Another eviction

[RLWP]

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?

 

There are two cases running in this thread now. The first seems to be a marina moorer objecting to a price increase. The second may be a continuous cruiser

 

Richard

[MtB]

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?

 

Madcat said the bloke has mental health issues and there should be a welfare team helping.

 

I don't think Local Authority support can happen until requested by the recipient.

 

 

MtB

[RLWP]

 

Madcat said the bloke has mental health issues and there should be a welfare team helping.

 

I don't think Local Authority support can happen until requested by the recipient.

 

 

MtB

 

For Paul's benefit, this is the second case

 

Richard

[PaulG]

 

There are two cases running in this thread now. The first seems to be a marina moorer objecting to a price increase. The second may be a continuous cruiser

 

Richard

Thank you Richard. I'm obviously a bit slow on the uptake this morning!

[b0atman]

A lot of marinas now have permanent facilities like shops and businesses so logically they need people to be customers of these all year .

Also a residential boater gives the marina more profit by the fact of Electric useage ,Coal and gas purchases etc.

So why charge them more than any other boater ?

[MtB]

A lot of marinas now have permanent facilities like shops and businesses so logically they need people to be customers of these all year .

Also a residential boater gives the marina more profit by the fact of Electric useage ,Coal and gas purchases etc.

So why charge them more than any other boater ?

 

You'll be saying this marina has a monopoly next!

 

MtB

[magnetman]

Market forces. Its a dwelling

[b0atman]

No I wont I thought marinas where in business to make money and residential people give a better return than non res.

"Assumption is the mother of cock-ups" now where did I read that

Edited February 19, 2014 by b0atman

[MtB]

Yes, mainly because they will pay a higher mooring fee!

[RLWP]

Yes, mainly because they will pay a higher mooring fee!

 

Including council tax of course

 

Richard

[nicknorman]

No I wont I thought marinas where in business to make money and residential people give a better return than non res.

However they use the facilities more than a leisure boaters eg more wear on the gates, pontoons etc, car parking space used more. And the additional spend on other marina stuff is optional - they may choose not to spend their money elsewhere. But in reality I suspect it's a supply and demand thing. There is a shortage of residential moorings so they are worth more.

[Dekazer]

Green member of the London Assembly, Jenny Jones, is now tweeting in favour of the boaters in question.

 

https://twitter.com/GreenJennyJones

[b0atman]

Explains why Residential are becoming CCers and CMers big savings on marina charges and will not have council tax ? to pay so save over £3000 a year .

[The Director]

I felt I had to join you on the forum to put some of the comments straight regarding the eviction of Rod and Annie from Poplar Dock Marina - how this affects ALL of us living here - not just one person.

There are so many misinterpretations on here.

My story:-

When I bought my boat in 2011, I was not informed by BWML of the new 'widebeam' charge nor the new 'residential product' which was going to be introduced less than 3 months after purchase - despite them being fully aware of the price sensitivity of my situation. I was informed that the annual increase would be no more than 10%. The website at that time stated that Grade 1 was for 365 days occupancy as long as this was not your only residence. There was also NO wide beam charge listed at Poplar at the time. On discovering these increases shortly after arriving i was immediately put into a position of having to try and sell my boat - knowing that I could not afford the new fees...oh but hang on - I couldn't just advertise anywhere - a new rule was introduced that i had to sell through BWML's favoured site. And then - once someone was interested in the boat - there was no guarantee that they could remain on a Grade 1 or 2 as BWML were forcing ALL new people to take out residential. For me it has been 2 years of anxiety and for others on the marina it has been going on for much longer.

I am not an expert but I will try and put my perspective on here.

 

1. Rod went to court on behalf of ALL of us at Poplar. He was the test case so to speak. The complaint was on 2 counts a) against a surcharge of 30% for widebeams in a marina classified by the Port of London Authority as 'Coastal', which BWML contend is 'inland' and therefore subject to a widebeam surcharge (our only access is through a lock directly onto Thames - not an inland waterway in sight!) and against the 50% to 100% increase in cost of 'residential moorings' following approval of planning permission from Tower Hamlets Council to allow 'low cost housing' in the marina.

 

2. The reason neither the ombudsman nor the court could rule in 'our' favour was because they do not have jurisdiction to classify waterways. So effectively the case was 'lost' on technicalities.

