Another eviction

[Wanted]

 

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

[sueb]

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

As I understand it, it is about very substantial increases in rent, over and above figures published by Cart. They have lived there for 14 years so cannot have been so bad otherwise they would have been kicked out before.

I knew Rod & Annie many years ago when they sold painted ware from 'Crewe'. I find the situation they are now in very sad. Can they physically move their boat if old and ill? I don't know, but the worry of unaffordable rent increases and now eviction can't be helping.

It is interesting comparing the posts on this and the posts about a woman with suspected mental problem being evicted from her boat.

[magnetman]

This is zone 2 London beside the 'wharf'

 

Accommodation is a serious business and there is money to be made. Every other shop is a letting agent. Poplar marina can let that mooring in a blink of an eye.

 

Not the same as the k&a I don't think.

By the time I'm 75 I would hope to be still on the boat keeping my head down/living somewhere quiet or be in a flat...

[Naughty Cal]

Sleep tight folks, I'm waiting to hear a bit more too but I'm most unhappy that somebody is to be evicted for complaining about the cost of moorings.

 

Is it not a case of if you dont like what you are being charged look for somewhere else?

[magnetman]

There is someone with same name selling several boats as a brokerage. I think this chap has wound up BMWL too much

8 boats listed on Apolloduck but BMWL claim exclusivity with Boat shed.

 

This is about business not mooring fees I suspect

 

Maybe the mooring fee increases reduced the resale value of boats with moorings which in turn has a knock-on effect on a brokerage business relying on boats with low mooring fees for profit because as the mooring fee goes up obviously the perceived added value goes down so the boat is worth less

I have never understood how BWML allowed boat owners to sell with the mooring thereby inflating the boat value.

If I was the marina I'd be wanting that bit of money !!

[magnetman]

 

 

 

BW/CRT's auction process looks quite clever because 'if you bid that much then you can't moan if its too expensive' cuts out complaints in one hit.

[RLWP]

Forgive me smart arse but I missed the bit where all avenues opposing hs2 have been exhausted.

 

Besides this is not comparting like with like..

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/274169/hs2-judicial-review-ruling-explained.pdf

 

Richard

[magnetman]

Maybe the marinas should follow suit. The fact is no moorings would become available because the boats are -only for sale- because of the possibility if attracting a transferable mooring premium which cost the occupier £0-00

 

There is a CRT offside resi mooring in Islington which is apparently transferable with low mooring fee of iirc £7k pa

 

Small barge on it worth £50k absolute max. Asking £120k on Apollo duck.

 

Surely that money is CRT's money ???

[Guest]

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/274169/hs2-judicial-review-ruling-explained.pdf

 

Richard

 

Ah yes.. but the fat lady is yet to sing......

 

There is still years nay decades to go and still time to see the project brought down (on cost grounds alone) just because it has passed that stage does not mean we will still see the thing start.

 

Besides it is not comparing like with like as they are monumentally different types of issue so your initial comparison is flawed.

[Alan de Enfield]

As I read the judgement, it was always a grade 1 mooring ie residential.

 

If you have a look at BWML's mooring grades you will see that there is (are)

 

Residential

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

 

And the definitions of what you can and cannot do on each grade are fairly clear.

There is also considerable difference in costs between the grades.

 

Scroll down to 'mooring definitions'

 

http://www.bwml.co.uk/customer-info

[RLWP]

 

Ah yes.. but the fat lady is yet to sing......

 

There is still years nay decades to go and still time to see the project brought down (on cost grounds alone) just because it has passed that stage does not mean we will still see the thing start.

 

Besides it is not comparing like with like as they are monumentally different types of issue so your initial comparison is flawed.

 

 

That you dislike vexatious litigants and yet support stop HS2?

 

Richard

[Guest]

 

 

That you dislike vexatious litigants and yet support stop HS2?

 

Richard

 

As I say you are not comparing like with like.

 

A true vexatious complainant/litigant does it purely to make a nuisance of themselves and cause difficulty for the organisation they are railing against, they are not really interested in any final outcome they are solely interested in causing work for people.

 

Those trying to stop HS2 are more interested in bringing the project to a halt, yes part of the process may cause work for govt. departments and lawyers (a lot of work) BUT the ultimate aim is still to see off the project.

[PaulG]

I moor in a privately owned marina. The tarrif is set each year by the marina owners, and if I don't like the new price, then my only option is to leave and moor somewhere else.

Getting "agressive" with marina staff on a single occasion would probably be enough for a boater to be thrown out, let alone doing this on a "regular" basis, as alleged in the BWML terination letter.

I know that boaters have been invited to leave my present marina for various reasons, e.g. allowing their dogs to foul grassed areas and other anti-social behaviour.

As far as I am aware, the marina management did not check on the state of their health first.

It seems to me that C&RT's status as a charity is being used as a stick to beat them with.

Their remit is to run a waterway, not to provide social housing.

[RLWP]

 

As I say you are not comparing like with like.

