Another eviction

[luctor et emergo]

how much????

 

I like my mooring more every day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(£28 per month. no vacilities though)

[Arthur Marshall]

Reading the media stuff does indicate that they were residential boaters living on non-residential moorings and that they just got bumped up into paying residential rates. If you're 75 and not well, I would imagine this would come as a bit of a shock.

However, they do in fact live on a boat and I understand it is not compulsory to live in London, so possibly they should do what most people do when they rent a place and the landlord whacks the rent up. Go somewhere cheaper... everyone else has to. And at least you can take your boat with you. Most of us poor sods have to shift house as well.

[alan_fincher]

I suspect we are talking about Waterways Ombudsman's case number 563

Case No 563 – mooring charges in BWML marina

A couple complained that BWML had not made it sufficiently clear, when
offering a mooring, that their residential widebeam boat would incur such a
large additional charge. When the couple first took the mooring, the terms
and conditions simply referred to a surcharge being applied to widebeams
‘dependent on berth availability’. No indication of the level of surcharge was
given. For the first year the surcharge was about £70, which the
complainants felt was reasonable. However in the second year they were
invoiced for a surcharge of nearly £750. My enquiries showed that it was only
after the couple had moved to the marina that BWML decided the surcharge
there should increase to 30%. BWML wrote to inform customers in June
2008, but the letter did not go to the complainants’ marina address and did
not reach them. They first found out about the rise in November 2008 when
they received their invoice for 2009. Because of the lack of adequate notice to
the complainants, BWML agreed that they need not pay the higher surcharge
until 2010. Given the annual nature of the contract, I did not think that I
could say that they had been given inadequate notice, having known for over
a year before the higher charge was finally imposed on them in 2010.
The couple also complained about the application of BWML’s pricing policy at
the marina with respect to widebeam boats. They questioned why they
should pay more in total than at another BWML marina with more facilities,
and why the charge was more than at most marinas on a list of comparators,
which did not charge extra for widebeams. The other BWML marina is in a
very different setting, which was likely to explain the price difference. Many
of the marinas on the comparator list did not publish prices for residential
use: the prices quoted for leisure use were likely therefore to be significantly
less than the market rate for the complainants’ grade 1 mooring, where
BWML allowed residential use. Although BWML’s papers contained no
comparators on widebeam surcharges, I searched on the internet for
information about surcharges in other marinas, and found they varied from
15% to 100% with an average of about 30%. Whilst I certainly could not say
that the basic charges, or widebeam surcharge were ‘correct’, I did not find
evidence that they were out of line with market rates. I did not feel that I
could say the complainants had suffered injustice as a result of
maladministration or unfairness in that regard. I did not uphold the complaint,
but did point out that I would expect BWML to be willing to negotiate a
reasonable payment schedule with the complainants regarding any
outstanding fees.

 

[luctor et emergo]

Sue, is that right? Is it about people living on non residential moorings, who are now asked to pay for a residential mooring?

[matty40s]

It is something that BWML did across it's estate either last year or late 2012.

[alan_fincher]

Sue, is that right? Is it about people living on non residential moorings, who are now asked to pay for a residential mooring?

 

If I have the right case, it seems to be that BWML decided to revise their rates to increase very substantially the surcharge applied to wide-beams, something they appear to have decided as a pricing policy after the complainant first moved to the marina.

 

BWML actually appear to have waived the increase for the first year, due to the complainants not having received the right letter at the right time, but (from my reading), the complainants then knew for at least a year that after that they would be required to pay it, but have continued to contest it.

 

I assume they have attempted to get a court to say that BWML have acted improperly, after the Ombudsman refused to rule in their favour), and have lost that as well. Can anybody find details of a matching court ruling?

[luctor et emergo]

Sue, is that right? Is it about people living on non residential moorings, who are now asked to pay for a residential mooring?

 

no, its not, by the look of it. Its a case of 'I want to more my effing big boat for the same rate as your tiny narrow boat.' Try that with any EA controlled waterway.

 

its not looking good Sue.

[alan_fincher]

It is something that BWML did across it's estate either last year or late 2012.

 

Maybe, but from my reading the dispute seems principally to be about a hike on the wide-beam surcharge, and not necessarily anything to do with fully residential versus not fully residential status.

