CRT Commission

[Arthur Marshall]

49 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Dont feed the troll

Sorry. You're right. The idiot's back on ignore. I really thought he'd gone for good.

 

[Ronaldo47]

The UK had some pretty punitive taxation in the post-war period, partly to pay off the loans taken out to fund the war, and partly to fund the country's post-war reconstruction.

 

We inherited a 1951 "News of the World" almanac that has a section on taxation. Tax was pretty complicated then, with different tax-free allowances for single men, married men, women, and the number of children, but the standard rate of tax on earned income after allowances, was 9/- [45p] in the pound  up to £2,000. This increased progressively up to 19/6d [97.5p] in the pound for earned income above £20,001.

 

A note headed "Capital levy" reads as follows:

 

In 1948 a "special contribution" was levied on all those who had an income of over £2,000 of which £250 came from investments. The top rate was 10s in the £. A person receiving an investment income of £20,000 thus had to pay in income tax , surtax and special contribution £24,900.

 

Of course, those high rates of tax would only have been paid by the very wealthy, but you can see why people like Charlie Chaplin and David Niven became tax exiles.  From memory, in my summer holiday job in a local factory  the mid-1960's, a labourers basic wage before overtime was around £10 per week [£500/year], and in 1951 it would have been much lower.

 

Things had eased slightly by the time The Beatles were singing "Taxman":  I understand the line "There's one for you, nineteen for me" (95%) was an accurate reflection of the higher tax rate at the time. 

 

 

Incidentally, the chapter on transport, has this entry:

 

INLAND WATERWAYS

 

   There are 2,400 miles of inland waterways in Great Britain. The Transport Commission took over all but 350 miles of this network in January, 1948, but excluded the Manchester Ship Canal (35 1/2 miles) which carries 8,259,000 tons a year, and the Thames Conservancy Waterways totalling 144 miles.

   On the Commission's canals in 1950, 272 powered  barges of a capacity of 8,775 tons and 1,001 "dumb" barges able to carry 37,392 tons were in operation. The total capacity carried in 1949 was over 11,000,000 tons. 

 

 

Edited December 18, 2024 by Ronaldo47
Typos

[Gybe Ho]

11 hours ago, IanD said:

The problem is that the system today is not working, so something must change -- and that seems to be what this commission is being set up to decide on

 

 

What is the proof for that claim?

 

It seems to me forum group-think can spin up all sorts of flavour of the month fictions that do not correlate to reality.

1. Mid summer the issue was that no one was out cruising.
2. Now we are told the tow-paths are congested by CMers defying the rules.
3. Mid summer I walked between Foxton and Debdale on the GU and saw 1 moored boat whereas 10 years ago there would have been 25.
4. Then were are told CCers are wearing out the system's infrastructure and the CC surcharge does not cover that.
5. Next I was told the Pennine canals have reached the point of unofficial de facto closure due to poor maintenance and low use, yet when I point out that lady YouTubers are recording their Pennine transits this Autumn, smiling all the way, I was told it is a YouTube delusion.
6. Next a HireBusiness closure is presented as evidence that the system is collapsing yet in reality it is just contracting back to pre pandemic levels as the staycation boom fades.

The underlying truth is that usage of the system is changing and that frightens many here. The 1990s Kerplunk Kerplunk jolly hockeysticks era of narrowboating is over. Look at the the falling attendances at traditional canal festivals. Modern boaters don't want painted metal flower pots and gurgle gut thumper real ales, they want kimchi, street food stalls, artisan coffees and sourdough bread making demos.

 

There is some evidence of managed decline on the network but the system works. Those who claim otherwise have political agendas and the principal agenda of this forum is to attack young canal boaters with whatever weapon is available.

[Mike Todd]

15 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Well, they didn't do it us on the Shroppie, they don't do it at Golden Nook, they don't do it at Cowbrook Farm, they don't do it on the CRT moorings above Bosley, They don't do it on the nameless farm near Heritage...

