CRT evictions of disabled boaters

[stickleback]

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

Which would lead to more and more people relying on CaRT for welfare assistance which would eventually become seen as being WITHIN the remit of CaRT, which would inevitably lead to soaring license costs etc etc.

 

I think it needs to be made crystal clear at this stage that offering welfare / chaplains etc is NOT a CaRT remit, but local councils, social work teams etc etc could be more involved perhaps?

[Jerra]

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

That appears to have been the problem in the case which started this thread. There appears to have been help available but

1. It can't be given until requested.

2. It wasn't requested.

[Barry]

I can see the sense and the pertinence of someone with the right knowledge quietly saying to someone "if you are struggling a bit these are your options" because I can also see that sometimes people are just not aware of some of the options they actually have.

 

It would still be up to the person to say "I want that" though.

[jelunga]

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

As I have found with my daughter. You can contact as many caring agencies as you want but if at the end of the day she says no thanks then nothing can be done!

[Tuscan]

 

I think it needs to be made crystal clear at this stage that offering welfare / chaplains etc is NOT a CaRT remit, but local councils, social work teams etc etc could be more involved perhaps?

So a boater is in difficulty and it's not a CRT problem, as you describe it it's no ones problem , and no one needs to take responsibility of even trying to alert any of the above. I'm not comfortable with that attitude and it's not the attitude I have experienced among many fellow boaters over the years.

 

In fact it is a CRT problem as the enforcement volunteer or officer may eventually stick a section 8 notice, which may eventually lead to £20,000 + of legal costs and resulting bad PR. perhaps welfare manager is a bad title as it conjures up the wrong image for some let's call the position ISEP manager (short for 'its someone else problem'). If all they did when alerted by the enforcement team, boater, fishermen etc was to alert and yes maybe follow up on the social workers, NHS, councils etc then perhaps there is a chance that the help could be provided and the problem be eased.

[John Williamson 1955]

As I have found with my daughter. You can contact as many caring agencies as you want but if at the end of the day she says no thanks then nothing can be done!

He's not wrong, you know.

 

Until the person needing the help asks for it, all the charities and other organisations can do is watch. When someone I know was discharged from hospital, having been recently evicted for non-payment of rent, when we arrived at the Salvation Army hostel, even after I'd made certain there was a room available, he had to make the request. Luckily, Social Services had already warned the hostel that he was on his way.

 

To get back to the original topic "Maggie" had probably been refusing help for a long time, as is common with people suffering from her alleged type of problem. It's only when they present a clear and immediate danger to themselves or others that "sectioning" can be done.

So a boater is in difficulty and it's not a CRT problem, as you describe it it's no ones problem , and no one needs to take responsibility of even trying to alert any of the above. I'm not comfortable with that attitude and it's not the attitude I have experienced among many fellow boaters over the years.

 

In fact it is a CRT problem as the enforcement volunteer or officer may eventually stick a section 8 notice, which may eventually lead to £20,000 + of legal costs and resulting bad PR. perhaps welfare manager is a bad title as it conjures up the wrong image for some let's call the position ISEP manager (short for 'its someone else problem'). If all they did when alerted by the enforcement team, boater, fishermen etc was to alert and yes maybe follow up on the social workers, NHS, councils etc then perhaps there is a chance that the help could be provided and the problem be eased.

The question I would ask is how does the hypothetical CRT person decide who needs help? I've met needy people who not only don't want help, they get quite nasty about it even being offered. And what should then happen if offered help is refused?

[Tuscan]

To get back to the original topic "Maggie" had probably been refusing help for a long time, as is common with people suffering from her alleged type of problem. It's only when they present a clear and immediate danger to themselves or others that "sectioning" can be done.

The question I would ask is how does the hypothetical CRT person decide who needs help? I've met needy people who not only don't want help, they get quite nasty about it even being offered. And what should then happen if offered help is refused?

