CRT evictions of disabled boaters

[MtB]

B

That's not the one allan, as you well know.

 

I expect the Wayback Machine captured the original version, if you're inclined to do the searching....

 

http://archive.org/web/

 

 

MtB

[John Williamson 1955]

 

Their reporting of this topic has been the most blatently biased claptrap I've seen on there in ages - it's almost as if the site has been hijacked by 38degrees

Or is being hosted and published by someone with an agenda. It seems to me that a lot of the stuff on the site seems to be CRT bashing in various forms.

[jenlyn]

B

 

 

I expect the Wayback Machine captured the original version, if you're inclined to do the searching....

 

http://archive.org/web/

 

 

MtB

tried it mike....

[RichardN]

Seemingly, the original write up on narrowboatworld regarding this case has been deleted. Along with all the links to it.

 

Perhaps you can do a FOI request to Allan.

[jenlyn]

Perhaps you can do a FOI request to Allan.

(sniggers) :-)

[MtB]

tried it mike....

 

How about pasting the page URL straight into Google. Google sometimes returns archived versions of pages in the results.

 

MtB

[PaulG]

 

How about pasting the page URL straight into Google. Google sometimes returns archived versions of pages in the results.

 

MtB

 

Alternatively, try the "Wayback Machine":-

http://archive.org/web/

[MtB]

 

Alternatively, try the "Wayback Machine":-

http://archive.org/web/

 

A particularly good example of someone commenting without reading the thread.

 

Check my post No 176!

 

 

MtB

[RLWP]

 

A particularly good example of someone commenting without reading the thread.

 

Check my post No 176!

 

 

MtB

 

Is post 176 archived somewhere?

 

Richard

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Is post 176 archived somewhere?

 

Richard

 

try the "Wayback Machine":-

http://archive.org/web/

[LoneWolf]

 

try the "Wayback Machine":-

http://archive.org/web/

 

A particularly good example of someone commenting without reading the thread.

 

try post 176

[John Williamson 1955]

 

try the "Wayback Machine":-

http://archive.org/web/

The Wayback Machine only takes a snapshot of a site every few months and can be blocked by the site operator. If you're very lucky, that snapshot may include the post you want on a news forum.

[PaulG]

 

A particularly good example of someone commenting without reading the thread.

 

Check my post No 176!

 

 

MtB

Terribly sorry old chap. I'm throwing myself on my sword right now.

[NigelMoore]

 

Can you list the other tools please?

 

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.

 

In cases where the owner/keeper of the boat has had no licence to be on the waterway in the first place and/or cannot be contacted, then s.8 is applicable and can be administered in very short order without any court intervention at all.

 

In cases where the owner/keeper of the boat is simply not paying up for renewal of the relevant boat licence for whatever reason, then the first ‘tool’ of choice ought to be Section 5 of the 1983 Act, allowing court ordered recovery of charges [including charges for registration of pleasure boats and houseboats].

 

I note that the Bristol judge in the George Ward case agreed with the authority that such recourse was inadequate. He is wrong – that is the option allowed for by the relevant Act, and whether anyone considers the option inadequate or not, is irrelevant to the expressed will of Parliament. It does, besides, provide for the option of enforcement through the medium of contempt of court proceedings, which provide that the defaulter can be jailed for non-compliance. That is as extreme as could be desired, and with particular reference to the burden of the petition the topic of this debate, instead of rendering the culprit homeless, it in fact provides for accommodation at Her Majesty’s pleasure.

 

The commercial aspect is highlighted by the more than £20,000 cost of the exercise in ‘Maggie’s case [the cost of which will possibly have been doubled by the expense of the enforcement itself]. Does then, the choice of s.8 proceedings make commercial sense? – very obviously not. It simply provides an expensive admonitionary spectacle at disproportionate cost to the boating and tax-paying and charitably volunteering public. A small claims case would not require the employment of QCs to make the case – which could be handled perfectly competently by CaRT’s in-house barrister or even lesser legal staff, at minimal cost.

 

The courts will usually take circumstances into account [as is sensible], and can order a specified schedule of payments according to the boat-owner’s means. [Examples are seen in the CaRT list already linked to here: 68386 Naiad, ordered to pay £35/week re: the £250 owed, and 69218 Mira, where the judge gave 20 weeks @ £75 to pay the owed sum of £780.]

