Another eviction

[Dekazer]

But you said it happens everywhere. It doesn't, only in a few highly pressured locations. And I think it is a strategy that is backfiring for the reasons you mention. I know that when you live in London you think the world ends at the M25 but trust me, there is a big country out there with lots of boats and moorings! Maybe coming out of the marina for a cruise around the country would open your eyes!

 

It's not even the case for all London moorings. We had a canal mooring (marina) run by BW - no premium. Then we moved to a canal mooring (online) owned privately - no premium. Then we moved to a Thames mooring (online) owned privately - no premium. All our moorings have been fully residential and long term. We just had to keep a close eye on Apollo Duck and this forum until we spotted what we wanted. I find it hard to believe we've been that much luckier than anyone else.

 

I actually do sympathise with this couple. Not to the point of signing the petition, but they are in a sad position. I suspect the residents at the marina feel much the same as many private tenants in up-and-coming neghbourhoods or picture postcard villages do when their landlords inflate the rent or sell up. The world's a pretty crappy place for lots of people Short of a massive overhaul in the social structures of the country, I can't see a solution.

 

But there are ways of making the best of things. A life afloat is probably still achievable for this couple (and their neighbours) if they are willing to sacrifice certain things. Not ideal, but possibly the only option left?

 

Edited to add, last summer I was aware of some pretty massive residential island moorings available on the Thames at Brentford (Lot's Ait iirc). Perhaps these might still be available and suitable for the couple in question?

Edited February 21, 2014 by Dekazer

[Alan de Enfield]

Director - having thought about this for a few minutes I have a question :

 

You say there are available moorings in Poplar BWML Marina - Yes ?

 

Then I just do not understand why anyone would want to buy a boat already on a mooring there - and pay a premium - when they can buy a boat from 'anywhere', and start a new contract with BWML at the 'going rate'.

 

Or - buy the boat (already there and on a mooring) but say you want to buy it without the mooring (premium), then take out a new contract with BWML and if necessary move it along one mooring.

 

I'm just a simple 'Northern' soul but it does look as if London Morers themselves are contributing to the problem.

As I see it, it is not BWML charging the 'premium' it is the seller of the boat hoping to 'cash-in' that is adding a premium to whatever the boat is actually worth.

 

Maybe I've got it all wrong - if so please explain the siuation for me.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[nicknorman]

I actually do sympathise with this couple. Not to the point of signing the petition, but they are in a sad position. I suspect the residents at the marina feel much the same as many private tenants in up-and-coming neghbourhoods or picture postcard villages do when their landlords inflate the rent or sell up. The world's a pretty crappy place for lots of people Short of a massive overhaul in the social structures of the country, I can't see a solution.

 

Yes I think we all feel sympathy for this couple, they are in a horrible situation. But at the same time I don't agree that BWML have acted in a way that could not have been predicted or was not reasonable or not in keeping with how any other marina operator could be expected to behave. It is unfair, but so is life.

[magnetman]

If someone is asking £200k for their boat and you offer £100k because you don't want the mooring they won't sell it to you because they Think it is worth £200k

 

When I told people Limehouse marina would be opening new residential moorings people said 'get one it will make your boat more valuable'

 

I was after a mooring not theoretical boat value increase

 

A mooring is to moor your boat. End

[johnmck]

Yes I think we all feel sympathy for this couple, they are in a horrible situation. But at the same time I don't agree that BWML have acted in a way that could not have been predicted or was not reasonable or not in keeping with how any other marina operator could be expected to behave. It is unfair, but so is life.

 

Quite agree. It is sometimes deemed unfair, but such is life. I feel for the couple, but the fact that their life choice no longer works is surely not the fault of BWML!

[Alan de Enfield]

If someone is asking £200k for their boat and you offer £100k because you don't want the mooring they won't sell it to you because they Think it is worth £200k

 

 

I know this is the situation 'now' but it does just not make sense, and, I canot see who could 'fall for it'.

 

The boat is 'worth' £100k and thats it. It pays £10k per year for the mooring.

The seller expects £200k as it already has a mooring.

 

The next mooring along (in the same marina) is empty & is available for £10k per year

 

There is a similar boat that meets my needs advertised just 'up river' for £100k - why can I not just buy the boat 'up-river' and move onto the empty berth in the aforesaid marina.

 

If all of the Marinas had 100% occupancy and a waiting list then I could understand - but we are not in that situation, and if we were could 'working people' not commute, and 'retired' folks move a little further out of town ?

[magnetman]

This was the case when mooring fees were lower but now the value of the boat is going down because of increases.

