CRT evictions of disabled boaters

[Guest]

The body that underwent a legal name-change on divorce from government.

 

Exactly - seeing it as simply that is exactly your problem.......

 

You seem to me to spend too much time looking to the past and carping on about historical cases than working positively with the trust on how it could be in the future. Unlike some others who have got off their backsides to work much less confrontationally with the Trust. I don't include myself in that category BTW but I am more appreciative of their efforts than yours where you seem hell bent on fighting with CRT at every god given opportunity)

 

 

ed. to add a bit.

Edited January 13, 2014 by The Dog House

[nicknorman]

I expect them to take appropriate action. I expect them to take such measures as accomplish the desired end [including sending out the message that these measures will be consistently enacted] with minimal cost to us all. I perfectly understand and ‘can relate to’ the sentiment in your last sentence, but it is not a luxury that such an organisation can afford to indulge in. I also expect them to have due regard, not only to the PR consequences but to the Human Rights and similar legislation, whether we care for that legislation or not. In my opinion the British courts have wriggled out from applying the HRA correctly in the waterways instances, but then again all relevant decisions have been made only at the County Court level. The High Court, Appeal Court and Supreme Court decisions have tended to deal with standard Council landlord and tenant situations, and the situation respecting waterways is insufficiently analogous. A defaulting Council tenant prevents the Council as housing authority from providing needed housing to those prepared to pay, whereas a defaulting boat licence payer it does not prevent [in the immediate future anyway] the authority from providing to anyone else any facility it is obligated to by law. The County Courts in the waterways cases have concentrated on whether the decision taken “is in accordance with the law”, and have generally overlooked the question of whether it “is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the protection of disorder or crime, for the prevention of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” [i am aware that a consistent argument has been for the authority’s “[i]economic well-being[/i]”, but given the self-defeating costs in many cases, that rings rather hollow] Regardless, legislation such as the HRA and the Equalities Act etc DO impose "some duty" to exercise existing law as consistently with such legislation as is possible, so the relevant question isn’t whether the authority should play hard-ball or soft, but whether they exercise their powers in the manner most consistent with their statutory obligations having regard to the above. Depriving people of their home where sufficiently stern alternatives exist is therefore contrary to the spirit and letter of the law, besides being merely repugnant to the many with less admiration than yours, for deployment of maximum sanctions. The body that underwent a legal name-change on divorce from government.

It's interesting that many of your previous contributions to this forum (not this thread) have related to the need for CRT to stick to the letter of the law even when their allegedly unlawful actions are seen by many boaters to be for the general good. But now we are seeing a more touchy feely Nigel who is promoting a human approach regardless of the letter of the law. Can I have some of that cake you are holding and eating?

[NigelMoore]

 

Exactly - seeing it as simply that is exactly your problem.......

 

You seem to me to spend too much time looking to the past and carping on about historical cases than working positively with the trust on how it could be in the future. Unlike some others who have got off their backsides to work much less confrontationally with the Trust. I don't include myself in that category BTW but I am more appreciative of their efforts than yours where you seem hell bent on fighting with CRT at every god given opportunity)

 

 

I am carping on here about the present cases under discussion, and demonstrating that, as the same people are still involved, the same mind-set obtains.

 

I consider that posting up details of the available alternatives and possibilities on such as this forum where the trust can read them, is working as positively as my circumstances permit. The organisation is the party that consistently refuses to discuss issues with me, on the stated grounds that the history of antagonism is a practical prevention of fruitful discussion. My disagreement with that stance is entirely unilateral; I cannot force myself onto them. I can only do as I am here, promoting alternative measures and attitudes for the future.

 

The answer you responded to remains, for the time being, entirely accurate. It will remain so until all the top-level hangers-on have left. Then, hopefully, the much needed changes will come about.

It's interesting that many of your previous contributions to this forum (not this thread) have related to the need for CRT to stick to the letter of the law even when their allegedly unlawful actions are seen by many boaters to be for the general good. But now we are seeing a more touchy feely Nigel who is promoting a human approach regardless of the letter of the law. Can I have some of that cake you are holding and eating?

 

I am still very much demanding that CaRT stick to the letter of the law. You are misunderstanding me if that response is sincere.

