Chelsea Moorers Told To Weigh Anchor

[Bee]

There just seems to be little sympathy for someone who lives on a boat who has been chucked off a residential mooring with virtually no chance of getting another mooring, why should that be?

[Alan de Enfield]

Play by the rules "dont get chucked off"

Dont play by the rules "get chucked off"

 

Simples - and - applies to any mooring / marina whether residential or leisure

 

A spokesman for Cadogan Pier Ltd said Miss Pittam had failed to supply details of insurance and other documentation

 

The company decided to withdraw four licences based on payment history, unauthorised renting to third parties and vessel condition.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[carlt]

Schadenfreude has a habit of coming back and biting you.

 

well if you give a dog a stupid name like that it's bound to turn vicious.

[John Williamson 1955]

There just seems to be little sympathy for someone who lives on a boat who has been chucked off a residential mooring with virtually no chance of getting another mooring, why should that be?

Is it a "proper" residential mooring with planning permission? Or just one where the owners and council don't care if you spend every night on board? I think it's actually in PLA water, and if so, what rules apply?

[Bee]

`Another three boatowners were ordered to leave through random selection`

So even if they were model tenants they have lost their moorings, it`s all very well following - even supporting - the rights of landlords to do as they wish but there is not a single bit of effective legal protection for boatowners. That left them with no security at all, they may as well have tied on the towpath and saved themselves some money and some pride by not being in thrall to a landlord.

 

By the way, schadenfreude is the name my dog chose for herself, she`s a collie and very intelligent - I call her Bella and she tolerates it for biscuits.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Bee

[Alan de Enfield]

......but there is not a single bit of effective legal protection for boatowners. ....

 

We know that - its a choice anyone who wants a boat, and particularly if they want to liveaboard, has to make. If they are not happy about it live in a house.

If they dont know about it then they havn't done their research.

 

Living on a boat is not a way to live on the cheap.

[Peter X]

It's a simple matter of supply and demand. Demand is rising but the supply of moorings in prime central London locations is limited, and believe me Chelsea=prime. My grandmother was born there, in World's End which was then rather cheap, but there are no cheap parts of Chelsea now. Just expensive and super-expensive. Ms Leotard can count herself fortunate to have been able to afford to live there for a few years at all, but soaring property prices are no doubt reflected in the prices of moorings in the same area. That's life and she'll have to live within her means like the rest of us.

 

My mockery of her false sense of entitlement has nothing to do with the type of boat she owns. The only difference that makes is that her choice of boat means she can't go on canals but can go to sea, so her possible choice of mooring locations is different.

 

Bee says she has "virtually no chance of getting another mooring", but is that really so if you don't put "in Chelsea" on the end?

[Alan Saunders]

`Another three boatowners were ordered to leave through random selection`

So even if they were model tenants they have lost their moorings, it`s all very well following - even supporting - the rights of landlords to do as they wish but there is not a single bit of effective legal protection for boatowners. That left them with no security at all, they may as well have tied on the towpath and saved themselves some money and some pride by not being in thrall to a landlord.

 

By the way, schadenfreude is the name my dog chose for herself, she`s a collie and very intelligent - I call her Bella and she tolerates it for biscuits.

I'm with Bee on this. The article concentrated on one individual who may have contravened the terms of her lease.

 

I am more concerned for the three 'chosen at random'. Even if the new site owner needed to comply with regulations restricting the number of berths at Cadogan Pier I am sure that, after evicting the four defaulters, they could negotiate a 'stay' with the authority or even increase the number of berths.

 

As Nigel Moore often emphasises, boats on CRT waters 'with no home mooring' have more rights (with some restrictions) than those with moorings. There is no right to moor to a bank anywhere unless you own the land.