 

A true vexatious complainant/litigant does it purely to make a nuisance of themselves and cause difficulty for the organisation they are railing against, they are not really interested in any final outcome they are solely interested in causing work for people.

 

Those trying to stop HS2 are more interested in bringing the project to a halt, yes part of the process may cause work for govt. departments and lawyers (a lot of work) BUT the ultimate aim is still to see off the project.

 

I see what you are saying, I think you are splitting hairs because of your position with respect to HS2

 

Richard

 

MORE: And my initial point was I found your comment next to your signature image to be amusing, which I still do

Edited February 19, 2014 by RLWP

[Woodstock]

CRT do seem to be enforcing more- This one was in our local paper recently.

http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/News/Owner-fears-his-boat-could-be-taken-despite-health-issues-20140211105443.htm

[alan_fincher]

As I understand it, it is about very substantial increases in rent, over and above figures published by Cart.

 

What does than mean, Sue?

 

Are you trying to say BWML have tried to charge these people more that their (BWML's) announced new pricing?

 

Or simply that the tariff, (particularly with a significantly increased "widebeam" surcharge), has gone up much more than (say) the average that CRT have increased long-term towpath moorings?

 

If the former, you seem to be disagreeing with the Ombudsman, so can you present any evidence?

 

If the latter, then surely that is just the way the business operates? When I was in a marina the owner always added a price increase every year that well outstripped inflation. I had the choice to keep paying it, or get out. Had I been old and infirm, (as some who moored there were), I would still have had the same choice.

 

It's tough, I know, but the market is always going to mean that if you choose to moor in a fully serviced London marina with a big wide beam boat, it is not going to be cheap. It appears that in this case they were given a year's grace of not having to pay the hiked fee, but have stayed there and hoped to get it overturned. If Ombusman says "no" and courts say "no", they are probably on a loser.

[madcat]

Like it or not CRT will have to take an ethical approach to their dealings with boaters. This man has obvious mental health issues and should be dealt with by a welfare team. There comes a point where rigid enforcement is not going to work and will cost far more in money time and lingering ill will than a more humane approach .

 

CRT are presenting as greedy and uncaring a lot of the time, what the reality is will be swamped in a sea of adverse publicity and do nobody any good.

 

Time for a serious multi agency approach, the Burton boater seems willing to move off the canals but needs to sell his boat to do so. A more flexible structure would allow this to be agreed and implemented.

 

Its easy in a bad situation to go round in circles be overwhelmed and give up , outside help can bring a new perspective and a way out.

 

I'm lucky , I can afford my life and I'm tough and capable. I'm only too aware that others are more vulnerable and that anybody can have their secure life derailed by bad circumstances so I take as kindly approach as I can manage to others.

[magnetman]

Living on a boat is not secure and unless you find a freehold mooring it never will be.

.surely people know this or do they walk onto a boat blindfolded

[Henhouse]

CRT do seem to be enforcing more- This one was in our local paper recently.

http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/News/Owner-fears-his-boat-could-be-taken-despite-health-issues-20140211105443.htm

 

Quote from article: “It’s been advertised for sale at the marina in Tamworth for a while now, but I haven’t been able to sell it.”

 

So presumably, whatever condition it is in, he is wanting more for it than anyone is prepared to pay.

 

I am all in favour of compassion, and a bit of leniency when people have health issues. However, CaRT are there to maintain and operate a canal system, not to become a social housing provider.

 

Would we see the same degree of outraged journalism if the caravan owners of this world started to form linear encampments on the hard shoulders of the nations motorways ?

[magnetman]

I'll sell my boat if someone offers me the 'right' amount

[MtB]

Like it or not CRT will have to take an ethical approach to their dealings with boaters. This man has obvious mental health issues and should be dealt with by a welfare team.

 

I can't believe I just read that. Are you suggesting CRT should have a dedicated welfare team for helping out boat dwellers with their health problems?

 

Or do I misunderstand, and you mean an existing welfare team run by the local authority should be helping?

 

MtB

[magnetman]

Definitely assume its local authority who deal with this and would probably in fact sort social housing as well.

 

OTOH if the boater didn't seek help maybe CRT should direct the welfare team to their door

[nicknorman]

We've had this argument before and to my mind, there is no way that a private commercial marina could be expected to have a welfare team. However, just because CRT now has "charity" status suddenly everyone expects them to behave like they are responsible for everyone's welfare. Daft. I know there are arguments about spending a little money on welfare to save a lot of money on legal fees etc, but the trouble with that is that it can become a spiralling and unlimited commitment, and once one starts to take responsibility in this sort of area, one exposes oneself to claims of inadequacy and poor response.

[PaulG]

Definitely assume its local authority who deal with this and would probably in fact sort social housing as well.

 

OTOH if the boater didn't seek help maybe CRT should direct the welfare team to their door

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't think they are being deprived of their home.

Surely they just have to move their boat out of the marina?

[Machpoint005]

 

The termination letter does seem quite measured in comparison to the site linking to it:-)

 

Hardly surprising given that the Ombudsman and the County Court both found in BW/CaRT's favour. That's the long and the short of it.