There's a de facto policy of sleeping dogs being left alone. Be a nightmare to suddenly enforce the rules, be like forcing everyone to stick to speed limits on penalty of instantly losing your car.

Pedantic as I am, I do think that somewhere a person lives permanently is, actually, their home, whether it's a boat, a caravan, a house. Someone with somewhere to live that is their own is not homeless. If they have a house they have rented to someone else, then that is someone else's home, not theirs. If the house is empty and they live on the boat, then the boat is their home. Simple, really. If they spend summer on the boat and winter in their house, they will think of the latter as their home, not the boat, which is just a holiday thing.

The point is that I suspect CRT will say that if your boat is your home, ie where you live, rather than a holiday toy, you are going to have to pay a lot more, possibly the equivalent to what you'd pay for a social rented house, but most certainly at least what the rest of us might pay for CRT moorings. Because that's what is being used. And you'd still need either to follow the CC rules or get a contracted mooring as well.

I think the CC surcharge was the canary in the coal mine. Once the concept of added value for liveaboards was accepted, it would be looked at properly. And don't tell me that not all continuous cruisers are liveaboards - I know, and so do CRT. Neither of us think they are genuine continuous cruisers, either. That's precisely why this is happening.

It certainly makes a difference as and when CaRT take enforcement action and seek to seize a boat - if there is a potential that it may ne someone's home then they have to go through a protracted and expensive court process to obtain possession. A skilled boater can draw this out for a decade if so minded! (Well, they could in the past but I think CaRT are better organised now!)

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

It certainly makes a difference as and when CaRT take enforcement action and seek to seize a boat - if there is a potential that it may ne someone's home then they have to go through a protracted and expensive court process to obtain possession. A skilled boater can draw this out for a decade if so minded! (Well, they could in the past but I think CaRT are better organised now!)

I believe there's at least one London boating couple who have done even better than that, they waited for CART to take action against the owner but before enforcement (which took years!) he sold the boat to his partner (for £1?) and CART had to restart legal action against her -- rinse and repeat... 😉 

 

Or this could be an urban myth put out by boaters who hate squatters/overstayers, who knows?

[Arthur Marshall]

6 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

It certainly makes a difference as and when CaRT take enforcement action and seek to seize a boat - if there is a potential that it may ne someone's home then they have to go through a protracted and expensive court process to obtain possession. A skilled boater can draw this out for a decade if so minded! (Well, they could in the past but I think CaRT are better organised now!)

As far as I'm aware  and from what Nigel said in the past, CRT don't have to go to court at all, whether someone lives on or not. They have chosen to do this in order to be as fair as possible to the occupant, but they have no legal obligation to do do. Like the CC saga , as too many people are now extracting the Michael, I suspect they may well stop doing this as too long drawn out and expensive, and just remove the boat as soon as the occupant is off it, or can be removed from it.

Edited December 18, 2024 by Arthur Marshall

[Mike Todd]

3 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

As far as I'm aware  and from what Nigel said in the past, CRT don't have to go to court at all, whether someone lives on or not. They have chosen to do this in order to be as fair as possible to the occupant, but they have no legal obligation to do do. Like the CC saga , as too many people are now extracting the Michael, I suspect they may well stop doing this as too long drawn out and expensive, and just remove the boat as soon as the occupant is off it, or can be removed from it.

AIUI, this is in the area of untested law. Certainly in the case of bricks and mortar, our legislation post-Rachman means that a landlord cannot just evict a tenant without due process. CaRT are unlikely to want to be taken to court over this aspect - even if they think that Nigel was right. In my view, if he was then I don't think he should have been!

[magnetman]

The story with the Boat on the K&A occupied by a geyser with the surname 'Ward' was interesting. He seemed to live on it and when the CRT came to get it he became belligerent inside so they left. 

A while later they were able to seize and remove the Boat while he was engaged in non specific activities off the Boat. 