 

A few years ago the legal rights of 'mobile home' owners were improved and some of the regulation was applied to marinas and moorings. The main difference is that a boat can easily be moved to another location and sold at market value;

A 'mobile home' (unlike a boat, not actually mobile):

• Costs as much or more than a boat,
• Has no value without a site,
• Site owners demand by contract:
  • First right to sell and chose the buyer,
  • 20% or more sellers fee,
  • Evict any 'home' more than 20 years old.

Rent a flat in the private sector and you will have a 6 month assured tenancy.

Offer 5 years in advance (say £30,000) and it will be refused.

Get a Housing Association (Council) property (unlikely) and you can no longer pass it on to resident children.

 

Boat dwellers have more security than anyone in rented property.

 

Ms Pittam has lived her dream for six years. If she had invested in a small house or flat and suffered the daily commuting to the City she could have lived her dream from early retirement into her dotage - but not in London.

[Peter X]

My apologies to Miss Pittam for getting her name wrong. I see that I picked up the name Leotard from Athy's post #7, and that the source for that is not explained. Unless it's a reference to her short dress, which is not the same thing as a leotard.

In my defence, it can be a genuine surname, some years ago a Francois Leotard was the Defence minister in the French government:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_L%C3%A9otard

I'm with Bee on this. The article concentrated on one individual who may have contravened the terms of her lease.

 

I am more concerned for the three 'chosen at random'. Even if the new site owner needed to comply with regulations restricting the number of berths at Cadogan Pier I am sure that, after evicting the four defaulters, they could negotiate a 'stay' with the authority or even increase the number of berths.

 

As Nigel Moore often emphasises, boats on CRT waters 'with no home mooring' have more rights (with some restrictions) than those with moorings. There is no right to moor to a bank anywhere unless you own the land.

 

...

 

 

Can you clarify this point for me please? I thought that many of the banks on CRT waters, especially where there is a towpath, belong to the CRT, and that where this is the case, CRT permit mooring wherever the boat is not on someone else's residential mooring or obstructing something or overstaying?

I would have thought that if the owner of the pier could negotiate having more berths, they would already have done so in order to get the extra income.

[Machpoint005]

Hmm

 

It does seem to me that this person is saying 'I cannot afford the lifestyle to which I aspire'.

She has no grounds for complaint if (1) she knew what the rules were when she started; (2) has not complied with those rules; (3) has not paid her bills on time. Makes no difference whether she is on a boat or in a building.

 

The Standard has, of course, adopted its usual one-sided sensationalist attitude.

[John Williamson 1955]

It's a simple matter of supply and demand. Demand is rising but the supply of moorings in prime central London locations is limited, and believe me Chelsea=prime. My grandmother was born there, in World's End which was then rather cheap, but there are no cheap parts of Chelsea now. Just expensive and super-expensive. Ms Leotard can count herself fortunate to have been able to afford to live there for a few years at all, but soaring property prices are no doubt reflected in the prices of moorings in the same area. That's life and she'll have to live within her means like the rest of us.

 

My mockery of her false sense of entitlement has nothing to do with the type of boat she owns. The only difference that makes is that her choice of boat means she can't go on canals but can go to sea, so her possible choice of mooring locations is different.

 

Bee says she has "virtually no chance of getting another mooring", but is that really so if you don't put "in Chelsea" on the end?

I was driving past the Chelsea HarbourCompany (Is that right?) yesterday (The other moorings in the area), and there were a lot of empty spaces there. Mind you, they are drying moorings from about half tide down, and probably more expensive than one on a pier in mid channel..

[lynalldisocvery]

Last two paragraphs in the link with the pics say it all really!

[carlt]

Last two paragraphs in the link with the pics say it all really!

Yes it would appear that the company is attempting to put right mistakes made by the previous proprietors however cak-handed they are going about it.

 

I can't help wondering which Russian oligarchs are thinking of forsaking their Monte Carlo berths for the sun, sea and sand of a Thames floating pier though...