 

The Islington boat is different because they are 'hens teeth' wide bean moorings in a very central location with a nice view of elbow benders out the window and ducks

[The Director]

 

What a small country we live in when "everywhere" is just Wiltshire and London.

 

If you are going to make such sweeping statement & 'wild accusations' at least have some supporting evidence.

 

 

Director - having thought about this for a few minutes I have a question :

 

You say there are available moorings in Poplar BWML Marina - Yes ?

 

Then I just do not understand why anyone would want to buy a boat already on a mooring there - and pay a premium - when they can buy a boat from 'anywhere', and start a new contract with BWML at the 'going rate'.

 

Or - buy the boat (already there and on a mooring) but say you want to buy it without the mooring (premium), then take out a new contract with BWML and if necessary move it along one mooring.

 

I'm just a simple 'Northern' soul but it does look as if London Morers themselves are contributing to the problem.

As I see it, it is not BWML charging the 'premium' it is the seller of the boat hoping to 'cash-in' that is adding a premium to whatever the boat is actually worth.

 

Maybe I've got it all wrong - if so please explain the siuation for me.

 

Alan - I'll try.

 

Some people do that - buy elsewhere and bring into the marina when a mooring becomes available.

 

Others find it more convenient (it isn't an easy place to get to - cross rail works/tide timings/ available overnight or waiting mooring at Limehouse etc mean access in and out is fairly difficult and for many cases would have to be piloted especially for the larger boats) just to buy a boat already in situ at a premium. I reckon I paid about 10-15% over value to the seller plus the 'sale on berth fee' to BWML which effectively transferred the mooring to me.

 

Many of the boats have been here since the marina opened in the 90's and have never moved beyond the pump out.

 

When I was looking to move to London for University I didn't want to be in a pokey flat. I looked at bringing my little canal boat to London for 2-3 years. There were no moorings available. I decided to buy something bigger that I could share with a friend to cover mooring fees. I found the ideal boat at Poplar.There is a great community here - long standing residents, social events - always a friendly smile. It is a special place - worth that premium.

 

However I and the other residents - could not have predicted or budgeted for a 50-100% increase - which is what we are complaining about. It would be like saying your council tax on your home is going up by 50%- 100% and if you don't like it - get out!

 

There has been so much uncertainty over the past 2 years about what exactly the new rates would be and what mooring statuses would be available - that people have been reluctant to buy and for many of the boats here there really isn't an alternative mooring. The small canal boats would fare better - but the larger boats - not a chance.

 

Hope that helps?

[sueb]

 

Isnt there always?

No. Not if you have a large boat. Can you name any suitable vacancies?

[Dekazer]

No. Not if you have a large boat. Can you name any suitable vacancies?

 

See post 276 where I mentioned that I have heard of some at Lot's Ait as recently as September 2013. I think this would be worth a try. http://www.thamesmooring.com/moorings-at-brentford-kew-reach/lots-ait.php

[luctor et emergo]

After following this saga for a while, it seems that most of the usual participants in the discussion have retreated to their default position. Either "BW/Crt/marinas are all heartless crooks", or the "if you don't like it, lump it" camps. Both sides see only one side, and dismiss the other side as "wishy washy", or "heartless".

 

As I understand it, the marina owner BWML, have hiked the fees of their moorings, by what can be described as exorbitant percentages. Un ethical as this may be/seem, it is in the remit of a commercial enterprise, to levy their charges as they see fit. It is ultimately up to the customer to vote with their wallet, or their feet. That is, whether one likes it or not, how commerce works.

That is not to say, that BWML is playing a level field. They know full well, that the current moorers can not simply untie their boats, and move to another marina. For somebody elsewhere in the country, from the comfort of their keyboard, to smugly say that there are plenty of places to moor a barge around the country, and that they should have thought of that when they bought the boat, is crass. Their are currently plenty of (narrow)boats for sale at what was a sensible price, but not selling. Many boats sell below their value, because the market is not buoyant, as it used to be. If you ever find yourself in the position of having to sell your boat, because you have to (not because you want to), lets hope that you don't get told "well, tough shit, you should have thought about that". (As an aside, the way things are going, I think that scenario may present itself to more people than you think, sooner than you think).

You can't blame the moorers for trying to stop those mooring fees from increasing so massively, in such a short time. They followed the set out procedure, and after having lost, PAID up the fees as required. To be evicted with 28 days notice, is purely spiteful vindictiveness.