 

I guess the CRT tend to target people who are unlikely to be organised enough to do anything about it. 

 

It could get a bit ugly with bad publicity but one suspects that the average man (or woman) would probably agree with sorting it out and avoiding the canal towpaths turning into a [non specified] site full of rubbish and old generators. 

 

To be fair. 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

22 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

AIUI, this is in the area of untested law. Certainly in the case of bricks and mortar, our legislation post-Rachman means that a landlord cannot just evict a tenant without due process. CaRT are unlikely to want to be taken to court over this aspect - even if they think that Nigel was right. In my view, if he was then I don't think he should have been!

I suppose if they issue a "liveaboard licence" that could cause problems, but otherwise they aren't technically evicting anyone, they are removing an unlicensed boat from their waterway, the owner having every right to put it somewhere else, which they are usually given plenty of time to do. It's the boat they are entitled to move, the person is irrelevant. Much the same as knocking down a house built without planning permission, which you probably wouldn't do with the person inside it.

Edited December 18, 2024 by Arthur Marshall

[ditchcrawler]

28 minutes ago, magnetman said:

  It could get a bit ugly with bad publicity but one suspects that the average man (or woman) would probably agree with sorting it out and avoiding the canal towpaths turning into a [non specified] site full of rubbish and old generators. 

 

To be fair. 

 

It got ugly when they using legal powers evicted a woman and mad her homeless, seams she was renting the boat and the owner was at fault.

[magnetman]

I wonder what happened to her. 

 

if she ended up in housing somewhere it might have been a better outcome than renting an unsatisfactory Boat off some worthless parasite and living on the towpath. 

 

So in a way although difficult to see at the time in some cases the CRT/BW before them may have actually made things better. 

 

One would need to know the full circumstances. 

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I wonder what happened to her. 

 

if she ended up in housing somewhere it might have been a better outcome than renting an unsatisfactory Boat off some worthless parasite and living on the towpath. 

 

So in a way although difficult to see at the time in some cases the CRT/BW before them may have actually made things better. 

 

One would need to know the full circumstances. 

 

 

This is the first thread that came up on it Vulnerable boater hospitalised after Canal & River Trust evict her – National Bargee Travellers Association so may be biased 

[magnetman]

NBTA biased? Surely not. 

[ditchcrawler]

22 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It is being reported across various media I don;t know where it originated from - this is from the BBC

 

Those who apply before 21 December will receive backdated payments of both pension credit and the winter fuel allowance, and the DWP has deployed 500 extra staff to handle claims for the benefit.

 

The Department for Work and Pensions has issued a crucial Pension Credit update as claims for the benefit continue to soar. DWP data shows applications have surged by nearly 150 per cent but only 42,500 claims have been successful during this time.

This represents less than 5 per cent of the 880,000 eligible individuals the government identified as not receiving the benefit back in July.

 

Winter Fuel Payment: Pension credit applications rise but many rejected - BBC News

Well they are actually encouraging it through social media  

[David Mack]

3 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

As far as I'm aware  and from what Nigel said in the past, CRT don't have to go to court at all, whether someone lives on or not.

They don't under the applicable BW acts. But CRT also have to comply with the more recent Equalities Act and Human Rights Act. Did Nigel address these?

[Bod]

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

AIUI, this is in the area of untested law. Certainly in the case of bricks and mortar, our legislation post-Rachman means that a landlord cannot just evict a tenant without due process. CaRT are unlikely to want to be taken to court over this aspect - even if they think that Nigel was right. In my view, if he was then I don't think he should have been!

The difficulty C&RT have regarding the Legistration they are controlled by, is that some goes back to the original Canal Enabling Acts, as well as the 1970's to 1990's Acts.  Some of which predate the Human rights, Equailty, Disability, modern Acts.

Certianly under the Waterways current legistration there is no requirement for a Court Order to remove a boat. This is done for "fair play" to be seen done.

