Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
sueb

Another eviction

Featured Posts

Pyrford marina on the River Wey that has/had long leases not sure how it pans out now as its part of Tingdene.

 

I'll call in and ask them next time I'm over there.

 

Odd, because NT administer the Wey and are fiercely anti-liveaboard.

 

 

MtB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Their remit is to run a waterway, not to provide social housing.

 

CaRT are damned if they do or don't. As for the question of the provision of social housing - I would have thought a residential mooring comes pretty close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble with a residential mooring is you need to raise capital to buy the boat so they aren't really a cheap option suitable for 'social housing' equivalent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

CaRT are damned if they do or don't. As for the question of the provision of social housing - I would have thought a residential mooring comes pretty close.

 

CRT are allowed to provide residential moorings, they are not obliged to.

 

MtB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'll call in and ask them next time I'm over there.

 

Odd, because NT administer the Wey and are fiercely anti-liveaboard.

 

 

MtB

Didnt say they were residential just long term leases not the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didnt say they were residential just long term leases not the same thing.

 

Ok. Not sure why I introduced that irrelevant complication.

 

If Pyrford can draft a long term mooring lease, I'm intrigued as to why Pillings say it can't be done. The Pillings car park spaces aren't residential either!

 

 

MtB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok. Not sure why I introduced that irrelevant complication.

 

If Pyrford can draft a long term mooring lease, I'm intrigued as to why Pillings say it can't be done. The Pillings car park spaces aren't residential either!

 

 

MtB

IIRC the LBNA residential moorings in Battlebridge Basin are leasehold

 

 

Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all very familiar.

Between 1998 and 2004 our son lived on board our butty in Battlebridge. The mooring fees were paid to a property company and the annual increase was modest and the fee was reasonable.

Then BW, as it was then, took back the lease and the rent leapt overnight from around £2k per annum to a staggering £8K.

Of course, we argued, wrote letters, met BW managers etc. but we quickly realised that there was no way we would be able to defeat BW, particularly as the area around King's Cross was being developed. So we accepted the inevitable. We couldn't afford to keep the boat in central London. Our son moved off the boat and we took the butty to a cheaper mooring.

I'm afraid CaRT holds all the cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it is ok to evict elderly sick people who have made their home there for 14 years.

If I could quote the oracle:

Surely boaters themselves must have some responsibility for the precarious position they are in. There is no security of tenure at most of the moorings on the canal...

 

I can't emphasise enough you have no security of tenure on a boat. The chances of finding a residential mooring are slim and even then the mooring owner can ask you to leave.

It is a pity that more people don't realise what a precarious thing it can be living on a boat. There is no security of tenure.

Remember you have no security of tenure so if the owner doesn't like you he can tell you to leave.

 

It could all change and remember there is no security of tenure on the canals.

Take into account illness, old age and problems with the boat.....boating isn't a secure past time. you have no right of tenure.
  • Greenie 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Rot.

 

He's being evicted because he seems to have demonstrated a continuing reluctance to accept the conclusions of the entire complaints process and the courts, and has thus shown himself to be someone who cannot be dealt with by reasonable means. Last resorts are therefore called for and justified.

Can you explain "continuing reluctance"?

 

In this instance the Ombudsman delivered his decision on the 15th March 2013. As a result it is not yet available as part of the annual reports.

One aspect of that decision was that BWML could not immediately terminate the 3 year contracts that had been offered to customers in 2011... BWML had previously told customers that they would be moved onto the "New" residential rate midway through the current contract.

 

The Ombudsman also stated:

I now return to my point above about the OFT’s guidance and whether there is any ambiguity about the terms, and following on from that whether paragraph 7.2 of BWML’s terms and conditions, and in particular the definition of berth and the consequences for charging, could be regarded as unfair. It could be argued that if there is ambiguity or doubt about whether BWML can, or cannot, apply a widebeam surcharge, the UTCCRs make it clear that the most favourable interpretation should prevail (i.e. that no widebeam surcharge should be applied). My view is that at best the terms lack clarity, but it would be, as the guidance implies, for a court to reach a conclusion on whether there was any actual ambiguity.

 

Rod initiated his small claims case in July 2013 however these things take time and Rod had not only been offered but also paid in full for a Residential contract commencing January 2014 before the actual court hearing.

 

I should add here that Rod had travelled up to Sawley to have a meeting with Derek Newton on 19th Dec 2013... Clearly Rod was so "aggressive" at this meeting that Mr Newton felt intimidated into renewing his mooring........

This next bit is conjecture as I was not there but Rod was advised to drop the case as BWML would win and it would cost Rod a lot of money as happened to other people who took BWML to court.