 

Crt incidentally, have nothing to do with this, since BWML run the marina. And no, Crt has no social obligation to take care of moorers. But we may realistically expect that Crt, whether as a 'charity', or custodian of the canals, does not behave as a malicious landlord, nor lets it marina subsidiary behave as such.

[magnetman]

Apparently BWML is a 'wholly owned subsidiary of CRT'

 

So CRT do have something to do with it but not sure exactly what ?

[carlt]

No. Not if you have a large boat. Can you name any suitable vacancies?

There are loads of "large boat" berths if your imagination can stretch beyond CRT waters.

 

The question isn't "Do they have anywhere else to go?" though, it is "Have they been treated fairly?" and the answer is, if you compare it to a sitting tenant in a house, "No, they haven't." but this is due to the inequality of the law enabling landlords of boat dwellers to behave in a Rachman like manner.

Edited February 21, 2014 by carlt

[Tuscan]

After following this saga for a while, it seems that most of the usual participants in the discussion have retreated to their default position. Either "BW/Crt/marinas are all heartless crooks", or the "if you don't like it, lump it" camps. Both sides see only one side, and dismiss the other side as "wishy washy", or "heartless".

 

As I understand it, the marina owner BWML, have hiked the fees of their moorings, by what can be described as exorbitant percentages. Un ethical as this may be/seem, it is in the remit of a commercial enterprise, to levy their charges as they see fit. It is ultimately up to the customer to vote with their wallet, or their feet. That is, whether one likes it or not, how commerce works.

That is not to say, that BWML is playing a level field. They know full well, that the current moorers can not simply untie their boats, and move to another marina. For somebody elsewhere in the country, from the comfort of their keyboard, to smugly say that there are plenty of places to moor a barge around the country, and that they should have thought of that when they bought the boat, is crass. Their are currently plenty of (narrow)boats for sale at what was a sensible price, but not selling. Many boats sell below their value, because the market is not buoyant, as it used to be. If you ever find yourself in the position of having to sell your boat, because you have to (not because you want to), lets hope that you don't get told "well, tough shit, you should have thought about that". (As an aside, the way things are going, I think that scenario may present itself to more people than you think, sooner than you think).

You can't blame the moorers for trying to stop those mooring fees from increasing so massively, in such a short time. They followed the set out procedure, and after having lost, PAID up the fees as required. To be evicted with 28 days notice, is purely spiteful vindictiveness.

 

Crt incidentally, have nothing to do with this, since BWML run the marina. And no, Crt has no social obligation to take care of moorers. But we may realistically expect that Crt, whether as a 'charity', or custodian of the canals, does not behave as a malicious landlord, nor lets it marina subsidiary behave as such.

 

 

Seems a fair summary - I see on NBW that the marina has responded with their view and if the article is true it looks like they can stay if they sign up and conform to the latest terms and conditions..

[Bee]

Absolutely agree with Luctor, I do not know Mr. Taylor, he may well be a curmudgeonly old so an so, or maybe not but in the absence of any relevant legal protection or security of tenure we all rely on keeping on the right side of the landlord and not daring to protest about any belligerent actions on their part. I know people who have `park homes` and they are scared of the landlord. I also know the landlord and he is a brute. if it wasn`t for some imperfect legislation their situation would be awful. To rely on the subjective judgment of the marina owner is to be open to intimidation and bullying, just watch out if your politics / colour / friends/ religion / sexual inclinations / boat etc. doesn`t fit.

[MtB]

There are loads of "large boat" berths if your imagination can stretch beyond CRT waters.

 

The question isn't "Do they have anywhere else to go?" though, it is "Have they been treated fairly?" and the answer is, if you compare it to a sitting tenant in a house, "No, they haven't." but this is due to the inequality of the law enabling landlords of boat dwellers to behave in a Rachman like manner.

 

But they are not like a 'sitting tenant' in a house. They are like an ordinary tenant on an ordinary Assured Shorthold Tenancy. They can be given notice to quit and this seems to be all that has happened. A landlord needs to give a minimum of two months' notice ending on a rent day and needs to give no reason.

 

A 'sitting tenant' is a very different thing. Very few protected tenancies left now, most tenants have died. And as I understand it, a protected tenancy can be inherited once by an heir, then it is extinguished on the death of the inheriting heir.

 

Rachman was noted for evicting his tenants using physical violence by hired thugs. I don't see BWML (or any boating landlords) doing this so comparisons with Rachman are a but hysterical in my personal opinion.

 

MtB

[carlt]

 

But they are not like a 'sitting tenant' in a house. They are like an ordinary tenant on an ordinary Assured Shorthold Tenancy. They can be given notice to quit and this seems to be all that has happened. A landlord needs to give a minimum of two months' notice ending on a rent day and needs to give no reason.

