Evictions on the River Thames

[nine9feet]

I can imagine the response from certain quarters if this happened on CRT waters rather than the Thames.

 

"River police evict 17 boats moored illegally in Hampton

A total of 17 boats, moored next to Thames Water in Lower Sunbury Road, were served eviction notices on Friday, August 15, which required the vessels to be removed from the riverbank by Tuesday, August 19.

 

The eviction was carried out by officers from Hampton local policing team and the Marine Police Unit alongside the Thames Water enforcement team.

 

Acting Police Sergeant Michael Somers from the Hampton local police team, said: "This is part of an ongoing operation where the Metropolitan Police Service is assisting land owners to remove boats moored without permission."

 

 

From : http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/11422604.River_police_evict_17_boats_moored_illegally_in_Hampton/

[b0atman]

Amazing that they don't do that with travellers ?

[magnetman]

They have been recently moved from chertsey, if its the same boats one of them is a 95x16 humber keel. Big boat to find a mooring for !!

 

The mooring which was previously squatted at Chertsey was previously a visitor mooring but now the land owner has decided to put up no mooring signs with a threat of £100 fine if you tie up there

 

The waterworks moorings were squatted before but there is access so they keep coming back.

 

When i went past there 3 weeks ago Archimedes and Ara were there - don't know who's using them now...

 

 

Difference between Thames and the cut is that land ownership is generally private on the River which is not the case on the cut, yet.

[jenlyn]

Screwing it for everyone else in the process of acting selfishly. Seems to be the common trend recently.

As for those attempting the same on CRT waterways, I think you will find that the majority are beginning to shout at the minority. The minority being those who feel they can set up "base camp" wherever they feel. All we need now, is CRT and it's enforcement team dealing with those that do not move on our water's.

[ditchcrawler]

Amazing that they don't do that with travellers ?

They do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Farm

[Bee]

Well, the problem has been dispersed to other places presumably which is hardly a solution. Years ago boats were made of wood and had a finite life, nowadays boats are made from grp and steel and last forever, consequently there are a lot of cheap `end of life` boats about that offer the chance of some sort of home. Add that to the finite number of moorings available and the expense of those that there are and this is the result. I have no idea how many boats Colecraft and L`pool boats, for example have produced but its a hell of a lot. I think if you want a new boat you should first buy an end of life wreck, scrap it, prove to CRT that you have removed it and then you would be allowed to build a new one. As for the answer to people needing cheap housing, maybe you should prove that an old relative has died before you are allowed to make a replacement. Am now hiding behind the sofa.

[Mr Badger]

More information on the legal background would be interesting. I thought evictions were a matter for the landowners and the police only attended to prevent a breach of the peace.

 

Edited to add:

 

Section 61 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 enables a police officer to direct trespassers on land (who are there with the common purpose of residing there for any period) to leave the land where the occupier has taken steps to ask them to do so, and either:

• they have damaged the land; or
• they have used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour to the occupier, the occupier's family, employees or agents; or
• between them they have 6 or more vehicles on the land.

Failure to obey a direction to leave or returning to the land as a trespasser within 3 months is an offence.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Mr Badger

[jenlyn]

Well, the problem has been dispersed to other places presumably which is hardly a solution. Years ago boats were made of wood and had a finite life, nowadays boats are made from grp and steel and last forever, consequently there are a lot of cheap `end of life` boats about that offer the chance of some sort of home. Add that to the finite number of moorings available and the expense of those that there are and this is the result. I have no idea how many boats Colecraft and L`pool boats, for example have produced but its a hell of a lot. I think if you want a new boat you should first buy an end of life wreck, scrap it, prove to CRT that you have removed it and then you would be allowed to build a new one. As for the answer to people needing cheap housing, maybe you should prove that an old relative has died before you are allowed to make a replacement. Am now hiding behind the sofa.

It's of course a complete shambles, brought on ultimately by government policy. I suppose the answer could lie with petitioning-bombarding local councils, who would in turn shout at the local MP.

As you point out, it is probably more of a housing problem.

[NigelMoore]

Difference between Thames and the cut is that land ownership is generally private on the River which is not the case on the cut, yet.

 

There are two points occurring to me arising from that statement –

 

1. Usually 50% of the banks on the cut will be private, all representations to the contrary being fiction. That being so, the situation is no different from the Thames - any landowner is entitled to remove a boat attached to his land, even without notice, provided reasonable care is taken. [The difficulty where no public towpath exists, as on much of the Thames, is finding where to remove the boats to, because the boats cannot be just cast adrift.]

 

I do find it extraordinary, however, that the police have seen fit to involve themselves in an apparently active role in what amounts to a civil dispute. [They do not appear to have been present merely in a “keeping the peace” capacity].

