dwelling", a property needed to have a water supply. Boats obviously don't.

 

 

[Machpoint005]

Gurgle suggests that: 

 

"Under English law, a dwelling is defined as a self-contained 'substantial' unit of accommodation, such as a building, part of a building, caravan, houseboat or other mobile home. A tent is not normally considered substantial."

 

[kris88]

1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

I suspect the Information Commissioner would have something to say if CaRT collected information not directly applicable to licensing, BSS and movement.

Maybe you should do an imformation request under Gdpr to see what info crt has on you and your boat? You might be surprised. 

[Paul C]

9 minutes ago, kris88 said:

Maybe you should do an imformation request under Gdpr to see what info crt has on you and your boat? You might be surprised. 

 

But that's all of CRT, each department's access to information is ringfenced. In any case.......enforcement action and surrounding information IS relevant to a licence application, because "the board is satisfied..." blah blah. AND......you've been under enforcement action before, right? So I suspect your "file" is more detailed and interesting than most others.

[MtB]

8 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

But that's all of CRT, each department's access to information is ringfenced. In any case.......enforcement action and surrounding information IS relevant to a licence application, because "the board is satisfied..." blah blah. AND......you've been under enforcement action before, right? So I suspect your "file" is more detailed and interesting than most others.

 

Yes I was thinking that too.

 

If I too make a right PITA of myself to CRT, I too might be surprised how much info they'd collected about me and my boat.

 

But as it is, I give them no reason to look any closer.

 

 

 

[kris88]

8 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Yes I was thinking that too.

 

If I too make a right PITA of myself to CRT, I too might be surprised how much info they'd collected about me and my boat.

 

But as it is, I give them no reason to look any closer.

 

 

 

Yes everybody says they’ve got nothing to hide, that’s the usual argument trotted out in favour of mass surveillance. 

19 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

But that's all of CRT, each department's access to information is ringfenced. In any case.......enforcement action and surrounding information IS relevant to a licence application, because "the board is satisfied..." blah blah. AND......you've been under enforcement action before, right? So I suspect your "file" is more detailed and interesting than most others.

Just  because I live a more interesting life than yourself, theirs no need to get jealous. 

[Tony Brooks]

Just now, kris88 said:

Yes everybody says they’ve got nothing to hide, that’s the usual argument trotted out in favour of mass surveillance. 

 

As you seem to know more about what data CaRT holds about individual boaters, perhaps you will tell us what that is outside, licensing, BSS, movements, and in some cases enforcement data.

[MtB]

8 minutes ago, kris88 said:

Yes everybody says they’ve got nothing to hide, that’s the usual argument trotted out in favour of mass surveillance.

 

 

There's nothing you can do to stop it, as you've probably found out. 

 

The best defence is to not make a PITA of oneself and therefore not get noticed by the Nazi police state oppressive organisation you seem to think CRT is. 

 

Anyway CRT are not mass surveilling all of us. It's probably just be you. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Barneyp]

2 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

Living aboard isn't the problem, the non-movement is the problem. So they cross-reference a licence app with enforcement action, but don't care if its lived on (or not). 

 

Nope, I don't think you can take that as a granting of permission, implied or otherwise, unless they changed the form to explicitly ask the question "Do you live on this boat" and even then, what's the basis for refusing to ISSUE A LICENCE because of that? Surely it could only be used as evidence towards a contravention of Byelaw 30.

In the license terms and conditions CRT say that the continuous cruiser license exists for those without a home mooring and includes a link to their guidance for continuous cruisers. I'm not sure it would possible to comply fully with both those documents without using the boat as a dwelling.

So there would be a contradiction in CRT's position if they tried to enforce Byelaw 30. 

[Paul C]

2 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

 I'm not sure it would possible to comply fully with both those documents without using the boat as a dwelling.

 

 

I'll help you out: it is.

[magpie patrick]

6 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

In the license terms and conditions CRT say that the continuous cruiser license exists for those without a home mooring and includes a link to their guidance for continuous cruisers. I'm not sure it would possible to comply fully with both those documents without using the boat as a dwelling.

So there would be a contradiction in CRT's position if they tried to enforce Byelaw 30. 

I continously cruised on Lutine Bell for two years whilst living in Frome, a town which isn't on a canal. Every other weekend I went boating, moved ten miles, went home again. It was blimmin marvellous. 

 

(Even with all the engine tribulations I had). 

[magnetman]

I have a theory which is that there is a box that the data collector taps to say whether in their judgment on that day the boat looks like it is lived on. 

 

Their are giveaway signs but it is an assumption.

 

The reason I think this is because one of my boats got onto the enforcement system when I wasn't moving enough while living on another boat on a CRT owned residential mooring in the same area.

 

The enforcement letter mentioned that as I was living on the boat under enforcement I would need to remove it or find elsewhere to live as they would be removing it under Section 8.

 

This letter was sent to my CRT owned residential mooring. 

 

Although I was in fact living on the residential mooring I have to assume the data collector made a judgment (incorrect) that I was living on the boat which was under enforcement and moored on the towpath side. 

 

They do watch more than you think they watch.

 

This is not paranoia it is an assumption made from experience. 

 

 

 

 

 

[MtB]

55 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

I'll help you out: it is.

 

I agree. 

 

Its perfectly possible to spend months on end CCing and mooring occasionally for a fortnight to return to home, to deal with post and such stuff.

 

In fact that is the whole point of the right to moor for up to 14 days occasionally, whilst out bona fide navigating..... 

[Barneyp]

2 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

I continously cruised on Lutine Bell for two years whilst living in Frome, a town which isn't on a canal. Every other weekend I went boating, moved ten miles, went home again. It was blimmin marvellous. 

 

(Even with all the engine tribulations I had). 

 

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

I agree. 

 

Its perfectly possible to spend months on end CCing and mooring occasionally for a fortnight to return to home, to deal with post and such stuff.

 

In fact that is the whole point of the right to moor for up to 14 days occasionally, whilst out bona fide navigating..... 

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 MTB's example, which does seem to meet the requirements and the intention and spirit of continuous cruising, it seems to me that the boat would be your dwelling/home and the place you return to occasionally to collect mail etc maybe a house or flat but would not be your home.

Edited May 29, 2023 by Barneyp

[TheBiscuits]

6 hours ago, kris88 said:

Surely issuing a license to a boat that you know is lived on is granting “permission.”

 

The Bridgewater Canal Company do exactly this, in return for another hundred quid a month (old figures) on top of the lesiure licence fee.

 

Absolutely nothing stops CRT doing the same ...