Struggling with C&RT

[Higgs]

I wish I was a canal swot and out there, but I'm not. Not wholly detached from the scene, but not so informed. Alot being picked up through this forum. While I think volunteering is good, it is also understandable that licence payers have a certain amount of expectation. The realities are of insufficient funding, though.

 

From a licence fee payer's perspective, the maintenance is of paramount importance.

 

Also, as has been mentioned, the PR doesn't come across as boating friendly. Campaigns are after the general public, in a way that would follow the aims of the Charity. But, as far as appeals are concerned, my support would be for specific canal maintenance projects.

 

It's going to take some time for the Charity to find its level. In the meantime, maintenance projects are where I would feel that any support I could give would go.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Higgs

[T.A]

Quote - We came through Braunston locks the other day and there was a bunch of people painting the gates. I'm told they were volunteers. They were certainly happy, smiley and very proud of their work.

 

We were enjoying ourselves, we are on target to complete the repaint of three locks this year (the group was only formed in March 2012)+ we are undertaking other projects on our patch.

I have no doubt that Alans quoted figures are correct and I accept in the short term the the volunteers work is often a cost rather than a saving. Given time and continuing progress I believe, as volunteers, we can make a real difference.

Whatever the case, any preventative maintenance we as volunteers do, is helping to preserve the canals.

 

Well done it's people with your attitude that will help the conservation of the canal system in the long term. Those with what I call the council house approach that, I have paid my rent so why should I maintain my property I would rather live in squalor than clean my area up because after all I dont own it and I have paid my rent!

The government do not own the canals they preside over them on our behalf. Some boaters feel that having paid the amount of money needed to use the system then they have more rights than others and CRT are ignoring them at the behest of other user groups but surely CRT have probably recognised that if they are going to attract money from other areas than boaters then they have to court these user groups. I feel they should be given a chance. Comparing the canal system to the roads bears no resemblance.

Edited September 27, 2012 by T.A

[carlt]

Those with what I call the council house approach...

How offensive.

 

I guess you have never lived on a council estate.

 

Like so many places Council Estates are largely populated by people who want to make their living environment as pleasant as possible, within their means, with a minority who want to spoil things.

 

I once got together with a group of like minded folk who offered to renovate a street of boarded up council houses, in exchange for free rent and materials.

 

We would do up the houses, one at a time whilst living in them, then moving along the street enabling the council to let out the houses we had vacated.

 

Once one street was finished we would move to the next one, recruiting more people willing to do the same thing creating a community that was proud of a once run down, boarded up estate.

 

After initial interest the council pulled out because it started to get "too complicated".

 

Nothing to do with the potential residents, the project never got off the ground because some council employees couldn't be bothered with the hassle.

Edited September 27, 2012 by carlt

[David Schweizer]

Well done it's people with your attitude that will help the conservation of the canal system in the long term. Those with what I call the council house approach that, “I have paid my rent so why should I maintain my property I would rather live in squalor than clean my area up because after all I don’t own it and I have paid my rent”!

The government do not own the canals they preside over them on our behalf. Some boaters feel that having paid the amount of money needed to use the system then they have more rights than others and CRT are ignoring them at the behest of other user groups but surely CRT have probably recognised that if they are going to attract money from other areas than boaters then they have to court these user groups. I feel they should be given a chance. Comparing the canal system to the roads bears no resemblance.

I beg your pardon. I lived in a Council House from the age of two until I was twenty five, my parents lived there until they were in their mid nimeties.

 

Contrary to our present Private House, where the neighbours cannot even find the time to cut their lawns let alone keep the gardens tidy, My parent's Council House, along with those of their neighbours was well maintained, with very tidy gardens, they even swept the pavement outside. So please take your reactionary biased atttudes and stuff them up your a... where the sun doesn't shine.

Edited September 27, 2012 by David Schweizer

[Higgs]

Some boaters feel that having paid the amount of money needed to use the system then they have more rights than others and CRT are ignoring them at the behest of other user groups but surely CRT have probably recognised that if they are going to attract money from other areas than boaters then they have to court these user groups. I feel they should be given a chance. Comparing the canal system to the roads bears no resemblance.