 

In cases where genuine financial difficulties are present, then the sensible avenue to pursue is communication and helpfulness in helping the person to obtain such assistance as is available. I would agree with MtB’s post #88, that this is not something the authority is required to do, nor is it anything they are obliged to do, but it is certainly [in my opinion] an optional route that would obtain the desired result at far less cost and with far greater kudos than utilising rigid enforcement options – the end result of which is greater immediate financial loss to the authority and the preclusion of all future revenue from that boat’s presence [not to mention the adverse PR consequences].

 

The cloudiest issues involve situations where the authority is itself creating a problem because it is seeking to withhold the “relevant consent” for reasons at odds with operational efficiency; typically, in recent years, where it has rejected licensing on the grounds that the terms of the “relevant consent” have not been complied with. It was Johnson's stated intent to bring successive cases as a means of refining their desired interpretation of s.17(3)( c )(ii); that is wholly inappropriate use of the statute [aside from being ineffective].

 

As I’ve said, even the pre-Johnson BW of old recognised that s.8 was entirely inappropriate as a means of dealing with those situations. The dubious legality when pursued, once again demands highly experienced experts in technical legalistic legerdemain at disproportionate expense.

 

I have already noted that the appropriate tools for dealing with infractions of the few mooring regulation statutes are those providing for resolution absent any court intervention at all most of the time, and for simple court proceedings for the rest. Reference General Canal Byelaws 28 & 29, for contravention of which a summary conviction entails a £100 fine and a recorded offence, and Section 18 of the BWA 1995, which renders a contravening boat subject to s.8(5) for removal without notice in addition to being “liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”.

Edited January 10, 2014 by NigelMoore

[peterboat]

 

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.

 

In cases where the owner/keeper of the boat has had no licence to be on the waterway in the first place and/or cannot be contacted, then s.8 is applicable and can be administered in very short order without any court intervention at all.

 

In cases where the owner/keeper of the boat is simply not paying up for renewal of the relevant boat licence for whatever reason, then the first ‘tool’ of choice ought to be Section 5 of the 1983 Act, allowing court ordered recovery of charges [including charges for registration of pleasure boats and houseboats].

 

I note that the Bristol judge in the George Ward case agreed with the authority that such recourse was inadequate. He is wrong – that is the option allowed for by the relevant Act, and whether anyone considers the option inadequate or not, is irrelevant to the expressed will of Parliament. It does, besides, provide for the option of enforcement through the medium of contempt of court proceedings, which provide that the defaulter can be jailed for non-compliance. That is as extreme as could be desired, and with particular reference to the burden of the petition the topic of this debate, instead of rendering the culprit homeless, it in fact provides for accommodation at Her Majesty’s pleasure.

 

The commercial aspect is highlighted by the more than £20,000 cost of the exercise in ‘Maggie’s case [the cost of which will possibly have been doubled by the expense of the enforcement itself]. Does then, the choice of s.8 proceedings make commercial sense? – very obviously not. It simply provides an expensive admonitionary spectacle at disproportionate cost to the boating and tax-paying and charitably volunteering public. A small claims case would not require the employment of QCs to make the case – which could be handled perfectly competently by CaRT’s in-house barrister or even lesser legal staff, at minimal cost.

 

The courts will usually take circumstances into account [as is sensible], and can order a specified schedule of payments according to the boat-owner’s means. [Examples are seen in the CaRT list already linked to here: 68386 Naiad, ordered to pay £35/week re: the £250 owed, and 69218 Mira, where the judge gave 20 weeks @ £75 to pay the owed sum of £780.]

 

In cases where genuine financial difficulties are present, then the sensible avenue to pursue is communication and helpfulness in helping the person to obtain such assistance as is available. I would agree with MtB’s post #88, that this is not something the authority is required to do, nor is it anything they are obliged to do, but it is certainly [in my opinion] an optional route that would obtain the desired result at far less cost and with far greater kudos than utilising rigid enforcement options – the end result of which is greater immediate financial loss to the authority and the preclusion of all future revenue from that boat’s presence [not to mention the adverse PR consequences].

 

The cloudiest issues involve situations where the authority is itself creating a problem because it is seeking to withhold the “relevant consent” for reasons at odds with operational efficiency; typically, in recent years, where it has rejected licensing on the grounds that the terms of the “relevant consent” have not been complied with. It was Johnson's stated intent to bring successive cases as a means of refining their desired interpretation of s.17(3)( c )(ii); that is wholly inappropriate use of the statute [aside from being ineffective].