 

3. This procedure follows BWML complaints policy - so where is the justice in evicting someone who follows the rules? We are all now scared of complaining about anything.

 

4. There is NO MONEY OWING. Rod has paid the new rates 'under duress'.

 

5. Many of the longer standing 'residents' (including Rod) were already paying a 'surcharge' for residential rights before the new policy came into force - so effectively paying twice for the same thing.

 

6. One elderly resident produced a council tax bill in her name(the criteria required for non residential mooring) from her flat elsewhere but was still initially refused the chance to remain on Grade 1. BWML sent private investigators to check on neighbours, GP to see if she ever stayed there!?*

 

7. For people living at Poplar for many years - there isn't another 'home' to go to in the area and many of the boats are too big to go on inland waterways. So it isn't as easy as saying - if you don't like it get out.

 

8. BWML constantly change their terms and conditions.

 

Yes..I am sure BWML are fed up with Rod questioning all their new pricing structures. But it still doesn't give them an excuse to evict him. Who would be next? The chairman of our community group? Me for writing this?

Yes...Rod is standing up to them - he is not being vexatious - just following procedure.

Yes...we paid a premium for the purchase of a boat in London - but remember BWML have already had their 5% slice of purchase price.

Yes..we do need your support to make it more secure to live on your own boat, in a proper designated area or marina, having paid all your bills and taxes, not breaking any rules only to be evicted with only 28 days notice.

 

I could go on....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Paul C]

I felt I had to join you on the forum to put some of the comments straight regarding the eviction of Rod and Annie from Poplar Dock Marina - how this affects ALL of us living here - not just one person.

There are so many misinterpretations on here.

My story:-

When I bought my boat in 2011, I was not informed by BWML of the new 'widebeam' charge nor the new 'residential product' which was going to be introduced less than 3 months after purchase - despite them being fully aware of the price sensitivity of my situation. I was informed that the annual increase would be no more than 10%. The website at that time stated that Grade 1 was for 365 days occupancy as long as this was not your only residence. There was also NO wide beam charge listed at Poplar at the time. On discovering these increases shortly after arriving i was immediately put into a position of having to try and sell my boat - knowing that I could not afford the new fees...oh but hang on - I couldn't just advertise anywhere - a new rule was introduced that i had to sell through BWML's favoured site. And then - once someone was interested in the boat - there was no guarantee that they could remain on a Grade 1 or 2 as BWML were forcing ALL new people to take out residential. For me it has been 2 years of anxiety and for others on the marina it has been going on for much longer.

I am not an expert but I will try and put my perspective on here.

 

1. Rod went to court on behalf of ALL of us at Poplar. He was the test case so to speak. The complaint was on 2 counts a) against a surcharge of 30% for widebeams in a marina classified by the Port of London Authority as 'Coastal', which BWML contend is 'inland' and therefore subject to a widebeam surcharge (our only access is through a lock directly onto Thames - not an inland waterway in sight!) and against the 50% to 100% increase in cost of 'residential moorings' following approval of planning permission from Tower Hamlets Council to allow 'low cost housing' in the marina.

 

2. The reason neither the ombudsman nor the court could rule in 'our' favour was because they do not have jurisdiction to classify waterways. So effectively the case was 'lost' on technicalities.

 

3. This procedure follows BWML complaints policy - so where is the justice in evicting someone who follows the rules? We are all now scared of complaining about anything.

 

4. There is NO MONEY OWING. Rod has paid the new rates 'under duress'.

 

5. Many of the longer standing 'residents' (including Rod) were already paying a 'surcharge' for residential rights before the new policy came into force - so effectively paying twice for the same thing.

 

6. One elderly resident produced a council tax bill in her name(the criteria required for non residential mooring) from her flat elsewhere but was still initially refused the chance to remain on Grade 1. BWML sent private investigators to check on neighbours, GP to see if she ever stayed there!?*

 

7. For people living at Poplar for many years - there isn't another 'home' to go to in the area and many of the boats are too big to go on inland waterways. So it isn't as easy as saying - if you don't like it get out.

 

8. BWML constantly change their terms and conditions.

 

Yes..I am sure BWML are fed up with Rod questioning all their new pricing structures. But it still doesn't give them an excuse to evict him. Who would be next? The chairman of our community group? Me for writing this?