It would greatly help all parties if there was a few Court cases to settle the various disagreements.

 

Bod

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, David Mack said:

They don't under the applicable BW acts. But CRT also have to comply with the more recent Equalities Act and Human Rights Act. Did Nigel address these?

 

Cart say that they are not required to get court approval before removing a boat, but in order to make sure they have all the 'ducks in line' they do so. 

 

Sometimes, unfortunately, we're unable to resolve these issues and must remove the boat from the waterway. In some last-resorts cases, these boats are people's homes. In all cases where we remove a lived-aboard boat, we first approach the court to obtain an order and have our case scrutinised by a Judge.

Edited December 18, 2024 by Alan de Enfield

[David Mack]

2 minutes ago, Bod said:

It would greatly help all parties if there was a few Court cases to settle the various disagreements.

Except perhaps those evicted by such a process.

The new Commission's Terms of Reference note that judges have commented that the current legal position is confused. Hence presumably the suggestion of possible changes to the legislation.

[LadyG]

14 minutes ago, Bod said:

 

It would greatly help all parties if there was a few Court cases to settle the various disagreements.

 

Bod

Before taking expensive court action , including costs against the offender, one should make sure these costs can be recovered. Considering the problem, its most unlikely.

[Arthur Marshall]

11 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Cart say that they are not required to get court approval before removing a boat, but in order to make sure they have all the 'ducks in line' they do so. 

 

Sometimes, unfortunately, we're unable to resolve these issues and must remove the boat from the waterway. In some last-resorts cases, these boats are people's homes. In all cases where we remove a lived-aboard boat, we first approach the court to obtain an order and have our case scrutinised by a Judge.

I think you could add the word "currently" between "we" and "first", and finish the sentence with "although we don't have to".

If they start clearing large tranches of boats if they neither cruise nor get a mooring, things may change. They'd probably end up with one court case instead of hundreds which might even be definitive.

It would be interesting if anyone know the proportion of cases CRT have lost, if any. If none, then I don't know why they bother at all, though I suppose they get their costs back from the owner occasionally. I understand they can't use the boat sale to offset them.

[Mike Todd]

25 minutes ago, Bod said:

The difficulty C&RT have regarding the Legistration they are controlled by, is that some goes back to the original Canal Enabling Acts, as well as the 1970's to 1990's Acts.  Some of which predate the Human rights, Equailty, Disability, modern Acts.

Certianly under the Waterways current legistration there is no requirement for a Court Order to remove a boat. This is done for "fair play" to be seen done.

It would greatly help all parties if there was a few Court cases to settle the various disagreements.

 

Bod

It would be even better to have new legislation that is fit for purpose and avoids undue recourse to the courts.

[Bod]

21 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Except perhaps those evicted by such a process.

The new Commission's Terms of Reference note that judges have commented that the current legal position is confused. Hence presumably the suggestion of possible changes to the legislation.

Certianly in the past, some very Learned mind have succeeded in muddying some unclear waters!

 

Bod

[Tonka]

4 hours ago, IanD said:

I believe there's at least one London boating couple who have done even better than that, they waited for CART to take action against the owner but before enforcement (which took years!) he sold the boat to his partner (for £1?) and CART had to restart legal action against her -- rinse and repeat... 😉 

 

Or this could be an urban myth put out by boaters who hate squatters/overstayers, who knows?

If I had posted that you would be having a right go at me and asking for evidence

[Alan de Enfield]

43 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It would be interesting if anyone know the proportion of cases CRT have lost, if any. If none, then I don't know why they bother at all, though I suppose they get their costs back from the owner occasionally. I understand they can't use the boat sale to offset them

 

They 'lost' to Nigel Moore and it cost them quite a lot of money - Nigel understood the waterways law 'better;' that C&RTS legal representation.