 

A 'sitting tenant' is a very different thing. Very few protected tenancies left now, most tenants have died. And as I understand it, a protected tenancy can be inherited once by an heir, then it is extinguished on the death of the inheriting heir.

 

Rachman was noted for evicting his tenants using physical violence by hired thugs. I don't see BWML (or any boating landlords) doing this so comparisons with Rachman are a but hysterical in my personal opinion.

 

MtB

Sorry I used the wrong terminology I should have just said "Tenant".

 

I used to have a flat in Luton that was let out on a Shorthold Tenancy basis and it was by no means a simple matter to evict someone by just giving 2 months notice.

 

The tenant I wanted to remove would not budge and, eventually, he only left when he went to prison for murder (he was a drug dealer and kicked one of his customers to death in the local kebab house).

 

Rachman was actually noted for evicting without notice, (though he would use force if the tenant objected). The laws changed in favour of the tenant because of the summary evictions, not the violence and menaces which were already covered by legislation.

[Ssscrudddy]

Did I miss something? According to the letter, they are being evicted for complaining to the ombudsman & then taking them to court, yet accoding to the article on NBW they are in fact being evicted for not complying with (& still not) the rules...

So which is it?

[Mike Todd]

Mark - forgive me if I am wrong but I thought the idea of the Waterways Chaplains was meant to cover the welfare side of things or i) have I got it wrong or ii) I have I got it right and it's just not working perhaps

The Chaplains are not part of CaRT. They are funded through various church bodies and independently seek to provide pastoral care to people who are to be found on the canal/towpath. They are limited in number, only operate in some areas where there is funding and resources and they do an excellent job.

 

I know this is the situation 'now' but it does just not make sense, and, I canot see who could 'fall for it'.

 

The boat is 'worth' £100k and thats it. It pays £10k per year for the mooring.

The seller expects £200k as it already has a mooring.

 

The next mooring along (in the same marina) is empty & is available for £10k per year

 

There is a similar boat that meets my needs advertised just 'up river' for £100k - why can I not just buy the boat 'up-river' and move onto the empty berth in the aforesaid marina.

 

If all of the Marinas had 100% occupancy and a waiting list then I could understand - but we are not in that situation, and if we were could 'working people' not commute, and 'retired' folks move a little further out of town ?

It's a free world and there is nothing to stop folks asking whatever they like for something they own. As has already been pointed out, it does not mean that they will find a buyer if the price is too high. But there are plenty of gullible people out there.

 

 

 

Alan - I'll try.

 

Some people do that - buy elsewhere and bring into the marina when a mooring becomes available.

 

Others find it more convenient (it isn't an easy place to get to - cross rail works/tide timings/ available overnight or waiting mooring at Limehouse etc mean access in and out is fairly difficult and for many cases would have to be piloted especially for the larger boats) just to buy a boat already in situ at a premium. I reckon I paid about 10-15% over value to the seller plus the 'sale on berth fee' to BWML which effectively transferred the mooring to me.

 

Many of the boats have been here since the marina opened in the 90's and have never moved beyond the pump out.

 

When I was looking to move to London for University I didn't want to be in a pokey flat. I looked at bringing my little canal boat to London for 2-3 years. There were no moorings available. I decided to buy something bigger that I could share with a friend to cover mooring fees. I found the ideal boat at Poplar.There is a great community here - long standing residents, social events - always a friendly smile. It is a special place - worth that premium.

 

However I and the other residents - could not have predicted or budgeted for a 50-100% increase - which is what we are complaining about. It would be like saying your council tax on your home is going up by 50%- 100% and if you don't like it - get out!

 

There has been so much uncertainty over the past 2 years about what exactly the new rates would be and what mooring statuses would be available - that people have been reluctant to buy and for many of the boats here there really isn't an alternative mooring. The small canal boats would fare better - but the larger boats - not a chance.

 

Hope that helps?

Not quite the same as council tax: local and national taxes/duties are set by politicians and they have to answer to an electorate. Mooring fees are set by commercial factors and marina operators have to answer to their shareholders.

 

In normal circumstances, charges and prices are set by market forces: you charge whatever you think you can to maximise income, both short and long term. (Is it fair that the passenger I sit next to on the train or plane has paid twice or half of what I paid?)

 

There are some exceptions the more obvious of which is when there is a regulated monopoly. Despite what it sometimes seems, utility companies are not free to exploit their monopoly unrestricted, they ahve to abide by an industry regulator.