 

Apropos the “allegedly unlawful actions” – when the highest courts in the land pass judgment on actions as unlawful, it is somewhat foolish to insist that they are only allegedly so.

[Guest]

The answer you responded to remains, for the time being, entirely accurate. It will remain so until all the top-level hangers-on have left. Then, hopefully, the much needed changes will come about.

 

I disagree... others (who's judgement I trust) report they have detected a change. And some key former BW figures have already gone. Besides if you are going to continue labelling them as BW by putting up old BW posters on here (you've done it twice in this thread from memory) how do you think that helps?

 

None of it will happen overnight in a huge disparate nationwide organisation like CRT - you are being unrealistic if you believe it can be.

Edited January 13, 2014 by The Dog House

[Woodstock]

 

Nothing to argue with in above post.

 

Here’s another helpfully persuasive poster that should encourage would-be miscreants to cough up their licence fees and avoid all this unpleasantness –

 

What's your point in showing obsolete posters- or are CRT using out of date media?

[NigelMoore]

None of it will happen overnight in a huge disparate nationwide organisation like CRT - you are being unrealistic if you believe it can be.

 

I am perfectly realistic. I don't believe any such thing. It is the effort of those who can demonstrate to the survivors of the old regime, and to the replacements, that there are thousands of people objecting to the way they continue to administer their authority, that will help to force changes - over, I suspect, some considerable time.

[nicknorman]

 

I am still very much demanding that CaRT stick to the letter of the law. You are misunderstanding me if that response is sincere.

 

Apropos the “allegedly unlawful actions” – when the highest courts in the land pass judgment on actions as unlawful, it is somewhat foolish to insist that they are only allegedly so.

 

OK I misunderstand then, but at the very least you are saying that CRT should not stick to the letter of the law and use it in a clinical solicitor's-minded way to achieve the best result for them, rather that they should be touchy feely and nicey nicey as far as they can possibly stretch that within the letter of the law. It seems a significant change of tone.

 

On the "allegedly" correct me if I am wrong but some of your allegations have been found valid by the courts (and are therefore no longer allegations as you say) whilst others have not been upheld and so remain, at best, allegations. If would therefore be wrong of me to refer to all your allegations as if they were fact.

Edited January 13, 2014 by nicknorman

[Guest]

 

I am perfectly realistic. I don't believe any such thing. It is the effort of those who can demonstrate to the survivors of the old regime, and to the replacements, that there are thousands of people objecting to the way they continue to administer their authority, that will help to force changes - over, I suspect, some considerable time.

 

Thousands?? What is your evidence for that?

 

I suspect there is a much smaller number and the remainder are are either non committal either way or perfectly happy with the way CRT handle these types of issues.

[NigelMoore]

What's your point in showing obsolete posters- or are CRT using out of date media?

 

My point is to illustrate that the present CaRT actions have their root in the old BW philosophy of enforcement. If you saw photographs of the petition examples, they would show the same scene enacted for the same purpose. “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

[jenlyn]

Last year, Sally ash and Jenny dibsdall started a process with councils and the dwp to give boaters the right to benefits. Even to the extent of court cases. They even arranged a meeting with a rep from DWP which myself and others attended.

The result of which benefited anyone wishing to apply.

 

I now notice a post on Narrowboatworld that gives more factual information on this case, read it and make a suggestion as to how the hell you deal with it..............

 

 

 

CANAL & River Trust has a major problem when trying to reason with Maggie. Indeed, everyone has a major problem when trying reason or deal with Maggie as she has a very serious mental illness, explains Peter Humphreys.

 

Maggie refuses to accept state benefit, housing support, health support, welfare care and support and medication.

 

Believes nothing wrong

 

She was a former solicitor and in combination with her serious mental illness, she believes that there is nothing wrong with her and that she is above the law and can take on CaRT (that is part of her mental illness). Her assigned medical support team have great problems in communicating with her as she also knows by law that she has the right to refuse any form of treatment.

