IWA Calls For Action On 'Continuous Moorers'

[Higgs]

Planners? They've absolutely wrecked my home town centre. Another story, though.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Higgs

[Higgs]

Jeanie920. The site at Milton Keynes now has residential moorings. When the development is finished, the residential moorings will be discontinued. What explainations, if any, have been offered; over and above planning permission not given?

 

The landowner, presumably, isn't doing this for his/her health. The expansion of space will accommodate more boats. Do the existing moorings already attract council tax? Just to try and clarify wether the council had already acknowledged residential status. Now planning to set residential moorers adrift. If this is the case, it would seem to run absolutely contrary to the Grant Shapps' statement.

 

No extra residential moorings, could be argued, might be due to facilities unable to accommodate - but non. ?? Given that the new development will probably mean higher capacity, necessary access, hook-ups etc; it's hard to see the justification for the displacement of residential users in planning permission terms.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Higgs

[sueb]

If people behave like water gypsies by squatting on the towpath it gives the planners the impression that they are gypsies

[Tam & Di]

Check post 321

 

Post 32 says nothing about CRT reducing residential moorings - only that they reduce the number on-line by 1/10 of any new marina ones in the locality.

 

What I cannot understand is that if Jeanie920 has an official residential berth, paying Council Tax etc, why the Local Authority would not permit the new marina to retain at least that number. It would probably be down to the marina owner to argue the case though.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Tam & Di

[Alan de Enfield]

He is building a basin Marina so he will be cutting into the field that he owns. He is also proposing to have some online moorings cut away into the canal but the whole thing is to be non residential as per planning requirements.Problem is that people in Town Halls think of us as gypsies I think, and dont want us living onboats in their area.

He has outline planning permission. Our mooring is exactly where he will cut into the field so we would be the first to go. Trouble is there is nowhere to go except onto the towpath. There may be spare capacity in other areas but down here there is a definate shortage.

My point was, how can C&RT enforce the rules and move people on when there are no Marinas or moorings for them to go to?

 

Thanks for the explanation - what would have been my follow on questions have already been asked by Higgs and Tam & Di

[Higgs]

If people behave like water gypsies by squatting on the towpath it gives the planners the impression that they are gypsies

 

May be planners think too highly of themselves. I think the impression that some planners give is, that they have zero understanding of aesthetics.

[mayalld]

Don't know the circumstances. Homelessness is still more than CRT should be allowed to charge for a debt.

 

OK, so what IS the answer.

 

What should CRT do if somebody either can't or won't pay their way?

[deletedaccount]

If people behave like water gypsies by squatting on the towpath it gives the planners the impression that they are gypsies

 

wow.

 

a new low!

 

It's extra clever as it takes one set of your own prejudices and applies them to another group your're attempting to negatively stereotype. Well done!

[Helga]

wow.

 

a new low!

 

It's extra clever as it takes one set of your own prejudices and applies them to another group your're attempting to negatively stereotype. Well done!

 

Oh... and yours appears to be an argumentum ad hominem

[GSer]

Oh... and yours appears to be an argumentum ad hominem

 

 

So you think that it's a truth that there are significant amounts of boaters that live their lives like landbased Gypsies???

 

I think some people need to get out more on their boats stop judging everybody on heresay, rumour and general tittle tattle on t'internet.

[deletedaccount]

Oh... and yours appears to be an argumentum ad hominem

 

Not at all, there's a perfectly coherent point there. She's prejudiced against gypsies and is attempting to apply the prejudice to another group.

 

It's just underneath the bit that points out she's got form for these kinds of things.

Edited September 10, 2012 by deletedaccount

[Higgs]

OK, so what IS the answer.

 

What should CRT do if somebody either can't or won't pay their way?

 

 

I know CRT would like everyone to see CRT as happy families. A club for the pleasure seeking.

 

We're not talking here about scrapping a car, it's a home. If we're talking about people who are facing seriously challenging financial hardship, surely it must also be brought to the attention of the council and social services. What would any family, facing hardship, be entitled to.

 

You just can't go making people homeless. While people living on the canal are treated differently to members living in houses I will continue to be relunctant to accept the widespread introduction of Council tax. CRT are not part of a welfare state. But, people have to live somewhere. If it isn't going to be provided, in the form of social housing, needs must provide a home somehow. It is a bad reflection on our society if a cardboard box or an under the bridge home is more acceptable than trying to keep someone in a home.

 

CRT want their money. Let them do their part in controlling. Their dereliction isn't helping matters.