 

As I’ve said, even the pre-Johnson BW of old recognised that s.8 was entirely inappropriate as a means of dealing with those situations. The dubious legality when pursued, once again demands highly experienced experts in technical legalistic legerdemain at disproportionate expense.

 

I have already noted that the appropriate tools for dealing with infractions of the few mooring regulation statutes are those providing for resolution absent any court intervention at all most of the time, and for simple court proceedings for the rest. Reference General Canal Byelaws 28 & 29, for contravention of which a summary conviction entails a £100 fine and a recorded offence, and Section 18 of the BWA 1995, which renders a contravening boat subject to s.8(5) for removal without notice in addition to being “liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”.

Thanks Nigel made it clear how it works and yes it makes sense a little back every now and then is better than nowt

 

Peter

[Beaker]

Thanks Nigel made it clear how it works and yes it makes sense a little back every now and then is better than nowt

 

Peter

 

OK, but did you really need to quote the whole post?

[peterboat]

It adds another page to the debate

 

Peter

[NigelMoore]

It can’t just be me – I notice that where MtB quotes part of my post, it looks smaller type than his own also, yet where The Dog House does the same , it does come out larger. That is just weird.

 

. . . as I say, what I see on my screen is obviously at variance with that of others.

 

Just to illustrate what I’ve said in a way that this site won’t muck about:-

 

 

[Guest]

Just to illustrate what I’ve said in a way that this site won’t muck about:-

Well to be 100% clear I did nothing other than quote you so I can't explain it I'm afraid.

 

Maybe the site crew can??

 

PS I see this time your font has come out OK - weird indeed.

Edited January 11, 2014 by The Dog House

[jelunga]

AFAIK there is a 'gap' that she fell through. CRT cannot apply for care on your behalf, you have to do it. I think they contacted the relevant agencies but then perhaps the boater involved did not engage with them? If you're in a condition where you need support to do this if you're not thinking straight (being a bit defiant, proud even), then perhaps you can end up destitute?

 

One of my boater friends does valuable work with fostering and care charities, the amount of times he has care leavers staying on his boat - at 18 they are dumped out of the system often with no guidance or no idea where to do or what to do. This is outrageous I know but this is how the 'system' fails the people who need it s?

This is so true. My daughter has learning difficulties and was well supported by social services etc up to age 18. Then it was as if she suddenly ceased to exist officially. Because she does not ask for help no body wants to spend money offering help. Although she is now physically aged 28 mentally she is still a child. She refuses our offers of help and continues on her own chaotic alcoholic path. Short of kidnap there is nothing I can do if she refuses help

Which is the case 99% of the time. Because is has no fixed abode, no local authority wants to take an interest because she just moves out of their area.

The law has a serious gap in it for people with mental health problems.

[John Williamson 1955]

The law has a serious gap in it for people with mental health problems.

Unfortunately this is true.

[Ssscrudddy]

This sort of thing reminds me of what Obama (or possibly the mayor) said after hurricane Sandy.

Something along the lines of - all the various bodies need to do their best to actually help, I dont want excuses as to why you didnt help.

It seems to me all our various bodies 1st point of call is to search for the get out clause so that they dont have to do anything to help.

[StarUKKiwi]

http://www.canaljunction.com/news/crt-skills-work-liveaboards/1491

Interesting point of view - there has been mention of the National Trust; they had to rethink their strategy on long term tenancies about 15 years ago; I think. I realise CaRT is not a welfare charity; but maybe they should be supporting more chaplains/welfare rights officers within CaRT?

[Jerra]

I realise CaRT is not a welfare charity; but maybe they should be supporting more chaplains/welfare rights officers within CaRT?

Surely that would be the thin edge of the wedge leading to CRT being (at least partially) a welfare charity.

 

The case would be that more and more responsibility would be put onto CRT to look after these cases and soon it would be taking a large slice of the money.

 

There are many organisations/charities which can already deal with these problems perhaps what is needed is for them to be able to intervene BEFORE a person asks for help as some people will never ask.

[Barry]

I'm not sure you can intervene before someone asks for help because then its an imposition and the consequences of that could be just as bad