[Alan de Enfield]

Sue, is that right? Is it about people living on non residential moorings, who are now asked to pay for a residential mooring?

 

Well it clearly states in the ombudsmans report that they were residential on a Grade 1 mooring so its looks like like it - yes.

 

I suppose the headlines :

 

"Elderly Couple evicted for refusing to pay the rent" does not have quite the same ring to it.

[matty40s]

sorry Alan, I was responding to Luctors specific question....

 

Sue, is that right? Is it about people living on non residential moorings, who are now asked to pay for a residential mooring?

[luctor et emergo]

 

If I have the right case, it seems to be that BWML decided to revise their rates to increase very substantially the surcharge applied to wide-beams, something they appear to have decided as a pricing policy after the complainant first moved to the marina.

 

BWML actually appear to have waived the increase for the first year, due to the complainants not having received the right letter at the right time, but (from my reading), the complainants then knew for at least a year that after that they would be required to pay it, but have continued to contest it.

 

I assume they have attempted to get a court to say that BWML have acted improperly, after the Ombudsman refused to rule in their favour), and have lost that as well. Can anybody find details of a matching court ruling?

 

yes, I understand that after reading your post. Thanks again, for being such a good, and evenhanded bloodhound, when it comes to trawling the net for us lazy ludites.. (insert were not worthy smiley)

 

Well it clearly states in the ombudsmans report that they were residential on a Grade 1 mooring so its looks like like it - yes.

 

I suppose the headlines :

 

"Elderly Couple evicted for refusing to pay the rent" does not have quite the same ring to it.

 

no it isnt.(i think.... )

[Paul C]

1) Judge chose not to describe the case as vexatious

2) The guy lost his county court case

3) The website, and by linking to it, sueb perceives an injustice with CRT as the bad ones

 

It does appear to be a recent trend that a boater, rather than actually winning a court case, only has to be judged as not being a vexatious litigant, to be able to claim victory against CRT.

 

Fortunately people are intelligent enough to smell the rat and make their own minds up, based on the info so far or digging a little deeper for more background info.

[luctor et emergo]

oh, reading the ombudsman bit again, it seems that there may be an ambiguity about 'residential' after all..

 

did the couple apply for, and take, a 'residential' mooring, or did they do the usual dodge, and take a (cheaper) leisure mooring, to live on?

[Wanted]

It reads fine to me.

They were given due consideration, and had whatever problem they had investigated and looked at by the ombudsman.

I don't understand the problem.

Actually I will venture a bit more and use the word 'vexatious' some on here don't like the word but it aptly describes people who embark on a campaign of repeated and pointless complaints,just for the purpose of making a nuisance of themselves, I read the letter as being sent to such a person.

if that's what you think fine, but the judge rules that it wasn't a vexatious claim. End of. The rest doesn't appear quite so clear cut. Personal and regardless of the rights and wrongs of these folk, I am concerned on a more general front about the inequality of housing law when it comes to people who live on boats. Ultimately we have no security of tenure and that, I find worrying. I would also like to see a law passed that bought residents of any dwelling in line with the standard housing laws, again, regardless of the rights and wrongs of folk, evicting people never going to help anything.

 

Fat thumbs, poor grasp of grammar, tired non edit.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Wanted

[nicknorman]

oh, reading the ombudsman bit again, it seems that there may be an ambiguity about 'residential' after all..

 

did the couple apply for, and take, a 'residential' mooring, or did they do the usual dodge, and take a (cheaper) leisure mooring, to live on?

As I read the judgement, it was always a grade 1 mooring ie residential. It's an issue of fat boats not residential boats. And an issue of folk wanting the system changed to suit their particular MO, something we see quite a lot on here.

if that's what you think fine, but the judge rules that it wasn't a vexatious claim. End of. The rest doesn't appear quite so clear cut. Personal and regardless of the rights and wrongs of these folk, I am concerned on a more general front about the inequality of housing law when it comes to people who live on boats. Ultimately we have no security of tenure and that, I find worrying. I would also like to see a law passed that bought residents of any dwelling in line with the standard housing laws, again, regardless of the rights and wrongs of folk, evicting people never going to help anything.

Fat thumbs, poor grasp of grammar, tired non edit.