 

2. Presuming that the “yet” is an allusion to further privatisation of CaRT property itself, it should be noted with some dismay that this remains an ever-present possibility under the terms of the Transfer from BW.

 

The spin from government was that the canal system real estate would be preserved for perpetuity for the nation, by placing it in a separate Trust to be administered only, by the new authority. Supposedly this was to keep the property from privatisation by cupid future governments. The reality, however, is that the entire system has been banked as available gambling chips for the CaRT administration. Under the terms of their construction they can put any part or all of the property up as collateral for loans.

 

Given their less than shining track record in business success, that should send a shiver up the spines of those genuinely concerned at preservation of the national network for the nation.

Edited August 22, 2014 by NigelMoore

[Felshampo]

They do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Farm

They only moved 100yds down the road though!

 

Amazing that they don't do that with travellers ?

The police don't like confronting travellers. A bit too scary me thinks.

[phill]

 

I do find it extraordinary, however, that the police have seen fit to involve themselves in an apparently active role in what amounts to a civil dispute. [They do not appear to have present merely in a “keeping the peace” capacity].

 

This.

 

I am curious as to how they went about it. What laws they used. Or whether they just acted as a paramilitary private army.

 

There are serious implications in this. I do hope it doesn't just get forgotten.

[NigelMoore]

More information on the legal background would be interesting. I thought evictions were a matter for the landowners and the police only attended to prevent a breach of the peace.

 

Edited to add:

 

Section 61 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 enables a police officer to direct trespassers on land (who are there with the common purpose of residing there for any period) to leave the land where the occupier has taken steps to ask them to do so, and either:

• they have damaged the land; or
• they have used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour to the occupier, the occupier's family, employees or agents; or
• between them they have 6 or more vehicles on the land.

Failure to obey a direction to leave or returning to the land as a trespasser within 3 months is an offence.

 

That section relates pretty specifically to encampment on dry land though, although it could conceivably be stretched to apply. The boats, however, have a right to be on the water provided they are registered [or do not need to be], what they do not have is any right to attach to the land [in order to be able to remain stationary in position], whether that is to the riverbed or to the riverbank. The other ‘dry land’ option in certain circumstances would be applying the offence of “aggravated trespass”, which is not dissimilar to the legislation quoted.

 

I agree that it would be interesting to see what legal position was taken by the police in this instance, because the statutes do not provide, so far as I can recall, for any power in the EA to act on behalf of private owners re: unlawful mooring to private land. I haven't checked on that though.

 

The Council, as opposed to the private landowners, must seek Parliamentary sanction for relevant powers, which they have been in the process of acquiring through the means of appropriate byelaws – I haven’t kept pace with the position on that, though the article suggests that is still in progress.

 

So far as I am aware, if the landowners want the boats removed by way of a nice safe legal process [instead of by summary removal themselves], their surest, but slow, available means would be by notice under s.12 of the “Torts (Interference with Goods” Act 1977”.

 

As the boats are on their property, they [as 'bailees'] can give notice to the owners [as bailors'] to ‘collect’ and remove their ‘goods’, failing which the court can be asked to sanction sale of the goods. Where no monies are owed, the proceeds of sale are to be given to the owner, minus allowable costs.

 

I have never heard of this legislation being used this way, but it seems a practical measure.

[John Williamson 1955]

 

This.

 

I am curious as to how they went about it. What laws they used. Or whether they just acted as a paramilitary private army.

 

There are serious implications in this. I do hope it doesn't just get forgotten.

Officially, they would probably have been there to prevent a breach of the peace. The boaters had been trespassing on private land and remained there in spite of being warned that the land was private and after being asked to leave. At least one of them had committed (Aggravated?) trespass and possibly criminal damage by removing a "No mooring" notice. Allegations have been made about some of the boaters causing a noise nuisance (Not the official term, but that's what it boils down to).

 

The "serious implications" boil down to whether boaters are subject to the provisions of both civil and criminal law.

Edited August 22, 2014 by John Williamson 1955

[John V]

 

This.

 

I am curious as to how they went about it. What laws they used. Or whether they just acted as a paramilitary private army.

 

There are serious implications in this. I do hope it doesn't just get forgotten.

 

Too often the excuse of "civil matter" is used to ignore people breaking the law

[Ronniesonic]

 

This.

 

I am curious as to how they went about it. What laws they used. Or whether they just acted as a paramilitary private army.

 

There are serious implications in this. I do hope it doesn't just get forgotten.

 

If they had not moored illegally there would not have been the requirement for any action.

 

Paramilitary private Army? Surely you cannot be serious.