 

However, - despite the 'bad press' of this case their actions were upheld :

 

 

On 14th September 2016 Canal & River Trust (CRT), together with police, bailiffs and a CRT enforcement officer, seized a boat without a home mooring that was a vulnerable woman’s home while she was asleep inside it. The woman, who suffers from epilepsy, was later rushed to hospital in an ambulance as the stress of the eviction had caused her condition to become critical.

Boat dweller Peter John Wells, who was an eyewitness, filmed the eviction. It is on YouTube here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQGSVSGWOsE and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TYzW97R5XY

 

Mr Wells said: “On the morning of September 14th Corrine Rotherham, CRT Enforcement Officer, and a team of seven private contractors set off in a vessel from Bradford on Avon on the Kennet and Avon Canal. They were on a mission to evict a lone woman living on a boat in Bath due to a licence dispute. They arrived as she was still asleep in bed, boarded the boat and proceeded to attach their boat to hers and tow it away. A number of nearby boaters were alerted to the situation and a blockade was formed preventing the removal. The boaters offered to pay any outstanding money due on the spot. This was not accepted”.

 

“Ms Rotherham decided her plan had gone seriously wrong and called for back-up, in this case four police officers and a police van with an unknown number of officers inside. By this time the woman, who suffers from epilepsy, was so distraught that she was reduced to tears. At one point she was surrounded by CRT, bailiffs and police officers against the railway wall. Despite support from the other boaters she felt she had to escape the situation and she agreed to leave her boat. Her boat was taken to Bradford on Avon, lifted on a lorry and driven away. Two days later she was admitted to hospital as the stress o the eviction had caused her epilepsy to become critical”.

Before being taken to hospital the woman wandered around Bath in a confused and distressed state. According to staff at a drop-in centre for homeless people, she was so ill that she was incoherent and could not explain what had happened. The following day she was found by police and an ambulance was called.

The eviction of this vulnerable boater and its drastic effect on her health raise some very serious questions about CRT’s compliance with the law regarding the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. For example, why was there no welfare officer present? Why were the police called? Why did Enforcement Officer Corrine Rotherham not want to be filmed?

 

Canal & River Trust evict a vulnerable woman

CRT’s Relationship Manager Matthew Symonds claimed on 22nd September that the Waterways Chaplaincy had been supporting the woman, but the Chaplaincy has confirmed that they were not involved at all prior to the eviction. CRT did refer the case to their Welfare Officer Sean Williams, but unlike social housing, CRT has no measures in place to safeguard vulnerable people in cases where health issues mean that the person at risk of eviction does not engage with the authorities. We have been informed that the boater attempted to claim Housing Benefit.

According to Mr Wells, it was apparent from his conversation with them that the bailiffs, police and Ms Rotherham all wanted to avoid any responsibility for the eviction. He said that one bailiff was clearly uncomfortable and another said that it was ridiculous and tried to distance himself from his job.

CRT currently uses bailiffs from a private company called The Sheriffs Office when they believe that a boat dweller will be resident on a boat at an eviction. Kevin George Thomas of The Sheriffs Office appears to be one of the bailiffs in the photo. Kevin Thomas used to work for Sherlock, a trading division of Shergroup Limited, which also included Sherforce bailiffs that CRT used until about 2014.

We have unconfirmed reports that the woman was renting the boat but the “landlord” failed to licence it. Anyone in this situation should make sure that the boat is licensed and should also be aware that they have very few rights.

 

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think you could add the word "currently" between "we" and "first", and finish the sentence with "although we don't have to".

If they start clearing large tranches of boats if they neither cruise nor get a mooring, things may change. They'd probably end up with one court case instead of hundreds which might even be definitive.

It would be interesting if anyone know the proportion of cases CRT have lost, if any. If none, then I don't know why they bother at all, though I suppose they get their costs back from the owner occasionally. I understand they can't use the boat sale to offset them.

Are you sure about that last point? I thought that they could reclaim the cost of the removal but not any other debts. But I could be mistaken.