 

For those who can pay and won't. I wouldn't crush their boats. I would treat them differently. With whatever the legal route provides, jail or fines.

 

Not a perfect answer. Full of faults, but I can't condone making someone homeless.

[GUMPY]

I cant see what the fuss is about?

You dont pay your Mortgage you get evicted and lose your home

You dont pay your rent you get evicted and lose your home

You dont pay your licence/moorings you get evicted and lose your home

 

So why should a boat be special?

 

It takes CRT a lot longer than either of the other two before they get to evict the person.

And they have to get the council/social services involved as well

[Higgs]

I cant see what the fuss is about?

You dont pay your Mortgage you get evicted and lose your home

You dont pay your rent you get evicted and lose your home

You dont pay your licence/moorings you get evicted and lose your home

 

So why should a boat be special?

 

It takes CRT a lot longer than either of the other two before they get to evict the person.

And they have to get the council/social services involved as well

 

 

You don't pay, is not can't pay.

 

The can't pay rent, can apply for HB and council tax relief (houses). The can't pay mooring (residential types), can apply for HB and Licence fee and council tax relief.

[Grace and Favour]

You don't pay, is not can't pay.

 

The can't pay rent, can apply for HB and council tax relief (houses). The can't pay mooring (residential types), can apply for HB and Licence fee and council tax relief.

 

 

So - - - if the can't pay are supported with HB and Licence fee and council tax relief, the one's that aren't paying are the 'don't pay' individuals?

 

 

and should be subject to the law

[KevMc]

So - - - if the can't pay are supported with HB and Licence fee and council tax relief, the one's that aren't paying are the 'don't pay' individuals?

 

 

and should be subject to the law

That kinda assumes that benefit is granted - I'm sure that there are a few peeps on the system that fall through the gaps

[Rebotco]

People who can't/wont pay their mortgages are eventually evicted.

People who can't/wont pay their rent are eventually evicted.

Why should people who choose to live on canals be treated any differently?

[sueb]

wow.

 

a new low!

 

It's extra clever as it takes one set of your own prejudices and applies them to another group your're attempting to negatively stereotype. Well done!

I was responding to jeanie's post. I have no prejudices about gypsies, have you? What would you call people who have no intention of complying with their licence conditions?

[mayalld]

I know CRT would like everyone to see CRT as happy families. A club for the pleasure seeking.

 

We're not talking here about scrapping a car, it's a home. If we're talking about people who are facing seriously challenging financial hardship, surely it must also be brought to the attention of the council and social services. What would any family, facing hardship, be entitled to.

 

You just can't go making people homeless. While people living on the canal are treated differently to members living in houses I will continue to be relunctant to accept the widespread introduction of Council tax. CRT are not part of a welfare state. But, people have to live somewhere. If it isn't going to be provided, in the form of social housing, needs must provide a home somehow. It is a bad reflection on our society if a cardboard box or an under the bridge home is more acceptable than trying to keep someone in a home.

 

CRT want their money. Let them do their part in controlling. Their dereliction isn't helping matters.

 

For those who can pay and won't. I wouldn't crush their boats. I would treat them differently. With whatever the legal route provides, jail or fines.

 

Not a perfect answer. Full of faults, but I can't condone making someone homeless.

 

Not only is it not a perfect answer, it isn't an answer at all. It simply repeats that you don't think that CRT should remove them from the canal.

 

If I live in a house that is (after taking into account any assistance that I am entitled to) beyond my means, I cannot remain in that house. I must either move into a property that is within my means, or I must become homeless and accept whatever housing I am entitled to as a result of my becoming homeless.

 

You seem to be saying that if somebody lives on a boat they should have some kind of special status that means that their desire to live on a boat trumps the imperative to live somewhere that is within their means, and that they should be exempt from the inevitable consequence of living in a place that is beyond your means.

 

Why should this be?

 

If I lived in a detatched house (which I don't!), and I found myself skint, could I say to the Landlord "Well, I know I haven't paid the rent, but I haven't got any money, and if you throw me out, I would become homeless, and have to live somewhere that isn't a detatched house"

 

Living on a boat or living in a detatched house are choices that the individuals make, and they are choices that they can make subject to being able to afford them. If you can't afford them, then both the boater and the detatched house dweller have to accept that nobody else will pay for their choices.

 

There is, of course, another way. Given that there are people who believe that boaters are special and that they should be protected, why don't they establish a charity that will seek donations and pay for the licences and moorings for those who don't have the means?