[peterboat]

I resisted posting until I Nigel put in a reply (thats in a good way) I personally would have just pulled out the mooring pins and let them drift (joking) It seems all to often that people just take what they want with out any thought about who owns it it is theft pure a simple

 

Peter

[phill]

 

If they had not moored illegally there would not have been the requirement for any action.

 

Paramilitary private Army? Surely you cannot be serious.

 

"illegally" ?

 

It's "illegal" to moor alongside private land now is it?

 

When did they change the trespass laws?

 

Badger and Nigel Moore seem to be coming up with some cogent legal analysis. You, on the other hand, seem to be simply advocating knuckle-dragging vigilantism.

I resisted posting until I Nigel put in a reply (thats in a good way) I personally would have just pulled out the mooring pins and let them drift (joking) It seems all to often that people just take what they want with out any thought about who owns it it is theft pure a simple

 

Peter

 

I think you may have misunderstood the various laws on theft. (or are you contending they cruised off with the land in their pockets?)

[Mr Badger]

You can't pick and choose with illegality though, can you? Say they were moored illegally would it then be OK for the police to evict them illegally? I would say not. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[MtB]

Well, the problem has been dispersed to other places presumably which is hardly a solution. Years ago boats were made of wood and had a finite life, nowadays boats are made from grp and steel and last forever, consequently there are a lot of cheap `end of life` boats about that offer the chance of some sort of home. Add that to the finite number of moorings available and the expense of those that there are and this is the result. I have no idea how many boats Colecraft and L`pool boats, for example have produced but its a hell of a lot. I think if you want a new boat you should first buy an end of life wreck, scrap it, prove to CRT that you have removed it and then you would be allowed to build a new one. As for the answer to people needing cheap housing, maybe you should prove that an old relative has died before you are allowed to make a replacement. Am now hiding behind the sofa.

 

A most excellent suggestion in my opinion. I've made the same suggestion on here several times here over the last couple of years. Each time been univerally attacked and condemned for it...

 

Such is the lot of a forward thinker

 

 

MtB

Edited August 22, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[raymondh]

Suggest that the infoe provided make it clear re mooring

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/298711/River_Thames_mooring_factsheet.pdf

 

Ray

[Sabcat]

 

If they had not moored illegally there would not have been the requirement for any action.

 

Paramilitary private Army? Surely you cannot be serious.

 

I suppose a discussion about the origins and purpose of the police is beyond the scope of this forum but he's spot on.

[NigelMoore]

I think you may have misunderstood the various laws on theft. (or are you contending they cruised off with the land in their pockets?)

 

Indeed. Sadly I am finding out just currently how difficult it seems to be to prove ‘theft’ under the relevant legislation. The police simply do not wish to know, unless the property is destroyed or otherwise shown to be removed with the intent to deprive the owner of his property.

 

In other words, you can drag a car away from its privately owned driveway, dump it in the street somewhere to accumulate charges, and it is not theft, because the perpetrator has not sought to keep it for himself nor locked it away out of your reach. It seems that applies even if, as a consequence of the way it was abandoned on the highway, the Council have impounded it and racked up thousands of pounds of charges and storage.

 

You will have recourse to civil remedies, but it is not a crime, for the police to get involved with.

[Ronniesonic]

 

"illegally" ?

 

It's "illegal" to moor alongside private land now is it?

 

When did they change the trespass laws?

 

Badger and Nigel Moore seem to be coming up with some cogent legal analysis. You, on the other hand, seem to be simply advocating knuckle-dragging vigilantism.

 

I think you may have misunderstood the various laws on theft. (or are you contending they cruised off with the land in their pockets?)

 

 

I used the word 'illegally' from the opening post .

 

So Phill, are you of the belief that the 'authorities' have acted unlawfully in carrying out their actions?

[b0atman]

Whilst there are vacancies in marinas and CRT dragging their feet with unlicenced boats i.e. 3-4% unlicenced is unacceptable 0% acceptable then old for new will not be on the table for discussion .

What number of boats can the system accept as being full ?

[phill]

I used the word 'illegally' from the opening post .

 

So Phill, are you of the belief that the 'authorities' have acted unlawfully in carrying out their actions?

 

From the facts provided it is unclear, but I think there are definitely questions about the potential abuse of police powers that need asking in this instance. Trespass, as such, is not a crime, and is one of our most important civil liberties.

 

Without facts we can simply speculate. It would be interesting to find out more about the dialogue between police and boaters.

 

Otherwise what is the logical (if a little far fetched) result? The police moving on overstayers on visitor moorings?

to add: the word 'illegal' should be used with more care. If something is a breach of civil (as opposed to criminal) law then I feel it needs to be tested in court before such lazy labels are applied