[Athy]

My apologies to Miss Pittam for getting her name wrong. I see that I picked up the name Leotard from Athy's post #7, and that the source for that is not explained. Unless it's a reference to her short dress, which is not the same thing as a leotard.

 

Gosh, d'you know what, I think it just might have been!

I bow to your superior knowledge of ladies' clothing.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Athy

[Lady Muck]

Hmm

 

It does seem to me that this person is saying 'I cannot afford the lifestyle to which I aspire'.

She could but it's gone up. I do find it rather sad that for most ordinary Londoners that were born here, they can't afford to live in the area where they were brought up. My partner grew up in Islington, most of the family is from Primrose Hill/Islington/Camden - you've got to be some kind of billionaire to afford those places now, they're beyond even the reach of well-off middle class.

And as a boater on an underpriced mooring (well it seems from recent auctions), I may have to leave too at some point. Bit sad about it though.

[Proper Job]

She could but it's gone up. I do find it rather sad that for most ordinary Londoners that were born here, they can't afford to live in the area where they were brought up. My partner grew up in Islington, most of the family is from Primrose Hill/Islington/Camden - you've got to be some kind of billionaire to afford those places now, they're beyond even the reach of well-off middle class.

And as a boater on an underpriced mooring (well it seems from recent auctions), I may have to leave too at some point. Bit sad about it though.

It happens everywhere

 

Out in the sticks you have rural communities where children cannot afford to live because commuters have moved in to the area and put up housing beyond their means

 

When it comes to property, money talks

[Lady Muck]

It never happened in my hometown - wonder why that is!

[Dave_P]

People being ousted from their homes is a distressing experience for those affected, however you want to cut it. It seems quite sad to me that some posters on here are quite happy to belittle and mock from afar...

 

We're all boaters aren't we? What's wrong with a bit of solidarity? In the past, I've had to move on when my tenancy was terminated. It doesn't make it right though! Over my lifetime, the (hard fought) rights of the many have been stripped away to service the whims and the greed of the few. Is that right? Is that fair?

[MtB]

People being ousted from their homes is a distressing experience for those affected, however you want to cut it. It seems quite sad to me that some posters on here are quite happy to belittle and mock from afar...

 

We're all boaters aren't we? What's wrong with a bit of solidarity? In the past, I've had to move on when my tenancy was terminated. It doesn't make it right though! Over my lifetime, the (hard fought) rights of the many have been stripped away to service the whims and the greed of the few. Is that right? Is that fair?

 

The problem I have with your "bit of solidarity" is who will you make play by the rules and who will you excuse?

 

. Are you proposing Miss Pittam should be allowed to stay on her mooring without the insurance all her currently neighbours purchase and hold?

 

The problem is you are proposing a wedge with a thin end. Once all the neighbours decide not to buy insurance either, attention will turn to those other three moorers you allowed to stay who are behind with their rent. Everyone there will see that you have decreed that paying rent on time is optional and take their payment holidays too.

 

Can you point out where this process will stop? Because I don't think it will. People who decide to gain advantage by ignoring the rules the rest of us live by deserve the consequences, mainly to set an example.

 

Do you also think Pillings Lock Marina should be excused paying their NAA charges to CRT because they 'can't afford them after all'?

 

 

MtB

[carlt]

 

 

We're all boaters aren't we? What's wrong with a bit of solidarity?

Which boaters should we stand shoulder to shoulder with...those being "ousted" or the Russian oligarchs that will be "moving in"?

 

If what the pontoon owners say is true then they have no choice but to reduce the number of moorings available.

 

If the super rich megayachters are on their way over from sunnier climes then I really can't see how those Russians are hanging on to their money, such is the level of their stupidity.

[Speedwheel]

I've had to move on when my tenancy was terminated. It doesn't make it right though!

 

Of course it is 'right'. You had a free choice to enter into the agreement and the landlord had the free choice to terminate it. Why should you have a greater right to possession of the property than the owner?