It's a very good question , many will refuse help especially if it has a religious connection. Some CRT will remove their boats as per the section 8 process. Some through I'll health or financial difficulty perhaps will get advice enabling them to get benefits resulting in a mooring rather than the section 8 process. It's not about having all the answers to all the problems. Pragmatically it's beneficial to CRT in my opinion if they are able to help the occasional person to help themselves access support. To be fair I believe CRT employees on the ground are themselves helpful when they can maybe a central focus point would help.

[NigelMoore]

That appears to have been the problem in the case which started this thread. There appears to have been help available but

1. It can't be given until requested.

2. It wasn't requested.

 

This is all missing the point that the rendering someone homeless [whether a ‘vulnerable member of society’ or otherwise] and in need of help, as a result of forcibly seizing their home, was the result of a deliberate and totally unnecessary choice.

 

If, as seems to be the case, the boaters were subjected to this treatment for non-payment of boat licences, then the default was a matter of some £500-£1,000 at first instance. The remedy for the authority as a matter of first resort would have been to exercise their powers under s.5 instead of s.8. As a straightforward and irrefutable claim, the costs could have been limited to around £120 to obtain the relevant CCJ. Surely that would have been the optimum result for the authority?

 

Swift and consistent exercise of this recourse would serve to send the relevant message to any would-be defaulters, and the end result of refusal to comply with the court Orders would be more than most would countenance happily. At the extreme, if recalcitrance demanded, exercising relevant orders to sell the boat and hand over the remainder after sums due were subtracted would be a sufficiently salutary lesson to send out – while still leaving the owner with [usually] a considerable proportion of their investment, instead of destroying everything they possessed in the world.

 

Racking up exorbitant court costs to multiply the initial legitimate debt exponentially is punitive beyond any rational purpose; and in many if not most such cases, qualifies as “cutting off their noses to spite their face”.

[alan_fincher]

Well on this occasion I'm in total agreement with Nigel, at least on the general principle.

 

Of course I think we have only been told the real identity of "Maggie", and the other two cases detailed in the petition probably remain anonymous to most of us, so it is not entirely clear to me if the issue in each case is a simple one of non payment of a licence. Of course if CRT refuses the reissue of a licence because of some other non-compliance, then you can reach the situation where someone might actually be in a position to buy one, but CRT will not issue it.

 

I think many of us agree that the means needed to resolve many of these cases need to be appropriate and proportionate, and that on many such occasions seizing the boat does not meet those criteria, and makes no economic sense, and wastes CRT money that would have been better spent on something useful.

 

The ray of hope I think I see, (at least in meetings I have attended), is that I believe the new CEO of CRT, and his director with responsibility for these matters probably also agree with us, and are keen to move to a situation where draconian measures are only used after all other avenues have been exhausted. Despite the drama of these unfortunate high profile cases, I do believe many other cases quietly reach far more sensible outcomes. It might be nice to hear some publicity about "the successes", (without breaking anybody's confidence again!), but I rather suspect if this were done, it would then attract much criticism from "hard-liners" who would probably still far rather have seen large amounts of money spent to seize some of the boats involved.

[Tuscan]

I agree to , Blimey what's going on here ! However the new CEO or director concerned could presumeably have stopped this latest case going through if they so wished but didnt. Like you I believe there is a desire at the top to be more sympathetic to some of these issues. I wonder what the trustees or boaters reps think?

[alan_fincher]

However the new CEO or director concerned could presumeably have stopped this latest case going through if they so wished but didnt.

I really don't know - I'm not close enough to it, I'll admit.

 

I'm not sure in the past every such case would necessarily have gone to the "top" for approval?

 

It has been suggested that they all now are, so I think we need to see what happens going forward.

 

My difficulty remains that just producing a petition that stays "stop discriminating against people" (or similar) doesn't in itself bring about the changes - what does is people getting involved in direct discussions with CRT, not just concentrating on repeatedly pointing out past failings.

 

However, that said, I have been genuinely surprised by the level of support the petition seems to have attracted. If I'm honest I would have expected the somewhat emotive way it is worded to reduce the support it might have got, and that certainly doesn't seem to be the case. It would be foolish of CRT if they did not take heed of the level of support it has gained. There is a clear message being sent of "must do better".