However, I see possible foot shooting there. If it is going to become difficult to evict liveaboard boaters even for valid reasons such as antisocial behaviour or failure to pay rent, is it not likely that the number of residential berths, especially in the private sector, might take a sudden dip? It certainly won't be conducive to the increase in such berths that seems to be needed.

[luctor et emergo]

As I read the judgement, it was always a grade 1 mooring ie residential. It's an issue of fat boats not residential boats. And an issue of folk wanting the system changed to suit their particular MO, something we see quite a lot on here.

 

However, I see possible foot shooting there. If it is going to become difficult to evict liveaboard boaters even for valid reasons such as antisocial behaviour or failure to pay rent, is it not likely that the number of residential berths, especially in the private sector, might take a sudden dip? It certainly won't be conducive to the increase in such berths that seems to be needed.

 

not really. unless at a same rate, housing renting would be similarly effected. why would anybody rent out a property on a sink estate?

[MtB]

However, I see possible foot shooting there. If it is going to become difficult to evict liveaboard boaters even for valid reasons such as antisocial behaviour or failure to pay rent, is it not likely that the number of residential berths, especially in the private sector, might take a sudden dip? It certainly won't be conducive to the increase in such berths that seems to be needed.

 

Bloody hell, I agree with Nick again. Be careful what you wish for, Wanted.

 

The thing is, if security of tenure for residential is obtained then the same will happen as happened in the rental market when security of tenure was won for tenants living on the bank. All the well managed privately owned rentals vanished from the market as there was no legal way to evict a delinquent tenant, and the market was left wide open to Rachman and his type.

 

Same would happen with residential boat moorings as residential boaters would demand their status is recognised to get their rights, then the landlords would just withdraw the few residential moorings that exist from the market.

 

Same would apply to leisure moorings being abused. They'd have to be identified with vigour and 'leisure' use enforced.

 

MtB

 

 

 

(Edit to add the point about Rachman.)

Edited February 19, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[Wanted]

As I read the judgement, it was always a grade 1 mooring ie residential. It's an issue of fat boats not residential boats. And an issue of folk wanting the system changed to suit their particular MO, something we see quite a lot on here.

 

However, I see possible foot shooting there. If it is going to become difficult to evict liveaboard boaters even for valid reasons such as antisocial behaviour or failure to pay rent, is it not likely that the number of residential berths, especially in the private sector, might take a sudden dip? It certainly won't be conducive to the increase in such berths that seems to be needed.

I'm not saying 'making it difficult' I'm saying bring it in line with current housing law. That's fair IMO. I would also would rather see less residential moorings run ethically than sham landlord private marinas using the right to shelter as leverage.

[luctor et emergo]

I'm not saying 'making it difficult' I'm saying bring it in line with current housing law. That's fair IMO. I would also would rather see less residential moorings run ethically than sham landlord private marinas using the right to shelter as leverage.

 

 

 

+ 1

[Wanted]

Bloody hell, I agree with Nick again. Be careful what you wish for, Wanted.

 

The thing is, if security of tenure for residential is obtained then the same will happen as happened in the rental market when security of tenure was won for tenants living on the bank. All the well managed privately owned rentals vanished from the market as there was no legal way to evict a delinquent tenant, and the market was left wide open to Rachman and his type.

 

Same would happen with residential boat moorings as residential boaters would demand their status is recognised to get their rights, then the landlords would just withdraw the few residential moorings that exist from the market.

 

Same would apply to leisure moorings being abused. They'd have to be identified with vigour and 'leisure' use enforced.

 

MtB

 

 

 

(Edit to add the point about Rachman.)

My understanding of housing law (and I am a little rusty) tells me that by default some marinas and CRT have already created tenancies weather they intended to or not. Not that I intend to try this, but I'd be interested in seeing a test case bought based on housing legislation. Haven't quite formed my thinking on this but I think it would surprise a few.

My understanding of housing law (and I am a little rusty) tells me that by default some marinas and CRT have already created tenancies weather they intended to or not. Not that I intend to try this, but I'd be interested in seeing a test case bought based on housing legislation. Haven't quite formed my thinking on this but I think it would surprise a few.