 

The other limitation is contractual: some agreements (typically long leases) will set out in advance what the increases will be and the landlord cannot unilaterally increase beyond that.

 

Other agreements, typically short term tenancies, are at the whim of the landlord who only has to give due notice - then it is a matter of take it or leave it.

 

As with so-called fixed energy tarriffs, the inherent longer term risks are built into the prices: you pay for certainty. Or, put the other way around, if you want lower short term charges, or cannot or do not want to commit to a longer term they you trade those benefits fo the risks.

After following this saga for a while, it seems that most of the usual participants in the discussion have retreated to their default position. Either "BW/Crt/marinas are all heartless crooks", or the "if you don't like it, lump it" camps. Both sides see only one side, and dismiss the other side as "wishy washy", or "heartless".

 

As I understand it, the marina owner BWML, have hiked the fees of their moorings, by what can be described as exorbitant percentages. Un ethical as this may be/seem, it is in the remit of a commercial enterprise, to levy their charges as they see fit. It is ultimately up to the customer to vote with their wallet, or their feet. That is, whether one likes it or not, how commerce works.

That is not to say, that BWML is playing a level field. They know full well, that the current moorers can not simply untie their boats, and move to another marina. For somebody elsewhere in the country, from the comfort of their keyboard, to smugly say that there are plenty of places to moor a barge around the country, and that they should have thought of that when they bought the boat, is crass. Their are currently plenty of (narrow)boats for sale at what was a sensible price, but not selling. Many boats sell below their value, because the market is not buoyant, as it used to be. If you ever find yourself in the position of having to sell your boat, because you have to (not because you want to), lets hope that you don't get told "well, tough shit, you should have thought about that". (As an aside, the way things are going, I think that scenario may present itself to more people than you think, sooner than you think).

You can't blame the moorers for trying to stop those mooring fees from increasing so massively, in such a short time. They followed the set out procedure, and after having lost, PAID up the fees as required. To be evicted with 28 days notice, is purely spiteful vindictiveness.

 

Crt incidentally, have nothing to do with this, since BWML run the marina. And no, Crt has no social obligation to take care of moorers. But we may realistically expect that Crt, whether as a 'charity', or custodian of the canals, does not behave as a malicious landlord, nor lets it marina subsidiary behave as such.

Boats never sell for below their value. What they sell for **is** their value!

[magnetman]

This is something some people don't 'get'

 

"I paid £59,000 for it therefore it is worth £59,000"

No it isn't.

[Alan de Enfield]

This is something some people don't 'get'

 

"I paid £59,000 for it therefore it is worth £59,000"

No it isn't.

It is only worth what the 'next' person is prepared to pay for it - put it to auction and the bid below the winning bid is the 'market value'

 

Market value is what two people are prepared to pay for an item

[NigelMoore]

Not that it is necessarily relevant in this case but can someone on a residential mooring get stuff like pension credit, housing benefit etc and would that assist towards mooring increases? (Depending on how many spare bedrooms they have of course!)

 

Yes. If eligible, all such costs would be covered.

[John Williamson 1955]

This is something some people don't 'get'

 

"I paid £59,000 for it therefore it is worth £59,000"

No it isn't.

It was to you on the day that you bought it. It is now worth to you whatever you say. This value may or may not coincide with the value I would put on it.

[NigelMoore]

The question isn't "Do they have anywhere else to go?" though, it is "Have they been treated fairly?" and the answer is, if you compare it to a sitting tenant in a house, "No, they haven't." but this is due to the inequality of the law enabling landlords of boat dwellers to behave in a Rachman like manner.

 

This has been a long-standing issue, and I have stood on both sides of the debate.

 

I was looking for an old national article on the subject [unsuccessfully] and came across the Hansard debate behind it which I'd kept. I've looked up the link to it for those interested -

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldhansrd/vo040916/text/40916-34.htm

 

Strangely, I'd thought this was all just the other day . . . 10 years?!

 

I need to have another look when I have time - Lord Rooker claimed that both the "Protection from Eviction Act 1977" and the "Protection from Harassment Act 1997" applied to houseboat situations.

[NigelMoore]

The following year there was a government consultation on the subject, which I have in pdf, but for an online link I can find this article as a potential gate to the document. The consultation responses should all be published also -

 

http://www.lgcplus.com/new-proposals-to-help-residential-boat-owners/518736.article

 

The topic was raised yet again in the 'consultation' over the Public Bodies Bill, and in the "Red Tape Challenge" leading up to the Transfer Order.

http://www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/water-marine-inland-waterways/