 

CRT are being given a chance. They have priorities and most people understand their wider considerations. But, no different to CRT, people also have priorities and can not be all bountiful. What I have to offer will be prioritised. My licence fee is being spent where CRT decides to spend it. The fee is their's to work with. The limited capacity I have to add anything extra will go to maintenance only.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Higgs

[jelunga]

Most of us seem to gain an aweful lot of pleasure from the canals, it seems to me that it is quite natural, if I am in the position to do it, to put something back. Yes CRT are asking for volunteers, they are a charity, but it is not compulsory. Our group of volunteers in Braunston is predominantly retired people which is to be expected and probably 50% boat owners. They are all motivated because of their desire to improve the canals. Yes, it would be nice if someone came along and did all this work, but this is the real world, if we dont make an effort the canals will deteriorate even further. Funnily enough, those doing the volunteering are gaining a lot of pleasure and self satisfaction from their efforts

Whether we like it or not CRT is what we have and it is up to us to learn how to deal with it. It is far from perfect, but we have far more chance of changing things from the inside as authorised volunteers that those who sit on the sidelines watching.

My wife and I are volunteer lock keepers along the non tidal Trent operating the large powered locks. No one is out of a job because we do it. The reason we do it is to give some of our time to the charity since we cannot afford to give much money, to meet other people and, most importantly, to cover days off, illness and holidays of the paid seasinal lock keeps because if tfere are no volunteers to cover, they mtake naintenance staff off the bank to do it. I would rather they stayed doing their maintenance job abd keft us to operate the locks.

We were on duty from 0930 -1730 yesterday at Gunthorpe Lock. Only 1 boat downstream all day so what a waste of money to take a guy off the bank to sit around all day. Whereas with us doing it no problem. .

Edited September 27, 2012 by jelunga

[bowten]

My wife and I are volunteer lock keepers along the non tidal Trent operating the large powered locks. No one is out of a job because we do it. The reason we do it is to give some of our time to the charity since we cannot afford to give much money, to meet other people and, most importantly, to cover days off, illness and holidays of the paid seasinal lock keeps because if tfere are no volunteers to cover, they mtake naintenance staff off the bank to do it. I would rather they stayed doing their maintenance job abd keft us to operate the locks.

We were on duty from 0930 -1730 yesterday at Gunthorpe Lock. Only 1 boat downstream all day so what a waste of money to take a guy off the bank to sit around all day. Whereas with us doing it no problem. .

Well said sir.

[Nightwatch]

For the record, boaters provide BW/CART with a gross income of about £35m a year which is the same as government grant this year.

 

CART will spend around £80m on the waterways this year only about two thirds of the amount needed.

 

£35m per year?

 

That amount seems to me to be such a small amount of 'investment' from the government considering what the waterways brings to local businesses and members of the population whether boaters, walkers or whoever.

 

Brings back the old adage doesn't it? Renumeration of senior peeps in C&RT. I know some have taken, or will take, a reduction in pay but ,hey! how much are they on after these 'pay cuts'?

 

Every little helps!!

 

Martyn

[T.A]

I beg your pardon. I lived in a Council House from the age of two until I was twenty five, my parents lived there until they were in their mid nimeties.

 

Contrary to our present Private House, where the neighbours cannot even find the time to cut their lawns let alone keep the gardens tidy, My parent's Council House, along with those of their neighbours was well maintained, with very tidy gardens, they even swept the pavement outside. So please take your reactionary biased atttudes and stuff them up your a... where the sun doesn't shine.

Yes I also lived in a council house with my parents I now own a house. My experience was that while my parents kept their property immaculate and some of our neighbours, unfortunately that was not the case with all the residents. You must have lived in area where this was obviously not the case! However your emotions have got the better of you because the analogy I was trying to make was that if you don't own something then you do not feel an obligation to keep it tidy even though it effects your quality of life! Ok as you point out this also happens in the private house sector but they choose not to do it because they are lazy and don't event an excuse about ownership as the reason for being lazy. Oh and by the way I lived in that council house till I was 29 so I beat you by 4 years.

[Smelly]

There are a limited range of circumstances where a landlord can evict a legal tenant which includes:- the tenant not paying the rent, the tenancy agreement coming to an end, the tenant causing a nuisance, carrying on a trade or business at the property without consent, or the tenant is in breach of some other obligation contained in the tenancy agreement.

 

If the cottage was rented to the BW worker as part of his employment agereement (ie a tied cottage) CaART cannot evict him even if they sell the property, or he leaves the employmemnt of CaRT. I can only assume that the BW worker either agreed to give up his tenancy, in which case some sort of compensatuion would be due, or his rental of the cottage was subsequent to his employment commencing, not tied to his employment, and the rental agreement was on a fixed term basis.

 

The workers Trades Union would know all of this so, despite it being an unhappy experience for the Worker, I suspect you are not being told the full story.