[Higgs]

So - - - if the can't pay are supported with HB and Licence fee and council tax relief, the one's that aren't paying are the 'don't pay' individuals?

 

 

and should be subject to the law

 

I would go along with what KevMc says. But, the 'Won't pay, Don't pay, but could pay' aren't the can't pays.

 

Case by case, some are just P takers.

 

There are always variables. Even banks will freeze debts, if it is more practical to take regular small payments rather than keep adding bank chargers upon bank chargers, until the debtor finally declares bankruptcy and the bank looses the chance to recoup.

 

I think we are more likely to be tolerant of people who try to pay, but can't. How does hounding help.

 

This whole thread has been devoted to finding solutions. I think some of the issues go well beyond CM'ing. Housing is no small part. It may not be how alot think of the system, but it is there. It isn't going to go away. Residential needs have to be addressed. It probably needs both CRT and Councils to work together.

 

There are always people that take whatever they can and abuse the system. I think I've made my opinions fairly clear. If abuse is not involved, some tolerance should be part of the consideration. Not a hammer for every problem.

[Smelly]

OK, so what IS the answer.

 

What should CRT do if somebody either can't or won't pay their way?

 

In my experience CRT/BW enforcement will try to look after those who can't. I've been genuinely impressed by their attempts not to need to section boats where the residents have fallen on hard times.

 

 

 

I cant see what the fuss is about?

 

It takes CRT a lot longer than either of the other two before they get to evict the person.

 

 

No it doesn't... I've seen possession proceedings drag out for years. In secure tenancies/mortgage proceedings the last thing a court wants to do is make someone homeless. At the same time in assured tenancies the Judiciary lament the fact that they have to.

 

For all CRT's insistence they're not a housing provider they're encumbered by those responsibilities these days and the evidence is everywhere in the fact that it takes them ages to get approval to section a residential boat.

[deletedaccount]

I was responding to jeanie's post. I have no prejudices about gypsies, have you? What would you call people who have no intention of complying with their licence conditions?

 

For a start I wouldn't call them gypsies.

 

When you say something like "If you behave like (group a) by doing (perceived negative behaviour)" you are assigning a whole set of behaviours to people that they may not exhibit. 'Squatting' in your case. You've assumed that the first group all do it (which is totally untrue) and that the second are as bad as the first. It's like being doubly prejudiced. How hard is that to understand?

 

Apologies if it's out of context, perhaps you're simply pointing out that how planners think, which sadly is often the case.

Edited September 10, 2012 by deletedaccount

[Higgs]

Not only is it not a perfect answer, it isn't an answer at all. It simply repeats that you don't think that CRT should remove them from the canal.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, I haven't got all day to pick through the responses.

 

You seem to think a boat is always the prefered dwelling. It might just have become a last choice. The boat may just be that alternative to other choices, to that unaffordable semi. Peoples' means also change. Not always for the better.

[mayalld]

I'm sorry, I haven't got all day to pick through the responses.

 

You seem to think a boat is always the prefered dwelling. It might just have become a last choice. The boat may just be that alternative to other choices, to that unaffordable semi. Peoples' means also change. Not always for the better.

 

I quite accept that the boat might not be the FIRST choice, and indeed that so far as the individual is concerned it might be the LAST choice in terms of where they WANT to live.

 

Equally, so far as detatched-house-man is concerned, living in a terraced house may well be their last choice.

 

Both need to accept that if their last choice is beyond what the state will provide for them, then no matter how far below their absolute last choice that provision is, it is what they can have.

 

Why should living on a boat be different from living on the bank in this respect.

[Higgs]

People who can't/wont pay their mortgages are eventually evicted.

People who can't/wont pay their rent are eventually evicted.

Why should people who choose to live on canals be treated any differently?

 

 

Don't fall on hard times.

 

The canal is subject to a leisure mentality. Residential moorings need to be planned into the future. Ain't got all the answers.

 

 

Can't pay, won't pay - different.

 

I quite accept that the boat might not be the FIRST choice, and indeed that so far as the individual is concerned it might be the LAST choice in terms of where they WANT to live.

 

Equally, so far as detatched-house-man is concerned, living in a terraced house may well be their last choice.

 

Both need to accept that if their last choice is beyond what the state will provide for them, then no matter how far below their absolute last choice that provision is, it is what they can have.

 

Why should living on a boat be different from living on the bank in this respect.

 

How far down the last choice list can we go? Sleeping under a hedge. When you've reached rock bottom, maybe the Samaritans or the Salvation Army. Some people will, unfortunately, have no answers to get them out of it.