 

She is in a very sick state of mind and in desperate need of help as we speak

[Woodstock]

You've lost me Nigel

 

I have no real knowledge of BW, but I am prepared to make my own opinions of CRT, based upon my experience, encounters and knowledge. I shall not be making them based on the rantings of others, especially those who seem unable to accept change and judge by preconception and certainly not on the basis of a some headline grabbing petition telling half a story

 

If people want genuine change through petition then a well constructed, sound argument is more valuable than a few brainwashing headlines

Edited January 13, 2014 by Woodstock

[nicknorman]

 

My point is to illustrate that the present CaRT actions have their root in the old BW philosophy of enforcement. If you saw photographs of the petition examples, they would show the same scene enacted for the same purpose. “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

 

Yes, you are definitel getting touchy feely, using emotion and sentiment (and good literature) to make your points rather than the cold facts typical of the Nigel of old. Anyway, that is not necessarily a bad thing!

[NigelMoore]

 

OK I misunderstand then, but at the very least you are saying that CRT should not stick to the letter of the law and use it in a clinical solicitor's-minded way to achieve the best result for them, rather that they should be touchy feely and nicey nicey as far as they can possibly stretch that within the letter of the law. It seems a significant change of tone.

 

On the "allegedly" correct me if I am wrong but some of your allegations have been found valid by the courts (and are therefore no longer allegations as you say) whilst others have not been upheld and so remain, at best, allegations. If would therefore be wrong of me to refer to all your allegations as if they were fact.

 

 

You continue to misunderstand if you think I’m saying they should not stick to the letter of the law. I am stating that they ought to, and that the accumulation of the relevant laws that must be taken into account, provide that adherence to the letter of the law demands that the sanctions exercised must be consistent with that totality.

 

If the law provides alternative sanctions for an offence, and one of those sanctions involves seizure of home and/or possessions, the present law demands that the alternative options must be those exercised. Prison, as one of the alternatives, is not a “touchy feely” option that most would deem “soft”.

 

The alternatives I have pointed out, most especially the exercise of s.5, are those that are calculated “to achieve the best result for them”, in stark contrast to the results of their current preferences.

 

Re: second paragraph – yes, you are correct, I carelessly read your wording and interpreted it too narrowly.

[nicknorman]

You continue to misunderstand if you think I’m saying they should not stick to the letter of the law.

I think you misread my sentence, although I confess it was not well structured.

 

"you are saying that CRT should not stick to the letter of the law and use it in a clinical solicitor's-minded way to achieve the best result for them" - the AND being an important modifier which means that unless both sides of the ANDs are satisfied, the whole phrase is not satisfied. So my point would better be written (if it were a computer programme) "you are saying that CRT should not: (stick to the letter of the law and use it in a clinical solicitor's-minded way to achieve the best result for them)." Still not well structured but you probably get the idea now!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

I disagree... others (who's judgement I trust) report they have detected a change. And some key former BW figures have already gone. Besides if you are going to continue labelling them as BW by putting up old BW posters on here (you've done it twice in this thread from memory) how do you think that helps?

 

None of it will happen overnight in a huge disparate nationwide organisation like CRT - you are being unrealistic if you believe it can be.

The poster that Nigel posted was part of BW/CaRT's 'license it or lose it' campaign. It was entirely appropriate to post it as that campaign is still in evidence -

 

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/boating/licensing/licence-it-or-lose-it

 

[NigelMoore]

 

Thousands?? What is your evidence for that?

 

I suspect there is a much smaller number and the remainder are are either non committal either way or perfectly happy with the way CRT handle these types of issues.

 

My evidence for the numbers is the petition's website statistics, currently standing at 4,183 signatures. Not an inconsiderable number, qualifying as "thousands", and one that seems to have captured the attention of Mr Parry.

 

Yes, you are definitel getting touchy feely, using emotion and sentiment (and good literature) to make your points rather than the cold facts typical of the Nigel of old. Anyway, that is not necessarily a bad thing!

 

Now there is a nicknorman I recognise, knowing precisely where to slip in the needle!

[jenlyn]

My evidence for the numbers is the petition's website statistics, currently standing at 4,183 signatures. Not an inconsiderable number, qualifying as "thousands", and one that seems to have captured the attention of Mr Parry.

A petition which has of course not given the full facts, as we now know. So people have been misled, yet again, and conned into signing.

(shakes head)

[NigelMoore]

. . . and use it in a clinical solicitor's-minded way to achieve the best result for them"

 

I refer back to my post #189 - "It all depends, as I had hopefully indicated, on the operational end desired. If it is a question of whether any particular boat is legitimately present on the waterway – whether being navigated or simply kept at a mooring – then the logical desired end is to ensure that the boat obtains the “relevant consent” to be on the waterway."