ETA, there is a way of evicting problematic tenants, and that is by using the law that we already have. It takes time but so it should IMO.

[nicknorman]

I'm not saying 'making it difficult' I'm saying bring it in line with current housing law. That's fair IMO. I would also would rather see less residential moorings run ethically than sham landlord private marinas using the right to shelter as leverage.

But current housing law makes it fairly difficult (agreed, not impossible though it's a lot of hassle for the landlord) to evict someone who decides they no longer want to pay the rent. Unlike onshore housing (except in holiday areas) landlords have little option but to rent for residential use. However marina operators can choose whether they want to rent out berths for leisure or residential. If there is significant additional hassle with residential and they can fill the berths with leisure, why bother with residential even if it might allow somewhat higher rents? Once a marina operator has had his fingers burnt, he will definitely want to get rid of his residential moorings for a quiet life.

 

Also, from a legal point of view, evicting someone from a house is a different thing from telling someone to move their floating house somewhere else.

 

I am fully aware that there are some unreasonable a-hole marina operators around, just not convinced that what you want is the solution.

[MtB]

I'm not saying 'making it difficult' I'm saying bring it in line with current housing law. That's fair IMO.

 

Agreed. You realise that current housing law does not give security of tenure you appear to want though?

 

A landlord has the right to evict without giving a reason. S/he can give two month's notice once the fixed term of the tenancy has expired (usually 6 or 12 months) then can apply to the court for a possession order if the tenant fails to vacate.

 

 

MtB

P.S. Forgot to mention, provided the LL can show notice has been served correctly, the court is obliged to grant a possession order. No scope for wriggling other than quibbling about the format of the two months' notice.

[luctor et emergo]

I'm so glad that I owe so little, and own so little....

[Wanted]

 

Agreed. You realise that current housing law does not give security of tenure you appear to want though?

 

A landlord has the right to evict without giving a reason. S/he can give two month's notice once the fixed term of the tenancy has expired (usually 6 or 12 months) then can apply to the court for a possession order if the tenant fails to vacate.

 

 

MtB

 

P.S. Forgot to mention, provided the LL can show notice has been served correctly, the court is obliged to grant a possession order. No scope for wriggling other than quibbling about the format of the two months' notice.

Yep, I get that the two month ting and that's what I would like to see implemented for anyone living in a legal dwelling. I understand that landlords only have to satisfy the eviction process and are not bound to give a reason, this is a bit of the housing law that I would like to see changed. I am coming at this in relation to my other passion of course.

 

Hope all is good with you btw, Gis a shout next time you are passing, they have ESB back on at the fox...

But current housing law makes it fairly difficult (agreed, not impossible though it's a lot of hassle for the landlord) to evict someone who decides they no longer want to pay the rent. Unlike onshore housing (except in holiday areas) landlords have little option but to rent for residential use. However marina operators can choose whether they want to rent out berths for leisure or residential. If there is significant additional hassle with residential and they can fill the berths with leisure, why bother with residential even if it might allow somewhat higher rents? Once a marina operator has had his fingers burnt, he will definitely want to get rid of his residential moorings for a quiet life.

 

Also, from a legal point of view, evicting someone from a house is a different thing from telling someone to move their floating house somewhere else.

 

I am fully aware that there are some unreasonable a-hole marina operators around, just not convinced that what you want is the solution.

Maybe quality over quantity? I also think that Ccers should be afforded the same right, however that's for an other day..

[MtB]

Yep, I get that the two month ting and that's what I would like to see implemented for anyone living in a legal dwelling. I understand that landlords only have to satisfy the eviction process and are not bound to give a reason, this is a bit of the housing law that I would like to see changed. I am coming at this in relation to my other passion of course.

 

Hope all is good with you btw, Gis a shout next time you are passing, they have ESB back on at the fox...

 

Maybe quality over quantity? I also think that Ccers should be afforded the same right, however that's for an other day..

 

Ah I see.I took your post 89 as you saying you thought security of tenure for residential boaters would be a Good Thing.

 

Making the Housing Act 1988 apply to residential boat moorings would still mean the residential status of moorers having the spotlight shone on it, and planning law would result in enforcement action I'd predict.

 

I'll give you a shout next time I'm nearby, I haven't had ESB for years!

 

MtB