[carlt]

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

When local authorities deal with travellers their welfare needs have to be assessed before contemplating eviction.

 

You cannot force anyone to accept help (except in certain extreme cases) but you can invite them to ask for it.

[Tuscan]

Agreed, I will say that Richard Parry is driving consultations forward both with associations and boaters.

 

I have had a positive email exchange that indicates that CRT directors are fully aware of the discussions on the web regarding this subject.

[carlt]

Agreed, I will say that Richard Parry is driving consultations forward both with associations and boaters.

 

I would urge any association to recommend that he consults with local authorities about their processes for dealing with their itinerant population.

 

When I first became involved with illegal encampments on the public highway there was no legal responsibility to consider the welfare needs of the people concerned but I am glad that the council I worked for recognised the moral responsibility towards our fellow human beings.

 

It is repeated time and time again that "CRT is not a housing association" but as long as people live on the waterways it still has a responsibility to them, whether legal or moral.

[peterboat]

Lets cross our fingers for the future and hope no more high profile case happen I have just paid my licence moorings and insurance and it hurt I have saved up for this but some cant. My partner has just looked over my shoulder and read some of the thread and says its a lck of support from social services that is the problem. But as others have said unless they ask for help nowt happens all sad

 

Peter

[Ssscrudddy]

much better it be kept quiet & swept under the carpet eh?

[stickleback]

So a boater is in difficulty and it's not a CRT problem, as you describe it it's no ones problem , and no one needs to take responsibility of even trying to alert any of the above. I'm not comfortable with that attitude and it's not the attitude I have experienced among many fellow boaters over the years.

 

 

So where did I say that a boater in difficulty is no ones problem, or that no one needs to take responsibility? I in fact suggested that local councils, social workers etc help - organisations which DO have the ability to offer real assistance. Not a charity such as CaRT, which does not.

 

NigelMoore's post 208 seems to be the most constructive so far.

[Mike Todd]

You are quite wrong in suggesting that it is nobody's problem - nor is anyone who has any knowledge of the care system implying that.

 

People living on boats, like those who live on land, or in a caravan or under a bridge, all come within the remit of the care sector. It depends on their needs which part is best placed to help and one of the enduring issues for the care sector is that there is a constant tension between (on the one hand) creating people with specific knowledge to understand specific problems and how to tackle them and, on the other hand, ensuring joined up systems that avoid cases falling in the gaps. There is no perfect answer.

 

However, fundamental to all of this is the freedom we each enjoy to live our lives as we choose. I know it may not be fashionable, but I value very, very highly the gains made in creating such things as the Human Rights Act.

 

One factor inherent in freedom is that we also have the freedom to make mistakes and the only time when it is appropriate to over-ride individual freedom is where that individual (through age, illness or disability) is unable to make specific decisions. That is regulated by recent legislation (eg Mental Capacity Act) that defines how and when authorities and individuals may step in. (Please, please, do not conflate disability and illness which the recent petition seems to have done).

 

The result is the principle that help must first be requested. Of course, good care agencies may well take the slightest hint of a request as the catalyst for action but nevertheless, that first step is crucial.

 

Some people may well have chosen a lifestyle that disconnects them from much of society - some may get there through a succession of unfortunate events. At one level we, society, have to respect that freedom of choice. To remove it would do exactly what some groups opposed to canal-living lifestyles would want - the forced elimination of 'alternative' lifestyles. The only limitation that justifies limiting that freedom is when society as a whole has to arbitrate between lifestyles that are, in some sense, incompatible. (The current coflict in London between boaters and land-based residents is a clear example of this problem)

 

Almost all care agencies (that I know) are staffed by people who are motivated to help and will do whatever they can to push people in directions that might be in their better interests but, at the end of the day, who are we to say which lifestyle is better? For whom?

 

From what I have read, it would seem that in the case which gave rise to this debate, a lot of informal work was done which was rejected. At some point, the consequences of our choices have to be faced. Some people have to reach a very dark place before they will accept help and act on it.