 

And to carlt's #225 - "We saved a fortune by looking at travellers needs, communicating with them and getting their cooperation rather than spending tens of thousands on a heavy handed eviction."

 

The clinical solicitor's mind would dictate application of the letter of the appropriate law, in order to achieve the best result for them. The appropriate law has not been applied, with the worst possible result for them - and that is more because of their emotional approach as you suggest in your post #236 - "they eventually get fed up and decide to become heavy handed."

 

[alan_fincher]

What we have seen over the last couple of years is the number of licensed boats on CaRT's waterways decline whilst the number of unlicensed boats increase. CaRT seem unwilling to admit they have a problem.

 

 

Allan,

 

This is something you continually want to make a headline out of, but I have never really seen you put forward strong evidence for.

 

CRT's own claim seems to be that they have had 2 consecutive years where evasion is less than 4%, and this is as low as it has consistently been in many years.

 

If you are at a low point with the percentage of boats that are unlicensed, and if you accept a small fall in overall boat numbers, I really can't see how you can continue to claim the number of unlicensed boats increases. The rules of arithmetic make that impossible.

 

The reality, surely, is that CRT have got the level of compliance consistently pretty close to their claimed 96% (overall) for a while now, a statistic that is massively better than what it was not that many years ago? Or can you prove otherwise?

 

I still think you are trying to concoct a major story where none exists, although I'm sure you will probably have some explanation about how you feel CRT are cooking the numbers they report.

 

(As an aside, of course, one thing that can produce an increase in the number of unlicensed boats is if CRT decide to refuse a licence to someone that up until now they have been happy to sell one to.)

[NigelMoore]

A petition which has of course not given the full facts, as we now know. So people have been misled, yet again, and conned into signing.

(shakes head)

 

The essential facts are that the authority has chosen to seize people's homes in circumstances where the accumulated costs leading up to the event renders recovery impossible. Even going the s.8 route, a simple recital of the facts before the County Court would suffice, in clear cut cases, to obtain the relevant Orders. As the published list of such cases reveals, the cost can be as little as £150.

 

Following such a modest financial penalty, and any appropriate prison sentence for contempt of court where the boater is recalcitrant, would mean that they could come out at the end [having been looked after] with a chance, still, to comply with what would still be perfectly reasonable payments to continue in their home. That would save the huge expenditures on QC's and enforcement teams, and encourage the boater to be a continuing customer.

 

Most, probably, of the thousands signing the petition, would not comprehend the arguments and rationales behind the cases, even were those expounded upon in full. They are nonetheless not hoodwinked, but responding to the core message of the end result. Then too, many of those who found their way to the petition site will have done so from CaRT's facebook pages, wherein CaRT have presented their own side of the story, so it cannot be presumed that all have signed having read only the one side.

[jenlyn]

 

Most, probably, of the thousands signing the petition, would not comprehend the arguments and rationales behind the cases, even were those expounded upon in full. They are nonetheless not hoodwinked, but responding to the core message of the end result. Then too, many of those who found their way to the petition site will have done so from CaRT's facebook pages, wherein CaRT have presented their own side of the story, so it cannot be presumed that all have signed having read only the one side.

I suspect the majority signing it are not even boat owners. One of the benefits of running a facebook based campaign, is the fact that anyone can sign it, even if they live in Australia. I doubt very much that the majority who signed did any sort of research.

 

(I'm just on my way to tesco's, do you need any toilet roll?)

Edited January 13, 2014 by jenlyn

[Guest]

 

My evidence for the numbers is the petition's website statistics, currently standing at 4,183 signatures. Not an inconsiderable number, qualifying as "thousands", and one that seems to have captured the attention of Mr Parry.

 

 

The numbers that signed that petition where artificially inflated by the wording. Any reasonable person can see that for goodness sake.

[mayalld]

A very peculiar post.

 

I have not attempted a diagnosis of Maggies mental illness but am relating the condition that those that knew her say she suffered from and suggesting that her behaviour may have been due to her illness..

 

... and no I am not arguing that specific medical conditions should exempt people from 'paying their way'. Simply that the disadvantaged are given the help which they are entitled to.

 

Actually Allan, you have absolutely no evidence that "those who know her" say anything of the sort.

