CRT evictions of disabled boaters

[NigelMoore]

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 note that the petition site requires recording your postcode, so although I suppose canny overseas petitioners could simply adopt one for the purpose, the majority of signers will be verifiable as UK citizens.

 

So what if "the majority signing it are not even boat owners"? As has been constantly belaboured by the leadership throughout the lead up to transition into the charity sector [and necessarily on a constant basis since], the trust urgently needs the support of all sectors of society. CaRT’s own position is that boaters ‘only’ provide a third of the maintenance budget – it is all the rest of the non-boating populace whose good-will they are relying on to make up the shortfall.

 

Some think that the wording of the petition is over emotive and would be more effective for being less so; some think that the ‘Licence it or lose it’ campaign is strictly factual and non-emotive and can't understand why anybody could take offence at either the advertising or the practical exhibition of the policy – the pertinent facts are that the petition IS proving more effective than many expected, and that the perceptions of so many who ARE appalled at CaRT’s actions will have significant impact on an income stream that relies on a positive public perception.

 

Those are the objective facts that CaRT will need to take a pragmatic appraisal of, regardless of whether it’s to their taste or not.

[Graham Davis]

But what are CaRT supposed to do?

As has already been stated this person was totally refusing to accept help from any body, be they health, social services or even legal professionals. The process that CaRT has been through took at least 15 months to do, and even before that time they would have been writing to her.

Mentally ill or not she buried her head in the sand.

 

We've just gone through a similar thing with a friend of ours. She stopped paying her mortgage, refused to look at any letters the Building Society sent to her, refused to accept that they would take her to Court, refused to go to Court when the Hearing was undertaken, refused to talk to a Debt Councillor at any stage, and the first we knew was when my wife and friend went to feed her cats whilst she was away and were disturbed by the Baliff who'd come to change the locks. This case had been going on for over 18 months, but our friend had not ever mentioned it to us, her Doctor, or her Social Worker. Now she is a 62 year old woman living in a Refuge with no furniture and very little chance of being rehomed because of the "Bedroom Tax"

[Guest]

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 .......

 

 

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

 

You just keep go around in circles because you can't think of a viable course of action that CRT could have taken.

 

It may unpalatable to think that CRT may have to take up enforcement action against somebody with a mental illness but the sad fact they may have to.

 

Shouting from the sidelines that they are being bullies is utterly futile and pointless and easy option when you don't have to actually do anything yourself about it yourself.

[NigelMoore]

But what are CaRT supposed to do?

 

 

First, exercise s.5 and obtain a CCJ and enforcement order.

 

Second, if the boater is unresponsive, serve a s.8 and explain the options of: - paying; having the boat removed, or going to prison.

 

As to the second of those options, the boat doesn't need to be seized, just removed from CaRT's waterways. It might in some circumstances be more economical and practical to simply tow the boat out of CaRT's jurisdiction and/or to a section where no licence is required [providing that it can safely be left there, which will not always be the case on tidal waters].

 

In instances where recalcitrance is due to disabilities, it might also be possible to find an understanding boatyard with hardstanding for the boat, which would be prepared to liase with relevant authorities to claim the cost. There are always options, and an authority sensitive to the perceptions of those on whom they rely for financial support will seek them out.

[mayalld]

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.

 

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

 

Yes they could have obtained a CCJ but to what end?

 

Are you suggesting that the CCJ would have resulted in Maggie becoming compliant?

 

And CRT do not KNOW about her mental condition. They may offer a guess as a layman that all is not right, but they are not in a position to actually know.

 

Damned if they do damned if they don't. If they seek help for those they think May need it they are evicting people with mental illness and are bad. If they don't seek help for people who may just be taking the piss they are bad.

[Graham Davis]

 

First, exercise s.5 and obtain a CCJ and enforcement order.

 

Second, if the boater is unresponsive, serve a s.8 and explain the options of: - paying; having the boat removed, or going to prison.