 

I doubt whether an insititution aimed at running a waterway will, or should, have the skills necessary to deal with these sometimes very tricky cases and it is better that the specialists are called in - as happened in the case in point. One of the hardest things for individuals and organisations is coming to terms with situations where neither you nor anyone can help. For some people those are times when reliance on their faith is important - but others have other ways of handling it.

So a boater is in difficulty and it's not a CRT problem, as you describe it it's no ones problem , and no one needs to take responsibility of even trying to alert any of the above. I'm not comfortable with that attitude and it's not the attitude I have experienced among many fellow boaters over the years.

In fact it is a CRT problem as the enforcement volunteer or officer may eventually stick a section 8 notice, which may eventually lead to £20,000 + of legal costs and resulting bad PR. perhaps welfare manager is a bad title as it conjures up the wrong image for some let's call the position ISEP manager (short for 'its someone else problem'). If all they did when alerted by the enforcement team, boater, fishermen etc was to alert and yes maybe follow up on the social workers, NHS, councils etc then perhaps there is a chance that the help could be provided and the problem be eased.

[carlt]

 

I doubt whether an insititution aimed at running a waterway will, or should, have the skills necessary to deal with these sometimes very tricky cases and it is better that the specialists are called in

When both Social Services and the LEA of the local authority washed their hands of the travellers issue and said it was up to us roadmenders to sort it out as we were responsible for the public highway we quite quickly acquired the skills (and address book) to deal with some pretty tricky cases.

 

There is no reason why CRT cannot do the same thing.

[Paul C]

When both Social Services and the LEA of the local authority washed their hands of the travellers issue and said it was up to us roadmenders to sort it out as we were responsible for the public highway we quite quickly acquired the skills (and address book) to deal with some pretty tricky cases.

 

There is no reason why CRT cannot do the same thing.

 

Lack of funding?

[Tuscan]

These are very good points but sometimes problems that arise are not through choice.

 

As you say it's better when the specialists are called in. To repeat what I said above -" if all they did when alerted by the enforcement team, boater, fisherman etc was to alert and yes maybe follow up on the social workers NHS, councils etc then perhaps there is a chance that the help could be provided and the problem be eased" I am not suggesting that CRT become a social service themselves.

 

In the case that started the petition I doubt that this would have helped, unless able to intervene at a very early stage but there are many on the network who through illness or financial hardship may well benefit from some advice but perhaps don't even know that the support is out there. If boaters have a long term problem sooner or later it becomes a CRT problem.

 

There is no easy answer, and of course it's easy for us with Internet etc, for some they do not know who to ask, nor what entitlements they might be able to receive.

[Guest]

 

You have indeed told me how to do this, for which I was grateful, but the option you describe doesn’t happen for me – I get no “paste as plain text” option at all, it’s “paste” or nothing. Then again, the way the end result shows up on my screen bears no relation to what I have done, for example my text looks smaller than everyone else’s on my screen – not larger.

 

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.

 

I’ve tried altering the text from the site’s toolbar, but that just makes everything bizarre. I didn't seem to have this problem when using my default Font, but I changed that to Ariel for posting here, because people complained Times New Roman was too difficult to read!

 

I’m trying this typing from how the standard site text copies into Word, and see how it goes – but you’ll need to tell me, because as I say, what I see on my screen is obviously at variance with that of others.

Can you type a bit harder? That font looks like your ribbon is getting knackered

[Willber G]

Can you type a bit harder? That font looks like your ribbon is getting knackered

I think he's sorted it out in the six pages since that post.

[Jerra]

There is no reason why CRT cannot do the same thing.

There is no reason why CRT can't do the same true! However I feel it would be better to have the organizations which already exist to deal with these case handle them rather than duplicate and waste resources.

[carlt]

 

Lack of funding?

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.

However I feel it would be better to have the organizations which already exist to deal with these case handle them rather than duplicate and waste resources.

CRT are the enforcing authority.

 

They are the organisation that exists to deal with these cases, referring to the relevant specialists where necessary.