 

You have a petition that refers to 3 recent (??) cases, with no details of where in the country the other 2 cases are, and no assurance that those starting the petition actually know "Maggie" personally, nor that any "friends" are people who actually know "Maggie" personally (as opposed to having seen her and feeling sympathy for her), still less that the "friends" are privy to any diagnosis.

 

The facts that are actually known are;

 

• "Maggie" has had no licence for a considerable period of time
• She has been in the formal enforcement process for around 15 months.
• During the enforcement process (and possibly prior to it), she has seen fit to mount a protest at the side of the boat, handing out leaflets and asserting that she doesn't have to pay.
• Following enforcement, she was in a distressed state.

Now, all that COULD indicate a mental illness, but neither you, nor I, nor her "friends" are remotely qualified to make that call. Neither are CRT.

 

It is certainly the case that a number of people who simply think that they should get a free ride have behaved in similar ways.

 

All that CRT can do is say to appropriate authorities "We wish to flag up that there could be a mental health issue here", and leave it to those authorities. If those authorities say they can't intervene, then what can CRT do?

 

Are you suggesting that if there is any question of a mental health issue, CRT have to just leave it alone forever? If the relevant authorities can't or won't intervene, what is your answer.

[Guest]

The poster that Nigel posted was part of BW/CaRT's 'license it or lose it' campaign. It was entirely appropriate to post it as that campaign is still in evidence -

 

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/boating/licensing/licence-it-or-lose-it

 

 

But when you think logically it's nothing more than a statement of fact and I don't see it the 'threatening and intimidatory' way that others seem choose to. It's also a 'softer' message than the BW poster Nigel put up.

 

So what would you like?

 

Something along the lines of

 

'The Canal and River Trust would like it ever so much, only if you wouldn't mind though, just when you feel like it though, no rush like and when you get around to it, getting in touch to licence your boat'

 

 

(Besides Ange posted elsewhere in another thread (or it may be this one) that the wording has gone from licence renewal paper work so maybe CRT are in throws of changing it.)

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

But when you think logically it's nothing more than a statement of fact and I don't see it the 'threatening and intimidatory' way that others seem choose to. It's also a 'softer' message than the BW poster Nigel put up.

 

So what would you like?

 

Something along the lines of

 

'The Canal and River Trust would like it ever so much, only if you wouldn't mind though, just when you feel like it though, no rush like and when you get around to it, getting in touch to licence your boat'

 

 

(Besides Ange posted elsewhere in another thread (or it may be this one) that the wording has gone from licence renewal paper work so maybe CRT are in throws of changing it.)

When I think logically, I cant see why CaRT spends £20,000 gaining the courts permission to evict a mentally ill boater with the resulting bad publicity when it can take out a CCJ for just over £100.

 

When I think of it logically .......

 

 

Actually Allan, you have absolutely no evidence that "those who know her" say anything of the sort.

 

You have a petition that refers to 3 recent (??) cases, with no details of where in the country the other 2 cases are, and no assurance that those starting the petition actually know "Maggie" personally, nor that any "friends" are people who actually know "Maggie" personally (as opposed to having seen her and feeling sympathy for her), still less that the "friends" are privy to any diagnosis.

 

The facts that are actually known are;

 

• "Maggie" has had no licence for a considerable period of time
• She has been in the formal enforcement process for around 15 months.
• During the enforcement process (and possibly prior to it), she has seen fit to mount a protest at the side of the boat, handing out leaflets and asserting that she doesn't have to pay.
• Following enforcement, she was in a distressed state.

Now, all that COULD indicate a mental illness, but neither you, nor I, nor her "friends" are remotely qualified to make that call. Neither are CRT.

 

It is certainly the case that a number of people who simply think that they should get a free ride have behaved in similar ways.

 

All that CRT can do is say to appropriate authorities "We wish to flag up that there could be a mental health issue here", and leave it to those authorities. If those authorities say they can't intervene, then what can CRT do?

 

Are you suggesting that if there is any question of a mental health issue, CRT have to just leave it alone forever? If the relevant authorities can't or won't intervene, what is your answer.

I think you will find that that CaRT have admitted to evicting a boater they know to be mentally ill.

 

 

Edited January 13, 2014 by Allan(nb Albert)