 

As to the second of those options, the boat doesn't need to be seized, just removed from CaRT's waterways. It might in some circumstances be more economical and practical to simply tow the boat out of CaRT's jurisdiction and/or to a section where no licence is required [providing that it can safely be left there, which will not always be the case on tidal waters].

 

In instances where recalcitrance is due to disabilities, it might also be possible to find an understanding boatyard with hardstanding for the boat, which would be prepared to liase with relevant authorities to claim the cost. There are always options, and an authority sensitive to the perceptions of those on whom they rely for financial support will seek them out.

1/ What good does that do? We already know in the "Maggie" case that she was making no response or recognition that there was a problem, and would accept no help. Going down this line prolongs the situation and potentially makes it worse.

 

2/ But she was unresponsive to ANYTHING, as has been said many times.

Where are they going to tow the boat too?

If you take it to a boatyard don't you think that they are going to want payment for storage, etc? Who is going to pay that? "Maggie" wouldn't pay her licence fee, so is she going to pay a boatyard?

 

And to repeat the point, "Maggie" would not accept the position she was in, would not accept any help, so what is an Authority supposed to do? Only if the person approaches any Statute Authority can they do something. They cannot start the process.

[Guest]

1/ What good does that do? We already know in the "Maggie" case that she was making no response or recognition that there was a problem, and would accept no help. Going down this line prolongs the situation and potentially makes it worse.

 

2/ But she was unresponsive to ANYTHING, as has been said many times.

Where are they going to tow the boat too?

If you take it to a boatyard don't you think that they are going to want payment for storage, etc? Who is going to pay that? "Maggie" wouldn't pay her licence fee, so is she going to pay a boatyard?

 

And to repeat the point, "Maggie" would not accept the position she was in, would not accept any help, so what is an Authority supposed to do? Only if the person approaches any Statute Authority can they do something. They cannot start the process.

Or when it emerges on here that some small business as in a boatyard was genuinely unable to help in storing a boat they end up being vilified as being uncaring bar stewards for not being 'willing' to help.

[GUMPY]

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)

there's a whole bunch from YBW who signed and now that they have been presented with the other side wish they hadn't.

[NigelMoore]

What good does that do?

 

As suspected, no amount of ‘read easy’ formatting can overcome failure to intelligently read and think.

 

I was deliberately not limiting my comments to any specific case.

 

What good would the suggested procedure do in the particular case under the spotlight? Well, the situation would doubtless have arrived at the point where the choice would have been to have the lady imprisoned, or remove her boat. That is remove the boat, not seize it, her identity and location being known.

 

The associated costs would not have accumulated above a couple of hundred pounds. Good for both the offender and the authority.

 

Remove the boat to where? Wherever is suitable. If nowhere suitable, it would have been kinder to have had her imprisoned for contempt of court, where the relevant authorities are equipped to deal with her problems, during which she would have had appropriate care and such preparation as could be imparted as to aftercare [notwithstanding any refusal to seek it out], and following which she would still be in possession of her home and belongings. It would have been a far better outcome than to leave her to fend for herself alone and outside in mid-winter.

 

I note that in one recent similar case the judge acknowledged the inhumanity of turfing someone out in mid-winter, and adjourned the case for some months precisely for that reason. Pity is that the authority failed to learn from the wisdom of the court in that instance.

 

Taking the boat out of CaRT’s jurisdiction is all that is required to remove the situation from under their incompetence to deal with it. Perhaps an alternative waterways jurisdiction would possess more capability and/or relevant statutory powers.

 

An example of the still prevailing mind-set came out respecting one of the boats involved in my own case. Following emails from BW the owner of the boat no longer wished to leave it under my control [he lived out in Australia], so I said that I would move his boat to the visitor moorings alongside BW’s offices, whereupon he could liaise with them regarding licensing etc.

 

In court I quoted two emails to the SE enforcement manager in cross-examination; first was one from the owner on the other side of the world, asking what he needed to do and what he needed to pay to legitimise his boat. That being forwarded to the London enforcement branch by the local moorings manager, the emailed response 20 mins later was: “If I had the resources now, I would s.8 and snatch it.”