Yes...Rod is standing up to them - he is not being vexatious - just following procedure.

Yes...we paid a premium for the purchase of a boat in London - but remember BWML have already had their 5% slice of purchase price.

Yes..we do need your support to make it more secure to live on your own boat, in a proper designated area or marina, having paid all your bills and taxes, not breaking any rules only to be evicted with only 28 days notice.

 

I could go on....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you expand on point 2?

[Mike Todd]

 

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

Anyone care to hazard a guess at how a marina near the River Soar would have reacted?

[PoplarBoater]

I'm a neighbour of the couple in question.

I've read the comments above - some are misinformed, some ill-informed, some potentially libellous.

 

Firstly, please don't suggest that Rod has mental health issues. He doesn't. Derek Newton's use of the word 'aggressive' in his Termination Notice was a lie to back up a shaky case. We have suggested in a response to him that the word is potentially defamatory, and the comments here will make for useful evidence if there is a final court case to evict Rod and Annie.

 

This issue boils down to the reason that Newton gave for evicting the couple. His letter states that this is purely because they followed the prescribed complaints procedure, through to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman ruled that it was not in his brief to rule on certain issues, and recommended that a court, or the Office of Fair Trading, were the only place to resolve some of the issues raised. Rod took the case to the Small Claims Court, represented himself, and lost. The Judge explicitly stated that there were valid questions to consider, and that the case was not vexatious. Rod lost the case - but before he'd even had time to consider whether to follow up his right to appeal, he received the Termination Notice. The reason given was Rod's complaint, pure and simple.

 

The Ombudsman case that people have been quoting above is a different case.

 

If people want to make this about market forces, please explain why Limehouse Marina is 30% cheaper than Poplar for 80%+ of Poplar boats.

 

For an extra £500 per annum, Poplar boaters were offered residential use of their boats in 2006 when BWML had recently taken over the marina. At this time, the marina had existed since 1999 WITH NO PLANNING PERMISSION WHATSOEVER after BW withdrew its original application, built the marina anyway, and neveer paid a penny in Section 106 payments to the local authority.

When BWML received Planning Approval for Change of Use of 50% of berths to 'Residential' - on the grounds stated in their application that this "provided much needed low cost housing in the area", they promptly informed the 'residents' that a NEW residential flat berth fee would be introduced. Ignoring a PLA Consultation into Residential rates in London, they set a price which almost tripled the cost for smaller boats. On top of this, they piled on a further 30% widebeam surcharge on the basis that Poplar Dock is "inland' when it is clearly a sea-going dock. They lied to the Ombudsman that this inland classification was because boats with masts couldn't access the dock. The surcharge was in breach of their own contractual terms and conditions, as was ruled by the Ombudsman - and yet they haven't taken the simple measure of changing these T&C's - such is their contempt for their customers and for due process.

 

Ultimately, after 3 years of our community trying unsuccessfully to reason with BWML, Rod's court case, supported by his neighbours, was in response to the Waterways Ombudsman's recommendation, and was a test case on all the issues above, and more. He lost the case - he has to accommodate the repercussions of this - ie, higher mooring fees against a litany of broken promises and dishonoured contractual agreements by BWML over the years. Should he also be evicted, simply for holding BWML to account ?

 

C&RT control the moorings market in London, and, as Robin Evans stated to a Parliamentary Committee, there is no elasticity in this market.

At the same time, as BW was being transferred to C&RT, he made an assurance that moorings would not rise, in the 15yr Business Plan, substantially more than inflation.

 

All the facts above are documented. This case, and the real fear of Poplar residents, is that there is no protection for people who live on boats. We have a '28 days notice - no reason needed' clause in contracts. C&RT and BWML can evict any of us at any time - if we complain, we get the chop. And they accuse Rod of being aggressive?

[The Director]

 

Can you expand on point 2?

Up to a point - I am no expert. But the outcome of the Ombudsman enquiry was that he couldn't rule on the widebeam issue. Poplar is classed as coastal by PLA but inland by BWML and that we/Rod would have to take it to a court to get the answer. Unfortunately the Judge also found that there were no existing laws governing this classification.

[Mike Todd]

I'm a neighbour of the couple in question.

I've read the comments above - some are misinformed, some ill-informed, some potentially libellous.