 

I know this is purely semantic, but unless something has changed in a corner of Housing law and I missed it,tied accommodation is not regulated and is still under licence rather than a regulated tenancy of whatever sort. There was very little security of tenure when last I looked "move or we'll sack you" is a situation I've seen a couple of times.

[ditchcrawler]

I beg your pardon. I lived in a Council House from the age of two until I was twenty five, my parents lived there until they were in their mid nimeties.

 

Contrary to our present Private House, where the neighbours cannot even find the time to cut their lawns let alone keep the gardens tidy, My parent's Council House, along with those of their neighbours was well maintained, with very tidy gardens, they even swept the pavement outside. So please take your reactionary biased atttudes and stuff them up your a... where the sun doesn't shine.

David, I have had the same sort of background as you, zero to 22 and most of the houses the folk were out in the garden at every opportunity. However I am now almost 65 and I expect things would be a lot different today. When I was a kid there was no TV, very few had cars and when you came home from work in the light evenings you had your tea and went out in the garden, likewise at weekends.

[MtB]

There are a limited range of circumstances where a landlord can evict a legal tenant which includes:- the tenant not paying the rent, the tenancy agreement coming to an end, the tenant causing a nuisance, carrying on a trade or business at the property without consent, or the tenant is in breach of some other obligation contained in the tenancy agreement.

 

That isn't really right as I understand property law. A landlord can ONLY evict a tenant when s/he has a court order for posession. And then, only the court bailiff can do it AIUI.

 

The reasons you list are some of the grounds for applying to the court for possession, but no LL can evict simply because one of the reasons you list exists.

 

Mike

[the grinch]

likewise i grew up from 9 to 16 living in yes you guessed a COUNCIL HOUSE the same house that my mum and brother still live in, then from 18 to 21 I had my own council flats (just across from and then up the road from Carlt)

 

as for volunteering for Cart sorry but that is something I won't be doing BW kicked us in the teeth years ago when restoring the K&A and now they want our help again now that funds are tight, well tough you reap what you sow! I stick with my work at the Wey and Arun (privately owned) and when possible the North Walsham & Dilham again in private ownership.

[Harbourmaster]

In the first half of the twentieth century the historic Glamorganshire Canal was plagued by expensive breaches and subsidence.

 

By the 1940s Cardiff Corporation was desperate for a reason to close it. On 5 December 1951, a 154 ton suction dredger, called Catherine Ethel, crashed into the inner lock gates of the canal. The gates collapsed, and all of the water in the mile-long section emptied into the estuary. The gates were never repaired and the difficult job of closing the canal was solved overnight. Their excuse was that the canal gates were beyond economic repair.

 

Today, there are short unnavigable sections of the canal that still contain water, but on the whole it has been covered by roads and housing estates. The canal from Merthyr to Cardiff that was built by Thomas Dadford for Richard Crawshay, and completed in 1794, is now lost to time.

 

This cannot be allowed to happen again just because some idiot government gave all our money to the banks. The CRT really need our support - not our vilification - because they are the last defence against the destruction of our canal heritage.

[the grinch]

The CRT really need our support - not our vilification - because they are the last defence against the destruction of our canal heritage.

 

 

when they get rid of the fat cats taking the cream of the top then maybe more people will feel more charitable. sorry i doubt they will be the last defence as the canals that are privately owned will show!

[John V]

Here's my cunning plan.

 

They should get themselves around Uxbridge and Denham and actually get people to pay for licenses and moorings where they are due.

 

However I would point out, that I don't need a cunning plan.

 

C&RT are not my responsibility.

 

I find it hard enough to afford my licenses and moorings. I'm not criticising their actions, simply trying to understand what is going on.

 

I suppose it's like saying...lets cut funding for the roads and ask for volunteers to dig them up because we don't have as much money as we used to.

 

For me...either charge me for a license, or I'll work on the canal. You ain't getting both. I suppose it also depends how you see the canals, who does it belong to? If it belongs to all of us then we all have a responsibility to contribute to it's upkeep, wether by paying moorings and licenses, if it is owned by the government...then it's surely their responsiblity?

 

 

Road system dies = government effected, can't use their fancy limo = they sort it out

canal system dies = government not effected = don't give a toss = youre aground in a stinking ditch

 

Think it through

[tafelberg]

Road system dies = government effected, can't use their fancy limo = they sort it out

canal system dies = government not effected = don't give a toss = youre aground in a stinking ditch

 

Think it through

 

I completely understand that. But I'm not quite sure what I can do to solve this problem. I'm already paying out nigh on £3000 for moorings/license fees and now you are telling me you want more, but you're not telling me what.