[Dave_P]

Which boaters should we stand shoulder to shoulder with...those being "ousted" or the Russian oligarchs that will be "moving in"?

 

If what the pontoon owners say is true then they have no choice but to reduce the number of moorings available.

 

If the super rich megayachters are on their way over from sunnier climes then I really can't see how those Russians are hanging on to their money, such is the level of their stupidity.

Devil's advocate??? But you're supposing a lot. So is Mike. So I am I. But I still don't like the way people on here think it's ok to 'make fun of' or have a go at people in distress.

 

Of course it is 'right'. You had a free choice to enter into the agreement and the landlord had the free choice to terminate it. Why should you have a greater right to possession of the property than the owner?

You seem to be confusing legality with morality. They commonly diverge! I never talked about who has a greater right of possession but since you brought it up, in my opinion; many, many vulnerable people were better off before assured shorthold tenancies were introduced. That's when all the cards fell into the lap of the property owner and the occupier lost pretty much all their rights. Maybe, we've forgotten that it wasn't always like this?

 

Who's interests are being served when the richer and more powerful you are, the more protection the government gives you?

[carlt]

But you're supposing a lot.

I'm not "supposing" anything.

 

I am reading the links associated with this thread, assuming none of the parties is lying and commenting on that basis.

 

One party mentioned the arrival of super yachts belonging to Russian billionaires and the other party mentioned an obligation to reduce the number of berths because the previous owner had exceeded their allowance.

 

Now we could "suppose" that the Russian oligarchs have been ousted from their Monaco marinas and are now forced to quit the blue sea and skies of the Mediterranean and slum it on a damp London pontoon in which case should we show "solidarity" with our fellow boaters and welcome them to our waterways, sympathising about their unfair treatment by their former marina operators?

[Speedwheel]

You seem to be confusing legality with morality. They commonly diverge! I never talked about who has a greater right of possession but since you brought it up, in my opinion; many, many vulnerable people were better off before assured shorthold tenancies were introduced. That's when all the cards fell into the lap of the property owner and the occupier lost pretty much all their rights. Maybe, we've forgotten that it wasn't always like this?

 

Who's interests are being served when the richer and more powerful you are, the more protection the government gives you?

 

No I'm not. Morally why should an occupier have more rights than an owner? Vulnerable people should be offered protection but this should not be at the expense of someone else, in this case the property owner who may also be vulnerable or rely on the property income for their pension, this should be by the state.

 

The creation of new Rent Act tenancies were stopped because they were making a mess of the rental market. Even now there are still many people who pay massively well below the market rent, in my opinion for no good reason.

[Dave_P]

I'm not "supposing" anything.

 

I am reading the links associated with this thread, assuming none of the parties is lying and commenting on that basis.

 

One party mentioned the arrival of super yachts belonging to Russian billionaires and the other party mentioned an obligation to reduce the number of berths because the previous owner had exceeded their allowance.

 

Now we could "suppose" that the Russian oligarchs have been ousted from their Monaco marinas and are now forced to quit the blue sea and skies of the Mediterranean and slum it on a damp London pontoon in which case should we show "solidarity" with our fellow boaters and welcome them to our waterways, sympathising about their unfair treatment by their former marina operators?

At least one of the parties must be lying since one side says there's a problem with insurance and the other side says there no reason for this.

 

Also, the whole tale of oligarchs is pure supposition!

 

No I'm not. Morally why should an occupier have more rights than an owner? Vulnerable people should be offered protection but this should not be at the expense of someone else, in this case the property owner who may also be vulnerable or rely on the property income for their pension, this should be by the state.

 

It's not a question of one side having more rights than another. It's a question of fairness.

 

The creation of new Rent Act tenancies were stopped because they were making a mess of the rental market. Even now there are still many people who pay massively well below the market rent, in my opinion for no good reason.

 

Reform of the rental market did not necessarily have to lead us to our current arrangements.