 

The court hearing happened. Rod did not win his case however he was not ordered to pay BWML's costs.

 

Rod received a letter telling him to vacate the marina... Following the court case he had not done anything to further "Annoy" BWML

No warning was given, no indication that if he persisted beyond that point BWML may regard him as a troublesome customer.

 

"a continuing reluctance to accept the conclusions of the entire complaints process and the courts". On the contrary, Rod had paid all fees that were due and followed the complaints procedure that is advertised as a benefit. He then followed the advice given by the waterways Ombudsman.

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he felt the need to take the marina operator to court why would he want to stay there?

 

He has made a rod for his own back here.

 

Did he really expect they would be happy for him to stay after that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a company publishes and promotes a complaints procedure you don't expect to be hung out to dry for using it...

 

BWML's legal team (Shoosmiths) are notoriously expensive. I have seen them trying to claim full Barrister hourly rate for the journey time plus mileage on top before they even sat down in court so a full days hearing will have cost BWML a hefty sum.

If BWML thought they had such a watertight case they could easily have defended it in person. It appears that they fully expected all costs to be paid by Mr Taylor and they got it wrong.

 

Quite possibly Hell hath no fury like an MD getting a large legal bill in the post but that is hardly a good reason for the level of punishment.

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez, are you her stalker?!?

 

I very much doubt it but he does have a very good memory and the ability to search this forum, as he has proved many times before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a company publishes and promotes a complaints procedure you don't expect to be hung out to dry for using it...

 

BWML's legal team (Shoosmiths) are notoriously expensive. I have seen them trying to claim full Barrister hourly rate for the journey time plus mileage on top before they even sat down in court so a full days hearing will have cost BWML a hefty sum.

If BWML thought they had such a watertight case they could easily have defended it in person. It appears that they fully expected all costs to be paid by Mr Taylor and they got it wrong.

 

Quite possibly Hell hath no fury like an MD getting a large legal bill in the post but that is hardly a good reason for the level of punishment.

 

Andy

 

That isnt why he has been asked to leave frusty.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez, are you her stalker?!?

 

You only need to be able to recall the word "tenure", and be able to make most basic use of the forum's search facility.

 

That is hardly stalking.

 

What it actually is is exposing a prize piece of hypocrisy.

 

Sue is so keen to bash BW/CRT at every stage, she will happily ignore the advice she has repeatedly offered to others.

 

Doesn't that advice often include something further along the lines of "don't live on a boat if you don't have somewhere else you can move off to when illness or other problems make it all too difficult"?

Edited by alan_fincher
  • Greenie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain "continuing reluctance"?

 

 

 

Well yes - it's quite simple actually.

 

Complaint 1 - valid in so far as he says he didn't get the letter - accepted and payment deferred.

Complaint 2 - "That's not good enough". Rejected.

Complaint 3 - Rejection upheld

Complaint 4 - Rejection upheld again.

 

Seems like a definition of "continued reluctance" to accept the hard truth to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What it actually is is exposing a prize piece of hypocrisy.

 

Sue is so keen to bash BW/CRT at every stage, she will happily ignore the advice she has repeatedly offered to others.

 

 

I don't see hypocrisy. Apart from the point that a lady is entitled to change her mind, in this thread she has taken a fairly neutral stance and is not "CRT bashing". In the past she has repeatedly warned of security of tenure issues, which is of course correct. There is no significant conflict in these two tacks.

 

I must say I find the constant "Sue bashing" rather distasteful. She may have said things you didn't like in the past, but people and their posts should be judged on the merit of their current actions / posts, not what they may have done/said in the distant past.

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say I find the constant "Sue bashing" rather distasteful.

I hardly think quoting someone's own words, in context, is "bashing" and the quotes are from pretty recent to the "distant past" in order to demonstrate the consistency of the OP's opinion over the years ...until this point.

 

I have made no comment or opinion about my observation, merely posted what I have observed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hardly think quoting someone's own words, in context, is "bashing" and the quotes are from pretty recent to the "distant past" in order to demonstrate the consistency of the OP's opinion over the years ...until this point.I have made no comment or opinion about my observation, merely posted what I have observed.

And that's why I didn't quote your post in my reply.

 

I notice that you say "demonstrate the consistency" not "... inconsistency" though I suspect your agenda was the latter. But even so, I fail to see anything inconsistent in the list of quotes you published. There seems little point in attempting to show that her line has always been consistent. Very dull!

Edited by nicknorman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice that you say "demonstrate the consistency" not "... inconsistency" though I suspect your agenda was the latter.

Then your suspicions are wrong as I demonstrated her consistency over the years up to this point.

 

I have no "agenda" and frequently quote all sorts of people to illustrate a point.

Edited by carlt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.