 

Mr Bennett properly acknowledged that this was not the attitude he wished his team to have; he struck me as the one open and honest witness BW produced. Given that experience I regret his departure, however critical others have been of his administration style.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

As suspected, no amount of ‘read easy’ formatting can overcome failure to intelligently read and think.

 

I was deliberately not limiting my comments to any specific case.

 

What good would the suggested procedure do in the particular case under the spotlight? Well, the situation would doubtless have arrived at the point where the choice would have been to have the lady imprisoned, or remove her boat. That is remove the boat, not seize it, her identity and location being known.

 

The associated costs would not have accumulated above a couple of hundred pounds. Good for both the offender and the authority.

 

Remove the boat to where? Wherever is suitable. If nowhere suitable, it would have been kinder to have had her imprisoned for contempt of court, where the relevant authorities are equipped to deal with her problems, during which she would have had appropriate care and such preparation as could be imparted as to aftercare [notwithstanding any refusal to seek it out], and following which she would still be in possession of her home and belongings. It would have been a far better outcome than to leave her to fend for herself alone and outside in mid-winter.

 

I note that in one recent similar case the judge acknowledged the inhumanity of turfing someone out in mid-winter, and adjourned the case for some months precisely for that reason. Pity is that the authority failed to learn from the wisdom of the court in that instance.

 

Taking the boat out of CaRT’s jurisdiction is all that is required to remove the situation from under their incompetence to deal with it. Perhaps an alternative waterways jurisdiction would possess more capability and/or relevant statutory powers.

 

An example of the still prevailing mind-set came out respecting one of the boats involved in my own case. Following emails from BW the owner of the boat no longer wished to leave it under my control [he lived out in Australia], so I said that I would move his boat to the visitor moorings alongside BW’s offices, whereupon he could liaise with them regarding licensing etc.

 

In court I quoted two emails to the SE enforcement manager in cross-examination; first was one from the owner on the other side of the world, asking what he needed to do and what he needed to pay to legitimise his boat. That being forwarded to the London enforcement branch by the local moorings manager, the emailed response 20 mins later was: “If I had the resources now, I would s.8 and snatch it.”

 

Mr Bennett properly acknowledged that this was not the attitude he wished his team to have; he struck me as the one open and honest witness BW produced. Given that experience I regret his departure, however critical others have been of his administration style.

With regard to where to move "Maggies" boat, a marina owner actually offered to provide her with a berth free of charge.

 

Sadly, I had to explain to him that CaRT's actions had made this next to impossible.

 

[Graham Davis]

As suspected, no amount of ‘read easy’ formatting can overcome failure to intelligently read and think.

 

Thank you for being so rude!

 

Well, the situation would doubtless have arrived at the point where the choice would have been to have the lady imprisoned,

 

So now you want to make the person a liability on the State? Do you honestly think that would have done her any good?

 

Taking the boat out of CaRT’s jurisdiction is all that is required to remove the situation from under their incompetence to deal with it. Perhaps an alternative waterways jurisdiction would possess more capability and/or relevant statutory powers.

 

So you are going to transfer the non-payment problem onto someone else? Who is that going to be? No business is going to take on a situation that they know they aren't going to get paid for.

 

Your responses to this thread are becoming more and more disjointed, and more to support your personal annamosity against CaRT.

[RichardN]

Yes they could have obtained a CCJ but to what end?

 

Quite. I can't see any point in getting a CCJ in these circumstances, by itself it has no teeth.

[John Williamson 1955]

 

Quite. I can't see any point in getting a CCJ in these circumstances, by itself it has no teeth.

The point is that if a CCJ is ignored, then a crime has been committed (Contempt of Court) and all sorts of official bodies then get involved, with the possibility, among other things, of reports (particularly relevant in Maggie's case)on the mental state of the person being sued.