 

Are you saying that I'm actually, in fact, just making a donation towards a sinking ship? What do you want from me? I'm already working nigh on 60 hours a week.

[David Schweizer]

That isn't really right as I understand property law. A landlord can ONLY evict a tenant when s/he has a court order for posession. And then, only the court bailiff can do it AIUI.

 

The reasons you list are some of the grounds for applying to the court for possession, but no LL can evict simply because one of the reasons you list exists.

 

Mike

Yes you are correct, I should have been more specific by stating that Legal Eviction can only be the consequence of a Court Order. What I was tring to do was outline the circumstances under which a Landlord might secure such an order, and that without suxch an order a tenant cannot be "thrown out" in order that the landlord can sell the property.

[John V]

I completely understand that. But I'm not quite sure what I can do to solve this problem. I'm already paying out nigh on £3000 for moorings/license fees and now you are telling me you want more, but you're not telling me what.

 

Are you saying that I'm actually, in fact, just making a donation towards a sinking ship? What do you want from me? I'm already working nigh on 60 hours a week.

 

no, its not sinking yet. but it doesn't help making anti statements and calling out "doomed". If you are doing as much as you can then fine, but stop coming out with remarks that discourage others.

Edited September 28, 2012 by John V

[tafelberg]

no, its not sinking yet. but it doesn't help making anti statements and calling out "doomed". If you are doing as much as you can then fine, but stop coming out with remarks that discourage others.

 

No, I think you should read my original post which started this thread, I'm not discouraging anyone, and frankly, volunteering is fine and admirable (I do some myself). I'm just trying to work out what C&RT means to boaters in terms of expectations. You're accusing me, quite harshly, of saying discouraging things. I'm sorry but I think a forum is a place for asking questions and, in an adult fashion discussing them. That may mean some of the responses may be negative.

 

Show me one place in this where I have called out "doomed", in my post, I am merely asking a question.

[David Schweizer]

I know this is purely semantic, but unless something has changed in a corner of Housing law and I missed it,tied accommodation is not regulated and is still under licence rather than a regulated tenancy of whatever sort. There was very little security of tenure when last I looked "move or we'll sack you" is a situation I've seen a couple of times.

I agree that the Law is complicated, however there are legal protections which are stronger if the tenant is still an employee of the property owner, one of which is the right to be offered alternative accomodation. I am not sure that a statement "move or we'll sack you" would stand up in a tribunal, unless the employee's duties had changed significantly making living in Service Accomodation no longer a requirement. However, even that could be tested to ensure that the duties had not been changed merely as a ploy to make the property vacant.

 

Property Tenancy Law is very complex, and many Solicitors make a very nice living out of it

[T.A]

 

 

C&RT are not my responsibility.

 

For me...either charge me for a license, or I'll work on the canal. You ain't getting both. I suppose it also depends how you see the canals, who does it belong to? If it belongs to all of us then we all have a responsibility to contribute to it's upkeep, wether by paying moorings and licenses, if it is owned by the government...then it's surely their responsiblity?

Those remarks show a negative attitude. The government do not own the system we do so the " I don't own it" excuse is not valid. I am in the same boat as you no pun intended CRT must court finance from other sectors than boaters. Positivity will win the day not negativity!

[sueb]

I believe the occupies of the cart property have been made redundant before the houses have been put up for sale. It is not a good way to treat long term loyal employees, one even had an MBE for his services

[Wanted]

I think that Dan and David are both correct, I am guessing but imagine that the person living in tied dwellings would do so under license and not a tenancy, this is fine unless (and I suspect this will be the case) The landlord has allowed it to become a tenancy by some of their actions. It can and has been argued in court that if a Landlord allows vacant possession then in effect they are offering a tenancy with the protection that goes with it. It is very easy to turn a licence into a tenancy without knowing it.

 

It's not uncommon for hostels to either move people to different rooms in the same building or have a token cleaner pop in every week. Staff will also unlock room doors every day to do checks. This way the possession is shared and the license is in honoured.

[jenlyn]

Those remarks show a negative attitude. The government do not own the system we do so the " I don't own it" excuse is not valid. I am in the same boat as you no pun intended CRT must court finance from other sectors than boaters. Positivity will win the day not negativity!

Am not sure where you get the idea that "we" own the system from. I think you need to read up on the subject a little.

I can see why robin Evans runs CRT the way he does (to stop any pulling in different directions) to some extent I can understand that, but as has been proven in the past, he sometimes makes costly errors. Add up the wages for the top 10, you will be surprised what percentage of the government yearly funding goes toward this. Then ask yourself if that is sustainable with CRT's income.