 

Firstly, please don't suggest that Rod has mental health issues. He doesn't. Derek Newton's use of the word 'aggressive' in his Termination Notice was a lie to back up a shaky case. We have suggested in a response to him that the word is potentially defamatory, and the comments here will make for useful evidence if there is a final court case to evict Rod and Annie.

 

This issue boils down to the reason that Newton gave for evicting the couple. His letter states that this is purely because they followed the prescribed complaints procedure, through to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman ruled that it was not in his brief to rule on certain issues, and recommended that a court, or the Office of Fair Trading, were the only place to resolve some of the issues raised. Rod took the case to the Small Claims Court, represented himself, and lost. The Judge explicitly stated that there were valid questions to consider, and that the case was not vexatious. Rod lost the case - but before he'd even had time to consider whether to follow up his right to appeal, he received the Termination Notice. The reason given was Rod's complaint, pure and simple.

 

The Ombudsman case that people have been quoting above is a different case.

 

If people want to make this about market forces, please explain why Limehouse Marina is 30% cheaper than Poplar for 80%+ of Poplar boats.

 

For an extra £500 per annum, Poplar boaters were offered residential use of their boats in 2006 when BWML had recently taken over the marina. At this time, the marina had existed since 1999 WITH NO PLANNING PERMISSION WHATSOEVER after BW withdrew its original application, built the marina anyway, and neveer paid a penny in Section 106 payments to the local authority.

When BWML received Planning Approval for Change of Use of 50% of berths to 'Residential' - on the grounds stated in their application that this "provided much needed low cost housing in the area", they promptly informed the 'residents' that a NEW residential flat berth fee would be introduced. Ignoring a PLA Consultation into Residential rates in London, they set a price which almost tripled the cost for smaller boats. On top of this, they piled on a further 30% widebeam surcharge on the basis that Poplar Dock is "inland' when it is clearly a sea-going dock. They lied to the Ombudsman that this inland classification was because boats with masts couldn't access the dock. The surcharge was in breach of their own contractual terms and conditions, as was ruled by the Ombudsman - and yet they haven't taken the simple measure of changing these T&C's - such is their contempt for their customers and for due process.

 

Ultimately, after 3 years of our community trying unsuccessfully to reason with BWML, Rod's court case, supported by his neighbours, was in response to the Waterways Ombudsman's recommendation, and was a test case on all the issues above, and more. He lost the case - he has to accommodate the repercussions of this - ie, higher mooring fees against a litany of broken promises and dishonoured contractual agreements by BWML over the years. Should he also be evicted, simply for holding BWML to account ?

 

C&RT control the moorings market in London, and, as Robin Evans stated to a Parliamentary Committee, there is no elasticity in this market.

At the same time, as BW was being transferred to C&RT, he made an assurance that moorings would not rise, in the 15yr Business Plan, substantially more than inflation.

 

All the facts above are documented. This case, and the real fear of Poplar residents, is that there is no protection for people who live on boats. We have a '28 days notice - no reason needed' clause in contracts. C&RT and BWML can evict any of us at any time - if we complain, we get the chop. And they accuse Rod of being aggressive?

No-one did suggest he had mental health problems - that was the other case.

[The Director]

Green member of the London Assembly, Jenny Jones, is now tweeting in favour of the boaters in question.

 

https://twitter.com/GreenJennyJones

Jenny has been following this case from the outset - she has all the background information and speaks as an informed participant in the campaign.

[Dekazer]

Jenny has been following this case from the outset - she has all the background information and speaks as an informed participant in the campaign.

 

That's reassuring - much better than an uninformed politician shouting with half facts

[Guest]

Jenny has been following this case from the outset - she has all the background information and speaks as an informed participant in the campaign.

 

Clearly she is taking an objective view......

 

 

 

Numpty edit to remove the same link that was in the OP....

Edited February 19, 2014 by The Dog House

[RLWP]

Can you expand on the implications of a marina being 'coastal' please?

 

Richard

[Mike Todd]

From the BWML website for Poplar Marina:

 

BWML is the only marina business who offer an Independent Complaints Procedure assessed by the Waterways Ombudsman, we make this available as part of your service provision. This Procedure will ensure customers receive fair and reasonable treatment.

[PaulG]

Can you expand on the implications of a marina being 'coastal' please?

 

Richard

Think of a reasonable price for one night's mooring.

Multiply by 5.

That's "coastal".