[jenlyn]

The point is that if a CCJ is ignored, then a crime has been committed (Contempt of Court) and all sorts of official bodies then get involved, with the possibility, among other things, of reports (particularly relevant in Maggie's case)on the mental state of the person being sued.

Really?

[MtB]

Really?

 

No.

 

MtB

[NigelMoore]

So now you want to make the person a liability on the State?

 

Any assistance would be a liability on the state, whether voluntarily sought or imposed. It appears in this instance that an imposed liability would have been the only avenue through which care could have been provided.

 

I personally would not have chosen to go that route, the lady has a right to her own choices respecting help from others. My own preferred choice of action would be to simply remove the boat from the jurisdiction, if s.8 was justified. Allan says there was an offer to provide such a berth free of charge - I don't understand how any past actions of CaRT would have precluded taking that up, they should have jumped at the opportunity. It makes the choices they made following any such offer all the more deplorable.

[mayalld]

 

Any assistance would be a liability on the state, whether voluntarily sought or imposed. It appears in this instance that an imposed liability would have been the only avenue through which care could have been provided.

 

I personally would not have chosen to go that route, the lady has a right to her own choices respecting help from others. My own preferred choice of action would be to simply remove the boat from the jurisdiction, if s.8 was justified. Allan says there was an offer to provide such a berth free of charge

 

 

Alan has NOT said that there was an offer to provide "such a berth" free of charge.

 

So far as I am aware, there are no nearby marinas where a licence would not be required.

 

Your suggestion that CRT simply remove a boat from its jurisdiction to other people's waters doesn't stand up to scrutiny. What other waters could they move people to? Do the people whose waters they wish to move these people to have any say in the matter?

[Dottyshirl]

so much bickering of who acted rightly or wrongly, the bottom line is Maggie did not help herself and she declined any assistance, advice and help and was steadfast in her nonconformity and her rebellious behavior. She had a right to refuse assistance and she used it and received the consequences.

 

had CRT not acted and allowed her to stay on the cut without paying her dues ... well we all know what the forum responses would be to that.

 

it is a sad case in lots of ways, yet Maggie made her decision to carry on with her fight. you cannot help somebody who does not want to be helped or is incapable of being helped

 

just my thoughts

[haggis]

I wonder if the lady herself would have accepted the offer of a free mooring in a marina and if so, would she still not have had to have a licence etc.? Back to square one in that if the lady won't accept help there is not a lot that can be done apart form what appeared to happen. As I read it, help in the form of Police and Social Services were there when she was evicted and it was her choice to ignore them and go walkabout. Sad, but at the end of the day, it was her choice which had to be respected.

 

haggis

[MtB]

 

Your suggestion that CRT simply remove a boat from its jurisdiction to other people's waters doesn't stand up to scrutiny. What other waters could they move people to? Do the people whose waters they wish to move these people to have any say in the matter?

 

Yes I was wondering this too. I don't suppose moving a boat off CRT waters onto say, EA waters helps a great deal, other than changing the name of the quango with the problem.

 

MtB

[Dottyshirl]

i do not see any boatyard or marina taking on somebody who is so non compliant, what scene would she have caused at her mooring/yard/marina, i say that is inevitable as she is classed mentally unbalanced

[MtB]

P.S. Forgot to say, I don't suppose the EA has a policy of shifting unlicenced boats off onto CRT waters either.

[GillianOlcay]

there's a whole bunch from YBW who signed and now that they have been presented with the other side wish they hadn't.

 

I've just read through the 15 pages on the same topic in YBW. Although there were some, as on here, who were firmly against the petition from the start, I counted only 2 people who expressed any regret at signing - #50 & #136. I may have missed some of course.

[GUMPY]

There are two threads one in the lounge which you won't see unless you are a member.

Personally I didn't sign and think that its yet another badly worded emotive petition which should be consigned to the bin along with its proposers.

[stickleback]

Personally I didn't sign and think that its yet another badly worded emotive petition which should be consigned to the bin along with its proposers.

Absolutely. Emotive, inaccurate, one-sided - what in fact WERE the objectives behind it?